User talk:Yahboo

Hello, Yahboo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Arica School. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guildhall School of Music and Drama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horace Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edgar Lee Masters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Eagles (band), you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard Australian English spelling is now "program" according to both most common use and modern Australian dictionaries. This is not an issue of "British" or "American" forms of English. There are many instances in which standard Australian English now differs from British English and this is one of them. This article gives information about this. Yahboo (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Yahboo,

Thanks for your information. Apparently it is more appropriate to use the spelling "programme" as the blog post states that:

"Usage: Until recently, programme was widely considered to be the British spelling, and program the American. There are those who like to retain the former spelling, particularly in relation to a list of items at a concert, theatrical performance, etc., but many people have adopted the spelling program in all cases."

As there is a list of television programmes on the Wikipedia page for Kitty Flanagan and the blog post recognises personal preferences instead of rigid rules of the spelling for "programme", then the original spelling should remain on the Wikipedia page.

My view is that "programme" is the original English spelling used in Australia as "gaol" is the original spelling now Americanised to "jail". Read through Australian newspapers and magazines prior to the 1980s and you will notice virtually zero American spelling. Sadly, spellcheck is now often used to edit Australian works and that software is American and uses American spelling by default. This same software does not change the "z" to the letter "s" in words like "recognise" or "publicise" and omits the letter "u" in words like "colour" and "favour" and omits double consonants like in "travelling". As most people, even journalists, are too lazy or time poor to properly edit or correct their own work, so American spelling often gets published. I think there is a British English setting on spellcheck but most Australians don't use it. I feel that too much of Australia's cultural distinctions to differentiate Australia from other countries have been Americanised over the past few decades that Australians eat, wear, read, watch, buy and consume a huge amount of American culture. One saving grace is the English language where Australians can still speak and spell in the original English language and often more eloquently and accurately than Americans. I don't hate America or Americans as I love American films and television series and books. I just think the original spelling of English language words are often the better option. KittyLover (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "American English". The provided article makes it quite clear that "program" is actually the original British English spelling. Therefore it is also the original Australian English spelling and it has now become the common spelling once again. This is confirmed in modern Australian dictionaries. It is also the commonly accepted spelling in Wikipedia articles written in Australian English. Whilst some people, such as yourself, may personally prefer the "programme" spelling that does cannot be justified on the grounds of being the "original spelling" because it simply isn't. The original spelling in British Spelling is "program". Yahboo (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The ABC know a thing or two about contemporary Australian English spellings. The ABC's spelling is "programs" as can be confirmed on their website here. Yahboo (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:SERIAL about the usage of the serial comma and the requirement that we retain consistency in articles. This is not an Australian English issue, but it is a Wikipedia manual of style issue. Once an article establishes a usage we are supposed to conform to that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article ALREADY had a usage. Both myself and the other editor you reverted had restored that from the addition of a serial comma by some IP serial comma warrior. So you are required to conform to it! Yahboo (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page of article. I did a search of the article and found 38 usages of the serial comma, all correct. That establishes a usage. Removing it in this one case is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: It is in fact an Australian English punctuation style issue as you will see from WP's Serial comma article which quotes from the Australian government's style manual in the section "Australian style guides opposing typical use". Therefore the article should follow this style in accordance with the more relevant MOS principles.

The Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers

"A comma is used before and, or, or etc. in a list when its omission might either give rise to ambiguity or cause the last word or phrase to be construed with a preposition in the preceding phrase. … Generally, however, a comma is not used before and, or or etc. in a list." Yahboo (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia has its own manual of style with targets consistency of usage in the article. Australian usage as mentioned said generally not used but did not rule out using it at all. I did check this Australian focused article for existing usage and the serial comma is the convention in that particular article. If this is an issue for you, fix the entirety of the article, don't just pick and choose a single instance to focus on. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this discussion has appropriately moved to the article talk page. Will continue there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

== October

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Majikalex32, the two accounts have been found to be socks by a checkuser. So I have unblocked you with immediate effect. Thanks, Lourdes 14:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes, Please explain to me how you can justify both warning and then blocking me in view of the following information at WP:EVADE:

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.

This does not specify that only reverting edits by confirmed sockpuppets can be reverted "without regard to the three-revert rule" (not surprising as confirmed sockpuppet accounts should already be also blocked). It should have been very obvious that the edits that I reverted were by a sockpuppet seeking to avoid a block. I believe that my edits were clearly both justified and responsible according to WP:EVADE and that your treatment of me was totally unjustified. I stated in my edit summaries that I was reverting a suspected sockpuppet and I also reported the matter to you. I am extremely unhappy with how I have been treated by you for seeking to be a responsible editor. This is not how administrators should ever treat editors who are only trying to do the right thing. Yahboo (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you would probably curse me for this but honestly, the whole episode of blocking you, unblocking you has left a bitter taste in my mouth – bitter because I feel this should not have happened (and I blame myself for this issue). When you posted on my talk page enquiring about the socks, my response should have been not to post a self-righteous template on your talk page but to tell you that I'll post at SPI and to request you to not revert till it is confirmed that they are socks and to also inform you that I've already semi-protected the page so there is no possibility of new accounts coming up to disrupt the page. I should also have added to you that yes, you may be right, that there is significant possibility that the editors are socks. What if the editors had turned out not to be socks and I was wrong? Well, I could have increased semi-protection to full-protection to prevent disruption from you. So I am absolutely sorry for this. If you don't mind it (and I really mean this), I would like to add that next time, when an administrator tells you to not edit-war till the SPI investigation is over, you can perhaps tell them "yes", and wait it out. But this is not to change the perspective that I've written above. I am sorry, as I know it's something that would have left a really bad note in your mind........ Warmly, Lourdes 01:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. I very much appreciate it as I was greatly frustrated and annoyed by both the warning and subsequent blocks as I was confident I was doing the right thing and was thinking of giving Wikipedia editing away permanently. If you had asked me, as you've just mentioned, that I didn't do any further reverts until after the sockpuppet investigation was conducted then I would have respected that request. I did not revert after the warning message anyway. I apologise for some of the ways I expressed my annoyance. Yahboo (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely advisory, relating to your activity on 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Isagenix International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Regarding Isagenix International: you've been warned per the complaint at WP:AN3. You may be blocked if you edit the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, Whilst I accept the warning, even though I have been very poorly treated by the other editors involved, I am very surprised by your comments that I could apparently be blocked for making any edits to the article without getting prior consensus. Can you please indicate to me where it is stated in Wikipedia's editing policies that such blocking is justified. Thank you. Yahboo (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally thinking of issuing a block, but decided to go with a warning. This warning is intended to keep the war that was reported on the noticeboard from continuing. If you do so a block is conventionally allowed under the normal practices for edit-warring enforcement. If you make a change to the article unrelated to the war my warning wouldn't apply. So far you haven't used the talk page at all. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you have no idea on the MOS if you seriously think that any of my edits on this article were somehow not "constructive". They were all constructive and all in accordance with the MOS and standard editing principles. I challenge you to demonstrate, based on clear MOS principles, that any of my edits weren't constructive. Otherwise you should apologise for your accusation. Yahboo (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for removing your edits. As it was caught up with other trolly comments we have been dealing with on the wiki. We will do better in the future. Britishorthodox (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please reference Gurdjieff lead sentence description,Arnlodg (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you are systematically removing honorific suffixes from infoboxes but leaving the honorific_suffix field. Jonathunder (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder: Because it has been my understanding that ACADEMIC suffixes are not included. I have raised the question for comment and clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography. Yahboo (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anglicanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Mass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yahboo, I wanted to update you on recent changes I've made to the following sentence of the Anglicanism article we've both edited:

They are in full communion with the Diocese of Canterbury, and thus the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom the communion refers to as its Primus inter pares (Latin, "first among equals").

Double quotes are used most frequently; however, when used to indicate a translation, single quotes are warranted. Therefore, after double checking Wikipedia's MOS, I restored my edit that you had reverted and pasted the related info below that I hope you find helpful :) It will be of additional help if you can point me towards the part of the MOS that you referenced in your edit summary of my edit revision, so that I can help correct any conflicting info it may have.

Under WMOS->Punctuation>Quotation marks>Double or single:

• Most quotations take double quotation marks (Bob said: "Jim ate the apple.").Exceptions:
• Plant cultivars take single quotation marks (Malus domestica 'Golden Delicious').
• Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes, with no comma before the definition (Cossack comes from Turkic qazaq 'freebooter').

MinorEnglishMajor (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the upcoming Hard Quiz episode is available on some TV Guides. I've been adding the information for upcoming episodes as soon as the information is available and no one has ever gotten upset about it before.Le Beaglelution 16:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I was "upset about" was your unexplained and unjustified reversion of my many very clear style and grammatical corrections and improvements. Adding information about things before they have actually happened is addressed in WP:CRYSTAL. For many possible reasons something that is expected to occur in the future may not actually happen. Yahboo (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Yahboo!

I figured I'd pop over here so we could talk before this spirals out into a full dispute or anything. Let me explain some of the changes I made and why.

Grand Finals

As established on the MOS, like you brought up, capital letters within prose and headings have specific rules they have to follow. By navigating through the MOS to MOS:SPORTCAPS - we can see that the Grand Final, as a public sporting event that is referred to by independent sources with capital letter, should have its title capitalised.

Board

Bringing up the MOS again - MOS:JOBTITLES shows that given the context of use, each title here should be capitalised due to its combination with the person's name.

Honour Boards

This section refers to the honour board, alongside other award boards. See Port Adelaide's page for what the basis of this is, as Port Adelaide has been nominated for and granted Good Article status.

Hall of Fame

Similarly to the whole Grand Final thing, it's captilised as an event that independent sources captilise. I've ended up removing the AFL HoF, leaving in the 'See Also', so it's essentially moot now anyway.

World wars

This is included as the section doesn't exclusively focus on the individual success that occurred around that time - it along focuses briefly on the club during the war, such as the fact it went into recess in World War I.

Hopefully this should clear everything up! Let me know if you've got any questions and/or issues. Thanks! Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Empoleonmaster23 ~ Hello and thanks for your message and also commenting in a polite manner. I still, however, disagree on most if not all of your arguments as they seem to me to be based on mistaken readings of the MOS. The fact that a grand final, for instance, is a public event does not seem to be a relevant or valid argument to capitalise it. It is probably acceptable to capitalise "AFL Grand Final", which is arguably a proper name, but I don't agree that "grand final" by itself is a proper name even if some sources treat it as such, so I can't agree with you that it should be capitalised regardless of whether some sources do so. I doubt that any of the established style guides would support your interpretation on this matter. Some organisations, such as the AFL, have their own "house style" which capitalise all sorts of things in ways which would not be acceptable in academic and other more professional publications. When I have time I will raise these matters for discussion and clarification on the appropriate MOS talk page and let you know so that you can be involved if you wish. These capitalisation issues are a constant source of disagreement with some editors and things need to be clearer. I will not make any changes to the St Kilda article at present even though I think you have made a number of incorrect edits to it. Best wishes, Yahboo (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yahboo - Thanks for the response! If you're wondering what the exact relevant line was within the MOS section I linked for the GF, it was - "Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources" - hence why I was stating its sporting event status, as it was (seemingly) capitalised by independents. I do understand that you'd thought I'd misread the MOS, though, sometimes it can be bloody difficult combing through to find the exact point someone's trying to point you toward.

That being said, upon further investigation it seems like there is actually no consensus between independent sources on the capitalisation - I'd believe this likely means we use lower-case, especially as it seems to be the standard for the other finals, but it's definitely worth bringing up on the MOS talk page because it can be used to set a precedent for multiple pages. I'll leave it as is for now until we work out that precedent, but I will concede this is contentious in both formats.

As for the Hall of Fame, which was in a similar position, I did a similar further look into it and general consensus by independent sources seems to be capitalisation is appropriate for this. Regardless, hopefully we'll work out a consensus for everything else. Thanks again, Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article that been involved with (George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no prohibition on having the places of birth and death in the parenthetical. It is preferred that they be in the article body, but unless you move them there, you should not remove them from the lead. Similarly, all images should have captions: you may change the caption, but should not remove it. Skyerise (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. As I edit according to the MOS, if you are correct on these matters then I will respect this of course. Sometimes, however, the MOS changes on such things. As I recall there is, or once was, a principle that in biographical articles a person's name just by itself (which was essentially the case here) should not be included as a caption with a photo at the top of the article on the very sensible basis that it was only stating the unnecessarily obvious. As for the birth and death locations being included in the opening sentence in such instances you may very well be correct, but I will need to check as this is not exactly how I remember what the MOS does or at least used to state on the matter. Cheers, Yahboo (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: I have checked the MOS on including birth and death places in the lead section and you are not correct that there is no kind of prohibition on including them with the dates in the brackets. MOS:BIRTHPLACE states that "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates." It does not state that they can be included in the brackets if not mentioned in the body of the article, only that they should be included in the body if known. Thanks for adding the info box which includes this information, but it still should be mentioned in the body of the article. Cheers, Yahboo (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is a guideline, not a policy. You should not remove the details without including them somewhere else. An infobox is a summary and should only include material in the article body. So it is incorrect to remove them from the body, even if they are in the infobox. They must be in the article body. So do it right or leave it alone. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: You are inventing your own editing policies which are contrary to the MOS guidelines and making incorrect comments about what the guidelines actually are. The MOS says that they "should" be in the body of any article if known, not that they "must" be included. You also added the info box after my initial edit so that comment is irrelevant to your complaint about my edits. And it is not a requirement that info boxes "only include material in the article body". That is another incorrect assertion by you. You are also completely incorrect in claiming that all images require captions. WP:CAPTION clearly states that "Not every image needs a caption; some are simply decorative." You were in the wrong on these matters. You also don't get to have your own personal MOS and then try to impose it on others. Yahboo (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I've been here for over 17 years, have made over 100,000 edits, and I am not making anything up. See WP:INFOBOX. Don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. Removal of information is always a degradation of the article and we are here to make improvements, not delete materal based on flimsy reasoning. Skyerise (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being here for many years doesn't make anyone a competent editor. Your snarky comments and your block history suggests that you have difficulty being a civil and co-operative editor. WP:INFOBOX states that the box summarizes the "key features of the page's subject". There is no requirement that boxes only include information already in the article. And as you added the box after my editing I don't understand why you keep banging on about its relevance to my editing. You really need to be more concerned with your own repeated flimsy reasoning, including your latest one that "removal of information is always a degradation of the article". That is often not true. I agree that the details of Ichazo's birth and death places should be in the article. I was going to add this back to the article in a correct way after some reference research and thought about how to best include it since the article is almost completely devoid of any biographical information about him. Whilst I didn't go about it the right way this does not justify your snarky comments and your false assertions about how information is included. Regardless of my own editing inadequacies you need to do much better yourself. Yahboo (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even know what the fifth pillar of Wikipedia is, do you? WP:IAR, which is policy, allows me to ignore guidelines if another editor is misusing them in a manner which degrades an article. I frequently move info out of the parenthetical into the body of the article to implement the guideline you are citing, but if you just remove it you are degrading the article and it is policy that I may revert any misuse of guidelines in that manner. Grow up! Skyerise (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices. Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.

In particular, you do not get to use guidelines to flog more experienced editors. They are, as described, guidelines, not rules. Policies may be enforced. Guidelines are subject to WP:IAR. So please calm down and stop trying to enforce guidelines: they weren't intended to be used in that way. And please note that WP:MOS is a guideline and WP:IAR itself is policy. Skyerise (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down and stop trying to justify your bad attitude and ignorance of the MOS. Yahboo (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ignorant of the MOS. You are misusing it, both as an excuse to degrade the article due to being too lazy to make sure that the information is still included in the article body, and to inappropriately chastise another editor who knows the "rules" better than you do. Skyerise (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have already made it very obvious that you are ignorant of the MOS. And you are also degrading Wikipedia by your incivility. I suggest that you need to research the meaning of "harassment" because you have a problem with doing it to other editors. If you can't be civil to other editors on Wikipedia then find somewhere else to be so objectionable. Take your own advice and grow up. Yahboo (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not harassment to reply to an editor who is pinging me. This conversation is over. Further pings will be ignored. Skyerise (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite a piece of work. What "conversation"? You don't know the meaning of the word. All you've done is demonstrate just how aggressively self-important and uncivil you are. You seriously need to do something to stop being like this. Yahboo (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in point of fact, I wrote parts of the MOS. Skyerise (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have no excuse for your false claims about what's in it. You obviously didn't help write the guidelines about civility and assuming good faith, those other important Wikipedia pillars. Yahboo (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Buffy_Sainte-Marie#Lead_section. Skyerise (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Anglicanism. Accusing another editor of acting arbitrarily after they provided a rationale in their edit and then accusing them of edit warring and agenda-pushing when they cite policy is a clear violation of AGF. Please refrain from this behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, please note that this should function as a final warning when it comes to the civility policy. Your behavior earlier this month on your own talk page and previously indicates a pattern of battleground behavior. Further incidence of not assuming good faith could result in a block without further warning. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be intimidated by you. Your habit of attempting to intimidate other editors in this kind of way has been going on for years. It is not acceptable and you need to stop it. Yahboo (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you don't understand: you can reasonably disagree with another editor. This is a subject of reasonable disagreement (and has been for years!). However, if you accuse other editors of acting arbitrarily contrary to evidence, accuse them of pushing an agenda without evidence, and attack them based on their identity, that breaks policy. You have now been notified. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Attacking me based on my identity? Goodness. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "personal attack". This "warning" is just another of many examples of the intimidating ways you respond towards other editors. You've been doing this for years and it's way past time that you stopped it. Yahboo (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, as you did at Anglicanism, you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Anupam^Talk 00:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious? There is no "ownership" going on. The article needed rolling back due to numerous issues. You are being ridiculous! Yahboo (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to check the problematic edits that were introduced by a POV pushing editor? I great doubt it. Your accusation is false and you should apologise. Yahboo (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work in improving Rory Stewart! Lots of de-linking was clearly in order. Cheers! SSR07 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]