User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2018/April

Six Nations rounds

I'm afraid I don't understand your logic on the Six Nations articles. What difference does it make whether the organisers used that terminology for each week of the tournament? For one thing, it aids navigation by the reader, whom we are primarily here to serve, and it's a natural breaking point. If games were played sporadically over a longer time, I might agree, but it just makes sense to split the article up like that. – PeeJay 16:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey PeeJay, thanks for getting in touch. I meant to post on your talk page when I reverted these but forgot, apologies. Basically, I don't think making stuff up helps readers, it is OR. It might seem helpful to readers, but I don't think it is when it misleads them, and I think it's a slippery slope when we start to make things up. I could be wrong on this, but I can't find reliable sources generally using these round numbers until the last few years. It's the same argument I've made about week numbers in mid-year internationals and autumn internationals articles, although that is much worse, IMO.

In terms of navigation, we could use dates for the weekends. For example, on 2010 Six Nations Championship, we could have 6-7 February instead of Round 1. What do you think? --hippo43 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Then why don't we say "Week 1" instead of "Round 1"? I mean, it isn't like we're making up results or totally misrepresenting the structure of the tournament. I agree with you when it comes to the Autumn internationals etc. since those aren't an actual tournament, and the word "round" implies a structured competition, but with the Six Nations, we have a natural break point for each set of matches. Even if the term wasn't used officially before 2012 or whenever, it's not a massive leap that really requires a source, IMO. – PeeJay 13:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand, but there's nothing wrong with using dates, IMO. Is Round 1 or Week 1 better than 6-7 February for navigation? It's especially misleading because some competitions do use round numbers like that. Should we add week numbers to every year, like to 1956 etc?

For me, there's a tendency for a few editors, especially on articles like this, to try to add more and more data and lists and tables and useful 'facts', and basically start to make shit up that isn't in reliable sources. Wikipedia is also really influential. When I was Googling stuff for these articles, I realised that there are a load of sources out there which have obviously used Wikipedia as a source. I know I'm being pedantic, but I think it's a slippery slope and we need to be careful about what we include. --hippo43 (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the vast majority of stats and things, but I don't think it's particularly deceptive to separate the matches out into the weekends that they were played on. I think that using the dates is a bit silly when the dates are repeated in the game summary templates; "Week 1" or "Round 1" is simple enough not to cause any bother in my opinion. That's why we're here as editors - we're supposed to make editorial decisions about what goes in and what doesn't, what requires a source and what doesn't, and a whole bunch of other things. Editorially, I think the separation by week is useful to both readers and other editors, although as you point out, that only works when three matches are played on the same weekend (two in the Five Nations era). – PeeJay 22:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. I just don't see it that way. It's currently perfectly clear when the games were played, so I don't think it's a big issue. If you want to split them up, it doesn't really matter if all 6 teams played on one weekend, or 4 out of 5, or 2 out of 5 as sometimes happened.

You're right that we have to make editorial decisions, but I don't think we can decide to add things that were not specifically used, and which actually were used in later competitions - that's misleading. And in fact, we always need sources when material is challenged.

I don't mind having weekend dates in there for navigation. but if you think having dates twice is daft, we can leave them out. I don't mind either way. --hippo43 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at "Polish death camp" controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The RfC is here. The closure says:

"The consensus here, broadly, is that yes, the phrase "Polish death camp" should be described as an inaccurate term - a "misnomer" - in the lede, with further details in the body of the article. "

You are edit warring against established consensus. Please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hippo's version is better. In fact, the reverted version fails verification. No where in the cited article[1] does it say that "Polish death camp" is a "misnomer". The only place where that word is used is in a quote by the ADL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You can bring all that up on the talk page (but no, it doesn't fail verification - in fact you pretty much recognize it in your second sentence). There was an RfC. Consensus was achieved. You need to respect it.

Also, this tag-team edit warring on your part Quest, is also problematic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Swarm ♠ 23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "Polish death camp" controversy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Federal Intelligence Service and Jan Grabowski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)