User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2020/December

Abel Ferreira

Hello there,

i don't see the purpose of needlessly repeating names of clubs in the same sentence. Moreover, why remove the bit about competition in his playing position when i SOURCED it after you noted it? Reinstated it (WP all about sourced content, we both agree on that i do believe), if you remove it again i will follow suit.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

1. I don't understand your comment clearly. It is not good English.

2. What the fuck are you talking about? I cleaned up an article which was a mess - badly written and in bad English. Are you saying you are also the IP editor there?

3. The source does not support what you wrote in the article. Read it carefully, or get someone to help you who can write in good English. --hippo43 (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lest you think of me as an horrible editor and a lowlife, instead of just a horrible editor, the following: my penultimate message was addressed to a good wiki-friend of mine, :@MYS77:. I just went to tell him goodbye, saying that this (new) monitoring has definitely left me with no desire to edit anymore, coupled with some personal situations which don't belong in this website. I ended the message saying that i'm done here (so, no insults regarding your person, only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth). It was never personal? Sorry if i feel otherwise, never saw you edit any football article where i hadn't edited before, massively or just an odd contribution.

And yes (though you knew that already, but i'll refresh you), that IP is also me. Goodbye (and i think i should thank you more than anything else, should have followed your advice of retiring. Football is a beautiful sport, as pretty much all the others, but the business aspect of it is plain disgusting, and the vandals that fuck up the WP articles - not me, i'm just a horrible editor of the English WP, never a vandal - are even worse) --Quite A Character (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. --hippo43 (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hippo43: @Quite A Character: Both of you should read, use and endorse WP:BRD, since both of you have different styles of editing. Reaching a consensus and agreeing to what should stay in the articles where the conflicts began/exist is the best option instead of going into a revert war and driving others out of the website. Hippo, it's not recommended to remove valid references from articles; try to use WP:PRESERVE instead of blindly removing content. Aside of that, your edits may qualify a case of WP:HOUND. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 01:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Replying to @MYS77:

@MYS77: Thanks for getting in touch, and I understand you want to support your friend. In reply to your points above:
1. I didn't remove valid references from an article and I did not blindly remove anything. Please let me know which references you are talking about, or perhaps apologise for that statement. I removed citations which did not support the statements in the article. I don't know who originally added that text - I haven't checked. I don't know if the error was one of English, or one of research - perhaps both. If you think I got something wrong (of course I might have) please let me know at the article talk pages.
2. My edits are valid, supported by policy and done with good reason - trying to rectify the quality of English in these articles, and the level of scholarship. Please read WP:HOUND carefully. I have no interest in causing anyone distress.
3. I haven't driven anyone out of the website. That is an extraordinary insult. Your friend has regularly insulted me in the past - please read through his previous contributions to my talk page, and his edit summaries, before you accuse me of doing anything to him.
He has "retired" numerous times before, and I'm sure he will again. I used to think it was unfortunate when he said he was retiring, but after all this shit so many times, I no longer care.--hippo43 (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• (TPS)1 - What MYS77 is referring to is that paragraph in Abel Ferreira starting with "From 2008/09 onwards..." which you removed in its entirety even tough i SOURCED it (i'm not a native, so of course it could have contained an error or two) instead of rephrasing it;

2/3 - Of course you speak English better than me, out of the question. But i never, in 14 years, encountered this problem with anyone, and i have edited hundreds of articles that i am certain have a good number of watchers, no one pointed out anything extraordinary to me unlike you. Again, the situation with MYS77: him and I have an almost identical editing style, the fact that you could not care less about his edits (you said to me in the past you have already corrected him, that of course happened because I had edited there previously, simple as that. In an article where MYS edited and i did not one will see the grand total of ZERO corrections from you). If you don't see that as a potential cause for distress (and i repeat, you only correct ME in football articles, and i have seen stuff in this very WP that would make a goat puke), then i guess the point is moot.

"Your friend has regularly insulted me in the past". Other than calling you "stalker" (and subsequently apologising), please provide any other example(s). Last but not least: nope, you don't have to worry about a thing now like i told you in my last message, now retired for good. If you spot me anywhere near this website, in any article, please report me for disruption (supposing it is feasible, don't know those guidelines).

Attentively, have a nice life (wiki or not) --Quite A Character (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Quite A Character, this reply was not for you.

But, to answer your point about the Abel Ferreira article, you didn't source it. The source did not say "from 2008-09 onwards" and it did not say anyone "faced stiff competition" or similar. You wanted it to say something that it didn't. I don't know if the problem there is your English or your comprehension.

Second, you have encountered this problem before. Other users have pointed out the weaknesses in your editing, and you have had disagreements with them.

Now, please go away. You are obsessed with yourself and won't listen to constructive criticism. I don't want your comments on my talk page. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hippo43: Honestly, it's not a question of supporting somebody... It's a question of WP:AGF, as some other user once told me before: you're not assuming that @Quite A Character: is trying to improve the article, when you removed a whole paragraph just because the references doesn't fit the text. You could've approached him and asked him to arrange better references, since they didn't fit the text in the article.

To be honest, I think a consensus could be easily reached instead of reaching to this point where one user says he "is leaving for good" and the other user tells him to "go away" as he is "obsessed with himself". Both of you should drop the personal attacks and talk about ways to improve the article, instead of engaging into a pointless discussion where both of you will only leave it more annoyed and less prone to actually contribute to the website than when it started. MYS77 ^✉ 23:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have't made any personal attacks. I have edited some articles, where I see poor quality writing, and your friend takes it as a personal dispute. I don't care if he retires or not. Whatever he does, I think he should stop editing articles in this way - he is not competent to do so. As far as I can tell, despite the numerous insults he has posted about me, some on your talk page, you have not encouraged him to stop this behaviour.

Regarding the article, I wasn't assuming anything about anyone. The text was not supported by the source, therefore it was unsourced. I don't believe the text is accurate, so I removed it. I don't know who first put the text in there - I didn't trawl through the history to find out. I am not interested in finding better references for it, it's not my problem and I have no interest in contacting QAC. If he can find references which support what he believes, good for him. --hippo43 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, saying a person is "obsessed with himself" kinda sounds like a personal attack. I would recommend taking this to WP:ANI as I honestly don't think your behaviour, despite your "better quality" edits, are correct. However, I can't be the one to do so as the episode did not occur with me. @Quite A Character: should be the one to do so, if he feels like it, and he stated that he retired, so my input ends here. MYS77 ^✉ 01:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Bye. --hippo43 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Give it up, Hollandaise conspiracist!

Hippo, some of your edits have been lovely, bringing the language to a more neutral tone without opinions or waste... but removing quotes from actual citeable sources and contradicting them based off of translations of the original works does not appear to be in good faith. Could you please explain your rationale? I'd like to understand before going in to 'repair' your historical amputations. --82.69.12.116 (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Acknowledge Hollandaise's mistaken identity as a Mother Sauce by ceasing the gradual, deliberate censorship of the relevant information in the article French Mother Sauces. One may take issue with articles appearing as original research, but one may not take issue with facts. Instead of deleting valid and supported information because of the tone, re-phrase and edit to conform to standards.

I do not expect you will listen.

Many thanks,

Deliberately Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon1024x768 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message.

Which facts do you mean? Do you have sources? --hippo43 (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I see the sources below, what am I missing about the original work not containing hollandaise and in actual fact being mayonnaise? Are translations more authoritative than the authors own words in french? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.233.65 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hollandaise is listed as a daughter sauce in French version of Le Guide Culinaire 3rd edition 1912 https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k96923116/f61.item.zoom page 33 and original 1903 edition https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65768837/f168.item.zoom on page 150 in chapter "petites sauces blanches et sauces composee" meaning Hollandaise was a daughter sauce instead of mother sauce at least according to Auguste Escoffier. 3rd edition also lists mother sauces on page 3 which is also cited on French Mother sauces page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_mother_sauces#cite_note-7 Third edition also states that mayonnaise is considered a mother sauce on page 48. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k96923116/f76.item Pixelboy94 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hippo43's intentional suppression of historical facts about mother sauces in favor of incorrect secondary sources reminds me of Brazil. Who cares about the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkircher (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Stephen Hendry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Seasider53 (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Stephen Hendry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - == 3RR ==

Your recent editing history at Stephen Hendry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - MrLogan666 MrLogan666 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Please contribute to the Stephen Hendry talk page to find consensus for your proposed changes. MrLogan666 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)