This is an archive of past discussions with User:JJBers, for the period April 2017 - June 2017. 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.
I very much appreciate the barnstar you gave me; given that I live about 50 miles or so to the west it is not easy to go to Danbury and take pictures (many of the ones I have taken came during a period when my son liked to go to the station there and watch a train or two come in). So, yes, a fair amount of work on my part was involved in expanding that.
However, that said—I had to revert both of the edits you made to that article. Since you clearly intended them as improvements, you are owed my explanation as to why:
Moving most of the lead into the history section: Per MOS:INTRO the lead section should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article ... Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article." For this reason that one paragraph is too little. Since the history section takes up the bulk of the article, it needs to be summarized there. A reader interested in learning more can and will scroll down.
Moving that image to the top of the section: I agree it looks better that way, but per MOS:IMAGELOCATION " try not to place an image 'too early' i.e. far ahead of the point in the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this will puzzle the reader" For that reason I think the image belongs closer to what it illustrates, as long as it doesn't drop down too far into the see-also and references sections below. (The best thing to do, especially now that I have a better camera than I had then, would be to get back to Danbury (which I am actually able to do somewhat more often than I think) some nice upcoming spring/summer day and shoot pictures of all those contributing properties not otherwise depicted in the article so we have a nice group to choose from, sort of like I have done at Delaware and Hudson Canal).
@Daniel Case: Yeah, the reason of the moving of the lead was due to the fact it looked a little to lengthy for the article, but that seems fine. The image situation was basically what you explained earlier. Thanks for taking your time and explaining this to me. —JJBers19:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand your petty medling into a situation you aren't involved in, but you never add information without sources nor consensus. This is an arbitrary act of vandalism. (N0n3up (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
@N0n3up: You seem to revert at random, and what I looked, the biggest problem is the lack of sources, which this edit seems to fix. —JJBers16:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No they don't. And even so, it still lacks consensus, it's best to keep it in the original version. Do sources support his (and now you) edits? No. Did you guys have a talk about it on the talk page to reach consensus? No. So why should it stay there? (N0n3up (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
Re: Blocking someone over the fact that some articles he creates are unnotable
In future, you should read proposals before !voting for or against them. The "proposal" (which wasn't actually a concrete proposal but a suggestion of maybe TBANning) had already been withdrawn almost two days before you posted, and there wasn't even any mention of "blocking".
Per here[2]. And also read the guidelines for these sections found here[3] before you say someone is committing vandalism....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?20:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Berlin station (Connecticut)
We can disagree / talk later about image locations and captions, but right now I have a different concern. What editing interface were you using to make that edit? It caused a weird rearrangement of the infobox parameters. That's something I've seen happen with other edits lately, which makes me concerned that there's a technical glitch happening. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Please pay closer attention when you archive threads. The thread in question had two comments just this morning (see here and the comment directly above mine). Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Did you know that you can review your changes visually?
When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "Review your changes".
In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.
Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.
The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history.
You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.
A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures to enable the ⧼Visualeditor-preference-newwikitexteditor-label⧽.
A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. More features will be added to this later. In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components. [4]
You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this. [6]
The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow. [7]
The Categories item has been moved to the top of the Page options menu (from clicking on the icon) for quicker access. [8] There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there. [9]
You can now create <chem> tags (sometimes used as <ce>) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor. [10]
Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed. [11]
The Special character menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) . The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt. [12]
A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed. The team are sorry for the disruption. [13]
There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations: Control+Shift+K on a PC, or Command+Shift+K on a Mac. It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is Control+K on a PC or Command+K on a Mac. [14]
Future changes
The VisualEditor team is working with the Community Tech team on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of <ref> tags and other types of wikitext syntax. You will be able to turn it on and off. It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017. [15]
The kind of button used to Show preview, Show changes, and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI. The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read. The labels will remain the same. You can test the new button by editing a page and adding &ooui=1 to the end of the URL, like this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1 The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes. [16]
Please do not archive ANI threads. They will be archived by a bot after three days of non-activity. Threads should not be manually archived unless they have been closed, and even then only after a period of at least 24 hours after the close. Softlavender (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you are still archiving threads that have not been closed, even after I posted the above? Softlavender (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
In this edit], you have archived a thread before any administrator's decision, while there is a clear consensus that some is needed. Thus, I'll relist this thread. Please avoid such disruptive archiving. D.Lazard (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Could you be a bit more careful?
I highly doubt you read through the long ANI thread about Swiss air force AFDs before auto-archiving it. I have reverted you archiving of that particular thread, but I can't shake the feeling that some other OneClickArchived threads were also premature. Please be a bit more careful with those tools going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't it 72 hours? The post was inactive for over 72 hours, and the other one was inactive for 70 hours, and it was getting no attention. — JJBers16:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote two threads above, Please do not archive ANI threads. They will be archived by a bot after three days of non-activity. Threads should not be manually archived unless they have been closed, and even then only after a period of at least 24 hours after the close. Softlavender (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
(Response to JJBers, not Softlavender) It doesn't matter how long it was inactive immediately before you archived it. It had been very active for most of the 19 days before you autoarchived, and now just needs a proper close. Your action, if it were not easily undoable, would have prevented that. Please do not do that again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
A pie for you!
Thanks for helping me on the ANI. Four hours later I now see what everyone else apparently saw at first glance: the IP was talking about possibly editing the section Deaths. d.g. L3X1(distant write)21:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The page for Turkish War of Independence stayed on KazekageTR's edit, which is being put in question. I plan on returning the page to it's original status-quo version before KazekageTR's edit, but that would require me to revert your edit on the page. Just wanted to let you know to avoid any negative misinterpretations and to know if you were okay with this. Haven't heard from KazekageTR since the incident. (N0n3up (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC))
Looks like you also got a problem with dealing with people judging from the post above, but yeah, I'll do what you said. (N0n3up (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC))
Edit warring on other people's user talk pages
Hello JJBers, just to let you know, your reading of the guidelines regarding this edit and this edit -- and probably several similar edits -- is not correct. Stephen can remove almost anything he chooses from his own talk page, provided he does not misrepresent other people's comments when doing so. Edit-warring on someone else's talk page usually ends badly, so it would be best not to get involved.
You may well be right about the forum shopping, but I have not looked into it, so could not say for certain. MPS1992 (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Huh, I though it only applied to basic warnings. Anyways, I've responded to him with some differences. —JJBers19:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Late to the party - a couple bits of information
I noticed this comment on one of the AN/I threads that you made a couple days ago. Just as a point of information, WP:WAX is not a policy or guideline, it's an essay. Essays are potentially good practice to follow, but, can be disregarded at will by editors. Meaning that you might be going against what the essay says, but, you were under no obligation to follow it in the first.I'd point you to WP:ESSAYS as an information page. I bring this up because you're, in essence, telling Legacypac that they are violating a non-policy, non-guideline, opinion piece written by a few editors. On a second point, WP:TRIVIA is not a deletion guideline it's a MOS one. Has nada to do with AfD. I believe you were after WP:What wikipedia is not, specificially "an indiscriminate collection of information". Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Becuase, one it's a inappropriate re-addition of archived material, and two, my 0RR officially ended about 20 minutes ago. —JJBers03:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, my mistake—I thought there was another day left. Still, restriction was placed at :57—you reverted at :53. But I won't hold four minutes against you. El_C03:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you've requested suggestions from SuggestBot. The bot won't send you any suggestions because the template was added by your secondary account. We have this type of check in place to make sure the bot can't easily be abused. I'll go ahead and remove the template for now, if you then add it again from the non-public account you should get the suggestions a few minutes later. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This may be obvious, my apologies if so. But, just to let you know, if the proposed topic ban passes -- as seems likely -- then you will also need to walk away from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline.
In case you didn't notice, this was a not-so-subtle hint. Replying on DB's talk, opening a new thread on the article's talk, and commenting on the ANI a little too much aren't doing you any favors. You would be well advised to go browse recent changes for a while and leave the thing alone before it escalates any further than it already has. TimothyJosephWood19:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
You have been one day off a ban on reverting edits, imposed by User:El C. For this reason, it's disappointing to see you using your alternate account, User:JJBers Public, to revert a staggering 46 edits in a row made by User:AirportExpert. You will recall that I questioned your original reverts of that user at User talk:AirportExpert#Infoboxes. That led to this lengthy discussion where consensus was not reached. So now, without consensus, and with compelling documentation that the edits your have reverted were without error, you have renewed an enormous edit war. Disappointing. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion went to a local scale on the WP:USCITIES page, where not much was thrown for not removing them. And secondly, there is no edit war. — JJBers17:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, repeatedly removing edits when a consensus is not reached constitutes an edit war. We made it clear we would stop reverting each other's work.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert
One revert doesn't count as a edit war, and two reverts spaced out over 4 days doesn't count as a edit war. — JJBers17:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history of Norwalk, Connecticut, which this entire discussion was started over, you can see that an edit war was occurring. It had since been put to rest, until you removed 46 maps from pages in Connecticut (all of which pertained to the discussion).--AirportExpert (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert
To both editors: Wikiprojects alone don't (broadly speaking) write policy. They are editor projects where editors who have a shared interest can work more collaboratively on a focus topic. Any consensus there would have a very limited effect and discussions would still need to happen on a case-by-case basis where conflict arises. That "guideline" is an essay, it is useful only in imparting guidance to those willing to follow it. It's not enforceable in any way. To JJBers: It's not one revert, it's forty-six reverts made at forty-six articles in twelve minutes without any consensus (even local consensus) that would make this approach appropriate. This, potentially, falls under the definition of tendentious editing put forward in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. The point of putting you on 0RR isn't to remove your reverting privileges, it's to force you to start discussing. It's a mechanism for getting discussion rolling. When the 0RR expires that is not an invitation to carry on reverting. What would you do if someone went through a summarily reverted all of your reverts? There is also no need to formally close the discussion. I mean, you can, but, there's not really a need to. It's not a policy/guideline discussion, an XfD, or any kind of formal RfC. You were right in saying that it would have to go on an article by article basis. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The Blitz
Greetings JJ, I copied a chart ages ago and just put different data in when I want one. Can you point me to a WP that shows how it's done properly pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264: You can just go to the insert tab on the Visual Editor, and it should create a 4x4 table, if you're using the source editor, just click the table button, and insert the data into that. Here's a good table guide-line: MOS:TABLE is the style guideline of Wikipedia. — JJBers13:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks JJ, I'll give it a try. I've just found it! Oh that looks much easier, I wish I'd seen it earlier. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
As the disruption continues, and there seemed to be a consensus for a six month TBAN, you are here by banned form editing this and related articles for six months.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Debresser case on 3RR noticeboard
Hi there, you mentioned in your comment on this case that it might fit better somewhere else, could you advise, where it might fit better? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Warning!
Your recent editing history Norwalk, Connecticut 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.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Norwalk
For total transparency and even-handedness I am post the exact same message here and at the talk page of StephenTS42. This is not intended to be an invitation for "let's you and him fight" or cross-talk-page bashing, but an informal peer third opinion.
As a Connecticut-based editor, I have seen the issues with the Norwalk-related pages. I know Norwalk fairly well, it is a nice little city and always ranks highly in several quality-of-life and financial measures. None but the most extreme partisans would say, I think, that it is worth the levels of hurt feelings and animosity that these edits have engendered. No pointing of fingers or assignment of blame for this observation is intended and neither would anyone benefit from attempting to make such an assignment. As a third-party opinion, I see nothing in the main article now that requires any kind of time-sensitive intervention. There is no deadline here, after all. I would therefore like to offer my services as a peer with some familiarity on the topic. This only intended to prevent further dragging of this topic into other rabbit-holes of Wikibureaucracy. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you want an observer's opinion on an edit to this topic or its related pages. I hope this offer is helpful to the topic and to the project in general. Thank you for you time. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)16:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a note to emphasise that, according to Primefac's close of the ANI discussion, the ban includes the talk page as well, so the recently initiated discussion there -- and any other discussions -- are included in the topic ban. MPS1992 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
STOP EDIT WARRING!
Please stop edit warring at Greenwich, Connecticut. I asked in my edit summary that you discuss your edit, but you instead reverted it with the edit summary "I'm not doing this again". My concern is with improving the article and cooperating with other editors. My concern in NOT with your personal or emotional attachment to Connecticut articles. The Greenwich article was a mess, and I just spent 30 minutes improving it. Please, do not edit war with others who wish to edit Connecticut articles. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not involving any of your other contributions, I really think they're good. I was just removing the push-pin map that was added, and I missed removing it. —JJBers22:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you realize that this edit, made 30 minutes ago at Ridgefield, Connecticut, along with this edit made 10 days ago, reverts the exact same addition of content made by two different editors? Stop reverting edits just because you don't like them. Start discussing. Seek consensus or let it go. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Magnolia677, maybe the question you should be asking (rather than immediately jumping to "stop edit warring!") is why JJBers doesn't want the pushpins on the articles. Someone needs to start the discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Magnolia677, that sounds a lot less like edit warring and a lot more like "the guidelines aren't specific enough." My suggestion (and either of you can implement this) is to start an RFC about whether a pushpin map and a generic svg can/should/shouldn't be included in an infobox. That's really the only way this is going to be resolved. Primefac (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
That's great, I didn't see that. I'll add some comments to hopefully expand the scope of that RFC, which will (hopefully) result in some form of consensus regarding the issue. Please note, though, that simply starting an RFC doesn't automatically mean that anyone has to immediately stop their current editing habits (within limits, of course, to avoid yet another ANI). Primefac (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I.. I honestly don't care anymore. If you're being disruptive enough that I'm being pinged to conversations that I'm not even sure why I'm a party to them...Well, if someone blocks you I won't raise a stink. TimothyJosephWood00:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Pushpin maps
This revert was the third time you removed exactly the same content, added by three different editors. That seems like a consensus to have it in the article, don't you think? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I have once again reverted. JJBers, good intentions aside, you need to at least formulate a reason to oppose and not unilaterally impose your preferred version against multiple contentions into (or out of) the article. There is currently, in the face of four separate editors at four separate times contesting your edits, no consensus to remove and a weak local consensus to include. The point of the RfC is entirely to stop back and forth reverting and start talking. Magnolia677, you did call the RfC, it might be presient to add your opinion onto the RfC. Otherwise, it just looks like an RfC has been called with not intent to actually resolve the dispute. That is what the RfC is for after all. Timothyjosephwood and AirportExpert you guys might also consider participating in the RfC given that you have also contributed to the article. I recognize that some of us have no real stake here, but, if we're participating in as far as the revert button goes then we should also actually contribute to the discussion and set an example. I'll post my views soon as I can. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm tempted to copy/paste my comment in the thread above. But JJB, you need to find a different area of the project to contribute to for a while. You are apparently way too invested in this particular issue, and you need to find some deep exciting wiki-detective work. Let me invite you to Great Railroad Strike of 1877. I've unmucked some of the sub-articles, but the main article is still pretty much how I found it, and there's probably at least three or four articles to be created. I can point you to all the sources. McCabe is about a third of all there is to be had, and he's a good read besides. TimothyJosephWood23:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
JJBers, please wake up. People do not want you to be blocked, so they are suggesting places you could edit. Please start editing in those places. Otherwise, you might get blocked, which would be sad. MPS1992 (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, when I get fed up with Wikipedia, I usually happen upon the new files feed at Commons, and it's like Willy Wonka's tour of parts of the encyclopedia you didn't even know existed, and you need judicious google translating to find. TimothyJosephWood23:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Not withstanding a 0RR and a topic ban in only the past week, nor your apparent project wide unilateral war against maps, on Middlebury, Connecticut you have reverted I count five times against four different editors. If it happens again I'm opening an noticeboard thread. This is no longer advice; this is a warning, and a final one. TimothyJosephWood14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Seconded - wholesale reverting (especially with no edit summary) is really not the best way to handle this. Garchy (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
