User talk:Butwhatdoiknow

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Butwhatdoiknow.

Archive1 Archive2

Hello—I just stumbled into your 2008 essay about transclusion while searching for general documentation of the function. It seems to be abandoned (and, I think no longer relevant), and I suspect most of its traffic comes from it accidentally trapping editors hunting for the same information as I was. I am hoping either to put it up for deletion or to make it a redirect to Help:Transclusion. Would you have any concerns about that?

Best —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 03:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. No concerns at this end. Delete or redirect as you see fit. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 12:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Red link shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Butwhatdoiknow, I strongly encourage you not to engage in any actions that revert the edits of Francis Schonken. I have left a very sternly worded respond on FS' talk page. I am not suggesting you would do something to provoke FS, but please do not do so. If FS chooses to continue their behavior, it will become evident enough on its own. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source What wikipedia is not Rex blah blah blah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun81 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to User:Butwhatdoiknow/sandbox1. From my chair, I think it's ready to go now. Be aware; we're just under 48 hours from when the current thread is going to be automatically archived. So, if this is going to be posted, it needs to be posted before that 48 hours expires. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also; when you post this to WP:AN/I, you should make a post to FS' talk page, and let them know that if they wish to make a statement that you will copy it to the AN/I discussion. I will stand with that offer as well, so that if you are not on I will copy it (and vice versa). It wouldn't be fair to FS to have this discussion without them having the ability to respond to it. Though, FS appears to have chosen to ignore the original WP:AN/I thread which was begin at 00:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC) and FS was properly notified. FS made four edits after that without engaging in the AN/I discussion. This commment by them in an unrelated discussion was made after the AN/I discussion began. It's also a personal attack. FS had enough time to craft that response but not enough time to craft a response at AN/I. Odd. Regardless, FS should be given the chance to respond to the community ban request. FS has their email enabled as well. I would use it to notify them of the request, as well as posting on their talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

done. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(watching:) I think you mean "indefinite block" on ANI, not "indefinite ban", and perhaps sign that post ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, the signing was brain skip. I saw that someone fixed that for me (and I thanked them). I used the "ban" terminology given to me by a more experienced user. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I was not clear, - I just meant the one in (a). Look for my name on Hammersoft's page, - that's where I came from, - nice to meet you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you've lost me - "the one in (a)"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"(a) the conduct in my original post (above) that led to the indefinite ban." - "led" is past tense. I think in that line, you may mean "block" (past), not "ban" (perhaps future). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I usually avoid WP:Great Dismal Swamp, - we'll see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I had no idea about that shortcut. That's hysterical :) --Hammersoft (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, I love it - sad memories though (you, Hammersoft, who look behind all things could probably find it easily): Great Dismal Swamp was my first GA, written by a user who was then indeffed, becoming GA while he was still blocked. The shortcut was made by an editor who was blocked shortly after the creation. The two when free again founded what became the cabal of the outcast. No 1 is blocked, No 2 is banned, which left me as their most active member. I miss them. When the creator of the lovely shortcut was banned by the community, came the one time I debated with myself to leave the project, not wanting to be part of such community. It made me immune to the thought thereafter because nothing else really hurt in comparison. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  see, Ched is No 3, I'm No 4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment by Ched does a wonderful job, far better than I did [1], of highlighting why the community ban is an important step. Also, I recommended you use the "Email this user" link to notify FS of the ban discussion. I believe in your saying "Done" that you did this, but want to make sure this "t" was crossed? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to FS' talk page but I had not thought to do this. (As I said, this AN/I stuff is all new to me.) I've done it now. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for doing that. It might be a moot point, but I think it important for the email to happen in the event that FS stepped away. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you both for the very kind words. I'm a bit embarrassed because I'm not sure I deserve them, but thank you all the same. — Ched (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the welcome and guidance. Chemkatz (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting long-established Wikipedia guidelines in such a way that changes their meaning without prior discussion rarely meets with support or is a good idea.

(That said, I'm not sure if you realised that you changed the meaning/if it was just careless drafting, but either way.)

As in every other occasion where someone wants to change a guideline and meets with resistance, you need to actually get a consensus to do so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at User talk:The Drover's Wife. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a surprise to know that I'm not the only one who had a problem with your edit. For future reference, it's often best to start with the discussion first with long-established guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at User talk:The Drover's Wife. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say again that I'm sorry I can't help bring that discussion to, er, consensus. For some reason the issue just won't gel in my mind. EEng 17:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barnstars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5 Check Users Checking 4 Oversighters Hiding 3 GAs 2 Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--Chris Troutman (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] This message was generated using {{subst: The 12 Days of Wikipedia}}

Hey! Do you remember this post (Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132) – I found some new developments in the case (below) and was wondering what action should be taken? It seems the user hasn’t begun to be civil or not disruptive yet. Should the case be renewed here (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), do you think?

Hey all, good morning.

I'm concerned by Sparkle1 (talk · contribs) and the tone they use in edit summaries. This has been in the back of my mind for a while, and I've stopped myself from making a big thing about it, but I think maybe we've got to a point where a little advice is needed. I'm not an admin so my actions are limited.

1. . Use of the phrase "stupid new inclusion" and "cancerous" here - [2]
2. . Removal of a large amount of content without a summary here - [3]
3. . A run of edits on Leeds Council election articles using somewhat theatrical language here [4] which I did mention in the project page here [5] where I tagged Sparkle1 without their input to date.

At the beginning of the month they had some back and forth on their talk page with very harsh and uncooperative language ("I am completely not interested") here [6].

I would like to ask if I'm right to be concerned by their tone and language, whether I am being too "soft" in being concerned here? They seem to be very constructive editors in some ways but there are moments of conflict and temper that I now think might need guidance in dealing with. Once I've posted this here, I'll put the link on their talk page. doktorb _words^deeds 06:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this page isn't for resolving editor issues. I hope to find the time to write an essay collecting all the recommendations for dealing with "disruptive" editors. Unfortunately, I've only gotten as far as collecting links to some of the "how to" pages. Here's my list:

● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/Guide

● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests

● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_user_conduct_disputes

● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors

● https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required

Hope this helps. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should be dealt with. The user in question has many notices on their talk page for changing an article to suit their opinion, especially on LGBT rights articles. In talk pages, the user uses lots of biased information and is ready to start edit wars on purpose in order to get their way.

The user also has been known to swear on talk pages and threaten people while editing in the edit summaries, and seems to think that they are always correct and they have the power to accept others’ contributions.

• 14:19, 4 December 2022 diff hist  −2,318‎  Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill ‎ →‎Opposition to the bill: lets not play the spin game these are just anti-trans groups not women's rights groups they can call themsleves women's rights groups but the fail the duck test also tone town the JRK pushing
• 12:44, 9 October 2022 diff hist  −818‎  User talk:Sparkle1 ‎ Undid revision 1115006426 by Sahaib (talk) Please do not interact with me on this platform again unless it is in relation to content on an actual discussion page of an article, Think first before making such absurd comments, as you have just come across inflammatory and a hypocrite.
• 10:13, 9 October 2022 diff hist  −636‎  User talk:Sparkle1 ‎ Undid revision 1114921452 by Sahaib (talk) Don't waste my time complaining then do the exact same thing I did you bad faith wally
• 15:26, 16 December 2021 diff hist  +83‎  2021 Batley and Spen by-election ‎ Shove your shitty formatting, shove your two decimal points and shove your New up your backside. Have some respect for how is should be done and not some bastardised lay criminal way Tag: Reverted
• 01:33, 12 December 2021 diff hist  +14‎  North Shropshire (UK Parliament constituency) ‎ →‎Results: Fixed formatting which was criminally bad and eliminated the horrendous use of New instead of N/A
• 22:26, 2 August 2021 diff hist  −2,007‎  User talk:Sparkle1 ‎ →‎August 2021: You are using bad sources and stop trolling and making rubbish up do not post here again or i will report you for POV pushing and failing to use reliable sources Tag: Manual revert
• Bias and swearing in talk page: Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill#Proposed changes “You clearly want reasoning here so here goes. First of the only lack of neutrality is in your head, there isn't actually any, you are seeing a lack of neutrality because it goes against what you want to be portrayed in the article. You hammer on about this 'revolt' crap; 7 I repeat 7 members of the SNP out of 64 voted against it. Leave the hysteria in the Guardian, the Scotsman and other news publications. This is not a news site. This is an encyclopaedia. Calling it a revolt is POV pushing and that is not going to happen in this article. The group you mentioned, such as "for women Scotland" and "Fair Play for Women", have a single purpose of removing the rights of trans people and excluding them from society. LGB Alliance calls itself an LGB group but in court revealed it is mainly supported by straight people. They are also well documented in pushing anti-trans agendas, and in Australia were recently designated an anti-trans hate group. So they get called what the are Anti-Trans groups. The duck test says they are anti-trans Wikipedia is not for their propaganda. trans-exclusionary is just a fancy term for anti-trans. These are groups who bring lawsuits to try and exclude trans people from society and try and remove the rights of trans people in court.”
• On user talk page: “Please don't remove talk page posts that other editors have replied to. You may be able to collapse them or archive them.” (Sparkle1) “It is perfectly acceptable to remove posts that are off-topic, against Wikipedia rules and are vandalism. Using the Hubbard talk page to push transphobia is perfectly fine to delete. Wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are not a sanctuary where anything posted is never subject to deletion. the rules are strict and the bar is high but pushing transphobia and intentionally misgendering is grounds for removal. Please fully read the rules on talk pages.”
• On user talk page: “Hi Sparkle1! I noticed you keep re-adding a change to Abigail Thorn that I have removed with the justification of MOS:OVERLINK. This is edit warring as you are not attempting to discuss your changes, either through edit summaries or talk pages. Note that edit warring can apply to any number of edits over any time period. If you would like to respond with a reason, I can bring this explanation to Talk:Abigail Thorn to see what other editors think. Otherwise, can you please remove the link? Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)” “It is a standard explainer and not an overlink. Nothing more to say about the content. Now turning to you as an editor, stop acting like you own the lede. You are also going on about edit warring, when you are doing the same. Pot Kettle Balck stinks. Please do not post here again. You are not the owner of any article or space on Wikipeida. You are free to start any discussion you like but I am not going through you as a gatekeeper. You do not own the Abigail Thorn article or any other article, you are not able to gatekeep any other editor and you need to cease with this kind of softly-softly patronising, lording it over, and article ownership by the above gatekeeping ludicrousness of 'if you would like to respond with a reason, I can bring this explanation to Talk:Abigail Thorn to see what other editors think". If you want to start a discussion go for it but I am not giving you my replies for you to then offer them to others. Get stuffed and grow up. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)”[reply]

Scientelensia (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 132 Scientelensia (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am not enough of an expert to recommend a strategy for you. Here's what I ended up doing with my problematic editor: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067#Francis Schonken. However, it seems that Sparkle1 has no prior history of blocks. During my ordeal I received very helpful advice from User:Hammersoft. You may want to ask them. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:Presumed consensus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Wikipedia:Presumed consensus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the state of "no consensus" is no consensus? I guess each mind is its own world. Thinker78 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for some sort of response from me or are you just expressing your exasperation? If the former, perhaps it should read something like "A Wikipedia discussion reaches a state of 'no consensus' when a good faith discussion fails to resolve the dispute." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the former, the latter. Kindda disappointed in the revert. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: Okay, I hope it made you feel better to complain. (FYI, what I did was not a revert, it was a refine. As suggested by my "something like" post (above), I'll continue to think about a further refinement to deal with your "no consensus"/no consensus issue.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: I think if the editor wanted to say more, they would have already. The other recommendation in that section about avoiding edit wars is to get more feedback from other editors. Perhaps a post at the policy Village Pump might garner some additional comments. If no one else is interested, as it seems so far, so be it. isaacl (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will wait a few days and pursue this advice. Meanwhile, I remain frustrated that an editor can say (1) "I object, therefore you must get consensus," then (2) refuse to have a meaningful discussion (even after a third editor joins in and favors change), and (3) the result is the one that the objecting editor desires. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty in finding interested editors to participate in discussions is common and the resulting consequences on dealing with single objectors is a key part of why I no longer feel motivated to edit in mainspace much any more. (To clarify, this particular case isn't a factor in that; I'm not strongly invested in some relatively minor copyediting of guidance. I only offered a viewpoint because it seemed heavily ironic to edit war over guidance on avoiding edit wars.) I understand, in the context of English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions, why things are the way they are: if positions were reversed and I was contesting an edit that I felt was not an improvement, I'd want the person proposing the change to provide their reasoning. For better or worse, though, the current traditions lead to stalemates, as even very small numbers of dissenters can block changes. Some people see this as a feature, providing inertia to avoid sudden changes to articles. But it's a double-edged sword—a small number of people who write poorly, are misinterpreting sources, or have a personal agenda can keep improvements from occurring. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you feel my pain. (For the record, I did provide my reasoning and then asked the objecting editor to respond. They ghosted me.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read the discussions dating back to last year (and other reversions you have discussed going back to at least 2021; plus I followed and participated in many of the discussions on the policies and guidelines talk page on making modifications to guidance). I know this isn't what you want to hear, but the fact that not enough interested people wanted to participate for months (including me) is a signal that it's not feasible to generate consensus at this time that will override a single objector. (I only chose to participate now because I wanted to stop the edit war.) It's theoretically possible that asking at the village pump might garner a little more attention; my weak guess is that it won't matter too much for something like organization of text, where there isn't just one way to do things. Odds are that most of the people reading this section of guidance are those who already agree with it, rather than the editors who could learn from it, so I suspect most people won't care enough to try to override someone's strong objections. isaacl (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say. I just wish it didn't apply to a single strong objector who does not support their objection with a discussion that includes "reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense."

Oh, well. I'll try at Village Pump and risk the likelihood of insufficient interest to move the ball on this one. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this where there are legitimately multiple ways to organize the text, reasons for doing it one way or another are as valid as the discussion participants think they are. I would use somewhat different wording than the objecting editor, and I would still strive for greater concision, but I could construct an argument for a different organization that built to a conclusion. This isn't a priority for me, so I don't personally favour this organization, but I can understand if others do.

Just a friendly suggestion, which of course you are free to ignore as unsolicited advice: you might consider not repeatedly quoting and linking to guidance. As you are aware that I've been reading the discussions in question, you know I've seen your arguments and the links already. Similarly on the Edit warring talk page, I think it was clear your points had already been made and seen. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. By way of explanation (although it doesn't work for my link on this page), when I am on main and Wikipedia space talk pages I assume that I'm writing to a larger audience than the one editor with whom I am in a discussion, and I'm thinking that most of that audience isn't as diligent as you are with regard to going back and reading the full exchange. So I repeat myself for the benefit of that audience. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but nonetheless I suggest you try to pare that back to a minimum, because I feel it's a deterrent to anyone trying to get involved in the conversation. When someone sees the same stuff over and over, they tend to just start skimming over the words, and start assuming there's nothing new to see. Plus you have to balance it against those who are involved in the conversation, where it's an irritant. isaacl (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reinstated my march 16 edit to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I added a comment in the edit summary about why I reinstated the edit. (Overall I think it brings greater consistency to wikipedia's internal pages) Born25121642 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Butwhatdoiknow,
I appreciate your recent edit to my edit on Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#‎Alternatives to reverting. When I replaced the (existing) commas with semicolons, I debated whether to just make them separate sentences. Now that I see it in print, I think I prefer them that way as well.
Here's my question to you (from one whose quest for knowledge is never finished!): from your understanding of the rules governing the use of semicolons, was that sentence punctuated correctly with them in there? In other words, was your edit not so much a correction of incorrect mechanics as an improvement to readability/flow? Again, the punctuation looks good it how it stands now; I'm just asking your opinion as one grammar nerd to another. :)
Hagaland (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the compliment, I'm afraid I don't have the qualifications to hold myself out as a grammar nerd. So, for example, I have only the vaguest knowledge of the rules relating to the use of semicolons. In this case, as you guessed, my edit had to do with readability. I felt that three separate ideas contained in one sentence was too many. That said, I'm not at all comfortable with the three mini-sentences. Unfortunately, I currently don't have the time to try to come up with a better solution. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People revert me on redlinked category removal at least four to five times per week, and I'm just one editor — which means it has to be happening to other people too, probably several dozen times per week overall. So that's not "rare" in the slightest, and is more than common enough to need to be explicitly spelled out somewhere that I can point people to when they do it. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That brings us to my second KUDZU concern. Isn't the outcome the same? Why, other than the reverted editor feeling bad that their deletion was "reverted" rather than restored by an edit, do we need to put this in this essay? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that, see this and this; one imagines the discussion about the merit of listing citation template aliases would be easier if it did not involve undoing forty-five rollbacks at the same time. jp×g🗯️ 04:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Yes, sometimes discussion is a pain. But explaining edits serves the valuable goal of reaching consensus by weighing the reasons to take or not take a particular action. It also leaves a record of why a particular course of action was taken.

You need not provide a lengthy explanation in rollbacks. You could start a discussion somewhere (as it appears you now have) and, in your 45 edit summaries, cut and paste "see [[link to discussion]]." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added the section Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#What_is_not_necessarily_"no_consensus", based in part on my experience shepherding Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident/Archive_2#Requested_move_19_July_2024 toward consensus one step at a time. Jruderman (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Currently these pages are interpreted to mean that editsummaries are required, which they are not. So we need to find a wording that explains the situation. Polygnotus (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can say it is "best practice" or whatever, would that be ok for you? Polygnotus (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that, ultimately, you are trying to clarify the meaning of "should" at WP:EDITCON. If that is the case then whatever you and I agree upon would have to be vetted there. Best, I think, to just start the conversation there.

That said, as a fan of edit explanations, I'm wondering whether this is a problem that needs to be solved. Why not just accept reversions of your unexplained edits as an opportunity to restore the your change with an explanation? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because people are too lazy to bother to try to understand why an edit was made, and mindlessly revert any edit they don't understand. And they use the fact that the helppage is worded badly as justification. Polygnotus (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"mindlessly revert any edit they don't understand" Or, perhaps, the reverting editor thoughtfully tried to figure out what the first editor was doing and failed. The chances of that happening is meaningfully increased when the first editor doesn't provide an explanation. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about a hypothetical scenario. They said they could revert any edit without an edit summary, based on that Help page. And they did not spend even a second investigating if the edit was correct or not before reverting. Polygnotus (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So n=1? This sounds like an editor problem, not a help or policy page problem. If so, maybe a better approach would be to politely explain the policy to the editor who misunderstands. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I notice a problem I use a sample size calculator before deciding if I should take action because I am a sane human being. Sure, my sewer line is blocked, but is that statistically significant? Polygnotus (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have tens of millions of editors sewers and one of them is an idiot/jerk blocked you do not have statistically significant problem. Notice that I don't say you have no problem. You still should do what you can to "fix" the idiot/jerk editor blocked sewer. I'm just saying that you shouldn't do that by tying to get everyone to agree to a re-write of the manual. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Which is why my approach is to deal with the symptom first and then deal with the cause. And, as I am very sure you are aware, reading comprehension levels are dropping fast. Even on Wikipedia. Trust me, while cleaning the mess was important, fixing the burst pipe is also important. Of course the change I am proposing is useless to you; you are not its intended audience. Polygnotus (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Butwhatdoiknow,

I'm not sure why but you put your comment to this AFD deletion discussion right in the middle of the discussion. Similarly to talk pages and noticeboards, please put new comments at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, it can be confusing trying to follow the discussion. You are an experienced editor so I'm assuming this was just an oversight on your part. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I hit the "reply" button to a comment and that is where it landed. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Go see the discussion relating to the MOS-related category over at User talk:Nikkimaria.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 08:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]