User talk:Neutralhomer/TalkHeaderArchive

Hi there. As an update to User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive14#Awesome Wikipedian template, just to let you know that I restored the content of the template to Template:User Happy Me Day! and have updated the code where it was in use. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Roger Wilco. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:15 on April 3, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Hey you are welcome for the edits on WKAZ FM — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyWes304 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

music on my talk, listen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no justification for CSD deletion here. While the article may have been created by a sock, it was done before the they were blocked as a sock, meaning CSD G5 (creation by a blocked/banned editors) doesn't apply here. We could nominate it at AFD, if you like, but that would shut the door on the article rather permanently. My recommendation would be to just put an {{inuse}} template on it and switch out the old version for your version. Just remember, don't mark the switch as minor and use a good edit summary. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article alot in the last 48 hours, though I had to have a RevDel because of a real name issue that I wasn't aware of that popped up about 15 edits deep. :S Oh well, I had a sandbox copy and that worked. :) I have updated everything and from their last edit to the page to mine as of about 5 minutes ago, I'd say I made the article my own. :)

Glad we don't have to do that deletion/recreation thing. :) That's a GIGANTIC pain in the butt! :) Thanks for your assistance. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:09 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

TomStar81, doesn't apply here? WP:EVASION clearly states, "It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to which to revert. Accordingly, pages created by blocked editors are eligible for speedy deletion. Any editor can use the template {{db-g5}}, or its shortcuts {{db-banned}} or {{db-blocked}}, to mark such a page. If editors other than the blocked editor have made substantial good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a blocked editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do." Of course articles a sock created are deleted after the editor is discovered to be a sock. On the basis of G5, I've had a number of articles deleted after the sock was discovered to be a sock. The only way the editor could have created the article(s) while they were known to be a sock is if they hadn't yet been blocked. And in that case, either they were about to be blocked or another editor was gathering evidence on them.

Please don't ping me if you reply. I will check back for replies. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5 states, "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging." By "banned or blocked users", it doesn't mean that the editor created the article with a blocked account. If that account is blocked, they obviously can't use that account. So they use a different one or an IP, which is where block evasion comes in. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts is clear that the block is on the person, not solely the account, which is why an editor using a new account doesn't absolve them of their block. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen: If TomStar81, an admin, says it's OK, then I believe it's OK. That's why I asked an admin. Now, if he wants to CSD G5 the article, we can do that and I can come in behind and re-create it. I'd prefer, though, not to get into an arguement over it. How about we leave well enough alone? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:49 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, I never stated that you needed to delete the article, now did I? I am correcting an admin. Admins are not above us. It's important to correct editors on matters such as these so that they don't go spreading their mistaken beliefs across Wikipedia. I can easily ping other admins, such as Berean Hunter (who is also a WP:CheckUser), to make clear that what I stated is correct. I could also post at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about this and elsewhere for commentary from others. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the only way to correct the issue is to do a CSD G5. That's where the deletion came in. This has been done in the past. It is rare, but it has been done. Though typically, if a long amount of time has passed and the article is notable, sourced, and doesn't have any issues, the creator of the article is overlooked. Now, if the article had like one source and was just created, it would be out the door, no discussion. It's a gray area. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:02 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I am going to lay down for a few. I'll be back up in a bit. If there is a decision regarding the potential deletion, please hold off until I get back up so we don't have a redlink sitting there for a long period of time. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:48 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Hi - hope you don't mind me butting in, I just wanted to clear up the point about G5 eligibility. If a page was created by a blocked user, using a sock to evade their block, then G5 definitely does apply even if the page was created before the account was identified as a sock: it's the date of the original block which matters, and deleting stuff created by block-evaders is largely why G5 exists. However, there's no need to worry in this case, because the other part of the G5 criteria is that the page must not have been edited substantially by others - this article has been edited by lots of people (including yourself), so a G5 would be declined. Hope that helps, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit: That does help, actually. I was looking at this from both sides of the equation. 1) Since it's been so long and the page has been edited by so many people, it will be overlooked but, 2) I don't mind G5'ing it just to cover all the bases and make everyone happy. :) But if the G5 deletion isn't needed, then we are good to go. :) Thanks for your added input. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:04 on April 18, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

You're welcome - happy to help! GirthSummit _(blether) 13:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in, Girth.

Neutralhomer, regarding this, what I changed it to is correct WP:Indentation. But no biggie. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discontinue your abusive behavior. As you know, it was decided on the talk page some time ago that removing superfluous zeroes from the coordinates of radio stations has consensus, and is a routine calculation. Abductive (reasoning) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive: Show this discussion because to my knowledge, none took place, and you have a history of trying to warp Wikipedia policy and history to fit your needs.

For the record, this isn't "abusive behavior", this is the behavior of an editor fed up with nonsense from someone who should know better...especially after being asked and told repeatedly, show policy after policy. But you refuse to conform to our rules and regulations. This isn't abusive, this is an editor who has reached the end of his rope. Should you feel that I am not showing you any "good faith", you're right. You exhausted all of which I had for you a LONG time ago. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:01 on April 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

The discussion was attended by you; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2010#radio station geocoordinates - two_requests. In it, User:Stepheng3 requests that precision level of .01 not be used, and that rounding is a routine calculation. User:Closeapple then concurs, and also states that s/he checks on Google Maps. User:Dravecky then chimes in with liking D/M/S. Accordingly, that makes three people who agree with not taking the FCC coordinates too literally, and not using ".00". With me, that makes it 4 to your one, a clear case of consensus. I will continue to correct coordinates as I see fit, and I encourage you to see the wisdom of it. Abductive (reasoning) 01:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: First off, tread very lightly. Second, that conversation is from 2010. Third, Dravecky does not say he "likes" D/M/S, he says "I think all we WPRS folks need to know is the format of the template you'd like to see us using. At a guess, for a station in Alabama it would be... {{coord|0|0|0|N|0|0|0|W|type:landmark_region:US-AL_source:NAD27|display=inline}} ...(with the actual D/M/S in place of those 0s) but please correct me if I'm wrong." That was his only entry to that discussion.

Closeapple spoke before Dravecky and CA and I were actually discussing coords, which at the time the FCC used only NAD27 for their coords. They now use NAD83, but show both NAD27 and NAD83. Stepheng3 wanted to use WGS84, which is used by the World Geodetic System (a similar request to yours in fact). Dravecky and I both said, in our own ways, that the coords had to come from the FCC, but we were open to having a new template showing the WGS84 coords.

Again, that was 2010, when NAD27 was king. Now it's NAD84, making a template showing NAD27 and WGS84 coords unnecessary since the FCC perfers NAD84 coords and that's what we go by.

Once again, you have spun the timeline here to fit your own needs using a discussion from just over a decade ago, trying to put words in the mouths of people who aren't here to defend themselves. You have officially come to the end of my patience with you. Continue on this path, edit one more article like this, I will en masse revert every article you have touched, Warn4 you, and take you to ANI myself. Find a hole and stay in it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:34 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

No, what happened is that you choose to ignore that discussion, and try to impose your will on me years later in the hopes that I would not find it. You will not find consensus you that keeping .00 on the ends of coordinates is somehow justified by pointing to a crusty government database. Each step of the way, you have stubbornly wikilawyered, but without any support. The FCC database is a primary source. (Neutralhomer; "No its not!") Rounding is a WP:POLICY by WP:CALC. (Neutralhomer; "It doesn't count here for some reason!") Multiple people saying .00 is stupid and should be fixed. (Neutralhomer; "It's old and they don't count somehow!") Abductive (reasoning) 03:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]