User talk:IHateYouTyrannousAddies

Wurlitzer

Even the company website has it that way. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Wurlitzer#Wurlitzer_or_WurliTzer.3F

If you want to put forward the case for your capitalisation of it, that's the place. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And please read MOS:TMRULES: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you two go through and put your "fixes" on all the other ones that had already been that way for eons, instead of just singling mine out?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the solution to fixing potentially incorrect formatting is not to add more incorrect formatting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, @NeilN:, I wasn't asking you to go change the other ones to "WurliTzer"; I was asking you why you don't go "fix" the other "wrong" ones ("WurliTzer," like the logo) to your "correct" style, "Wurlitzer," like you were doing to mine. If you're going to do that to mine, then why not go through the entire article to be consistent?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, we know there's "junk" on Wikipedia. Lots of it. The solution to fixing that is not to add more junk. You can either a) fix it yourself or b) wait for someone else to fix it. Obviously a) is more preferable. Your edits are being scrutinized because they are recent changes which makes it more likely that other editors will look at them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, Neil. I'm not asking you to add more of what you call "junk" (by turning even more of "Wurlitzer" into "WurliTzer" to match the style); I'm asking you why, if you dislike my edits so much, you don't go take away all of the rest of that which you call "junk" by turning the so many other instances of "WurliTzer" into "Wurlitzer" the way you prefer it. Get it?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and it's something regular editors commonly hear. "If you're removing my unsourced addition, why don't you remove everything that's unsourced?" "If you're putting up my article for deletion, why aren't you putting up these other articles?" "You checked the source I added and said it wasn't reliable. Did you check all the other sources?" Fixing one instance of an issue does not obligate the editor to fix all instances of that issue. However I did go back after Andy reverted and changed all the capitalizations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, @NeilN:, for not responding to you about this earlier. After all, I'm the one who wanted a follow-up response on it, right? Then I should be responding timely, right? I just didn't notice it until now.

I did, however, already notice that you fixed the other instances, and have sent you a "thanks" via the edit summary! But if you wouldn't mind, can we explore my curiosity for a minute? What would cause an editor to be fixated on one or two particular instances of a problem--or just "problem"--but not be mindful that there might be other instances of that same... ughhem... "problem," to go down and fix as well?

And then if they're going to take care--or "take care"--of the one or two, then why "shouldn't" (I know that quotes marks were not designed to be used as emphasis markers, and anyone who tries to use them as such is a moron) they fix all of the problems or "problems" just as a matter of being consistent, especially if the "problem" they think they've spotted is so prevalent through the article? It's kind of dumb to only focus on fixing 1-3 instances of something and then just leave the others alone, is it not?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

For some reason I didn't get notified of your ping. Anyways, many editors patrol recent changes, through watchlists or other means. They're focused on the change that was just made (e.g., [2]). For example, if I see a problematic change, I will revert that change, and perhaps scan the text surrounding it. I won't go through the entire article, trusting it's okay, unless there's a specific reason for me to do so. In this case, it took me too long to pick up on what you were saying - I apologize for that (I thought the other places were discussing the logo). Once I did, I made the fix. I won't always do that. Referring to my previous post, I will remove an addition that really needs a reference. If the other editor complains about other unsourced text, I'll probably look at it (if the article isn't pages and pages long) and might decide the info is uncontroversial enough that it doesn't need a reference. The other editor is of course free to disagree and take some sort of corrective measure themselves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, @NeilN:, for your good explanation. So if I understand right, then the takeaway from that is that most Wikipedians are just lazy brats, but you appeased me by taking my suggestion (once you understood what I meant). Right?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's your takeaway then I think I'm done here. Good luck. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, no, @NeilN:. Did you misunderstand again? By my saying "but you appeased me by taking my suggestion" was supposed to mean that you were not one of the most, which I thank you for. So then that wasn't calling you lazy too, see? But then my question was if most (not you, though, because you actually took my suggestion) Wikipedians were lazy because they only want to watch and fix recent changes. Right?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand. Every editor has different things they like to do. Some create fantastic content, some check new articles, some fix little tiny formatting issues, some add categories to articles, some focus on medical articles only, some look for pictures to add to articles, some do a little of everything. This does not make them lazy brats as there are hundreds of tasks to do when building an encyclopedia collaboratively. If a user volunteers their time to improve one little aspect they're interested in, that's great. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So, @NeilN:, you actually didn't think I calling you lazy, then?

Well, what I meant was that if they only check for and correct the most recent problems but without looking for the rest of the instances of the same problem (so they're just skimming the surface--which is not what I do; if I see a problem at the top, then I look to make sure it's fixed all the way through the artice), doesn't that make them at least sort of lazy?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this page will work for you, but in the last minute alone there have been over fifty changes to articles. Think you can keep up by scrutinizing the changes and then checking the rest of the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I saw that IHateYouTyrannousAddies had tweaked the text of a chat/forum style talk page entry and I assumed it was connected. Note to IHateYouTyrannousAddies: please do not refactor the talk page entries of others, not even to correct grammar or spelling. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @NeilN:.

Um... okay, @Binksternet:, I guess I won't do that. But would you not mind please telling me why fixing grammar errors in talk pages should be off-limits even though people who write in those talk pages are other editors and they write for articles in a place where they should be glad to have someone helping them keep correct grammar, word-usage, spelling, and punctuation, etc.?

Also: then why is it "okay" for someone else to move my stuff around and add indentation for me, etc. (not that I'm offended by that, but just for comparison in the sake of the discussion)?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPO.

It is very limited when it's a good idea to "fix" existing things on a talk page. It's not usually needed, it's frequently a way to irritate other editors (accidentally or deliberately). Some editors manage to achieve that accidentally when their new "fixes" are actually incorrect, or simply because it highlights the fallibility of the first editor. A few editors use revisions to deliberately ridicule others. So unless it's pretty much essential (usually because headers are so broken as to break archiving or linking) then leave it well alone! Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @Andy Dingley:. But then why is it supposed to be "that much more offensive" in a talk page than doing the same kinds of corrections to writings from the same editors?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles presented to the general reader use proper English. Talk page posts are much more informal. It's like the difference between a company web page and internal company email. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Even so, @Andy Dingley: and @NeilN:, if they're aiming to be experts at writing things, then why wouldn't they want to stay in practice during their less-scrutinized writings (which is what I do)? For example, why wouldn't they want to remember to not include an errant apostrophe here in a talk page just like they don't include it in an article (it's easier to not include, anyway, right)?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They're not aiming for being an expert on writing. They just want to discuss content or make a suggestion. It's like you receiving an email from a colleague: "Hey - wanna go for lunch?" or "Pls see the attached. Allisons suggestions are good but need some tweaking." Plus we have a lot of editors who have English as their second or third language. As long as they can communicate clearly and their article contributions are up to snuff, why annoy them? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I sent a new response to yours right here. It's below, but unindented.

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC) vvvv

Hmm, that's interesting, @NeilN:. Well, by "expert on writing," I meant "good enough that it doesn't have any mistakes that make them sound non-pro." I'd think that if they wanted to stay that good, then they should want to practice it in a talk page and not be annoyed if someone else helps them along there. I guess I'll just never understand why they wouldn't. Plus, if they aren't that good in the talk pages, then how do they suddenly become that good when it's time to "go pro" for the articles themselves?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Echoing what Andy said, the two most common fixes are fixing layout issues and fixing formatting issues per WP:TPO. Changing actual text is only done if it contains something unacceptable (personal attack, BLP violation, trolling, etc.). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Even then, we would avoid changing something. We might remove it, strike it through, or replace it with [redacted], but what we don't do is to make silent "editing" changes that aren't obviously changed afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hey, @PhilKnight:, when I had my two accounts (the other with the name that looked a lot like this one but just had the typo) and then saw that that looked like a sock puppet, I understood that. And thanks for working with me on that. So then I was using only this account, and I thought we were done. But now, suddenly I've found myself blocked again! But for what?

Wait, as you read this, please don't think, "TL;DR"! All of this stuff needs to be said in order for the points to be made.

Oh, and now I've seen that even another admin, bratland, has suspected that somehow I could've been the 2 IPs from Spain who edited Tire after I got done with it. (I see myself in the SPI now, but couldn't before), but I already wrote a rebuttal on the talk page of one as to why I couldn't be that one, but he doesn't believe me; however, he never said anything on that page, so it's like he's trying to play his own stealth game. How would I get an IP address from Spain, and what motivation would I have to continue to edit that even after an admin showed why I was breaking a Wikipedia rule there? He doesn't even believe that I would've gone back to just see what might've been going on at that article after I edited it before--as if he never does that.

Those edits are purely coincidental to have come right after mine there, but I promise that I had nothing to do with them. I don't know a single person there That's just proof that some editors are too happy to jump to conclusions!

I can't even defend myself against him on the SPI even though I can now find myself there, obviously because of this block! WP should have a policy that being blocked doesn't stop you from responding at SPI or ANI in order to defend yourself! Why couldn't I see myself on the SPI right after those incidents on "Tire"?

Now, as for the first other admin I mentioned, there's this:

I looked through what I had written and found the place where another admin seems to have confused me for another editor just because... I looked at connected talk pages and I guess I sound like him or something just because we both have similar concerns about a problem with one of the sources in that article, as if when 2 or more people discuss against the same problem, they both have the same writing style. Well, how are you both supposed to discuss the same problem without sounding like each other to some degree? So that admin doesn't seem to understand that more than one person can have the same ideas as another (which is where I thought consensus came from... but maybe not... [shrug...]).

This other admin claims here that I created this account only to abuse the site. I'm confused about how that could be the case. Does my list of contributions have abusive things in them, or isn't it made up of improvements? So even if I had had multiple accounts, where could those edits have amounted to abuse?

I looked at that other editor (the one I got compared to) for a bit, but I have a concern that he/she didn't seem to have there (unless I missed it), which was that there was a weird statement of the abbreviation of the name of the programming block. That just seems cheesy to me.

As for our shared concern (consensus) against the one citation, the problem with that one is that it makes the false claim (yes, from a big source, but even the biggest companies can make mistakes too) that Saturday morning cartoons are completely gone ("R.I.P., Saturday morning cartoons"). Just like that other editor thinks (actually, it looks like even some others think the same basic thing), I had seen another channel that still has some Saturday morning cartoons--not in a block, but still, they are cartoons on TV on a Saturday morning (even channels that aren't the Cartoon Network, etc.). But then another thing is that they seem to feel like it would be the end of the world for Wikipedia if they don't use that corrupt source there (instead of none, since they apparently can't find a good replacement). There's just this one stronghold guy there (spshu) who seems to think he's the boss of that article (with the way he was reacting when he warred with someone--not me--recently), and that if he doesn't make sure that corrupt citation is still there, his life will be over!

Last time I checked, wasn't the lack of source better than a corrupt one (no matter how reliable that given company had been in the past), just like the case is with so many other things here (not every tiny mention of anything has a citation attached)?

And in case anyone thinks I was edit-warring, I should say that I wasn't doing that. I was careful to use the B/R/D cycle. I made my Bold edit, but then it got reverted. So then I Reverted it back, and then went to the talk page and started a Discussion (well, actually two; one for the other concern too). So was I edit-warring? No. Was I abusing Wikipedia while sounding like someone else? I don't think so, but maybe I need help identifying it if I really was, but that other admin didn't say what, obviously. I just know that I got compared and it was thought that because I brought up the same concern, somehow it can't be like other situations where someone has the same idea as someone else. So now it seems like if I ever get unblocked and then try to edit that again, he'll just think again that I was abusing the system somehow. I really don't get it.

Besides that, shouldn't I have gotten a warning from that admin about what his concern is before just being blocked--especially indefinitely? The problem is that where I've read, a few admins (or at least a mix of admins and regular users) like to just assume sock-puppetry without really investigating. That seems common here.

Anyway, a block to me isn't necessary because I can prove that I wasn't warring, which then means that I wouldn't vandalize or otherwise disrupt that article (or any other article, for that matter).

So... what do you think you want to do here? Wouldn't it make sense to unblock me? Also, will you please look into helping others understand the problem with that corrupt citation at One Magnificent Morning ("RIP...") so that it doesn't keep getting used (since it errantly states the disappearance of all Saturday morning cartoons)?

I agree that if unblocked, I'll do my best to follow the rules. But there is no rule to not remove corrupt citations, correct?

IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've run a checkuser, and your account is  Technically indistinguishable from IDriveAStickShift (talk · contribs). In this context, I'm declining you request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hey, @PhilKnight:, how does that work, then, since people's addresses can change, and I'd never know if mine now would be the same as it was 2 days ago (which would then have me wondering how our addresses could be the same if there are so many for the systems to choose from at any given point)?

Also, Phil, let's set up a scenario for this next question, just for the discussion. Will you please try to follow the logic with me through a chain of events that should help determine why I should not be blocked? (This is kind of long, but again, I can't think of how to shorten it while still making all the necessary points.)

Okay, so even if, in this scenario, I were that Stickshift guy, then true, that could make me a sockpuppet of him or her--but only if I was abusing the system with the other account. Right? So then the question would be this: What abuse would I have been causing?

Let's say that your answer is that the other admin thinks that was block-evasion, since I see that Stickshift is blocked too. Then we would need to determine why that user was blocked. In reading that user's talk page, one might see that it was because he or she was editing without being logged in. Right? Well, that's the claim, anyway.

So then, in that case, if the only thing Shift was doing was editing while not being logged in, then that, also is not abusing the system, which then would be saying that Stick wasn't sockpuppeting either, which then means that even Stick's block was invalid also. Are ya following me so far?

So then even if running a checkuser thing makes an admin think that Stick and I are the same person, but if Stick wasn't abusing the system by just editing while logged in and you think I'm that person, then this account should not be blocked because Stick's account was never supposed to have been blocked, since Stick says he/she was only editing without being logged in, which is allowed.

So the only thing left for us to determine, then, Phil, is: if StickShift was really sockpuppeting (which again means that while having 2 or more accounts IS allowed as long as you don't abuse the system), that means he/she had to have been doing something to abuse the system while editing without being logged in. Right? Still following me?

Then that means the last question in the chain is this: What was StickShift doing that has the admins think he/she was abusing the system while editing without being logged in, which then created this chain of my being blocked? If we determine, then, that Stick was never to have been blocked for simply editing without being logged in, then that chain to me means that even if I am that person (again, assuming just for this scenario that I even am that person just because somehow our IP addresses could've matched at some point, according to checkuser), I was not abusing the system because I was not evading a block because Shift's block wasn't supposed to have happened in the first place. Following me still? Make sense?

Then what was Stick doing to abuse the system during editing while not being logged in? Nothing? That means I shouldn't be blocked either, because there was no legitimate block that I was evading. Right? Then that means the thing to do would be to unblock us, right? (If we're the same person, then having both the accounts is allowed as long as they don't abuse the system. This, again, is just for the discussion.)

If not, then what was Stickshift doing that abused the system during editing while not being logged (which, certainly you could tell me without breaking some sort of privacy rule if you indeed think we're the same person)? IHateYouTyrannousAddies (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've revoked your talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)