User talk:PPEMES Archives 2016 June

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PPEMES. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Template:Christian mysticism. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. At the specific template, I thought that contents were more reflected under the moved name, but your objection has been noticed and I will leave the discussion to you there. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Craig J. N. de Paulo. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, the same to you. For the record, I do share your concern about the need of improvements of said article. However, more than an undo will not help. Let's address the issue on its talk page. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you edit war, you will be blocked. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not and have never been my intention. As a matter of fact, I am rather tired of such discussions on Wikipedia and I am more happy you have it your way rather than discussing the matter in this way. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Archive?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Does anybody who knows this stuff know why my user talk page currently isn't being properly archived? Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I believe this issue is to do with Cluebot itself.. Please take this issue up in Cluebot's talk page, and also don't forget to look at the templates on that page. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert by any means but came across your issue - don't remember how, but *anyway*...

1) The Bot is set to archive old threads without any new replies every 90 days (2160 hours) - so that takes care of anything within the last 3 months but there are still posts/threads from December that haven't been archived.
2) The Archived pages...They don't seem to be quite right (posts/threads from different months are being placed under the same archive-page title), but I am more familiar with User:lowercase sigmabot III and its syntax... Huon is the editor who added the archiving code. I've pinged them but I'll also drop a note on their user talk page, they'll probably be able to figure out what's going on quicker and better than myself. Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As UY Scuti mentioned, the bot itself is down and has not archived anything in more than a month. There's a thread on the bot talk page noting that the bot operator hasn't been active for quite some time, either. Switching to lowercase sigmabot III may serve to get your talk page arcived automatically again. Huon (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Huon, I didn't realize that ClueBot III was completely down. Thanks for making that clear. Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the information. Excuse me for asking, but do you know how to make that change? If so, feel free to do it to my talk page. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident, I can change it but lowercase sigmabot will give the archive pages a different title type... I'll give it a go, see if I can keep things neat & tidy. Shearonink (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please! Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I should have said "I'll try to change it."...this is proving to be quite difficult for, I am in no way any kind of coder. The issue is the original titles exist and are the archive of the talk page but lowercase sigmabot uses a different nomenclature for its titles... I might have to ask for some help. I am sure some other WP editors have changed archiving their talk pages from one method of to another... Not giving up yet. Shearonink (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, anyway. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Did you or anybody else find any suitable solution, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm still asking for help in this matter, please. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the threads on your talk page are newer than 90 days and thus should not be archived. The second arguably should, but maybe the bot starts at the top. The bot itself is definitely working (as is ClueBot III by now); I'd give it another couple of weeks to see if threads are getting archived when the top thread is 90 days old. Huon (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I just now adjusted the archiving to every 30 days. A couple of things:

Every section that has a new post in it, no matter how old the original post is will not be archived until 30 days have gone by and the thread has gone stale. I suggest you take a look at the edit history of this talk page, the archiving bot is working as instructed.
Every post that does not have a timestamp on it will not archive. Even your own posts on your own talk page. I noticed that there are some posts on this talk page that will not archive because the date/time/(UTC) stamp is missing. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explainations! Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Christianity Barnstar
		For diligent work sprucing up templates and articles throughout WP:Catholicism! --Zfish118^⋉talk 03:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! Happy you appreciate it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Excuse me, how do you handle such awards? I mean, where do you put it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You can put it wherever you wish. I left mine on the talkpage, and kept it while cleaning up older discussion. --Zfish118^⋉talk 13:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Page moves

Stop moving pages without discussion. When templates and such are in use on 50+ pages, moving them simply because you don't like the title is disruptive. MSJapan (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, could you please state which one you are referring to? Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Grand Lodge and Template:Freemasonry, but the fact of the matter is that you are doing this fairly regularly in several topic areas. I'm also not asking you to stop moving one or two pages; I'm asking you to stop moving pages, period. Anything you want to move you can list following the procedure at WP:RM#CM. MSJapan (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It is true that I am contributing to Wikipedia to the best of my understanding on the basis of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle..However, if you have identified an edit, including a move, that you consider controversal, naturally I and others are bound to take that into account. As for freemasinry, your user seem to be a prominent figure in those subjects. I don't wish to have prolonged discussions with you about it. In fact, I would prefer not having too much discussions with you at all about it. So thanks for the objection - I leave the preference for titles to you for the time being in these specific cases. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to grossly misunderstand a lot of things. BOLD refers to edits, because it's easy to revert and discuss edits on one article. Moves create changes to the structure of Wikipedia itself, which means they cannot be easily undone (and which is why we have a process). I am under the impression that you wish to be left alone to do what you like how you like on Wikipedia, and that when discussion is necessary (especially when you are wrong), you'd rather just drop the subject entirely and go do something else in an area where you think no one will notice. That is not how Wikipedia works, and asking for specific information just so you can dismiss a statement entirely is not colegial behavior. If you do not wish to work with others, you really shouldn't be here, because you're undermining the environment of the project. That's about a simply as I can put it, so I think you need to re-evaluate your reasons for participating in the project. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed a collaborative effort. I'm grateful for your contributions and good faith in that process, including of that of other fellow Wikipedia users. I haven't seen you giving positive feedback in the vast majority of edits that are not reverted, discussed or in other ways rendering complain. Perhaps because you implicate that they were good and right, according the above mentioned principle. Including moves. That's natural. It's also natured that sometimes, some edits do. I always tro to avoid reproducing those edits without discussion that have received complain. I'm sorry for not succeeding that this time, and I do take note on your specific complain. In some cases I choose to participate in the subsequent discussion. However, in this case, I would prefer giving you the right to do as you wish with said pages, if you don't mind. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Please stop moving articles without prior discussion. Wikipedia works on concensus and any move that is for reasons other than purely technical ones needs to be discussed. This is easily done using the {{Requested move}} template. Based on the statement on your user page, you should also note that using a second account on Wikipedia is not permitted under our sock puppetry rules. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 05:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I sometimes place that move request template on the talk page, and I sometimes edit according to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Could you please state which specific pqge you're referring to, in order for me to take the objection better into account, rather than as a general post directed to me about your personal opinion about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle principle? As for your socket comment, it indicates that you didn't read my presentation properly. So the eventual shaming should redirected to you in that regard. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Malteser International has been nominated for discussion

Category:Malteser International, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Bailey

I notice a good deal of recent commentary on the above article some of which is being made by a number of one time wikipedia users. I really dont understand the venom being expressed, the removal of all my Buckingham Palace links, lost of post nominals on the basis of a article published in the scandal sheets of the Mail on Sunday and Private Eye which are also subject to legal action. Any thoughts on how to bring balance back to the article and to complain about those who are clearly politically motivated. I am not the subject of the article but interested in the subject. Culture759 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to edit it a little in order to make it more neutral. I would suggest you to address the issue on its talk page. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Noted your comment re the lead, which I have left as you edited, thanks for this opinion. Your correspondent above, as you will see, has already commented on the talk page, and received responses. Btw, as you will see from the article, Bailey is not entitled to use 'Sir' in the UK and the article has been retitled accordingly, so you may like to edit the heading that Culture759 has given this topic on your own talk page.--Smerus (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC Dutch/Netherlands Lion

User:Chicbyaccident, you might be interested in this RfC. Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2016/June