User talk:Adamdaley/Archives/2021/November

Talk header
In changes like this one, why do you replace   with the redirect   ? Why use a redirect rather than directly using the template? -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , he's doing the same thing he's always done, which is bot-like, rapid-fire assessment of articles, often those in WP:WikiProject Military history, many of which involve altering links that are WP:NOTBROKE, systematic violations of MOS:VAR such as pointlessly changing capitalization and order of parameters in templates that have no effect on the result, and paying insufficient time and attention to the assessment criteria. The change of template name you spotted is collateral damage from whatever bot or procedure he's running. He's been warned about this before (Nov 2020, Dec. 2020, Feb 2021). A cursory glance through his contributions will find many dozens of high-speed assessments with the cursory edit summary "Cleanup". While these transgressions are low grade on the scale of how serious the effect is (compared to, say, violations of sourcing and verifiability), they are virtually continuous, rapid-fire (500 of them since 29 September, with not one article edit), have gone on over a long period of time, and repeated advice about this has been ignored. At some point, this becomes disruptive and could be actionable. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Adamdaley, it would be a good idea for you to answer to these comments., please feel free to ping me if you decide to do something. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks; I just listed this discussion at WT:MILHIST, and was on my way back here to reference that listing here for transparency, when I saw your message. I was hoping the MILHIST folks would be able to offer some feedback that would improve the situation, and hopefully keep this from ending up at ANI. Mathglot (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My goodness, we are looking at thousands of pointless edits a month. Each one a pinprick, but cumulatively sucking a lot of time out of the project considering and, usually, reverting them. It would be good if Adamdaley could explain the rationale for their modus operandi and its benefits to Wikipedia.
 * Disclosure: I created an article on 18 September, which had its talk page "improved" by this editor the next day - Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * What I see is thousands of cosmetic, bot-like edits, which appear to have been done manually (per timing between), but which are still clearly WP:COSMETICBOT on a large-scale (in addition to the fact some of them have actual further issues), in addition with the unhelpful edit summaries. More concerning is that their last edit which is not this is probably back in December last year, when  warned them of the same problem. The vast majority of these edits are entirely useless, and Adamdaley, you should probably take this as a final warning of sorts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification: Hi again, Adam. Just wanted to make sure it's clear what behavioral issues need to be addressed here. In addition to the template name/redirect issue raised by the OP at the top, the issues are the same ones that were raised here in February (and elsewhere).
 * I also have a question about your quality assessments, such as this run of 16 edits you made today. In these edits between 5:44 and 6:05, you made updates to the Quality Assessment of fifteen military articles. Is this a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the article, update the assessment, while making the concomitant changes to param names, param order, and capitalization that you habitually make, at the same time? I'm not very knowledgeable about assessments, so I'll leave this question to the MILHIST and Quality Assessment folks; my main concern is in the areas identified previously. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Listed at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment. Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What BOT would I be running? In my opinion when I change from to  (without the space), that does not default to a talkheader link as initially claimed. I never have come across any talkheader linkage in my time on being a user account on wikipedia. Who is to question my assessments? I'd rather close my account and not continue my editing since there is no bot, running by me. Adamdaley (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether you are running a bot (as you seem to indicate in a previous discussion, here) or just do bot-like changes manually, please note that as per MOS:VAR "enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable." Further, WP:BLACKMAIL is not conductive for the discussion. –Ljleppan (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I was not running it, never claimed to be. I'll close my account since there are issues on manual edits to "clean up" any excess WikiProject and in some cases more defined the WikiProjects. Adamdaley (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still wondering: why do you replace   with the redirect   ? -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is so much space wasted with WikiProject Banners. For example, if I see text that doesn't need to be there or there is a way to limit the text in the Banner, then I do. Hence the B-class WP:MILHIST change from a longer format to the format that you see when I complete it. As for the talk header, I simply take out that space and it then becomes a space less on the talk page. I simply take away the spaces in the WikiProject Banners. So it can either add a little to the Banners or make them smaller or even more defined. I've had some many people that I do wrong when I am just cleaning up or tidying up the talkpages since I do not add content to the articles. Put it simply, I do not want to be blocked, I'd rather leave and not get blocked. To make things even worse, what I've been going through personally in reality I am very vulnerable or in a state that Wikipedia keeps my mind off the reality problems I have been having for the last 14 weeks. Adamdaley (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Adam, thank you for the invite to this discussion. After reading through all the comments, it does seem that several editors are in agreement with their concerns regarding some of your edits. Not all mind you, but rarely is good work acknowledged here. Just the same, if there is a concern, there is no harm in listening and perhaps taking on board just what is triggering their concerns. Why not make a few changes? Stop the edits that are causing this kerfuffle, and continue with your other edits? (Just a thought.) Two points I will make before signing off; First, has accused you of acknowledging that you are running a bot, but on the very same page they link to, it's clear that the bot  belongs to. So maybe they strike that. However, the concerns about how your edits intentionally trigger that bot, and the subsequent results are another matter that perhaps you should give some consideration to. Lastly, you've indicated that there are some real-life issues currently taking place that may affect your editing and vice-versa. Instead of closing your account, why not just take a break? Just stop editing. You can place a "taking a break" banner notice on your talk page (or something similar, see Wikibreak templates for more ideas). Then, when you're ready you can return and, with some of the changes noted above, you should be able to go resume your editing without any further drama. Just a suggestion. Good luck to you -  wolf  15:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi wolf, as I've stated on WT:MILHIST: As Adam has denied running a bot, I have no reason to doubt them. Apparently I misunderstood what was said in the linked discussion. I've now struck thru that span from the original comment (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia talk pages and I'm not sure what the correct wiki-etiquette is w/r/t modifying older comments, I was under the assumption it was frowned upon). -Ljleppan (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, changing your own talk page comments after someone has replied to them is frowned upon, which is why striking through all or part of a comment at that point is preferred. It doesn't hide or alter the comment, but shows that you longer wish is to be actively considered as part of the discussion. (see WP:REDACT for more info). So, everything seems fine now. Thanks for the reply. -  wolf  17:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed solution
Adamdaley, I wanted to offer you a proposal that if you agree to it, could resolve all of the issues discussed above, and let you continue editing in peace.

First of all, I'm sorry to hear of the personal issues you mentioned, both above and at the thread you opened at Mil hist. As numerous editors have mentioned, I don't think there's any need for you to leave the project just because of the issues pointed out above. Based on what you've said in these threads and in archived discussions, I think I see a possible solution.

Before we get to the proposal, I just wanted to set your mind at ease about one thing, namely, about saving space on talk pages. You mentioned a few times your concern about saving a few characters here and there, because of the space savings on the servers, or to reduce load. While disk capacity and the cost of storage was indeed a major issue in the early days of computing, this has long since evaporated as a problem. Storage space is so plentiful and cheap now, that free cloud storage offers get you anywhere from 5 to 50 gigabytes these days; that's about the size of Wikipedia as a whole. What is expensive now, is human resources, that is, editor time, programmer time, *your* time. As of 8 October, all 6.3 million articles of Wikipedia occupy 33 gigabytes; that's about half the size of the USB flash drive that I keep in my pocket. I'm only saying this to let you know that your time is much more precious than the space you save removing a few blanks in a template, or to replace a long template or parameter name with a shorter one. So, if you can forget about saving characters, you'll probably save enough time to assess a few additional MILHIST articles per day, and that would be a big win for the project. (And a big win for you, because people will stop bugging you about it.)

So, here's the proposal for you: Can you agree to stop doing any of the following: This proposal is based on WP:NOTBROKE and MOS:VAR, and pretty much repeats the points mentioned at this discussion. There may be some individual cases I've forgotten, but the spirit of this proposal is if it ain't broke, don't fix it; that is, please don't fiddle with Talk pages if it was MOS-compliant and already displaying correctly before. In particular, "saving characters" is never a good reason to fiddle with something.
 * changes to capitalization when it was MOS-compliant and working before
 * swapping one valid template parameter name, or value, for another valid one (e.g., 'y' instead of 'yes', and so on)
 * removing (or adding) white space when it was working before (including blanks in section headers, between template params, and so on)
 * fiddling with working template invocations to remove a redirect to (or to capitalize, or un-capitalize) the template name, including removing (or adding) pipes
 * changing the order of template params in the wikicode with no effect on the rendered page (added by Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC))

Can you accept this offer? If yes, then I think we are done here, and we can close this.

I do have other concerns outside this proposal. I mentioned previously these 15 assessments that you completed recently, and I question whether 21 minutes is adequate for that. But I would rather you have a discussion with the MILHIST and Quality Assessment folks about that, and I'm fine with whatever consensus comes out of it. But I consider this issue outside the scope of the proposal, and if you accept the offer above, then whether you have a discussion about article QA with the MILHIST folks or you don't, is up to you, and them.

Do you accept the proposal above? Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If I accept. How will I contribute if I am not contributing to articles? However, there are a couple of things you all have failed to see is the addition to existing WP is that I'd expand some and put the correct placement of wording to WP Banners. There are also other users who change things in talkpages, but I get into trouble for doing wrongful things? When I have time later today, (since I'm about to go out) I will go find things to prove to you that I'm not the only one changing things on talkpages. Adamdaley (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, Please save yourself the trouble, and don't list things that other people are doing to Talk pages, just concentrate on what you're doing; a "what about" argument doesn't justify your behavior. This page is about you, and other users have their own User talk pages where such issues can be raised. You said one thing I didn't quite understand, though:
 * What do you mean? The same way you do all the time: making assessments for articles associated with the WP:WikiProject Military history, only without the "white-space fiddling" and other issues. Or, you could edit articles in main space, like you used to do. Or anything you like, really.  If you need some suggestions of what tasks need doing, you could have a look at the Task center. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The same way you do all the time: making assessments for articles associated with the WP:WikiProject Military history, only without the "white-space fiddling" and other issues. Or, you could edit articles in main space, like you used to do. Or anything you like, really.  If you need some suggestions of what tasks need doing, you could have a look at the Task center. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This site serves humanity in many ways and your long history of edits are a part of that. Wikipedia needs editors like you who are passionate about finding and fixing issues. In this case, it sounds like some of your recent edits are not constructive or based on a questionable premise. Mathglot highlighted the problematic edits that should be avoided. If you see an issue affecting many topics, it's better to gain consensus on proposed bulk edits and then ask someone to write a bot (at WP:BOTR) to resolve the issue.


 * Fortunately, there are a ton of areas on Wikipedia where you can redirect your efforts, especially if you're looking for smaller repetitive distractions (assuming you don't want to get paid for it at Mechanical Turk). There's no shortage of tasks on the backlogs listed at WP:MAINT. Personally, I sometimes hang out at Special:RecentChanges (set the filter to likely bad faith) and revert vandalism for an hour. If you dig a little, you'll definitely find some interesting challenges. Anyway, just a few thoughts. Hope this helps and that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again Adam, I just wanted to say that trying to show where others may have done things wrong, will not help in any way here, it would really just be a waste of your time. Mathglot has made a pretty good case for leaving off with the talk page tinkering, as it provides no appreciable benefit and only serves as a timesink for all involved, including you as well as any editors that follow up on those edits and the editors debating them now. I think the best course of action here is to agree to discontinue those types of edits.


 * That does not mean you need to leave to Wikipedia. This is a huuuge project, there is plenty to do. For example, you could work on articles; creating, expanding, copy-editing/ proofreading, tagging, seeking out sources, etc., etc. Or even contribute to various GA/FA efforts. Or, perhaps you could work more on the maintenance side; where you could patrol at WP:RC to help fight vandalism (WP:AIV: always a priority), or contribute to WP:AfD, (or WP:CfD, WP:FfD, WP:RfC, WP:RfD, WP:RM, and orher "WP:ABC/XYZ"-type discussions). Or select other areas of page maintenance, perhaps something specific and similar even to what you were doing before, but something that has been identified as a need by the community. Or, you could work in more specialized areas, like WP:SPI or WP:COI, or work WP:DYKs. Or perhaps you could be a WP:MENTOR; you have 15 years and almost 80,000 edits worth of experience (and never been blocked), maybe you would find guiding new and struggling users to be rewarding. If not WP:ADOPTION, then perhaps you could help out at the WP:TEAHOUSE, or the Help Desk, WP:REFDESK or the Village Pump. Your experience could be of great benefit in these areas. Or, there is always the drama boards; giving advice and helping to mediate disputes at WP:ANI and WP:AN, amongst others.
 * The point is there is an seemingly endlist list of possibilities. Take some time, read through the suggestions here (not just mine, but others, like the Task Center mentioned above, for example. Maybe give one, or a few of these ideas a try for while and see if there's a good fit for you somewhere. Or just take some off if you need it. But regardless of what you choose, WP wants you here. We could benefit from your experience and there are people here willing to help you find the right path for you. You just have to be willing to move on and move forward. Good luck to you. -  wolf  03:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #1)
Hi again Adam, there is one other minor point I wanted to bring up; and that is, typically when there is a dispute, edits related to the dispute (outside of any resolution discussion) typically come to a stop. For example, two editors are having a content dispute, they end up the article talk page to try and come to an agreement. While that is happening, edits to the article cease. They don't edit said content until there is an agreement. If they can't agree, then they should pursue dispute resolution, and while doing so, neither editor makes an edit to the disputed content. This is a generally accepted practice across the project.

Why am I bringing this up here? Well, if you are continuing to makes these minor talk page/ header/ banner/ markup edits that stared this in the first place, I would encourage you to stop. If not permanently, then at least until this discussion has run it's course and the matter has been settled. It's just not good form to carry on with these edits while several editors are trying to resolve a grievance with you over the very same edits. So, if you would discontinue them, that would be appreciated. Again, there is a lengthy list of linked suggestions noted above, of things you could do to help contribute to this project. And I honestly believe that between contributing and dragging this dispute out, you would rather contribute. Hope I'm not wrong. Take care -  wolf  04:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically, I am banned from making such edits on "tidying" up talkpages? So I can't assess those pages I come across? Adamdaley (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What? No, of course not. This was strictly friendly advice coupled with a suggestion based on generally accepted practices. Besides, I am certainly in no position to "ban" you from anything. Adam, I'm not your enemy, I'm just trying to help. If you want to keep making the kinds of edits you've been making, and do so while other editors, concerned about these edits are actively trying to discuss possible resolutions with you... go ahead. But don't be surprised if someone (not me, but other editors) raise this an an issue, with this whole situation then deteriorating.


 * OR... instead of just editing along, you could continue with the discussion and try to find a resolution. I'm sure this can all be sorted out. Just because some people disagree with some of your editing behavior, doesn't mean everyone is against you (for example, I'm not against you). Just try to keep an open mind, a collegial attitude and keep the discussion going. This is just friendly, non-binding, advice. :-) Cheers -  wolf  07:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Question ... Who took out those white spaces for the Arbitrary break? Find them and give them a good talking too. All this started over some stupid white spaces and get I told not to do sh!t? What have I done so wrong, trying to help clean up and making WikiProjects more defined/categorised. Go after people who are doing sh!t that you guys don't approve of. Why me? Adamdaley (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (#2) I'm not sure what you're referring to, can you post a diff? Meanwhile have a look at my last post (it was caught in an edit conflict). I don't think anyone is "after you". Again, just try to chill a little and look forward, not backward and not at others to compare to or "give shit to". (Also, take a quick look at WP:INDENT when you get a chance). Thanks & take care -  wolf  07:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Questions
 * Does anyone know what I do in reality? Isn't stuff like this cause some people to be so suicidal and harmful to themselves? How would you live if knowing someone took their life all for some people wanted dictate what a certain person does? I admit, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed as we Australians call it. I certainly have a hell of a lot of "highs" and "lows" since 2006. More "lows" that anything, all because another user got their nose out of joint (and in this case; a single space). The answer to my question is yes, I have a mental illness along with other suicidal tendencies related to that illness, high depression, high anxiety, speech problems, even skeletal problems. No problem for you guys, you live life to the fullest. Adamdaley (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow... just got these edit conflicts sorted, while trying to keep up. I just read your last comment now. Adam, there is nothing here that you need to be so stressed out over that you start thinking like that. Please consider just taking a break. Just a day, or a few hours at least. Get some air, talk to a friend or someone you're close to. Do something you enjoy, that calms you. Then come back with some perspective. I don't know what you've got going on in real life, but you don't want it spilling into WP, and vice-versa. Let's think de-escalation... ok? -  wolf  07:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Usually when a new topic is created ... It has == New Topic here == ... Not in this case, someone has removed those white spaces between the = and text. Go find the culprite. Adamdaley (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So what is there left to do if I am not allowed to do on talkpages the following:

requests
Adamdaley (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again Adam. I added some markup to try to make it a little easier to read your post. If you object to it, you can of course undo it, or I will if you ask. But I hope you're ok with it.


 * Again, I'm not clear on what you're referring to in regards to "removed white spaces" and "find the culprite". Can you post a diff to help clarify this?


 * That said, I have couple of questions for you, based on this post and a comment you just posted at WT:MILHIST, which was as follows;




 * The "restrictions" you mention here, are they the list of proposed changes in the post from that you copy/pasted above? If so, hopefully I can help put your mind somewhat at ease right now. You are not under any editing restrictions, based on the comments on  your talk page so far. You know that there are some editors who disagree with some of the edits you make and the way you make them. The purpose of this whole discussion is to bring their concerns to your attention and see if you would be willing to make some changes. This does not need to be in any way contentious or hostile. You can agree, you can propose an alternative solution, or you can simply say "no".


 * Right now, you are free to continue editing the same you were previously. It's not recommended and I've explained why, but you can. If you were to do that, it's possible that one or more of these editors might file a report at WP:ANI. There they would make their case, cite diffs of your edits they are concerned about, and links to this discussion. It's possible (likely actually) that an admin would be involved. Either by admin action or consensus from the community, you might find yourself facing sanctions, in order for you to change your editing habits. They could range from a warning, to a topic-ban, a partial block or full block (though due to your clean block log and experience, and full block is unlikely. If one was actually placed, it would likely be of short duration and lifting of the block would probably have conditions attached). Or, the ANI might amount to nothing at all.


 * But none of this is necessary. This could very likely be resolved right here on your talk page, with a simple, collegial discussion. Take a look at the list of changes Mathglot has requested. Talk to him about it. Ask questions. Propose alternatives. Find a compromise. Then you can put this behind you and carry on editing. I hope you find this helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. Take care -  wolf  08:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Adam, you know where you are mentally at the moment. If you need to, step back from this until you feel stronger and more able to plot a future path that works for you.  Wolf is trying to help and is making helpful suggestions, not getting at you, but if you don't want to continue the conversation at this time, back off from it. Don't let it makes things worse.  And remember, you have come back from here before - you will again.  Monstrelet (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam. A MilHist article talk page activity which would be useful; something I do occasionally if I want a low stress activity. Keep an eye on WikiProject Military history/New articles. Ideally tag every article with all appropriate projects - at least those it hasn't yet been tagged with. Or just identify those which are MilHist and not tagged as such: then either just tag them as MilHist (eg ) or tag, assign task forces and assess them. Note that there are pre-set edit summaries in "Common edit summaries" for both of these. Any of these would be a genuine help to the project and who play straight to your skill set - it is difficult to think of an editor with more experience in this area. Just a thought, but maybe give it a try? Best wishes re both your on and off Wiki travails. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Adam. It seems like a lot of editors are trying hard to encourage you, many from WP:WikiProject Military history I believe; and whether you believe it or not, so am I, within the bounds of the needs of the project; from my perspective I'm still bending over backwards to try to find some accommodation with you.
 * I noticed your "Sorry..." post (diff) at WT:MILHIST which sounded like a goodbye to Wikipedia. In my opinion, there's no need for such a drastic step. While any such move is, of course, entirely up to you, I think you enjoy editing Wikipedia, or you wouldn't have 80,000 edits; maybe it's even a nice distraction from other day-to-day concerns. You can still have that, and you can still continue to assess articles on Talk pages (or follow any of the many suggestions offered above); it's entirely under your control.
 * I assume that your "Sorry..." post means that you are unable to say "Yes" to the above? If that's the case, can you please explain why? Nothing in that proposal stops you from continuing to make article assessments for the Military history project, and I just don't understand. You can still continue to be a valued contributor here; it's entirely in your hands. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #2)
I've spent most of my last 24 hours in bed. Yes, I cannot come to terms with such restrictions on "what not to do" on talkpages. Main reason why I do contribute to article expansion is because I know my grammar is very poor. So that is why I edit talkpages and make them more defined and tidier so there is no confusion if a bot (lets say MILHIST Bot by Hawkeye7 and other bots on Wikipedia) does a run then it won't become confused to put the article in such and such category. I just want to be able to sit in a corner at Wikipedia out of the way of people who who not like me because I cause drama. Yes I rarely ever get acknowledged in what I do, but sitting in a corner out of the way of other people and not saying "boo" to people that makes me feel I am doing something. Taking away doing edits on talkpages is like taking your favourite car you own. It then becomes something missing in your life. Adamdaley (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to add a talkpage to this article: 5th Division (Yugoslav Partisans), it has no talkpage, but I cannot since of my "restrictions". Adamdaley (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Adam, good to hear from you. Glad you you took a day off to rest. I don't see any reason why you can't start the talk page for that article. Or add the the appropriate template headers, or even assess that page. You are not under any "restrictions" (afaik & based on your tp).


 * If you're referring to the 5 items that Mathglot requested of you, (just above), first off, they are just requests right now, from one editor to another. They are not any kind of editing "restriction", such as a t-ban, put on you by an admin or the community. Further, you have not agreed to these requests as of yet, but if you had, they would still not preclude (or restrict) you from starting that or any talk page, (and adding the appropriate template headers and even doing an assessment).


 * Again, I would suggest you carefully read those through those requests, ask questions to make sure you're clear on what they are (and more importantly, what they aren't). Discuss them with Mathglot, I'm sure that if the two of you just talk, this issue could be clarified, sorted out and an agreement made. An agreement that would bring all this discussion to an end, along with any criticism of your editing, and would leave you to carry on editing in peace (in "your own little corner", as you put it). And again, you could start talk pages, add the appropriate headers and even do assessments when needed. Just talk and sort it out. Take care -  wolf  06:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Adamdaley, you are under no editing restrictions currently, and you are still able to edit talk pages to improve them. Did you know that sitting in a corner out of the way of other people and fixing a targeted area of the encyclopedia is a common enough activity among your fellow editors that it has a name? It's true: it's called, wikignoming, and plenty of people do it. It's so popular, in fact, that someone created the humorous, but still serious and helpful essay Wikignoming about this very topic! You may enjoy reading it, because it has all sorts of interesting tips and links to out-of-the-way activities that you might enjoy; see the "Common behaviors" section especially.

That said, you can keep right on making changes and additions to MILHIST article talk pages according to the recommendations laid out at Content assessment. You already know how to do this as well as anybody; you've been doing it a long time, and you can keep on doing it, if it pleases you. Just stick to improving the ratings, and avoid the whitespace-fiddling and related stuff previously noted above, and you'll be just fine. Make WikiProject ratings to your heart's content; nobody is going to stop you.

P.S. I don't agree that your grammar is "very poor". There may be the odd phrasing here and there, but it's perfectly clear what you mean, so feel free to add to articles if you wish to. Your grammar doesn't have to be perfect to add to articles, just comprehensible, and you're way over that threshold. If other editors don't like the way you phrased things in an edit, they can come in later and change it to something else. That's part of the collaborative editing process, and is normal. Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Adam, I see you set up that talk page mentioned above, and have worked on several others. Does that mean you agree with Mathglot and will avoid the types of edits they were concerned about? I only ask because you haven't replied here, and communication is helpful in settling issues and moving on from them. -  wolf  17:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Adam, that new talk page you created was a good addition, and has already had fruitful collaboration by other editors, so that's a plus to the project. As far as wolf's question above, I actually don't think it's all that important if you formally (or even informally) sign off on or agree to the proposal in so many words. I think the point has been made, you've clearly read it and reacted to it, and I assume understood it, and I think you will do your best to stick to the straight and narrow going forward.
 * So, I'm content to let this drop now, while you continue to make improvements to articles, Talk pages, or wherever you like on the project. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, and I'm pretty sure I can speak for wolf as well, who has done a great job supporting you, that he'd welcome future comments or questions on his talk page as well. Happy editing, Adam! Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no!
Adam, I thought we were all done and you were good to go. But then I just noticed today. I haven't looked at every one, but spot-checking, it looks like you've fallen right back into old patterns again. I'm disappointed, and I really don't know what to do, now. Can you please stop doing that, and just stick to ratings, article improvements, Talk pages, or whatever you like, and avoid the sort of problematic thing we've been talking about? Hopefully, Mathglot (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at my edits today. Is this fine: August von Spiess? Adamdaley (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit at Talk:August von Spiess is just fine. In this edit, you changed from
 * to
 * and added project Military history which wasn't there before, as well as the WikiProject banner shell. That is a substantive improvement, and there's no trace of "pointless fiddling". This was a good edit. Congrats, and keep going in that vein! Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So I'm not allowed to add new WikiProjects even though the article falls into it? Adamdaley (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely allowed to add new WikiProjects; there is no problem with that. In any case, as just one editor, I can't tell you what you are "allowed" or "not allowed" to do; that's a community decision, derived from WP:CONSENSUS based on editing guidelines. Admins have the ability to block users who are flagrantly or repeatedly breaking the rules, but I'm not an admin. Generally, if you follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you won't have any problem. Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Why do people like this not get into trouble and I do? Talk:Elizardo Aquino. Look at what the other user did. -- Adamdaley (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Adam, two responses:
 * Your talk page is not the appropriate venue to discuss the behavior of some other user;
 * even if discussed at the appropriate venue, whatever they did or didn't do isn't relevant here.
 * If there is a real problem with another user's behavior, that should be taken up first by discussion at the talk page of the user in question. Given your current situation, it would be better if someone else did that and not you. If you believe egregious behavior is going on that no one else has noticed but you, then you could either notify an admin or an experienced user that you trust, and ask them to take a look at the situation and create a discussion if they deem it appropriate; if that fails, there are other options like noticeboards. But I'd strongly advise you to tend to your own house first, before going down that path. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that the other user you allude to isn't doing what you have been doing. They are adding ratings (using a tool) similar to how you do in this edit, What they are not doing - which is what other editors brought up as problematic is - is functionally ineffective edits such as changing "yes" to "y" "no" to "n", "stub" to "Stub" and so forth as in this edit or unconstructive ones such stripping the Milhist checklist instructions (they exist for a reason) as in this edit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Adam, If you re talking about this edit of of 20:44, 22 October 2021 at Talk:Elizardo Aquino, that is a beneficial edit to the page which added new class and importance values to project Paraguay, and to project Biography. Why would you think there was anything problematic with it? (post-script: I think Graeme already said this; I had composed my message at the same time as he did; sorry if it's repetitive). Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's them moving the |living=n to *after* the assessment for WP:Biography. In the original template of WP:Biography, "Living" is always before the assessment. As well as putting several spaces in the WikiProjectBanner which was clearly not what I think I had in it. Adamdaley (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Unfortunately, Wikipedia accepts two versions of coding and if this is such a problem then one of two acceptance coding, should be stricken from being used. In life, there are always two things to do things. Then again, I'll probably end up getting into trouble for pinging everyone, so who cares? As I said in the last few days, I'd rather leave than be blocked. Adamdaley (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Addding an assessment to a template -whether before or after another parameter - is productive. If it was just changing the order of existing parameters I would agree it was pointless edit. The order of parameters used within the template on a talkpage might be slightly confusing to an editor at first if out of expected sequence but does not affect functionality (Help:Template says "Named parameters can be defined in any order"). I willl also say that while template programming ignores spaces in the layout of parameters, white space and new lines between parameters are helpful to readability when editing. If the way the class is added in those instances vexes you, you could take it up with the rater tool (User:Evad37/rater). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * -- Unfortunately, Wikipedia accepts two versions of coding and if this is such a problem then one of two acceptance coding, should be stricken from being used. In life, there are always two things to do things. Then again, I'll probably end up getting into trouble for pinging everyone, so who cares? As I said in the last few days, I'd rather leave than be blocked. Adamdaley (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Addding an assessment to a template -whether before or after another parameter - is productive. If it was just changing the order of existing parameters I would agree it was pointless edit. The order of parameters used within the template on a talkpage might be slightly confusing to an editor at first if out of expected sequence but does not affect functionality (Help:Template says "Named parameters can be defined in any order"). I willl also say that while template programming ignores spaces in the layout of parameters, white space and new lines between parameters are helpful to readability when editing. If the way the class is added in those instances vexes you, you could take it up with the rater tool (User:Evad37/rater). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Adam, above, you said:
 * but that is only an example in a Template doc page, it is neither a policy, nor a guideline; it's just an example illustrating template usage, that's all:
 * but that is only an example in a Template doc page, it is neither a policy, nor a guideline; it's just an example illustrating template usage, that's all:

If the person is living:

If the person is not living:


 * That example also lays out the template vertically, in order to make it easier to see the parameters, not horizontally, the way you do it, but that doesn't mean you should change hundreds of talk page templates to lay the parameters out vertically to match the example. (You're not doing that; I'm just using this to illustrate a point.) The example is just a template doc page illustration, nothing more; there's nothing compulsory about it. Just as laying the template out horizontally (the way you do it) or vertically (as in the example) is a matter of choice, so is whether to put living first or not; the order of template parameters does not matter to the template. If there's some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among project users that they have a stylistic preference about which way they like to do it (what goes first; horizontal vs. vertical; and so on), and there's no reason not to follow it, then these are local style choices that you might as well go along with. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Getting better
Adam, I know you're struggling with this, but lately at least, there are definite signs that things are getting better. The issue you raised at Talk:Elizardo Aquino was the right place to raise it, regardless of how it turns out in the end, and you laid out your arguments to support your position, which is exactly what discussion pages are for. So, well done.

Your recent Talk page edits involving project templates mostly all included some substantive change, so that's a good thing. There were a couple that didn't, but two points: one, that's just my opinion, and secondly, these changes of template param order from foobar to the other way round are individually about as minor a pinprick as it's possible to have in Wikipedia, so taken one by one, they are insignificant and not worth editors' time to even talk about it. It's only when massive, long, continuous, and contrary to the consensus of other editors that it became problematic previously, but since you haven't been doing that lately, or at least much less than before, it's not been a big problem. The signs are, that you're going in the right direction. So, keep it up!

Looking over the whole trajectory of this, there have been some fits and starts, and some ups and downs, and while you're figuring it all out, I don't think it's a big deal if the occasional problems still arise here and there that you didn't intend. As far as I can tell, you're working it out, and your edits are definitely better now than they were. So, just keep it up, and feel free to call on anyone you trust with questions, or start a discussion at WT:WikiProject Templates, or WT:WikiProject Military history if you have questions concerning those topics. I've spent a lot of time with you, because I thought you were worth it, and I hope you will continue to do the work you do to benefit the encyclopedia, in ways that are interesting and helpful to you, and that at the same time conform to guidelines and the opinions of other editors. Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a look at and each one has substantive additions, so even though there was some discretionary rearranging, that wasn't the focus since the edits all improved the Talk page assessment in some way, they are all fine. (I noticed you also did  earlier today, but I didn't look at those.) One editor said something above about not deleting the hidden comments that included the B-class checklist in some other article, and I noticed you did that in this edit at Talk:Kirstine Fiil in that last group of ten. I don't know anything about the checklist comments, but even that edit does have an improvement to assessment, so that part of it at least, was fine. So, you're nine or ten for ten on these edits; you're on a roll, keep it up! Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Years ago, WP:MILHIST had the assessment for b class, the five points for Stub class. Somewhere that changed, not sure when but it was before my time that the b class criteria is for start / c and b classification. For Stub classes does not require it. Adamdaley (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #3)
Had a look at and each contains an improvement of some kind, so they are all okay. You still seem to have your own idiosyncratic vision of how things in templates ought to be (as in: "no blanks before the vertical bar between parameters", like here; or: "use y or n, not yes and no", like here; or: "capitalize param values like low, mid, or stub to Low, Mid, and Stub", like here) but none of those are required or even recommended. However, as long as your edit contains *some* kind of improvement, such as adding y which you frequently do, then the stylistic variation changes you like to make are not prohibited. Also, your edit summaries are much improved lately, compared to the, so keep that up.

I'm not going to continue monitoring, as you seem to have understood the point, now. Just please continue to ensure that each edit you make has some kind of improvement, as you have been doing, and you should be fine. Best regards, Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit at Talk:French National Committee was borderline. You managed to sneak in a lot of pointless capitalization, abbreviations, pointless removal of white space, and alteration of the Template name Talk header to the redirect talkheader (what's the point of that?) under the wire, because of the single "improvement", if it is one, that you made of removing one yes param. An improvement to the page, I guess, but just barely. P.S., I said I'm not monitoring you and I'm not; but you hit my Watchlist this time, so it showed up. Mathglot (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference between talk header and talkheader is on the talk header page for talk headers. Talk header only appears as a redirect on that page since it was showing the two examples, the second however, shows as a redirect, directing to the same page as talk header. In the case of Talk:French National Committee the talk header is not a link, merely a template for a talk page. Adamdaley (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I didn't understand a word of that, but here are the basics: the name of the talk header template is "Template:Talk header". You invoke it in an article Talk page, by coding . There are 24 different redirects to it, including stuff like, , , , and the one you seem to like best: , plus 20 more, all of which lead to the exact same place. That is, they are all equivalent, and it doesn't make any difference which one you use. So, when you say, "The difference between talk header and talkheader is on the talk header page for talk headers", I really don't follow you, because those two (and the other 22 of them) are all completely identical. The "real" name of the template is Template:Talk header and when you see it coded that way, there is no reason to change it. (Conversely, if one of the working aliases is already there, there's no reason to change that one, either.) This is according to MOS:VAR and WP:NOTBROKE, a couple of things that got you into trouble in the first place.
 * Now, please don't misunderstand me here: I'm not saying, "don't do this", I'm saying, "when you make pointless changes like this that are contrary to MOS:VAR or WP:NOTBROKE, just make sure that somewhere in that same edit, you make an actual (non-pointless) improvement to the page". So far, you have been consistently including an improvement somewhere in every edit you make, so that's good: that pretty much covers you for all the pointless nonsense that gets dragged onto the page at the same time, meaning, you are in the clear, and have nothing to worry about. Does this make sense, now?
 * P.S. Please have a look at WP:THREAD regarding indentation and replying to comments on Talk pages. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally understand what you are trying to say. Although, this is my talkpage. However, the talkheader on Talk:French National Committee does that show up as a valid wiki link? Yes or No? Adamdaley (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does what show up as a valid wikilink? I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the wikicode  generates a proper header box at the top of the page, when it is transcluded? Is that what you are asking? If you are talking about a wikilink, which one? Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Am I speaking some sort of riddle? That confused, yet I get criticised for breathing next? As I said below, I just want to be left alone and I wish people would see me as an invisible person. You too, do not know what is happening in my life, but I ask anyone who reads this, just ignore me and I'm having a difficult time as it is in reality. I use Wikipedia as an escape from the reality of life. Adamdaley (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey Adam, thought I would check in and see how things are going. It looks like there's been a few 'ups' and 'downs' in the past few weeks. I'm sorry to see you again mention that you are having difficulties in your life right now (your life outside of Wikipedia that is, what some refer to as "in real life" or simply "irl"). But it's important to remember that WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. It's an open, collaborative project, the main goal of which is to build an encyclopaedia. Everyone's actions are subject to scrutiny and everyone must abide by the project's policies & guidelines. If your actions and/or behavior here conflict with that goal or the rules, them you may find your access to the project limited or even blocked. You can't allow your personal life to affect your editing, just as you shouldn't let editing affect your personal life. If you're having difficulties, take steps to address them. But this notion of wanting to be "left alone in a corner" to tinker away at needless changes is not the way, it's just an unrealistic expectation. (And responses like this are not going to help you either).

There has now been extensive feedback provided here regarding what works and what doesn't. There has also been sound advice, offers of assistance, links to areas of the project that offer even more assistance and suggestions for what you can do to make useful contributions. I think you should again take a pause, review everything, ask any questions you may have, and try to find the best way forward, both irl and on WP. -  wolf  09:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - I appreciate your concern, Wolf. You've been the only one that has shown any regards to my reality. Sure, I admit I may have "tidied" (That a word?) or a tidy up on some talkpages, but that's not gonna be the end of the world. I don't get recognition for the good edits or edits that I actually do alot of re-defining of actual certain Periods of fights / Regions etc. Like Early Modern, tag that talkpage with a Early Modern, if it falls into the years of Early Modern, or World War II, while some have gone into the Cold War-period, so if those do fall into those categories, I add them. Same thing with the MILHIST for Biographies. I've been here for 15 years. I don't get much credit where it's due. But once, someone has a go, things don't get easy and it's been multiple times over the last 5 years. As I said a few weeks ago, if anyone is gonna block me, let me know and I'll leave. Not sure what I'd do after that. Adamdaley (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now... see, you say cryptic things like and people aren't sure how take it. I get that you may be struggling right now in your life, and it's clear that your time spent on Wikipedia is important to you, and may even help you with your struggles. But then you need to make sure that you don't put your access to this project at risk. Afaik, you're not facing a block right now and there is no need "to leave". But there are concerns, legitimate concerns, from multiple editors, about some of the edits you're making. If things continue this way, I wouldn't be surprised if someone requests a WP:TBAN to prevent from making certain kinds of edits.


 * Just listen to those concerns and try take them on board. Discuss them. Ask questions. Find a resolution. You can't expect to use difficulties irl as a type of immunity here. (And again, I really do hope that, irl, you are reaching out and dealing with whatever problems you have.) You have an extensive record on WP that speaks for itself, there people who recognize that and you can count me as one them. You've done good things, but like all of us, sometimes we also do things here that don't work. Here on WP, that's what you need to focus on right now. -  wolf  10:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Pointless talk page edits, again
As discussed extensively above, please stop enforcing your own stylistic standards when the existing page style is acceptable (e.g. diff). Similarly, just because you conducted an assessment for one WikiProject does not mean you should reformat the whole page according to your own standards in an edit labeled "minor" (diff). This behaviour is disruptive, and forces other contributors to spend significant time parsing your edits to determine what are meaningful content changes (e.g. assessments) and what are completely pointless stylistic changes that have literally zero effect on the page. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just get over it. You don't know what is happening in my life so take b!tching else where. I just want to be left alone. Please. Adamdaley (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider striking that comment, take a moment, then craft a more effective reply that addresses the concerns raised. You can't expect people who have issues with your edits to just leave you alone because of any personal problems you may have, that they know nothing about and don't excuse you from the rules and expectations of this community. That's not reasonable, and we've seen that you can be quite reasonable, and cooperative, when you put your mind to it. -  wolf  10:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - Honestly, people tend to go to old archives and read stuff what was said here, there, and everywhere. So it wouldn't of taken much time for Ljleppan to figure out to have rephrased the comment he/she made before my own comment in this section. I'm gonna go to bed since it's almost 9:30 pm Tuesday night. It's been a long day. Adamdaley (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But I'm only referring to the comment that is currently on the page, just above. And I'm not suggesting you try to hide in any archives or rephrase it, just strike it out . It'll still be there, but by doing so you're showing that you've reconsidered it, and it doesn't need to be brought up again. In the meantime, you can consider a more collaborative reply to Ljleppan's concerns. (Tonight or tomorrow). Just a suggestion. -  wolf  10:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)