User:Pmanderson/sandbox

This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_is_a_good_article%3F&diff=95708760&oldid=95665336 edit] is deplorable; I trust it will not recur. If we are going to have an interim form until consensus, it should either be the day before yesterday's text, or the last undisputed form, from August. (It should also not make an incomplete and inaccurate account of the extent of the dispute.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation on

{{Article|Triangle}}. {{3RRV|81.158.253.8}}:

• Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&oldid=102641165 10:55 Jan 23 2007]

• 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&diff=prev&oldid=102785072 23:48 23 January]
• 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&diff=prev&oldid=102868951 09:18 24 January]
• New version [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&oldid=102872725 09:53 24 Jan]
• 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&diff=102941167&oldid=102872725 17:45]; adds a phrase
• New version: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&oldid=102971366 20:06]
• 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&diff=102973334&oldid=102972575 20:15]
• 5th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&diff=next&oldid=102976339 20:36]
• 6th revert [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&diff=next&oldid=102979464 20:46]

• Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.158.253.8&diff=102979841&oldid=102683141 20:45]

Comments:The previous version is itself a reversion, as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triangle&diff=prev&oldid=102641165 edit summary] shows; this is only the last 24 hours. Except for the third, which added three words, these are exact reversions; the "new versions" above are in fact almost complete reversions (one did a move; the other readded the same text to a slight revision of my own. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The hopeful edits of those who do not capitalize English correctly, however, do not constitute English usage in any sense, academic or otherwise. It may be a good idea to establish a Pidgin (Creole? Koine?) English Wikipedia, but this is not it.

[i.e., Do you believe it can be useful in some form?]

[Vote in the appropriate section, "yes" or "no".

[You can vote any of the options, or vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth]

In the alternatives given below, the original pages means: those policy or guideline pages that, in accordance with consensus established in response to question 2, should be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution. WP:ATT is not everywhere verbally identical with its sources. Its supporters assert it makes no changes in policy, but is better phrased.

[You can vote any of the options, or vote 1st option, 2nd option and so forth]

Far more seriously, in the process of finding out what is meant here, I find that the following sentences are cut-and-paste directly from their sources, without quotation marks. (I have rewritten some; the original is in [brackets] below. Identical portions are in italics.)

This is unacceptable on three grounds:

• It risks copyright violation. WP:IANAL, and I do not know the limits of American copyright law, which governs, but WP:COPYVIO is quite severe.
• It is intellectually dishonest for Wikipedia to produce and disseminate other people's prose, even such humdrum prose as the list of elements in the CRC handbooks. Remember, our mirrors will broadcast this page.
• It is an invitation to bad writing. The level of detail, and the emphases, appropriate to a different article, often with a narrower focus and a different context, may not be appropriate to us. Read; understand; write your own paragraphs.

;Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

• ''

• Three-revert rule violation on

{{Lw|Manual of Style (dates and numbers)}}. {{3RRV|Tony1}}: Time reported:

• Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&oldid=151639370 17:54, 16 August 2007]

• 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=next&oldid=151827398 14:22, 17 August 2007 ]
• Reverting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=prev&oldid=151827398 edit of 14:18] by User:Michael Hardy
• 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=151848046&oldid=151847961 16:10]
• Note edit summary acknowledging revert.
• A reversion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=next&oldid=151639370 this edit], which had been modified by other people in the interim.
• 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=151954139&oldid=151953589 02:18]
• Note edit summary acknowledging reversion
• 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=151977315&oldid=151977180 04:49 18 August]
• Reverting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=prev&oldid=151968973 edit of 03:54] by Michael Hardy

• These are a typical 24 hours of Tony's editing; please note that he has reverted several different editors, often with different versions of the same issue.
• This is as significant in WP space as it is in article space, often more so; Tony1 is claiming ownership over the whole MOS. If one revert-warrior determines that a guideline shall not change unless he is consulted first, the presumption that it is stable because it is consensus is damaged. Some of these are several independent editors making different edits in the same direction, all reverted by Tony1.
• These are not all to the same basis; he edits himself, mostly without consultation; I have included only the complete reversions, and the edit reverted.
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=151943083&oldid=151942697 This threat] of mindless revert-warring against me just puts the icing on the cake.

:incredibly unprofessional and illogical and goes against every known published style guide

When looking, for other good reasons, at SandyGeorgia's edit history, I found the name of an article she had commented on the day before interesting, and commented on a related AfD, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Pliers&diff=prev&oldid=176429876 here]. I have now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pmanderson&diff=176536844&oldid=176491957 received a warning] claiming that this one occurence is Wikistalking. This seems to me a much tighter definition than the "following a user around Wikipedia" that WP:STALK uses; it has been combined with an undiscussed revert of a copyedit, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FAR-instructions&diff=176535730&oldid=176423582 here].

If it is consensus that this was stalking, I will apologize, and suggest that WP:STALK be reworded; but I don't think this was, or can have been, the intent. Good editors visit interesting articles which I did not know existed. I trust, on the other hand, that this is not an effort to use admin powers to gain an edge in a wording discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)