User talk:Onetwothreeip/2020

This edit is not POV

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=942183268

and I provided three reliable sources to avoid any assertions of UNDUE. If you think it was OVERCITE, then the solution was to trim the references. The edit documents a significant development relevant to that section of the BLP. I believe you are resuming belligerent behavior that several editors have repeatedly warned you to stop, and if other editors decide to seek your banning from WP I will be right there to join them. soibangla (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

List of 2010s deaths in rock and roll

I noticed you hived off the List of 2017 deaths in rock and roll to a separate article in September 2019. I normally give these types of lists a passing glance, so it has taken me this long to see what has occurred. Given that lists in that series all include a decade's worth of deaths, this action seems a bit odd and unnecessary to me. Could you explain your rationale ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, Derek R Bullamore. My apologies for not responding sooner. If I recall, this was split from an extremely large article, where the appropriate remedy would be to split the list into articles by year. If I had only split the 2017 section from the article, this would have been as an emergency measure, and this was likely the largest section. When I get to a computer I will try to confirm this for you.

As the rest hasn't been split out yet, I can do the rest if I can find time to do so. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Drag queens are acceptable as LGBTQ characters

I don't mind reductions in the content size on the List of animated series with LGBT characters page, but drag queens should stay on the page (especially since the entry for DD I added myself to the page, along with a lot of other edits), at least until another page for crossdressing characters is created, which I am currently developing. That's my two cents on this.--Historyday01 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutral heading

WP:TALKNEW bullet 5: "A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." Clearly, "Reducing editorialising and sensational language" communicates a specific view about that. I generally neutralize such headings myself, as I just did in Trump's favor here, but I'm at a loss as to how to characterize "what the topic is" in this case without being uselessly vague. "Coronavirus language in the body" would be accurate and neutral, but then there are already other active discussions on that topic. Would you please have a look at modifying your heading? Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to altering the heading but I don't think it's particularly not neutral. "Potentially editorialising"? I want to communicate that this is a serious problem, and the one that I am seeking to address. I'm not especially concerned with issues like whether Trump was slow on something or not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

A thorny problem. Unless you have a better idea than adding "potentially", I'm prepared to let this one go. Our track record in this area is already fairly spotty. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this has been a chronic problem. Do you think it would be appropriate if the heading was characterised as my assertion? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Not much better, still states a view. Probably not worth it in my opinion. "Coronavirus language in the body" would be ideal if not for the other discussions currently open. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Reinstatement of your Donald Trump text

I am very -- I mean really very -- surprised and disappointed that you would reinstate the disputed article text of yours to "soften the tone" of the article text on the Trump Administration's response to the early warnings about the virus. Yes, I see minor word changes, but this was clearly still under discussion with no consensus for you to make this edit after your similar version had been reverted. Please undo that and let's all continue to work on the talk page. I don't recall you being active in that discussion after your initial complaint about the removal of your text. I see you say you'd be happy to discuss it, but it would have made sense to do first rather than overriding the concerns on talk with by reinstating the text. SPECIFICO talk 10:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you find an issue with that. I took what you and others said on board and made those changes to highlight the delay in response from the administration. I proposed those changes again and I didn't receive any opposition. I would've written the section completely differently but instead I kept the content of what others have written, but made changes in grammar and tone. I still agree that the tone should be emotionlessly neutral and that the facts should speak for themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It was clear to me and others, and I do think this is reflected in the talk page thread between the two times you edited the section with similar language, that your edit entailed a significant change of meaning. Also -- and I believe I've mentioned this before -- I hope you will adopt a practice of a very close reading of your grammar and diction before clicking to save article edits. That one had some weird missing verb or other problem. Thanks for your reply. See you at the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If the meaning of the text was non-neutral then I certainly hoped I changed the meaning to something that was neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The text was good before your edit. You changed it to something that did not reflect the sources and obscured their meaning. The clear meaning is currently in the article, per MrX's revert of yours. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources use language that is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and we shouldn't mimic that language. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That is no premise for you to go against talk page consensus or to claim consensus for an edit that clearly had none. Please consider. We follow the sources. I suspect that it was not really their language but their message that you dislike. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I have absolutely no motivation to obscure the calamities of the Trump administration in mitigating the pandemic, and you should not at all imply that of myself or anyone else. I have not done what you are accusing me of doing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You did two things. 1) You reinserted more or less the same edit after it had been challenged and had not received consensus on talk. 2) The text had grammar/syntax/diction errors. Both those are easily avoided. I hope you'll give it some thought. I really have nothing to add. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Demographics of the Western Balkans

Hello, Onetwothreeip

I edit here too and it's nice to meet you :-) Please do not delete this article. This article is very useful for studying the demographics of the Western Balkan countries as well as any information presented therein. I put a lot of effort into gathering all the information and making this article. Thank you. Ripas1997 (talk 13:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ripas1997: Nice to meet you too. The deletion of the article is a matter for consensus and not my decision alone. I have requested that if the article is deleted, the statistics will be preserved on my user space, so that they may be used elsewhere in Wikipedia. I recognise that you have put effort into the article, and that should be admired. The statistics would likely receive more views if they were placed in other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you return somehow this page to draft? Ripas1997 (talk 01:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea at this time. You are free to edit the page, and I will leave a link for it on my main user page. You can also create a draft in your own user space. I would strongly recommend against trying to recreate the article. It would be much better to use the statistics for other articles. All the best. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and thank you for making the decision to leave this page. I apologize for deleting the data earlier. I don't know the wikipedia rules very well. 1)Can I copy this page on my main user page or only you can keep this page? 2)How can someone searching this site through Google find it? 3)And why did you remove the categories?People will not be able to see this page. All the best. Ripas1997 (talk 02:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You are free to copy the data, especially to your own user space. If you do that, I would recommend you create a user page for yourself, as I have done.

People should not be able to find the page from a search engine like Google, or using Wikipedia's search function, if they search for anything to do with demographics of the Western Balkans. They would have to search specifically for the user page.

Those categories are for articles only. This is now a copy of a deleted article.

I hope this helps answering your questions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes,it helps me. Thank you very much. Ripas1997 (talk 02:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Sorry,whether a link can be created from draft in user space on an article.For example,is it possible on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Slovenia to put link from this page so it says at the beginning of the page: See also: User:Onetwothreeip/Demographics of the Western Balkans ?Is that allowed?Thanks in advance. Ripas1997 (talk 23:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ripas1997: You can have links from user pages going to articles, but not from articles going to user pages. That example wouldn't be allowed. Draft pages and user pages are not made for the general public, they are made for Wikipedia editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

List of United States Senate elections

I've combined the two articles you'd previously separated back into a single one. I think there is no reason to separate them just because the electors were different. The results are basically the same. A distinction, however, can be better explained in the article. I welcome your thoughts on this. —GoldRingChip 12:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi GoldRingChip, thanks for the notification. The article was not split because of the method of election, that is simply where the split was conducted. The article was split due to its incredible size. I have respectfully reverted the merger. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Size. Yes. Thank you. —GoldRingChip 14:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of edit warring

as you did in this edit on my Talk page. Removing your tag is not edit warring. You edit Donald Trump often enough to have noticed that size is a problem editors are aware of and working on, for example here. It also cannot have escaped your notice that the "very long" tag template keeps getting added, usually by drive-by editors, and removed by the page regulars. This wasn't the first time you yourself tagged the article and were asked not to. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I edit Donald Trump often enough to know that most of its editors are not working on reducing the size of the article, generally do not care about the problem except sometimes when it is brought to their attention, regardless of their awareness of the issue. There have been some attempts by editors other than myself as you have shown, but the article still remains far greater than 100,000 bytes, 200,000 bytes and 300,000 bytes in size and has been so for years now. The problem is only getting worse, as the size of the article is increasing. If "page regulars" are removing these tags, then they need to better understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

It's very easy to address this previous instance of adding a similar tag which you reference. The article is larger than it is now, and I have most certainly proposed ways to reduce the size of the article, contrary to the edit summary you've linked, and implemented some myself. Instead of trying to claim that we don't use maintenance tags when some number of editors are aware of the problem, can you provide reasons for not wanting the tag to be there on the article, when it would be on any other article with the same issue? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

re US

In discussions on Territorial evolution of the United States we decided that 1776 was the establishment point. There was a single declaration, they were acting as a single unit. Any further discussion should take place on the article's talk page. --Golbez (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You reverted this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=980866170&oldid=980865795

within four minutes of its posting, characterizing it as "still superfluous"

The edit contains a variety of changes, including tightening of language and more accurate terminology and phrasing of complex matters.

I have serious doubts that you were able to fully digest the variety of changes in the edit within four minutes, and in combination with my edits you reverted yesterday, I have cause for concern that you merely reflexively removed my edit on sight. This would be entirely consistent with the disruptive editing style you demonstrated previously, which a number of editors repeatedly asked you to cease, and a reasonable person might wonder if you're reverting to those disruptive ways. As I said to you before, if others seek to have you sanctioned, I'll be right there with them. soibangla (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your concern is here. It took less than four minutes to look at the diff. My main concern is having too much detail, and detail that characterises the subject from a point of view. There are many other edits of yours which I have not reverted, including in the same section. Please don't take any of this personally. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It was essential BLP detail. Please restore it. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

None of your stated rationales justify the wholesale immediate reversion of the edit. Try collaboration rather than conflict. You can demonstrate good faith by restoring the edit and excising specific words you object to. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: In good faith I have restored much of those changes, which I do not feel particularly negatively or positively about. Happy to discuss further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Still wrong. He did not defer debt. He deferred recogizing forgiven debt as taxable income. My edit fixed that error. Yours didn't. Just restore it. soibangla (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to be rude or hostile about it. I'll take you at your word about that, and I have updated the article to reflect that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Next time I would just tell Soibangla to buzz off if they come at you again like they did here. You don't have to put up with these sorts of threats from someone who only recently survived a ban themselves.--MONGO (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

to characterize this edit as "blatantly inappropriate"

is blatantly inappropriate

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=981699233&oldid=981696462

soibangla (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I wouldn't have said it was blatant if it wasn't. Please refrain from using "walked that back" on articles in the future, as it's blatantly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe on your side of the pond, but over here it's common usage. It's used four times in this one article alone. soibangla (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Perfectly fine for American English to be used on articles for American subjects. Not appropriate to use colloquial terms in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia relies on news articles, but doesn't write like them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a colloquialism and it's most certainly not "blatantly inappropriate." soibangla (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

How would Prince Andrew say it? SPECIFICO talk 23:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not concerned if it's a colloquialism or not, it remains colloquial itself, so it is blatantly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Would be less colloquial to say the comments were distanced from or were retreated from, but this may still be non-neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

But instead of changing the language to your liking, you removed it entirely, which changed the meaning. soibangla (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not true either. The meaning of what I did not remove remains the same as before. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That is false. Blatantly false. soibangla (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not concerned if it's a colloquialism after saying minutes earlier Not appropriate to use colloquial terms soibangla (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Yes, I'm concerned with this being a colloquial term, and not concerned if this is a "colloquialism" or not. It might also be a colloquialism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

colloquialism: a colloquial expression soibangla (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

completely uncontroversial?

After being warned not to edit war, Feoffer made some edits with summaries like "restore changes believed to be completely uncontroversial" Do you agree that the latest edits are completely uncontroversial? If not, explain why and let me take it from there. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that those edits are "completely uncontroversial". I find most of their edits to have serious WP:POV issues. I can explain in more detail if you can be specific about which edits. Thank you for your intervention, as I have no desire to get into an edit war or any kind of prolonged dispute with this individual who appears to think they own the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Please try to understand that it is almost always best to warn both sides of a content dispute not to edit war, even when the evidence for one of them previously edit warring (in the one part of the history I looked at) is weak or even nonexistent. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly how I'm seeing it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Cite coding format changes

This edit involved moving some cites, but the coding format somehow got changed in the process, reversing the work of other editors (including me) and moving the article away from internal consistency. I don't know if this was because you used a script, but please be aware of the problem and avoid such issues or fix them after the fact. I have corrected this instance in this edit. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh - I now see that you used VE to do the edit, which doesn't remove your responsibility for the results. VE's way of coding cites has no more community vetting or community consensus than a script. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss What's happened here? I often use Visual Editor and this hasn't been a problem before. I certainly didn't use a script here. I moved and removed some references but I didn't add any. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Whenever you move a citation, VE changes its coding to its arbitrary format, which (in my opinion) leaves a lot to be desired. VE's philosophy is that the coding should be invisible to editors, and that doesn't work very well in an environment where many editors don't use VE. I (and some others) put significant effort into making the coding easier to read and use for editors who deal with it on a daily basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence. Do you use a script to fix these errors? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I do everything manually in the wikitext editor. It takes a little longer for some things, but the results are worth it in my view. Citation scripts are also unvetted by the community and I've yet to see one that doesn't create significant problems, some of those problems even visible to readers. One of the scripts codes "CNN" as the author's surname for a CNN source, for example, clearly an error, and its users never clean up after it manually. In my experience, citation scripts make it easy to create a lot of trash quickly. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Parser functions

In a village pump discussion about allowing whitelisted pages to have higher technical limits, you said in your oppose There are not any articles that need to come close to exceeding technical limits.[1]

I can name three right off the bat, all which share the same issue.

Some of the "year in college football" list pages and "college football conference" list pages transclude templates that show the win-loss records for that season of that conference.

Each row of each of those tables has a link to the team. That link is to the specific "year" for that team if the year is notable enough to have its own page otherwise it is a call to {{cfb link}} which looks progressively for various pages. Each call to #ifexists costs one "expensive parser function."

Right now, at least two article pages, List of Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings and List of Southwestern Athletic Conference football standings, are in Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls. For awhile, 1934 college football season was also in that category until some editors took the time to make stubs of "notable seasons." There are discussions about this problem and ways to work around it at Talk:1934 college football season#Page too big and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Currently-incomplete YYYY college football season risk exceeding expensive parser function limits.

If you have ideas on how to solve the 500-expensive-parser-limit problem for these types of pages without introducing other problems that are as bad or worse, please contribute to the discussion on the WikiProject page.

Note that there are other articles and non-article pages which exceed this and other technical limits. Some of them do so for "lazy" reasons and they should be fixed editorially. For others, the technical limit really does impose an artificial constraint which hurts the article or makes managing the encyclopedia more difficult. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for bringing these articles to my attention. I'll have a longer look at these later, but my initial impression is they rely too heavily on templates and could be split into smaller articles. That's my preliminary take and I will look at these further. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: This might seem obvious, but the problem seems to be that there are too many templates. Is there a reason why there is so much content in the article that is in templates? This seems highly unnecessary when you could just copy and paste the content from the template into the article. Are there any other articles where these tables could be moved to? Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of these pages is to hold the tables for a given conference or a given year on a single page, for those who want to read them all in one place. The individual conference-season templates in question are also used on other article pages. Subst'ing them would result in duplication. Granted, this information is unlikely to ever change, but sometimes historical records are corrected after-the-fact.

Also, I don't think the subst'ing the conference-season templates directly into these pages will help with the parser expansion count, assuming {{cfb link}} was still used to "make the magic happen" of dynamically providing the "best" blue-link for a given school in a given conference in a given season.

The only solutions I can see for this particular type of problem is either 1) actually create articles for those season-years, whether the season-years are notable or not, which will cause problems when they fail at AFD, 2) create redirects, which has been discussed but it creates the problem of "hiding desirable red-links" making it hard to track "to-do lists", 3) Give up on the concept of "doing the magic" in the first place, which is not desirable, or 4) split some of these pages, e.g. List of Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings (1895—1922) and List of Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings (1923—1941) (1923 was the beginning of a "new era" so it's a logical splitting point) with a similar split for similar "conference" pages. For pages like the 1934 season page, there are various ways to split but none are ideal. As I said, there is no good solution. If the limits are not raised, we will need to solve the problem, but it will be by choosing from a list of "not so good" solutions, most likely by splitting pages.

From an editor's and reader's perspective, the best solution - after gaining "local consensus" to go forward of course - would be asking the WMF developers and administrators "is it really harmful to allow specific pages to have 600, 700, or 1000 expensive parser functions?" and if the answer is "no, as long as it's a manageable number of pages" then the the technical limit should be raised for these pages. On the other hand, if the developers and WMF system administrators come back and say "no, this limit really is open to abuse if we raise it to even 600, even for selected pages" then we as editors are stuck with it.

Now, with respect to other limits, such as the template post expansion include size limit, I would say most articles that "get large" would benefit from splitting, subst'ing templates, or other re-factoring, but from time to time there are some where a split isn't straightforward, so upping the limit from about 2MB to, say, 2.5 or 3MB, for a specific page would be a good solution provided doing so wouldn't cause the problems the 2MB limit is designed to prevent. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: What you're asking for is pretty untenable to be honest. You want a technical limit to be changed so that early 20th century amateur athletic events can be displayed on certain pages. If limits were actually going to be raised for that, this would be precedent for lifting all kinds of technical limits for all kinds of articles. Even for only allowing a certain number of articles to exceed the parser function limit, we would have massive problems deciding which articles should be allowed to exceed that.

Can you show me which articles have the same tables? Using a template to avoid the problems that come with duplication seems to be ignoring the problem that this content is being duplicated in the first place. I also don't see a need to use a function to determine what internal links to use. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued help on this. As just one example, Template:1941 Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings is transcluded into 4 "1941 [schoolname] [teamname] football team" articles in addition to 1941 college football season and List of Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings (full list). You will see a similar patter for the other season templates in List of Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings. The pattern is similar for other "List of [conference name] football standings" pages and "[year] college football season" articles, although only a few such articles are "over the 500 expensive parser function limit" right now.

It's not just football articles, sometimes Wikipedia maintenance pages have gone over the expensive parser function limit as well, for example, for a time on September 26, 2020, WP:REFUND was over the limit due to its use of {{revisions}}. In this particular case, the best solution is editorial - keeping only 5 or 6 days instead of 7. I've seen similar issues with other pages in the past and archive pages of WP:REFUND today. Shortening the retention period is not always a good solution. Things were a lot worse before {{revisions}} was re-factored, but as you can see, it's still a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: And thank you for your attention to these matters. I realise I could've found myself which articles these templates are displayed but I didn't want to choose an unfavourable example that perhaps wasn't representative. It's fair too that this isn't just about amateur athletics, but that only means we could easily have too many articles with editors attempting to justify certain articles be allowed to exceed limits.

On these particular articles you've provided, I consider it unnecessary for the 1941 college football season article to hold those templates of league standings. That article should really only list the winners of each league and if people want to know the results of the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association for that year, they can go to the List of Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association football standings, which should have a subsection for each year. This would completely remove the need to use templates, as that content could be moved into the article itself.

This is why I think conventional editing practices can be used before any changes to the software are required. Please do let me know what your reaction to this is, and if there is anything I've missed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Editorially, both the approach you suggest and the approach currently in use work. I'm not heavily invested in football articles, these came to my attention because they, as well as other long sporting "list-type" articles, tend to show up in the maintenance categories that I monitor. I do think your suggestions are worth posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football as an option but not as a must-do. As for the general statement about changing the software, I'd like to give editors as much freedom as possible and not "box them in" because of technical constraints if there is a way to avoid doing so. Here's an analogy - there is a tool called Internet relay chat which is sort of like an old-school version of Discord (software). Back in the day, malicious people would come in and "flood" the channels with tons of sign-ons at the same time, which caused technical problems. So they added a software limit that the channel operator could set. Well, pretty soon people realized that having a fixed limit for a channel was a bad idea, so someone created a bot that periodically looked at how many people were actually in the channel, and set the limit to 10 or 15 higher than the current use. This was adjusted every few minutes. Now, it's not realistic to have such limits being dynamically adjusted in Wikipedia, nor is it realistic to have every article have its own limit. But it is realistic to say "ok, there are certain articles that are close to or above the existing limit, can we keep it below the limit through normal editing without hurting the project, or should we make a special case for this article and give it a higher limit" so we can put up what is editorially the best possible page without being constrained by artificial rules. Or, to put it another way, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a sonnet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Well the approach currently in use isn't working though, isn't it? That appears to be why you're requesting those technical changes. Even if those technical limits were not an issue, it appears strongly to me that the current approach is a bad one. I can't see a good reason for the data to be duplicated here. I think anybody could make the changes that I've suggested without any consensus necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ping doesn't always ping

{{ping}} uses the WP:Notifications mechanism, which doesn't work if you add it to an existing edit. If you need to add a ping to an existing message for which there are no replies yet one option is to delete the message then re-post it with the "ping." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump / Covid

There is extensive and active discussion on the article talk page, during which the standing text was reestablished by a good faith editor prior to your most recent tweaks. Please restore the longstanding consensus text until such time as we all find a way to improve it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That text didn't have consensus to support it. I made minor edits to address the concerns raised on the talk page. Thanks for bringing your view to my attention though, and I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I take it you have not reviewed the recent talk page threads. Otherwise, you'd see my several posts there. This text has been established in the article for several months and is indeed the current consensus text. The lead text you changed was an accurate summary of a very extensively discussed article text on the article talk page, after which I believe it was {ping|MelanieN}} who added the core article text. Roughly a dozen editors have been working on this, and your edit steps ahead of the pack with a change to text that's been accepted by the community for many months. I recall you did the same thing even after the initial text was decided by consensus and added to the article months ago. That's really not a good way to go about gaining consensus -- or even respect -- for your efforts. I see that @Neutrality: has now restored the consensus text, so please just respond to the comments of others on talk and help us see whether theres a better way to word this lead bit. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you haven't reviewed the recent talk page threads, as you would clearly see I have been part of those discussions. In short, no, there was not a consensus for the text, it was simply there for some time. I'm happy to have the text even further improved on, so as I said before, please do raise your thoughts about the text. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality:, is there any way of using "consensus required" protection for the leads of controversial pages? The lead is always sensitive and thus substantive (anything that might be controversial) changes should not be made without clear consensus. BOLD is okay once, but if there are objections, caution should then rule. -- Valjean (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

We would then need consensus for everything in the lead currently, otherwise we would be enforcing a version that doesn't have consensus. I think the current status is sufficient. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Onetwothreeip and SPECIFICO, just so you're both aware I've partly restored the status quo wording again, as I think Onetwothreeip's wording ("some have criticized") was far too weasel-y. However, as I've already restored the full SQ within the last 24 hrs I'm not able to do so again, so I changed it to "widely criticized" for now. I do think the best thing is to restore the SQ,, even though I'd personally like to find a replacement, until we have an agreement for change (I've tried to offer some suggestions on the talk page). @SPECIFICO, it looks like you failed to ping MelanieN. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 13:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Jr8825. I have commented at the talk page. Capsule summary: people have been changing this without discussion, leading to edit warring, and if there is any more of it I am going to ask for the article to be full-protected again. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: could you please provide proof supporting your claim that I have added "some have criticized"? If I somehow did, that would genuinely have been an accident. If not, and it's just a genuine mistake on your part to claim that about me, then I would appreciate an apology. Thanks. @MelanieN and SPECIFICO: I am sure I added "widely criticized", as that is what I support. I very much doubt Jr8825's claim about me is true. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you are trying to say, the takeaway is that several other editors have asked you not to change the longstanding text without prior talk page consensus. On the substance, this can be continued on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No, you are the only editor who asked me this here, which you are entitled to do. That is easily verifiable. I have also asked you what your thoughts are on the contention. I pinged you a few moments ago just a matter of correcting the record, as you probably saw Jr8825's claim about me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, you said "Trump was widely considered to have reacted too slowly..."[2] It doesn't matter. What did happen was you made a unilateral edit, while the subject was under discussion, and your edit touched off a mild edit war. So don't do that, OK? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course. If my edit is reverted, then we go to the talk page. That's how it's been for as long as I can remember, particularly on this article. Thank you for providing the correct revision which disproves the suggestion made. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to wrap things up -- as I noted above -- you did the same kind of unilateral edit against consensus shortly after the article text on Covid was settled and placed in the article. Over the same.issue: "slowly". SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That must have been some time ago. There was not consensus on the wording, only that something about the pandemic should be placed there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD for deaths due to COVID-19 and related RfC

Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

2006 BWF World Junior Championships – Mixed doubles

I see you created this article a few years ago. When you did so, it looks like you ran into a bug that caused all the templates to become wikitext.

Do you think you could try and fix what's on the page now so that it uses templates instead of wikitext? --Izno (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Izno, I'm not sure what you're referring to. The templates look fine to me, although the article is very large in size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the reason the article has a large size is that content like the below should be a template... not a wikitext version. --Izno (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

{| cellpadding="0" style="border-style: none; font-size: 90%; margin: 1em 2em 1em 1em; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0; white-space: nowrap"
|
| colspan="5" style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: #f2f2f2" | Quarterfinals
|
|
| colspan="5" style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: #f2f2f2" | Semifinals
|
|
| colspan="5" style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #aaa; background-color: #f2f2f2" | Final
|
|-
| style="width: 1px" |
| style="width: 25px" |  
| style="width: 175px" |  
| style="width: 12px" |  
| style="width: 12px" |  
| style="width: 12px" |  
| style="width: 5px" |
| style="width: 5px" |
| style="width: 25px" |  
| style="width: 175px" |  
| style="width: 12px" |  
| style="width: 12px" |  
| style="width: 12px" |  
| style="width: 5px" |
| style="width: 5px" |
| style="width: 25px" |  
| style="width: 175px" |  
| style="width: 12px" |  
| style="width: 12px" |  
| style="width: 12px" |  
| style="width: 1px" |

That doesn't appear for me when I view the article for some reason. Is there any harm in removing those blank parameters? I'm not sure how these templates were made, and I wasn't aware of how they were made when the article was created either. My guess is they were made around 2006 and this is an outdated way to create these kinds of charts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You made it in 2018 apparently in the 2017 wikitext editor.... You would need to view the wikitext version of the article to see that. --Izno (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I created the article but none of the content is my work. I found the edit that created those issues, by Ahecht. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that sorts that. I assume you've learned by now, but always ensure you put the name of the article you copied from in the page history, otherwise you are in violation of the licensing agreement (and make it hard for innocent bug hunters to fix issues). --Izno (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised it wasn't there since it's standard for the many article splits I've made. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Why?

Is it unclear why this is a problem from the standpoint of organization? Yeah I get that you "chose" to do it, but could you give a cogent reason for doing it? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I wanted it to be part of the current discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah I get that you wanted it to be a part of the current discussion, but could you give a cogent reason for wanting it to be a part of the current discussion? And could you respond to my opening question about organization?

Never mind, just leave it and see the problem play out for yourself. You have set up a situation of unnecessary confusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see a reason to split the attention of participants and I don't want to present that proposal as necessarily final. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss I should also make it clear that I don't object to what you did in general, it was just this particular instance that I disagreed. Feel free to do similar in other cases if you think it would be beneficial. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Roger wilco. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump

I believe you just violated @Awilley:'s 24-hour BRD protocol by reinstating your edit that I reverted. 1 2 Please undo, and use talk if you feel strongly. Your edit changed the meaning and emphasis of content that had explicit talk page consensus. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I started the later edit before you made your revert, and it wasn't picked up as an edit conflict. I'll reinstate what you restored. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is your lucky day. If you undo your reinstatement, I will undo my removal. Presumably somebody else will remove your edit and a discussion will ensue. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually it was the same edit. I kept pressing "publish changes" because I kept receiving an error message saving it didn't save. Clearly it did save before you reverted, and it also saved it again after you reverted. I've since reverted it myself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it. It put me at 24 hour 4rr, due to reverting all your u discussed ""trims". For reasons I stated on talk, these don't appear to be constructive, and I wish you would stop the trims and discuss on talk. SPECIFICO talk 00:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What are you even concerned about here? These are just basic trimmings of content and removing redundant citations, as this is a very large article. We can also discuss it on the talk page but I would like a direct answer to this since you haven't discussed any reasoning. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My concerns are stated in the edit summaries and in the thread about article length. If you really do not u derstand that you are changing the meaning of the content you purport to be trimming, that is a cause for concern. You will recall I cited your attempt to change consensus Covid text six moths ago. That was particularly egregious. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're saying that the meaning of content has been changed and that I removed content that was due but you're not saying what is wrong with the change of meaning or why the content is due. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

123IP, what you're saying is irrelevant. When another editor objects to any of your edits, you should immediately allow (or do it yourself) the article to revert to its previous state (the version before your edit) and seek to reach a consensus on the talk page. Follow BRD. It's that simple. Forget any arguing here or in edit summaries. Use the article's talk page, and do not attempt your edits again until you have reached a consensus (literally gotten permission from other editors) to do so. -- Valjean (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: If you had bothered to check the article history, you would see I have done exactly that after Specifico requested me to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That's good. I was just trying to remind you how to proceed so discussions like the above could be avoided. They should occur on the article talk page, not here. That's all. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the irony of calling what I was saying irrelevant, this is not the first time you have attempted to "remind me" about something which was already very clearly addressed and established. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Please show via diffs that Onetwothreeip failed to do what you "reminded" them to do (it appears from your response that they did not), or apologize to them for butting in with little knowledge of the situation. If you made a human mistake, own it, admit it, offer a humble apology, and move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, please display your sheriff's badge when barking orders to colleagues. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Where was Valjean's? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Pot SPECIFICO meet kettle. And any objective reading of my comment would see that (1) it was a request, complete with "please", not an "order" (as evident in the completely obvious fact that I would have no way of enforcing compliance) and (2) no "barking" occurred. Only one of us has recently issued an order disguised as a request, and it wasn't me.[3] ―Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're projecting again. "asked" is not a command. Commands need the badge. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you're denying again. An actual "ask" means that the asked individual is not required to comply and they may decline without consequence. That's the difference between yours and mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree your bluster is without consequence. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Backatcha pal. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, contrary to my usual practice, I based my comments on the discussion here and, possibly mistakenly going by previous experience with 123IP, I figured that this was a repeat of previous situations where that advice had been given and ignored. I saw an apparently fruitless back and forth that was reminiscent of previous discussions where 123IP had been sanctioned criticized for IDHT behavior. I may well have been judgmental and mistaken in this case, so I will AGF and apologize for butting in without performing thorough due diligence. I will be more careful next time. -- Valjean (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, that is a blatant lie. I have never been sanctioned for "IDHT behavior" or any other behaviour. Other than a previous instance of you being needlessly condescending about a Wikipedia guideline in response to a comment of mine, which clearly turned out to be redundant, I do not know who you are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You have been criticized for such behavior many times by many experienced editors. To avoid future misunderstanding, I have stricken and revised my wording. -- Valjean (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really. As an experienced editor, I find your comments here to be nonconstructive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

123, you seem to be doubling down on your denial of constructive criticism, i.e. IDHT. Your editing on Trump has not been a net positive for that article or for your colleagues there. There are specific behaviors of yours that you could easily adjust while still presenting your views for consideration and consensus. It works against you to post changes that are likely to be reverted. It is not in your interest to do that, because you end up in pitched battles with editors who are trying their best to collaborate. Take it or leave it, but it's far from a personal view from me or Valjean. You are shooting yourself in the foot. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty silly to claim that I don't engage in discussions with people and you should know better. I've started several discussions on the Donald Trump talk page, and I've commented in many others. My editing on that article has absolutely been a net positive. It is not against any behavioural guideline to disagree with you. Nothing I've done is different to what most other editors have done, and it's quite telling that neither you or Valjean are criticising any particular behaviour, but are referring to some other criticism that you claim has been given to me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)