User talk:142.161.81.20

.
There is no grammatical requirement that a noun as a subject needs an article in order for the sentence to be "complete", nor is there a requirement that "incomplete" sentences in a caption should go period-less. The latter may be a convention upheld by some editors, but that doesn't make it a law. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no grammatical requirement that a noun as a subject needs an article in order for the sentence to be "complete"... There is, in fact, such a requirement if the noun is both a common noun and a count noun, provided that it refers to a specific object. This is well accepted grammatically. See, e.g., this explanation from Lincoln University.


 * ... nor is there a requirement that "incomplete" sentences in a caption should go period-less. How do you reconcile that with MOS:CAPTION, which specifically provides, "Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period"?


 * The latter may be a convention upheld by some editors, but that doesn't make it a law. The MOS reflects a consensus of editors. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. And? It's a silly requirement and it is regularly broken, for all the right reasons, even in some FAs (though it takes a lot of arguing with formalists who love rules cause they love rules). As for the mandatory article, you don't have to show me a sheet from a library; I know what conventional rules say. And at any rate it talks about article usage, not about what constitutes a "complete sentence", and that was the basis for your argument: no article, so no complete sentence, so no period. I suppose by extension that also means that any sentence containing a grammatical error does not deserve a period if it's in a caption? So this is going nowhere: the semantic load of the determinative "the" in that caption was carried well enough by the very fact that it was a caption under the image. So "the" isn't necessary--and besides, what is a "complete sentence" anyway? It's not a grammatical notion. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Hello, I'm INeedSupport. An edit that you recently made to G. Simon Harak seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! INeedSupport (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What could possibly lead you to believe that to have been a test edit? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, when I saw your edit, the infoxbox did not appear. This lead me to assume that it was a test edit. However, after I reverted it, it appeared. It has since been restored. Sorry about that. INeedSupport (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Even had I not added the infobox, how would that have been a test edit? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn’t. It was my editing mistake. Thanks for your contribution anyways INeedSupport (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

David Reimer article
Regarding this, this and this, how difficult is it for you to simply use the predominant style that was being used in the article? Why would you change the article to a reference style that the vast majority of our editors don't use and don't know how to use? And, yes, they don't. I should know, given how long I've been here and how often I've seen editors screw of up sfn references and change to a different style instead. Sfn style is no more likely to be used consistently. It's likelier to be ignored. So you have not helped. I already pointed you to WP:CITEVAR. Per that, you should have gone back to the earliest style used in the article. As for others not objecting, it's not like they had any reason to since I'd reverted you and my revert stood for hours. I'm not going to revert again since that article is not heavily edited by me and I have more important things to do and don't want to waste much time on Wikipedia. But if I did heavily edit that article, I would continue to challenge you on this, just like I did with the Asexuality article. You can't just come in and force editors to follow the style you want. You aren't editing these articles regularly, and yet you expect editors to go along with the style you choose? Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Then again, that earliest style is not much better. But this one is the one used after that, and it's the one that took off in terms of use. I'm discounting the URL link reference style since that's not the way we are supposed to reference. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear 142.161.81.20, I have reverted David Reimer to an earlier version before your recent round of changes for citation style.  The guideline has this to say about this: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change, " and follows that up by quoting a ruling from the Arbitration Committee; please read it.  Please do not restore any of these edits without first reaching consensus on the Talk page of the article, or they will be removed.  Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Follow-up comment: I looked at each of your edits at the article individually, and I am aware that some of them involve changes that are not only about citation style changes, but may be improvements to the article which have been reverted along with the problematic edits. However, since you rarely used edit summaries these are difficult to identify, and also, you often bundled citation style changes with other changes which makes them difficult to disentangle. As an indication of your good faith about your intentions at the David Reimer article, it would be best, in my opinion, if you abstained from reapplying any of these changes, including the non-style related ones, but rather made a request on the Talk page about it, and let another editor make the changes for you.  If you decide to go ahead at the article anyway, please be meticulous about using a full, explanatory edit summary with each change.  Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * it would be best, in my opinion, if you abstained from reapplying any of these changes, including the non-style related ones, but rather made a request on the Talk page about it, and let another editor make the changes for you. This is perhaps the most blatant example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR I have ever seen; usually people at least try to be subtle about it.


 * Regarding the language about suicide, no one on the talk page actually took major issue with the language "killed himself" – there was certainly no consensus against it that I can see – but I will leave that be for the time being if you have concerns. That excepted, given the substantial changes made, I will be restoring the edits so as not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, as noted, there was not a citation style consistently in use, nor was what was in use the article's original style (the original style having made use of a bibliography list like I did), as pointed out above. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mathglot's suggestion isn't really WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. It's how things are often done when an ediotor's edits are challenged, especially by more than one editor. It's why so many editors cite WP:BRD. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Having another editor perform the edits for you isn't WP:BRD. In fact, it's specifically provided as an example by WP:OWN. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Mathglot suggested that because you aren't willing to compromise by adding your changes without changing the reference style. And either way, there are many WP:BRD cases where an outside editor mediates and makes changes for one or more editors in question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You are very clearly altering a referencing style merely to suit your own preference, and contrary to the style already used in the article, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Rather than supporting your point of view, your inclusion of the Baby and bathwater essay instead tends to suggest that you have entangled a few possibly beneficial edits with a mass of non-consensus changes to reference style in order to set yourself up for the revert you just performed, ostensibly "to save the baby" but in reality to make it so burdensome to undo just your reference-style changes, that no editor would attempt it. If you want to save the baby, then the burden of adding beneficial edits to the article is on you, and scrambling them up with other edits that are contrary to policy such as WP:CITEVAR, is not a way of guaranteeing that your beneficial edits will survive. Other volunteer editors do not have the burden of coming in after you to clean up your edits, spending their time disentangling the wheat from the chaff.

Your mistaken comments about what WP:OWN says are laughably off-base, and a transparent attempt to take the eyes and the heat off of you; sorry, didn't work. This is about your misbehavior at the David Reimer article; if you want to raise an issue about WP:OWN behavior on my part, be my guest; ANI is ➞ that-a-way, but please do read WP:BOOMERANG first.

Your repeated reverts at David Reimer to install your preferred referencing style are starting to be disruptive. Instead, please use the talk page to try to achieve a consensus favoring your position. Stop your edit-warring, and stop ignoring content guidelines like WP:CITEVAR merely because you don't like it. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Huebner for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Huebner, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Chris Huebner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)