I spent some time today talking over this issue with Risker. On reflection, I realize I could have handled the issue a lot better if I had taken some extra time to look into the matter or if I had spoken to you privately. I hope that I have thought enough about the issue to avoid something similar happening in the future. I just want to extend my apologies and my wish that we can put this matter behind us. Best, NW (Talk) 22:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of this happen over IRC? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I conversed with NuclearWarfare privately via IRC, which allowed us to have a real-time conversation, unlike email or (worse yet) an on-wiki discussion that anyone could jump into and derail. I don't believe it is necessary or, often, appropriate to critique another editor in the full glare of the entire community when I'm acting as a (perhaps older and wiser) colleague rather than in my "official" capacity, because it's often difficult for others to see past this silly set of hats I wear around here. Risker (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to bring to your attention that there is an RFC going on at the talk page that I think you might be interested in. I saw you in the history which is what brought me here along with the AN/i discussion. If not interested, feel free to ignore this notice to you. Happy editing and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be doing nothing but badgering the RFA candidates and disrupting to make a point. Could you please drop it? –MuZemike 15:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so, this kind of overhaul [1] will be done to all discographies? That's a lot of work. Perhaps taking this up at WP:DISCOG is a good idea. - eo (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an undo of an inappropriate change. It is not an "overhaul", but an undo. Do you understand why? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reason for doing it, however changing all existing discography pages to adhere to this method is an "overhaul" for lack of a better term simply because the huge number of discography articles. I've opened a discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies#Horizontal vs. vertical code in discographies. - eo (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is changing '"all existing discographies to adhere to this method'? What do you mean by "this method"? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This method = horizontal code. Why change only one discography? - eo (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "chang[ing] only one discography"? Please be more clear, because I don't understand what you're asking, or why. This article has a history of vandalism, and the vertical format makes it difficult to identify which "3" was changed. Other articles may or may not benefit from one style or another, depending on the sizes of the tables, the quantity of similar numerical value, and the history of vandalism. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←There are a zillion discographies. A vast majority of them use code that is vertical; a vast majority of them are vandalized. You are changing one article (JLo's) to be horizontal, based on its size and history of vandalism. Don't you think it would be more beneficial overall if all discographies were coded the same way? Or would you rather people edit and undo back and forth so that it adheres to their preferred version? - eo (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetoo, thanks for taking the time to examine and comment on my appeal. You suggested I be banned from using the editprotected template, which would suggest you think I misused it. Please explain to me in what way I used it that would warrant such a ban. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way you used editprotected isn't right. You need to convince other people before using editprotected. I noticed you made proposals and then a few days later made an editprotected request saying there was no objection. On lightly visited articles that's probably understandable, but it seemed on this article you were getting "no objection" for other reasons. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation on the template's proper use, and you are mistaken in asserting that there were objections at the time I employed the template. There were NO objections at the time I employed the template. Look, if I state my intent and give others the opportunity to express any objections, and nobody objects, then there is no reason whatsoever not to implement a requested edit -- particularly not one as neutral and uncontroversial as the one I proposed to replace the demonstrably WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT non-compliant statement currently existing. Now, when the template was disabled by MSGJ, I asked him why and it was because he had confused two different edits I'd proposed, mistaken objections to the second as objections to the first. At that time there had yet been no objections; not one; zip; zero. After pointing out his error, he agreed to implement the edit if it there were still no objections after further time was allowed to give people the opportunity to state their objections, if any. That seemed perfectly reasonable to me, and I agreed. I believe MSGJ's is the proper interpretation of the template. Clearly, as admins themselves disagree on this, I can hardly be banned just because Amatulic had a differing view. I used the template in good faith in an effort to improve the article by bringing it into compliance with Wikipedia policy standards. That's the bottom line. JRHammond (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't understand your edit summary here. "Undo sortable then". I don't see which part is not sortable. Can you please explain that. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you asked. With the rest of the edit summary, the message was: "undo sortable then, incompatible with dashes". That was meant to say that the type of dashes you put in a couple edits earlier were in some way incompatible with the "sortable" option. The dashes you added were in the year ranges; year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you replied. I didn't realize that the dash/hyphen made the sortability behave differently, so any ill-effect was completely unintentional. I see that RexxS has added a hidden sort key to it, so that it sorts correctly. That's something for me to watch out for in future. I didn't understand why you removed the sortability completely rather than fixing my mistake and after I'd stared at it for a few minutes without seeing the problem, I decided to ask you. No harm done though. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rossrs, given what has been written here and on another talk page, do you think this is resolved? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from questioning whether additional years will sort correctly, from my point of view, yes. From yours, apparently not. You could be more specific in your comments. For example, you ask RexxS if he wants to change anything he said, and that leaves him to try to guess what you're getting at. If he, or anyone else, guesses wrong, it achieves nothing or makes the situation worse. You should just say what's bothering you. Rossrs (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I clearly said that "year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility". RexxS has not fixed the problem that refers to. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're being very unfair to Ross by misinforming him about the issue of date ranges and sorting. Your statement above "year ranges with hyphens do not have that particular incompatibility" is patently untrue. You only have to try sorting the table with hyphens dif-hyphen and with en dashes dif-dash to see that the sorting behaviour is identical. I've checked that in Firefox and IE8. With both dif-hyphen and dif-dash, the descending sort on 'Year' wrongly places the '2007' row first. If there's some other sort of incompatibility that you meant, you're not making a very good job of communicating it. As far as I can see, I fixed the problem that you seemed to be implying. What more do you want? --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to you yet that "that particular incompatibility" may be something other than what you think it is? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your intended meaning was not grasped the first time you used that phrase, what's the point in repeating it to the same audience without a hint of clarification? If you have something to say, please say it. Rossrs (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it has occurred to me each time that you made that statement. You may have found a problem with changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges that nobody else on the wiki is aware of; in which case, please enlighten us. Or you may have been simply mistaken and are too embarrassed to admit it; in that case, I'll understand if you choose not to elaborate further. --RexxS (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]