|
:Thank you for reconsidering. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 03:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
== Date format ==
You have closed Nintendo discussion page without sufficient reasons. Also, what do you think led to the consensus to keep this in place? Wikipedia is not a democracy, and they don't have a good reason. If discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If this doesn't change you will need to change the rule itself for [[MOS:NUM]]. It should never have been changed at first glance, so I think restoring the prior that stood for 11 years is desirable over allowing a meaningless change contrary to guidelines to say seek consensus, to be considered the current date format. If it is not changed, it will only encourage people to try and support through meaningless changes under a vague edit summary without consensus on the article's talk page (and changers will hope it does not reverted, as the meaningless edit can just change a whole date format). If you don't change it, the wiki has a serious rules flaw. [[WP:EDITCON]] does not prevent [[MOS:DATERET]]. I don't feel any participation in messing with these rules. It should be written as "date format consensus is unclear, so we use the first major contributor date format per [[MOS:NUM]]". [[User:WAccount1234567890|WAccount1234567890]] ([[User talk:WAccount1234567890|talk]]) 04:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. Uninvolved admin often review a discussion, read over the merits of the arguments proposed to come to a consensus, and then close the discussion. Which is what I did. Please take a step back and remember the context of what you're arguing about here. It's an argument about which date format to use. Two ''widely used'' and ''widely understood'' formats. Literally nothing is at stake here. Both are valid, but one has uncontentiously held stable for the past seven years. Please drop this and spend your time arguing about something more constructive. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 05:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
::It is not appropriate to say that it is widely used and widely understood. Your argument seems to be that mdy should not be used in anything except American articles. If that's the case, then it's up to you to make the rules. And your reasons do not over the rules. [[User:WAccount1234567890|WAccount1234567890]] ([[User talk:WAccount1234567890|talk]]) 05:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I have no idea how any of that is your take away from my close. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 11:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I don't think you have thoroughly read the reasons for the change in Nintendo's discussion. You still don't answer my main questions. The most influential of my key questions is that [[MOS:NUM]] states that style used by the first major contributor should be used without explicit consensus (and there is no mention of [[WP:EDITCON]] preventing the [[MOS:NUM]]), and opponents haven't even posted a good reason to keep it. You still seem to think Wikipedia is a democracy, but [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY|it isn't]]. There is no good reason for us not to follow this rule. You are ignoring the rules without good reason. [[User:WAccount1234567890|WAccount1234567890]] ([[User talk:WAccount1234567890|talk]]) 23:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'm a bit confused. I've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years. Youve got like 30 edits to your name. Why would you think you know better on how disputes are handled on Wikipedia? What grounds exactly are all of these lectures about Wikipedia not being a democracy coming from? At no point did I cite "Democracy" as a reason for my close.
:::::On Wikipedia, decisions are made by consensus building ([[WP:CONSENSUS]]). Discussions are held, and outside of landslide outcomes, uninvolved Admin review discussions and come to a conclusion on how to discussions. Not by vote, but by weighing the merits of the policy-based arguments.
:::::I reviewed the discussion, and I was more persuaded by the arguments that cited a seven year EDITCON. We're talking about a very high traffic, mainstream article. If the date was truly an issue, it would not have gone seven years undiscussed. Further more, there was not a consensus to change the date in the discussion. When there is not a consensus to change, we default to the status to not making the proposed change. ([[WP:NOCONSENSUS]]). There is no misconduct here, just a standard close of a pretty basic content dispute.
:::::I have no idea what would possess someone to sign up for a website to to spend all their time obsessing over date formatting, but it's time to move on. Too much time has already been wasted on this minor dispute. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 23:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::The [[WP:EDITCON]] does not justify violating the [[MOS:DATERET]] because there is no good reason to violate the [[MOS:DATERET]]. You'd think evidence of a lot of edits would mean they know the rules better than the users, but that's not always true. The article has evolved using predominantly the mdy date format (since early January 2005, and here's [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nintendo&diff=next&oldid=9083756 first major contribution]), and the user's edit appears to have violate [[MOS:DATERET]]. I mentioned this on talk page, but I think you don't read it thoroughly, so I explained it to you. The user, who edited the mdy date format without a strong consensus discussion in the article, also provides strong evidence that the edit 7 years ago violated the [[MOS:DATERET]] rule, and that the [[MOS:DATERET]] rule violation should be reverted. But you continue to ignore the existence of the [[MOS:DATERET]] and other rules, and while the [[WP:EDITCON]] does not explicitly state that this justifies breaking these rules, you seem to be claiming that it would be so without good reason. You continue to ignore the rules I have outlined without good reason. Even if the [[WP:EDITCON]] is currently applied, edits that do not comply with the rules should be reverted unless the reason can be explained. Furthermore, the [[MOS:NUM]] clearly states that if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Once again, you seem to keep ignoring the [[MOS:NUM]] for no good reason. Opponents have not given a good reason to keep this format, but people who want mdy have given good reasons. If you ignore a rule because you don't like it, there's no reason for the rule to exist. To reiterate, there is no good reason for us not to follow these rules, and you are ignoring the rules without good reason. [[User:WAccount1234567890|WAccount1234567890]] ([[User talk:WAccount1234567890|talk]]) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You still haven't addressed my question. I understand people get passionate and heated over important subjects like religion, politics, social issues. Or even just every day factual details. But you're not even upset about wrong dates, you're upset about how the same dates are written out. ''Why?'' There is, very literally, nothing at stake here. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::There is evidence on [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nintendo the article's talk page] that Nintendo and Japan primarily use mdy. There is also no reason in this article to use format that break the rules. In these situations, it is recommended to use an appropriate mdy written by the first major contributor based on [[MOS:DATERET]]. And according to this your opinion, there is no reason for [[MOS:RETAIN]] rule to exist. To reiterate, The [[MOS:NUM]] states that if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. I think it exists to avoid endless style wars. This is similar to what happens when American companies that use mdy do not use mdy in their articles. So, please change this date format to mdy. [[User:WAccount1234567890|WAccount1234567890]] ([[User talk:WAccount1234567890|talk]]) 21:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::You seem to be struggling with this, so let me be very clear: The answer is no. You need to drop the stick, or a disruption block is potentially in your future. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 21:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::There is no basis for what you are saying. This change is supported in rules. [[User:WAccount1234567890|WAccount1234567890]] ([[User talk:WAccount1234567890|talk]]) 06:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::As myself, ferret, and at least three volunteers from the TEAHOUSE have told you, it's time to drop this. Again and again you've failed to address why this matters. The closest you've come to addressing it is was saying "''I think it exists to avoid endless style wars."'' - but again, that can't be your motivation here because there was literally no edit warring over it for ''seven years straight''. If you waste any more if the community's time in this, I'm blocking your account. Find something more constructive to do. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I've already explained why it's important. You're violating the rules without a good reason and you haven't given a good reason to retain this form. Your logic of 7 years of change without explicit consensus is not supported in [[MOS:NUM]]. Also, keep in mind that there is no good reason to want to stop, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. You are wasting time by not following the rules without a good reason. [[User:WAccount1234567890|WAccount1234567890]] ([[User talk:WAccount1234567890|talk]]) 06:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Did you think I missed it the first 10 times you said that? That's not what what I was asking. You would think that, after saying that so many times, you would realize that it's not a sufficient answer to my question. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
== [[PlayStation Vita]] ==
| 