User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2014/January

Shogi rules copyedits
No offense, I just have several problems with your rule rewrites. Bottom line is I think the way it was before, though not perfect, was better. Your copyedits introduced several ambiguities (if I went into them all it'd be a wall of text here, so I won't do that). I didn't know exactly what to do at this point, is why I reverted. I don't know exactly the best way to proceed if you want to. What part of your edits were most important to you, perhaps we should discuss point-by-point. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I just felt (and still do) that the way it was written needed (needs) to be improved. I am interested in knowing how my edits created ambiguities. Were they ambiguous in an "English sense", in a "shogi sense" or maybe both? I can't really "defend" what I wrote until I know exactly which is which. If you want, you can list them here. However,  maybe the shogi talk page would be best so that others can follow and contribute. I won't undo your edit for the time being in order to give you the chance to reply and perhaps so that we can find a way to work together on a way to improve that section that is acceptable to all because I don't think it's very good in either a "shogi sense" or an "English sense" as it is currently written. By the way, are you a shogi player? Just curious. Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, as mentioned, I think your edits were an overall disimprovement. Please don't ask me to generalize re ambiguities, I asked if you like to go over point-by-point. I didn't ask you to defend all your edits above. As you suggest, maybe the article Talk page would be better, however you have a relatively verbose writing style, so it could get lengthy and even boring to the other contributors to that article. Your I won't undo your edit for the time being in order to give you the chance to reply has things a little upside down -- per WP:BRD my "edit" was a simple revert of your changes. (It is you who must find consensus before they can stand.) Whether I'm a shogi player or not isn't really relevant to the rules writing changes that I reverted. I'll wait for your followup to these comments. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. It wasn't my intention to sound snotty and I wasn't asking you to generalize; I would really like to know what you found ambiguous, even if it is point-by-point. The only reason I suggested the shogi talk page was simply to give others a chance to participate in they wanted.However, if you feel such a discussion is better done on my talk page, then that's fine with me. Also, Thanks for the info on WP:BRD. Again I wasn't trying sound like a jerk. I just wanted to wait until I heard from you before taking another crack at rewriting that section. Finally, asking if you played shogi was just out of curiosity and also not intended to be some kind of attack on your credibility. Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I don't know stuff about shogi tournament infos that you also edited, my interest is specific to rules presentation that you edited. Let me look at those changes again then show you the nature of my objections for discussion, probably point-by-point style. I'll update again shortly. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm in no hurry and I appreciate any and all feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing is to take this change-by-change in the paras you changed. Please don't take anything I say personally, since it's not. Just to dispel the criticism (I've received from some icky admins at times) that I'm "all negative", I'd like to say your addition of The following are illegal moves which result in immediate loss in professional and tournament shogi is an improvement and good addition to the text/rules. Ok that said, let's proceed serially ... OK you changed "On any turn, instead of moving a piece on the board, a player may [...]" to On any move, instead of moving a piece on the board, a player may [...]". I think that is confusing, and even seemingly contradictory. (Word "turn" was better than "move", because "move" connotes moving from one square to the other, etc. But that's not what's intended here. "Turn" is a better word to emcompass both a move on the board, or a drop. There was no reason to change from "turn" to "move" -- it just creates the named ambiguity/potential confusion. Previously in the article it states: "For each turn a player may either move a piece that is already on the board (and potentially promote it, capture an opposing piece, or both) or else "drop" a piece that has been previously captured onto an empty square of the board." So the text was consistent with earlier in the article, until you changed it. If you don't like word "turn" then I'd suggest compromise using phrase "move turn". This is a relatively small point so far, but let me stop here to get your response. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I were try to respond to answer each of your points one at a time. There may be some time lag between responses but that's simply because of the other things I have going on here and not anything related to you. It seems that there were some things you liked about the changes I made. If that was the case, then why didn't you keep those and edit it around them. I got the impression that everything I added was worthless. I am sure that's probably not what your intent was, so maybe I am reading too much into it, I was just under the impression that completely undoing/deleting the edits of other's was a last resort to be used when only really necessary, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia so I am still figuring things out. Ok, having said that I will move on to the points you made.
 * No, in general it's a common practice in the wikiproject I've been active from my observations, when there are numerous issues in an edit, to revert enlarge (and then back up), rather than efforting a spice & dice. (A patience/time issue by the reverting editors perhaps.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why I changed "turn" to "move" was that it seems unnatural for me in this context. Since you're a chess player, I'm sure you know that in Chess the term "move" is used and not "turn." If we operate under the assumption (perhaps that is a faulty one on my part) that Chess is closest thing to shogi outside of Japan (i.e., the West) then I believe using the same terminology whenever possible for Shogi makes it easier to follow. In Japanese, there is no real distinction made between the action of moving a piece on the board and using a piece in hand for a drop: the general word used to describe both is "te" (手). So even though "drops" are unique to Shogi, a "move" (noun) is still defined as both "moving a piece on board" or "using a piece-in-hand." So, I don't see how I made things more confusing, unless you are worried about using "move" as a noun and "move" as a verb in the same sentence. I am not claiming to be one who sees or knows all, but I thinking you are finding ambiguity where there really isn't; however, this is not something I am willing to go to war over. So if you feel "turn" needs to stay than so be it. As for your suggestion of "move turn", I actually think that is actually more confusing and worse than "move", but that's just my personal opinion. I'll try to get to your other comments later on to day. Thanks again for your patience and understanding. Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When you end up with a sentence that begins: "On any move, instead of moving [...]", to me that's just poor writing (and also potentially confusing). The drop is a critical difference between shogi and international chess, so that's my point, the use of "turn" to encompass both drops and moves on the board has utility in text that describes shogi, whereas there's no corresponding utility in international chess to prefer the word "move" (unless a distinction between "move" and "capture" is needed). So I think it is a slight mistake to think shogi can and should be explained using the same word choices as international chess for the sentence in question. What does or doesn't exist in Japanese language should not be a deciding factor for word choices when writing a description in English which has its own language peculiarities and parameters. I didn't insist your change to replace word "turn" with "move" created a certain ambituity, only that it created potential ambituity by creating potential for unnecessary confusion. You and I both know that "move" encompasses both drops and moves on the board, but that's not the point. It's about clarity for an uninitiated reader. "Turn" and "move turn" are common terms used when describing rules for board games and many chess variants. So there is nothing wrong with "turn" and for shogi as mentioned which must encompass both drops and moves on the board, "turn" was clearer in the sentence in question (and consistent w/ text earlier in the article). I see no reason to change it to something potentially confusing. (That would amount to a disimprovement.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's how D. B. Pritchard expresses it in The Family Book of Games, 1994, p. 60:"A piece in hand may, on a player's turn, be placed – 'dropped' – on any vacant square on the board, subject to certain restrictions. A 'drop' counts as a move and play passes to the opponent."Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I can't cite anything right now, I've read quite a few English books on shogi written by shogi players which use the word "move" as I am using it. But, like I said before, I am not looking for a war, so let's just agree to disagree. I made that edit not only because I thought "move" was better than "turn", but also because I felt the original sentence itself wasn't very good. I was actually going to go back and try and rewrite it, but you undid my edit before I could. I still think that sentence should be rewritten regardless of whether "turn" or "move" is used and would like to take another crack at doing so, but this time I will do it on the Shogi talk page first to give others a chance to weigh in. Is that OK with you? Thanks again for the feedback.Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the use of word "move" occurs in shogi books, and even is used by Pritchard too, but what we're talking about is one specific sentence of text that those books and authors aren't specifically addressing, so I don't think you can say the word always works in all situations by force, which is what your generalization from memory is sort of suggesting. IMO there's just no way that "On any move, instead of moving [...]" can be considered a good sentence for an uninitiated WP reader. I agree the sentence in which you changed that one word is a poor sentence. You don't have to get consensus before trying to improve it. WP:BOLD Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the WP:BRD page you mentioned much earlier on in this discussion and it says "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." So, I think it would be best to continue this discussion there so that's where I will make my suggestions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, there's nothing counter-policy in conducting content discussion at a user's Talk. IMO it can be better there for reason already stated. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding as to how Wikipedia works regarding disputes is to try and reach a consensus. To me, that implies, involving as many people as possible in the discussion. This seems hard to do on single user's talk page when there are only two people involved in the discussion. It seems that the chance of getting feedback from others would be greater if this was done on the Shogi talk page. Thanks. Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok to try and speed things up, I'll go on to my second objection ... You changed "The piece is then part of the forces controlled by that player." to The piece is then controlled by that player and can be moved accordingly. First, I don't see why you made the change. (The way it was was explicit and clear. What did you intend needed improvement?) And your change actually is worse, since when you say "The piece is then controlled by that player [...]" it could mistakenly be interpreted to mean that the next action by the player executing the drop, is to "control the piece" in some manner [e.g. by moving it]. And that is not correct of course. The problem is your word "then" which implies a "next step". But I'm not quibbling with that word per se, I'm quibbling with why you felt you needed to change the original sentence at all, which I see as being clear, explicit, and problem-free. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason I made that edit is because I don't feel the the wording "part of the forces controlled by that player" sounds very natural in reference to Shogi (or even Chess) in this context. I understand that a word like "army" is sometimes used (e.g., white army) in to describe "pieces" in Chess, but I think that for purely aesthetic (sorry if I'm using this term incorrectly) reasons. Isn't it more common to refer to pieces as "pieces"? My edit "The piece is then controlled by that player" simply means that a captured piece ("piece-in-hand") now becomes the "property" of that player. The player places it on their piece stand and is free to use it on a subsequent move if they wish. Once again, my use of the word "move" here refers to "moving a piece already on the board" or "dropping a piece-in-hand." Since it is against the rules for the same player to make two moves in a row, I'm not sure why you find what I wrote to be ambiguous. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with you that the sentence "The piece is then part of the forces controlled by that player" could be improved. But not the way you did in your edit. Please understand I know what you meant in your edit (and, you do not need to explain to me what "controlled" means etc.), but again that is not the point. You are wrong when you say my use of the word "move" here refers to "moving a piece already on the board" or "dropping a piece-in-hand", because the sentence in question is describing ownership and capability specifically of a piece just dropped on the board. (I don't know how you branched into the thing about being against the rules to make "two moves in a row" -- it makes no sense to me -- perhaps your mistake just mentioned caused that.) I already told you why I felt the change you made could be ambiguous. (Please go back and read my objection.) Again, I think the sentence in question perhaps can be improved. Let me think about a copyedit to "part of the foreces controlled by that player" etc. and suggest a change for your feedback, okay!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How's this?: "The piece is then part of that player's forces on the board and can be moved accordingly." (I added "on the board" since pieces in-hand are also "part of a player's forces". Even before the drop, the piece was "controlled by" the player so, both the original "the piece is then part of" and your "the piece is then controlled by" were equally slightly suboptimal.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're going to keep going in circles regarding the definition of the word "move." A "move" can be either "moving a piece on the board" or "dropping a piece-in-hand." You can't "drop a piece on the board" and then immediately "move it" because that would be two moves (or "turns" if you prefer) in a row. So you are seeing possible ambiguity where I feel it is impossible (according to the rules of the game) for there to be any. I am beginning to wonder if maybe it would be best to have another party (or parties) weigh in on this discussion as well just to hear what other people might have to say. Is something like that even possible on Wikipedia? Regarding your suggestion, I still think the word "forces" sounds weird. I like to take a crack at rewriting this too if you have no objection. Thanks. Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be not understanding what I've said. You do not need to explain and re-explain to me what "move" means. I already know that; it's not the point. The point is the audience to the article, and what they know (or don't know). "Army" is perhaps better than forces, or not. (Your call. There seem to be a limited choice of words for that.) As long as we are discussing that sentence, I don't know why you want to leave discussion on it and go start editing it, but, it you wish to leave this discussion, that is your choice. (And I can choose to revert subpar edits, too.) Yes there is a way to get feedback of other Wikipedians. WP:RfC. But that is for resolving disputes. You seem to me to be creating an artificial dispute, for example explaining to me more than once what "move" means, unnecessarily. (It borders on WP:IDHT.) I presume your're ending the discussion w/ your last comments. We didn't even get to your other, poorer, edits I reverted. Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, I just disagree with it. I only repeated what "move" means to me to help show why I brought up the "two moves in a row" rule. But, like I said I am happy to just agree to disagree. Moreover, I am not saying I want to leave the discussion; I am only suggesting that it would be better to continue it on the Shogi talk page. I think this would make it easier for others to participate. I have also said (I'm sorry for repeating this) that I am not interested in engaging in an editing war with you or anyone else. I don't intend to edit that section, I just want to take a crack at rewriting it on the Shogi talk page so that you or anyone else can comment on it there. It would just be a rough draft and would not be added to the main article until a consensus (of hopefully more than two people) was reached. As for my other edits that you found lacking, you are free to bring them up here if you like. I am always interested in hearing constructive criticism. However, maybe it would be best to start a new section (perhaps one for each objection you have) to make things easier (at least for me) to follow and reply to. Thanks again for all the feedback. Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-read the first post in this thread. My reason for coming to your Talk was to offer discussion after my revert as part of BRD, if you wanted it. (Now you are asking me to leave comments if I want to, or to give you constuctive criticism. That's not why I came here and is not the bases for comments I've added in this attempted discussion thread. I just wanted to make it clear that you've terminated the BRD discussion regarding the remainder of your edits that I reverted, discussion of those points was never entered into, because you did not want the discussion here to proceed to said completion. I have no problem with that decision at all, just spelling it out for clarity. You have also left me with only vague or non-existent idea what you disagree with in your numerous references "agree to disagree", etc. [e.g. that the issue of word "turn" vs "move" isn't important to you to want to dispute further over it, yet at same time saying you "disagree" re unspecified things I don't know what you're referring to, then want to secure third parties for additional outside opinion]. And you do not seem to understand that consensus is to be arrived at by those parties in conflict over an issue, which in this case, was just editors you and me. I've tried to identify with you what those issues are in this thread, but that seems a failed exercise such as your throwing an issue away then later claiming it still exists and needs third-part involvement. You're not stating your position clearly then making your case for it, instead giving mixed/confusing messages.) Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't ended the discussion, I have just suggested that it be moved to the Shogi talk page. The BRD page says that discussions should take place on the article's talk page. That is what I initially suggested, but you implied that it would be boring and uninteresting for others because of my writing style, so I suggested doing it here. I've tried to make my case as clearly as I can, but apparently I have not been doing a good job explaining "my poor edits" or "my mistakes" to your satisfaction. "Agree to disagree" was just my rather poor attempt at trying not to repeat my arguments again and thus avoid running afoul of WP:IDHT. If it's inappropriate (or against Wikipedia policy) to suggest moving this discussion to a different page so that more people can participate, then I apologize. I just thought it might give others the chance to weigh in if they wanted. I didn't realize that this was something that could only be discussed by the two of us. Anyway, let me try and make a constructive (I hope) suggestion. What about doing something like they did on Bughouse chess? It's not exactly the same, but it's kind of similar. No mentions of "forces", "armies" or "turns" there. The way they've written it is straightforward and to the point and much better (in my opinion) than what is written on the shogi page and also much better (in my opinion) than my edit. Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First, BRD is more flexible than you're crediting (from WP:BRD): "Discuss on a talk page [...] You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle." Second, you've quoted me out of context with your remarks, which is something I do not appreciate. (I used "poor edits" in connexion w/ your edits we did not have discussion on yet, so it's impossible that you now take credit for having done "the best you can explaining them". I used phrase "your mistake" specifically and exclusively about your saying you used the word "move" to mean both on-the-board moves as well as drops in the sentence you changed, and indicated to you why that was in error, because word "move" in that sentence is referring to the capability of the piece immediately after having been dropped [so, the word wouldn't be encompassing drop-potential in that context]). So please stop attibuting me with things I never said, and therefore could also never have meant. I think you are still making confused messages, because you seemed to want to drop (no pun intended) the issue of word "turn" vs "move" earlier, but now refer to the same thing as my rather attempt at trying not to repeat my arguments again and thus avoid running afoul of WP:IDHT. (What, did you change your mind? If so you didn't inform of that.) Again you're putting words in my mouth I never said or implied, with: I didn't realize that this was something that could only be discussed by the two of us. If you read BRD then you know the person who reverted is the Most Interested Person, and it's discussion between interested parties that discussion aims to reach consensus. There's nothing exclusionary in what I said. At Bughouse chess, there isn't any text explaining that a captured piece when dropped becomes the property of the dropper, as there is in the shogi article. (It is just implied in the Bughouse article. I think that implication is fine for Bughouse, since, when a captured piece is passed to the partner, the color of that piece matches the receiving player's color. Not true in shogi since no color differentiation there. Could be that is why there's no mention of ownership in Bughouse, but there is in shogi, I dunno. Nevertheless, I am not the editor who included text about dropped-piece ownership in the shogi article, and neither am I the editor who made the same implicative only, in the Bughouse article.) I think rather than your ideas to make shogi article follow suit with the chess article, or your latter idea to follow suit with the Bughouse article, it would be a better strategy to write the shogi article appropriate for shogi, without consulting or attempting to mimic those other articles. I think to attempt to follow suit is bad writing strategy. (The Bughouse article even refers to the shogi article. So basing the shogi article on the form of the Bughouse article is also circular/illogical to that degree, isn't it?) Shogi is way more significant chess variant than Bughouse, besides (world notability). But I do agree with you that rules should be stated as concisely as possible. (Complete, correct, and concise.) That can/should be done without mimicking other article styles -- that's just good writing. And I agree with you too, that perhaps the shogi article is currently a bit of bad writing. (I've been doing a little copyedit work there since this dialogue, and I'm impressed how dysfunctional the text is generally. Yes, it could be improved generally. But your individual edits were not improvement, as already discussed until this discussion was ended by you at this Talk.) I'll participate if the discussion goes to article talk. It isn't my responsibility to move it there. This is my last edit here at your Talk. Again, good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe you wrote We didn't even get to your other, poorer, edits I reverted. The word "poorer" seems to imply that what we have been discussing so far were poor edits, they just aren't as poor as those we've yet to discuss. However, if my reading of that was incorrect then I apologize. I also thought that consensus is to be arrived at by those parties in conflict over an issue, which in this case, was just editors you and me implied that only we could discuss this. So again I apologize if I misinterpreted this. Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Dick's final exam results were satisfactory. Jane's were poorer." Goodbye. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you felt all along that the edits we have been discussing were actually satisfactory? That wasn't the impression I got. I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I really do appreciate you taking the time to try and help me understand things. I also apologize if I misinterpreted anything you wrote or incorrectly attributed anything to you. The edits I made were in good faith and I know that your reverting them was also in good faith. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and still figuring things out. So, if mistakes were made, they were not made out of spite or to pursue any hidden agenda. I acknowledge that you are more experienced at this than I so will defer to your judgement. I may some day make another attempt to try and improve that article, keeping your suggestions in mind, and if I do I will make sure to do so on the talk page first so that others can make comments or suggestions. Perhaps my next attempt will be better. Thanks again Marchjuly (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Objection #3 is simple grammar. You changed: "This is termed dropping the piece, or just a drop." to This is termed dropping the piece, or just drop. I don't know what your improvement intent with that change, was it to keep verbs consistent (i.e. "dropping" and "drop")? In that case, "to drop" would have been better. But, there was nothing wrong with the original, "This is termed [...] a drop" is perfectly fine. ("It is termed [...]" means "It is called [...]", and it is called both "dropping the piece", and [it is also called] "a drop". I see nothing wrong with that sentence structure. Why did you change it to something ungrammatical?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop for now. (The rest perhaps gets uglier.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: sandboxA: Carrier (practice)
I noticed your query at the Teahouse ("Carrier" improvements), and have some suggestions:
 * 1) In the top table, the 1st two columns are redundant; the 'Hour' doesn't add any information
 * 2) In the bottom table, the 'Directed by' and 'Running time' columns are not necessary; they can be replaced by adding to the description before the table: "All episodes are directed by Maro Chermayeff and have a running time of 60 minutes" (with a citation)
 * 3) Since the top table is quite large, how about adding the bottom table to the article, with a  (i.e: ) to a separate article containing the top table

~Eric F:71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Eric. The "top table" was just for practicing. It's not going to be added to the article. I am only going to add the second one. You're right about the "directed by" and "running time" information. I was just trying to incorporate some of ways "TV Episode" tables were being done on other article pages. Couldn't find any with only 2 or 3 columns, so I thought I had to add more. Regarding the "hour" column. Episodes are divided into "hours" so they appear on screen as, for example, "Hour 1 All Hands" and not "Episode 1  All Hands." I wasn't sure if this was important enough to be included in the table because "hour" is not used on the PBS page I cited. I just added it for practice and it can be easily removed without any problems. Thanks so much for the feedback. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, awhile back I created a table for something similar; having a short description in order to have a small table yet with a more detailed description within a template.  However (if interested), you should get a consensus regarding its use — and tinker with colors, etc. to be consistent with articles of its type.    Example:


 * ~Happy editing! ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Eric. That looks really good. Maybe I'll try using it, if you don't mind. Your template is slightly different from the TV episodes template I used, but that shouldn't be a big deal. The show descriptions in my practice table were copied and pasted directly from the PBS site and I was just using them for reference. The descriptions in the second table are my attempts at a rewrite. I figured that a simple summary was more than sufficient. Thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I left you some feedback on your teahouse question
You can see my comments at the teahouse. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry!
You definitely haven't done anything wrong in asking a question at the reference desk. People were just confused because the edit summaries you mentioned happened to contain someone else's former username. --Amble (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Amble:  Thanks. Not too worried really. I just always feel it's a good idea to be polite whenever possible, especially when you're new in town. Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. I thought you were very polite all around. :-) --Amble (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is of course nothing wrong with asking a question at the reference desk. There is something wrong, however, for a new editor finding his way, suggesting in his reference desk question, that another more experienced editor may be editing counter to "the Wikipedia way" (which suggests counter-policy or counter good practice[s]). In addition, on another reference desk question, you made indirect comment about my character, comparing to your character and how you prefer to "spread good karma", implying that I do or have done the reverse. That is not the kind of thing one does at the reference desks. (That's defaming and indirectly accusatory toward the character or behavior of another editor. If you have comments like that, that is not the place to make them or leave them. If you think you still can or have a right to, then I will continue to object and insert these admonishments on your Talk and elsewhere.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As much as you clearly endeavor to be "friendly" in your interactions as a new-ish user on WP with other users, your leaving indirect slams on my editing and character to others you're being "friendly" to might go unobjectionable by them, but it certainly doesn't by me -- the target of your negative innuendos. Please stop that behavior now. (And also read WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, as part of that may apply as well.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are not in my shoes, and you were not the editor referred to by Marchjuly as editing counter "the Wikipedia way". If you wanna encourage and support Marchjuly in those kinds of comments, I would suggest to you that's pretty poor encouragement and advice. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already apologized to you for the comments I made and have struck them out. I also apologized to and others on WP:RD/L if my choice of words was confusing or misleading. I was never my intent to do either. I believe Amble's posts on my talk page were in good faith and just meant as encouragement; I don't feel they were meant as an attack against others. I am, however, unable to speak for Amble so if you wish to hear directly from them then maybe it would be better to post something on their talk page instead.
 * Some of my comments were inappropriate. I recognize and accept that and have tried to make amends in good faith. However, I also think it is inappropriate for a user to edit the comments or questions posted by another on a talk page, or general question page such as WP:RD/L, especially when it explicitly says Don't edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice. at the top of the page. If there is a grammar error or typo that needs to be corrected, or if the question is misleading or inappropriate for such a page, then this can be pointed out in a reply or on the relevant talk page. A diff could also be used to illustrate any error. This gives the original poster the opportunity to acknowledge and correct their mistake or strike out any offending parts themselves and for others to also provide comments. Directly editing (even if it means improving) the signed posts of others and then using the edit summaries to vent against said person seems to assume that original poster was acting in bad faith (e.g., vandalizing the page) and would be unwilling to make any attempt to make amends. Such an action, at least to me, also seems to be something that is not considered acceptable behavior.
 * My understanding of WP:OWNTALK is that I am free, with certain exceptions, to clean up my talk page as I see fit, and this includes removing the posts of others. Suggestions and comments from other users are most welcome here. However, I don't consider other users, even those who are more experienced or who have higher post counts than myself, to be my teacher. If another user wishes to provide constructive criticism in a positive manner, then it will be graciously accepted. On the other hand, if they choose to lecture, demand, admonish, accuse, or make implied threats against either myself or others posting here, then I will be less inclined to be as welcoming. It has been my experience that nothing fruitful at all typically comes from discussions of that nature. In fact, such an approach often ends up exacerbating the situation more than it ends up improving it. Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You're really off-base for suggesting and stating that I edited your comments. I did not. I made minor corrections to a couple of the "Original" and "Edited" versions of sentences that you listed in that thread. (Your quotations of those sentences were, by the quotation inaccuracies, giving an untrue picture of my editing work, which was the topic of that thread. I could have crossed out those minor errors, and indeed that is no doubt "best practice". But I could see no reason why any reasonable person would object to my correcting minor quotation errors, that reflected sentences I edited and how I edited them; and, unnecessary cross-outs create a more-difficult-to-read mess.) You have gone on-and-on lecturing me about it, and even complaining to another editor whether I violated a WP policy and asking what you should do about it. That seems unreasonable and unnecessary to me ("legalistic" -- for no reasonable reason except to complain). What would have been more appropriate would have been if you thanked me for correcting those minor quotation errors, because WP:AGF, they were honest errors, and you didn't mean anything by them. Instead, you lambast me and attempt to make it a serious issue. Last, if editors make comments about me at any locations whatever, that affect or reflect on me badly, guess what? I will respond. I have no interest to appear on your user Talk short of that, and also, what's further, no interest in collaborating with you as WP editor, based on your proven behavior of going to sundry Project pages to nit-pick minor edits of mine, and mischaracterize me every which way as you did at the Teahouse. You obviously consider yourself extremely polite (as you have reminded many editors where ever you go); I consider your behaviors unethical and rude. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso:  I am not trying to engage in a smear campaign against you and I am not trying to encourage others to do so on my behalf. Once again, I sincerely apologize that some of comments I made offended you. The questions I posted on RD/L were nothing more than an attempt to hear what other's had to say about grammar rule that I was not aware of. I really wasn't trying to pick apart your edits or mislead other's into thinking you are a bad editor. I apologize if that's how it came off. I didn't see it as being wrong at the time. I tried to keep the wording as neutral as possible and felt (I now know wrongly) that it would be safe to use the specific sentences (not all, but only some) as examples as long as I didn't refer to anybody by name. I had no idea that Malleus was an actual Wikiuser. I thought it was the name of a book or something. If I made any mistake (typos or otherwise) in the wording of the example sentences I used, then they were honest mistakes. I would've have gladly gone back and re-edited them once those mistakes had been noticed by either myself or someone else. Whether it was appropriate for you to edit (correct) parts of my question, I don't know. On one hand such a thing seems to be highly discouraged on Wikipedia, but I am not claiming to know all. Regarding the post on the Teahouse, again I was just looking for possible answers to what I perceived at the time to be a problem. Please try and understand that was my first experience interacting with another editor about such matters. It seemed to me that the discussion was going nowhere, so I just went to the Teahouse looking for advice. I honestly felt that you were lecturing me, not just on grammar, but also on the the words "move", "turn" or "move turn" and there appropriateness for the article. It was that last part, not the grammar questions, that I felt was worth continuing on the shogi talk page. Moreover, I didn't know how to say that without repeating myself, so I felt stuck and just was looking for a possible way out. Again, I tried to keep the wording as neutral as possible and didn't realize I was being offensive. I wasn't trying to use either the Teahouse or RD/L to wage some covert war against you. I am truly sorry if that's the impression I gave you. It was bad faith on my part to assume that you were intentionally trying to stifle discussion and it was wrong to post stuff that gave others the impression that you were. I think that you have done great things improving the shogi page. I have already said so on shogi talk. There are some things that you do that I have questions about, but you are making edits at such a fast pace, often going back and re-editing things you change within a few minutes, that I am not sure if it's appropriate to try and change anything until the dust has settled. It is really unfortunate that my mistakes, newbie mistakes or not, have made you feel that we can no longer work together to try and improve the shogi page. I really didn't come to Wikipedia to make enemies. I hope you will consider my apologies to be sincere, accept the olive branch I am offering, allow me to learn from my mistakes and put this all in the past. I am learning new things each time I log in and sometimes my mistakes will be pretty bad. It was never my intent to be unethical or rude and I feel really bad if that's the impression I gave you. Peace? Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Had u simply asked me "Who is the 'Malleus' in your editsum?" I would have kindly answered you "Oh, he's one of the most respected and prolific content contributors on the site, with several FAs (Features articles) under his belt. And here's what he said about use of 'However,' ..." etc. But you didn't do that, and as a result of what you did do, Malleus was pinged, his time and attention was wasted, and he even endured a bit of unnecessary mockery at the Language board, and got his comments hatted as "bickering". Another result was that because of Malleus being drawn to that board to respond, I felt embarrassed by the lowly copyedit samples you cared to display there, ... so that accounts for my participation on that board, else, I probably wouldn't have participated in any aspect of the thread there. And then you saw the rest and how it unfolded. All of this triggered by your inability to simply ask me in good faith: "Who is Malleus?" whereupon I most certainly and happily would have explained who he was. I've seen you go rushing to other boards as well like Teahouse asking for Cullen's assist presumably against me ... all these reasons make me not trust your maturity as WP editor, so, until you gain that experience and editorship maturity, no olive branches will find root. For your consider. Take care & good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)