User talk:Blurryman

Blurryman, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Blurryman!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop

	Whoops for you!
	Great job. Keep up the good work. Rtewqq (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Perlmutter

I am going to modify your edit on the Saul Perlmutter page that changes "better contrain" to "monitor". The latter suggests to me that the project is watching in real time how the expansion rate changes moment to moment. However, the experiment is looking into the distance to more precisely measure what the acceleration was at times in the past. If you feel that I have made an error, let's discuss it here or on the article's talk page. If you have better language than either "monitor" or "contrain" please edit the article accordingly. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word I replaced was actually "constrain". However, I like your latest edit which is now much clearer about the goal of the project. Blurryman (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I managed to misspell "constrain" twice. I had even had my coffee by then! 𝕃eegrc (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up: "contrain" had me scratching my head and scrabbling through my dictionaries for a while! Blurryman (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016 - Recent Edit: Great American Railroad Journeys

This is to let you know that I have reverted your edit. The current setup with the Lead is fine, though I believe you amended it in regards to the recent repeats; if so, please state that the episodes originally aired as 30 minute episodes in a second paragraph of the lead, before stating about the repeats and the setup with them. GUtt01 (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your objection to my changes, which were inserted specifically to describe the original broadcasts, in February 2016, over fifteen 30-minute episodes, just as I wrote. I made no reference to the repeat showings which are still current as I write. Incidentally, this current showing consists of eight 60-minute episodes, and it is noticeable that 15x30m does NOT equal 8x60m, which I believe is explained by the creation of an extended version of the original Episode 3 "Brooklyn to Montauk". These new episodes are described on the BBC website as 'reversions', but that should really be 're-versioned'. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07mdvbd/episodes/player). Blurryman (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blurryman: Okay, that's understandable of what you were including, now that I see your reasoning. But surely, you could have placed it in the initial paragraph that detailed out Series 1, and not in the Lead, because we can't confirm the length of episodes in it, until we at least have had another series. When we do, we can state the original broadcast length. I just updated the article, so perhaps you can amend what I added in by finding a reference to what the BBC described, other than from the BBC iPlayer? GUtt01 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on the placing of this information. I've added a reference to the BBC's website for the new showing of the programme, and amended part of your entry to clarify the change to what was the third 30-minute episode of the first showing but was the second 1-hour episode of the repeat showing. Blurryman (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London terminii

If you like copyediting London terminal station articles, I've been doing work on quite a few of them recently, as documented at User:Ritchie333/London termini. Feel free to cast an eye over them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation! I'll be happy to have a read through. Blurryman (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commas next to conjunctions

If you want to discuss the point a la BRD then you only have to ask (on the article talk page). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. This topic is not presently at the top of my 'To do' list, but I'll get to it. Kind regards. Blurryman (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest USA

Hi Blurryman, I'm from the Northwest in the US. You know, with a ton of trees and the kind of place in which Bigfoot resides in the movies. Sorry, we yanks sometimes use terms that are a bit too US-centric. From England, eh? Always wanted to go, but have never been. I imagine it would be fascinating to live in a country with a very old history. We are relatively young and tear down our buildings when they become obsolete. Can't help but feel we're missing out on something. I dunno... Please let me know if I can ever be of any help to you in this massive project in which we are all engaged. I wish you a pleasant day from across the pond! Blinkfan (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and kind wishes. I've heard a bit about your Northwest: Seattle, for the Seahawks and Frasier, and Mount St Helens - I'm old enough to remember the 1980 eruption which received a lot of coverage here. I have visited the US once, in 2014, when I went to New England to visit a friend I first met back in the 1970s when we were both touring Scotland on our bikes. She showed me around some of your historical places, including Boston and its Freedom Trail, and the "oldest house in the United States of timber-frame construction" at Dedham, MA - so you do keep some of them! Also, parts of Boston look almost like Old England. Best wishes from Ye Olde Countrie! Blurryman (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning wonder wheel, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

help

	help
	I cannot figure out how to contact you directly. Why are you getting involved with my Wonder Wheel edits? I am the family of the creator and I am trying to correct facts but you have over ridden me. (I admit I am new at this but you have nothing to do with the Wonder Wheel and you are in England). Please let me edits go through. Thank you. Big wheel (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Big wheel. Thank you for your message. I note that you are new to Wikipedia and I do suggest that you find out how it operates by reading the information available. To answer the specific points you make: 1. Using our Talk pages is the usual way Wikipedia editors communicate, so you got this right. 2. You say you are a member of the family of the creator of the Wonder Wheel, but we have no way of verifying that. However, even if you are, nobody can 'own' a Wikipedia article; also, you need to follow up on the suggestions made for you on your User talk page about a conflict of interest - and yes, I can see that because all Talk pages are open to anyone to read and to write to. 3. Similarly, any one can edit any article on Wikipedia, because anything put on here (except commonly accepted knowledge) must cite a reference to a published authoritative source (which can include sources on the internet). 4. As a point of fact, the editor who reverted your edit also reverted mine at the same time, whereas the edits I made did not contradict anything which you had previously entered. If you look at my edit at 23:53 on 2017 December 12, I simply moved the entry about "New York City Landmark", I made a small grammatical correction to your edit which did not change the meaning, and I added a new Wikipedia link to 'Electrical Experimenter' magazine. If there is anything else you would like clarified, please let me know. Best regards from England. Blurryman (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charles Ingalls. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Winkelvi. I have no wish to go to war with you and I don't consider this to be a particularly "controversial" issue, but I have to say this impersonal and rather officious message doesn't look much like an attempt at constructive discussion. Why is it "edit warring" when I change your contribution, but it's not when you change mine? I still don't agree that your version "flows better", especially in its last, ungrammatically punctuated form. I think birth order is a better way of presenting this information, and, as I pointed out earlier, it is shown in this way on the Caroline Ingalls page. But it's a minor issue and if you still like your version better, I won't change it again. Best wishes. Blurryman (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is it "edit warring" when I change your contribution, but it's not when you change mine?" The answer, Blurryman, is found in WP:BRD. You edited boldly, I reverted your bold change and challenged it (as well as improved upon it), and you should have then attempted to discuss. Rather, you chose to revert again. That's edit warring behavior, it's disruptive, and certainly not helpful.

"it is shown in this way on the Caroline Ingalls page." Please see WP:OTHER for why that's not a really good argument.

Thanks for attempting to discuss here, but you really should be doing it at the article talk page. I noticed that you have little to no article talk page edits in the sum total of your edits over the years (3.3%, to be exact). You might want to start changing that percentage by discussing long-standing or status-quo content after you've changed it and have been reverted. Or even before you revert to see if anyone objects. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi Thank you for your answers to my questions. I have read WP:BRD previously, but I shall make a point of re-reading it and renewing my efforts at implementing it. However, I am a little surprised that you seem to be suggesting that it is a bad thing that I've been involved in so few Talk page discussions. (Thanks for the stat: it inspired me to go and find it. I didn't know about those before!) I see it as a rather good stat to have, because it indicates that conflicts arising from my edits have occurred rarely. I think the most extensive Talk page discussion I've had was with an editor who had quite different ideas to mine about when and where commas should be used! Blurryman (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blurryman: Contrary to mistaken and frequent belief, talk page discussions are not just for conflicts arising due to edit challenges. If you come to an article where others have been recently editing or have heavily edited, it's a good idea to get a feel for what others who have contributed might think about changes you would like to make (unless they are minor typo/copyediting changes, of course). It's a courtesy but those who have invested time at an article appreciate it. If you post something about something you see needed to be changed, updated, fixed, and so on but don't get a reply in a day or two, go for the change on your own. That's one way of approaching it (and a positive way talk pages are used). Or, you can just edit boldly. But it's really not best to just revert back what you think is right if a long-time, experienced editor challenges your edit. Best to go to the talk page as the onus is on you to prove via WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:POLICY and - if appropriate, sourcing - why your edit is in the best interest of the article and readers. In short, talk page discussions are a good thing, not a sign of having difficulty editing with others. Hope this helps change your perspective. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi: With most people being time-poor, it often seems the easier and quicker option just to be bold, but I'll take your helpful comments on board. Thanks for your time and trouble, and sorry for the aggravation. Blurryman (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Sorry, hope you saw my reply on the Decade talk page. On reflection I could see how my reply can be seen as brusque. This was not the intended tone, but mea culpa.Frond Dishlock (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Frond Dishlock Thank you for your kind messages. Apology accepted. I think that perhaps banter which is acceptable between friends is more likely to be taken the wrong way between complete strangers, as we mostly are on Wikipedia. Let's now move on. And on that point, I can say I generally approve the changes you have recently made to the 'Decade' article, although there are still some issues which I will take up in due course, if still necessary and when I find the time. Blurryman (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020s

I don't think "google trends" is a usable source for Wikipedia articles. It's time-varying, and (unless you're careful) depends on the location of the reader. I see your point about US sources, but we need actual commentary, rather than raw search results. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might even fall under WP:ELNO#9. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll look for some other sources this side of The Pond. — Blurryman (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decades

I went ahead and restored your old edits on Decade. Even though I think the new titles are pale, it doesn't really matter at this point. WildEric19 (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I was aiming for 'uncontroversial' with those titles, but perhaps that's an approach that's too optimistic on Wikipedia! Best regards. Blurryman (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A solution I hope we can finally agree on

I decided to make a few changes here. I took your idea and pasted it, but I made a clarification to what "strict" and "general" means. I hope you and Frond can agree to this to end this silly debate or else it'll never end. I can settle for this. Thoughts on this? WildEric19 (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphism

You weren't old enough then were you. A very common expression and a good one but since you seem determined . . . Eddaido (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-League_football

Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated.Stanford113 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some flowers for you

	A flower bouquet
	You deserve this for your great contributions to Wikipedia. Keep it up! V. E. (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your expansion to Bill Ivy

This is just to alert you that the Daily Express ref you added may be removed in future and replaced by {{citation needed}}, as use of Express is deprecated. You can see this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I hadn't realised that this was not at Bill Ivy's bio, but you can see it at BSA Lightning#James Bond film Thunderball. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer: Thanks for the heads up, although it is a rather uncontroversial piece of information. Also, looking at BSA Lightning#James Bond film Thunderball, I've noticed that neither of the references cited mentions Bill Ivy, but nobody has raised an objection to its inclusion in that article! --Blurryman (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tabloids could have purloined info from elsewhere (such as this), including WP. Someone from WP took a dislike to another Wiki. I did cite a 1965 magazine that I can't quickly find in the house. I'll look harder. rgds, --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sapiens Edits

Can you elaborate on how its not original research to claim without citing a source that a book was written "partly in response to" Sapiens even though it was published some10 years after Sapiens was first published?

From WP:NONFICTION Reviews / Commercial and critical reception / Criticism / Analysis / Reception include facts (with a cited source), and the opinions of notable people that have been published in some form. The section should be reserved for critical analysis of the book by notable, published critics. contemporaneous reviews, sales figures, best-seller list rankings no personal opinions, views i.e. a subjective book review

You have edited the original posting which included many non-neutral point of view words and phrases that I was suggesting were original research, but did not add any sources for these newly edited assertions except noting the book in question is wiki linked. It seems the book is in the same genre yet provides a different thesis. Can you provide a reliable source saying this book is in direct response to Sapiens and thus warrants mentioning on its reception? Will you also include this section on other books in the same genre? Thanks. LightBulb22 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LightBulb22. Mea culpa. I reacted rather too hastily to your edit, and was taking too much on trust from the original editor, whose text I had already toned down. I now agree that it should be removed. Best regards. Blurryman (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've gone back and removed it again.LightBulb22 (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a reader,

I love your user page format, it's simple, fetching. Your personality is full as it's reads there, is it here too, everybody is happy you are here as a Blurry as well. From a reader. 196.191.188.65 (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very much present tense

Hi, Blurryman, in this edit at Cisgender, you made this change:

with the edit summary, "very much present tense". I agree with your edit summary, it is very much still a problem in the present. The problem with your change, imho, is that it makes it seem like it's only a problem in the present, and never was a problem before. I assume that's not what you meant to imply.

What if we keep the present perfect has been, which means it was controversial in the past, and still is, and drop the problematic at times, to get this:

"Use of the term cisgender has been controversial."

What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mathglot. I take your point, but the articles on present perfect and Uses of English verb forms in Wikipedia show that these same words can be used to mean either that something happened in the past and continues in the present (e.g. "I have been married for 50 years") or that something happened recently but has now finished (e.g. "I have been out walking"). I think that context is important, and I am not persuaded that in this present situation the use of has been unambiguously conveys the meaning that it was and still is. I suspect that readers who are not familiar with the subtleties of English verb tenses would most likely understand the phrase "has been controversial" to mean was, which is why I made the change. For the sake of clarity, perhaps we should set it out in full and state:

"Use of the term cisgender has been and continues to be controversial."

Would that be acceptable to you? --Blurryman (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good argument, and I agree that your latest version is an improvement. Thanks for the analysis. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made the change, including in the amended lead. --Blurryman (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better, now. I realized only after the fact, that there may be a WP:RELTIME issue with my proposal of "is" (same issue with "continues to be") because does that include somebody reading the article ten years from now, if the ground shifts before then? Anyway, it's a minor quibble at the moment, and I'm not going to worry about it right now, but we should keep an eye on the article, and if things change, we should change it to, "continued to be until the mid 2020's" or whatever the case may be. Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Good point, and looking at WP:RELTIME, I see the mention of using the "As of" template. Although this would not eliminate the need for it to be monitored, it could act as an alert if or when the position changes. What do you think? --Blurryman (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a clear improvement. That would eliminate the RELTIME issue permanently, because the "as of YEAR" would always remain true, regardless when someone would be reading it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on it and update it from time to time, but the 'as of' would always remain WP:VERIFIABLE (and true), whereas the "is" wording might flip from true to false one day, without anybody noticing. That's why RELTIME is a thing. So, yeah, by all means do the "as of"—definitely better. Thanks for discovering that and pointing it out. Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added that. --Blurryman (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]