User talk:Concord hioz

User talk page.

Concord hioz, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Concord hioz! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folk etymology

Hello. Please stop adding folk etymologies as you did here. Your additions violate WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit re-added here with references ...of a very basic nature (a dictionary).--Concord hioz (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to Solar eclipse of March 7, 1970

Just to be clear, I reverted your changes as the next longer total eclipse over the US is not until 2024. The 2017 eclipse is shorter. Cheers. — TimL • talk 03:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the most useful place to carry out this discussion is at the Talk page of that article. I'll open a new section there.--Concord hioz (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm Mlpearc. I noticed that you made a change to an article, James Alan Abrahamson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is very courteous of you! I think I understand your objection. Please see how I've changed the change.--Concord hioz (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC

This is a friendly note to reiterate that claims made in articles need to be substantiated with a reliable source, and that the source must actually support what is being said. You might find the policy on original research helpful too and it explains why edit summaries such as "this simple fact can be confirmed by anyone by just looking at the album covers" are not sufficient. Thanks for your contribution to the project and please do not hesitate to ask if you need any help in future. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stunted growth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human development. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight at Columbus Day

The lead is about Columbus Day... not about places that don't celebrate Columbus Day. We have a several sections devoted to that topic with the section pertinent to your addition being Non-observance. Within that section we have listed some cities that have removed Columbus Day with attached footnotes to exterior sources where readers can read the fine details. Seattle is no different than any of these other cities and should be treated in the same manner. We don't need overkill on the topic. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal posted in latest article edit. Your objections, I will suggest, are more appropriate to post at the article Talk page, where other editors can help to arrive at a consensus.--Concord hioz (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would also say though that the burden of using the talk page is from the editor that adds new material and then gets reverted by multiple editors. Instead of re-adding it again, proper protocol is to convince others at the talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Though I was not sure if this case was multiple editors, as the second was an IP add.--Concord hioz (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Web search engine. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Presentations of facts put forward in images may still be considered original research, per WP:OI. McGeddon (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at it carefully, you will see that the image added is not saying what you appear to think that it is saying.--Concord hioz (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's defining six "key layers" of the internet and naming some tech examples, which you go on to describe as particular "breakthroughs" in captions. Is this a diagram that you've assembled from a text source, or have you come up with the definition and "breakthrough" list yourself? --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are questioning the graphic itself, I suggest the best place to have that discussion is over on the Talk Page for the graphic.--Concord hioz (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you like. Image talk pages don't get much attention in my experience, so I'll raise it at Talk:Web search engine and maybe then you can let me whether you based it on something or made it up. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A moment ago, I added a reference at the bottom of the Image Description. Please have a look at that and see if it satisfies your question.--Concord hioz (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Carrie Fisher, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Elizium23 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Google does its own policing of YouTube and removes videos that violate copyright. But to honor your concerns anyway, the fix that I went with was to replace the direct link with a link to a search page. This search page itself cannot possibly be a violation.--Concord hioz (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was necessary for me to remove the assertion, and I did so per WP:BLP which says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I am glad that you found a somewhat reliable secondary source for it (although it is debatable about whether "gossip" columns are reliable, Fisher has clearly related the story on her own) but I still question the need to include it in her biography, since it is likely WP:TRIVIA that doesn't have much relevance to her career. But I will let others decide that much. Elizium23 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a section over on the article's Talk Page.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Your recent editing history at List of most-produced aircraft 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. MilborneOne (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is the section where it was shown that you have elected to use threats in lieu of a rational persuasive argument that is backed by policy. I have nothing more to say to you here. Though I do look forward to any rational presentation you might have to make over at the article's Talk page.--Concord hioz (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of most-produced aircraft. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, this appears to be a case of Admin Meatpuppetry. If you've looked at the Talk page in question, you've seen that my actions conform to Wikipedia policy. Your decision to block me is supporting the view that Consensus is determined by vote, with is absolutely AGAINST policy. (ref: "...nor is it [Consensus] the result of a vote.") My understanding is that the Admin's job is to enforce Wikipedia policy. But clearly we have at least TWO who choose to not do that. So the question here is, "who polices the police?"

There's the cliche "good cop, bad cop." What's it called when both cops refuse to follow the rules?--Concord hioz (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resumption of edit-warring at List of most-produced aircraft after the expiration of your last block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who reads the patient, well-reasoned discussion presented on that Talk page can see that Consensus has been established by reliable sources. It is my actions that are in accord with those sources. If anyone is on the destructive side of "edit warring", it would be those who refuse to follow the clearly stated policy. You yourself are refusing to address the points I have been stressing regarding how my actions are the ones that conform to policy.

I have now posted a video of Jimmy Wales there where he explains how facts are established by what the reliable sources say.

If you don't want to listen to me, and you don't want to read it in Wikipedia Policy, then maybe you'll listen to him.

I am very sad to know that the majority of admins I have encountered here are those who don't seem to care enough to follow what the policies say.--Concord hioz (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you indefinitely. After two recent blocks for edit-warring at List of most-produced aircraft, you have again restored your version. Many editors have contested your edits based on a consensus reached by editors. You repeatedly seek to override that consensus based on your interpretation of policy, which is, at best, misguided. This is a classic case of WP:IDHT, and I see little hope that your attitude and disruptive editing will change.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider a rational approach to have been for any of those editors, or yourself, to explain why my understanding of Consensus was mistaken. That could have resolved this situation many weeks ago.--Concord hioz (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with, "Consensus has been established by reliable sources" That's just plain wrong.

WP:Consensus is established by editors, by discussion or (frequently) by simple lack of objection to other's changes. It is an agreement over the direction for an article. It is not necessarily correct (one reason why it can change in the future). It is very commonly recognised to be temporarily incomplete (see WP:IMPERFECT), merely the best that's achievable at the time. It is not usually a vote: voting is bureaucratic and has its own problems.

You misunderstand consensus almost completely.

You seem to equate consensus with truth. It is good when the consensus position is true, however truth is often elusive. So that we can make progress, it is on average better for us to build some adequate consensus-based articles, rather than to argue forever over which end from which to eat the egg.

Your objection "You are ignoring consensus" is just plain wrong. It would be better stated as "Your consensus is inaccurate to the facts". You might even be right with that one. But you didn't try to explain or argue for that case, you got tied up in a misunderstood "consensus" instead.

I can see two reasonable positions that you might argue for: one is that the two aircraft are the same production series for the purpose of counting. I didn't see you offer any convincing evidence for that (I still consider the VK-1 ruling strong evidence the other way). You would have a case though, even if not a winning one.

Secondly you could argue that although separate series, the article is better if both are acknowledged. That has some merit to it: it's not likely to confuse the reader, so maybe we should simply present the fuller story and let the reader work it out for themselves? After all, our purpose is to communicate knowledge, not to award "first place for production numbers".

However you didn't do either of these, you just kept showing us how much you misunderstood consensus and then resorted to argumentum ad Jimbonem. That doesn't (and didn't) work. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]