User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2019/January

Discussion

Hi. When I saw this discussion I thought that you may be interested in it. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I would prefer to stay out of that. PPEMES (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Don (honorific)

On the subject of this, it's up to you if you want to change your name, but unless you want to be suspected of 'abusively using multiple accounts' I suggest you say so clearly in any discussions where you have previously edited as Chicbyaccident. I've flagged the ones I came across; you'll know better than me where else you've edited in this way and I suggest you fix them also. Swanny18 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
PS: Actually, I notice Dekimasu has already warned you about this, at Talk:His Holiness, and you haven't done anything about it yet. That doesn't look good... Swanny18 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I inconveniently missed out on any post-user account rename conventions or routines. Not in the habit of changing username. If, after I changed the username, I would have voted twice in a discussion, then your comment what have been more understandable to me. However, only one user account has been used. Where's the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry abuse about that? PPEMES (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

As for this, I didn't say your were abusively using multiple accounts, I said you could be suspected of abusively using multiple accounts, and if you wished to avoid that you should remedy the situation: Which is much the same as what Dekimasu told you. You replied to him there, but you didn't do any thing about it. Now, if someone was assuming good faith they could always take that as just being careless: On the other hand if they were suspecting you weren't really listening, they would be thinking you weren't really listening.

And as for "Not in the habit of changing username": Well, that isn't altogether true either, is it? Swanny18 (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Redefinition of "habit" not acknowledged. No. I don't intend to spam announcements of username change in every single talk page I have participated. Sorry. Now, moving on, ever considered improving Wikipedia rather than to WP:HOUND random users? Thanks. PPEMES (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

"Hound"? You asked, I answered. If you feel "hounded" by this I suggest you take it to dispute resolution, or, failing that, to ANI, and get an unbiased assessment. And yes, I do have better things to do... Swanny18 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Don (honorific)

Copied from Talk:Don (honorific)#Merger of "Dom", "Don", and "Dominus"; reply is here. Swanny18 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(In the interests of full disclosure, editor Chicbyaccident now edits under the username PPEMES. Swanny18 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

@Swanny18: Full disclosure? If you intend to imply that this was somehow a secret, please feel free to indicate the reasons for that? PPEMES (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply: I'm not implying it now, I'm flat out saying... if something is not revealed, it remains hidden; which is the definition of 'secret'

You were advised to disclose this in all your current discussions; you didn't bother to do that, so I did it for you, here, and here (there may be other discussions where this has happened; you would know) Why you didn't, I've no idea: I can assume good faith, as you don't really seem to know what you are doing in all this; or, less charitably, you could be seeking to deceive or mislead, or wishing to contribute in a way that suggests multiple people. Either way, any other discussions that need fixing are on you; I'm done trying to help out.

It's up to you what you do about all this: I've already said if you are unhappy with any of this, you can take it to ANI; or, if you want to end this, and want the last word on you own talk page (which would be understandable) I suggest you make a non-challenging reply (ie one that doesn't require, or provoke, an answer) and it won't get answered. Swanny18 (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Eden hat

hello
I came across your merge tag here; the proposal seemed a bit askew (tacked on to an 8 year old discussion, links not leading to the right page) so I have re-drafted it (here). I trust you are OK with that. I've opposed it, btw; I've posted my reasons on the page there. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Answered on Talk:Anthony Eden hat. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I see you have changed the merge proposal here to a Split. I've reverted it, as it doesn't work like that. You brought up the merger; if you are now changing your mind, withdraw it per process (ie. say so in the discussion, and archive it) then post a proper split proposal. But as the purpose of splitting is usually to create a new spin-off article (which this page in effect already is) it's looking more and more like what you really want a deletion by stealth. In which case I recommend you take it to AfD and have done with it. Swanny18 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that. I'd stick to the merge proposal, then. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hats and headgear

Moved from Talk:Anthony Eden hat § Template:Hats & Template:Headgear

Moved from User talk:PPEMES in order to let other users take part on an accessible location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPEMES (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes to these templates, for the reason given there. You need to drop the stick; this is borderline disruptive editing. Swanny18 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if any of my suggestions of improvements to the best of my understanding to Anthony Eden hat made you upset. I moved your comment to a possibly more accessible location for the convenience of other users' feedback. Let me know if you object to this. Anyway, let's cover the process which I initiated and in which you have participated, objecting the proposals:

1. Proposal to merge Anthony Eden hat with Anthony Eden (hesitated about standalone article motivation, further specified that a split merge could be a solution into Homburg hat and Anthony Eden) - opposition accepted
2. Rename suggestion to Anthony Eden's homburg hat (for WP:PRECISION) - opposition accepted
3. Exclusion from Template:Hats (hesitated about equivalence/proportion compared with other listed hats; excluded in Template:Clothing) - opposition accepted

I'm happy to excuse any mistake. Which of the steps above - or any other that I may have failed to recognise - motivate your accusations, please? Thanks! PPEMES (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved back here from Talk:Anthony Eden hat. A user talk page is the proper venue to discuss behavioral issues. Mathglot (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, this is really unfortunate. Swanny18, I'm afraid that calling this borderline disruptive editing is going too easy; this is clear refusal to accept consensus or get the point; there are also whiffs of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and some level of failure to understand how discussion and consensus works at Wikipedia, at a very basic level. Although I don't believe it is intentional, nor do I see malice, nevertheless this is disruptive editing by definition, and it needs to stop now, one way or another.

PPEMES, I don't think anybody is upset, nobody is making accusations, and nobody is asking for apologies or excuses, afaict. You need to gracefully accept the consensus of recent discussions, even if you don't agree with them, even if you don't understand them, and not keep bringing this up over and over. If a user persists in behavior of this type even after it's been explained several times, the next step is forcing compliance in order to stop the disruption. Please desist before it comes to that, you have too much positive to contribute, to allow that to happen. But you do need to understand how much time and attention of multiple editors you are bottling up with your recent disruption around Anthony Eden hat and related topics; that is disruptive, and it will stop one way or another. The best way, is if you just let it go. Please say that you will. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Note about TP usage: PPEMES, with regard to your earlier move of this discussion to Talk:Anthony Eden hat in order to "let other users take part on an accessible location", the right way to do that for a non-content dispute, is to leave the discussion here on your Talk page, and add a NPOV message and link to the discussion here from any venue in which you care to advertise it. For example: at Talk:Anthony Eden hat there is now a link pointing to this discussion, that anyone can join. You could, if you wish, add a link pointing here from Template talk:Hats, or from Template talk:Clothing, or from relevant WikiProjects. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

While related, I consider them three different scopes, though I don't intend to propose any other related changes. Sorry if you condider this a bad thing. I really tried to argue specifically for the three separate improvements to the best of my understanding. PPEMES (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swanny18: @Mathglot: While I notice that you opposed, perhaps increasingly, all three proposals above, I have a hard time understanding how accusation of "disruptive editing" or any consensus process deviation can be combined with assertions of "no intent", and "no malice". However, this is important to me, and I'd like to clear it out. I haven't seen anymore follow-up comments from any of you two. Is there any more uncertainty about this issue or my intents in it now? I'd happy for a clarifying answer or repetition of any questions that would remain unattended in this case. Many thanks! PPEMES (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you are asking here. If you are asking how one could simultaneously describe your editing as "disruptive" while acknowledging that there's no malice behind it, you may misunderstand what "disruptive" means. Something well-meant can still be disruptive, and I have no doubt you mean well. If you are asking why there aren't further comments at Talk:Anthony Eden hat, it's because both of those discussions are closed. I don't know what "unattended questions" refers to, so can't respond to that. I understand that you don't intend to propose any other related changes for now, which means that any disruption which may have been caused in that area is now over. Since it's over, it's not disruptive anymore, and we can all just go back to improving the encyclopedia. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that I have no more proposals of intended improvements in that particular area. I wish you too a happy editing. However, please be reminded that for me it is not happy editing as long as you let the accusation of policy violations above remain, unfortunately. PPEMES (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I truly don't have a good reply to that; making people happy is above my pay grade at Wikipedia. But maybe this cookie will help! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. However, the thing is, am I still the subject of accusation of policy violation? If so, how can I possibly to anything better to your satisfaction? PPEMES (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Chill. There are a zillion policies and guidelines here, and you, I, and everybody violates one or another of them all the time. Generally you don't even know you have crossed a line until someone tells you, and then the key thing is just to seek and accept consensus and then carry on. I'm just another editor here, so you don't have to pay any special attention trying to do things to my satisfaction. Just follow the rules as best you know them, and if someone raises a valid behavioral issue, and you stop doing whatever it was, then it's over. There's no "cloud" or "accusation" somehow hanging around afterward. You just go back to doing whatever you enjoy doing at Wikipedia. And I hope doing what you enjoy, makes you happy. Now I, too, would like to get back to those things as well, so once again: Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Many thanks for taking your time to clear that out. I wish you too happy editing! PPEMES (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: My talk page is being cluttered by the user whose behaviour your previously voiced support for. Would you mind acting as a middle man, trying to settle this issue with the user now that you reinforced it? It would be much appreciated. PPEMES (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PPEMES; sure, if I can; how can I help? Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I saw your note; do you still want an answer to this? Swanny18 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahnentafel-tree

As requested I have moved the content to:

Wikipedia_talk:Templates for discussion#Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 22#Template:Ahnentafel-tree

I will link the talk page section to the merge conversation. -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. PPEMES (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)