User talk:Adamdaley/Archives/2022/July

July 2022
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ljleppan (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
 You have been blocked for one month from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.
 * You have been consistently editing against consensus, and you have failed to adjust your behavior despite concerns expressed by many editors. Cullen328 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * When did i need concensus to add the right attributes? Adamdaley (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * towards the end I was asking if it would be OK to continue editing on the basis of adding the right attributes. I wanted clarification. Didn't give me a chance to change. Since when did Wikipedia need to approve my attitude? Should this be a requirement at signup?Adamdaley (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Adamdaley, you should use your talk page for one thing right now: to try to actually sincerely learn how you can become productive, and once you understand that, to request unblock. You may not use it to continue to argue with other editors about why you still think you're right. That will get your talk page access revoked. If you keep asking rhetorical questions designed to illustrate why you're right, that's going to happen very soon. valereee (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:GAB, which explains what an unblock request should include and what it shouldn't include. The link was in the block notice, but you may not have noticed it. valereee (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Adamdaley, I hope you don't mind a blunt comment from me. I've read over that ANI discussion, and I've read some of the lengthy discussions in your talk page history. I can come to only one conclusion - you must stop making your cosmetic-only formatting changes. The community consensus is strongly against making cosmetic-only changes that do not affect the appearance of a page, as numerous people have tried to explain, and you will not be left alone to just carry on. And no, you should not seek consensus for every one of 82,000 pages you wish to make cosmetic-only changes on, you should stop doing it entirely. If making these cosmetic code formatting changes is the only thing you wish to do here, then your time at Wikipedia will surely soon end. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but someone needs to tell it to you straight. And that's the way I read it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, for WP-editors, being left alone is (in the long run) not part of the deal. Communication is sometimes necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I edit conflicted with the editors above posting my decline. As you can see, I agree that your request was not WP:GAB compliant.  Please do not use the unblock template to ask questions.  Simply start another section.  Tide  rolls  16:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Several times I've tried to write a reply here. I wanted to get clarification on if I was to add the right attributes to the Projects I could continue. However, Cullen328, was too quick to jump the gun and wasn't allowing me to get that information. I've been here for almost 16 years, now I've forgotten what I was gonna say. Basically, I was gonna change my way if I could have gotten clarification. I've explained why I don't add content to articles, hence the Rudolf Abel article is the only article I'm proud of. I learnt to let it go after 2 weeks for people to edit it. Adamdaley (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried other wiki stuff like wikicommons. That was extremely hard and confusing since I have aspergers. I enjoyed what I was doing patrolling the forgotten talkpages and if you asked me this a year ago if I was gonnabe banned, I wouldn't have believed you. I was happy patrolling talkpages and when discussions like this happen makes me feel terrible. Adamdaley (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. You guys took away what made me happy. The unblocking process is too confusing for me so I guess I'll have to find something else to do. I'm not gonna fight this, I'm fighting to keep my family together. Adamdaley (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, I'll treat this as a sincere attempt at clarification in pursuit of understanding how you can become productive. Please define what you are calling the "right attributes" you added in this edit? valereee (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just like before, if it was a WP:MILHIST article for example if it was missing the biography, war period, navy, airforce country etc. I'd probably assess the WP:Biography / milhist. Or asses anything that is military. I also try to bring up to standard other WikiProjects. Assessment-wise. Adamdaley (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What changes visible on the talk page did that edit make? valereee (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing on here. Cause it's not a military Article. If it was missing one or two of the following: Aviation, biography, maritime, war period, country, etc. Sometimes I might assess non military articles. I'd assess WP:Biography / MILHIST Adamdaley (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then the answer is no. You are not improving anything, and the edit is a net negative, so it's not something we would unblock you to allow to continue doing. valereee (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of an edit you made that was a pure improvement without any of the formatting changes that do nothing to improve the assessment? valereee (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You asked me what attributes I'd add to WP:MILHIST, if it was a biography, and the guy was in world war 2 and into the 1950s and was in the British navy. If only the biography, British ww2 was there and missed the I'd add the other attributes. Adamdaley (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so maybe too many questions at once. Let's start with this: So the Talk:Sir Richard Grenville, 1st Baronet edit you're agreeing was completely unnecessary and it something you could agree to never doing again? valereee (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. talkheader -- Simply took out the space between talk and header.
 * 2. British English -- Left alone.
 * 3. WikiProjectBannerShell -- Removed the spaces between WikiProject, Banner and Shell.
 * 4. Condensed the WP:Biography / MILHIST / Peerage to a single line (with the priorities being Mid)
 * 5. Condensed the WP:MILHIST / included the long version of B class criteria (instead of doing it shorthand, like what I was doing before today).
 * 6. I added the Early Modern criteria which time-period it falls into between 1500 and 1800 years.
 * Each attribute of WP:Banners on that page is more defined. To me, it looks clean and no excessive wastage of symbols and/or spaces. They are all straight to the point, if viewing in edit mode of course. One that I haven't done yet is Sir William Johnson, 1st Baronet. Would condense the WP:Biography / MILHIST with assessment / other attributes with assessment. Cleanup any other garbage to make out what WikiProjects were there, see if all attributes of assessments are there. Adamdaley (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I'm a little beyond my depth in reading the diff (anyone who understands this better, feel free to jump in and correct me). So you're saying that the Grenville edit changed nothing for anyone viewing the talk, but you believe the edit was helpful and your intent is to continue with these types of edits? valereee (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's take a look at the linked diff, it's a pretty good example:
 * Talk header talkheader -- Replaces valid template with alias/redirect; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
 * WikiProject banner shell WikiProjectBannerShell -- Replaces valid template with alias/redirect; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
 * ;   etc. -- Replaces valid parameter with alias; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
 * Reordering named arguments of WikiProject Biography -- Order of named arguments has no effect on anything; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
 * Removing linebreaks from WikiProject Biography -- unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
 * b1 !-- Referencing and citations --> =y etc. -- It's fine to throw in comments if you are re-evaluating, but completely unnecessary for this diff. No visual/meaningful change, but the reader now has to check whether you changed any of the evaluations.
 * British-task-force British etc. -- Replaces valid parameter with alias; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
 * Adding Early-Modern -- Technically unneeded (Already present through Three-Kingdoms-task-force, I assume) but OK since this is non-obvious.
 * Removing from WikiProject Military history -- Presumably a mistake hidden by the massive changeset. If not, summary should explain why it was removed.
 * Adding to WikiProject Military history -- Good
 * Fiddling with whitespace and line breaks in WikiProject Military history -- Unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change
 * This changeset should have been as simple as #8 and #10. As for the edit summary, Expanded WP:Biography / MILHIST / Peerage; WP:MILHIST / Biography / British / Early Modern / Three Kingdoms doesn't really tell me anything. It sounds like Peerage was "expanded", but diff shows that actually nothing of value was done to it. Same applies to most of the rest of the summary. A self-explanatory edit summary (for a minimal diff containing only #8 and #10 above) would be something like Add Biography and Early-Modern to MILHIST banner. If I then see #9 in that diff with that edit summary, it's pretty clear that it was a mistake. Now I'm left wondering whether you intended to do that or not. Ljleppan (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, you win. Why I changed from short hand to the full length WP:MILHIST is to prove a point. All of you fell into what I expected you'd would fall into, regardless what is there someone would make a big deal over nothing or blowing up. I'm not gonna try and justify it any more. Regardless of what I do, someone is going to find fault in what I do. I've had no sleep for 24 hours and I feel you guys have lost an editor who was happy at editing and finding articles that was missing attributes from WikiProjects so they were added. Even if I did 1 edit per hour, it would still be questioned. I'll ask, you guys want me to leave so you guys can go back to doing constructive edits and improving articles? That's fine? Are you happy for me not to be here? Adamdaley (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * tell WP:MILHIST people I had a great time in the years of editing. Gonna try and try and find something else to do. I was prepared to try and change my ways, unfortunately people wanna pick too much with how things are. I'm happy I was able to do the Rudolf Abel article. Adamdaley (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing visually changed for the viewer. Once in edit mode, the only real change is the Early Modern for time period. I was in trouble with the shorthand, may as well go back to the long version of b class criteria. I went back to the long version, why not make sure I'm banned for following the WikiProject Military history Template as shown on their page. Adamdaley (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Correction... the early modern attribute that I added would have been visible to the viewer. Adamdaley (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just compared the rendering of both revisions, and the one difference I can see is the addition of a new "Associated task forces (general topics)" section containing "Military biography task force". If there are any others, I've missed them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (The "Early Modern warfare task force" was already there previously) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. The three kingdoms was the only time period. I added the Early Modern since the article fell between 1500 and 1800. Adamdaley (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the version immediately before your edit, and I can see it was there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the code "Early-Modern=y" in the before version, mind, so might there be something else that included it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bed it's now 4:28 am. I admit some of my edits maybe questionable but 99% are added. I know this article on Early Modern is correct, I'm tired not totally insane to see what my edit was. It was me that did that. Adamdaley (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know you added the code "Early-Modern=y". But the result, the "Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)" one, was already showing on that page in the previous revision. I can see it clearly. I don't know which code invokes it, but some code prior to your addition appears to have done so. Anyway, getting some sleep seems like a good idea - g'night. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It turns out that I added the Biography and Early Modern to WP:MILHIST. The biography in that section has been missing from other articles. Adamdaley (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would explain it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think TPA should be revoked before the user digs that hole deep enough to reach an indefinite block. – 2 . O . Boxing  22:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * TPA? Adamdaley (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The ability to edit your talk page. Your current block is only one month. You're not doing yourself any favours by making admissions of disruption. – 2 . O . Boxing  22:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Talk Page Access. Adam, you don't seem to want to take on board the feedback people are leaving here. Until you do, you are going to continue butt heads with others. There is still plenty of helpful stuff you can do here once your 1-month block expires, you just have to refrain from the talk page edits that visually don't make a difference. All the best, Zawed (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So if I don't contribute to articles, what's left? As I said I was prepared to try and change. Adamdaley (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand what people are saying, would someone else go through 82,000+ articles to add missing attributes? No I don't think so because they'd find it boring, find it disruptive. I'm happy I caught those I have because their attributes on the talkpages are more exact. It's a fine skill in adding them since quite a few haven't been touched for 10, 11 years. I'm prepared to add those because I'm the only one who has an interest in finding things wrong on talkpages. Why can't I do that? I've found duplicate wikiprojects that no one has found till I came over that article. Duplicate attributes, yes I've made my own duplicates and I'm thankful someone found them quickly. Adamdaley (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
Hello Adam, sorry to see to the situation you find yourself in. It seems there is a disconnect between the questions you have and the answers you have been given, and along with being blocked and now having your talk page access cut off, this must all be quite frustrating. You might not get an answer that makes all of this clear to you, but none the less, when your block expires, if you continue to make these same types of edits, you are all but guaranteed to be blocked again, a block that is likely to be indefinite. There are people here that don't want to see that happen, that believe you aren't trying to be malicious, and that is would be a shame to lose someone with your experience, who seems to genuinely want to contribute. So you may not get an answer that you find sufficient, you may have to accept that that's just how it is.

I saw you ask just above: "So if I don't contribute to articles, what's left?". Well... there's a lot left. This came up in a discussion here last year, and so I'm going to repost a comment of mine about that partuclar subject;
 * 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 on 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)

I realize this makes for a rather lengthy overall post, and so I have collapsed the repost part. But, with this time out from editing, I hope you do give it a read, and give some thought to other ways you can contribute, ways that won't land you back in this situation. There really are many, many things you can do here. And along with my suggestions, I'm sure others could come up with even more, or perhaps on your own you will find a niche that suits you, a way that you can help build and improve this great project of ours, that won't lead to further debates and blocks. Give it some thought. And again, good luck to you. - w o lf  02:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
Since you are using your talk page to continue to argue that you have the right to edit disruptively against consensus, which is a waste of other people's time, I have revoked your talk page access. Please read Unblock Ticket Request System for your options going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 23:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)