Content deleted Content added
Jerry Pepsi (talk | contribs) |
Jerry Pepsi (talk | contribs) deleted content placed by cunts |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
|||
==Columns in the reference section== |
==Columns in the reference section== |
||
{{Help me-helped}} |
{{Help me-helped}} |
||
How do I make the reference section of an article split into two columns? [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 02:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC) |
How do I make the reference section of an article split into two columns? [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 02:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
* Use {{Tlp|Reflist|2}} to make two columns. [[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]] ([[User talk:Technical 13|talk]]) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC) |
* Use {{Tlp|Reflist|2}} to make two columns. [[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]] ([[User talk:Technical 13|talk]]) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Category of Northern Irish Cheeses == |
|||
Hi Jerry, I see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fivemiletown_Creamery&oldid=590838363&diff=prev you've removed the "Northern category] from [[Fivemiletown Creamery]]. The purpose of categories is to assist readers in finding similar articles based on the characteristics of a topic. You removed the category on the basis that the article was about a creamery. That is true, but it is also "about" the cheeses that are produced, and as such, the category is relevant and helpful to readers. Also, there's no problem for an article to belong to multiple different categories - so for example, it might also be included in categories (if such categories existed) such as "Dairy producers in Northern Ireland" or "Cheese Producers in Northern Ireland". There's nothing wrong with the category "Northern Ireland Cheeses" (or "Cheese from Northern Ireland") on this article. Can you please have a rethink on this topic and let me know. [[User:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgreen"><b>-- HighKing</b></font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgblue">++ </font>]]</sup> 22:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:* No matter how many times I rethink it I cannot come to the conclusion that a creamery is a goddamn cheese. Categories sre for things of the same type and a category for Northern Irish cheeses should contain articles about Northern Irish cheeses, not about cheese farms or cheese factories or cheese shops or people who make cheese. How is this possibly open to interpretation? Creameries are not cheese. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 22:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::*The category doesn't define the article subject, it categorizes the content and topic, and the relationship these have with other similar articles. As stated in [[WP:CAT]], ''The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, '''knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic''', can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics'' (my emphasis). Many other cheese producers are similarly classified. For example, [[Carmarthenshire Cheese Company]] is categorized in "Welsh cheeses", [[Cathedral City Cheddar]] is categorized in "English cheeses", [[Ilchester Cheese Company]] is categorised under "British cheeses", [[Abbey Cheese Company]] under "Irish cheeses", [[Président (brand)]] under "French cheeses", etc, etc. I respect your opinion, but it seems it is not the same as that of various policies and guidelines, and established existing categorizations of cheese-related articles. I've opened a discussion at [[Talk:Fivemiletown Creamery]] to get more input from other editors. Perhaps others share your view and it's preferable to see what the consensus is rather than us disagreeing and butting heads. [[User:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgreen"><b>-- HighKing</b></font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgblue">++ </font>]]</sup> 14:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I responded there. What you could do, if the particular cheeses made by these entities were truly of note and merited a redirect, is create redirects and categorize the redirects accordingly. But those other cheese factories should also be removed.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]])| |
|||
==Your recent edit== |
|||
Hello [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]], you recently reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Puppet_Master_characters&diff=prev&oldid=592092728 this], citing "There is no Toulon article so the link is wrong. Infoboxes that duplicate the info right next to them are pointless". Two points, 1) If there is no Toulon article then to my understanding we have to remove the brackets and not blank the entire section and 2) I am trying to understand why are the infoboxes "pointless"? In your earlier similar edit (which was reverted by me) you had cited that Infoboxes were empty whereas they were not. Please let me know why the infoboxes should not be maintained? I don't want to engage in a revert war and hence and not reverting your edits.'''[[User:AKS.9955|<span style="color:#000080"> Arun Kumar SINGH </span>]][[User talk: AKS.9955|<span style="color:#01BFFF"> (Talk) </span>]]''' 06:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] Please stop your [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive editing]], as you did at [[:Jim'll Fix It]]. Your edits have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. |
|||
* If you are engaged in an article [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|content dispute]] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's [[WP:DISPUTE|dispute resolution]] page, and ask for independent help at one of the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard|relevant notice boards]]. |
|||
* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's [[WP:ANI|Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. |
|||
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. <!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> |
|||
:* Your accusations of bad faith editing are as full of bullshit now as when you made them in the CFD. The disruptive one here is you, because you're flouting an editing consensus that has been in place for something like eight years and lying about another editor to do it. TV shows are not appropriately characterized by the people who appear on them. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 16:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::Three editors told you to stop with your disruptive edits at CfD. Are they all wrong, Jerry? '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 19:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::I stopped checking in on that CFD after about your third round of lies but as I recall to that point no one had said to "stop" the "disruptive" editing since I did not in fact edit any of the articles in question after you reverted them. |
|||
::: Here are the facts. I removed articles I believed were miscategorized from the category and divulged that in the course of my !vote. You reverted my edits and accused me of abuse. I left the articles alone until well after the CFD had closed and removed the articles with reference to the relevant guideline. You reverted again without answering the rationale and threatened to have punitive action taken against me should I dare continue in the course of normal editing. |
|||
::: Your threats and lies are quickly escalating to the level of harassment and abuse. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 23:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::*You're at it again, this time at [[Gus Fring]]. Stop reinserting the LGBT category without having sources that STATE that he is LGBT rather than speculating about it. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. Those discussions about Gus' hinted ambiguity are well covered in the article. [[User:Chunk5Darth|Chunk5Darth]] ([[User talk:Chunk5Darth|talk]]) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::* The standard for including a character as LGBT is whether or not reliable sources identify the character as LGBT. There are reliable sources that verify that Gus Fring is not heterosexual. I don't know if you're just inexperienced or if this is indicative of some homophobia on your part, but you seem really invested in preventing people interested in reading about LGBT fictional characters from finding this article. But just out of curiosity, exactly how many sources do you demand before you will leave the category in peace? Please be specific and spare me this "gossip column" nonsense. Gus Fring is not real. He does not care if he is labeled as non-heterosexual and he cannot be harmed by such a label. Get a grip. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 23:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*I was specific, and your string of personal attacks is anything but helpful. A fictional character is not LGBT unless the showrunners intended for that character to be LGBT. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the fact that secondary sources '''speculate''' his non-heterosexuality is covered in the article body, but in order to '''categorize''' him as such, we need definitive confirmation from the showrunners, who deliberately left this question open to interpretation. [[User:Chunk5Darth|Chunk5Darth]] ([[User talk:Chunk5Darth|talk]]) 16:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::* Wrong, but I'm tired of fighting so congratulations, you win. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 17:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::*Don't just say I'm wrong, [[WP:PROVEIT]]. Also, if you think we're here to fight or win, you are sorely mistaken. We are all here to build an encyclopedia, and discuss contributions for quality assurance. I strongly recommend that you embrace the correct attitude. [[User:Chunk5Darth|Chunk5Darth]] ([[User talk:Chunk5Darth|talk]]) 19:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== LGBT in prime time 1970s/1980s. == |
|||
Please stop removing my additions to the pages, as I have asked before. I have cited these addition with a source and you are basically saying the source is insignificant. Just because you disagree with it, does not make it insignificant. These are not YOUR pages. You claim that "just because it has a gay in it does not make it LGBT related". The episodes added were from the 1970s /1980s and if a prominent gay character is featured and their LGBT identity is openly discussed in a way which informs the audience, the episode in considered LGBT related. A publicly identifying LGBT character was nowhere near as common as it is these days. Even simply writing in a gay character back in those days was considered controversial. "Prime Time Closet:A History Of Gays And Lesbians On TV" is an excellent source and I highly recommend you look over it to become better informed on the subject matter. Again, please stop removing. This is becoming highly disruptive. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.25.43.128|96.25.43.128]] ([[User talk:96.25.43.128|talk]]) 17:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:* No, reliable sources that discuss the episodes in terms of their LGBT themes is what's relevant. I've read the source you're citing several times and it simply doesn't discuss the episodes you're adding in those terms. The source includes an index of every episode the author could locate in which an LGBT character appears. The body of the work discusses specific episodes in greater detail and those episodes are included. "It's got a gay in it" is not sufficient for inclusion. |
|||
:* Additionally, you're sourcing these to a link that does not discuss them at all. Thus they are unsourced. Unsourced information is subject to removal at any time. |
|||
:* A useful guideline is found at [[:Category:LGBT-related television episodes]]. For an episode to be considered LGBT-related, there must be reliable sources that demonstrate that these are "episodes of television series that are not generally about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)-related issues that substantively cover such issues". Your source does not support that these episodes meet that standard. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 17:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== AIV entered == |
|||
You did not attempt consensus or discuss, only reverted changes that removed one national focus on multiple articles that were fictitious states. The sheer number in the past two days, the diverse scope is interestingly political in nature. Regardless, an AIV was entered on your first attempt at edit warring. The scope is rather apparent. This editor shan't permit *any* nation, even his own, to play politics in an encyclopedia. I'll let the admins figure it out, as it's well past US bedtime and I'm really tired. The only reason I was up so late was configuring a new device.[[User:Wzrd1|Wzrd1]] ([[User talk:Wzrd1|talk]]) 05:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:* I'm the admin that commented on [[WP:AIV]]. First of all, AIV is for vandalism and spam, and this is clearly a content dispute. I don't see any bad faith edits (although if you have some diffs I'd be happy to look at them). Perhaps you might want to first take the discussion to the talk pages of the category itself (which I see that you've not yet), and then if that doesn't work, head to some sort of dispute resolution. Hope that helps, [[User:Deville|Deville]] ([[User talk:Deville|Talk]]) 05:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Second AIV entered == |
|||
Reversion, especially significant POV changes of articles is unacceptable. |
|||
Reversion of said edit, after objection of POV change is really bad. |
|||
Either way, second AIV notice entered. |
|||
It's late, I'm tired and my device is configured. I'm going to bed, the admins will sort this out. |
|||
== "Fictional" == |
|||
What's wrong with you? Categories labeled as "fictional" means the show/book/etc is '''about''' a fictional thing, not that the work itself is fictional. If you can't understand that, you need to step away from editing. [[Special:Contributions/69.23.116.182|69.23.116.182]] ([[User talk:69.23.116.182|talk]]) 05:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:* Wrong. Categories for fictional things are for articles about things that do not exist in the real world yet are notable based on independent reliable sources. A real book or a real movie or a real TV show are by definition not fictional. A piece of fiction, that exists in the real world, is not a fictional anything. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 05:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm sorry, but the fact that people are reverting your edits should be enough to demonstrate to you that you need to get consensus on whether or not these categories apply. Please abide by Wiki policies in this matter. [[Special:Contributions/69.23.116.182|69.23.116.182]] ([[User talk:69.23.116.182|talk]]) 06:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Filed report at 3RR. [[Special:Contributions/69.23.116.182|69.23.116.182]] ([[User talk:69.23.116.182|talk]]) 06:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Complaint of edit warring == |
|||
Please see [[WP:AN3#User:Jerry Pepsi reported by User:69.23.116.182 (Result: )]]. You may respond there if you wish. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Blocked for long-term warring about categories == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 month''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]]. </p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> The [[Special:Permalink/594537550#User:Jerry_Pepsi_reported_by_User:69.23.116.182_.28Result:_1_month.29|complete report of the case is at this link]]. Serious concerns have been raised about your editing. You have engaged in long-term warring about categories and have previously been blocked for personal attacks. Any admin may lift this block if they are confident that you will change your approach in the future. If you were to accept to a voluntary restriction from category-related editing that could improve your chances for unblock. Thank you, [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
: <s> [...] </s> ''(redacted)'' '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 08:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=This is not an actual unblock request, although if an admin chose to unblock me I would appreciate it since a month seems excessive given the nature of the offense. The real purpose of this message is to request that Lugnuts be sanctioned for his taunting of an editor who has no other recourse for redress because of the block. I will not go into detail regarding this editor's past abject failures to assume I was acting in good faith. But to leave a taunting message like this on anyone's talk page is a gross violation of civility that demands to be addressed. This is the only avenue available to me to make the request. | decline = It has been redacted. — [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 01:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)}} |
|||
Yeah, unsurprising. Being a dick is A OK in Wikipedia's book, as long as the dick takes it back. Shocker, redacted dick is still a dick. [[User:Jerry Pepsi|Jerry Pepsi]] ([[User talk:Jerry Pepsi#top|talk]]) 06:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:09, 25 April 2014
Columns in the reference section
How do I make the reference section of an article split into two columns? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Use {{Reflist|2}} to make two columns. Technical 13 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)