Talk:WHKX

Formatting
The changes you're reverting are within policy. Take a look at MOS:PIPE (point 1, "plurals and other derived names"). You'll notice that the correct way to create plurals in links is the way I did it. As for the spacing, see WP:STUBSPACING and WP:CATDEF. "Leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it". If you still have issues with that, I suggest that you reply here instead of reverting me blindly without good reason.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 07:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you've reverted once again. Please take the time to respond to me. I don't want to edit war with you, and I've made an attempt to discuss this with you on the talk page. "Nonsense" isn't a good reason to revert.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 07:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * .  Omni Flames ( talk ) 08:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely hard to believe that you don't want to edit war with me when you are actively edit warring with me. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for just under 10 years and I know your changes are unnecessary. -  Neutralhomer has Escaped  •  Talk  • 08:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverting doesn't mean that I'm edit warring with you. I understand that you've been here far longer than I have, but you still need to give justification as to why your edits are correct, and cite a policy or guideline when doing so. "I know your changes are unnecessary": how do you know that? Just because you created this article, doesn't mean you get to dictate what happens to it.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 08:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, actually I don't. The burden is on you and you haven't proven it to me....but I'll help you out.  First, - is used as an alternative to clear which is used on 1,100,000+ pages.  Server load is an issue, see the template on that page.  Second, the silly blank lines make the page look excessively messy, it's called neatness.  Third, piping links aside, you are essentially changing it so that it reads the same, regardless.  Watts and Watts read the same, so changing them is unnecessary and a waste of time.


 * Fourth, and this is a biggie, you are in violation of WP:3RR. Consistently reverting my edits is edit warring with me.  By doing so, you have violated 3RR.  Do it again, you can be blocked under the 3RR rule.  Now, please follow the various rules of Wikipedia, listen to what a long-time editor is telling you and chill.  Thank you. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 13:53 on July 25, 2016 (UTC)

(A) in regards to  (Neutralhomer) vs. (Omni): MOS:PIPE is clear, and it's the latter that we use. Multiple scripts in the "Fix general formatting errors"-drawer does this, e.g. Meta:User:TMg/autoFormatter.

(B) in regards to no spacing before stub tags (Neutralhomer) or two blank lines (Omni): WP:STUBSPACING is clear, it's two blank lines.

(C) in re using (Neutralhomer) or  (Omni): before reading this talk page when looking at the article history, I could not understand why Clear should substitute -, a template I had never heard about ... only to discover it's a shortcut to Clear. As demonstrated, the use of - doesn't make the article text more clear in edit view, and I doubt the server load is less, rather contrary, it's a redirect. I support using Clear.

Neutralhomer's preferences date back to when they including the now corrected error of capping the external links section "External Links", cf. WP:ELCITE. I will edit according to guidelines quoted here. Should we move on? Sam Sailor Talk! 17:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we should "move on". Do you actually read the template on the Clear page?  "This template is used on 1,100,000+ pages."  Using an alternative is sometimes necessary on a template that is used on soooo many pages.


 * The "blank spaces" at the bottom are messy, plain and simple. I revert them each and every time, as do others.  GA and FA rules don't allow for that messy "stubspacing", why should they matter here?


 * If I wanted someone to regurgitate what Omni already said, I would just read his/her post again. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 17:44 on July 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it rather interesting that you make edits like and  citing DTTR (which, by the way, is an essay, and shouldn't be cited when reverting edits) and then go and slap an edit warring template on my talk page. That's besides the point though. I don't understand how you could possibly believe that I was edit warring and you're completely innocent here. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page and I've tried to give rationale as to why I'm reverting your edits. Yes, Clear is used on over a million pages. However, using a redirect instead of the actual template doesn't help the server load, if anything, it hurts it. When you use a template that redirects to another one, it still has to transclude the original template, so it still has the same strain on the server. As for the blank spaces, the GA rules definitely don't say anything about not allowing that. In fact, the GA criteria require that the article complies with the MOS. As we've already shown above countless times, these changes are supported by the MOS. I'm not so familiar with the FA process, but I'd assume the rules require the MOS also be followed.
 * Also, you accused me of violating 3RR above. If that's true, we're both in violation of the rule, because we've both made the same amount of reverts. However, 3RR specifically states that a violation requires over 3 reverts, in less than 24 hours. That hasn't happened here because 1) I've only made 3 reverts and 2) it's been over 24 hours. Honestly, if you think I actually violated the rule, then I'm a little concerned about your knowledge of 3RR. Edit warring doesn't require the 3RR rule to be broken if the editor has shown that they're unwilling to talk about it and will continue reverting, but that's not the case here. I started this talk page discussion in the hopes that we could come to a compromise, and I've already said that I try not to get into edit wars. Anyway, I'm not going to revert on this page again, as I don't want to get into too big a conflict.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 22:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am required by WP:3RR rules to place a 3RR warning template on your page. So, you might call it hypocrisy, I call it following the rules.  For the rest of what your posted, tl;dr. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:55 on July 25, 2016 (UTC)