User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2017

"anyone who reinstates the phrase "decided to procured" is clearly unqualified to comment on grammar"

Wow. Just...wow. All these years of effort... and that's the attitude I get. You could be less smarmy, and needlessly hurtful. I suppose you intend to demotivate me, and just make me quit? Kyteto (talk)

Oh, but this is hilarious! You lazily revert a huge number of very fine edits – most of which helpfully simplify the language, and refine both the grammar and syntax of the page – claiming that they "lack grammatical sense", yet your actions reintroduce basic, glaring, grammatical howlers. Somehow you feel you have a right to feel aggrieved when someone points out both your mistakes and your hypocrisy? You don't get long-service medals on Wikipedia; the attitude directed toward you is a direct consequence your own pompous and overbearing behaviour (and spectacular hubris!) in your edit summary. The vast majority of Pieter1963's edits were helpful and improved the page, yet you couldn't be arsed to do a proper job and took the slacker's way out: just hit revert. Sod off if you think you deserve respect for that. Pyrope 04:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There were ways to communicate that without being needlessly nasty or bullying, in my opinion. If you'd checked the talkpage, rather than "taking the slacker's way out" and hitting revert, cue 'witty comment' - we had been discussing the resubmission of many of those changes, and I had been friendly and encouraging of many of the changes being brought in. A second go-around seemed the best approach than trying to pick an edit involving over a dozen areas, and there was no nastiness involved on the part of anyone. Until you turned up, and lowered the tone. You can accomplish things without being mean spirited and nasty - that's nothing to do with 'respect'. I'm fine with being reverted, it happens - the almost gleeful attitude at tearing others down that you seem to exhibit while doing so is just... depressing... I apologise if you think I was that out of line; I just wonder if the rudeness, insults, name-calling, belittling, taunting and accusations of impropriety were necessary - Wikipedia:Civility discourages these attitudes, even if the motives are good. Kyteto (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This started with your own edit comment, within which you specifically took another editor to task (unfairly) over the grammatical construction of their contribution. My riposte was in the same vein and contained nothing offensive or aggressive, nor any name calling; that you saw it as 'attitude' and 'smarmy' and created your over the top OP here suggests that you have a very thin skin. You want to stomp around accusing others of being 'smarmy' and 'needlessly hurtful' and expect them not to come back at you in the same manner, and then you whine about civility?? Priceless. Your responses on the article talk confirm that you really aren't cut out to edit other people's grammar, and that your reasons for reverting rather than just tweaking the small amount of text that offended you were very shoddy. You sat and read a sentence over and over and it made no sense to you, so you reverted EVERYTHING that editor had worked on? Whaaa? Quite apart from the fact that the sentence was grammatically fine, it would conform to smooth idiomatic syntax merely with the addition of the word 'that'. You couldn't see that? You can take that literally and figuratively. You can flounce around all over the place taking offense at the slightest criticism of your own behaviour, but please don't expect me to feel sorry for you or even give a toss that your ego is a bit bruised. Pyrope 03:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I never expected you to feel sorry for me, considering that your talkpage observes you calling someone a "west country pillock" - only that being so aggressive and antagonistic with other editors, in contravention of Wikipedia:Civility, might not be necessary. You can point out flaws, or respond to people, without the nastiness. Again, if you'd looked at the article's talk page, both parties were already (civilly) discussing the issue with the goal of reintroducing much of the content with copy-edits - the issue would have been solved, in the manner you wanted, only without aggression. Could you try to keep the belittling and rudeness comments under control please? Wikipedia:Civility does recommend this. Kyteto (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, my first notice to you wasn't nasty. Pointed, perhaps, but no more so than your own behaviour. As for the 'pillock' comment, there is plenty of history to that, the editor in question was an anonymous IP vandal at the time, and the comment was made between other concerned editors trying to curb their disruptive behaviour and not directly to the editor in question. If you would like to lecture someone on civility and treating other editors in the manner to which you apparently aspire, find a mirror. Pyrope 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It may not have been nasty by your standards, but I don't think it's in line with policy. Ignoring the above references to priciples of WP:Civility; you didn't assume good faith in a normal action of restoring an article to an earlier state to resolve some newly-introduced flaws, you just went straight to mockery with the caption, a tone you have persisted with right through to the 'mirror' remark. Actually, being subject to enthuastic reverts in the name of preserving status quo quality has happened to me in the past, I'd had large content edits reverted because of a single character being autocorrected to the wrong regional dialect - see [[1]] - note how in that circumstance, I didn't insult the editor's judgement for doing so, I just quietly fixed the flaw and resubmitted it, which was accepted. Nobody said anything about anyone being unqualified to participate, nobody assumed anything but the other editors acting in the best interests of preserving quality. I just feel disappointed that I can honestly say I haven't been subject to the kind of aggression and mockery you seem to have seen fit to unleash on multiple editors in four years myself; learning that more than one editor seems to have been subject to this hostile attitude is perhaps more disheartening and concerning. In regards to the 'witty mirror' jab: I've never found myself calling another editor a "pillock" nor made reference to their regional ethnicity in the same breath; I hope I never find myself doing that either - I only wonder why you wish to impart that sort of mockery on others. Kyteto (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm loving that you keep coming back on this, and that every time you dig yourself a little deeper into that well of clueless pomposity that you are sat at the bottom of. The 'mirror' remark wasn't intended as a witticism, but should have been taken literally; unfortunately, you don't appear to have realized this. As for the dictum of WP:AGF, I certainly adhered to it. That principle states that, until demonstrated otherwise, you should always assume that another editor has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart; it does not state that you need assume competency, intelligence, knowledge, or any other abilities. Specifically, WP:AGF states that it "does not prohibit ... criticism" and that "exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others". If you want to start trying to back up your butthurt ranting with policy documents perhaps you ought to properly familiarize yourself with the contents of same beforehand. Go look up the idiomatic use of the phrase hoist with his own petard, then find that mirror I mentioned before. I am also somewhat surprised that your argument has basically boiled down to 'someone was a dick to me, so why are you concerned when I act like a dick to other people?' You've been on the receiving end of an idiotic revert yet you decide to do almost exactly the same thing to someone else, and somehow you think that's a justification? Most odd. At least in the VC10 example the other editor was correct in pointing out that your spelling was off, while in your own action you were 'correcting' already correct grammar while simultaneously reintroducing grammatical errors. Again with the mirror and 'petard' advice, seriously. Finally, also go look up the meaning and idiomatic usage of the word 'pillock'. This is a very mild pejorative that means 'idiot', with a sense of triviality and mild exasperation. British dialects are rife with these sorts of words: numpty, berk, wazzock, eejit, dunderhead. You may be familiar with some others, too. All useful and descriptive, if faced with behaviour that (assuming good faith!) is best ascribed to lack of intelligence or judgement, rather than malice. Finally, your last assertion that I somehow slurred the anonymous editor by making reference to their "ethnicity" is just barking mad. What, exactly, is a Wiltshire ethnicity? Reference to the location was made simply to identify which of quite a few anonymous IP vandals I was referring to. That particular one had been editing from a large range of changing IP addresses, but all of them resolved to locations in and around Salisbury... in Wiltshire. Pyrope 17:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Kubica

I saw the "career ending" change but thought that as he still had a career in motor racing it should specify the end of his hopes in Formula One, which it may still have done. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As it comes within a sentence that specifically mentions F1, and following large sections that describe his rally and other activity since the accident, I thought it fairly clear that the 'career' being referred to was his F1 one. However, I can see your point and if you want to add a couple of words to clarify that I reckon it couldn't hurt. Pyrope 17:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The Keith Barron photo

I see that you undid inclusion of this photo in the article on the grounds of "no fair use rationale given", can you lend out your expertise, and suggest ways that would make it acceptable. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi BeckenhamBear. I'm in no way an expert, but I have read WP:FAIRUSE. In summary, a non-free image requires a Fair Use Rationale to be posted on its host page for each page that it is used within. The image that was placed in the Keith Barron infobox has one such rationale given for the Gregory Wilmot (Upstairs, Downstairs character) page, but not the actor's. Advice on writing a FUR can be found at WP:FUR. Hope that helps. Pyrope 00:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Pyrope OK so the Non free guidline for acceptability for this picture is: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely". I have put in a fair use rationale. Can you look at it now, and tell me whether or not it is acceptable and if not what to do? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear:, I'm afraid it isn't that simple! It needs a whole extra template explaining why that picture should be used on that specific article, not just for the extra page to be included in the existing template. You need to demonstrate how it meets the criteria (previous publication, contextual significance, no free equivalent, minimal usage) for that article. WP:FUR is a fairly simple, step-by-step guide. Pyrope 19:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pyrope:, I just read it, I already thought it was pretty well self explanatory already, this (British) man died this year. The guidelines are as clear as mud. Is there an example in the real world that I can see to compare? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear: You need a separate, distinct, tailored rationale for each individual page. For example, if the picture is on three pages, you need three separate rationale statements. WP:FUR clearly shows that you the option of writing a freehand statement or using a template (either {{Non-free media rationale}} or {{Non-free use rationale 2}}). These templates, in turn, have detailed usage guides. As I type, there are over 11,000 images listed at Category:Non-free biographical images so any of those will give you some idea of what is required. For a more complex example of an image that is used on multiple pages and used a combination of a data template (for metadata relating to the image and source) with specific page templates (for explaining its significance to that particular page) see File:FrostReportClassSketch.jpg. Again, this method is described at WP:FUR. It is probably simpler just to clone the existing template and input the information required that is specific to the Keith Barron page use. Pyrope 01:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pyrope. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)