Jump to content

User talk:Getsnoopy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Neha.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://lh5.ggpht.com/callravi/RlMxLjavUhI/AAAAAAAAAwU/a3WsEhNWH9k/neha2.jpg. As a copyright violation, File:Neha.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Neha.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. 59.95.122.144 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Himesh.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://hamaraphotos.com/himesh_reshammiya_1277_163.html. As a copyright violation, File:Himesh.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Himesh.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. 59.95.122.144 (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". 59.95.122.144 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for copyright violations. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

feydey (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji

Please do not move pages without consensus. Also, your name changes have been reverted as they were incorrect. -SpacemanSpiff 01:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AKS Moviee Poster.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AKS Moviee Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Getsnoopy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Getsnoopy. 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)

Biryani

Hi Getsnoopy
I reverted your changes at Biryani, as it contradicted WP:ENGVAR - As stated at the top of the edit page, that article is written in British English, so Eggplant and Chevon should not be used, as they are not British English terms - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Getsnoopy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:FRICH Logo.svg

Notice

The file File:FRICH Logo.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Airport articles

Please don't do that. Airports in Canada are like the United States and the runway lengths are always, there is one exception for a military airbase, measured in feet. With the exception of a few countries, I think Russia is one, aviation through out the world measures elevations in feet. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It gets really odd. News reports of runways being worked on will always be in metres. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Commonality

Hi there, re: this edit, while you are correct that "crore" and "lakh" contravene WP:COMMONALITY, there is, in my experienced opinion, zero benefit to changing it, since it is an impossible task to maintain the tens of thousands of articles that use these terms. You can change it, but someone will ultimately change it back. Also, from a practical perspective, when trying to verify the information in the associated references, it is far easier to just look for "crore", rather than having to do mental calculations. Just my two cents. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is still going on here, that's why I've reverted your edits at Tiger Zinda Hain and Luka Chuppi to maintain status quo. Secondly, undoing edits after we get to some agreement looks like edit warring. If people decide to keep your version, just edit the older version as needed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I didn't realize people were still commenting after that. And thanks for pointing that out. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarifications

I don't know how you think this was a clarification, when the entire section tells us nothing about what happened, and isn't written in proper English such that anybody who would glance at it would have any idea of what the issue was. Did you read the entire paragraph? Do you somehow have some insight that will clarify what the actual issue was? He was suckered into investing 50 lakh with the promise that he'd receive 1 crore in return? How is this a controversy and how is he not just the victim of a scam? And why would that even be worthy of publication in an encyclopedia. It boggles the mind... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I was merely rewording the sentence so that it was clear what the prepositional phrase was so that it read like a clear sentence. I was going to reword it for content later, but you seem to have been watching that section vigilantly. I don't know what your concern here is, that I tried to improve the sentence at all, or that I didn't improve it further? Getsnoopy (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I was in a pissy mood and I'm sorry for taking it out on you. I often get frustrated by the lack of coherent content in Indian entertainment and biographical articles, and the cosmetic improvement on a section that is so fundamentally flawed just irritated me. Again, I'm sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ala Vaikunthapuraloo

Sir box office only 190 core but here written 219 core Adityarajpanigrahi (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adityarajpanigrahi: The Infobox shows the worldwide collections, not those just in India. If you have a reliable source that says otherwise, feel free to change the number and its citation. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-lang}} This is a Telugu movie and mostly Indians would use this page, and hence billions should not be used and crores must be the preference. Thundermage117 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thundermage117: It's not that simple, unfortunately, and there have been numerous discussions about this which have put this issue to rest. WP is a global encyclopedia, and hence that is not true in general. Nobody except for Indians (and other South Asians) understand what lakhs and crores are, but all South Asians understand what millions and billions are. Furthermore, it's against WP policy to use the Indian numbering system (INS) unless there's a strong reason to do so (and preference/habit is not one of them). Most articles about Indian topics don't meet that standard. Even if an article does meet that standard and the INS is used, conversions to a reserve currency have to be provided. The problem with this is that this is not allowed in Infoboxes as per another consensus. On top of all of that, Good Articles and Featured Articles can't use the INS; the fact that all articles essentially aspire to be one of those kinds of articles suggests that using the INS is not allowed. Long story short, don't use the INS in articles unless it's for historically/contextually important reasons. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Getsnoopy: Please refer to this consensus.There are literally thousands of movies which use Crores over million and billions in India.Also, not all south indians know what a billion is, I myself had to calculate whether the gross was 25 or 250 crores. This is start level article and does not require that high level of standards and can use crores as it is much simpler. Also, another solution would be to specify that the article is written in Indian English and then use crores as done here Baahubali 2: The Conclusion which is India's highest grossing movie. Thundermage117 (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thundermage117: Yes I'm aware of that consensus, and there has been yet another comprehensive discussion on that RfC and consensus that thoroughly beat the dead horse. The long and short of it is that the "retain" clause only applies to article bodies (not Infoboxes), and it only applies to instances where a conversion has already been given (since that is a condition for the retain clause). Furthermore, the policies of MOS:COMMONALITY and consistent use within an article reign supreme anyway, so if someone is changing one of the instances away from the INS, they can change all of them.

Regarding thousands of movies using crores: yes, this will almost always be the case. There are myriad articles which are in violation of MoS as a natural consequence of WP being an open encyclopedia; this doesn't mean that prevalence of a mistake/violation dictates correctness. The Baahubali movie you cited is actually in violation as well, since it mixes using crore/lakh and million/billion terminology, and it uses crores in the Infobox. Using {{Use Indian English}} doesn't change the fact that other MoS rules have to be followed. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy: The conversion you are talking about is the conversion of INR to USD, which is invalid in this discussion as that was never the issue. Also conversions from INR to USD aren't allowed in the infoboxes as you stated above. Complete conversion of INR to USD and using dollars and millions would not be possible. I believe it would be useless to use rupee and billions in the gross as both Indian's would have to mentally calculate it into crores and the global user's would have to convert rupees into dollars, which would be difficult for both parties. Rather it would be much simpler to use Rupee and crores, whilst linking the Rupee and crore articles at their first mention as suggested by the Consensus. The problem with MOS is that the rule and the general consensus are in conflict to each other, also the MOS Commonality is only a suggestion not a fixed rule, it also states " especially in titles"(sorry I don't know how to green text quotes),and hence can be neglected over ease of usage. Also if you read the 4th point under MOS:Commonality, it tells us to use the more commonly used word even though it states that crore is not preferred. The 5th point also states the same. Thundermage117 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we should move this discussion to the movie's talk page for more inputs. Thundermage117 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Getsnoopy: I finally read the consensus at MOS, basically it states that crore can be used over millions provided a conversion to USD is given. Hence you can't state the policies of MOS:COMMONALITY as a reason for changing crores into millions because it is now invalid due to the consensus which specifically states that crores can be used. I have also linked crore in the article, which means I have followed MOS:COMMONALITY and respected its consensus. Thundermage117 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Thundermage117: I think you've misunderstood the issue. The only case where the INS is allowed is for historically/contextually important cases, and even then it's only allowed with conditions. That consensus is entirely the point of this discussion as well. You're right that the main MOS and general consensus are in somewhat of conflict, but only cursorily. It's against policy in general to use the INS (as per MOS); however, if it has already been used (in violation), retain it given that there are conversions provided (as per consensus). I.e., the consensus is not licence to use the INS for new articles or new instances within existing articles; that's a violation of MOS. The fact that the Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo article doesn't use any lakh/crore figures except for in the Infobox means that they should all be converted to the Western numbering system. This is because conversions are not allowed in the Infobox, which means that the retain clause in the consensus doesn't apply. As for the more commonly used word(s), you'll find that million/billion in overwhelmingly in the majority worldwide. In fact, million/billion are preferred over crore even in India according to those same stats. There are multiple sources which use million/billion with rupees, not least of which is the RBI. But I digress; the point is that even the consensus in this case doesn't support the use of lakh/crore in the article. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Getsnoopy: Firstly, MOS is only a guideline not policy as you have stated above.You are considering whatever is written in the MOS to be the absolute truth and not considering accessibility for other people. Especially in India's movie business, movie grosses and budgets are given out in crores and lakhs itself not millions and billions; as I have already pointed out, it would be fruitless to report in in both rupees and millions because it won't help anyone take a look here, in this article everything is presented in US system which I can accept, but what you're doing is trying to mix the worst of both worlds. Another example, have you ever heard about the 1 billion rupees club or the 100 crore club. Stop reading between lines of the MOS and the consensus, it has accepted the use of crores and lakhs in Indian articles, if a conversion to USD is not provided in the infobox then leave it as it is in crores. Thundermage117 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Thundermage117: If that's the case, so are consensuses, and I could use the same point as an argument against your position on the matter. I agree that there's wiggle room with MOS, but not much; MOS is there for a reason. There are myriad sources which use "Mbps" as the abbreviation for "megabits per second", but MOS dictates using the official symbol "Mbit/s" in all cases; similarly with title case for titles, where WP recommends sentence case. There are many such examples; on the INS matter, MOS is clear. And yet, it's quite permissive; it's just that Infoboxes simply don't fit that bill because of an ICTF consensus. If you want a resolution to this issue, I think you should appeal there to remove the Infobox limitation so that conversions can be provided. There are many Japanese-company-related articles which use Japanese yen without any conversions in Infoboxes; an unfamiliar user is expected do the conversions themselves, and they don't use the native Japanese system of counting large numbers. But you can't have both an unfamiliar currency and a non-native, unfamiliar counting system be imposed on a global audience just to satisfy a few Indian users. The goal of WP is not to give movie buffs stats on gross figures and such in their native systems; it's to provide a general overview of a movie, some of which include stats; the former can be found on other websites, as you've already mentioned. And all of that notwithstanding, again, Indians understand what millions and billions are. There are myriad sources (which I've cited above) that use millions and billions with rupees. On WP, virtually everything is counted in millions and billions. If one is to assume a WP reader has read at least 1 non-Indian-movie-related article, they would mostly likely be familiar with millions and billions (not regarding the fact that they would most likely be familiar with those terms without WP having to educate them on what they are). So no, it's definitely not "the worst of both worlds". In the article on India, there are rupees with million/billion terminology as well. Regarding 100 crore club: there's an article about that, just like there's an article on crore and lakh; it's more like the name of an achievement, so it doesn't matter if it uses crores in the title; the article is likely to explain what it is anyway.
It has accepted the use of crores and lakhs in Indian articles Well, clearly not if we're having this discussion.
If a conversion to USD is not provided in the infobox then leave it as it is in crores That seems more like reading in between the lines than what I've been doing; I've simply been reiterating what MOS and the consensus say literally. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Getsnoopy: All right fine man, I accept defeat for now. I can't go on any longer for a bunch of numbers. I will make myself more adept of the rules and regulations of wikipedia moving forward. Could you just do me a little favor and leave Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo as it is in crores, you may change any other article you want to millions. Thundermage117 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Thundermage117: Ha I normally would be against that on principle since it's against MOS, but I'm willing to let it go this time. There's no guarantee that someone else won't change it nor that I won't change it down the road when I've forgotten about this conversation. Getsnoopy (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Getsnoopy: I guess I can live with that. It's been a pleasure, farewell! Thundermage117 (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The India Star
Dear Getsnoopy, thank you for all your contributions to WikiProject:India-related articles. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 06:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello! Thanks for asking for page protection for Postal Index Number at WP:RFPP. Your request has been declined and I wanted to explain why :) Semi page protection is meant for pages experiencing high or persistent levels of vandalism, which Postal Index Number just wasn't. All pages experience some vandalism, from the smallest to the largest, it's a side effect of the wiki-process. But we don't want to shut out valuable new editors. A large portion of constructive edits are still made by IP's and new users, so we try to use page protection as sparingly as possible. Generally, if a page has had much recent disruption (at least 3 vandalisms not all by the same user is a good rule of thumb, though not enshrined in policy) within the last day, or persistent disruption over the course of a week. Sometimes protection for disruption over a longer scale is warranted, but it needs to really be persistent and troublesome. Hopefully that helps explain our protection policy a little better! Don't be afraid to submit pages for protection though if you think they need it, better safe than sorry, and an admin can always make the judgement call. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

ENGVAR warning

In this edit your edit summary contains "All SI and SI-related unit articles use official SI spelling conventionally, which is Oxford." This is false. If you continue to make edits based on this untrue claim you may expect I will make use of appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Show me an example where this is untrue. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style states

The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles. This primary page is supported by further detail pages, which are cross-referenced here and listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents. If any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence.[1]

This page says nothing about using Oxford English in SI-related articles. The only detail page that appears relevant is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling. That page also says nothing about SI-related articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ This is a matter of policy at Wikipedia:Consensus § Level of consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that a Wikipedia policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." And: "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages." Subordinate pages include MoS detail pages, style essays, and the Simplified Manual of Style.
Yes, I realize there is no codified rule about using Oxford for SI-related articles, which is why I said "conventionally". I couldn't find any example of an SI-related article that is not in Oxford. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • For continued arbitrary ENGVAR changes in contravention of WP:RETAIN, after being correctly notified in the article space, and warned here, you have been blocked indefinitely. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but you appear to be implementing a personal campaign to systemically convert articles to Commonwealth English, without reason, both ignoring the policy guidance, ignoring the original ENGVAR of an article, and going so far as to create your own made-up rules to justify your changes. Ignoring a rule which everyone on the project abides by and implementing your own arbitrary ENGVAR conversions on a project-wide scale is seriously disruptive, particularly after you have been informed of the relevant policy pages and warned on your talk page. I will unblock you without delay if you agree to a voluntary topic ban from ENGVAR changes, however the amount of disruption you're causing is not manageable left unchecked. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Swarm: Uh...you're going to have to give more evidence than that to justify this blind-sighting and extreme ban. The "warning" that Jc3s5h gave me was regarding only the kilowatt-hour article, and I reverted those changes. There's an ongoing discussion regarding what needs to be done there. I don't see how that case amounts to "[making]-up rules to justify [my] changes" or "a personal campaign to systematically convert articles to Commonwealth English", the latter of which isn't even accurate. When have I "[ignored] the original ENGVAR of an article" in an unjustified manner, barring the example above? And mind you, the article above wasn't even unjustified, as it was easily justified to be Commonwealth as much as anything else. Getsnoopy (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
You have been consistently changing ENGVARs apart from this incident and you know it, there are dozens upon dozens of ENGVAR changes in your history, to the point where I can't possibly review them all. Mind you I am not referring to the ones on Indian topics. However your arbitrary ENGVAR conversions with either false or no rationale do not appear to be confined to any specific topic area, which is what makes it appear that these efforts are arbitrary, project-wide, and with complete disregard for the MOS guidance. The above incident was one example, and it was extremely concerning. You're well aware of the ENGVAR rules, and yet you made up a false rule about these articles generally using Oxford English, which is false and invalid. A cursory skim of your ENGVAR changes turn up numerous other examples of articles in which you have been arbitrarily changing the ENGVAR: Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Anti-ageing supplements, Intrinsic and extrinsic ageing, Potential superpowers, Military, Pi, Human skin. You're arbitrarily changing ENGVARS based on your own personal whims, without any care, without any justification, ignoring policy that you're already aware of. Getting warned that your attempt at a made-up rule to support your change at Kilowatt-hour is invalid, and then continuing to do this, is unacceptable. Not even coming close to playing games about how this is an "extreme" measure over one incident and how you're completely blindsided by it. This was long overdue, you've flown under the radar for far too long. Ironically, this was only caught by your own request to be screened for AWB approval. What is usually a cursory review turned up your involvement with ENGVAR changes, which is obviously very relevant for a user requesting a rapid semi-automation tool to make spelling changes. That led me down a rabbit hole going back months and dozens of ENGVAR conversions, many of which are blatantly, willfully inappropriate, then I see you have an ENGVAR warning on your talk page referencing a completely made-up justification for an ENGVAR conversion, which apparently had no bearing on continued inappropriate ENGVAR conversions, such as at Human skin. I have to be completely honest with you, the problem is so obvious that feigning ignorance is not going to work here. I normally would never even block over ENGVAR issues, that's how serious this case is. You're not the first or only user to implement improper ENGVAR changes, however you are without a doubt the most severe case I've ever seen. I cannot even give you the benefit of the doubt that this is incompetence, because you have repeatedly referenced the MOS. We can simply not tolerate this level of bad faith disruption, and the only possible path I see you having to return to editing is a logged ban from further ENGVAR conversions. I am not actually asking a lot but I am very firm on this condition being a necessity at this point. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Getsnoopy, I only just saw this after writing the section below on article moves. This is meant entirely positively and as a helpful tip, so I hope you read it that way. Above, when you say,

Uh...you're going to have to give more evidence than that to justify this blind-sighting and extreme ban.

My response (as a non-admin) is, "No, he (Swarm) doesn't." By saying that, you're coming across as argumentative, and actually making it harder to get yourself unblocked. The entire rest of your comment @01:21 was the wrong thing to say, if you want to be unblocked. Take my word for this: admins like Swarm have a ton of experience, they know Wikipedia policy inside-out, and backwards and forwards. When you're blocked (not WP:BANned), that's that; arguing with a highly experienced admin on what the policy is, or whether they "have to give more evidence" will either get you no response at all, or you'll just confirm their prior block as being correct.
At this point, you have to decide if you want to come back to Wikipedia and edit again, or not. If you do, what you have to do now, is play by Wikipedia's rules, scrupulously, and also show that you understand what the rule is in this case. It's okay to make mistakes when you don't know a rule yet because you're new, but if it's pointed out to you and you keep violating the rule, you'll get blocked, as you have been.
Think about it this way: if you're learning some team activity, anything from a sport to a card game, if you make mistakes, someone will likely just point it out and go on. But if you insist that your way is better, or don't apply, or need more evidence, you'll likely be invited to go home. That doesn't mean your rules are wrong, they're just different rules for a different game; if you want to set up your own game, or join a game where they agree with your rules, great! (You can create your own version of Wikipedia if you want, the software is free; and you can also join other Wikis already in progress, too.) But, if you want to play here, and someone tells you you're breaking the rules, and you argue with them—that is not going to work. You've been shown the door. Wrong game, sorry.
That why I'm saying you have to decide. Want to edit English Wikipedia? Great; the rules have been explained. Since you are already blocked, you will have to say to an admin that you understand the rule now, and that you will abide by the ENGVAR rule in the future. That will likely get you unblocked, as Swarm has already indicated. Because you have been blocked for this already, you will have to tread much more carefully in the future; if you're not sure about whether something is, or isn't a violation, don't make the edit, go to the Talk page and ask first. Or even better: just stay entirely away from the whole issue, and never make that kind of edit again, ever, even if you think it might be within the policy for some reason; leave it to someone else to do it, and go find something else you enjoy doing here.
If you succeed in getting unblocked, and make the same mistake again, you will likely be blocked for a very long time, probably forever. Good luck, and I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Thank you for your tips. I was not trying to be argumentative, however, but was actually curious where they were coming from. And I was not arguing about what Wiki rules are; it's moot for me to do that given the fact that they probably have much more experience than I do. I was asking what made them think that's what was going on. With all due respect, I don't, however, subscribe to the idea that "they have more power than I do, so I should just shut up and tacitly accept whatever they said". Blocking someone is a pretty serious matter, and I feel like I deserve an explanation. After all, Wikipedia is not an autocracy last time I checked. And I have an explanation in return as well, especially regarding the edits you reversed. I'm sure you noticed that I renamed the article to account for the variant spelling, which I read from Wiki's policy about WP:POFR. Seeing as I didn't know how to make the other page redirect to the original one without messing with the history, I decided to move the current page to the one that carries the variant spelling. I'm pretty sure there's another Wiki policy somewhere saying that the article name and the primary term in the article body should match, so I changed those as well, and I explained that in the description. I'm sure you've seen these. Trying to "secretly change ENGVAR" was not my intention.
@Swarm: I feel like there's a huge misunderstanding. I never denied I've made a lot of ENGVAR changes; I readily admit it. I merely said I don't see them as unsubstantiated/unjustified for the most part. By and large, I've made changes that either were cleanup changes for articles which already were tagged with a certain ENGVAR, were articles with obvious strong ties (as you mentioned, Indian articles), or were internally inconsistent and could've swung either way (in terms of which ENGVAR to pick), so I changed those to Oxford (a neutral variant). Given Wiki's BOLD and WP:EDITCONSENSUS policies, these all seemed valid things to do. Correct me if I'm wrong. You'll notice I've made changes on articles like British America, Hawaii, United States of America, etc. which all have been tagged with US English, and I didn't touch their ENGVARs. Similarly with articles about some Australian and Botswanan topics as well. This should be enough to show that I'm following MOS:RETAIN. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong in this. Frankly speaking, regarding requesting access for AWB, I only was doing that because I wanted to change a bunch of articles related to Shaivism to use the new template name. I guess it was my foolishness to include "spelling changes" in the text as well since I modelled my request off of the others on the page, but never intended to make spelling changes using AWB anyway. In retrospect, this seems like a poorly thought-out and callous request that came back to bite me, and I can see how that might've raised red flags. It was never my intention, I promise. If you still think I acted in bad faith, I'm fine with not making ENGVAR changes anymore if they don't already relate to strong ties or articles which are already tagged with a certain ENGVAR, which I feel like aren't the points you have a problem with and are not Wiki rule violations anyway. Let me know what you think. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
As I said, I'm letting your ENGVAR changes that could be argued to have "strong national ties" slide. There are plenty of those and those get a free pass. That is not what this is about. This is about you making ENGVAR changes to the contrary of RETAIN, which you have, quite simply, been doing. Do you think we give policy violations a free pass just because they only happen 30% of the time, or 15%, or 5%, or even 1%? No, if a problem is happening again and again, it's stopping, period. And if that means the user is no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia at all anymore, then that's exactly what is going to happen. Your explanation is unconvincing and invalid, whether you believe it or not. This is not rocket science. RETAIN is clear. If consistent usage of an ENGVAR has been established, keep it. If there is inconsistent ENGVAR usage, it reverts back to the first-used ENGVAR. It does not default to "Oxford English". That is yet another rule which you have blatantly just made up, ignoring the actual one. All of the examples I posted, assuming you identified ENGVAR inconsistencies, should have reverted to American English per this rule. I checked. I don't have the time nor patience to review every word in every article to confirm whether or not you actually identified inconsistencies. However, it is easy to see in Intrinsic and extrinsic ageing, there were no inconsistencies. The article used "aging" in the title and throughout the text, with 100% consistency. You converted the ENGVAR anyway. So it doesn't really matter whether there were inconsistencies, because if there were, you ignored the rule, and when there weren't, you ignored the rule and converted them anyway. So your excuses simply don't hold up. As I already pointed out, the unblock condition is firm, and it is not asking a lot. The fact that you are trying to negotiate an alternative solution in which you can continue to convert ENGVARs at your own discretion shows a serious detachment from the gravity of the situation, a continued failure of basic judgment, and a concerning obsession on the need to continue to implement ENGVAR conversions. I assure you, this project is not going to suffer without your ENGVAR conversions, and you are not trusted to continue making ENGVAR conversions that you feel are justified. This is not some "misunderstanding". This is the kind of block that is well researched and well thought out. That is why I already said that I am not going to play games with you and pleading innocence is not going to work. We're well past that point. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Swarm: I already explained the issue with Intrinsic and extrinsic aging/ageing above; I was trying to get the variant spelling to redirect to the same article. Anyway...it seems like you think you've "figured me and my intentions out" regardless of what I'm saying; I don't think I'm going to have success convincing you otherwise, so that's fine. I will not be making any more "controversial" ENGVAR changes. I just want to make sure this doesn't include cleaning up articles which've already been tagged with an ENGVAR and articles with strong ties, since you said those get a free pass? Could I get my editing privileges back now? Getsnoopy (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Again, your excuse with Intrinsic... does not make sense. It quite literally is nonsensical. You changed the article name, "not to change the article name itself" (which you did), but "to account for the variant spelling (i.e., so that both variants would lead to the article)". What you're referring to is creating a redirect. You know what a redirect is and how to create one, because you've done it before, many times. Differences in spelling is not a reason to implement an ENGVAR conversion. Chalk this up as yet another example of you inventing your own rules to justify your ENGVAR changes and then passing them off as if they make sense and are reasonable. Nope. I tell you again and again, I'm not playing games, and yet you insist on trying to play me for a fool with these nonsensical excuses. I tell you again and again that the unblock condition is firm, and yet you keep trying to manipulate the offer. No, "controversial" ENGVAR changes is not the offer. You're not trusted to implement ENGVAR conversions, period. I already said this, so I'm wondering why you're making me repeat myself over and over again? This is not about me "thinking" anything, I objectively reviewed your edits and found repeated policy violations and deceptive excuses. The required adjustment on your part has been offered from the very beginning, and you are not going to manipulate your way out of it. If you don't believe me, and want to continue this charade, you'll have your talk page access revoked before you have your editing privileges restored. At this point you're either trolling or there is a competence issue. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Swarm: I am not trying to "play games"; I'm merely trying to make sure what the conditions are, as I don't want to be blocked again. I don't know why you're getting unnecessarily hostile. You keep saying "ENGVAR conversions", but in my mind, cleaning up an article that's already tagged with an ENGVAR to conform to said ENGVAR is not a "conversion" but simply making it conform, which is why I keep asking if that's off the table as well. I do a lot of this, especially with articles on Indian topics. If so, then fine. I just need to know exactly what I can't do so we don't end up here again. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
GetSnoopy, please re-read the good-faith message I wrote you above above. Your protestations notwithstanding, and whatever your actual motivations may be, you are coming across as argumentative, and playing by your own rules, and having the profile of someone not here to improve the encyclopedia. I tried to help you once before, and this is my last try: you are skating on very thin ice, now, and if you want to keep editing, I suggest you cut the sass, don't challenge anything any admin says, and refrain from offering your analysis of what happened in the article, or who might be right, or what the evidence shows, or what your opinion of cleaning up an article is. Just stop all of that. If you can promise to stay away from anything remotely looking like an ENGVAR issue for a long time, like a year, and do so convincingly, you may just be able to step back from the abyss and avoid getting your talk page access revoked. So far, nothing you've said has made me very hopeful you'll be able to do that, which makes me a bit sad, because it makes me think I'm wasting my time trying to help you. Now, please prove me wrong, by doing the right thing. This is probably your very last chance, so don't blow it. Mathglot (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Thank you for your message again. As I've already said in my previous message, I've agreed to stay away from ENGVAR completely if that's what it takes. I merely asked a clarification question; I'm confused as to why that's drawing so much ire. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
See, this is why I keep mentioning "playing games". Your communications seem willfully manipulative. You didn't say you would stay away from ENGVAR completely. You didn't ask any clarification questions. Your list of fabrications grows longer with each reply. I am not getting remotely hostile. No one is directing any ire towards you. You have repeatedly tried to change the deal. You have repeatedly tried to feign ignorance and innocence. Why you were blocked was explained. What you did wrong was explained. What you need to do was explained. If you're confused by the term "conversion", it shouldn't matter, because that's not the term I used in your block log ("needs to agree to stop changing ENGVARs") or your initial block message "voluntary topic ban from ENGVAR changes". Nothing complicated, convoluted or difficult was said here. Many of your ENGVAR changes were in violation of the policy, thus, you are no longer trusted to implement ENGVAR changes, and thus, you need to stop making ENGVAR changes, period. Again and again I repeat myself, but the second I call you out on bad faith argumentation, I'm being hostile? No. This tactic is not going to work either. As Mathglot has warned, you are on the absolute razor's edge of having this block converted from a Disruptive editing block with a simple resolution, to a NOTHERE/CIR block. That is not me being hostile, that is the point that your argumentation and failure to show any understanding of why you are blocked has led to. No more excuses, no more playing dumb and innocent, either you're accepting the straightforward offer or you're not. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
My clarification questions were asking about precisely the stuff you just clearly explained. Anyway...fine, I will stay away from all ENGVAR changes. Could I please get my editing privileges back now? Getsnoopy (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
You literally did not ask any questions about anything that I was saying. Like, I'm not trying to be pedantic and nitpicky, you literally did not ask the questions you're claiming you asked. This is coming across as continued game-playing and bad faith argumentation. Given the difficulty I'm having in basic human communication with you, I'm extremely hesitant to unblock you, because I am unconvinced that you are even willing or able to understand or follow through to accept these unblock conditions. Frankly, agreeing to an offer that was made in the block message after a massive wall of disruptive argumentative text may be too little, too late. The impression that I have of you is that you are not competent enough to be a part of this collaborative project. I will go against my better judgment and give you one more chance, but I need to be clear that you at least understand where you stand. Your agreement to "stay away from ENGVAR changes" is, in effect, a topic ban, broadly construed. You will be on a final warning status, meaning that anything that can be construed as an ENGVAR change, even if it's one word, will result in the reinstatement of the indefinite block without further warning. Furthermore, we're done with this endless, bad faith argumentativeness. If I see you bludgeoning, misrepresenting policy, or citing rules or standards that do not exist, the indefinite block will be reinstated without further warning. This is not up for debate. Do you understand the conditions of your unblock? ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@Swarm: My goodness. Like I've already said, yes, I understand and agree to stay away from anything ENGVAR-related. Getsnoopy (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Watching, and hoping. If you have any questions, please {{ping}} me here, or contact me at my talk page. Now, get out there and improve some articles! Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Invalid controversial move without discussion

Your controversial, undiscussed move of Anti-aging supplements to another title with a variant English spelling has been reversed; your spelling changes to the content have been reversed as well. Please follow the requirements of WP:RM#CM, and do not move this page, or any page, to another location, merely due to a spelling variation you prefer, where both spellings are correct, unless you can justify it by policy. Normally, this requires discussion at the Talk page beforehand.

In this particular case, I wouldn't bother trying to initiate a Move request discussion on the Talk page, because it is doomed to failure. WP:COMMONNAME applies, and the original title of the article is preferred over your version by ten to one. In other cases in the future, the yardstick is: if *any* editor might reasonably object to the move, then do not move; discuss. That is pretty much all the time, except for really obvious stuff: typos, and the like. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I moved the article to account for the variant spelling (i.e., so that both variants would lead to the article), not to change the article name itself. But thanks for the information; I'll keep that in mind for the future. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

ampere hour

Undid revision 978388375 by Gunnar.Kaestle: Not a typo. See MOS:UNITNAMES and https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9-EN.pdf#page=34

Hi, I can't find anything in the two documents you referred to, that asks for "ampere-hour". The BIPM brochure says "When the name of a unit is combined with the name of a multiple or sub-multiple prefix, no space or hyphen is used between the prefix name and the unit name. [..] When the name of a derived unit is formed from the names of individual units by juxtaposition, either a space or a hyphen is used to separate the names of the individual units." The first sentence refers to the SI-prefix like kilometer or milliampere, and second just says: it depends. The english grammar says that the hyphen is used often to concatenate multiple adjectives before a noun (example: high-voltage transmission line or star-sprangled banner), and there is no hyphen when the first is actually an adverb giving extra information to the adjective (eg. well dressed man). With the hyphen (A1-A2 N), both refer to the noun, without hyphen (A1 A2 N) refers to A2 and that refers to N, in this case the hyphen is not needed as the adverb character already concatenates A1 with A2. With compound nouns, the usual rule in English is to just write them next to each other with a space in between (N1 N2), there may be developments just as in (base ball, base-ball, baseball), were also a hyphen (N1-N2) or a closed compound version without space nor hyphen (N1N2) is used (The German language is famous for the last option N1N2N3N4N5Nx, but in the English language it is rather rare.) Thus, the grammarly links recommends: "A good dictionary is the best place to check whether a compound is open or not." I checked the relevant NIST guideline, in Appendix B, p. 45, it says "ampere hour" without a hyphen. --Gunnar (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gunnar.Kaestle: The latter part of that sentence in the SI brochure is what was in there originally (you'll see this if you look at page 166 of the document where it says "newton-second", for example) and is what is proper for English grammar. Normally when writing open (or even closed) compounds, the first part of the compound modifies the other. You can see this in the examples you cited, especially the one from Grammarly: "dinner table", "fireman", etc. SI units, however, are always on equal grounds. A newton-metre is not "a metre that is of type newton", but merely an amalgamation that is composed of both a newton and a metre. Similarly, a kilowatt-hour is not "an hour that is of type kilowatt", but simply a multiplication of a kilowatt with an hour. The fact that ISO (and, hence, subsequently also the BIPM) recommends the space is because it is compatible with more languages of the world (as ISO is an international body and its standards are used everywhere) and is acceptable in English as well. So while the both are permitted in the SI standard and the NIST standard you cited, the hyphen is not incorrect; on the contrary, it's the more correct form when it comes to English. You can see the hyphen being exclusively recommended in the US GPO Style Manual as well. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I would not call the term "newton-second per square metre" proper for English grammar. It is also written without the hyphen. See p. 6 from this Indian standard which I found online https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/S08/is.4831.1968.pdf - I do not now why the BIPM editor responsible for the brochure has chosen the hyphen or if this was a wilful choice at all. By the way, the BIPM document gives no rule about the product of units, as in ISO/IEC 80000-1:2009 "Quantities and units -- Part 1: General":
 7.2.4 English names of compound units
 In the English language, the name of the product of two units 
 is the concatenation of the two names, separated by a space.
The hyphen is used to indicate that two words belong together in a tight bond. Mathematically speaking this is not needed in this case as (N*s)/m^2 is the same as N*(s/m^2) due to the associative property of multiplication. So maybe that was a spelling mistake, or could you find other hyphenated products somewhere else? Nevertheless, the entry on dynamic viscosity is on page 166, Appendix 1 and it only repeats Resolution 12 from the year 1987. Maybe it was a spelling mistake which has been quoted.
But nevertheless the NIST brochure follows this rule (I don't care if this happened by accident or on purpose) when it writes "ampere hour" without a hyphen.--Gunnar (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gunnar.Kaestle: It is also written without a hyphen, but I'm saying it being written with the hyphen is proper grammar all the same, and has historically been the case. It was a wilful choice; I've spoken to the BIPM director and other staff multiple times. And the SI brochure does give guidance on the product of units; see page 148.
I think you're confusing what is mathematically equivalent with what is semantically equivalent. 1 V⋅A (volt-ampere) is mathematically equivalent to 1 W (watt), but they are written separately in contexts where it is important to distinguish apparent power from ordinary power. Similarly, 1 N⋅m (newton-metre) vs. 1 J to distinguish torque/moment from energy, 1 Bq vs. 1 Hz to distinguish radioactivity vs. frequency, etc. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Chapter 5.3 of the SI-Brochure on unit names (which I already quoted above) just says: "When the name of a derived unit is formed from the names of individual units by juxtaposition, either a space or a hyphen is used to separate the names of the individual units." A juxtaposition of terms is a more broader concept than a product of units, and the consequence is basically: do not write it as a closed compound, so both parts are still separated. But the "newton metre" [N m] is written without hyphen on page 139 (Table 6. Examples of SI coherent derived units whose names and symbols include SI coherent derived units with special names and symbols). So is "pascal second" [Pa s] for dynamic viscosity, thus overriding the dynamic viscosity on page 166 which had a hyphen but was a repetition of the older 1987 decision (resolution 12). Therefore I may conclude that the BIPM, although not writing down the rule that a product of two units is their concatenation with a space in between, follow in practise this rule in their recent publication by giving examples and no counterexamples.
And yes, I know the difference between W (active power), VA (apparent power), var (reactive power) although all are products of voltage and current (please note the difference between scalar and vector products). I also know the difference of a torque in Nm (which is a vector product) and physical work or energy in Ws=J=Nm which is a scalar. Therefore I can't agree that there is a difference in mathematical and semantic interpretation, these are two different types of mathematical operations. --Gunnar (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gunnar.Kaestle: A derived unit formed from a juxtaposition of individual units is only possible by a derived unit that is formed by a product of units. I feel like this discussion is going nowhere. Yes, the brochure happens to use the space currently because it has to use one or the other, so they just picked one; one, specifically, that is also used by the ISO standard. There are no "unwritten rules" here, and they're frankly not necessary, as it explicitly says either one is fine. Like I've already pointed out, the brochure also used the hyphen historically.
Again, I feel like we're going in circles here. If you acknowledge that there is something called "apparent power", as distinguished from "active power", then you've automatically acknowledged a semantic difference between the two, notwithstanding the difference between scalar and vector products. Insofar as those differences are meant to be shown, one is written as a whole unit, watts (W), while the other is written as a product of two units, namely volt-amperes (V⋅A). The latter can either be written as "volt-amperes" (preferably, since it clearly shows the compound nature of the unit), or as "volt amperes". Which is what the SI brochure says. Neither one is incorrect or correct. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
If I may interject (as this discussion seems more active than the one at Talk:Ampere hour#Hyphen), I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia's own guidelines allow both spaces and hyphens for compound units. From MOS:UNITNAMES (scroll down to the "General guidelines on use of units" table and then to the section "Products"):
"Indicate a product of unit names with either a hyphen or a space."
This should, I feel, be sufficient to settle the dispute without arguing over how to interpret SI/IEC/NIST guidelines, since the Wikipedia Manual of Style takes precedence over such external sources. It's also worth pointing out that the MoS expressly discourages changing from one acceptable style to another without substantial reason. Indrek (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we are chasing each other tails in circles. The only juxtaposition of terms in the NIST SI-Guide with a hyphen is the pound-force or kilogram-force respectively, to indicate this is not a mass but force or weight. This is not a product, but a qualifier which gives the pound a special meaning. None of the products of units which are listed in appendix B.8 use a hyphen.
The differences between active, reactive and apparent power are similar to the differences between energy and exergy or absorbed dose and dose equivalent, as both use the same units. BTW, in [1] on page 19 you can read: "The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has introduced the var (symbol: var) as a special name for the unit of reactive power. In terms of SI coherent units, the var is identical to the volt ampere." - again, no hyphen. "The SI unit is newton meter." same page, no hyphen.
Regarding your "Neither one is incorrect or correct." I weakly disagree. Let's say people in general don't care much. Some write it this way and others that way. Then somebody with authority writes a rulebook, but only a fraction follows the rule in the coming years, as still nobody cares. What is the task of a good lexicon? To give an average impression of what can be observed in the population, or rephrase the current state-of-the-art? If there are 4 different birth dates of a celebrity in circulation and resonating in the media, do we print them all or do we pick those with them most credible references? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar.Kaestle (talk • contribs) 06:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gunnar.Kaestle: Again, you're pointing out what the brochures happen to use as opposed to what they say they allow. The NIST brochure explicitly says either one is fine, but they will prefer the space for the purposes of their brochure. You're confusing the issue of not following a standard at all (e.g., writing the kilogram as "KG", "Kg", "kgs", etc.) vs. choosing a variant that a standard explicitly allows (e.g., "l" or "L" for the litre). The cases in the former are incorrect all the time, while those in the latter are never incorrect because, tautologically, you're following what the standard says. FYI, the US Metric Association exclusively uses hyphens, as do many other organizations. Your original point was about the hyphen being grammatically incorrect, which is outright not true, but now it seems like you're arguing that since the brochures happen to use one variant, that that's the only correct way to do it, which is also not true. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Let's have a closer look what the NIST SI-Guide says: "When the name of a derived unit formed from other units by multiplication is spelled out, a space, which is preferred by Ref. [6] and this Guide, or a hyphen is used to separate the names of the individual units." The important word is preferred. This means you are not crucified if you are using a hyphen, but it is the not-preferred spelling way. It means that this variant should phase out over time.
And to the grammar: hyphens are very often used in compound adjectives (high-voltage transmission line), compound nouns are usually put together with a space in between (security blanket, dog kennel), compound nouns with hyphens are rare (bath-room, base-ball). An yes, the NIST brochure has a preferred way and an unfavoured way: this is often done in science and technology to improve clarity and reduce ambiguity. --Gunnar (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gunnar.Kaestle: The more important words are by Ref. [6] and this Guide. Again, like I've said, there's no "phasing one thing out" or another. There are plenty of other guides which exclusively use the hyphen; the NIST guide isn't the canonical source, but it merely echoes the SI brochure with some modifications added in. And I've already talked about how open compounds only work when the former is a modification of the latter, so I don't know why you keep reiterating it. I feel like this conversation has reached the point of diminishing returns, seeing as there are no substantial points made, so I'm going to just end it here. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that you deny that there are authoritative sources. There are, even though they may contradict each other. The only institution which is always right - even if it is wrong - is the pope. So, the NIST SI guide is a canonical source and standards as referenced in [6] are too. BTW, the echo of the BIPM SI brochure is not Special publication 811 (this is an interpretation how to use it, therefore an individual creative work) but Special Publication 330 (adoption to American English and a few minor changes).
@Gunnar.Kaestle: you deny that there are authoritative sources No, I don't; quite the opposite. I've been saying since the beginning that the only authoritative source that matters, the SI Brochure, says that either one can be used. And therefore, that is the end of the conversation. The fact that SP 330, SP 811, and even the WP MoS echo the same sentiment (that either one can be used) is merely added confirmation of the fact, since they're all based on the original document. The problem is that you seem to be reading into subtext that isn't there, such as "they are trying to phase it out", etc. I've talked to the BIPM director, so I can confirm: there is no such thing. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gunnar.Kaestle: It seems you're conflating two different things. Someone's date of birth is an issue of content, and subject to content guidelines like WP:RS. The spelling of compound units, on the other hand, is an issue of style, and the relevant guideline is WP:MOS (not NIST, nor IEC, nor Grammarly).
You started this discussion by saying you couldn't find anything in the MoS about hyphens. Now that I have quoted the relevant section to you on two different talk pages, perhaps you could explain why you keep making the same edits to change from one acceptable spelling to another? Indrek (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The Style Guidelines are not invented here by the Wikipedia community from thin air, but they are also founded on good scientific practise. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#References --Gunnar (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The MoS is based largely on external style guides, yes, but it is also modified from them to suit Wikipedia's particular needs and shaped through consensus discussions. Importantly, where the MoS agrees with an external source on any particular issue, it does not do so merely because that source exists. Likewise, just because an external source provides a recommendation on a specific issue, does not mean the MoS necessarily needs to be updated to include that recommendation. In fact, unless it can be demonstrated and agreed upon that a particular rule (such as preferring space over hyphen instead of simply allowing both) is necessary to improve Wikipedia, it is best left out altogether. If the MoS does not need a rule on something, then it needs to not have that rule. All of this is explained in greater detail in MOS:FAQ2, section "Why does MoS exist, and do I have to follow it?" Indrek (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Moves

Hi. I took care of your requests at WP:RM/TR, but just wanted you to know, in case you don't already, that you should be able to do these kinds of moves yourself. As long as there is not more than one edit at the redirect that points back to the article to be moved, any autoconfirmed editor should be able to move that article over the redirect. Station1 (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Station1: Hmm...all of the previous times I've tried that, it would complain that the page already exists. Maybe it was because there was more than one edit for all of those articles. Thanks for the tip and for the moves. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Getsnoopy/Archive_1&oldid=1089961443"