User talk:Seresin/Archive 33

Apologies
Please note the thread title. My time to be on the internet was running short yesterday when the following happened, so I'm making this the first thing I do upon reaching Wikipedia today.

An edit to a certain page was reported on my watchlist. As I found it dubious I checked it out. Once determining what was wrong with it and fixing it, I noticed something else while in Preview mode. Published material relevant to the topic of that article had appeared in a magazine that at that time was on a bi-monthly frequency, and the issue's cover date consequently spanned two months. Between those two months was an em dash, which was blatantly too wide. I replaced it with a keyed dash (hyphen), looked at it in Preview, and said to myself, "That's too narrow." I replaced it with a dash from the insert/markup box (en dash), and in Preview it looked much better. Now this was a matter of direct comparison, but seeing in the first place that the hyphen was not wide enough was not. After saving with the en dash, I used the link in the original thread here to re-examine that part of the MOS, and to my shock noticed an example that was indeed quite analogous to Hanna–Barbera (for that oversight, an unequivocal and extremely humble apology). Between that and my own experience that the two marks are not 100% indistinguishable when read within running text, my position (that they were one mark with two different names assigned to two sets of usages) is less than valid, and I firmly withdraw it, with apologies for the errors I did make. We are still left with the facts that they are absolutely identical in the edit field, that there are quite a few places where they cannot be done (as Wikipedia rather lamely admits here), your initially given ground for the move of nothing at all more than making the title match the text (which could be just as feasibly accomplished by changing the text) being less than valid, your reluctance to get specific and clear about either, your misrepresentations of Navpopups, and your name-calling. All of this would make anyone resistant to your position(s). But, as I've said, "en dash rather than hyphen" is essentially the correct position. What I would like to do is move the article to having "[ampersand]ndash[semicolon]" instead of the markup box's mark (which must have identical results), and see if that leaves the navpopups functioning. If not, I'll move it back (so you'll know it didn't) and look for the appropriate tech help page. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! The system did not recognize the "coder" as a separate title from the actual mark. Tech help here I come! --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Chuffed it's resolved. ÷seresin 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I found a long, long-standing and unresolved thread about this problem at Wikipedia talk:Tools/Navigation popups and added my two cents. Hope springs eternal. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:ItsLassieTime
I see you posted a notification on that user's talk page. I wonder if you know that user is permanently banned, as of about a year ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you noticed the edit was performed via Twinkle, which notifies uploaders automatically when it is used to nominate files for deletion. ÷seresin 21:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, except that notifying someone who can't do anything about it is pretty much fruitless. In short, you might as well delete it immediately. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky's pattern and practice of aggressively hostile behavior
I mentioned you by name, here.

You once wrote that "Despite several warnings, [Camelblinky has] continued to make personal attacks and aggressively disparage other editors, most recently here. This is not acceptable; Wikipedia is an endeavor run by a community. Actions which poison the atmosphere are not permitted. [...] do not repeat this behavior."

He is repeating the behavior, poisoning the atmosphere at Talk:Schenectady_City_School_District.

An ally -- who couldn't get consensus for inclusion of external links -- summoned him, even though he had never discussed or edited the article.

Not one of his four edits on the talk page is the article issue. He opted instead to only to write about his ally's opponents to them, threaten them, and stealthily collude off in corners about how to take us to ANI -- despite never having discussed any of his issues on either of our talk pages.

He already scared off one editor.

Before this angry mastodon abuses ANI, I'd appreciate your view.

I was going to ignore it, until I saw that they'd decided to abuse ANI. -- Rico  19:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Inserting commentary directly into another's post can be a problem, so your removal wasn't necessarily a problem. You should have moved the comments to after your post, though, rather than deleting them entirely. It was poor form, but it's not much to get worked up about. As best I can tell, my opinion on that is all you're asking for?
 * WRT Camelblinky, I've seen him continuing his hostility elsewhere since I blocked him, but nothing actionable. If he's been unduly hostile or rude, give me a diff and I'll take it to get an uninvolved administrator's opinion if it's problematic enough. ÷seresin 21:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Camelbinky brought it to ANI, despite never having discussed any of his issues on my talk page.
 * Wikipedia ia a battle ground for some. -- Rico  23:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mono
said something at his talkpage. Thanks, m o n o National Pretzel Day 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)