User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2019/February

Merging deleting or moving pages
I agree with what user:Dekimasu and user:Swanny18 have told you. If you contribute to a conversation on a talk page where you have previously contributed under another name then, as the two user names are not obviously similar, you should disclose this (as you are not claiming this change is a "fresh start").

We have exchanged comments on proposed template mergers, some of which, you had, less than a year ago, proposed previously. With my administrators hat on, I suggest that if you propose a "merger", "delete" or "move" of any page in any namespace—other than your user area—and there has not been an intervining request by another user, then you ought to mention that you made the previous request under a differnt name (this is because it breaks the spirit if not the letter of the bullet point "*Creating an illusion of support: Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists." in Sock puppetry and could be seen as "gaming the system"). -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I told you, I mistakingly didn't realise that I had made the proposal of that template before back in time. As soon as I realised that, I informed about the situation, as you can see. Unfortunately, I recall I even made the same mistake when I had the same username of repeating another proposal once with a template within too short a time. So even that I can occur, mistakingly, with the same username. Unfortunately, mistakes happen. Sorry about the inconvenience. PPEMES (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that, this having proven to be an issue several times now, one of the following should take place: you should either 1) always check to see whether you have proposed the same change previously, to avoid mistakes–that is, be willing to take responsibility if subsequent mistakes occur; or 2) since this is not a fresh start, add a note to your signature indicating that you were formerly Chicbyaccident: e.g. PPEMES formerly Chicbyaccident (talk). The second option could be removed eventually and would be considerably less work for you. Dekimasu よ! 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith, but to my knowledge you have proposed merge for three family tree templates all of which you proposed last year. Not one of which you initally disclosed that you had previously proposed. You have now made a statement on one of them, but not the other two. To misquote Oscar Wilde in the The Importance of Being Earnest to forget one requested merge is a misfortune to forget three is careless. What is your explanation for not adding the disclamer you added S-fam for the two entries on the 22 Jan? -- PBS (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you implying these two were proposed by me previously as well? If so, this equally slipped my mind. While I may be mistaken, I did check and couldn't find it at history? Anyway, the reason for the repeated merge request is as part of an unpreceded whole picture standardisation effort in accordance with goal stated on WikiProject_Genealogy. You could argue against too shirt time since last request, but at least now all templates except Template:Ahnentafel - which clearly is the majorly used one - are finally being discussed categorically in accordance with that goal. On a side note, when mistakes are being done by a user - even multiple ones - you are free to approach to condemn and accuse. However, please feel free also to consider approaching in a helpful manner. PPEMES (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I provided links to the previous template requests in the current requests -- but see Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 24. In the case of Template:3gen it is now a redirect to Template:Ahnentafel-chart, so possibly that can be excused but that does not explain the lack of posting to the current discussion, but what about Template:Ahnentafel-tree?

You write. Are you stating that they were not "discussed categorically" last year. If you interest in the tempates is so shallow that you can not remember discussing the less than a year ago why are you bothering to start another converstaion over them? Also where is the discussion on the relevant talk page that initatied the "goal"?

Copied from the his biography:
 * J. B. S. Haldane is famous for the (possibly apocryphal) response that he gave when some theologians asked him what could be inferred about the mind of the Creator from the works of His Creation: "An inordinate fondness for beetles.

You seem to have an inordinate fondness of posting to the namespace "Wikpedia:" you have made 500 edits to the namespace Wikipedia since July 2018 most of them to "categories for discussion", "categories for discussion/speedy" and "templates for discussion" (Filterd list of your edits).

Given that you make so many requests to those three "discussion" pages, it is not supprising you can not remember the previous requests you have made. In most cases you have made edits to "templates for discussion" and the other forums, letting the editor default to the section header. When you create a new request as often as not this automatic processes does not record the name of the template/category you wish to discuss.

In future if you wish people to assume good faith you must include in the edit history the name of the the template or category you wish to discuss so that you can easily search your history for previouse edits to the same category/template. After my mentioning it here you can point to that change as an act of good faith if any other editor questions it.

To fix the problem created by this lack of full disclosure before today, I suggest that you look through your edit history back to the start of 2018 and make a list for you own use of all the discussions you have initiated: with the name of the template/category, date and a link to the discussion, for you own reference. It will take you a some time to do this and, if you are like most people, you will not want to do it. However by doing so you will be able to check quickly if you have previously initiated a discussion over a template/category and point to the lis as an act of good faith.

-- PBS (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I made a suggestion, above, which I had intended to be helpful. It doesn't look like you've instituted #2 yet. Have you decided to opt for #1, being willing to always check for previous discussions to avoid mistakes? Dekimasu よ! 21:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Been away. I'll continue to check, but I hope any previous active discussion should be depricated by now. Please excuse any inconvenience. PPEMES (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Active discussions, yes. But you sometimes restart conversations on older proposals, so please do take responsibility for checking. Dekimasu よ! 17:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry for that mistake in batch. I'll check and try not to. PPEMES (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)