User talk:Lighthumormonger

Archives

(Talk page archives) Archives index page Archive 1: 04/05/23 - 12/31/23 Archive 2: 01/01/24 - 02/22/24 Archive 3: (planned future)

I saw your post at Randy Kryn's talk page. What exactly is the nature of the confusion? I've re-read the pertinent MoS material, which has been stable for a very, very long time, and there's nothing I can see that's unclear in it, but that might be because of my familiarity with it; if there's some wording in there that's confusing for you, what is it?

MOS:LQ is really quite simple: Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. All the other material there is just examples, and some quibbles about not "doubling up" terminal punctuation, and not applying to the full sentence any special terminal punctuation (question mark or exclamation point), that belongs to the quote, or vice versa. (There's also the principle that we don't change a terminal period (full stop) into a comma inside the quotation. This was illustrated with an example but not stated as clearly as it could have been; fixed [1].

You wrote "In one instance it says that the quote can be before the last punctuation mark, but within the same section it says it can be after the punctuation mark." But that isn't the case. Nothing in there suggests that the terminal punctuation can be placed inside or outside the quotation randomly or by whim, and there are not faulty examples there.

As for MOS:ENGVAR, it says National varieties of English ... differ in vocabulary..., spelling..., and occasionally grammar..... Nothing about punctuatation. Even if it did address some kind of punctuation thing some day, MOS:LQ is obviously and necessarily an exception to any ENGVAR notions, otherwise it could not exist as part of MoS in the first place. LQ even specifically states Use the "logical quotation" style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. So, there is no conflict here. If there's some actually unclear wording, that should be fixable.

As for why Wikipedia uses logical quotation, see the second point at MOS:FAQ for the short version. It's not the most familiar system for a lot of writers, but you get used to it quickly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for some reason I cannot find the edits that I was concerned about. What I recall was that an editor was indiscriminately going through every single quote that occurred at the end of a sentence and placing the period mark after the quote mark. That is generally how people in places that use British English are taught to punctuate things. Doing an online search for the terms ("American English" "quote marks") there is no real uniformity in the rules I have found. Of course the APA MOS is considered the definitive rule, but the rules shown in the APA MOS are much more complex than those shown in our MOS.

To make a long story short, this little exercise in punctuation regulation, has caused me to learn more, and I thank you for that. Being an American, perhaps I have an instinctive dislike of the sense that I am being forced to use British grammar and punctuation in what are basically articles about American things. It seems to me that there is a subtle drift in Wikipedia, ever since Jimmy Wales moved to London, British English, and British'isms have begun to have a slight favorability over American English and American'isms. America is no longer a colony of England, and the UK is certainly not a colony of America! But just look at the dates in the Intuitive Machines Nova-C article. They're all being done in British English in an article about an American space vehicle!

As far as I'm concerned, that article should ideally be written fully in American English and not in British English, but that is not what is happening. Of course the British dating usage in the article is not a serious problem, and I have not complained about it to anyone over there. In my opinion, our MOS needs to be rewritten so that editors here might be able to more easily comprehend this one thing. Shouldn't articles about American topics be written using American punctuation, grammar, spelling, and vocabulary, and shouldn't articles written about British topics be written using British punctuation grammar, spelling, and vocabulary? Thanks for listening to my little rant. Now I will get off of my little soapbox and have some lunch. Not enough time to fix everything in the world (at least I hope not).

So until, if, or when ever our MOS might be able to make this clear and easy for most regular editors of WP to understand, I will not question the relative placement of periods and quote marks again in any of our articles, so long as any given editor is honestly trying to follow our own MOS (which I happen to think could be written a bit more intelligibly.)

Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Moon Barnstar
		For your tireless work on Intuitive Machines Nova-C. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly,

You know you deserve a few dozen of those Moon-stars yourself too!

Lighthumormonger (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Mos:english idioms has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 10 § Mos:english idioms until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Diannaa:,

Thank you for pointing out the fact that there was no cite for the capture of Cherbourg in the D-Day article. If I reinsert the text in the "Aftermath section" along with a suitable cite this next time, would that then be OK with you?

Cheers,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ford & Zaloga 2009, pp. 185–193, Cherbourg was captured on June 26 (not June 22 like you indicated in your edit), but the port facilites were badly damaged, and not brought back into service until September. I will add something to the Aftermath section. — Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa,

I'm pretty sure that the deepwater port of Cherbourg was one of the early major objectives for the Normandy invasion. Putting something in the "Aftermath section" about how Cherbourg relates to the rest of the Normandy landings should be good. I apologize if I was a bit sloppy with that and I thank you for offering to do it. After a closer reading of our article on the Battle of Cherbourg, I realized that while the defenses of Cherbourg began to fall on June 22nd, still the official surrender did not take place until June 29th. Will try to do better next time.

Thanks kindly,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mfb:,

Is there really a Wikipedia rule about "UTC launch times only?" I don't think NASA follows such a rule. If there is such a rule in Wikipedia then I will gladly follow it, but if not then why not use the same conventions regarding flight times that NASA uses when it posts its flight times? I've never heard of such a rule in Wikipedia before, but admittedly there are lots of Wikipedia rules that I've never heard of before. Please let me know about this. As they say, "Knowledge is power." But they also say, "Slow and steady still wins the race." For some reason I seem to lean more towards being "slow and steady" than towards that "knowledge and power" stuff.

Cheers my friend,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it in the spaceflight project style guide: "Since space is not within any Earth-bound time zone, and to avoid regional bias, the WP:WikiProject Spaceflight community has established a consensus (discussed here) to use UTC." NASA is not the only entity doing spaceflight. It's not even the most active one. --mfb (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Mfb:,

That is quite helpful. From now on I will place the UTC time first, but then as one of the posters suggested, I do think that there is no harm done (and probably some benefit derived by) placing the local launch time in parentheses after the UTC time. In the case of the Starliner launch, I see that you already started that. NASA has announced that its launch will take place on May 6. UTC time places the Starliner launch on May 7. In my not so humble opinion, it seems to me that announcing both time-zone times at once as described above is probably the most likely method to eliminate the greatest amount of potential confusion here. Thoughts? Again, thank you for that very helpful information.

Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the local day in brackets because the source says May 6 and the difference could confuse readers, but long-term I think we only need the UTC date there - it's the general Starliner article, no one cares about the exact launch time in this place. --mfb (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kansas Bear:,

I believe that in the West the fall of Rome is officially listed as 476 AD, but in the East it's listed as 1453 AD, which date is the date of the fall of what we in the West call the Byzantine Empire. I think that the fall of the Suljuk Empire may be like that. There is more than one perspective here. I believe that probably both perspectives have a certain amount of legitimacy. Time for a little Gin Rummy!

Thanks for your thoughtful edits,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss the Great Seljuk Empire please post on the article talk page. Oh, and bring reliable sources to support your perspective. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Big Diomede a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Big Diomede Island. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Zsinj^Talk 16:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zsinj:,

Thank you for showing me how to request a "cut and paste move with a history merge." If and when I have to do that again, I will surely request a "cut and paste move with a history merge." Yes, I had to do a manual cut and paste move because there was already a "redirect" at the "target URL." Will request help next time, if I can't yet do it all by myself. I haven't had to do any cut and paste moves like that in my recent memory.

Lighthumormonger (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to inform you that I reverted your edits to Donald Trump. They are constructive, but the information you added was already present in the article here. It may be useful to add information to that section, though, as your information seems more comprehensive than what's already there. If I made a mistake, or otherwise misinterpreted, please let me know. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 16:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Donald Trump article seems to be a bit of a "hot button article!" Lighthumormonger (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Donald Trump/Archive 168, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. (See section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dudhhr:,

I could not quite figure out where archive 168 came from. It looks to me like it might have some important sections that should not be deleted. Please proceed with great caution before deleting that archive.

thanks,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate the actual archive page (Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 168) for deletion, I nominated the article-space page Donald Trump/Archive 168, which you mistakenly created and which contains no content. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dudhhr:,

I only created a redirect on the red article page link. It looks to me like you deleted the entire archive now without carefully looking to see what it was that you were deleting. Please do not delete that archive without at least checking to see what it is on there before you delete it. Is there any chance you could please retrieve it now that you've deleted it? Chill, my friend.

Thanks,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, and do not have the ability to delete pages. The admin Hey man im josh mistakenly deleted the archive page when deleting your improper redirect, but restored it 2 hours later. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 22:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tks, and I'm still not quite sure why you didn't like the redirect, but that's ok. Lighthumormonger (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Commander Keane (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

jp×g🗯️ 19:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we have never accepted one cent during the many years we have edited here, and you clearly have no proof of this. If you did have any proof that we were paid editors, you would submit it here before banning us but you obviously don't. I would love to see your proof here. Please do not make any further false accusations against any of our members with no proof whatsoever. Show me the receipts. Do what you will. If you had read thoroughly over at Meta, you would know that we have been in discussion with WMF, and they have not told us that we were doing anything wrong. Do what you will. Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I had been paid one penny for every hour that I've worked on Wikipedia over the years I would be a rich man right now. I do not appreciate the false claims and accusations that I see here. They are not right. Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this account was created on 2023-04-05, meaning that this post is either untrue or indicates previous accounts. jp×g🗯️ 19:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to this "us," or "we," yet you also continue to be incredibly evasive about anyone else involved in this supposed guild. What gives? The Kip ^(contribs) 20:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The insinuation that we are paid editors without one stitch of proof is totally unacceptable. Wouldn't you find better use for your skills in the Trump campaign? Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at the ANI thread, I think this block is premature, but kind of not surprising. It’s the way our community handles things. If you’d like to discuss this with just one person, let me know. I would want to do it here, on-wiki, instead of by email, though. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern here. I don't know if this Admin was told to block me, or if he just did it on his own. Either way, this type of behavior on WP is "abhorent." I agree that there is a certain type of "opacity" that such actions on WP sometimes involve, which the WEG hopes to one day improve. Meanwhile legitimate editors continue to sometimes get banned here for "silly reasons." Lighthumormonger (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did it on their own. But I wouldn't be surprised if many denizens of WP:ANI would agree, so I can't just unblock unilaterally without sticking my neck WAY out. So, IMHO, the only way to get unblocked would be to provide some clear answers to some clear questions. My main concern is you were getting comments from more than half a dozen people, and there was no clarity involved. I guess that's what I'm offering to do, is ask some clear questions with no rush and from only one person. Let me know if you're interested; I understand if you're not. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Floquenbeam for sticking your neck out for me already! Yes, I would be happy to answer your questions here in a calm and reasonable manner, whatever your questions may be. You are absolutely correct that this is sort of what I call a "gang bang pattern behavior" on Wikipedia, and it is not really the best way to handle things, if you might pardon that expression. Thank you again. I will be happy to answer whatever questions you have. Either give me a numbered list, or give them to me one at a time but they need to be discussed in a calm and decent manner. Not in a "gangbang" manner which is unfortunately occasionally what seems to me to be happening on the ANI noticeboard. Thank you kindly Floquenbeam! Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll ask the first question in a sec. But first, I want to be clear about a few things:

• I'm not sure you shouldn't eventually have been blocked, I just think what happened at ANI was not a good way to find out. I'm not promising to help get unblocked.
• Other people are allowed to ask further questions here. I cannot stop them, even if I think it would be counter-productive for multiple people to ask questions at the same time. I don't have great advice for what you should do (answer them too, or ignore them), there are pros and cons to each.
• I'm not online a whole ton, and I type slowly, and I have other things to do too. So this might take a while. i may stop editing for hours or half a day. I haven't forgotten you.

OK, my first question. Let's call it Q1.

• Q1. You say you've been doing this for a long time. But your account is only about a year old. Please explain. If you have previous accounts, it might be a good idea to list them. (to be clear: if they are legit alt accounts, you're not allowed to edit with them while this account is blocked) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Scottperry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah. See my first bullet, above. Now it's clear a block was needed. Thanks, Ingenuity, for saving me some time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, Here was my reply to you before we got "interrupted" in a sort of a "gang-bangish manner":

Because of the type of harassment I have been receiving for the last five days here, I apologize Floquenbeam, but I can only answer one question now and then I'm going to have to take a few days off. This has just gotten ridiculous. Right now there are five different areas of the WMF/ WP which are asking me to answer their questions, and none of them are willing to go to the main area where I was answering questions at WM: Commons ANI noticeboard.

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004. At this time, I can only tell you that for the first 15 years of my editing at Wikipedia I was never blocked, and that the reason that I was blocked in roughly 2019 was for what I would call a "silly reason." I apologize but the last five days have been a sort of a hell for me, and I'm going to have to take one week off now before I feel I will have the energy I need to put up with this any longer for any further questions. I will be back here to answer them Wednesday afternoon 7/24/2024, next week. If any other particular time after Wednesday would be more suitable for you, please let me know and I will be happy to oblige you. Thanks kindly, Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any time for "gangbangish discussions" until next Wednesday. Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will discuss whatever needs to be discussed on this page with only one person next Wednesday (if I am even still allowed to be here at all by next Wednesday), and hopefully that person would be Flowquenbeam. Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will need to be with someone else. Assuming you are Scottperry (and I trust Ingenuity on this), I'm not interested in pursuing this further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is perfectly fine with me Floquenbeam, whoever it is is whoever it will be, if it is anyone at all. Thank you for your civility and your kindness. Lighthumormonger (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now my real world name has been posted here next to this totally bogus, fictitious, and made up claim that I am a dishonest paid editor. I count that as illegal online libel/ slander. I've contributed many things to Wikipedia over the last 20 years and I just don't think this is the right way to treat such an editor. There will be more. Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please just remove this ridiculous claim, and the associated block so we can all get on with our lives. Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now my real world name has been posted here

So, you admit that you're socking after being blocked at your original account. You'll need to appeal from that account, but this new sock will likely mean no one is willing to unblock you. If you want to get on with our lives, I suggest you find something else to do. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]