User talk:SuperJumbo/Archive 1

PA845

Hi there, fellow SFO spotter! I left you a note on Talk:Pan Am Flight 845 that you might find interesting... Cheers, MCB 00:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Pregnant Guppy

Thanks for the picture! If ever an aircraft article needed a photo, it was this one. The aircraft has to be seen to be believed. --Jumbo 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm a bit of a plane freak so I've been trying to find some pictures for all those old plane articles that are right now picturless. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 15:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Australia page as living in or being associated with the Australian Capital Territories. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in ACT for instructions. Rmky87 22:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

question

Jumbo, we talked a while back when you left a message on my talk page about a photo i uploaded you thought was nice, so i thought i would drop you a line since you're semi-familiar with my work. i'm currently running for an admin position so i thought i'd let you know if you wanted to check out the vote page. If you like my work and think i'm worthy, i'd appreciate you checking it out. thanks in advance and if you ever need anything drop me a message. --ScottyBoy900Q 01:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Aviation accident template

I like your template, I will try using it. Thats all! Lapinmies 23:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Luxair9642.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Luxair9642.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Matt 13:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are including this image under fair use rationale, then you must tag it as such using the {{fairusein|article name}} template. Also you need to provide the rationale for fair use as described at Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale. Further information can be found at Wikipedia:Fair_use. Note that I don't consider a photo from the popular press to be fair use in most articles. Some wikipedians may disagree with me. Matt 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't know the answer to your question. I understand that you uploaded it in good faith, and it is painful to see it deleted. There has been a lot of problems (from my perspective) with fair use on wikipedia and you can't really be blamed for following others' example. My suggestion is that you should just use your best judgement and try to sort through the confusing and often conflicting 'legal' advice on wikipedia. Oh, and keep up the good work. Matt 02:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Jackson

I have made a brief page for her using the details that someone had kindly put on the redirect's talk page. Thanks for pointing out this gap.--nixie 01:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing crash infobox

Hi SuperJumbo,

I just noticed that the crash infobox template seems to be missing from Eastern Air Lines Flight 401. Since you seem to be familiar with it it would be great if you could take a look at it. Cheers, User:jpkoester1

Golden Gate Bridge article

Please refrain from making changes which go against apparent consensus. In the Golden Gate Bridge article, the picture was removed because it is one of the many which need not be in the article. Collections of pictures belong on Commons [[1]]. In addition, putting that picture in the Suicides section is extremely morbid, and, to me, violates the NPOV policy. Please wait until an agreement is come to on the talk page for the article. Stack 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt

I'm afraid you have the wrong edit of the stick over Pnatt. He was not blocked for changing a spelling. He was blocked, as he has been repeatedly, for deliberately starting edit wars over language, posting misleading summaries and lots of other behaviour. Since he came on to WP in April he has done little but edit war all over the place, and refused appeals from many users to stop. Such has been his behaviour that his blocks have steadily climbed. He has consistently ignored all blocks and once they expire returned to fight the exact same battles the exact same way. He has been warned by various users that as he seemed to think day or even week blocks were no big deal, the length of each block would increase until he got the message. The last block for his behaviour was one month. When after all of that he still returned to his old stomping ground to try to trigger off more edit wars it was upped to five weeks, as is standard in cases of such behaviour. (Technically he was lucky only to get five weeks. Many users would have upped it to two months.) At this stage he has contributed nothing but disruption, attacks and edit wars to WP. Maybe it is time he was blocked indefinitely. Few users have been blocked so often in such a short time and not been banned from the site completely by now. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)}

As I said to Pnatt:

It is not your (relatively few comparatively) genuine edits to articles that concern me as much as your repetetive and aggressive conduct and you absurd edit summaries. Xtra 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Xtra 23:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not about usage. It is about unnacceptable and continual bad conduct. However, if you do want to go there I would not rely on the ABC to say what word is and is not acceptable. If you really want to look into it go to www.google.com.au - do a search under "pages from Australia" and search for "programme" - you will find many hits. Xtra 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary has this to say:

programme

programme or (especially North American, and comput)

program

...

Xtra 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about conduct, but on looking at Pnatt's edits, it seems that he hasn't done anything since returning from a four week block to justify reinposing it. Any incivility has certainly been mild and there has been no recurrence of some early edits which are quite disturbing.

I'm inclined to agree with his call of vandalism. The Macquarie Dictionary - the standard dictionary of Australian English - lists "program" but not "programme" except as an alternative to "program". And that's from twenty-five years ago. What dictionary are you using as a reference for Australian English?

A revert with an explanation IS NOT VANDALSIM. You should read wikipedia:vandalism and wikipedia:civility. I use Chambers dictionary. Xtra 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Chambers Dictionary is an authoritative source of British English, but for current Australian usage it can hardly be relied upon as a source, and the recognised standard for Australian English is the Macquarie Dictionary, which prefers "program" over "programme". On checking your revert with an explanation, I find this: "rvt. we do not change from so called brittish spelling (accepted australian spelling) on australian articles". If I saw that as an edit summary from a new editor, I would be inclined to think poorly of the editor. The point is that Australian English is not British English, as we can easily see by comparing standard dictionaries. --Jumbo 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are unwise to back Pnatt. Please his his contribution history. I am scrutinising him more than I would scrutinise others because he has a very bad record with civility and repeat reversions and misleading edit summaries. On the spelling issue, I believe both are just as acceptable but programme is more formal. Xtra 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am now aware of his history, for which thanks to yourself and others. However, I still cannot see why he received such a savage block - it looks as if he was being punished for his previous sins, for which he had already received four weeks. I am rather disappointed that a new editor has been treated in such a fashion instead of being encouraged towards good behaviour. His final comment that he wanted to remain in WP and make useful contributions seemed very encouraging to me. As for program/program, to be blunt, you're wrong and he's right, and making it a pissing contest over who's an admin and who's not sounds like a bad way to write an encyclopaedia. You should pick your battles, wait till you are undeniably right and he's wrong and THEN jump in. --Jumbo 06:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that this time at least the block was premature, I gave him one warning and was willing to just sit back and wait, but someone stepped in. It is my honest opinion that it was highly likely that if not blocked then, Pnatt's conduct would have deteriorated as it did in the past. Xtra 07:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:MacProgram.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MacProgram.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		I award you the Rosetta Barnstar for your knowledge of Latin. Without you, the American School in London would have been said to receive its fees "per anum." Urthogie 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gettysburg

Nice change with the Everett photo. And thanks for your kind words on the talk page. I love that article, but I think the real strength of it is Lincoln's words coming through. It's just an unbelievable speech. Thanks for your contribution. Kaisershatner 02:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:VirginEnglishRose.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:VirginEnglishRose.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Pnatt

Jumbo,

You are missing the point with Pnatt. That user didn't simply correct an error. His past behaviour involved edit warring over use of language, spelling and Australian English usage. He had been involved in very bitter exchanges with Xtra. There are over one million articles on Wikipedia, yet he chose the same issue, with the same users, to start off his post-block edits. Going straight back to the very topic that had got him repeatedly warned for his behaviour, picked up where he went off and started yet another row on the issue is tactless to put it mildly. Posting an edit summary revert vandalism by Xtra sums up his approach. It is hard to believe that someone who deliberately targets the same topic after repeated blocks for his behaviour on the issue before, and who seems to target someone he had been rowing with before, is anything other than a troll. He could have edited anywhere on Wikipedia. He chose to go straight back to his old fighting on the same topic with the same users. That pretty much sums up his attitude and explains why he has been repeatedly banned, and going by past behaviour, why he will no doubt be banned again when he comes back.

Unfortunately those of us who have dealt with him have had the same experience over and over. He edit wars on the topic of language. He is told to cool it. He gets hotter and more provocative. He is given a series of warnings, then a final warning, then a ban. He throws a tantrum on his user page, it is locked. Then when he comes back he goes straight for the same topic and starts it all over again. He is warned, ignores the warning, gets himself blocked for longer, abuses the user page, gets it locked, comes back, picks on a word and starts edit warring again (preferably having found either a word or an article that either has an edit history with one of his "combatants"), goes in and starts it again, gets warned, gets banned . . . etc. I don' think, going by your comments, that you realise this. It wasn't a case of fixing a spelling. It was a case of finding an Australian topic, preferably language or spelling, to start another edit war. He has been at this since April. And when his block ends he will do the exact same again.

The reason why I and others, after clear warnings, have been increasing his block is because smaller blocks didn't make the slightest difference to him. Users had hoped that the month block would have got it through to him to stop the edit warring on Australian topics and in particular language, but true to form on his second edit he was off again, this time with program/me. If it wasn't that it would have been something else. It wasn't an innocent case of correcting a spelling, but just his latest gaming. Maybe this time a five week week block will get it through to him that Wikipedia wasn't joking. When we said stop it we meant it. At this stage I am seriously doubting his credibility as a user and wondering if he is simply one of the various users banned from Wikipedia. A few of them have a habit of launching sockpuppets and waging edit wars on picture locations, on spellings, or split infinitives, you name it. I can't help wonder if this is just another. If it is, and checkuser shows it, then Pnatt will be blocked permanently as per Arbcom rules, and whichever banned user is responsible will have their ban restarted as of the last pnatt edit. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)}

Image deletion?

Why is your Image:VirginEnglishRose.JPG under consideration for deletion? Some users appear to have a KGB mind in Wikipedia!

I think it was botted because it was orphaned. There's a crop of the nose art used in the Virgin Atlantic article, and that's almost the whole picture, certainly the most interesting part. --Jumbo 22:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt

He is writing provocative things on his page and I won't let them go unanswered. The solution as I see it:

1. Pnatt stays quiet and does not complain until the block expires (or complain afterwards)
2. Pnatt may edit freely afterwards, but
   1. If he is reverted he must not just revert back
   2. He may not add any abusive or stupid or totally unjustified edit summaries
   3. His editting must not turn into attacks on any group
3. I (and I am sure others) will monitor him when his block expires, and
   1. I will only revert a change he has made if I believe that it is wholly unnecessary or an attack or provocation
   2. If he adds any more BS accusations about myself or others on his talkpage or elsewhere I will take this further than just an admin.

Xtra 09:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask the same of you, please? We can hardly expect him to follow a higher standard than we set. I'm rather sorry I got embroiled in all this, but I'd like to see if we can get a positive outcome. --Jumbo 09:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What same standard? You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Xtra 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Try to put yourself in his shoes. He sees you using words like "moron" and reverting without discussion, and that's the example being set, and then you (and others) criticise him for doing exactly what he sees you doing. He came back from a long block, apparently with a good attitude and a desire to do better, and he gets ganged up on. I can't blame him for feeling frustrated! --Jumbo 10:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

When I have reverted Pnatt I have given a reason Xtra 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to argue with you. Please put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself how he will respond. I'm hoping that we can channel his energy into constructive purposes. There's certainly enough work to do. I'm encouraged by JTDIRL's recent posts, which show he is understanding Pnatt's behaviour. As another participant in this affair pointed out, OCD explains his behaviour, but doesn't excuse it. --Jumbo 05:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You may not be aware of it (I've just become so now) but you probably should be told that a user has had to protect Pnatt's talk page yet again. Pnatt used it to launch a rather strong attack on the United States and when the attack was removed by another user he reinserted it. He had since emailed users asking for it to be unlocked but they have refused and indicated that after his last actions it will now remain locked until the expiry of his block.

I know you have striven to show tolerance to Pnatt. I am glad you did. I may have sounded excessively strong to you. You were not aware that those of us who had dealt with his behaviour had been on the same merry-go-round since April: appeals to stop, warnings, blocks, abuse of talk page, locking of talk page, expiry of block, fighting again, block, abuse of talk page . . .. As you can see Pnatt is difficult to deal with. I know the block for a spelling correction seemed excessive to you. It was simply that I had been around the block so often with him, and knew from experience that the spelling correction was step one of the next round, followed hours, sometimes minutes later, by another row, then another, then more edit wars, etc. So I stepped in at step 1 to stop it because from experience I could see exactly where it was heading.

I have enormous sympathy for people with OCD — indeed with anyone with an illness that impacts on their judgment and behaviour. The problem is that I don't see how we can accomodate someone with Pnatt's behavioural patterns within Wikipedia. Even when he only is allowed to edit one page he misuses it in a way that, yet again, led to it being locked. If his behaviour on one page causes so much grief, one can imagine the problems he could cause (and constantly does cause) when given full access. Some users who are simple vandals cause chaos from day one. Pnatt isn't a vandal. But his behaviour is such that he had spent over two thirds of the time since he joined Wikipedia blocked, and the rest of the time edit warring. In the circumstances I can't help wondering if we should ask someone, perhaps the Arbitration Committee, to decide whether Pnatt should be let back at all. Clearly Wikipedia is not suited to someone with his health considerations. The stress of it all probably makes his situation worse. And his behaviour is such that I very much doubt if he could work within Wikipedia rules. Going by past behaviour, I suspect that in a matter of hours, possibly even minutes, of the expiry of his block he would be blocked again by someone else for again edit warring, fighting, starting rows on Australian pages over spellings (He had done that quite a lot), etc.

What do you think we should do? I'd hate to see someone ever denied access to WP because of an illness. But if the illness results in behaviour that is incompatible with WP's work environment, what can we do? What should be do? FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)}

I'm chagrined to think that I didn't send him a warning when I saw that anti-US petition. Attention-seeking behaviour, and a predictable result. I won't make any protest. I warned him two or three times.

I will be around when his block expires and will look at his edits carefully. I would like to encourage him rather than punish him. Please, blocks of 24 hours if he steps out of line so that I can communicate with him and get acceptance of what has gone wrong.

He must have evolved strategies for coping in everyday life. If these strategies can be adapted for WP usage, then he may prove to be a valuable contributor. An editor with a deep-rooted interest in sources and attention to detail can be very useful.

But if he cannot work with others, then he cannot stay. --Jumbo 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My A380 changes

Yes, I do know in fact now that SQ has not cancelled their order. I was simply changing the dates in the introduction. I apologise if this is a problem which I don't think it is!

Char645

Hmmm. Perhaps I got the wrong editor - there seems to have been a few reversions on that point and hard to tell who did what. It would really help if you got an account and signed your posts. --Jumbo 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Crash template

Glad to see someone taking an interest! --Jumbo 02:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Those multiple templates have always annoyed me, especially when I added them to Air India Flight 182, currently on the Main Page. joturner 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I just copied from the Airport template(s) and changed a few things around. I figured someone smarter and more knowledgable than me would come along and fix it up if I made a mistake. Thanks! --Jumbo 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps I'll take care of those another day. joturner 02:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Freedom air pic caption

Hi there, just to let you know I just minorly changed your caption on the Freedom Air page that was on the picture. I changed it from A Freedom Air Airbus 320 in Dunedin to A Freedom Air Airbus A320 in Dunedin. All I did was just change it from Airbus 320 to A320 and made a hyperlink. Thanks and I like your pics and the crash template. Jam01 03:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Pnatt

Hi Jumbo. By the time that you posted your last message on Pnatt's talk page, I had already indefinitely blocked him as a lost cause, and at time of typing two other administrators have endorsed my decision.

The relevant discussion is here. I thought I should let you know given your involvement in prior discussion relating to this user's conduct. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

West End streets

Too true! Tyrenius 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rafic Hariri International Airport

I don't see what the purpose of changing the dates from Month Day, Year to Day Month Year was, nor what actual useful outcome came from doing so.. Please explain. NcSchu 00:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Happy to be of assistance! See WP:DATE for full details, but briefly the use of wikidates means that readers see the dates in their preferred format. Each comma is therefore a superfluous character because the software will insert it for readers who prefer the US format. As the article concerns a non-US subject, US-style (MD,Y) date formatting is inappropriate. --Jumbo 06:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. NcSchu 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

US date formats in non-US article

Thank you for you alert! The previous editions of the article, at the time I added the subsection, it seems they were using the US date format and I followed the rule (I was not even aware of it, in spite of being from european country). Thanks again, Regards --Viriathus 13:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Becuz i write in US English

shouldn't or shouldn't i use the US date format? Robin Hood 1212 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Only in appropriate articles - such as those concerned with U.S. subjects. The same guidelines for use of U.S. or UK English in an article apply. Neither Lebanon nor Israel use U.S. date format. See Date format for a list of countries showing which date formats are used. --Jumbo 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

American dates

I don't know why, I reverted using popups and it changed the date format also. I've never heard of this before...Feel free to change it. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 06:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaza Strip

This is unsourced OR that has been discussed plenty on talk. I warned the user about 3RR. Tewfik^Talk 06:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates

You wrote "Rationalise non-US date formats in non-US article", but if your date preferences are enabled, these dates would look the same in any case. I was interested as I have been trying to take out the many linked stand-alone years in Wikipedia; most often they add nothing to the article. It has been fairly controversial though; some users like them in some articles and there is no coherent policy. --Guinnog 03:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing standalone wikiyears is current policy, according to WP:DATE. Complete dates should be wikilinked so that they show up correctly according to user preferences. However, those readers who have not established accounts will see the dates presented as entered, and it is preferable that U.S. format dates be kept out of non-U.S. articles. --Jumbo 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. "There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader. Some advocate linking to a more specific article about that year, for example 2006." (from WP:DATE). --Guinnog 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a longstanding rule that we don't change date formats, which get changed only to achieve uniformity in a single article. If you prefer your dates in a given format, set your preferences accordingly. You especially shouldn't violate this convention while making multiple careless errors. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you know that your doing this is not uncontroversial, I'd ask you to please stop until you achieve concensus from the community that it is (or is not) proper). - Nunh-huh 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have explained to you and jtdirl has confirmed, my actions are entirely in keeping with the existing WP:MoS guidelines, as confirmed by ArbCom. We have discussed this at length, and while I thank you for your opinions, I think we have come to an end. --Jumbo 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not synonymous with ArbCom rules. If you won't request comments, then I will. - Nunh-huh

Jumbo is following the letter of the rules on WP on dates. Where a clear preference exists for usage (in the US it is American Dating, in the Commonwealth, Ireland and most of Europe it is International Dating) then articles relating to that topic should respect local usage. Where no clear preference exists (Sweden for example, uses three different dating forms) then the first edit should set the standard. American dating is constantly removed by users from European topics. International Dating is constantly removed from American articles. Europeans who never use AD in their own lives, out of respect for American usage, use AD in American articles. I have regularly removed International Dating from American articles and replaced it with American dating. Americans deserve to have their local usage respected. So do the British, the Irish, the French, and everyone else. It is all standard and has been for years. Periodically some pushers of American dating go ballistic when American Dating is deleted from articles even when it is demonstrably the case that that country never uses the thing and always uses ID. The last major eruption in the periodic Dating Wars occurred when a merry band of AD-users decided to delete all references to ID from all articles, ignoring the consensus that said they could be used. If users of the majority ID system are so willing to reflect American usage that they stop ID dates being installed in US topics, and write articles on countries that use AD in AD format, it would be nice if users of AD showed the majority who use ID the same respect. The consensus we use is perfectly simple: fit the language and the dates to the format used in that country. If there is no one set format, go by the choice of the original editor. (In reality that actually means that more topics will end up as AD because at the start, when many of these articles were begun, Wikipedia was predominantly American, so users used the format they were used to, AD.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's what you wish Wikipedia's rules were. Unfortunately, there is no rule that says "use the language and the dates in a format used in that country". We don't write "4 avril 1970" in articles on Monaco. I'm suggesting you go to the bother of actually changing the rules within process, rather than by personal fiat. Wikipedians ought to respect each other's contributions and not change date formats for frivolous reasons. Going on a jihad against "American" dates is disruptive and pointless: disruptive because it is needlessly offensive and disrespectful to other editors, and pointless because anyone can see dates in their preferred formats according to their preferences. You don't have to be a "pusher" of anything to suggest that mutual respect of other's choices is one of the bases that allow Wikipedia to operate. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the French one. We use the date format that is appropriate to the subject, and if I'm on a crusade to do anything, it's to have appropriate and sypathetic use of language and styles. --Jumbo 05:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have a very "sypathetic" use of language. Again I ask you to stop your crusade until the community has voiced it's support or lack of it. - Nunh-huh 05:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I point out that the existing MoS guidelines support me. I don't have to seek community approval for following guidelines. Your RFC has had one response, which has underlined this. jtdirl has explained the position at some length. It is not a matter of using U.S. and U.K. dates (as in American and British English). It is a matter of American Dating versus International Dating. Monaco does not use American Dating, consequently our articles on Monaco subjects should use International Dating, because preferences don't work for most of our readers, unly that small percentage who create an account and set preferences. --Jumbo 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You claim you are following guidelines, but you are not. No matter how many times you claim it. Your dedication to dictating the preferences of others is...remarkable. - Nunh-huh 05:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation

Hi! You recently asked me if I have any reference for the Kerry Packer edit. I'm sorry, there are no links on the web that can support my edit, although I do attend the school itself (Canberra Grammar School) and it is a wide joke that wikipedia thinks Kerry Packer was an old boy. As soon as I joined wikipedia (something I have wanted to do for a long time) I changed this embarassing fault on the page. Sorry about the public email, I was unable to email you personally. Thanks for checking though! --Will James 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's preferable to keep discussion open. I commend your zeal, and wish you well as a Wikipedian, and a fellow Canberran. However, you should be aware of our "No Original research" policy and seek sources for your edits. Would you like to comment on this story in the Sydney Morning Herald in which Kerry Packer claims to have been a CGS student for two years? --Jumbo 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Kerry Packer

Wow! I guess that article brings an end to the urban myth of Kerry Packer's false attendance. I am very sorry if I have caused you any trouble in the matter. If you have the power to do so, I would appreciate it if you could undo my changes to the CGS website. Thankyou also for your kind approach to the matter, I will be more careful whilst editing in the future.

No trouble at all, Will! I had no knowledge of this until a few minutes ago when I happened to be monitoring Recent Changes and naturally "Canberra" caught my eye. I did a Google search on "Kerry Packer Canberra Grammar" and found a likely source. I am sure that one of the many biographies of Kerry Packer would also include the information. Now you may be famous as a "mythbuster"!

You can undo the change yourself. Just go to the "history" tab at the top of the relevant article, search down until you find the article you wish to revert to, and then click on the date, which will take you to that version of the article. You may then edit it as normally (though in this case you would merely make an edit summary and no actual changes, and in any case Calair has already done this for you). You get a warning that you are editing an out of date version, but click the save button anyway.

Don't be discouraged. Wikipedia is a fascinating place and has some great elements. I am sure you will do well! --Jumbo 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Hawkins

In view of the frequency with which I suppose this issue might arise, I raised the {{notable Wikipedian}} issue at WP:VPP; you may want to join in the discussion. I'm eminently confident that our views apropos of WP:BLP are diametrically opposed, but I appreciate that you've been altogether cordial in our encounters and that you are, to be sure, acting in view of encyclopedic principles. I would have imagined, even prior to his making, at Wikimania, the statements that you adduce at the JH talk page, that Jimbo's views were likely closer to yours than to mine, but I am also inclined to believe, having observed and participated in the Wikipedia:Wikiethics and WP:NOT EVIL discussions (and the sundry mailing list BLP discussions), that the consensus of the community writ large lies somewhere betwixt my views and those that I, perhaps incorrectly, ascribe to you. In any event, thanks for the deliberative civility with which you've engaged me... :) Joe 02:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I hope you'll not infer from my comments that I'm some horrifically vindictive person seeking to punish our interlocutor—the putative Jim Hawkins; rather, I'm generally disinclined to interpret BLP and its progeny broadly and think here that there is no particular reason for which to excise the template—the IPs, it appears, aren't those assigned to Hawkins' personal computer, and no privacy issues seem to entail. The meta-question, though, as you note, is slightly more interesting, and I've proposed a solution—viz., that, for subjects who have only edited under IPs, we use a different template that provides the fact of the subject's editing without delineating the IPs from which such editing has taken place (with the caveat that we might need at least to comment out the IPs, for obvious reasons). In brief, I mean only to observe that I'm not a horrible person... Joe 03:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I never thought you were. I know that Jim is terribly upset over all this, and while a lot of it is due to his not being a Wikipedian and knowing how things are done, I think we could handle things a bit better. I think that your solution is a good one, for this article. --Jumbo 03:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at talk page

Hi

Please look at talk page before editting the article.[2]--Sa.vakilian 08:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Date schema

I would request you discuss the dating schema on the various talk pages before you unilaterally switch all of them.

Thank you. -- Avi 21:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ArchibaldKeightly.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ArchibaldKeightly.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rationalizing dates? (and moving pages?) Wouldn't it be better if you did it with editorial consensus?

Hello Jumbo! I see you've engaged in a "crusade" to rationalize dates, as you put it. Obviously, seeing the messages on your talk page, not everyone agrees with you. Furthermore, if you are interested in Wiki policies, you should be aware that moving pages requires consensus. Thus, I would ask you to revert your moves concerning dates where you haven't obtained consensus. Personally, I was attracted by your actions at February 6, 1934 riots which you changed to "6 February 1934 riots". As one user has pointed to you hereabove, maybe if you enabled your date preferences on your personal user account things would work out better? In the meanwhile, I created the article it seems, and I am rather used to February 6 than to 6 February or 6 of February. As you yourself has pointed out, we are on the English Wikipedia and not the French one, so there is nothing about the national context of this article which "justify" any "rationalization" that you are doing. To put it clearly: many users disagree with your "rationalizations", please find a consensus before doing them. This is rather unnerving. Cheers, no big deal but quite a bother! Tazmaniacs 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This is covered in the Manual of Style, and I have provided links to the relevant section(s) - I urge you to consult the source and argue your case on the talk page, which is the proper course of action. Individual consensus for individual changes when following guidelines is not required - consensus has already been found on a WP-wide basis. Could you read the MoS, please? And I would appreciate it if you withdraw that "crusade" comment. --Jumbo 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tazmaniacs. Your approach is not supported by what the MOS actually says; see my comments at [3]. --Mathew5000 03:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

SJ is quite correct in his actions. It makes no sense to place an article on a French topic under American dating when France does not use that dating, and neither does most of the planet. This is not Americopedia. The MoS does require that articles are placed at the correct location based on language and dating usage. Only where there is no correct usage (as where a country uses both American dating and International Dating and/or ISO) is it then optional for an author to choose which one to use. SJ is correct. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)}

That isn't what MOS says. I understand your point, and if you think that's what MOS should say, then edit MOS. --Mathew5000 03:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does. I was one of those involved in drafting it. It gives examples. It does not mean those examples are "exceptions", but examples of how to apply the rule. We didn't list the countries simply because at the end of an exhausting debate none of us had the energy to do so. We relied on local knowledge. So articles on Ireland that use mm/dd/yyyy are changed to dd/mm/yyyy. French articles in as mm/dd/yyyy are changed to dd/mm/yyyy. American articles put in as dd/mm/yyyy are changed to mm/dd/yyyy. We have been doing that for years. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)}

What the MOS says is this: "Elsewhere, either format is acceptable." [4] In that paragraph, the word "elsewhere" clearly includes France (and for that matter, most non-anglophone countries). If you think that should be changed, then try to change it. --Mathew5000 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It begins by saying, "If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country.". France uses the dd/mm/yyyy format of International Dating. Applying American Dating to an article which is so intimately French is quite out of place. And once again, I thank jtdirl for the benefit of his expertise in the application of style and formatting. --Jumbo 04:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because this isn't "Americopedia" doesn't make it "Non-Americopedia". There is no reason to change dates on a neutral topic. Who cares? Is it part of a broader goal of trying to erase any trace of American influence where it "doesn't belong"? The manual of style actually says that editors should not make edits for the sole purpose of changing to a different national spelling. Shouldn't this apply to dates too, especially on a neutral topic. I totally disagree with the sweeping changes SuperJumbo is making. -- Renesis13 05:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason to change date formats on topics where American Dating is not used is for the convenience of readers (most of whom do not have accounts and hence do not have date preferences set). Applying American Dating to a topic where International Dating is appropriate is not something that should be done thoughtlessly. I quote from the Manual of Style. The section to which you refer actually states:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic.

I have a substantial and implicitly-approved reason for making changing the dating format. In this I am backed up by an expert editor. If you have some substantial reason for using American Dating for (say) the birthdates of French kings, I would be very interested to hear it. --Jumbo 06:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point. I don't care which format is used by editors who are writing articles. I just don't see any reason for explicitly making those changes to many articles. I have a hard time believing the reason is not somewhere rooted in anti-Americanism, which I don't believe should be a policy on Wikipedia. -- Renesis13 06:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me reassure you on that point. I have the greatest interest and enthusiasm for the U.S. --Jumbo 06:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cease making these date edits immediately or you will be blocked. Go into your preferences and change it to display dates however you want them displayed. We have guidelines on Wikipedia to not go around adjusting dates to your preferences, because then you'd have people on both sides each thinking that their way was right, and there'd be a ton of useless edits adjusting the dates back and forth. --Cyde Weys 13:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for the benefit of your advice. If you would be so very good as to show me these guidelines, then I will be equally pleased to observe them. Until then, I will act as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --Jumbo 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

SJ, subject to my note below, some date format edits are discouraged by the MoS itself. Rich Farmbrough 20:53 19 August 2006 (GMT).

Be nice to Jumbo!

O.K. there's little point in changing the format of 15 May vs May 15 , but it is (or should be) acceptable to make an article more uniform. That the strong perception that one is UK (possibly plus most of the commonwealth) and the other U.S. (possibly plus Canada) may not be supported by experience does not mean that it is wrong for a UK article (for example) to have the perceived UK layout - but, yes SJ, please set up your preferences. However dates in the xx/xx/xxxx fromat are an abomination (I have hunted down and destroyed them all serveral times, but they keep coming back) and should be fixed into one of the two preferred WP formats. On the other hand, moving pages is more tricky are, where restraint of the mover would be advised. Rich Farmbrough 20:53 19 August 2006 (GMT).

Date formats

Wikipedia allows a date format of DD Mmmm YYYY (indeed, note how it time-stamps the comments on your Talk page), and established Wikipedia policy is that date formats in articles should not be altered in cases where an editor is exactly and only imposing his or her own preferences. (There are some regions such that, under Wikipedia policy, articles about them should have only the format DD Mmmm YYYY, but none under which dd Mmmm yyyy is not acceptable.) —23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing date formats

Please see the more recent Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan, which states:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

While changing the format for articles on which you are a regular editor or which you happen to come across in regular editing is acceptable, running through the numerous articles changing dates is not. Stop now. —Centrx→talk • 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. May I ask you to read through the discussion above and on WP:ANI, the links to the MoS and the talk page for dates and numbers? You will find that expert opinion is in favour of my activity. Please let me know if you need further guidance. --Jumbo 23:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read them; they have taken place over a short period of time with a limited number of users. There have far more discussions in the past on the same topic on administrative noticeboards and MoS, with far greater participation, which have reached the opposite conclusions. The consensus among style editors and administrators since these issues have arisen in the past couple of years, has been that running through articles for the purpose of making changes between two acceptable styles is not productive and often results either in most or all the edits just being reverted or the editor in question getting wrapped up in edit wars that result in a block. In this case, there have only been inklings of that, but bringing someone up on ANI for reverting a couple of your mass changes is excessive. —Centrx→talk • 00:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about previous discussions. If you have links to them, I would be interested in seeing them. In the case of Nunh-huh, it was the attitude that perturbed me. Quite clearly I am within my rights in changing dates in American articles to American Dating, or changing British articles likewise. The changes here and here are clearly not supported by any guidelines, and I note that Nunh-huh has not attempted to give justification for his edits, except to claim that articles should be left in the style chosen by the first major contributor, which is not true. All I need is sufficient reason to make the change.

Incidentally, he misrepresents my case. I am not trying to change all dates in non-American articles to International Dating. I am wikilinking and reformatting dates as appropriate to that article. For example, I would not change a date in American format in a Canadian or Phillipines article. Can you see the difference in what is claimed and what I am actually doing? --Jumbo 01:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I"ve characterized it as it has been characterized elsewhere, I believe by you, though perhaps I am mistaken there; I first encountered you changing all the articles associated with Monaco, not Britain, and not America. - Nunh-huh 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are indeed mistaken, and I have repeatedly denied your interpretation. Monaco uses International Dating, and that is sufficient reason to change biographical articles on Monaco's royal family to the dating style used in that nation. However, it is not sufficient to alter the Grace Kelly article, because either style would be appropriate. In that case, I merely tidied up the wikilinks, retaining American Dating. I have given my reasons as to why the MoS supports me in this. In the lengthy discussion which follows, yours is the only dissenting voice. --Jumbo 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In the many discussions which are occurring all over the place, mine is not the only dissenting voice. Several appear on this very page. I suggest you need only wait a bit to hear more in response to the request for comments. - Nunh-huh 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, in the discussion on the MoS talk page, yours was the only dissenting voice. There is no better forum for discussion on this topic than MoS. I also note that dissenting voices have generally gone silent on other forums, such as WP:ANI when the guidelines are referenced and the matter debated. User:Cyde, for example, began by breathing fire and brimstone, but after informed discussion refused to assert his initial views. --Jumbo 01:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't conclude much from that particular silence. In the meantime, I know your opinion, and you know mine. The purpose of a request for comments is to hear the opinions of others, not to reiterate our own. - Nunh-huh 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time. I have addressed the points you raised, I have informed myself on the history of the debate, I have sought expert opinion. I am quite satisfied that my actions are in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. The support I have gained during this discussion convinces me that I am on solid ground. I am at a loss as to how you can maintain your opinion, unless you consider that your views outweigh consensus. --Jumbo 02:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You're perfectly free to decide how to spend your time. I am spending mine trying to gauge consensus, not dictate it. - Nunh-huh</span> 02:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

His changes were reverting back to the status quo. They were not an introduction of something new but a preservation of something old that was changed against Arbcom rulings, longstanding practice, and reasonable current disagreement. You reverting back again, that is, edit warring, is an example of exactly the sort of reason why these sorts of style changes are not permitted.

This policy does not leave articles in the style chosen by the first major contributor, it leaves articles in the style chosen by any contributor at all. In the case of Joseph Earl Sheffield, he wrote the whole article, then you come along and change it amongst a spree of changes. On Wikipedia, where there is more than one acceptable style, the consensus at the article is supreme, and to some extent this is true even when there is only one MoS acceptable style. So, if you were writing, rewriting, or revamping an article, you could use the date format you think appropriate. If you happen to come across a lonely article that no one cares for, while doing other things, you might change the date format if appropriate. But that does not mean making mass changes, and if anyone objects, the same rules apply as for any disagreement over articles: bring it up on the Talk page or just forget about it because it is so minor.

Yes, this means that in certain very minor respects, articles on Wikipedia will not be uniform, but that is a small price to pay if the policy diminishes the amount of time people spend on these very minor aspects, which often also cause significant disruption—and also means that the "wrong" mandate e.g. of using all American dates, will also not be implemented. Perhaps at some time in the future, Wikipedia articles will be cleanly divided in terms of British articles having British dates, etc., but that time is not now, the Manual of Style is to be the very weakest of nudges and is primarily a manual, a help, a guide, not a mandate. —Centrx→talk • 02:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We are informed on every edit page that If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. I am within my rights in changing an article on an explicitly American subject to American Dating even if it was originally written using International Dating. This is sufficient reason for making the change. --Jumbo 02:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean within your rights? This is not a debate about natural law. The merciless editing message is to tell potential contributors that what they write will be changed; it does not permit you to do anything you want on Wikipedia. Even if your interpretation of the Arbcom decisions were correct, it would not be license to make a mass implementation of the MOS on articles. —Centrx→talk • 02:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean that there is no individual ownership of articles, and that I am backed up by MoS guidelines in making changes in style. I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. --Jumbo 02:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is rather unrelated to article ownership, and the MoS gives no authority to make mass changes if they are controversial. Do not start doing so again. —Centrx→talk • 03:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made myself plain. You have brought nothing fresh to this debate. I was already aware of Sortan and you have declined to present any other sources, despite me asking you politely for them. May I suggest that if you want to continue discussing this matter, you do so on the appropriate MoS talk page. While I respect your opinion, you have not provided anything to overturn the consensus of opinion and discussion that the MoS represents. I trust that you understand the position as I see it. --Jumbo 04:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning regarding date styles

I see above that you have been previously on this topic. You recent edits - changing the dating styles on a number of articles for which there is no clear US/British relationship, is in violation of the arbitration committee's Sortan ruling. If you continue to do such mass changes, you can expect to be blocked. Raul654 01:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Please see the recent discussion on this topic. I'm well aware of Sortan and consensus seems to be that I'm on solid ground, given that Sortan depends on Jguk. --Jumbo 06:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 36	5 September 2006	About the Signpost

Everyking desysopped	Explicit images spark debate
Report from the Italian Wikipedia	The English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 administrators
Voting begins in Board elections	Wikipedia in the news
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

unblock reviewed|decline You've been asked, politely, many times to refrain from running around changing dates. It isn't about who's right or wrong about which dates go where - its about the level of disruption your changes are causing. --Shell ^babelfish 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My actions on date formats are in accordance with the Manual of Style, as discussed in many places, most notably on the relevant MoS talk page. Using Sortan as a precedent is quite wrong - the intent of Sortan (and Jguk before it) is to prvent campaigns to change styles on a WP-wide basis. In my case, changing date formats in American articles to American Dating format and other articles to reflect national usage is aimed at improving quality, tidying up wikilinks and so on. I am also a little concerned at the breach of WP:CIVIL which has occurred. We should aim for professional behaviour at all times.

Text of block notice: 
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Sean Black for the following reason 
(see our blocking policy): 
Date formatting idiocy; has been persistently warned.

My unblock request was declined:

You've been asked, politely, many times to refrain from running around changing dates. It isn't about who's right or wrong about which dates go where - its about the level of disruption your changes are causing. --Shell ^babelfish 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)}}

How can my actions possibly be causing disruption? Most editors wouldn't notice any difference in format, because they will have preferences set. My changes are in accordance with WP:MoS, I have checked on the relevant talk change, and I have remained polite and civil throughout. I would be obliged if you could explain your remarks and give an example of the disruption you mention. --Jumbo 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously not done with this nonsense. Please just quit. I would view a block of a month for continued date format changing to be reasonable, followed by a block of a year, then an indefinite block. Fred Bauder 14:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a useless disruptive edit [5]. It is not a question of an "international standard" versus American practice, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formats_related_to_topics. Israel and Lebanon fall into neither category in any event. Fred Bauder 14:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but both Israel and Lebanon use International Dating (day month year). I am not sure that you have researched this issue fully, and may I request that you look into it further? I really feel most confused about following the Manual of Style and then being attacked for doing so! --Jumbo 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just quit editing in order to change date format. Fred Bauder 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The MoS says: "If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country." I also note that a key section states: "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic."

Reading these two sections together, it is clear to me that changing from one date format to another is appropriate if I change from a date format not used in that country, to the format that is used in that country. This change, for example, is solely to change the date format and I cannot see that you (or any other reeasonable person) would have a problem with it.

Furthermore, where I find dates that are not in the correct format (eg. "1st of December", rather than 1 December) I change them to the MoS format. Overall, my work is considered to be useful and in accordance with MoS, as per User:jtdirl's comments, among others. I'm just a footsoldier in this man's encyclopaedia, and I'm trying to improve quality, as per Jimbo's recent remarks at Wikimania 2006. If the leaders and administrators of Wikipedia cannot agree amongst themselves., then whose lead do I follow? Surely you should be working this out at a senior level, establishing and enforcing clear policy, rather than expecting me to follow contrary advice, some of which seems to be off-the-cuff rather than well-researched. --Jumbo 00:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Three seperate arbitrators - every single one that has commented on your editing - have now told you that your editing is unacceptable. Raul654 06:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think I am entitled to ask for something more than a personal opinion, when to the best of my knowledge I am complying with the Manual of Style. If you would be so very good as to tell me precisely what I am doing wrong and how it contravenes any guidelines or policies? Either that, or thrash something out on the relevant MoS talk page, because I'm getting mixed messages. On one hand I have some people telling me I'm all wrong, and they don't say why. On the other hand I have other people saying I'm 100% correct and they give reasons and sources. Be fair. Who would you believe? Someone who pulls rank and says "He's wrong because I say so, dammit!" or someone else with experience in these things saying "He's right, and this is why."

I realise that ArbCom members are very busy people, but is it too much to ask, if you are going to state something so vehemently, that you explain your reasoning and provide references? --Jumbo 07:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On non-commonwealth, non-US articles, either US or British style dates are acceptable, as is clearly stated in the manual of style. Per the Sortan ruling, mass changing articles from one to the other is not acceptable, regardless of whether or not that is the style used in those countries. Your attempts to justify it using the manual of style are flawed. Anyone who says otherwise to any of these points is giving you very bad advise and you would be wise to do what the arbitrators tell you if you wish to continue editing. Raul654 08:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking deeper into this. With respect, I think you are being overly selective in your quotes, and merely mentioning something which has already examined and discussed is not going to suddenly sway me to a different way of thinking. If I tried the same tactic on you, you would smilingly reply, "Yes, we already know that." Please give me credit for some intelligence!

You say to me "Your attempts to justify it using the manual of style are flawed.", but two sentences earlier, you yourself say: as is clearly stated in the manual of style." Surely if you justify your argument by referring to the MoS, then you must allow me to do the same.

The MoS says: "If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country." I also note that a key section states: "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic."

Reading these two sections together, it is clear to me that changing from one date format to another is appropriate if I change from a date format not used in that country, to the format that is used in that country. But your interpretation divides the world into three - the U.S., British and ex-British, and the rest, where "the rest" may use any format. I suggest that if British articles use the day month year format because that format is in use in the U.K., then likewise French articles also use that format, because France certainly does not use American Dating. It uses day month year, exactly the same as the U.K.. though the French would be insulted if you referred to their preferred date format as British Dating. Or are you saying that the U.K. is somehow privileged, and it is not the date format a nation uses that is important, but whether a nation is "British" or not?

I also note that we do not divide the English-speaking world into users of American English and British English. We also refer to Australian English, Canadian English and so on. Surely it follows that we must follow the same principle as regards date formats. In fact, the MoS refers to this as a source of guidance.

My interpretation, and again I think it is one which a reasonable person would agree with, is that the lead sentence of the section defines the rule, and the example sentence serves to illustrate, rather than define. Otherwise, we have two rules which contradict each other. I note that in this example sentence Ireland has been added to the list of nations using day month year format, and this is non-problematic, because quite clearly Ireland uses that format and not month day year. Why not use exactly the same logic and add France to the list? And every other nation which uses the same date format? Is that not a sensible and logical way of handling the issue?

Looking at Sortan, which you mention and rely upon, that decision is aimed at editors who wish to change articles to their own preferred style, and do so in a disruptive manner. If you look over my edits, you will see that I change U.S. related articles to use American Dating, and other articles to use International Dating, where there is a clear and overwhelming link to a country using that style. Furthermore, I change dates in non-standard formats to the wikilinked style nominated in the Manual of Style. I would hope that a reasonable person would see these changes as being useful and contributing to improving the quality of our work, rather than disruptive. --Jumbo 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I endorse all that Jumbo has said and regard this block as an absolute disgrace and an abuse of position. Neither the arbcom ruling nor the MoS prohibit the editing SJ engaged in. They simply require a substantial reason justifying the change. Clear evidence that an article uses a form of English and a form of dating alien to the country that the article is associated with is unambiguously a substantial reason to correct the format. It is not SJ's fault that how we have implemented the rule has been a mess. In large measure the mess has long been caused by the tendency of American English and American Dating users to "claim" an article with their dating and Spelling system even when it has no association whatsoever with AD and AE. I and others have been told off by some of the users who have been most critical of SJ for daring to stop AE and AD users from changing Irish articles into Americanese. When we wrote the consensus agreement into the MoS we referred to certain countries as examples. We never meant that list to be the "only places where American Dating can't be used", which is how some of the AE pushers who have been hounding SJ have interpreted it. The intention was always that usage should reflect native usage. I have been calling for three years for WP to draw up a list so that we know where uses International Dating and International English and where uses American Dating and American English.

SJ acted in good faith all the way through. Few of his critics did so. Frankly some of them should have been blocked for their antics. He remained calm, polite and co-operative despite agressive attacks, gross misrepresentations, and all too often personal abuse. The fact that a user who follows the MoS to the letter gets blocked, while those who harrassed him get nothing, pretty much explains why so many good users are jumping ship in frustration at this place. One final point: Fred's intervention was unwarranted, unfair and should never have happened. Users have made it clear on ANI and elsewhere that they endorse SJ. He has acted fairly and obeyed to the letter the MoS. Users who abuse WP can get away with it for ages. Yet a decent fair user like SJ gets one of our "judges", showing little grasp of the topic, justifying a week block, and saying that the next step should be a month and then an indefinite block. If an actual judge made that sort of intervention they would face impeachment. Fred has undermined his own impartiality, compromised his neutrality and damaged the credibility of the arbcom. He owes SJ a public apology for his intervention. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 02:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)}

---

Re: Date quality initiative

Hi! I posted my reply on the talk page there, but I just wanted to say that I admire your take on a topic like this. The degree of non-guidance in the manual can sometimes annoy me, as in my view it defeats the purpose of the manual. Such a real, proper and I'd even say "neutral" effort to analyse the guideline for improvement is a rare occurance (though it did take a good while to read!) and I find your efforts and views on the topic admirable. Neonumbers 10:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop hiding behind the "letter"

It was inapproriate to remove the following message. -- Renesis13 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, I'll read all comments and remove those that I consider irrelevant or abusive. You and Nunh-huh are welcome to discuss date formats on the relevant MoS page, and I'll address any specific concerns there when I can. My talk page is already overlong and I do not currently have the ability to archive any material. With all due respect, you've sent me your message, I've read it, and continuing to post the same material is impolite. --Jumbo 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked

I have reblocked you for 7 days, because you went right back to changing date formats after many requests not to do so.

I would encourage any admin reviewing this block to lift it on the condition that this editor agrees to stop changing date styles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly entitled to change date formats as per the MoS. The relevant section is unclear, but I have chosen to follow the safest course. If you would be so very good as to point out which changes breached this section, and precisely how you consider them to have done so, I would be very grateful for your guidance. I am also puzzled as to how you consider me to be "edit warring".

I understand how if you are not aware of the background, then you might come to an erroneous conclusion, but I ask you to look a bit further. Perhaps you might consult with others. --Jumbo 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

An arbcom member told you to stop changing dates, and added that he "would view a block of a month for continued date format changing to be reasonable, followed by a block of a year, then an indefinite block". It's not as though you weren't warned. - Nunh-huh 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But was the Arbcom member speaking for himself or on behalf of Arbcom? --  Netsnipe  ►  21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done my best to comply with the MoS, even the more restrictive interpretation used by several ArbCom members. I follow the rules to the letter, and still I'm blocked? Could someone please look at one of my recent edits and tell me what, precisely, is wrong with it? A bit of guidance here would be very helpful. --Jumbo 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not followed the rules, you have strangely misinterpreted them and were told by the persons who wrote the rules and have the authority in dealing with violations of them that your interpretation was wrong and that you must stop making these changes. —Centrx→talk • 22:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where, in the last day or so, I have gone against the MoS. If you can't show me a diff, then you are not helping. --Jumbo 22:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have participated in the ongoing discussion on this issue – which you started, after all – Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_quality_initiative – instead of going back to the behaviour for which you were blocked in the first place?

I agree with you that 'edit warring' was a poor choice of words, as it seems that nobody got sucked into reverting you. It was really more of an 'edit offensive' that you engaged in. Please, if you wish to clarify/modify/implement a policy, discuss it first, change the articles second. The way you've approached things is just being disruptive to try to make your point.

Once again, if I'm not around, I encourage any other admin to lift this block if SuperJumbo agrees to stop changing date formats until the matter is settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But if you'll check, I did exactly the right thing. I asked for guidance as to which of my edits was considered "idiotic", I started a discussion aimed at ironing out the inconsistencies in the MoS, and while that was ongoing, I restricted myself to undeniably British and Commonwealth subjects. I ask again for a diff that you consider worth blocking me for a week over. And kindly do not rearrange my talk page. I've moved this discussion up to the top to keep everything together. --Jumbo 22:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I will happily unblock you if you undertake not to change any more date formats until we have a proper consensus at the MoS page. I know you probably won't be entirely happy with that but it seems to me to be a least-bad compromise which will allow us to take the matter forwards in the proper way. What do you think? --Guinnog 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Begging your pardon, but no, I don't think that's fair. I started a discussion on the correct page, aimed at ironing out any inconsistencies in the wording, and while that discussion was ongoing I restricted myself to working on articles where there was no dispute at all over the correct date format to use, namely British and British Commonwealth articles. I trust that everyone is in agreement that removing American formats from British articles is non-controversial? --Jumbo 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't find that controversial. It seems though that your changes have irritated many other people. Although I quite honestly don't agree with your block, and even agree with some of the points you make, I also don't think the issue is anything like important enough to fight with other admins over. If you will undertake to move on from your (understandable) annoyance about your two blocks, and undertake not to make any edits to date formats until a proper consensus is reached, then I will unblock you so you can contribute to the necessary policy discussion. I'll have to go to bed soon, so if you want me to do anything tonight then it would have to be soon.

On a separate note, would you consider enabling an email account? --Guinnog 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. That doesn't seem to be non-controversial. I note that in the MoS discussion Raul654 (an Arbitrator) and Nunh-huh (another admin) have both indicated that such changes aren't necessary and aren't implied by the MoS. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You must have moved the section while I was replying; believe me, I had no intention of moving your comments around. As an aside, I'll note that removing this discussion from a section makes it more difficult to add comments.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken in my understanding of the order of events here.

1. You were blocked once for making a large number of date format changes without discussion.
2. You posted a statement of your position and a request for clarification on the MoS dates talk page: [6]. You said, in part,

   I would like to see some informed discussion on this subject, based towards the twin objectives of increasing the quality of Wikipedia, and providing guidance for people like me who are merely trying to get on with the job and wish to have clear guidelines to follow.

3. You started changing date formats less than three hours later.

I'm offering you exactly what you were asking for: an opportunity to engage in informed discussion, and an opportunity for you to receive guidance on this issue. I've said it several times in several places now, I'd lift your block – or support anyone else doing it – if you agree to stop implementing your interpretation of the MoS and start discussing it instead. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the confusion over where new discussion should go. Normally I keep it down the bottom, but in this case I wanted to keep everything together so it naturally follows on from the template. It makes things difficult if comments go in several places and edit conflicts start to occur.

Looking over your summary of events, I must clarify several points. I have discussed date changes extensively over the past few weeks. On this page, on the relevant MoS talk page, on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive130#Date_warring WP:ANI, on article talk pages. I have received strong support from several admins, especially Jtdirl who is an expert on MoS and formats. Some admins increased their support after discussion. I believed that I had consensus, and my interpretation was correct. However, the relevant section is open to differing interpretation, and some people chose a narrower opinion. A key discussion is here, leading to this one. I wasn't aware of the latter until a few days ago, and although I disagree with the interpretation, I don't think there is any use in arguing. That's not an argument I can win. Instead, I am trying to get the wording in the MoS clarified, so we have a clear consensus and we don't have to rely on differeing interpretations. So, yes, I have discussed this at length, in detail, and with polite respect for differing opinions.

Yes, I was blocked, but not for making date changes without discussion. The phrase used was "date format idiocy", and looking back over my changes, I still cannot see anything particularly wrong with them. I have asked the relevant admin for clarification, but none has been forthcoming. You suggest he may not be aware of a comment posted on his talk page, and you may be right, which is why I asked for specific diffs on WP:ANI. So far nobody is prepared to point to an edit of mine and explain precisely why it is wrong.

Yes, I began changing date formats again, but in compliance with the revised interpretation of the relevant MoS section. Changes in format are allowable if there is a good reason for doing so, as specified in WP:MOS#Disputes_over_style_issues, where it states: "For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic.". Changing from American Dating to International Dating if the article concerns a British topic is therefore acceptable, as the relevant MoS section states: "For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th")."

You seem to be saying that no changes to date styles are acceptable at all, and with all due respect, I don't think that this is a valid interpretation.

I am perfectly happy to discuss this issue on the relevant discussion pages in the interests of finding clear wording that is not open to varying interpretations, but again with respect, I am not happy to accept restrictions that do not apply to other editors. I have done my best to follow the MoS and Arbcom rulings, I have sought consensus, and I have remained temperate. I believe that this is in the best interests of presenting a professional face to the world.

Looking back over your comments, I see that you have presented this diff as an example of an incorrect edit. It concerns a British sportsman and television presenter, who doesn't seem to have had any connection with the U.S. at all. Changing the date format from American to International is perfectly acceptable according to the MoS. The substantive disagreement over date formats seems to be restricted to those countries which are not American, British or Irish. --Jumbo`

I am not as important as all you Administrators and ArbCom members :), but this is an issue I have been watching closely as I do not want to see the MoS changed to enable a further rift between "non-American" and "American" styles on Wikipedia. Here is a good example of an inappropriate edit. Who is to say that Bono "concerns a specific country"? To me it is a perfect example of an article that should be left out of these mass-changes to "non-Americanize" articles. -- Renesis13 03:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We are specifically directed to WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English for more guidance on this point. It says: "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect." Bono is an Irishman. If he had been born in Ireland, but moved to the U.S., then there would be two strong ties to two different countries and no good reason to change the date format. Speaking of Bono, what is your opinion of this edit? --Jumbo 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You are expanding the wording of the MOS too far. Not only is it a stretch to use a person's birthplace as the reason for a "strong tie" when they are an international figure, but "dialect" doesn't mean "dates". The section you just quoted gets so specific about spelling and examples that I don't know how you could mistake it to apply to dates as well. As for the Cher edit, if you are trying to expose an American bias on my part, you won't be successful. I don't think the dates should be changed en masse from an existing format either direction. I can play the same game: see one of my very first edits. :) -- Renesis13 04:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English refers to dialects. It is specifically addressing language, not dates. However, Sentence 6 of the relevant section states See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.. A reasonable person would assume that we are being directed there for guidance on choosing appropriate date formats, rather than for information on spelling. --Jumbo 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Like the rest of them, the Cher edit was... unnecessary. - Nunh-huh 04:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be obliged if you could direct your remarks towards improving quality. Perhaps you could assist me by modifying my comments [[7]]to label the sixth sentence correctly? I missed it earlier and am now unable to correct my error. --Jumbo 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My remarks are directed toward improving quality. Particularly the quality of the editing experience at Wikipedia. Churning of date formats is decidedly destructive to that experience. - Nunh-huh 04:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change. In the end, we are here to write an encyclopaedia, and I believe Jimbo's remarks at Wikimania on quality were aimed at the output, rather than the experience. He said: And the few people still sort of in the old days, saying "well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just...", they're kind of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are starting to realize, yeah actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.

Putting articles into their correct format is part of the quality of the output. That includes having articles about Australia written in Australian English, articles about France using metres rather than feet, and articles about British nobility using dates in the format used in that country. I might also mention that putting dates in wikidate format improves the quality, as it allows users with accounts to see dates in their preferred format. --Jumbo 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thinking of articles as having a "correct" format, when in fact what is in question is a matter of style rather than correctness is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If people want dates in their preferred format, all they need do is set their preferences. - Nunh-huh 05:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As most of Wikipedia's readers do not have accounts and cannot set preferences, I cannot agree with you on this point. Perhaps I have taken too much of your time already, and there are other things that have a higher priority in your life, so you need not respond here. --Jumbo 06:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] You may be right on the substantive point, but you can't always get your way just because you're "right" - especially not if it's causing so much resistance and disruption. It's obvious that there's a preponderant view, with support at the ArbCom level, that you should stop doing what you're doing until such a time as the substantive issue is settled in your favour (through whatever procedure is appropriate to settle the dispute). You can't just keep ignoring or defying that view. If you're seen as continually pre-empting the outcome, you'll end up banned. I suggest you agree to what is asked of you. None of the people who've offered to help you can do so if you keep being proud or stubborn about it in the circumstances that you're now in. How about it then? Just give that undertaking and someone will unblock you. Metamagician3000 13:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't intended to cause any disruption. At every stage I've followed the guidelines available to the letter, mindful of ArbCom decisions, as best I saw them and consulting with more experienced editors for guidance. I think some of the interpretations being offered are shaky, but I'm not going to go against ArbCom opinion. Of course the proper way to go about things is to find consensus, and to that end I am exploring ways of rewording the MoS so as to avoid any confusion. Things as trivial as date formats shouldn't depend on interpretation and personal opinion; we should have clear guidelines. I'll commit to what I've already done, namely that I'll conform to Raul's interpretation, and I won't change date formats in articles related to nations not mentioned in the MoS. Meaning that I'll leave France etc alone.

I think TenOfAllTrades was wrong to block me for working on date formats in British and British Commonwealth articles. Especially when she labelled it as "edit warring". Perhaps she wasn't informed as to the background of the discussion, or was unaware that Jamaica was a member of the Commonwealth, or she jumped to the wrong conclusion. I don't know. Policy should not be determined by such things. If guidelines are unclear, we should explore where they are vague and come to a consensus about wording. Not everybody's going to be happy, but this is a co-operative endeavour and working together is important. --Jumbo 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you're misunderstanding or misstating Raul654's position on the issue. To wit, Raul has said [8]

Using the style of dating used in a particular country *is* acceptable; changing a perfectly acceptable style to the style used in that country *is not* acceptable, per the Sortan ruling. Raul654 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, there is not agreement at this time that changing the date formats in an article from one style to another is appropriate. I have invited Raul to comment on whether or not I have misread the intent of his statement.

In the meantime, there are lots of other maintenance projects that you could undertake on Wikipedia. Once again, if you'd agree to participate in those projects rather than modifying date formats, I will unblock you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We should let Raul state his position, but I think he's offering his understanding of the first sentence in the section, and is happy with the third and fourth sentences, allowing that articles on American subjects have their date format changed to American, and articles on British and Commonwealth and Irish subjects be changed to International. Changing formats is acceptable, but you've got to have a good reason to do it. See WP:MOS#Disputes_over_style_issues for guidance, notably the sentence that states, "For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic."

I'm more than happy to admit error and misunderstanding. What's really frustrating and disruptive is the inability of admins to agree amongst themselves, and when I receive both strong support and strong opposition from experienced admins, I'm left in an impossible position. We shouldn't be debating issues like this on random user talk pages - why on earth don't you all get together on on the relevant Manual of Style talk page where people with knowledge and experience can comment? --Jumbo 18:32, 9 September 2006 UTC) (forgot to sign it)

My interpretation (and, I think, the Arbcom's interpretation as well) of the Manual of style and Sortan ruling is as follows: for a British or British commonwealth related article, the British style is the preferred style and it's OK to change American to British style; for an American related article, the American style is the preferred style and it's OK to change British to American. For non-American, Non-commonwealth related articles, either is acceptable (as well as the style used in that particular country, if it happens to use a non-British, non-American dating system. However, it is patently not acceptable to change one acceptable style to another unless you are (a) making the article self consistent, or (b) you have a compelling reason, such as expanding the article from a 1 paragraph stub to featured article. (Simply changing the dating style for the sake of changing the dating style is not OK.) Beyond that, you should defer to what the article originally/currently uses. SuperJumbo's first succession of edits (which led to Sean Black's block) were against policy. I checked his second succession of edits, and they looked like they were exclusively American->Britihs dating style changes to former Commonwealth nations, which under a strict interpretation, is acceptable. On the other hand, it does strike me as likely to incite problems. Raul654 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, does that mean you think the second block was wrongly applied? If the second set of edits was "acceptable" under a strict interpretation, that does not seem to justify a one-week block. At most, he should have been warned that, though strictly acceptable under the policy, they were contentious and unwise at this particular point and he should stop until further notice. My own interpretation is also that changes like that are strictly acceptable under the policy (and I certainly think that reversions of such changes are unjustified and should be met with some kind of admin response when they happen). However, I don't want to wheel war, so I'm not going to lift the block at this point ... instead, I just want to express the view that Jumbo is being treated harshly and insensitively in all of this. He's obviously a good-faith user who is always civil and is only trying his best to help the encyclopedia. I find it distressing that someone like Jumbo is copping substantial blocks on his record when the advice he gets from admins about what he should be doing has been quite conflicting and is still not entirely clear. Raul, could you please give him some clearer guidance as to what he should be doing if he is unblocked and then unblock him if he says he's prepared to follow it? If I were him I'd be quite confused at the moment, because your statement that the second wave of edits were strictly acceptable seems to conflict with other things that are being said to him. Metamagician3000 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair sort of summary, though I will comment on a couple of points. Considering the strong support I received from Jtdirl I didn't consider changing formats in nonAmerican, nonBritish articles to be a problem, so long as the relevant nation used a distinct date format. After you had given your interpretation, which I note was largely kept off the MoS talk page until a day ago, I confined myself to what I thought were non-controversial articles. It is a lot easier to find British articles with American format dates than the other way around, though I've worked my way through all of the recent U.S. presidents and found numerous varieties of date format. Really, there is a lot of work to be done on date formats. Even if I leave the day-month-year or month-day-year order alone, there must be thousands of articles that are incorrectly formatted, such as Bernhard Auinger and William Francis Allen. The last thing I want to do is cause disruption or unrest, though I'm not about to start being too considerate of single-minded cranks. --Jumbo 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. Everyone seems to have gone to sleep on this one, so let me summarise. User:TenOfAllTrades blocked me for a week, citing "Continued date edit warring" and telling me that I "went right back to changing date formats after many requests not to do so."

None of this was correct, as I knew very well, so I immediately asked to be unblocked. It's now two and a half days later. TenOfAllTrades has admitted that "edit warring" was incorrect.

However, she wasn't convinced at all that my edits were actually legal. Raul has now confirmed that they were acceptable.

Is there any problem remaining? The block was applied because TenOfAllTrades came in cold and didn't know the rules. I'll accept that everybody makes honest mistakes, including me, and I don't bear TenOfAllTrades any illwill. However, the delay in resolution is now becoming quite rude. --Jumbo 10:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is: Are you going to continue making mass changes if unblocked? If Raul thought the block was inappropriate based on further examination, he could have unblocked you; if he thinks it is "likely to incite problems" that doesn't entail that it is allowed. Similarly, the blocking admin's comment is that the block message was a "poor choice of words"; he also did not choose to unblock and encouraged an unblock only if you agree to stop. Also, your presumptuousness and wikilawyering in this matter is striking. The fact is you have been told by the people who wrote the decisions that you cite—and several other admins besides—that your interpretation is correct. Just stop; don't make these changes any more. If you happen to be editing an article for other purposes, you are free to change the formatting amongst your general revision, but otherwise do not. —Centrx→talk • 18:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If your interpretation of Raul's views is correct, then you and he are adopting an odd, and in my opinion untenable, position. Here's why. There is a considerable Wiki cottage industy in fixup projects and maintenance. Editors are actively encouraged to go through articles and improve their quality, often down to quite small details. If you can explain why putting dates into their correct formats as per the MoS is any different to these projects, then I'll be interested to see it. Jguk and Sortan are aimed at POV-pushers, of which I don't consider myself to be one. That's why I view clarity of MoS as being of high importance - if quality is our aim, then we need clear instructions, precisely to avoid this mess of interpretation/misinterpretation/disinterpretation. Quite frankly, I'd like to see a lot more people going around, actively tidying up date formats, because there's a lot of work to do. But you discourage this, and I'd be interested to hear your view. But not here. Go explain yourself at the Date Quality Initiative discussion I've begun, and I'll be along to join you as soon as I can. And on that note, it's now been three days for a block that was hastily and wrongly applied. --Jumbo 19:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about correcting typos and de-orphaning articles. No reasonable editor thinks that "beginning" should be spelled "beggining" in articles, no one thinks that articles should be perennially orphaned. The ArbCom decisions are aimed at people tendentiously making controversial style changes. Stop making these bogus arguments; they are patently false. —Centrx→talk • 21:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me. Here's my last date-related edit, presumably the one that got TOAT seeing red. What's controversial about it? Or this one? They both address the MoS guidelines, they are both consistent with Sortan, but you are suggesting something more, and you do so in an incivil manner. Why? --Jumbo 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm lifting the block, since you seem to be interested in doing productive and useful work. I would strongly encourage you to limit yourself to the following date-related tasks:

• Repairing dates that are not in either preferred Wikipedia format. That is, feel free to put dates in articles that are formatted as 23rd of March, 2006, or 06/06/2006 into the correct linked format.
• Repair date formatting that isn't self-consistent within articles. Specifically, where a mix of date formats appear in an article, correct as appropriate to provide a uniform presentation within each article.
• Discuss how to handle articles which contain dates which are in one of the properly-linked Wikipedia formats but which may not be consistent with an article subject's regional preference. You've already started a discussion on this topic on the the appropriate Manual of Style talk page. To retain the appearance of being a good-faith contributor to that discussion and out of respect for the other participants in it, I'm sure you can understand why it is in your best interests not to resume making large numbers of formatting-only changes until a formal resolution is adopted there. Note also that even Raul was equivocal about what the ArbCom's position was on this issue, and that further changes without a good discussion were 'likely to incite problems'.

A final note of advice. You've just sat out a three-day block because you weren't willing to wait for the conclusion of a style discussion that you started, over a trivial matter of date formatting. You might do well to consider the wisdom – in your position – of describing other editors as 'single-minded cranks'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)