User talk:IJBall/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:IJBall, for the period January to June 2015. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

this is the official website of cta http://www.transitchicago.com/riding_cta/service_overview.aspx Jasstew January 17, 2015‎

Hello, system and check the links are totally different there's a track length of 224.1 mi.² for the Chicago CTA and is the second largest transit system in the nation please refer to your own sources and you will see! If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me or to do further research Jasstew February 15, 2015‎

Hi. I put a draft together, and I'd like to get your opinion on it before I go further with it. It's on my sandbox. Also, I'm not sure what the next step is, should I post it on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? Please give any feedback on my sandbox talk page, that way I can keep all the discussions in one place. Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly where is this consensus for the massive alterations to flags in articles? Chillum 21:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I found it on my own: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. It would help to mention that link in your edit summary. Chillum 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

From the discussions I saw at various locations (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons was one), there were about a half a dozen editors from the Canadian city articles (though most may have been from Edmonton, I don't know...) who opposed the use of flag icons, and only two that supported them. The bigger issue to me is the inconsistency at Canada city articles where, as of approx. a month ago, many had them, and many did not – as of now, Edmonton and a few others still don't have them. My suggestion is that this should get hashed out, once and for all, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian communities so that a consensus solution is applied across all Canadian city articles, regardless of the outcome reached.

Regardless, though, fights like these will continue thanks to the utter wretcheness of the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG policy which thanks to opposition to reforming it should now instead just be utterly eliminated, as it is a worthless guideline/policy in its present form IMO. --IJBall (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the need for consistency and know just how contentious finding a single way of doing something can be. Good luck. Chillum 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Having done a 3RR since two hours is still doing a 3RR! Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have. I, OTOH, did one edit (to restore the previous pre-January 30 consensus at Kitchener, Ontario), and one revert (which is not in the same ballpark as your 3RR). Regardless, you have already gotten blocked once for behavior like this. It would behoove you to dial it down before if gets you in to trouble. Consider this my last bit of constructive advice on this topic to you. --IJBall (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I advise you both equally to head warnings of edit warring violation. I am personally involved in the content dispute to some degree and will not be taking any action. However another admin will not hesitate to block either of you if this continues. I am leaving this message on both of your talk pages. Chillum 22:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm done on this, don't worry. --IJBall (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It may seem unusual of course to call the pictures I put up as "Placard View", but take note: The pictures were not meant to show anything based of the platform. The pictures main point is the placard. As a result, naming them as "Platform View" may seem compatible, but if you take a look into Gold Line sections of Pico/Aliso Station and the region from Atlantic Station to Maravilla Station, the signs I put them up as (which is the ONLY sign they actually have) is not Platform View; they are signs standing out of a pole located in a reachable distance; they are nothing to do with the platform. But putting this as an issue, if we do not uniformly name the main placard images the same for all the stations, there would be issues of disorganization (even if you may disagree, I'd agree). As a user, I believe uniformity is a must for metro station pages. Naming them all as platform view wouldn't be correct because certain sections clearly has placard images only. If we name "Placard View" for all the LA Metro pages instead, it would work because all the images would signify what it actually represent of: Placards, not platforms. Therefore, I believe the word "Platform View" is illegitimate. I strongly recommend to revert the names back, or rename the station images with a legit name such as "Placard Sign of the Station". HanSangYoon (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Two things – first, Secondarywaltz is correct: these aren't called "placards"; second, my advice would be to make all of the Infobox images uniform across all of the L.A. Metro station articles so that they all are actually "platform views" (that include the station's signage) images. But the point remains: "Placard view" is an incorrect caption for these images, as the station signs aren't called "placards". --IJBall (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You have ignored my point completely. I repeat my stance that platform view is an illegitamate way to describe these photos. SecondaryWaltz is actually (and for now, I'll add that's its my opinion) that it is false. What does placard mean? "A sign of notice, as one posted Ina public place OR carried by a demonstrater or picketer." (YBM SISA Dictionary). Now what does a platform mean? "A horizontal surface, or a structure of a horizontal surface squally raised above the level of a surrounding area." (YBM SISA Dictionary) Then you add this fact: What was the point of the pictures with the placards in the middle? Placards, not platforms. Therefore, I hereby say Platform View is the wrong way to describe these photos. It's logic. HanSangYoon (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that Wikipedia is governed by Consensus, and you now have two editors that disagree with your interpretation. You can continue ignore what we're saying, and continue to go down the path your on, but I don't think it'll go well for you.

On my end, I reiterate that my preference would be for these Infobox station images for the L.A. Metro station articles to all be platform views that include the station signage in the images. --IJBall (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So you think that going in a favorable reason is superior to a reasonable and a logical reason...that really questions me of how you edit these Wikipedia articles by going with favorism. It does not matter if you personally like it or not. It does not matter if pluralistic forms of people like it or not. What matters is rules. What matters is logic. In Wikipedia, nothing goes by favorism, particularly an article in public exhibition. If you believe there is reason that could properly counter my logic of the definition of placards and platforms, go ahead and write it out. But it seems you don't have one. I will wait for a reasonable response, and if it fails, I will revert the edits all as a defense to logical terms of placard views. If this issue severes, I do not care if this is going to get any worse for you or me, but I am willing to take this to the next level by bringing in officials of Wikipedia. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. My discussions with you on this are done. --IJBall (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Due to circumstances that you are aware of I can't help fix the problems with Template:Busan Subway Line 1, that HanSangYoon recently created. Since you have an interest in rapid transit, I thought you might have a look at it. I understand if you would no touch it either. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

First, an admission: I'm "OK" with templates (I can usually "fiddle" with them...), but I'm certainly no expert! – so it's possible I won't know "how" to do what you need. But, with that said - what exactly is wrong with the Busan Line template, and what needs to be done (I'm pretty sure I know...) to fix it? With your instructions, I can try to fix it!... --IJBall (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK I will leave this alone. I don't want to muddy the waters. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I have removed the route map in question from Busan Metro Line 1 as it was taking up too much of the page's area. --IJBall (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is my revision any better? Useddenim (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue with this one is that it's just so big that it dominates the article. And I'm not sure there's any "fix" for that... --IJBall (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: Ah – defaulting that to the "collapsed" version is much better. That helps a lot!! --IJBall (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Swarm ^X 21:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Closure looks fine to me from one non-admin closer to another. Amortias (T)(C) 22:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! I appreciate the comforting note! --IJBall (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for keeping the info box up to date. Please when there is a small change to a legislature don't hide the diagram right away but contact the person who made it or the last person who edited it so they can make a new one and wait a few days before hiding it. It is impossible to keep track of 99 different pages and these diagrams and it is easier to tweak the file than have to make manual edits and then look up the right data and then enter it all over again in the info box. You can also update the diagram yourself using this tool if you are interested. Thanks Shabidoo | Talk 05:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Which article is this in reference to? I remember hiding one or two of those, but I thought I quickly unhid them... But, then again, at one of the state legislature pages, I did see one of those was just plain incorrect, so I think I did hide that one as comment code. Good point about contacting the author... I probably should have done that, but I think I didn't think of it. --IJBall (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no policy or even rough guideline so what you did was totally correct. It's just if there is only one or two seat changes (often a vacancy) it's not imperative that it is immediately hidden and those who upload the diagrams aren't able to constantly monitor all changes so a contact certainly helps. Cheers! Shabidoo | Talk 05:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My recollection is that the one I hid wasn't just missing a vacancy or something – IIRC, it actually had the wrong total number of seats of that state legislature!! But this must have happened a month or two back, and I'm having trouble remembering exactly which article it was, so I can't be sure of the details. I'll keep looking though, to figure out exactly what I did (and why...). --IJBall (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Found it!! (diff) It was at the Missouri House of Representatives article, and the problem was that the diagram listed "161 seats" when there are actually 163 seats in the Missouri House. I will remember to look for the author (in this case, you!) next time, and contact them directly if I find something like this again! Sorry about that! And thanks for contacting me! --IJBall (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. That is a very big error and it definitely should have been hidden. Thanks for catching that! Shabidoo | Talk 05:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As the last participant in the Category:Level crossing accidents in the United States CFD, I suggested that it be renamed to Category:Railroad crossing accidents in the United States instead of the proposed Category:Grade crossing accidents in the United States. An admin closed the proposal as "move to Grade crossing...", but he also noted that another CFD regarding my proposal would be a valid option, so I've nominated Grade crossing accidents in the USA for renaming to Railroad crossing accidents in the USA. Please visit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 5 and offer your opinion, if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for this. I didn't know if I would have been allowed to perform that task (and I don't know the shortcuts/templates anyway) for two reasons, one was that I am not an admin but I believe you have cleared this up and I now know that non-admins can close discussions; the other thing was that I was party to the discussion and still technically in line to be questioned. Not to worry, all water off a duck's back now! --!BSGT! (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

!BSGT! – yes, in general, it is considered "bad form" to close topics you've started or have significantly commented on. But you can certainly request that other editors close for such topics for you, and even non-Admin editors would certainly be willing to comply with that request most of the time! --IJBall (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you have good informed opinions on how we should cover rapid transit. Can I ask you to take a look at this comment of mine? [1]

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I'm not sure I can offer much help on this – I think my preference would be to defer to editors who are more familiar with the Toronto system (like Secondarywaltz) and their suggestions for improving that article. My one comment would be that I definitely think two articles may be in order here: one article for the current Scarborough RT, and (a spinoff?) article for the planned extension of the Toronto Subway that is the planned replacement for it. But I don't think I can't offer much help on your other suggestions there. --IJBall (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your prompt reply. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly why you added my signature here? I did not close that thread. User:TheMagikCow did. Please be more careful in future. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Luke, I apologize – I checked the page history, and I could have sworn that I thought you closed that one when I checked (I must have looked at the wrong diff). Please feel free to make whatever changes there are necessary. --IJBall (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I did close a similar thread lower down - but it was definitely a different one. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for fixing that. I guess the moral of the story is that all of us need to make sure that we include our signatures when we close these threads down, so there's no confusion! --IJBall (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I've left a message on TheMagikCow's Talk page about this, in case TheMagikCow wants to follow up on this on their end. Again, sorry about this!! --IJBall (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

...working with you. Cheers, and enjoy exploring the Archive and its possibilities!  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And a big "Thank you!" to you too, Mr.choppers! (And I did check the Archive for that Buick China page, but I thought that I found no archive entries for it! Oh well...) --IJBall (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It was weird - I had the same situation, but then I tried a different path and one appeared. Some kind of glitch, methinks. Once I went to one of the bad (2014) pages, other dates which had hitherto been unavailable we're shown in the little grid display at the top of the page. Cheers again,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I wish to contest the edits, but at the same time I don't want to go against Wikipedia policy should that be the case; following that track of thought, I was curious if you knew where such a discussion could be held about possible revisions to the policy, as for me nothing comes to mind other than possibly putting out a call for people to congregate on the talk page of one of the election articles randomly. --Ariostos (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ariostos, this is a really good question. There are a couple of ways to have a discussion about this. One approach would be to, as you say, pick the U.S. House elections article that's the first one that had the edits you're interested in, go to that Talk page, and then leave Talk page notice messages at the Talk pages of some of the people who should probably be involved in this discussion (off the top of my head, I'd suggest at least the following: GoldRingChip, Deturtlemon1, Themane2, and anyone else who you can think of who is relevant) and letting them know that this discussion is happening at "U.S. House elections XXXX" Talk page. The other approach would be to go the "WikiProject" route – e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress (there's no WikiProject for U.S. Elections, unfortunately...), and post your message there (while still leaving Talk page notices with the same people I mentioned above).

On my end, I have two concerns on this issue: 1) I feel like including the "seats_before" in the Infobox is throwing too much information at people in the Infobox, and I feel that the "election" numbers and "seats_before" numbers would go better in table form (and perhaps better at the corresponding "Congress" article – e.g. 42nd United States Congress – than at the actual election pages (and, indeed, it looks like such information is often already contained at these XXxx United States Congress articles)); and, 2) sourcing is going to be needed for these "seats_before" figures, and sourcing all of these figures could end up being a real chore... But, in any case, it's certainly worth it to try and encourage a discussion on this issue, so please feel free to start one! --IJBall (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you close my thread on ANI? just because i was blocked doesnt mean the issues disappear. Zekenyan (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Because the immediate issue was resolved. If you feel it is not, you are free to open a new report at ANI. --IJBall (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Im still having issues with those same editors. Can you confirm here [2] that they are indeed avoiding reliable sources before I open an ANI again. Zekenyan (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

By all means open another ANI but it still won't do you any good. If not, then why were you blocked? By the way, kindly stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING as you're only wasting people's time. AcidSnow (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I recommend using only light colors in political party shading templates. Otherwise, the readability of black text and bluelink text is affected, as can be seen for example at List of Governors of North Dakota. — Phleg1 (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah – looks like I should try a lighter blue there. (I was thinking about this yesterday...) I'll try that. --IJBall (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think the new "blue" will work better. --IJBall (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think you have a slight misunderstanding about dates and especially {{use dmy dates}}. Per WP:DATERET as you linked: If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. The article has evolved using dmy format, not ISO 8601 format. That is indicated by the template: Use of this template is part of a continuing effort to monitor the date formats used in articles, to assist in maintaining consistent formatting within an article. and In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body.

As for updating the tag date. I have begun updating the dates using a semi-automated script, as it states: After being tagged, and bearing in mind article evolution, periodic script or bot runs clean up formats, correcting any new introductions since its last visit, and updating the visit date on the {{Use dmy dates}} template. I'm assuming you just didn't realize this when you decided to revert my edits, and I'm hoping you now understand the usage. Jerodlycett (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

One, I totally disagree with whatever the script doc states – I can't think of one good reason to change 'Use xxx dates' tags from their original insertion dates (and am going to hold to that view until someone can come up with a compelling rationale for changing them to me...).

Second, please read the very documentation that goes along with {{Use dmy dates}} – to whit:

In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. However, it is common practice for archive and access dates to use the alternative ymd format. This usage is valid and is specifically mentioned at MOSDATE. In those cases, the archive and access date formats should not be altered when fixing dates. (emphasis mine)

IOW, while the ref date parameters in references should match the date style the article uses, the accessdate parameters do not have to. This is made clear from any reading of MOS:DATE and MOS:DATEUNIFY. So, please do not change accessdates from ISO format if an article has evolved to that style, even if there is a {{Use dmy dates}}, etc. tag. Thank you. --IJBall (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please also note that the {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use mdy dates}} templates are capitalized in their first letters. --IJBall (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave the ISO dates alone for you, although it does no harm to change them, however I am going to update the date, per the template's documentation. Jerodlycett (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't change that, as that would just be contentious, but I really disagree with it (and will continue to oppose changing them at other articles) – changing the date on that make it look like somebody just added the {{Use dmy dates}}, when in reality it was added five years ago(!), and so the desire for for 'dmy' dates is far older than the now "April 2015" date will make it appear. Again, someone is going to need to explain to me why changing the dates on these 'Use xxx dates' tags is a "good" or "proper" thing... --IJBall (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't agree with the idea that it "does no harm" to change away from ISO dates for the accessdate parameter, as I outlined in earlier discussion... --IJBall (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not meant to be when the template was added, it's meant to be the date they were last checked for conformity. I'd suggest going to the two template's talk page and bringing up a change in the parameter name. I'd support that if it'd help clarify. Jerodlycett (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bugging me enough that I think I am going to follow-up on this – I just can't figure out if I should do it at the template's Talk page, or the Template's documentation's Talk page! --IJBall (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue with the documentation. The date on the templates are used like the class and importance parameters on the WikiProject templates, to categorize. Basically {{use dmy dates|date=January 2001}} indicates that no one has checked to ensure the date format is correct on the page since January 2001, and even puts it in a category as such. If it was {{use dmy dates|last-checked=January 2001}} I think it'd be clearer as to the purpose. Jerodlycett (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Might as well link to that discussion, while I'm thinking of it: Template talk:Use dmy dates#Template's documentation concern... --IJBall (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've looked at the image and it would be rather difficult to update because I don't have the original file (the adobe illustrator file or whatever program was used). The text overlaps lines so it would be rather difficult. Perhaps there is a way to ask the original user how to get the original file...even through they are blocked. Any ideas? Shabidoo | Talk 05:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I can try contacting the original author – but considering that editor is indef'ed, I'm guessing they won't have much interest in helping out. I may give it a shot, anyway, if I get the chance... Thanks for looking in to it, though! --IJBall (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is really with the fonts and the face that the words overlay the lines. It will take a bit of precise work to fix it. The other option is to make a new one from scratch. If you can't get ahold of them I can make a new one in the next couple of weeks. Shabidoo | Talk 08:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on North Head, New Zealand. I've been following the discussion and made an attempt to fix the POV on the article but no doubt still has problems. 101.98.221.59 (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have important comment for Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Manipulated and mystified sources: Passando made correct action because the problem is regarding invented sources! I know those books and no historian claims 'economic boom' and political success of Broz Tito but the citated historians, in article's introduction, criticized dictator very much: in actual version there are sources which are fakes! May you reopen the case? I can alert other users who know this matter! This is an old persistent case: read here, section [Incipient edit war at Josip Broz Tito]Teo Pitta (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. Your options are either WP:ORN or WP:DR. But WP:ANI just isn't the correct forum for this. --IJBall (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you've moved the University Link Extension page to University Link extension, citing WP:AT. According to Sound Transit, the official name of the project is the "University Link Extension", and thus your move should be reverted. SounderBruce 16:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That's one webpage, and I think it's a stylistic choice on the part of Sound Transit for the webpage's title, not actually an indication of it being a "proper name". Nowhere else when I looked did I see the project referred to as "University Link Extension" in that way ("University Link" is always capitalized, but the Fact Sheet for instance does not refer to it as "University Link Extension"). It would be highly unusual to capitalize the word "extension" on a project such as this one. Unless someone can produce more sourcing to justify capitalization, it should be left where it is now, IMHO... --IJBall (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: Also, as a technical matter, I'm not sure I could revert that move now even if I wanted to. My suggestion if you're really opposed to this would be to go to a formal Move request on the Talk page, and see what others editors think... --IJBall (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've requested the move on the talk page, citing some sources from other agencies (FTA, Metro, Seattle DOT) that all use the capitalized "extension". This would require a technical move (from an admin) since it is overwriting a redirect. SounderBruce 21:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Now the articles themselves could use some a good clean-up. {{Istanbul mass transit color}} should also be checked; and your input would be welcomed at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 22#Template:Istanbul Metro M1 route diagram. Useddenim (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up the Korail source you just posted on the Seoul Metro page doesn't work. Terramorphous (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't add that one (I think Massyparcer did...) – I just moved it from elsewhere in the article. I'll go ahead and mark it with a 'dead link' tag, though... --IJBall (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh didn't see that. Have a nice day then.Terramorphous (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I hope you are well. Given your involvement and knowledge, what do you think of this? (Not really acceptable, I think.) And, just in case, what do you think of this? (Not preferred, but may serve as a bridge; feel free to edit.) Let me know. Craftwerker (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What I think is that, 1) Mattximus has been repeatedly shown on the Talk page of Rapid transit in Canada that light rail is not included in rapid transit (by definition), as indicated in multiple references that he has been shown there (and, in the past, elsewhere), and that 2) his edits are basically against consensus as multiple other editors have indicated that they have problems with his approach. This is basically evolving into a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If he reverts again, please let me know, as as third revert from you could be considered to be edit warring.

As for your draft, again, I wouldn't even approve of that approach for the current article because "light rail" isn't "rapid transit". As was said on the Rapid transit in Canada Talk page, if people want to include light rail systems, then that page should simply be moved to something line Urban rail transit in Canada instead (which is perfectly fine alternative approach to this, but which hasn't been pursued after I suggested it). --IJBall (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and will do -- I generally agree with you. I added the second paragraph in that draft to address the issue of 'LRT,' since there does seem to be background about the ambiguity. I have since tweaked some of the BRT stats and refs there, but have made no other significant edits. I will get around to creating a relevant article when the opportunity presents ... and perhaps use text from my draft for it. :x Craftwerker (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my revert. I had just left a note at BMK's talk page. Jusdafax 22:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool – I figured it was probably an accidental revert. I've done those too!! --IJBall (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, I am writing in response to the reverted edit. I can see how the incident where police officers were shot at during protests can fit where it was previously. However, I believe it is best to place it under related incidents. Since many of the other related incidents are within the time frame of the aftermath (i.e Lawsuit against police and local governments, and the Dan page incident.) of the killing of Michael Brown as opposed to months after the initial incident. It is not a part of the timeline, but a separated and related incident. Let me know what you think Engl1105 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC))

First, I just want to make clear that my edit was done as a "Pending changes reviewer" – I am certainly not a regular editor at Ferguson unrest. My revert was simply based on the fact that your addition was substantially redundant to text already contained in the article. As to your suggestion that that portion be its own section, I have no opinion on that – my suggestion would be to post your position on this on the article's Talk page, and discuss it with the other editors there. --IJBall (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I made the change for a reason, AQI and ISI were two different organizations; and both should be recognized for their separate roles on the infobox. Please stop reverting it. 97.96.33.181 (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

One, your edit is unsourced, thus failing WP:V. Two, you're coming dangerously close to Edit warring. I'm not going to revert your edit again. But you are strongly advised to not revert another time if someone else reverts your edit, or you'll be guilty of edit warring, and could be blocked for it. --IJBall (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The source says pt:Veículo leve sobre trilhos, which is light rail. Wikipédia in Portuguese says light rail. I can point here, if you want, local sources citing the system as light rail. You can, per WP:POV, add that the system is not exactly a light rail based on the usual definition, but you cannot put this above the sources. Nakinn (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the main issue here is that there's a difference between "light rail vehicles (LRVs)", which are the vehicles themselves (obviously), and "light rail" which is used to describe the entire system all together. And that's important here because the operator uses "VLT" (i.e. LRV) specifically in reference to the vehicles used on the Cariri Metro – e.g. Material Rodante: 02 composições tipo VLT com 2 carros (translation: Rolling Stock: 02 LRV type compositions with 2 cars) (here). (And note that the lede does specifically mention the system's use of "light rail vehicles (LRVs)"...)

The biggest strikes against calling the entire Cariri Metro system "light rail" are the fact that it uses diesel vehicles (nearly all true "light rail" systems are run off electric overhead lines – a look at the light rail article should confirm that), and the fact that the frequencies are only 40 minutes on weekdays (and the incredibly infrequent hour-and-a-half on weekends!) – true light rail systems generally have frequencies of at least 20 minutes or higher). So, the use of diesel vehicles, the low train frequencies, and the relatively small number of stations on this line (which means stations are relatively far apart), all point in the direction of this being effectively a commuter rail line rather than a light rail one.

All that said, I will note that this use of the term "VLT" seems to be a recurring issue with some of the Brazillian systems. I've seen the same issue arise with the Maceió Urban Rail system where there is so much confusion about whether this system is "commuter rail" or "light rail" that there was for a time two separate articles on Portuguese Wikipedia (e.g. pt:Superintendência de Trens Urbanos de Maceió and an article that used to be VLT de Maceió, if I recall correctly) about what is almost certainly the exact same system! In other words, what they seem to call "light rail (VLT)" in Brazil would almost certainly be categorized as "commuter rail" (or, at least, "not light rail") elsewhere in the world. --IJBall (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You know very well light rails and commuter rails. However, I can assure you that virtually all sources in Brazil points this system as light rail (Wikipedia is all about WP:VER, right?) As I said, you can add that the system does not match all/some of the usual/international standards of "light rail" (although theres no confirmation in light rail about the "diesel thing", for example: "However, some diesel-powered transit is designated light rail"). Maybe you're right, but in the country were this kind of system exists, it is considered light rail. This should be noted in the article. I will edit again, with sources about the VLT as a system. Nakinn (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My suspicion is that relying just on Brazilian sources for this is going down a dangerous road (I suspect many rail systems that are, in fact, commuter rail are called "VLT" down there, so I'd really prefer seeing how non-Brazilian sources categorize this system...), but I'm also not invested enough in this to edit war. However, it's possible that other editors besides myself may also disagree with categorizing systems like Cariri's as "light rail", though these kinds of articles are very low traffic, so it's also possible that no one else will have a problem with it... --IJBall (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, Railway Gazette also calls it light rail, so be sure to include this reference when you change that. --IJBall (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I used to work in the Animation industry and even I could care less. This came up on the Special:PendingChanges list and why I got involved at all, but its not worth the effort. Far, far too many other far more important topics to address. Thanks for your comment. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I actually agree with your view of the article. Rather than deleting it, I'm tempted to go through it, and simply remove all the plot summaries (leaving just a table of episodes), as you're right - it's completely unsourced WP:OR. --IJBall (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know why I undid one of your edits at Talk:Kenny G, because I almost never revert such an established editor like yourself. I felt the conversation did not track as well with the order of verse revised. I did try to accomplish the indenting as I think you would have intended, if not please feel free to change that. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that's OK – I have no problems with what you did there. --IJBall (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Status articles are not good volleyball, please articles players and coaches and teams expand and develop.Jacilason (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused – what is this in reference to? I don't recall editing a volleyball article recently. --IJBall (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Something weird just happened on the Prince Royce article. If I'm interpreting events correctly, an IP user added a rumor about Royce dating someone and saved the edit. I reviewed the edit and chose to revert it, but while I was reviewing, the IP user added the same rumor to a second paragraph in the same article. Because of this, their second edit was essentially accepted it because my revert didn't acknowledge it. Am I reading the situation correctly? This seems like a pretty huge hole in the reviewing process, but I'm only four weeks on the job, so I may be misunderstanding something. Maybe I missed some cue? Cheers! —jameslucas (" " / +) 18:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@JamesLucas: – Yes, I think that's pretty much what happened: you reverted the IP's first edit, but somehow they simultaneously edited the page at the exact same time you reverted their first edit. So their second edit got through. But, and here's the weird part – their second edit seemed to "undo" the "automatic acceptance" of your revision edit (because, when I got there, your edit was "yellow-tagged" along with the IP's)! I have no idea why or how that happened!! So I think it is a "hole" in the system, but probably a very small one. --IJBall (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not so bad! I was thinking their edited had gotten accepted, but merely having mine pending is reasonable mechanism for dealing with the coïncidence. Thanks! —jameslucas (" " / +) 19:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Medeis is causing problems on the page again. I thought you might want to help dispute it again. Armegon (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Next time, before you take an editor to task in a non-admin closure, you might consider doing a bit of due diligence and actually looking at the state of the discussion where you want the editor to participate. Had you in the case of CSI: Cyber, you would have seen a. that I did participate quite actively while the discussion was on task; b. that the newbie editors were incapable or unwilling to discuss the issue rather than the other editors and; c. the whole thing degenerated into an insult-flinging match to which I did not care to be party. Where does one discuss in such a case? So I looked for the best solution: I made a couple edits to keep the article at status quo, and reported the most aggressive edit warrior. At that point, they all went elsewhere. Under the circumstances, I find your comments on ANI both offensive and inappropriate, and request they be withdrawn. --Drmargi (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I'll remove the trout about the Talk page from the closing. --IJBall (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh, my removal of my trout has been reverted. I don't think I am going to touch this one any further, as a result. In any case, I apologize for any offense – none was intended. --IJBall (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If I were really derelict in discussing, I'd own up to it. But you can't discuss when three petulant adolescents are throwing insults at one another, two of whom are unwilling to abide by a litany of editing, civility and discussion practices, and the third of whom is just in it to win at any cost. (Leaving aside the fourth adolescent who decided to make it all about her on ANI.) Sometimes, you just have to get out. --Drmargi (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello IJBall. Re this edit my understanding is that the ping system does not work unless you sign the post where you use the ping. So if you go back to a previous post and add the ping you need to sign it over the old signature. You may already be aware of this but I wanted to let you know in case you weren't. Now it is likely that Dianaa will see the post even if the ping didn't work but if she doesn't respond this might be the reason why. Cheers and have a good week on-WikiP and, more so, off. MarnetteD|Talk 16:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I did not know that. Thanks for telling me! --IJBall (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Even though I've learned how some things work around here over the years there is stuff I don't know. Add to that the fact that things are changing all the time. That is the reason that I have the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) on my watchlist :-) Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 17:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't read that before.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No biggie. The "space after" a heading is optional; but it definitely does make things easier to follow in the edit window... Cheers! --IJBall (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to include descriptions of the knockdowns along with his the punch or punch combination used. Alvarez is 24 years old and already has signature punches. For history's sake, I feel it is necessary to include these descriptions. If you look on Miguel Cotto's wiki page, his fights are described in detail. Asifwhale (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I would advise taking this to Talk:Saúl Álvarez. However, the bigger point here is that what is appropriate level of detail in a sports article in a newspaper is not an appropriate level of detail for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia (e.g. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). Going into specific details about how a specific fight played out is "overly detailed" for an encyclopedia like this. Also, separately, I believe there was concern with the source you used for your addition, and that it might not qualify as a Reliable source (e.g. WP:QUESTIONABLE). --IJBall (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

In my opinion, Tiffany Alvord's religion should not be mentioned in the article, at least not yet. The source does confirm that she's a Mormon but it was merely a reply to a question, and perhaps a rather forced reply. The rationale used by the contributor was that many people want to know her religion. Well, many people want to know if she has a boyfriend. I don't think it's a good enough rationale. I don't know if she's comfortable with having that information about her in the article. Who knows? She might regret having written that reply on Twitter. Now, artists such as Lindsey Stirling and the Piano Guys have made their religious views very public, but until I see an article in which Alvord mentions or discusses her religion, I think it would be better to leave out that information. It's a delicate issue, I believe. You decide, of course. All the best, Dontreader (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dontreader! I actually have no opinion on the matter – I was just in the position of "confirming" that edit as a Pending changes reviewer (and, as per WP:Reviewing, am not supposed to "reject" any edits that properly conform to policies and guidelines, as the edit in question did), and simply decided to "improve" their reference using the {{cite tweet}} template. If the consensus of the other editors at Tiffany Alvord is to not include mention of her religion, I have no problem with that either. --IJBall (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, IJBall!

Thanks for your reply. I understand perfectly. By the way, I did see what you did with the cite tweet template, and that's certainly a cool trick that I was unaware of! I like to make references look as good as possible, as you can see in the Gothard Sisters and Redhead Express articles, which I rewrote from scratch and created, respectively. Anyway, it seems to me - based on the contributions of that editor - that he or she is a member of that church, and has a POV. I hope to take the matter to the article's talk page. My general impression is that the biography section of really famous people mentions their religious views only because they have discussed the matter very openly. Otherwise, I don't see the relevance. Thanks again for your reply, and have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is all the information you've been changing TRUE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.34.122 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? --IJBall (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello IJBall, sorry for the delayed response about the most recent U.S. House election page. You have raised a very legitimate question. You see, when I initially attempted to match the infobox with the federal Clerk's election statistics, I noticed that a couple states (Massachusetts, Maine, Hawaii, etc.) counted all of their blanks votes and over/under votes when they reported them to the Clerk, which are never supposed to be counted in the overall total (most states did not do this). The Clerk appears to have made a rather unprofessional mistake and overlooked this error for whatever reason. Thus, I simply used the given data but subtracted all of the blank and over/under votes to get the numbers that you see on the wiki page. This way only the real votes, including write-ins, are counted. Please feel free to double check my math if you wish, as it was rather tedious to correct the numbers and I want to make sure that they are accurate. Thank you for your concern, -Deturtlemon1 — Preceding undated comment added 03:03, June 3, 2015‎ (UTC)

Deturtlemon1, I'm wondering if we should maybe add a 'note' about this to the figures then. This seems rather complicated, and anyone looking at the figures on page 54 of the reference is likely to be confused about this, as I was. Seeing as you've gone through the figures most thoroughly yourself, you may want to write up such a 'note' yourself, as you understand this issue better than anyone... Anyway, thanks for getting back to me! --IJBall (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you just hatted a question and discussion I raised at ANI. Please unhat this - my request for policy and guidelines regarding my question has not been addressed yet.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: what policy concern hasn't been addressed? You asked if the Topic Ban includes editing Sandbox pages, and the answer was clearly that it does. I'm unclear on what question hasn't been answered... Also, you don't need my "permission" to reopen the thread – you can just revert, or remove, the hatting yourself. But I think my advice would be to not do that, unless there is a really big question left unanswered. If there are smaller questions left, I think I'd advise trying Yunshui's Talk page instead. --IJBall (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In my original posting I asked for directions to where the policy/guidelines are regarding the ban including sandboxes so this can be verified. Simply saying it is all "user space" without verification simply deflects from my concerns. I have not received those directions yet. By the way, I am not allowed to unhat as I am an involved editor.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Either Yunshui or NeilN should be able to point you to the relevant policies, if you ask. Also, in the past "involved" editors have reverted or removed my closes, and not suffered any penalty. So you can simply reverse the close, if you desire. But, let me just state again, in this case, my personal opinion is that reopening that thread will be counter-productive... --IJBall (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If Yunshui or NeilN were able to point me to the relevant policies, I am sure they would have. Perhaps they needed more time to source these, but the AN/I was not open for a single hour. This is an extremely important issue which admins are confused about and therefore it should not be hidden away on a single admin's Talk page. I urge you to reopen the AN/I. Thank you for your consideration of this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: I'm not going to reopen that ANI thread, because I think your question has been answered. But I will not cause any trouble for you if you decide to reopen it on your end. --IJBall (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:Guy Macon#Quick question --Guy Macon (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you!   Bfpage |leave a message  22:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an extremely odd edit Bfpage for a number of reasons, most of all for the fact that the reference I removed is for a dead link for a rail service that has been indefinitely suspended (IOW, no webpage exists for it anymore!), so continuing to use that link as a reference is nonsensical (even as an archivelink). And to say the service has "ended" isn't strictly correct. Odder still for the fact that you sent me what looks like a templated message, when you already presumably know I'm a long-term editor (i.e. Don't template the regulars)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I really don't template the regulars. Even worse, I hate it when I unintentionally insult good, productive editors like yourself, which is never my intent, I assure you. I do actually read the 'canned' messages that the STIki interface suggests and edit them to specific situations. The statement about service being discontinued is actually not referenced. But, if you were to say that service is no longer offered, the reference to the schedules external link would prove that statement. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  23:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You have to go to the Victoria–Courtenay train article for the details, which was directly linked to from the Cliffside railway station article. In short, funds have been secured to repair the rails, which will eventually lead to restoration of the service – it's just a question of when that will actually happen. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion by a block-evading editor has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi IJBall. I see you restored two references that were recently deleted as the references were incorrect. The links to the referenced articles did not function and/or the articles had been removed quite some time ago. In the case of the Michael Billington article, the reference link provided was a infinitely false route, i.e. meaning the page is not in existence. The National Theatre one lead straight to a page that very clearly stated that the link was false (no such article available). As you obviously want to keep the material associated with them up there, can you please make haste in either finding the articles or locating, referencing and linking other sources that confirm the same material. I am assuming your edit was in good faith and that you did not realise that the links were false and references non-existent. Therefore, I am not going to undo your re-insertion of these materials immediately, but rather give you some time to correct and fix them up. If this doesn't happen soon, i will have to assume they are merely disruptive and vandalistic edits and thus remove swiftly. Basic Bicycle (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC) And now assuming bad faith, I see. This has gone south quickly. Now let's wait and see how the SPI case turns out... (P.S. And, no, I have a job and such, so I won't be looking up replacement citations on your timeline – you are supposed to mark the links you are talking about with {{Dead link}} tags first, and then give other editors time (say, at least a month) to find replacement or updated refs...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:No original research#RfC: Should "news articles" be added to WP:PRIMARY?. The closer was wrong on policy and the close is therefore not standing. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your self-revert is completely understandable. I don't know how I get into these scrapes, especially not being 100% confident about this tiny BLP matter. Oh well.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My position is basically this: on balance, I think Nyttend basically made the correct call – including the term "sexual abuse" at this point in the process, on a BLP, when no charges on this issue have been filed yet, is both prejudicial and "UNDUE". So, I think I basically share your view on this. (And, I suspect, if this were a garden-variety "celebrity" BLP, rather than an ex-politician, we wouldn't even be having this discussion...) But I also think I know what's going on here (this is all IMO, of course) – this is another of the many running battles between the U.S. politics POV warriors, and they'll use any excuse to tar their perceived "enemies" using Wiki articles by proxy. In this case, it's an "evol(!!) ol' Republican". Tomorrow, it'll be some "evol(!!) Democrat". Rinse. Repeat... I really have no time for this (or for the Fox News vs. MSNBC battles), and my I try to restrain my involvement in U.S. politics articles strictly to the (historical) election articles... So, yeah – even though I agree with you, this is not a battle I want to engage in, lest I anger one side in the pitched U.S. politics battle, or the other. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to learn more about why the edits I made were rejected. I updated the information for the photo to include permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabbyXdance4life (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@GabbyXdance4life: the picture file in question is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, here. You will notice the big warning message below the image? That indicates that the image does not have the proper licensing (permissions) for use on Wikipedia. Until the licensing permissions are obtained, the image shouldn't be used in a Wikipedia article. This is the policy, re Wikipedia:Image use policy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they are single person. I made this comment yesterday about ANI.--Cosmic  Emperor  01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I think that the recent edit to the Inkubus Sukkubus page that you allowed may have been vandalism, as far as I know DJ LOKI has never been willingly referred to as OBKN, which I think may mean knob, as to say DJ LOKI is a knob. The IP address comes from the same location that several acts of vandalism on this page have been committed. Thanks Vampiredivision (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to fix whatever needs fixing. But it looked to me like one of those edits corrected a misspelling of one of the bandmember's surnames, which is why I approved it. (And, as a reviewer, we're actually supposed to hit "approve" if an edit isn't "obvious vandalism" or obviously "flawed" in some other way, on the assumption that other editors, such as yourself, will catch any mistakes, etc.) FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done I decided to go back to the previous version on your say-so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for the work that you have done. I have been told that I am not allowed to make changes myself, as I am in the band and my interests may exceed the interests of Wikipedia. It looks as if the vandalism is all coming from the same person, and the same geological location. Hopefully the page will soon be protected soon as the vandalism looks as if it will continue until this is the case. Vampiredivision (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Basically, somebody warned you about WP:COI, I take it. That can be tricky... On my end, I want to be careful that I don't get into an "edit war" over this, so I was hoping somebody else would revert these most recent changes (and it looks like MDann did). If it can be shown multiple editors are reverting whoever this person is, then I may be able to go to WP:ANI and get a range block on this IP... Remember, though – even if you have a COI, you can go to an Wikipedia Administrator (of which I am not one!) – e.g. User:NeilN who was the one who protected the article in the first place – and ask for help; as long as you disclose your COI to the Admin when you ask for help, it shouldn't be an issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks That is a great help I will do so - Cheers!Vampiredivision (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another Popehat fan? Guy (Help!) 11:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Heh. I'm going to have to go with "no", as I'm not sure what that is! (Is this a reference to the blog?...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Read it. Look for the ponies... Guy (Help!) 22:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Revenge? (Regarding your non-admin closure, if you know what I mean...) Epic Genius (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. One of the editors in that thread has the username "VictoriaGrayson" which is the name of the main antagonist in Revenge. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. Thanks for explaining. I was confused why you said that.... ;-) Anyway, carry on. Epic Genius (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion of tables versus lists is noted. With some better explanation of your view then you might get my agreement. But simply stating "For the record" your total opposition just tells people that you un-collaborative. Bethayres (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it is highly speculative (esp. things like "route length", which in a planned system isn't even a necessarily defined value yet, esp. if no environmental reviews have been done). A good argument could be made under WP:CRYSTALBALL that the "Planned" section should be eliminated entirely. It almost certainly doesn't merit a table like the existing or under construction systems, which is why I purposely put it in "list" form when I revised that section some months back. The fact is, a good percentage of those "planned" systems that are listed will ultimately never be built or put in to operation at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've saved you the trouble of reverting, so now we can discuss on the talk page. Bethayres (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! See you there! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I promise I'll do my best not to lead you astray in the wonderful world of categorization. Even if I don't always understand it myself. :-)

Thanks also for your vote of confidence at my RfA; I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't have e-mail enabled, do you? Is that a wiki-philosophical stance? I had something I wanted to say in private. Not a big deal, exactly, but still. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen I did that because I worried about trolls mailbombing my E-mail, though I suspect the issue is probably overblown in my head. Here's what I'll do – I'll E-mail you, with my E-mail account, and then you can E-mail me back... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! After 0115, which it had just turned here, my computer shuts down every three minutes, which makes these things rather difficult… (It's a little hack my son has added on request, in the furtherance of me getting more sleep. :-)) I certainly hope it's OK too. Do you remember where it was suggested it wasn't? I know I used to see non-admins adding these tags all over the shop. Bishonen | talk 06:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

No problem!... Anyway, I think it's Bbb23 who suggested that. Liz knows more about this, as she pointed me to the original discussion. The gist of it is, editors should probably only use the generic {{sockpuppet}} (i.e. the "suspected" one), and mostly leave sockpuppet tagging to Admins, and Admins should leave the tagging to the SPI crew, if the blocking for socking is the result of an SPI investigation... At least, I think that was basically the gist of what we were told. P.S. That's is quite amusing what your son did for you there! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you got the gist correctly, IJBall! The discussion arose because several times I've seen new editors decide to plaster sockpuppet and blocked accounts tags on user pages, even going back to tag accounts that were blocked years and years ago. It seems zealous and I noticed some admins cautioning editors about such conduct which lead to the discussion at SPI. It seems that admins differ in their opinion on whether such tagging should be done at all which lead to the conclusion that the decision to tag be left to admins who block the accounts and SPI clerks who close the sockpuppet investigation. This was an incident where Bishonen asked for someone to tag the accounts so that seems perfectly okay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't easy, but I managed to track down the previous conversations about 'sock tagging'! – This one at ANI is pretty clear that it's the SPI crew or Admins who should generally do the tagging (Callanecc was the one who said the "suspected" {{sockpuppet}} tag can be used by non-Admins, but only rarely!); and this is the earlier discussion that Liz originally pointed to. (And now that they're on my Talk page, I should find it much easier to point to these discussions in the future! ) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well, let's hope ArbCom can thread the needle and get this one right... In the meantime, I'm not sure I have any real "evidence" to add there. But, thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)