User talk:Joojay/Archives/2019/January

January 13: Wikimedia NYC invites you to Wikipedia Day 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

You are cordially invited to Stanford University to celebrate Wikipedia's birthday
Join us in celebrating Wikipedia's 18th birthday at Stanford University!




 * I am delighted to invite you to the 2019 Wikipedia Day party at Stanford, which will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 5:00-8:30pm.


 * There will be pizza, cake, and refreshments; both newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome! We will have a beginner track with tutorials, and an advanced track with presentations, lightning talks, and tips and tricks. Admission is free, and you do NOT have to be a Stanford University student to attend.


 * Details and RSVP here • register here

See you soon! All the best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Attacks in the edit history
In this edit at Talk:Aleshia Brevard, you said: Please do not attack people in edit history, it's not civil behavior. I have three responses to this: As for how to respond to an actual Personal attack, please see No personal attacks. One of its recommendations is this: "Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters." That is why I did not respond to your accusation there, but here instead. It is also what you should do next time a situation like this comes up: don't respond on the article Talk, go to User talk instead (or just ignore it).
 * First of all, if you were attacked, an article Talk page is not the appropriate place to raise that issue. Personal attacks are a user behavior issue, and a violation of Wikipedia's core principle of civility.  Such violations should be addressed on the user's talk page.  My talk page is here.
 * Secondly: you were not attacked in the edit history, that is false. If it were true, you could provide diffs, but you can't.
 * Third: Bullet #5 at WP:WIAPA lists "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" as one type of Personal attack. Since you made an allegation about an attack but gave no evidence, your empty accusation is itself a personal attack.  Make sure you gather your evidence first, ideally in the form of diffs, before alleging a personal attack.

If you still think you were attacked, you're welcome to raise it here in reply, or on my Talk page. Unless you have strong evidence in the form of diffs however, it might be better for you not to do that, though; keep bullet 5 in mind. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Mathglot- I do not appreciate your need to correct literally every edit I do on the Aleshia Brevard, I am merely asking you for respect. When I point out the mistakes you may have made on the talk page of the article, you are not taking any responsibility for those mistakes (or ignoring). I think you have the wrong link here in terms of "personal attack" which were not the words I used. I don't think this was a personal attack but I do think this is getting to be closer to uncivil behavior since you have not assumed good faith on any of my edits.
 * I was pointing out that you are directing it at me in the edit history - which reads Undid revision 877023030 by Jooojay (talk) Mangled several citations, added a dangling tag in the wrong place, added "year" params like "15 February 2001" (that's a "date" not a "year") and added no new citation that I can see; what are you going for here? Can't tag on a work in a bibliographical list of works by an author however poorly written it may be, although you may do so on a footnote. -- I did not tag  in a bibliographical list - I tagged a "sources" section (ie. the references). I can accept mistakes happen by literally everyone, but you to have a failure or refusal to "get the point" when it comes to this article, see Disruptive editing. Did you think the term "Mangled several citations" is really the best term to describe this edit? Mangled is not a neutral word and that is not what happened. Jooojay (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jooojay, let's go through your allegations one by one:
 * "I do not appreciate your need to correct literally every edit I do":
 * I have no such need, I care not at all who makes edits to this or any article, only that their edit improves the article. If they improve the article, great! If they don't, I modify them or revert them, as the case may be. Your notion that I have some imaginary "need" or that I am concerned with you in some special way is a figment of your imagination.
 * When I point out the mistakes you may have made on the talk page of the article, you are not taking any responsibility for those mistakes (or ignoring)
 * You make a lot of comments about my mistakes without evidence or diffs. I'll fix up any mistakes I have caused, like when I re-included your fix to the &lt;/ref> tag after a revert that removed it. On the other hand, you can't just characterize things you don't like or agree with as "mistakes" and expect people to jump to your tune, and frankly, you do a whole lot of that.
 * I think you have the wrong link here in terms of "personal attack" which were not the words I used.
 * The words you used are these: "Please do not attack people in edit history, it's not civil behavior" and the proof is here.
 * I do think this is getting to be closer to uncivil behavior
 * No it isn't. It's neutral description. There's nothing in my edit summary that is the slightest bit uncivil; not even close. Please stop making baseless accusations of this nature.
 * you have not assumed good faith on any of my edits
 * I have always assumed good faith on all of your edits, I see clearly that you are trying to improve the article. You just don't always succeed in that goal. Your lack of knowledge of how different citation styles work, including sfn in particular and their linkage with harv refs, sometimes hinders your abillity to do so (and I'm willing to believe that part of the problem resides in Visual Editor itself, and not any problem on your part) and so I sometimes have to come in after you and fix up mistakes of yours.  In one large addition of a table, you mangled the citation situation badly, and it took me quite some time to straighten it out, and it's still not completely done. (A better solution would have been to remove the table entirely, but I didn't want you to feel that all your effort had gone to waste, so I left it, even though a table is much harder to edit than a list, which is one of the reasons fixes to that section are dragging; you said yourself you had a problem editing it; maybe we should, in fact, go back to a list, then you would be able to readd your missing references again.) That doesn't mean you didn't have good intentions in adding that table, it just means it wasn't an improvement to the article in the form you added it, and needed additional work afterwards. Please cease making allegations like I don't assume good faith on any of your edits, when that is completely false. Just because someone reverts you for cause, or changes your content, doesn't mean they don't assume good faith on your part.  You seem to be confusing the two.
 * Did you think the term "Mangled several citations" is really the best term to describe this edit?
 * The "best" term? I don't know; you may parse your words more carefully than I do, perhaps.  I don't see anything particuarly wrong with "mangled", but since you asked, I could think of lots of other terms to describe how you took a properly coded citation and altered some of the params so the citation was wrong after you were done: "mistaken", "confused", "unnecessary", "wrong", "contrary to the doc", "improper" and probably others. I'm sorry if you were upset by "mangled", but it doesn't seem that far off the mark, to describe someone coming in and changing a correctly coded reference to an incorrectly coded one.
 * In fact, your litany of complaints here, is completely groundless, as far as I can see, and appears to be based on your feelings, which I don't doubt, rather than actual facts. I do see that you are offended, and that you feel that you are not getting the respect you deserve, and for that, I am truly sorry; that is certainly not my intention. However, that doesn't mean I won't carry out whatever improvements to the article I think may be necessary in the future. Having your edits altered or reverted is part of editing on Wikipedia, and it's going to happen from time to time.  I know being reverted is no fun, but it happens to all of us.  The best you can do, is try to understand and stick to the policies and guidelines as best you can, talk out disagreements with other editors, and seek consensus and discuss on the article Talk pages.  I don't know what else to tell you. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

AutoPatrolled
Hi Jooojay thanks for writing articles such as Owen Southwell. I was surprised to see no-one had set your account as an autopatroller, so I've taken the liberty of fixing that. By the way, have you considered reviewing articles at WP:FAC? - I think your expertise would be really appreciated there. Cheers, and happy editing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers '! Thank you for the new feature of autopatroller. I have never looked into reviewing WP:FAC articles, but I will now. Wishing you all the best, I appreciate nice editors like yourself here! Jooojay (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)