User talk:Onetwothreeip/2018

• 2018
• January–June 2019
• July–December 2019

Not Pinging

Not sure if you were referencing Bornon or I with the not pinging comment. I intentionally didn't ping you and Drmies as I was trying to strike a balance (not successfully) to minimize Bornon feeling attacked. No offense was intended and I'm sorry if I stepped on your toes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Subsequent...?

Speaker accepted Perth resignation 10 May, and Mayo resignation 11 May. But why use incorrect superfluous words that don't add anything? Brevity is key. Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, subsequently. First of all, you're assuming bad faith, I ask you not. They all technically resigned on the 10th, but Sharkie's only was effective from the 11th. Hammond asked for the resignation shortly after the dual citizens did and was effective the same day. I don't have a particular attachment to the word subsequently though. I'm happy with meanwhile, at the same time, et cetera. Regards, Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

But whatever the word is, it doesn't *add* anything. It is obvious in the next sentence that all 5 by-elections follow a common timeline of events. Please, avoid superfluity, acronyms, and the longer sentences superfluity creates. Brevity is king. Lastly, please don't throw around clearly baseless bad faith accusations, it serves neither of us. Timeshift (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I suggest you read this essay WP:Editors have pride to understand the actions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You raise a very fair point, but I think my "intervention" was well past the point of an otherwise constructive appeal, something like their fifth request. I did not consider they would think I am an administrator, and that is my mistake. I was not proposing this as a condition for them to be unblocked, I was genuinely seeking to understand if they intended to further make satirical edits and that's him calling the edits satirical (and also admitted they weren't meant to stand), not me or anyone else. Genuinely thank you for linking me to this essay, I have not seen this before. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, you're tagging all nine of the lists for deletion, right? - ^theWOLFchild 13:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I intend to since that's what "Option B" was. Is there an automated way to do it, or must it only be done manually on each article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Manually for each. I saw two were done, so I figured you started doing it, but just didnt know if you were doing all nine. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 14:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I just found out the first one can be automated but the others must be manual! I had assumed it was the other way around. I can only find eight of these articles though, or I can't count. Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Here ya go;

1. List of box office bombs (2010s)
2. List of box office bombs (2000s)
3. List of box office bombs (1990s)
4. List of box office bombs (1980s)
5. List of box office bombs (1970s)
6. List of box office bombs (1960s)
7. List of box office bombs (1950s)
8. List of box office bombs (1940s)
9. List of box office bombs (1910s-1930s)

- ^theWOLFchild 14:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of the last one, thanks! Onetwothreeip (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hey, at the AfD you commented; ":For what it's worth, the words were copied from other Wikipedia articles, seemingly by some automated program.". I take it you were speaking of User: BornonJune8? If you believe they were running a bot or some kind of script, do you know if it was approved by the WP:Bot Approvals Group? Just curious, as I've seen others users get in trouble for that sort of thing... - ^theWOLFchild 13:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I was speaking of them, yes. I have no idea if they were an approved bot, probably not. Does script assisted editing count as a bot? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, other than that some unapporved automated processes can be a real pain in the ass here. Best to check with WP:BAG. If it's an issue, they'll deal with it, if not... then no harm, no foul. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 21:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

removing copies of articles from other articles

Did you see the link? There is an article called List of Prime Ministers of Australia and it is copied in FULL on the Prime Minister of Australia Page. Someone decided to put it there recently, I decided to remove the copy and keep the link to the original. Why, may I ask, do you want to waste extrainious bandwith?Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Arglebargle79 You have unilaterally made this removal without any consensus on the talk page, it was contested by another user. It is most definitely not a recent addition to the article. There are articles with ten times the size over at Special:LongPages if you want to dedicate yourself to that task. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip#top Please explain WHY we need a FULL COPY of another article in this one? That's what the thing is about. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Arglebargle79 Take it to the article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Arglebargle79 not that I disagree with you (either post the list on the main PM article, size isn't an issue, or keep it separate, but not both. Perhaps consensus should decide?). I'm just curious as to why you're addressing this here instead of the article talk page (and why ping an editor on their own user talk page?). Like I said, just curious. - ^theWOLFchild 23:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

One because they Pinged ME on MY talk page, and two, it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Does anyone disagree with us on this? It's been separate for years and years, and there are several interations, such as length of term, ages of various PMs, ratings, and such. NO problem with those, as they have five or six for pretty much every other country. But putting the full list here isn't necessary or desired. Unless someone can give me a good reason why to KEEP it, I'll try again to remove it tomorrow.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Arglebargle79 Yes, someone disagrees with you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, tell me why.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ask them on the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: - "...because they Pinged ME on MY talk page..." - Actually, someone else posted a standard template notice on your user talk page, after they reverted you. Then 123ip requested that you go to the article talk, but for some reason you came here instead. All the discussion about the article should be there, not here. Perhaps 123ip should close this section and we should all direct any further posts about the article to the article talk page. Keep it all in one place. Sound good? - ^theWOLFchild 00:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Joe McGirr shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bidgee (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bidgee: I am well aware of the three revert rule, I believe I have only made one revert, which was a revert of one of your recent edits. I intended for this to be my only revert, at least for 24 hours. I completely reject that I am engaged in an edit war and I have already started a discussion at the talk page (which you are yet to engage), so the automated Twinkle message isn't very applicable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Be as ignorant as you want but you have undertaken more than one revert in the last 24 hours, it doesn't matter how much of the edit it was or what the content was, nor who the editor was!

Main edit 05:36-05:37, 11 September 2018

• 1 06:02, 11 September 2018‎ (undoing WWGB revert)
• 2 06:48, 11 September 2018‎ (undoing WWGB revert)
• 3 08:25, 11 September 2018‎ (undoing Bidgee revert)

Next revert will be reported. Bidgee (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I already said I didn't intend on making another revert, as I take the three reverts policy seriously, so you are being needlessly disruptive now. Other edits were not reverting. Since you are clearly pursuing this from having an editorial disagreement (you are not "warning" WWGB and nor should you), I recommend leaving this to other editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Bavarian state election, 2018

The image in the article says 2018 seat distribution is 200 but the seat totals in the template add up to 203. Do we know which is correct? Kingjeff (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Kingjeff I'm copying over the information from German Wikipedia, which says 205 seats and the seat totals add up to 205. The template said 203 because I counted 83 seats for the CSU instead of 85. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Why should we have an Infobox?

There is no such rule in Wikipedia that I know of. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, to quickly display relevant information. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

But it's confusing, and doesn't really work. PS: You ignored the request to discuss this on the Talk page. That's poor manners. And that's where we should be having this conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You haven't started a discussion on the talk page yet about removing the infobox. I didn't remove the infobox either. If there was a section on the talk page about what you're proposing, removing the infobox, I would be discussing it there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Barry O'Sullivan

Re this Australian politician, he is a bit of a neanderthal, and did make provocative statements in the Federal Parliament. So, we should allow pertinent edits that faithfully reflect his commentary, and reported analysis. Obviously we should not allow the vandalism. I have reverted the article to an early form, and put in place light protection on the article. Thanks for your earlier vigilance. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of his comments and I'm aware that I reverted some explanation of the day's events. I felt they should not be written in the way they were written by the same people carrying on the vandalism, if at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not worried about what you have done, and I just took it way back. I was more commenting that we should be aware of and alert to valued commentary among the dross. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

billinghurst I agree, but what do you mean? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Barry_O'Sullivan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have made more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, violating Wikipedia's 3RR rule. Please refrain from doing this and use the talk page if you would like to dispute the accuracy of the reports regarding Barry OSullivan's gender identity.

L32007 (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

L32007 3RR doesn't apply to reverting vandalism and BLP violations. Nice try though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your disagreement with the content added by many editors doesn't make it vandalism. WP:ADHOMINEM. It was well sourced, accurate and notable to add the news of the Senator identifying as a woman, it was WP:NOTABLE and well sourced. If one truly wishes they could add a section on why some believe that this specific instance of being transgender is invalid -- but that's bizzarre, we don't have that on any other transgender persons page. L32007 (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If any editor can get away with 3RR by just claiming that they were reverting vandalism, that policy wouldn't work at all lmao. Disagreements aren't vandalism, and 3RR is there to prevent disagreements becoming edit wars. L32007 (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's very blatantly vandalism, these editors are not serious. There is no source saying O'Sullivan is a woman or transgender, or that he regards himself as either. The sources only show that he made some sort of stunt about it. Stop wasting other people's time with this nonsense. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

you don't get to determine how barry self-identifies xem or herself bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperial12 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This isn't funny anymore. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The assumption that it was humor in the first place and not a serious attempt at a serious contribution is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ADHOMINEM.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Barry O'Sullivan, you may be blocked from editing. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 02:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Very funny. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not making a joke, so there is no reason to consider it funny. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Barry O'Sullivan by moving the section on fake vandalism warnings into the closed section, you may be blocked from editing. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You're just upset that others have warned you for disruptive editing on your user talk page. This is not civil behaviour. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You are receiving this warning because you need to exercise greater civility. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 23:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not at all the reason. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If you were exercising greater civility, nobody would have to warn you to do so. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 23:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

Hey there - good to see stubs going up for new MPs, but you should know by now that a BLP without any references or categories is never acceptable under any circumstances. It's not that hard to just put together a standard stub with infobox, succession box and templates and adapt it for each new MP. I'll be looking at it later today otherwise. Frickeg (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Frickeg, I've made a start on a couple of them. One of them was taken up with a redirect so I had to sort that out, and then I essentially just put a placeholder sentence there instead of an empty page. I wouldn't mind at all if other people contributed things like categories and further information but I'll see how much I can get done. I'm a bit preoccupied this morning but I'll see what I can do, I'll probably use the ABC list of changing electorates as the reference and I hope to get a template for one and copy that through to the others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the refs. I know they're only stubs but otherwise an admin would be quite within their rights to delete them on sight as an unreferenced BLP. Frickeg (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

BWV

You say you second it (a shortening), as if I didn't. Can we please discuss it on the article talk among editors, instead of telling readers that something is wrong with the article? I am the strongest supporter of a short article BWV which explains what the abbreviation means and how it is organized, and a long article - possibly the one we have as a list of all these, for those who really want to know. I avoid links to BWV, but often get reverted. We have a list of his cantatas, and one of his motets, - I think for those just the number and the title would be enough. - Back to the beginning: I hate article tags, but am quite open for discussion. The main editor of the article will not be able to participate, unfortunately. It's not without irony, me removing a tag (compare Der Messias) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I welcome your spirit here but I'm not sure what your concern is. Yes, these is something wrong with the article, it's too long. The article tag brings that to people's attention and should direct some of them to the talk page to help resolve the issue. Every article on Wikipedia should be accessible to the public, we don't need a page of indiscriminate information that only a few very enthused readers can make use with. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's hardly unfortunate that the editot who RUINED the article can't participate. (And it's not the BWV page that's an issue though I's say it is kinda redundant with the page we ARE talking about. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD

On my talk, I explained today to a seemingly new user what WP:BRD means, I don't want to repeat it here, - you'll find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt That looks like a discussion about a topic that I'm not involved in so I don't think I should contribute to the discussion about those issues. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll repeat: independent of any discussion topic, when you are reverted, you don't revert back, but discuss and seek consensus on the talk page. If you think that two vs. two is a clear consensus, we have different opinions about a consensus. I have other topics on my mind, see you next year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not revert what you had reverted, I reverted only the NSA column per a minor consensus on the talk page. Unless you are talking about a conflict you have with someone else on your talk page, which I am not aware. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Beamer

And now you've been immediately reverted without explanation as well. Le sigh. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Presidential timelines

Please stop splitting the presidential timelines (at least a few editors disagree with all of your recent presidential timeline splits). Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Ethanbas Thank you for your concern regarding the presidential timelines. On the talk pages, splitting the articles seem to be either largely approved or there are no discussions so I did them boldly. I've only split years with very large amounts of data, I don't intend on splitting years with few entries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)