This is an archive of past discussions with User:DB1729. 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.
Hi DB1729! 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 experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lake Sabbatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bristol County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hi - Could you tell me what your criteria are for calling a water body a reservoir? Is it simply whether there is a dam at the outlet of a lake, or do you have additional criteria? I'm questioning whether, for example, Great East Lake should really be called a reservoir. In New Hampshire, the state Dam Bureau has three classifications for lakes: "Natural Lake", "Artificial Impoundment", and "Raised by Damming". See their "Official List of Public Waters". The language in the definitions, in my reading, indicates that the "raised by damming" bodies are not considered reservoirs by the Dam Bureau. These would include Great East Lake and Balch Pond, listed in New Hampshire as Stump Pond. What is the case in Maine? Are things viewed differently there? I am inclined to recommend that at least Balch and Great East be restored to being listed as lakes rather than reservoirs. Thanks, --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ken Gallager. Yes glad to. My criteria I was using comes from a couple places. The GNIS page for Great East Lake specifically classifies the lake as a reservoir. It also has a page for its dam. For Balch Pond on the other hand, the source conflicts itself. Here it calls it a reservoir (for York County, Maine only) and here's the page for its dam. But then, (and I see your point about all this) GNIS also has a page calling it a lake listing both counties, Carroll, New Hampshire and York, Maine as well. GNIS has no page for a Balch Pond dam in New Hampshire.
The GNIS definitions are:
Lake - "Natural body of inland water (backwater, lac, lagoon, laguna, pond, pool, resaca, waterhole)."
Reservoir - "Artificially impounded body of water (lake, tank)."
Wikipedia's definition of reservoir is more detailed but still rather broad:
"A reservoir is, most commonly, an enlarged natural or artificial lake, pond or impoundment created using a dam or lock to store water."
"Reservoirs can be created in a number of ways, including controlling a watercourse that drains an existing body of water, interrupting a watercourse to form an embayment within it, through excavation, or building any number of retaining walls or levees."
By this definition, the water backed up in a river by flood control and navigation locks (often called "pools") would technically be reservoirs.
I have no idea if Maine, NH, or states in general each have their own (differing) definitions.
In light of this, I have no problem restoring, at the very least, Balch Pond back to a lake. And if we can use your source for Great East Lake, we can probably put it back to lake also. If you can convince me the GNIS source is not adequate for determining lake/reservoir classification, then I will stop making any more such changes based on GNIS sources. --DB1729 (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
In my mind, and (I think) in the minds of the NH Dam Bureau, the issue is what sort of water body would be there if there were no dam. For the "raised by dam" category, these are natural lakes that would exist in almost the exact same shape and size if there were no dam at the outlet. At least in New Hampshire, it is very rare for any lake that is large enough to have its own Wikipedia article to not have a dam at its outlet. Winnipesaukee has a dam, Squam has a dam, Umbagog has a dam, etc., and are listed by the GNIS as lakes, yet Great East Lake, Newfound Lake and Winnisquam Lake, with identical characteristics to the others, are listed as reservoirs. My understanding of the purpose of these dams at the outlets of preexisting lakes is that they maintain a desired water level so docks don't get washed out or damaged by ice, and so boats can know what to expect when navigating. They're not for the traditional purposes of reservoirs: water supply, flood control, etc. The GNIS, meanwhile, is not run by hydrologists but by cartographers, and is simply reporting (in a highly inconsistent manner) whether there's a dam at the outlet. I would go with the distinctions drawn by the people closer to the issue, such as a state dams bureau, rather than people constructing a nationwide map labeling database. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Ken Gallager. Sorry for late reply, I got tied up with things last week. Makes sense and not disputing any of what you say, with the possible exception of your interpretation of NH Dam Bureau's definition of "Raised by Damming". I have reverted Balch Pond back to lake and was about to do the same with Great East. I was going to use the NH Dam Bureau page as a source, but that page never actually says Great East is a natural lake. It says it's "RD" Nor does it say their "Raised by Damming" (RD) classification is a subset of their natural lakes (NL) or their reservoirs (AI). RD seems to be its own category.
"NL (Natural Lake) – NL is a water body that is over 10 acres, naturally occurring, with no man-made barrier restriction at outlet (e.g., dam, culvert, bridge).
RD (Raised by Damming) – RD is a water body that started out as a NL and a dam was constructed at the outlet. Because these water bodies were naturally occurring and over 10 acres to begin with, all RDs on the OLPW are held in the public trust under RSA 271:20. Although it is most often the case that the installation of a dam raises the water level of an impoundment, RDs are not necessarily “raised” and technically speaking could be less than 10 acres after damming (no known examples). At Lake Winnipesaukee the dam regulates the water level and is capable of lowering it, however it was well over 10 acres as a naturally occurring lake. At Lake Ossipee the outlet canal that was dredged when the dam was constructed and allows the impoundment to be lowered to a depth below the elevation of the original natural lake, which was also over 10 acres.
AI (Artificial Impoundment) – AI is a water body, regardless of size, that was not created by nature. Examples include man made ponds or reservoirs. AIs are impoundments that were not NLs to begin with (over 10 acres as a naturally occurring water body). No water bodies that are listed as AIs meet the definition of state-owned public water in RSA 271:20. AIs under 10 acres do not meet the requirements of the RSAs referenced in the OLPW and, therefore, are not on the official list. AIs over 10 acres may meet some of the RSAs on the list. Examples of AIs include Horace Lake (Weare Reservoir), Lake Deering (Deering Reservoir), and Lake Francis (Pittsburg)." — NH Dam Bureau
This language seems to be primarily concerned with responsibilities of establishing and maintaining, per state law, a list of bodies of water over a threshold of 10 acres,[RSA 271:20] and the details of defining a lake over 10 acres. I will try to find sources to revert my changes when I get back to working on lakes. You understand I cited all my reservoir changes to GNIS. So if I simply undo all those, I would be removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced. --DB1729 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for taking the time to think about this. I understand that it's not appropriate to do a wholesale revert. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Broccoli: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. This user has been committing a lot of vandalism, but can't be banned until they've been properly warned. dmartin96903:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I thought a discussion a year ago favored deleting all of the yearly draft navboxes. I know all of the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts navboxes were deleted.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: Thanks for the link. Yes, that's interesting and making me wonder if I did indeed waste some time. But I'm little confused by the closing comment. Is he saying, despite the admin concern for a precedent, because he though it likely wouldn't set a precedent, he was allowing the delete consensus to stand? If so, why weren't they deleted? --DB1729 (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi DB1729. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio09:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
McDew Farms name has only been in existence since the 1980's but the land has been farmed and owned by the McDew family. My gransmothers property is used to produce tellephone poles. I think my families history is an important part of Hazelhurst georgia. Jonesdv33 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Softshopot: Hello and welcome. Please see Help:Category. A category page is merely a grouping of related existing Wikipedia articles, and to include it, the category must be added to the article. Since there is no such article, what you are trying to do is impossible until the article Eugene Estate is created. Hope this helps. Have a great day! --DB1729 (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gab4gab: You might want to check that edit again. I didn't add anything substantive. I added italics to the titles, an internal link and a label for an un-piped internal link. I you were concerned about the actual addition of one or two of those plays, they are still there now (and now improperly formatted), and in which case you would need to revert a little further. My edit was merely a copy edit to the previous edit, hence the edit summary I left, "copy edit". Sorry if it was confusing. --DB1729 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses DB1729. After reading your first response I took another look and realized that very little was sourced in the article. So while your formatting changes were an improvement I felt it was best to begin removing that and other unsourced material. Not much progress on sources in seven years. Gab4gab (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Do you have a tool or some other method of detecting situations like List of Tau Gamma Phi chapters being in the "Lists of" without a sort override? I saw that you fixed it (and List of Gangs of the Philippines), so I was wondering if you had an assist.Naraht (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Naraht: No, I'm afraid not. Just good-ole-fashioned hunt and search through category trees where the similar situation is fairly common throughout. --DB1729 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Clive River until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Previously lists of number-one songs in Turkey from 2010 to 2019, have been sharing one single page. But due to the extensions I made, I decided to move other years' lists into their own pages. I didn't move the list of 2010 and I decided to rename the page as "List of number-one songs of the 2010". I hope you understood the situation.
@Pinchface05: I will leave you to do your work then. I would only advise to leave an edit summary, at least every now and then, to let others know what you are doing, especially with edits that involve large changes or removals of content. Good luck, thanks for the explanation and have a great day! --DB1729 (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Battles involving Serbian Militia
Hi @DB1729: I saw that you added Category:Battles by country|Serbia to Category:Battles involving Serbian Militia but Serbia did not exist as a country at the time. Serbian Militias were military units of the Habsburg-Austrian army consisting of ethnic Serbs. Why would this category apply? thanks Aeengath (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi DB1729, I am disagreeing the category titled Category:Federal electoral districts of Montreal and Laval for speedy deletion. I know I want keep the category I have created. I have found the user that was reverting my category. The user's name is User:Printemps21. You have restored the edit with you explained edit resulting an unexplained edit to User:Printemps21. Now could you watch User:Printemps21 and revert it back to my version on all Federal electoral districts of Montreal under my user name and give multiple warnings to User:Printemps21. I have restored it back with the existing category I have created long time ago and I want to keep, and I talk to User:Liz and I am against my category for deletion and I still want to keep my existing category that was already created by me. I know I am not an administrator but could you watch the edits for User:Printemps21 to revert it back to my version give User:Printemps21 multiple warning as many as you can until User:Printemps21's blocking privileges. I hope you will help me assisting you. Thanks for the message and I hope you will reply me back ASAP. Thanks and have a great day. Steam5 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Steam5: Hello. I was a little confused by this post, but from looking at the edit histories, you created Category:Federal electoral districts of Montreal in 2011. User:Printemps21 emptied this category a few days ago (April 8) and created Category:Federal electoral districts of Montreal and Laval and populated it. Also Printemps21 then blanked the page itself (removed the parent categories) of Category:Federal electoral districts of Montreal, which I reverted on the grounds it was "unexplained blanking". Printemps21 then blanked the page again, adding "empty" in the edit summary. User:Liz then CSD C1 tagged the category because it was empty at the time.
Today (April 11) you reverted Printemps21's category changes, in effect repopulating the category you had created. You also removed User:Liz's CSD tag and then reverted Printemps second blanking of the category page itself. You then tagged (CSD C1) the newly created Category:Federal electoral districts of Montreal and Laval, as it is currently empty.
It appears User:Printemps21 wishes or wished to rename the category you created. If so, Printemps21 should have instead, initiated a WP:CFD and proposed renaming the category. I believe that is the correct protocol.
I recommend that you discuss this with User:Printemps21. I would also suggest that you assume good faith. It is possible, perhaps likely, that User:Printemps21, in good faith, simply thought the category needed to renamed and assumed that was the best or only way to execute such a change. I think it would be better to politely inform User:Printemps21 of the proper procedure rather than trying to rally support for a block, IMO. --DB1729 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
RE: Stub templates and emoji
(This discussion is a response to a message I left on another user's talk page. The original post in italics was copied from User talk:Tbhotch and placed here for context)
Hello.Regarding this series edits. While clearly made by a certain individual based on past behavior, they are also examples of the less-than-vandalistic nature of many of their edits. I have reverted all of them on the grounds of "not an improvement" (a matter of opinion), but these changes themselves are not really harmful from what I gather (though probably should gain a consensus for sweeping actions like this). Just wondering on second thought, should we allow these relatively innocuous edits to stand? --DB1729 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi DB1729. I recently deleted something from a Newt Gingrich page. You fixed it, but I wanted to let you know I'm really sorry about that. I'm not really that good with computers, and I was randomly fooling around with the page; I didn't know I could actually delete something without a wikipedia page, so I didn't know I could affect the page itself. Once again, sorry for the confusion.
Indeed anyone, including unregistered users, can edit most Wikipedia pages and remove the content from them. Only the very few trusted editors with special granted capabilities and permissions can actually delete anything from the site. See Wikipedia:You can and cannot change Wikipedia.
There is a Wikipedia:Sandbox that is intended to be a place where anyone may experiment with editing, though there are some rules there as well. There is also a preview button, which can used before you hit publish, if/when you ever want to change something on WP. Helpful, because once you save something, it instantly goes public. In this case, a template, it goes public on every page the template is transcluded, which could be hundreds, or far more.
I read your earlier comment on Conyo14's talk page, your earlier revert on this template was correct. We wound up with a weird situation in the second round where based on total points we have/had 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 5 vs. 6 and 7 vs. 8. This is why when a series ends that we are able to slot the team that has moved into the third round because we know what their seeding will be with regards to the other advancing teams. Deadman137 (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Deadman137: Hello and thanks for the reply. I do understand the unusual and flukey situation of this years playoffs. I'll copy what I posted at Conyo14's page:
I have no strong feelings on the debate or the topic. I agreed with your position, but I left my opinion only because I was already there fixing a formatting issue. Fwiw, I intend to avoid that template, its talk page and other directly related pages. --DB1729 (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Benigno Aquino III
Hello DB1729. The page Benigno Aquino III is indefinitely semi-protected because of vandalism by multiple IPs. Can you adding pp-vandalism in the top of the article? I needs your help because the article has been requested at RFPP. Thank you. 36.77.95.183 (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
After your recent edits, why is points a different value than points2?
For instance for HAM: | points = 177 | points2 = 122 PS: Referring to this revert -
here Amit Dash (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC
@Rockin291: That was accidental during an attempted null edit. Not sure why that changed. All I did was open the edit window and hit publish. --DB1729 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rockin291: Just to clarify, I see what happened now. I messed up Lewis' points2 in my first edit. Your correction of my error and my null edit, sorted of crossed at the same time resulting the unintended revert. Sorry about that. DB1729 (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!16:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed you've reverted edits by the IP-hopper who vandalizes the articles of IndyCar drivers. I first noticed them a year or two ago, when James Hinchcliffe was their favourite target. It's on my to-do list to compile all of the IPs they use and send the evidence over to LTA. I try not to engage with them any more than reverting their edits with a generic "LTA" edit summary these days; Template warnings just get ignored when they switch their IP. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Different user. The LTA IPs always begin with 2804:, so if it's a different IP than that, treat it like you would any other user imo. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@GhostOfDanGurney:Thanks. I haven't researched their edits and their IPs very thoroughly. You probably already know this, but the only things I've noticed is that they most/all geolocate to Rio, [3],[4] and they apparently do not speak English, as the only text they add is in Portuguese. --DB1729 (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely worth taking to WP:LONG. I was told be an admin a while back that the collateral from a rangeblock would be too high, and that was before I knew they had other ips than the 2804 ones. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hey there, buddy! How's it going? I need some advice. Lately I have been quite heavily counteracted here on Wikipedia, so much so that I'm seriously considering quitting for good.
A massive cleanup, update and addition to BAE Systems Tempest was butchered to pieces in a massive vandalist raid by some guy called Mark83 who seem to think he's the owner and boss of the article, leaving just half of it – and he's a freakin' admin! I saw some time later that he left me a message but I haven't read it because I don't think it's fruitful, damage is too much. I think he's unsuitable as an admin and should be stripped from his privileges. And frankly I want to kick his teeth.
Added FIFA ranking to a table but some wikilord thought it should only go in a different table, which only can be filled a full year later when the draw has taken place. This S.A. Julio has been a nuance in the past, notoriously removing things to his personal preference as I perceive it. One thing I remember is a goal list template for the Olympics football someone else removed, so I re-added it and put it within comment tags so it wouldn't look bad and still give less experienced editors the opportunity to contribute as well. I for one had never seen that code before, and I would probably never have found it. But nope, he thought it shouldn't be there at all until there were goals, which I interpreted as only initiated persons should be able to add goals, and I figured he probably wanted exclusive rights to it.
A request for autopatrolled rights was quite rudely dismissed. I would be totally fine with not meeting the requirements, which I really didn't, but saying there's no reason, like I am to blame, when the whole thing is meant to be a freakin' relief to admins is just… atrocious.
I've had much experience like this on the Swedish Wikipedia where I started, and I have left it because of that. That whole Wikipedia is run by biased deletionists who review everything and don't follow their own rules, so you can't do anything there without their blessing. 1-2 years ago they set out on a crusade to delete one million articles which they deemed unnecessary, just like that. I know a ton of people that have been put off because of all that. On the English site things are better, but I seem to hit a wall here as well, and my energy has already been drained from the Swedish side. Two and a half years ago I had a Kafka-esque discussion with an admin about an obvious fix to a template. It took a ton of effort in relation to the issue and was only completely resolved after another member stepped in and stated the obvious, and that took a whole month and drained me of all my wiki-energy for the rest of that year. That permanently cut another good deal of my motivation.
It's said that if you think everyone around you are idiots, then you are the idiot. I'm starting to think that I have got everything about Wikipedia wrong. The last two bullet points may seem petty, but they are just examples of quite a lot of similar backlashes I've got from seemingly respected contributors, forming a long line of negative reception to what I think is constructive. The Tempest butchering was a fatal blow to me. If all this is what awaits me for my planned big contributions and suggestions, including a history article on SWNFT, then it's pointless. You have been quite inspiring though, I might add. What do you think I should do? --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mango från yttre rymden. I'm doing well. Sorry to hear you're going this this tough time. Firstly I think your frustrations are understandable and, unfortunately, far too common around here on WP. I had similar frustrations back when I first started editing as an IP. I thought it would get better once I registered, and it has for the most part, but that may also be due in part because of some changes to my own editing style. I realized writing significantly large sections of prose was simply not my strong suit. My error rate with missing words and other embarrassing typos was a little too high. I began making much smaller and more gnome-like changes. And I started making those small changes incrementally, and explaining each with their own edit summary. I think that style has helped me. I have had my share of edits reverted. Some I challenge. Some are resolved in my favor, some are not. And sometimes I just let the revert go without a word. You see, I make so many small edits, my investment for each is small. But if wrap a huge amount of time and energy into one edit, then I would certainly feel much stress and frustration if it were reverted or butchered. I wouldn't edit here if I didn't get some sort of enjoyment out of it. Landing myself in a drama situation is not enjoyable.
After I looked at the first diff you linked, I thought, 'whoa!, that's a lot of changes for one edit!'. I didn't see anything wrong with it at a glance, but that touches on the problem. It would take a while to determine if all the changes were proper and error-free. Then I read Mark83's post to your talk page and he said to you roughly what I was about to say, advising to make incremental changes instead of one large change. I haven't looked at what Mark did to your edits yet, but I can tell you that if I had made that large edit of yours, I would be concerned that someone might just revert the entirety outright. Some editors, if they don't feel like going through every change within the edit, and they happen to see one or two things they don't agree with, may then think the whole thing is now suspect and "play it safe" by simply reverting. Not saying that's what Mark did, but the point is, making smaller changes and saving them one at a time has a lot of advantages. It allows for better, more precise and succinct edit summaries, as opposed to long paragraph-type edit summaries. You can explain each type of change and editors can read the edit summary, look back at the diff, and be 'yeah ok, that sounds reasonable, makes sense' and move on without having to put much time and effort into understanding the changes made. After you have made several quality changes to the article, the editors who are watching the page will soon start to view your changes in a quality light. They will know you have established yourself as a competent editor and one who is familiar with the subject matter. They may become more likely to accept your changes without question. They may still challenge some of your edits, but it's less likely to be a confrontational, stressful ordeal.
I'm a little tired right now, but before I go (and I plan to get back to you tomorrow after I have looked though the rest of the events you mention) I want to tell you you're not the idiot and it is completely understandable and normal for you to be feeling like you do right now. I've been there.
The FIFA qualification table one looks like the typical 'we've always done this a certain way and we're gonna be consistent and not change now' even if there is a benefit to adding information found elsewhere.
The autopatrolled dismissal was indeed rather brusque, especially considering the way the same admin politely explained to a requester above why they were being denied. To be fair though, the banner at the top says you are unlikely to be granted the right if you have created fewer than 25 articles; and you had created only 3. It's not like you're just a tick shy of the cutoff. I'd assume that minimum requirement is displayed for a reason. I think the admin, first seeing your article count and then your first words "I rarely create articles" and immediately got himself into 'why is this person even bothering us' mode, and then the curt dismissal. An admin should know to put in a little more time and politeness when refusing any request.
The whole task force coding thing is baffling to me. I have no experience with task forces nor the coding you were all talking about, but it seemed like such a straight forward thing that no one could possibly object to and probably should have been done already. And in the end, you find out there was consensus afterall and already approved. And then, good grief, the editor still was hesitant and it took another editor to point out this clearly should be done and about being "pernickety" (love some of the words I see used here, I rarely if ever come across otherwise).
Back to the Tempest affair. Mark did gut half your changes, but on the bright side, he left half of it there. So it wasn't a total loss and your edit is still a significant contribution to the article. Also fwiw, Mark wasn't just picking on you. He was altering/removing other editors contributions as well and left edit summaries for each explaining the change or removal. So at some point if you want to revisit those changes, it would be easy to identify the ones with which you have the biggest issue. It's already been over two months since he made those changes, maybe by the time you get back around to that page, Mark will have a fresh perspective on some of those things, who knows?
As for "should I stay of should I go", well of course I would rather you stick around. I think you are a huge benefit and valuable asset to the project. The decision is of course yours and yours only. Just don't do anything rash or stupid like getting yourself blocked or something if you decide to step aside. Don't burn the bridges behind you. The great thing about quitting WP is it's nowhere near as momentous as say a real-life retirement decision. You can walk out on WP with every intention of never returning, and it will still be here for you if/when you decide to return. The stakes are low here.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:DB1729. 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.
