User talk:NotThatAnonymous

Talk pages

Usertalk pages are different than article talk pages. Per WP:OWNTALK, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." Continually reverting Ss112's talk page borders on harassment. They are not doing anything against policy. Justeditingtoday (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I’m aware. I read the wrong section of the policy and misunderstood it, so I apologize for that. I still think that editing one’s user talk page to cover up the fact that you were wrong is a bit discourteous (especially when he only removed my last comment, rather than the entire section), but that’s none of my business.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 13:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

More on talk pages

You're this close to getting me to do what I've never before done, which is to forbid someone (you) to post on my talk page ever again. And if you once more change your own comments after someone's responded to them [1], you risk getting blocked -- and that's the second time today I've had to warn you about how close you are to getting booted off the project temporarily or permanently. Smarten up. EEng 02:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

When I make a mistake in my own comment, I am going to change it.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 02:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense at MOS

You've been warned before [2]. You don't know what you're doing. Now cut it out. EEng 14:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I am fully aware of what I’m doing. An en dash is not used like that.

This is not correct: “I would like a hamburger – but please, no cheese.” An em dash—with no spaces—should be used there. A comma or parentheses can also be used.

You reverted all my changes without even explaining why. Please explain yourself.

Em dash: “Remember—and always keep in mind—you don’t need to be rude.”
En dash: “I love the years 1999–2002.”
Hyphen: “I’ve received many e-mails.”
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 14:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A few months ago you were saying dashes shouldn't be used at all. Now you're on a tear about only mdashes being OK. I'm not here to explain basic English to you. Given your track record, in future if you think something in MOS should be changed I strongly suggest that you raise the suggestion at Talk:MOS and get consensus; otherwise you risk a subsantial block. EEng 14:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: No, I said that em dashes shouldn’t be used for emphasis. I wasn’t familiar with the use of em dashes when emphasizing, as I hadn’t seen it before, be it on Wikipedia or in any grammar guides. I learnt something new that day. I am not saying that only em dashes are okay like you’re saying I am. I’m changing some en dashes to semicolons because they are used incorrectly. They have different lengths and names for a reason. You wouldn’t use a comma to end a sentence, would you? You wouldn’t use an exclamation mark to end a question, would you? (By the way, they’re called em dashes, not mdashes.)

You reverted the following: Changing several hyphens to en dashes, adding a sentence to clarify the meaning of a guideline, changing the use of “However” starting sentences, and some minor rephrasing.

Like I’ve explained, en dashes cannot be used like this. Using en dashes like they’re used in the MOS is objectively incorrect. I recommend you read this guide on en dashes and this guide on em dashes. Em dashes and en dashes are not “basic English.” Most people have no idea what they are. Many use hyphens instead of em dashes (—), en dashes (–), and minus signs (−). Using an en dash instead of a semicolon or em dash is incorrect and should be changed.

Also, “However” shouldn’t start a sentence unless the definition is “in whatever way; regardless of how.” That is informal. Reverting my edits without explaining why is presumptuous. I’m trying to improve the pages which I edit, and if I’m doing something wrong, please tell me. What you’re doing is reverting edits that are perfectly fine without explaining why, because you do not want to “explain basic English to [me].” I really don’t want to edit war, but please either undo your revision or explain why my revision was wrong.

Editing the MOS is perfectly fine when you’re just making minor changes like I did. I have absolutely no will to argue, but when you’re reverting my revisions willy-nilly without a reason, I get frustrated. Instead of saying “Ugh, stop editing this page. I’m right; you’re wrong. End of discussion,” you can actually elaborate on why my revision was incorrect (which it’s not).
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 14:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Pap, your theories about dash usage, italics, and such appear to out of step with wikipedia style. While there's no requirement to follow WP:MOS in WP-space pages, it would be better all around if you would just not mess with that stuff; converting to your own personal style is not likely to sit well with the a lot of us, so you'll just get frustrated trying. Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: It is not my “personal style.” I changed some instances where em dashes were used, and they weren’t wrong; however, I do think that using a semicolon when it fits is better than using an em dash, since em dashes are so versatile.

Em dashes, en dashes, and hyphens are used for different things. You can’t mix them willy-nilly. They are different punctuation marks.

If what I’m doing isn’t against the policies, why are you reverting my revisions? What I’m doing is improving the articles by using proper grammar and punctuation marks. I am following the rules of English grammar and WP:MOS, not my personal style.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 16:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Right, it's not against policy to make bold edits; but per WP:BRD, if you get reverted you shouldn't just do it again as you keep doing. The point is that you have a preference for certain punctuation marks where your preference is not shared by others. You've got 3 editors reverting you and nobody supporting you. You can start a discussion on the talk page of the WP page, to explain why your way is better, and see if anyone supports it. Lacking that, it seems you're just injecting noise. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: You’re right. If I’m making an edit that improves a page, but two people don’t like it, I should probably discuss it—which is what I’m doing right now.

When I’m fixing something that’s objectively inncorrect, however, it should not be reverted. I have made previous edits changing incorrect uses of en dashes and hyphens; and the adverb “however,” but that’s been reverted. I’ve linked to a punctuation guides about en dashes and em dashes respectively. Using en dashes like they were used goes against all rules of the English language. Am I not allowed to fix that? Should I start a discussion before I fix a typo or a template error, for example?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 16:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Most people, no, but in your case yes, because experience shows that you're often wrong about what's an error, despite how certain you are. There are plenty of erroneous and overprescriptive style guides around, and do you really imagine that the literally hundreds of editors who have developed MOS are mistaken on such fundamental points? EEng 17:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Often? I was wrong once, and when I was wrong, it was about something that I had never heard of before. Using em dashes for emphasis isn’t in any grammar or style guide I’ve ever read. I have never seen people use em dashes like that before. I’m not even sure if it’s correct or common. That said, I made a mistake. Does that mean that I’m a horrible person who loses his rights to edit Wikipedia pages? No. You should be able to move on.

Also, you’re right about the fact that hundreds of editors have developed and expanded Wikipedia’s Manual of Style, but I’m not talking about the guidelines; I’m talking about a few simple punctuation errors. Someone accidentally used an en dash instead of an em dash. You realize that they’re very similar, right? I mistook the en dash for an em dash at first. It was probably one person who made that mistake, and then the others who edited the MOS didn’t notice it or care.

Google “en dash.” Hell, read the Wikipedia article about it. Are they used like semicolons? No. Are they used like commas? No. Are they used like parantheses? No. That’s the em dash. I am so confused as to why you’re not letting me fix minor mistakes when I’ve explained countless times why the use of these punctuation marks are incorrect.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

For crying out loud, how about if you read the Wikipedia article about it? EEng 17:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

PapiDimmi, I found the following articles:

This article in Punctuation Matters supports your statement that em-dashes are used mainly to set a string of words off for emphasis, etc., and en-dashes are used more to indicate ranges, but it also says – in the "Break the rules!" section – that spaced en-dashes are becoming more and more widely used;

Chicago Manual of Style FAQ supports your understanding of the correctness of em-dashes;

University of North Carolina Writing Center (look in the DASHES section, a little lower on the page) doesn't even discuss the difference between em-dashes and en-dashes, but explains the various uses of dashes, and clearly, emphasis is only one use.

I could find more, but the fact is that over the ten or so years that Wikipedia has been around, Wikipedia has developed its own style, and sometimes that style differs from the style in major style guides. (In this particular case, it appears to agree with the "Break the rules!" section of the first style guide to which I provided a link, above.) The Wikipedia style has developed through long use and consensus. There are quite a few editors who have actually been editing on Wikipedia for ten years. No matter how many style guides you point to, and no matter how many times you say something is wrong, you are not going to change the minds of long-time Wikipedia editors, or even of editors who have been editing for fewer years but who have accepted the Wikipedia style. It would be a better use of your time to either edit – or write – articles (using, or at least tolerating, the Wikipedia style) or find another hobby. Otherwise, you will find yourself continually irritating other editors. Regarding your statement about the use of "however" at the beginning of sentences, I can say that you are flat-out wrong. The meaning of "however" is the same regardless of where it is used in a sentence. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne. Finally somebody who knows what facts are.

Yes, I know that it’s difficult to change the minds of stubborn people, and I’ve realized that by now.

I have never heard of en dashes being used like this before. That’s fine and dandy.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

PapiDimmi – I actually prefer the look of the spaced en-dash to the look of unspaced em-dashes. I think the em-dash, which is right up against the letters right before and right after it, is a little distracting, and makes it a little harder to read the words (or perhaps distracting because it makes it a little harder to read the words). But if I see in an article I am editing that em-dashes are used consistently, I will not change them. You should also realize that style in writing – whether it be in syntax/sentence structure, words usage, capitalization, or punctuation – does have a tendency to change over time. It changes slowly, but it does change. For example, commas are used a little less than in the 19th century, and I think words are capitalized a little less often. Also, because of the introduction of typewriters, the en-dash and em-dash were both used less frequently than they were in the time of lead typesetting, and then, with the advent of the computer, have returned. So this increased use of the spaced en-dash may be one of those subtle changes in style.  – Corinne (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right; spaced em and en dashes look better than the non-spaced alternatives. They make the sentences easier to read. That said, I’ve never seen spaced en dashes (or non-spaced for that matter) used like em dashes on any Wikipedia page before this, which is why I changed it to a semicolon.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, em-dashes shouldn't be spaced. Also, just because you've never seen spaced en-dashes used instead of (unspaced) em-dashes doesn't mean they are not used. There are over 5 million Wikipedia articles. If you want to suggest changes to Wikipedia style guides, help pages, and policy articles, the best thing to do would be to start a discussion on the related talk page. On Wikipedia, changes are made through consensus. You need to build consensus by persuading a number of other editors to agree with you. You may succeed in reaching consensus, or you may not. If you are not successful, you just leave it alone.  – Corinne (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Some style guides space em dashes.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 02:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That may be true, but recall that I said that Wikipedia has developed its own style. See MOS:DASH.  – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Your recent editing history at User talk:EEng 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. MarnetteD|Talk 02:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)