User talk:HJensen/Archives/2008/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hello...
It appears that everyone got sick of the conversation over at WP:Tennis, because in the 14 days since you announced you were pulling out, no-one's said anything. In fact I did much the same as you, and had already pulled out too. Thanks for the support anyway! rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are welcome, and thanks for your efforts. It just got too much a waste of time imo.--HJensen, talk 12:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Some warning not understood, but misplaced under previous heading
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- This one I honestly don't understand. Is it about the changes made on the Nadal article? They were all followed by detailed edit summaries, and some of them were reverted by a user applying profane language, and who is now blocked. I may have twice reverted back my meticulous delinking of dates and application of European date format. Hardly "edit warring". --HJensen, talk 14:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
About your changes at the Nadal article.
Well, I just hope you aren't a sponsor robot like Tennisexpert and atleast can understand that, if you want to change the dates and another thing: do it. Don't turn on the sponsored names again.
By the way, why are you taking out the GS and MS tables? Maybe Nadal's article is special? The others can have it? And it's not repeatitive info, it's just clearing the big trophys on the career.
Korlzor (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't give me orders. The GS and MS tables are repetitive info. Everything is in the wins and runner-ups table; why have it twice? There is nothing special about the Nadal article. I have just learned that on tennis articles it is useless to have discussions about general issues as there are always some that want THEIR particular way. Just as you apparently intend to, and act according to: cf. diff here. So I tried out the edit on the Nadal article.--HJensen, talk 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Bob Dylan FAR
Hi HJensen, the Dylan FAR has now reached the front of the queue/line. SandyGeorgia suggested you might use your expertise. Any input or comments would be welcomed, thanks Mick gold (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
dates
Please let me know whether you'd like to install the script that semi-automatically removes date autoformatting and other trivial links. You seem to be doing good work, but manually. Tony (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'll consider it, thanks! However, it seems that in the instances where I do it manually, a fingerful of other editor seem to agree with the edit, compared to the situation where the edit is done by others through a script. Peculiar MO. :-) --HJensen, talk 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here
date links
Thank you for the message on my talk page. However, my understanding from having read all I could find about this issue is that a minority of editors (notably Tony) believe there to be a consensus for delinking all dates everywhere regardless (despite searching, I have not been able to find where this consensus was established). While I agree that the dates in the wikicode should be consistent at an article level, I do not believe (and I am not alone it seems) that delinking dates is the way to go about doing this. The bot solution proposed would be much better - allowing those users who want the autoformatting to have it without inconveniencing other users. The plain delinking of dates that is happening at the moment is not benefiting anyone, as it is not addressing the date formating that is the purported reasoning for the delinking.
More level-headed editors than Tony will realise that whatever other consensus may or may not exist, there is not one that says the dates of birth and death in biographical articles should be delinked. In the case of this particular article, it is clear from the edit history that the consensus is that the dates should be linked. As such I would kindly ask you to not to persist in going against the consensus - the page you point to is after all a guideline rather than policy. My first is in ptarmigan (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, WP:MOSNUM is a guideline, and those should be followed "except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article". This also applies in the case of linking dates where it says: "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so." So in both instances, it would be nice to hear what particular common sense and reason you think apply for linking dates in the Sharapova article?
- It is my impression that when guidelines change (as in this case), one cannot just resist changes on grounds that a "consensus exists" because particular change has never been implemented previously. By such a logic one can never change anything if just one editor vetoes.--HJensen, talk 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- (1) As has been discussed all over the place, there is no consensus to delete existing date links. (2) There is a major difference between a "policy" and a "guideline". (3) Wikipedia precedent proves that a more specific consensus for a particular article prevails over a general consensus, such as MOS. Tennis expert (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)