User talk:Erpert/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Erpert. 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 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Don't edit war

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It doesn't matter that single is linked—automatically, I might add—in the infobox. "Everybody" is all readers, or those with common sense. WP:WEASEL applies to text on a page, not reasoning in edit summaries. Nice try though. You were reverted, so don't start edit warring. If you feel so strongly about single being linked, by all means, please raise a discussion at the talk page. If you continue edit warring, I'll get an admin involved. Better yet, I'll tag one now. @Ad Orientem: This editor believes "single" is not a term understood by most, if not all, readers. I cited WP:OVERLINK, they restored it and edit warred. I assume they won't listen to me. Can you advise them against repeated insertions of overlinking? Thanks. Ss112 16:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to take sides in a content dispute, but I will note that BRD does apply here. I also think that this wasn't exactly a hot case of edit warring... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Perhaps, let's just hope Erpert stops here and doesn't continue restoring common links to the article and disregarding BRD. And, as the term is hardcoded as a link in the infobox, surely that suffices to editors who don't care about WP:OVERLINK regardless...we don't need another link to it in prose. Ss112 16:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: "WP:WEASEL applies to text on a page, not reasoning in edit summaries." And WP:WEASEL states this where, now? Anyway, not only was I indeed not edit-warring, maybe you should understand that you don't own that article. Furthermore, "...surely that suffices to editors who don't care about WP:OVERLINK regardless..." smells of WP:SYN. I'm not sure what you're trying to do by pinging an admin right away for a simple disagreement; and I find it interesting that the very first thing you ask on your own talk page is for people to be civil; how about following your own advice? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn't my talk page, buddy. And coming from an editor whose own talk page literally says "just plain rude people are not welcome here", that's rich. Surely you shouldn't be allowed to post on your own talk page then? Because from where I'm sitting, you're being pretty damn "plain rude". It's actually hilarious how you're citing literal guidelines for content on articles at me for what I'm saying in edit summaries and a user talk page. You've been here for nine years, made over 30,000 edits and you don't understand that simple fact... and you also seem to think an editor reverting somebody on an article means that editor thinks they own it. You're literally quoting WP:SYN at me, which is about synthesis of published sources (citing multiple sources while reaching a conclusion none of them state), over me saying "single is already linked in the infobox, surely that's enough". That has nothing to do with anything. You've made it crystal clear you don't understand what you're talking about at all and apparently you just cite random policies and guidelines because you think it makes you look experienced. You don't, you aren't, and I'm not wasting any more of my time here. @Ad Orientem: Maybe you can get through to them that the guidelines they're citing have nothing to do with responses on a user talk page because it looks like I can't. This is too much. Thanks for a laugh. Ss112 18:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop it. Both of you. Discuss the content issue(s) on the relevant article talk page and check the snark at the door. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, I haven’t even touched the article since then. If a battle is what Ss112 wants, sorry; I’m not the one. And s/he also needs to chill with the stalking.

This discussion is over. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Chill with the stalking"???

Literally what are you on about? How did I stalk you? I know we've already established you don't know what you're talking about when you cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so I assume the same applies to WP:WIKISTALKING, but that's a straight-up BS and immediately disprovable claim because I haven't even edited another article you have recently. You edited Summer Girl (Haim song) after I created it, so if anything or anybody could accuse another of stalking, it would be me to you. So, you need to chill with accusing users of things they haven't done. You can archive this thread too after you leave a snarky comment too if you wish. Ss112 21:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Bother me again and I'm reporting you at WP:ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Knock it off

@Erpert & Ss112. I want both of you to desist in this bickering which has reached the point of being disruptive. Erpert your accusations are straining the acceptable bounds of WP:AGF. Stalking is a serious charge and you have the attention of an admin right now. I suggest you drop that particular stick unless you like to play with BOOMERANGS.

Ss112, you had a legitimate complaint, which probably justified a polite note on the article talk page with a ping to Erpert. But instead you charged onto Erpert's talk breathing fire over a single dicey revert. Both of you are digging holes here and I want it to stop. And I mean right now. This message should be regarded as a Formal Caution to both of you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I told him to leave me alone, but since he then went to you, why are you warning both of us instead of just him? The fact that I archived the discussion twice indicates that I have no interest in continuing this; in fact, I don't even want him on my talk page. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)