Bofuses
You're welcome edit
Consecutive blank lines are a no-no:
"Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article. There is no need to include a blank line between a heading and sub-heading."
Having said that edit
... while tidying == these == == things == ==up== some of us routinely ensure there's a blank line – completely invisible to the reader and therefore irrelevant to MOS – immediately above and below each one, and that there's a blank line, visible to the reader but barely noticeable, above the very first word of every plain paragraph (never mind whatever's above that). This et al is why.
If there's a policy or guideline indicating those lines should be removed, or consensus that we should stop, please share.
Bofuses (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
p.s. For God's sake notice (and reciprocate) Bofuses's
meticulous avoidance of before, after, and
between in this context. Not to mention ...
Blank lines – along with consistent horizontal spacing, wikitext vice HTML, and my alleged idiocy – are useful and harmless. No one has yet said otherwise. --Bofuses (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- That’s a lie. People have so, including me. If you can’t be truthful to yourself, you stand no chance of being truthful to others. 109.249.185.63 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again with the curlies ... Anyway, no one has [ever] told me an edit of mine was harmful, let alone how or to what or to whom. Please share. --Bofuses (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Learn how to indent. You have been told that your changes are not useful, that things like line breaks are confusing for people watching the article, and that if things are not broken, there is no need to clutter up people’s watchlists by changing things that do not need changing. Just STOP changing things that do not need changing. - 109.249.185.63 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The blank lines above and below a heading are helpful and are actually Wikipedia's automatic default setting. Keep that part as good. -- Valjean (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Only one set of breaks is needed, not both. Changing things like that which are not needed to be changed clutters up watchlists and makes checking alterations very difficult. See MOS:VAR, which states “Where more than one style or format is acceptable under MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason“. Just STOP. 109.249.185.63 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is not about invisible changes like the blank lines. Since those blank lines are the automatic default here, that default should not be changed. Those blank lines are very helpful for those of us with weaker eyesight when we're editing and scanning down a page, so it does make a difference, just not one that shows up on the finished page. So try being collegial and considerate. -- Valjean (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- When there is no blank line in place, there is no need to add one. You can’t order me to “don't tamper with Wikipedia's automatic default settings” when I’m doing nothing of the sort. Bofuses is adding breaks where there are none. I am reverting according to BRD. It’s also untruthful to claim “blank lines are the automatic default here“: show me a guideline or policy that says they need to be there. The breaks have nothing to do with eyesight (My eyesight is so bad I need to have my monitor set to magnify to 200%), it’s to do with following the guideline I have provided. Stop trying to defend and enable a bad editor. Bullying me because I’m an IP may be the way Wikipedia works nowadays, but it’s a despicable avenue it’s going down. 109.249.185.63 (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- That is not about invisible changes like the blank lines. Since those blank lines are the automatic default here, that default should not be changed. Those blank lines are very helpful for those of us with weaker eyesight when we're editing and scanning down a page, so it does make a difference, just not one that shows up on the finished page. So try being collegial and considerate. -- Valjean (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Only one set of breaks is needed, not both. Changing things like that which are not needed to be changed clutters up watchlists and makes checking alterations very difficult. See MOS:VAR, which states “Where more than one style or format is acceptable under MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason“. Just STOP. 109.249.185.63 (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The blank lines above and below a heading are helpful and are actually Wikipedia's automatic default setting. Keep that part as good. -- Valjean (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Learn how to indent. You have been told that your changes are not useful, that things like line breaks are confusing for people watching the article, and that if things are not broken, there is no need to clutter up people’s watchlists by changing things that do not need changing. Just STOP changing things that do not need changing. - 109.249.185.63 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again with the curlies ... Anyway, no one has [ever] told me an edit of mine was harmful, let alone how or to what or to whom. Please share. --Bofuses (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with you being an IP. I have only addressed the blank lines around headings, and that MOS guideline you cited only applies to what's visible. No one is bullying you, so drop the attitude. If anyone is bullying, it's you with your aggression toward Bofuses. -- Valjean (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- To see what's the default, try creating a new section by using the provided tab. Then type a test heading and some test content. Save it. Then edit it. You'll see that Wikipedia always adds a blank line between the heading and the text. That means the heading is supposed to float between two blank lines, making it easier to find headings when editing a page. -- Valjean (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If I was a registered user, you wouldn’t be posting this sort of auto-defense against his bad edits. Looking at mos:VAR, I don’t see anything that says it’s for visible things only, as you claim, so that’s rather spurious. There again, I see your modus operandi is battlefield first, last and always. Don’t try to lecture me when you should spend time getting your own house in order first.
- I’m bored of your patronising approach and behavior, so won’t bother replying to you any more, but if there are any more shitty edits from this user, I won’t hesitate to revert them, regardless of whatever bullying you want to try. 109.249.185.63 (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just to confirm that the claims that additional line breaks “are actually Wikipedia's automatic default setting” are untrue. While the software adds one if a sew section is added on talk pages, it does not for articles. STOP. ADDING. THEM. In addition, stop changing To , which goes against the guidelines. You will see nbsp listed in the Wiki markup at the bottom of this edit window. - 109.249.185.63 (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thats (ok). --2601:840:8402:34A0:D531:1F1B:9BA:C417 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2020 edit
Excuse me? What are you doing adding nonsensical templates to this IP's userpage? Just trolling? I have reverted you. If you want to talk to the IP, then do so on their talkpage. Though since you're already doing so here on your own page, I don't see much point in it. Bishonen | tålk 14:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC).
- The IP didn't have a talk page, so I made one. Bofuses | talk 15:16:46 (UTC)
- It looks like you made an edit to their user page, not their talk page. That's not good. Also, use a proper signature (four tildes) after EVERY comment. I have added the missing sig above. This type of stuff (joking edits and no sig) risks creating irritation and can have a cumulative effect that creates problems and misunderstandings for you. I don't want to discourage some levity, but be careful with it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The IP had no user page either. Bofuses | talk 18:21, November 14, 2020 (UTC)
- It existed, but had not been edited and had no content, and there is no rule against having a redlinked user page. Except for removing vandalism or outing, editing another editor's user page is usually not allowed unless you have a standing agreement with them. -- Valjean (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Why would you change a link in the The Boat Race 2019 from a featured article about the cancelled race to a subsection of the main article? Can you explain yourself please? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I changed a parameter for the infobox, to wit "next season". Hovering over the 2020 link per se doesn't reveal the cancellation, nor does a click (your way) until the second paragraph. --Bofuses (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- So what? The 2019 article is about the 2019 race. The 2020 article is about the 2020 "race"/cancellation. Your changes are entirely unwelcome and unjustifiable. Looking at your talkpage, it appears this isn't the first time you've made similar errors of judgement. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I also just discovered this edit which was also extremely unhelpful. I suggest you stop making harmful and cosmetic efforts because eventually you will be prevented from doing so. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)