User talk:TCN7JM/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TCN7JM. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Archives

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 7 – 8 – 9 – 10 – 11 12 – 13 – 14 – 15 – 16

Current

Perhaps in your country it's obvious, but many motorways in the UK (for instance) have access at certain junctions in only one direction. It's not clear that "access" is "incomplete", and in any case, WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't just be using colours alone to convey information. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if people actually read the note, it would be quite clear that access is incomplete. If you want to start a discussion on this, please use WT:RJL; don't just revert war your preference into a FA. --Rschen7754 22:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We aren't using the colors alone. The colors are used to help portray the incomplete access, not portray it by themselves. There is text stating that the access is incomplete ("Eastbound exit and westbound entrance"), so we don't need more parentheses'd text cluttering it up. What was there was fine when the article was reviewed at FAC, so I see no need for it to be changed now. TCN7JM 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that doesn't explain that access is incomplete. You would have to have inherent knowledge to make that understood. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All the knowledge you'd need is the general knowledge that a normal interchange has an exit and an entrance on each side. The fact that an interchange doesn't have all four ramps makes it incomplete access. TCN7JM 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's US general knowledge. This is English Wikipedia. (Many "normal interchanges" in the UK don't have "four ramps") Hence the issue. Plus many others. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists, it would be great if we could carry on the discussion there! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on feedback for last week’s call for comments we will continue this newsletter. However more community help will be needed. From now on they’ll be drafted at d:Wikidata:Status updates/Next and your help is very welcome.

You are definitely the first person to ever comment on it even though I've been doing it widespread for quite a while. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Tampabay721 (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh heh. Well I just recently watchlisted all the 2013 MLB season pages. Honestly, there's no real violation, I don't think...probably just an overreaction on my own part. (To be completely honest, I hate the Red Sox, too.) TCN7JM 05:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean, I've always followed WP:DBAD, WP:No personal attacks, and all those kinds of policies when dealing with other users, but I've always kind of used the summary box as a way to vent a little when it came towards teams I really hate. Sorry if it offended you. :) Tampabay721 (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's fine. I was just wondering why you were doing that, really. TCN7JM 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved, see User:TCN7JM#Last but not least, my awards

[11] —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

By removing your comment on my talk page, I have acknowledged it and therefore is no active thread since I'm moving past it without a response and encourage you to do the same. You have to slow down a little when you know I'm actively updating the article about a current situation. You did not give the benefit of the doubt and as I mentioned on the talk page already, I go over my edits many times so I would have caught the mistake. It's a petty issue that needs to rest. Using words like "sassy" do not help. P.S. Please avoid "undoing" talk page edits other users make on their own talk page. Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing comments is not how you acknowledge them. The correct way to acknowledge comments is to reply to them. As an aside, there is no policy or guideline that says I can't revive an active thread that you deleted for no good reason on your talk page. I must say you are overreacting to such a small error. Perhaps it is you who needs to cool down. TCN7JM 04:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I know what WP:BLANKING is, Demiurge, but deleting talk page comments is not the correct way to acknowledge them at all. If you want to reply to them and then delete them after the discussion is clearly complete, then sure. But deleting them right off the bat portrays a lack of communication. TCN7JM 04:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If you make a habit of reverting unregistered editors who remove content from their own talk pages, it's likely to end badly. I'll leave it up to you as to how you choose to proceed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fyi: Me? I'm not sure what we have to talk about. Why are you pushing something that is not a big deal? I don't have to respond to something you put on my talk page when we're not in a dispute. That belongs on the article talk page. There is no need to even communicate about it. You had an inappropriate attitude about a minor change I made that I couldn't fix before you did. I'm not the one with the problem nor who is leaving a bunch of messages on my page to get me to reply. It's coming across as "bullying". I appreciate your thanks before, but now you are being too agressive about something very minor. I only cleared up on the edit summary notes that I was going to fix it before you did. Let's move on! Stop putting messages on my talk page to discuss something that is not important. I've concluded my work on the Red Sox page for the most part anyhow. See the 2013 Season talk page for more details. It's over. Let's move on, there was no need to communicate about it in the first place. Ugh! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And I apologized, then you replied with another edit summary that sounded like a blow at me. I am not trying to bully you, but rather think that blanking the section after I placed an open statement makes no sense. Your edit summary replies are just as bad as mine, if not worse. Telling me to "curb my attitude" in two straight edit summaries is unnecessary. I would have liked if you openly forgave me or something instead of just blanking the section. TCN7JM 04:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My last edit summary on talk page: "I don't have to reply to an edit summary message moved to my talk page when no dispute is active nor discussion is necessary and to be bullied with multiple messages by TCN7JM continuing to put messages on my talk page is out of line! Please move on." 99.129.112.89 (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OMG, those edit summaries are on two different articles. They are made within MOMENTS of each other. You act like I'm making a bunch of them on many articles over a course of days or weeks or months. Just because you want to apologize for your tone, doesn't mean I have to say "ok no problem". But for your sake, I will now: Ok, not a problem. Now let's move on. End of discussion! Thanks and good luck... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not the edit summary I am referring to. This is. You referred to the fact that I had said "we've been through this before" for about the fifth edit summary in a row and it came across to me as slightly hostile. TCN7JM 04:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I typed it, I didn't say it. So it's not hostile. Maybe you knew your tone was wrong in your message(s) and now you are wanting to make up for that by defending yourself. But I was only setting the record straight. Your reaction is wrong. You also don't allow enough time to pass before being overly persistent. I suggest you slow down a bit and consider that people are doing other things and need time to fix a mistake or respond. Don't assume. Etc. This isn't a social site, it's Wikipedia (EnCYCLOpedia). I'm seriously done, I don't have to defend myself anymore. My tone is neutral even if yours is/was not. You can spin this around to make me look wrong/bad, but I'm taking the high road and moving on. I've done nothing wrong, you just didn't like that I removed the comment you left. It's not a discussion. According to policy, it does mean I've acknowledged it. But this was what I was avoiding. Please stop pushing it. You're making it a big deal and it wasn't in the first place. Maybe coming across a little less controlling would be best next time. Just a tip! ;) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. It's the fact that I've already apologized for it multiple times, and that you're not acknowledging that and just continuing to be persistent in telling me I was wrong. I already know that that one edit summary was wrong. Also, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by "I typed it, I didn't say it. So it's not hostile." I didn't want to reply to that message, but that alone prompted me to. Could you please explain what you meant by that? TCN7JM 05:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you pushing this? No, you're wrong. I'm not saying you're this bad person, I was simply clearing up your inappropriate response to a minor mistake on the article that I was going to fix before I had a chance to. You're the one making this complicated. And I meant that I typed it, not said it as in you can't tell I'm being hostile by something you read. (especially when not in CAPS LIKE THIS!!!) Understand my point? By the way, are you even paying attention to your own comments you left on my page? It was close-ended. It did not require a response. It says "have a great day" and to let you know on your talk page if there is anything I need to discuss or have a problem with, etc. It's not about an active dispute over content on the page (which would belong on the article talk page). You know how many people have deleted my messages when I actually had questions in the past? Oh, and then you get mad when I removed it after reading it? All of this was for nothing. OK, I get it now. You want me to tell you I read it and "no problem". Or to admit fault or something? That won't happen as I did nothing wrong. No one is picking on you either. You are taking things WAY TOO personal. If anything, you've been harassing me over something so petty and making it like I have the problem. I was only putting you in check for being the rude one in the first place via edit summary which only cleared up why I did what I did before I could change it due to your quick fix. I feel like I'm repeating myself. You're coming on way too strong after I didn't pacify you. This was all very unproductive and inappropriate. Makes your "thank you" message a bit 'tongue-in-cheek'. I'm seriously done... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fyi: there is no policy stating I have to reply to your apology either. Keep that in mind for the next time. I'm also not asking for an apology. I only clarified in my edit summary and you blew it out of proportion. Then you became "abusive" on my talk page. So yeah... Have more patience in the future. Just saying! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was the fact that I wasn't sure we were on the same page. I realize now that I was wrong in the one sense that my first reply was close-ended. I did not mean to become abusive, I just wasn't sure exactly what you were doing. It's more of a personal thing, honestly. I (and probably I alone) think removing contents from talk pages to signify the end of a discussion comes across as the user just not wanting the contents on their talk page. I know that's not what you were doing, you were just following the guidelines, and I probably did take it a bit too personally. I was not criticizing you as an editor, I just was not sure if we were on the same page. I guess we can call this over with now. Sorry for wasting your time. TCN7JM 05:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It was getting to be a bit too emotional for me, to be honest. This type of long discussion should be reserved for disputes about content on Wikipedia articles, not if I replied to a general/generic comment you left on my talk page and why not and how I "feel" about it, etc. You know? Your reaction reminds me of how a person in a relationship would react if their significant other didn't respond soon enough. This isn't the appropriate "venue" for such reactions. Trust me, I know how annoying it is for someone not to get back to you or to lie about why they couldn't in real life relationships/situations, but that's not what this is about. I simply wanted to avoid this and squashed it by accepting your "apology" silently instead of this public display. If you had slowed down some, you might have seen your course of action was a bit "over-the-top". But whatever, it's over. I now return you to your regularly scheduled editing. (smile) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to clear something up... For the most part, at least you are level-headed, mature and thoughtful. Many others been harsh and/or down-right cruel. In general, that has been my experience. So for you to care enough to resolve something and clear up any misconceptions is greatly appreciated. You were nice to thank me for my contributions before and I think the "edit summary comments" were just taken out-of-context. I'm glad we can move on without any damage being done. No hard feelings, and I thank you in advance for any continued support. Take care! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved, see User:TCN7JM#Last but not least, my awards

To User talk:TomCat4680: I'm sorry, I didn't want to take sides in this debate that is...already over, but I need to say that you've been violating WP:OWN on the 2013 Tigers page lately. As the maintainer of the page, you can make some decisions regarding it, but you've been acting like it's yours and yours only to edit and I can't sit here quietly and let that happen. Please be welcoming when other editors try to edit the page instead of scaring them away, no matter if they have a bad attitude. If you're too hard on the newer ones, it scares them away from the site. Regards, TCN7JM 12:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your support and for putting a comment on his/her talk page... have a great day/weekend! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Volume 6, Issue 2 • Spring 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Project creates route list standard Driving down under Meta and Wikidata update ACR becoming active, changing USRD Cup wraps up	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, OK and WA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am just adding some detail to templates. It doesn't matter to me if you want to delete any of them. I will just keep doing what I am doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the previous reviewer's decline reason, would you offer your opinion whether this bridge fulfils GNG? Thanks! (Please reply on my talk page). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've given it only a quick glance, but if it's on the NRHP, it should qualify for GNG. I should be able to comment further in about twenty minutes or so. TCN7JM 20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I usually go for, but some editors were (and are) hesitant to accept Doncram's articles on that basis alone, hence my request for opinion. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC) PS: hope I'm not bothering you.

Thanks. We're trying to get rid of those templates, so I declined that one. If you ever see a Highways in Foo County, Bar template, you can go ahead and decline it. Also, you're not bothering me at all. If you have any questions, I'm here. TCN7JM 23:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good tip. It's not the first one I've encountered. So what called for such a decision (generally speaking)? Thanks a million, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion at the U.S. Roads WikiProject talk page somewhere. I don't think it's archived yet. TCN7JM 00:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You're quick! Wow, that took me about 10 mins to read, but I'm more informed now. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

May the best team win the ALCD this year, good luck! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mention the Royals swept the Twins in April... Hehe! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So you're a Royals fan, eh? I guess we'll see who wins the division. TCN7JM 16:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a baseball fan. I just don't like seeing some teams ignored for so long and thought I'd "boost" the season articles. I'm sure/know the Royals don't get their motivation based on if Wikipedia pages are being updated, but I don't mind rooting for the underdogs. And when I was reading/hearing about how KC had a chance this year and set a spring training record, I went to check the season article and saw it was completely stat-less. I noticed this with many teams this year and previous years, unless it was a "winning" team. So I wanted to help improve/expand the articles for future readers. It's why I am offering to help with many other teams, not just ones I like. For instance, I'm a fan of the Oakland A's and Phillies as well. I "hate" the Yankees! Sometimes $ buys the best players that are snatched from small market teams to get multiple World Series. Duh, we get it NY! I miss the George Bretts and Kirby Pucketts of baseball! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to revert my updates and "tell" me to 'stop' because you're upset about my decision to remove myself from contributions to MLB articles after all the immediate drama that took place the past two days. It's not wrong to inform others based on MY own message about working on an article, that I will no longer be doing so, allowing others to know they can go ahead and contribute if they want or not to expect me. I don't appreciate the "nit-picking" about such petty issues. Let's just leave it at that. I simply informed fellow editors on a TALK page that I would not contribute for their benefit, which I can do, after mentioning I would possibly assist. I can do that. I was going to remove my previous post entirely. But you going behind me and reverting it with "stop messages" is a bit immature and makes me look wrong (again)... not cool! I'm so annoyed with how people can misbehave and change their attitudes very quickly on here... that's not an attack on you, I'm just saying in general. Take care! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes you looks wrong because you are wrong. Did you read the page I linked on your talk page: WP:POINT? TCN7JM 03:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No I am not wrong, I believe you are. That "rule" does not apply to me or what I did. I don't need to read it. I know what it is. Again, I explained my reason which is legit to do. Did you read my response? No use power-tripping, so let's just end this. At least I will. Not sure why the double-minded attitude all the sudden... If anything, you are being disruptive and combative. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I had doubts the last time we got into a dispute, but I'm 100% sure going to every season page and saying you're not going to contribute is definitely disruptive. The only thing I've tried to do is tell you what you're doing. You even did it to the pages in which you originally just left "good job". For the record, you didn't need to go to every page in the first place and post that you were going to contribute. If you want to contribute to a page, just contribute to a page. Also, rules do apply to you, sir/ma'am, whether you enjoy it or not. TCN7JM 03:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto, they apply to you as well. And no, you were wrong then and are now. I went to those pages in the first place, because I can. It was to save a lot of brain damage, which didn't help since some "editors" decided to remove my contributions anyways. I did it as a courtesy, as I've been nothing but nice to you and others. I don't deserve this type of "abuse" and am removing myself from communicating with you now. Not sure what your problem is, but it isn't my problem. I won't be taken advantage of on here, and then mistreated when other people don't get their way. Now, whatever you have to type after this will be your opinion, and I have already told you I no longer want to "discuss" this further. Besides, I certainly don't want to associate with trouble makers beating dead horses. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer not being called a "trouble maker", name calling like that is a borderline personal attack. I am not beating a dead horse, you are just refusing to get the point. There was no reason for you to post the fact that you will or will not be editing the page on every season page. You could have edited the page without doing so. If you got into a dispute with a different editor because there was a misunderstanding on who gets to edit the page, then that's a violation of WP:OWN (disclaimer: not claiming you violated this policy). We're not mistreating or taking advantage of you because we aren't getting our ways, you're just overreacting to the fact that people told you to add <ref></ref> to your citations. TCN7JM 03:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to get the user from IP 99.129.112.89 (talk) blocked/suspended? He is a trouble maker and agitator. If there is anything you can do to help, please let me know. I am tired of his personal attacks and disrespect for other users by this person. Thank you for your time. Redmen44 (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

He is very disruptive, but I'm not an administrator, so I cannot block him. Even if I did, it would definitely violate WP:INVOLVED, so...sorry. I can't. I'm this close to opening up an AN/I thread about him, but I'm not in a dramatic mood. TCN7JM 12:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help. I hope he stays away for a while but if not how do you go about making admin's aware of his disruptive nature? By the way, White Sox fan here but I have always respected the Twins and Joe Mauer (that's why he's always on my fantasy team LOL). Can you tell your Twins to take it easy on our Sox this season because we are in for a LONG LONG dreadful season. Redmen44 (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The only way I know of to tell admins of disruptive behavior that isn't vandalism or edit warring is the Incidents noticeboard, but that one's always full of drama, so I almost never post there. He was actually reported there by TomCat a few days ago. Wrongly, yes, but he was still definitely being disruptive. TCN7JM 08:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC) (P.S. Sure, I'll remember to tell Joe Mauer to take it easy, lol.)

I'm gonna make this easy for both of you.... three words: Leave Me Alone! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Grow up. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you AS. I don't get how redirecting your links to actual pages is a talk page violation. Just as I don't get how I'm Wikihounding you. TCN7JM 23:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)