User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2009/December

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The study doesn't need to be on Asian fetish to be relevant. Its a study on racial preference which is exactly what the bulk of this article and the sources talk about. A preference and obsession for Asian women. The study showed that there was no general preference in their research. Which contradicts the claims of many sources being used in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I disagree but I;ve left it in for now, particularly as there is ongoing discussion about the nature of the article. I've cleaned it up and shortened it significantly, per WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure which of the current sources you think it contradicts - can you let me know? --hippo43 (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. (MDesjardinss (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Is that a warning about this reply by Hippo43 diff to this post diff by BukakiKid (see Bukkake) in which the editors on that page were told by BukakiKid "enough nonsense," "cease with the nonsense" and that editors were being "rediculous" [sic], and BukakiKid went on to share a lot of WP:Original research? Hmm. Is that what caused the block?Шизомби (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated Vandalism and Disruptive Editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's about time. This editor has been waging a long standing edit war on our List of common misconceptions article - lasting at least 6 months, if not more. I gave up (for the most part) in trying to improve the article because of his constant reverts, disruptive edits and stubborn refusal to compromise with or accept anyone's viewpoint other than his own. I had no idea that Hippo43's transgressions extended beyond this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Will ask for clarification. Kuru ^talk 16:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - sounds like good advice. --hippo43 (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Relinking common terms

There is nothing in MOS:BIO that mandates wikilinking nationality terms. The examples do not uniformly wikilink these terms. In fact, the style guide does not cover linking in any way whatsoever. Most featured and good article reviews recommend delinking common terms such as country and nationality and terms such as "actress". Common practice, which has widely resulted in the terms you are linking to be delinked, is to delink common terms. No, there is no policy that says to delink common terms, but please feel free to ask at WP:AN/I, WP:BIO or WP:ACTOR what the current practice is. The current practice is certainly not to edit war over linking common terms. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you stop edit-warring! :) I will take a look around guidelines etc, see what I can find. I'm sure we could both very easily find numerous examples of biographies to support our view of what 'common practice' is. Absent any particular direction in policy, I see no good reason to delink American/United States, for example, as non-US readers definitely benefit from clarification. I realise you've put a lot of work into many of these articles, but please consider if you are getting a little too invested in them - aggressively reverting such minor style details suggests to me you may have issues of ownership, although with the best of intentions. --hippo43 (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't make accusations of ownership. I am practicing what is common practice on these articles. We simply don't wikilink common terms such as "American", "actress" and other widely known terms, that would be why they are no longer linked. I don't think anyone misunderstands what an "American" nationality is. As I mentioned, feel free to ask at WP:AN/I, WP:BIO, or WP:ACTOR regarding current practice regarding linking these terms. I'd suggest back that you are aggressively reverting yourself, although MOS:BIO does not address wikilinking in any way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand - I really am assuming good faith. I recognise the amount of work you have put in, and am just suggesting that you seem very keen to keep these articles just the way you like them. Feelings of ownership would be entirely understandable here and my raising the issue should not be seen as a suggestion of bad faith editing. These are, after all, very minor style points which you have been fairly dogmatic about. Likewise, you should feel free to ask around for clarification on what is current practice - the briefest of looks around Wikipedia shows both approaches are extremely common, and apparently no coverage in policy. Many people undoubtedly misunderstand the various meanings of 'American', given that Wikipedia is written for a general audience of English speakers, the majority of whom live outside the US. If there is any doubt at all, and any reasonable use for a link, common sense suggests including it. --hippo43 (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this list of featured articles, and you'll see that very few articles has these terms linked. No one is claiming ownership, it's just a matter of keeping articles at the same standard. I do agree though that there is a double standard (on what nationalities that is linked, i.e. America is somehow different from Sudan, etc), but that's a global English WP issue concerning a whole lot more than linking. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 02:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, again

I'm sorry, but you appear to have returned to edit warring immediately after my unblock; here, and here. Please let discussions resolve before reflexively reverting. Since you've very familiar with this problem, I see no need for further warnings. I've re-instated the block for two weeks. I'm sure you know how to solicit second opinions on this. Kuru ^talk 03:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

...and here as well. I sincerely hope you drastically change your attitude after being unblocked this time so that other editors, such as myself, can edit in peace. This is not a job, you know. We all have lives and I am not here for the drama. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)