User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2016/November

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop

Hello.

Please stop making completely pointless reversions of my edits. See for instance WP:OWN.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I just not another one. Please stop, or you will be reported for edit-warring.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Reported to whom? By you? Who gives a fuck what you think, certainly not me. Eric Corbett 14:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

HandsomFella, you are aware of WP:NOTBROKEN, correct? There is no need to go around and change links to "fix" redirects. It's a pointless change ... which makes your complaint about Eric's changes ... rather ironic. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"Ironically", it was he who started by reverting me. Anyway, where does it say that such changes should be reverted? That, if anything, is pointless. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you made a pointless edit first. He may not have had much reason to bother reverting you, but you shouldn't be doing the edits in the first place... Editing of redirects in either direction is pretty much pointless. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: I protected the article earlier today because you were both edit warring, but Eric has the upper hand by demonstrating a greater experience on the topic through getting it passed through FAC. If you think that's unfair, then sorry. I assume you were not around for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2, but I don't particularly want to have to see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 3 before Christmas, so can you please just forget about this trivial dispute and look at something else? Thankyou. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

It may be a trivial dispute, but it doesn't prevent Eric from being rude as usual.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether EC is rude or not is extremely unimportant to me, and I really couldn't care less. Not very surprising for a person who takes the trouble of re-inserting redirects. The behaviour is what separates pedantry from mastery. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The point is, HandsomeFella, that John Popham's article was originally accurately titled John Popham (Lord Chief Justice), which only became a redirect in July 2016 when Necrothesp decided it should be at the more general title of John Popham (judge). In my humble opinion, that's a misreading of the advice at WP:AT "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." That move destroyed some precision, as there may be more judges named John Popham, but there was only one Lord Chief Justice. It's perfectly reasonable for the link in Guy Fawkes to be via the redirect. In general, redirects cost nothing and an editor working on some article's wikitext might benefit from identifying Popham as the Lord Chief Justice, rather than just a "judge". So your edit was completely "make-work", and it is understandable that Eric reverted it. The question you have to ask yourself is: if John Popham's article was moved next week to its original title, would you then be battling to change the link back to [[John Popham (Lord Chief Justice)|John Popham]]? The answer to that will show the difference between content creation and make-work. --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't, but if I blocked Eric for saying "fuck" there would be an ANI thread within 3 minutes and about 20 editors calling for me to be desysopped (irrespective of the fact that the correct response is to de-escalate a situation, not inflame it by a stale cool-down block!) Sometimes you just have to pick your battles in this place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)