User talk:Rotational

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Firsfron of Ronchester 07:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Sockpuppetry case 2 accusation of sockpuppetry 3 Thorold Rogers 4 Alexandre Dumas pere 5 Randlords 6 Quercetrin 7 Thumb 8 Bill Venter 8.1 new section 9 Speedy deletion of Johann Franz Drège 10 Wuppertal in SA 11 Re: Scotland map 12 List of florilegia and botanical codices 13 Giovanni Baptista Ferrari 14 copyedit 15 William Kilburn 16 Regarding Pierre-Joseph Redouté 17 Henry Frederick Conrad Sander 18 WP:ANI notice 19 Pancrace Bessa 20 Johan Huydecoper 21 "disruption" 22 Ownership and accusations of wikistalking 23 April 2008 24 Oliver Typewriter Company 25 WikiCookie 26 William Collingwood Smith 27 Oops, in use 28 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Margaret Hale00.jpg) 29 Daniela Denby-Ashe pic

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Paul venter for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] accusation of sockpuppetry

The two references are quite clearly NOT the "exact same wording":

• ref#1 "(Image placed left - Manual of Style/Images/Right-facing images)"
• ref#2 "(Image on left - see MoS/Images/Right-facing images)" Rotational 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well. Since you didn't write "placed" the second time you clearly must not be a sock. IrishGuy ^talk 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I truly don't need your sarcasm or strange idea of the meaning of "exact" - I have not been guilty of any WP offence and now have to contend with trumped-up charges and your rather obvious prejudice and puerile attempts at wit. Please find someone to review this block who does not display your churlish attitude. Rotational 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rotational,

With the consent of user:Rlevse, and per your note on my talk page, I'm looking into this situation. You can post your comments right here on this talk page, and I will see them. I have checked the page revisions, and they look very similar. Are you sure you aren't any of these other users, aside from User:Physicist68? If you are the same person as these other accounts, I can have the other accounts blocked and you can use solely this account. Only one Wikipedia account is allowed per user. It looks like you have many good contributions to the encyclopedia, and I want to assume good faith, but there are many similar editing styles between all these accounts. I am not seeing any abuse from this account, so with Rlevse's permission, I'd unblock, but I need to know which accounts are yours so we can get this straightened out. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Firs,

Thank you for your objective comments - it gives one faith in Wikipedia again. I have spent my time while blocked, going through the contributions from Paul Venter and Raasgat. They were prolific contributors to WP and reading through their discussion pages, seem to have been antagonised by petty politics. Perhaps it's not my place to say so, but it does seem as if WP needs a panel of experienced editors who can undo some of the damage done by tactless and ill-considered blocks. Again, looking at the contributions of Paul Venter and Raasgat, they have a large number of articles with a South African connection and have similar interests to my own - I have been a member of the Mountain Club of South Africa for 45 years and am a keen amateur botanist (I think Paul Venter's articles on botanical painters are excellent). To summarise, I obviously can't say whether there is a connection between Paul Venter and Raasgat, but Rkitko's accusation of my being a sockpuppet is based on purely circumstantial evidence with possibly a touch of vindictiveness (see Raasgat's annoyance with Rkitko over stalking and taxoboxes). Rotational (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rotational,

Assuming good faith, I am unblocking this account, with my apologies. It is clear you have some very good contributions to Wikipedia and I'd hate to lose your continued work on the project. I know it seems to you that Rlevse made a "tactless and ill-considered block", but he was attempting to act in the best interest of the encyclopedia during a dispute.

I will ask that you attempt to follow the guidelines set out at WP:MOS (already linked on your userpage) concerning headings (WP:HEAD). If you need assistance, I would be happy to help out or give advice. My user talk page is user talk:Firsfron and it is always open to any good-faith editor. I would also ask that you avoid confrontations with the user involved in your dispute.

I note you have an excellent knowledge of wiki mark-up and biological nomenclature (italics on generic and specific names). Wikipedia needs more editors able to follow Manual of Style and nomenclature conventions. I am glad to know your faith in Wikipedia is restored. Edit disputes and mistaken blocks will happen, and I look forward to your further contributions to the project. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thorold Rogers

The potrait added to this page is a caricature. It may have been amusing to partisans at the time it was published, but it seems to have a highly prejudicial effect on Wikipedia's page. Was this your intent?Fconaway (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandre Dumas pere

The image you tried to add to the Alexandre Dumas, père page is unfortunately an image of a different person--his son, Alexandre Dumas, fils. I reverted your edit, added the image to the Dumas fils page, and fixed up the notes on the image in Wikimedia commons.--Ccady 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randlords

Hi Firsfron, I would like to let you know that I am going to be working on the Randlords and wonder what Rkitko will infer since Paul venter also worked on this group. Regards Rotational (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rotational,

Please feel free to edit any page on Wikipedia, no matter who edited it before you. Your work is important to the project; I have added the article to my watchlist, and will be watching for squabbles. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to work on this article, and I'm sure Rkitko feels the same way. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Rhizanthella gardneri worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Macy's123 review me 12:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quercetrin

Hi, Rotational. All past encounters aside, I just noticed this and wondered if you meant to redirect it to an actual article instead of creating a self-redirect. If you could fix it so the link follows to the right place, that would be fantastic. If you just meant it to be a self-redirect, this is discouraged by our guidelines and I'll go ahead and delete it until you're ready to write the article. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thumb

Hi,

You seem to be coming up on my watchlist a lot at the moment, and on largely unrelated articles. It is bizarre.

Regarding this edit, I had no idea that one could specify "image_size=thumb" in a taxobox. I very much like the idea of deferring to user preferences rather than hardcoding the image size. However, I thought you should know that "thumb" does two things - it defers to user preferences for image size, and it adds a frame. In the case of taxoboxes, it would be better to do only the first of these, since the image is already framed once. You can do by using "frameless" instead of "thumb". I tested this on Alyogyne huegelii and it works.[3] Check out the difference.

Hesperian 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right!! Frameless looks much better. Thanks for the tip. Rotational (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Useful to know, though it' useful to remember that {{taxobox}} also has a default size of 200px. Circeus (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already proposed a change to the taxobox, to default to honouring user thumb preferences. Hesperian 03:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made that change now. Hesperian 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - that's a striking improvement. Rotational (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Venter

[edit] new section

cygnis insignis 09:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Johann Franz Drège

A tag has been placed on Johann Franz Drège requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wisdom89 (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined. Plenty notable. Hesperian 10:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wuppertal in SA

Wuppertal in South Africa was founded in 1830 and the spelling at this time was Wupperthal. Thal = Tal = engl. Valley --Atamari (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The sources I consulted about the spelling are The Standard Encyclopaedia of Southern Africa, the Reader's Digest Atlas of Southern Africa , the AA New Southern African Book of the Road and the Illustrated Guide to Southern Africa. It is named after the Wupper Valley in Germany and the present city is also called Wuppertal. Rotational (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's named after the town i'am live. But have they make a german-spelling reform? Look the URL of http://www.wupperthal.co.za/ the url http://www.wuppertal.co.za/ gives me a 404. --Atamari (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that on the site you mention, http://www.wuppertal.co.za/, the URL is ...tal..., the title of the page is ...thal... and all the references in the body of the page are ...tal... I'm afraid that thal is incorrect. Rotational (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tourismwupperthal.co.za/

http://www.clanwilliam.info/info/infowupperthal.htm

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Cederberg+Wuppertal&word2=Cederberg+Wupperthal

--Atamari (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Scotland map

Hi, a map of SA would be no problem. Do you have any preferences (colour/style - e.g. the greens of Scotland or the natural gradients of Image:Topographical_Map_of_Traditional_Galloway.png)? SFC9394 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have had a play around today and have uploaded a couple of versions of the map, an island version and a continental version. If there are any suggestions for refinements let me know, most things should be fairly straight forward to implement. SFC9394 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately shaded relief maps are more difficult to make. Simple representations can be made in photoshop (but don't look that good). The high quality reliefs (such as the google one) are essentially full 3D models, with the shadowing calculated and rendered based on the shape of the terrain. I have played about with spot views in the past, but only for testing purposes. Even then it was a lot of playing about to get it to look good - for something the size of SA it would be very very difficult! Unfortunately I can't take the google image as a base as it is fully copyrighted and thus not suitable for uploading under a free licence. SFC9394 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add - I have found a way of producing the google like shaded renders quickly, (test render) but it is probably still too much to do all of SA - for details to be visible the file would be huge - guestimate 20,000 x 20,000 pixels - for a manageable resolution topo. detail is lost. Commonly detailed topo shaded maps (such as the google one you link to) are used for a small scale maps, intended for specific uses (e.g. hillwalking), with countrywide maps containing much less detail. SFC9394 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of florilegia and botanical codices

Rotational, we've been over this before. The guidelines are clear. Please also be aware of the WP:3RR and WP:OWN. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You certainly manage to take all the pleasure out of contributing to Wikipedia. Correct, we have been over this before, and the subject is as tedious as ever. You stalk, you threaten, you get some cronies to rally to your aid and then you solicit a block in a childish demonstration of power. You see yourself as a knight in shining armour, keeping order in the unruly corridors of Wikipedia, whereas others see you as an interfering busybody with little else to do. You have already shown your true colours with your accusations of sockpuppetry and I would appreciate it if you would do me the kindness of not posting messages on this talkpage. If you feel the matter is important, kindly make use of an intermediary, but be warned that I will not reply to any of your personal communications. Rotational (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir, respectfully, I challenge your claims regarding my behavior and I would welcome any evidence to back them up. The other admins involved in the sockpuppetry case all agreed that you were operating multiple accounts and the evidence is clear. Regardless, we do disagree on the format of the articles you create. At the risk of delving into the subject again, I would appreciate an explanation of why you think WP:HEAD and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Headers_and_paragraphs don't apply. And, regarding the {{botanist}}, you've already registered your input regarding the formatting of the template, but in those discussions, no one really agreed or at the very least there was no consensus to alter the template. Otherwise, it has widespread support and also serves the function of including articles in Cat:Botanists with author abbreviations (which shouldn't just be included by itself without the template for the sake of future maintenance). So please, regarding edits like this, don't remove the botanist template. Instead follow the proper channels and propose the changes you seek. If consensus is against you, respect that. I think we're both adult enough to have a proper discussion without one party asking the other not to post on their talk page. I would like to agree to that but we are in a formatting dispute at the moment; how are we to resolve it without leaving messages for one another? Best, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

One other thing... Since you do create a lot of botanist articles, I thought I'd mention this briefly: A redirect from his or her abbreviation is helpful since frequently they're linked to from taxoboxes. I created one, Burm., for you. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni Baptista Ferrari

Thank You for correcting and expanding the article. Shoteh (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] copyedit

Thanks for the little tidy up of this, I'm terrible at finding my own typos. Cheers, cygnis insignis 10:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a nice page that you added as an external link, but the images are included in the scan at botanicus. However, we should take advantage of the neatly cropped images of the commercial site and upload those to commons. cygnis insignis 13:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit summary. I prefer the frameless to the thumb, but like my preference best of all - unsurprisingly. I tend to follow the guidelines for the various infoboxes, otherwise there may be unanticipated consequences if someone rolls out a change to the parameter. It think that formatting is important, but it is worth pointing out that elements that look punk in 'stubby start' class articles look more elegant in full articles. Worry about the layout when the articles are expanded. Regards, cygnis insignis 07:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Kilburn

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of William Kilburn, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.alistairkilburn.co.uk. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Pierre-Joseph Redouté

Hello Rotational. you posted the following on my talk page:

Working on Wikipedia The Four-way test from Rotary International

   * Is it the truth? (April 1 foolery excepted)
   * Is it fair to all concerned?
   * Will it build goodwill and better relationships?
   * Will it be beneficial to all concerned? 

I've left edit summaries paraphrasing what I know about legibility, and reading path. You disagree. Your choice of centering is your own subjective taste. It is contrary to book design, web page design and basic notions of typography and readability. And I feel the same for an image erratically appearing before text, wikipedia MoS not withstanding. No intent to offend here, but to make for a more readable page. You seem to possess a wonderful interest in, and significant knowledge of, botany including Redouté. He was brilliant.

I hope you might consider that others here possess some other skills. I am a web and print graphic designer. I have taught typography and book design on the university level for over 20 years. I have taught web design for over 10 years. I have taught the history of graphic design for over 8 years. Issues of reading path, how the eye travels across the page, how it returns, and uses short term memory to find the beginning of the line it just finished so that it can drop down has been extensively studied. Some of how we read is cultural habit, meaning we read best what we read most, that which is most familiar from habit. Some is brain/eye coordination. Little of it is subjective. Ladislav Sutnar devised a photographic device for recording eye movement and track reading path in the 1940s. Earlier the typographer Jan Tschichold explored some of the same issues, and authored a book called "The New Typography" which proposed exploiting the physical process of reading, and adopting flush left, ragged right compositions for most text information. These precepts began to take root before the Second World War, and after the war the ideas became entrenched. Centering type, removes the constant place for the eye to return to. It places form first, function after. It is lovely in a formal invitation, a monumental title page, diplomas, a White House dinner menu, and the like. But in a quick reference format like the web, particularly wikipedia, it does not aid the rapid absorption of information.

Please accept my apology for offending you, or upsetting an apple cart (the Redouté article) I can see that you care greatly about. Strife is what all of us need less of. I am sorry for bringing it to you. CApitol3 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi (again) Rotational. Our exchange has caused a visit to the wikipedia MoS, and I am curious what you are citing there in regards to the left aligned portrait? In the section I was in the first precept was: Start an article with a right-aligned image. CApitol3 (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I went to the page you provided a link for but saw no mention of positioning them left. Is there another link? Thank you. CApitol3 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Frederick Conrad Sander

On 20 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Frederick Conrad Sander, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI notice

FYI, your edits are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ownership_and_accusations_of_wikistalking. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pancrace Bessa

Hallo, I see you're working on this... could you replace the uncategorized stub label by {{France-artist-stub}} (or remove it, if you've got far enough with the article), because then for the moment the "unsorted stub" listing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stubs will be completely, beautifully, empty! Thanks. PamD (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this - I see someone else has added (different!) stubtypes! PamD (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johan Huydecoper

Hallo Rotational, thx for the improvements, allthough i dont agree with one: it was not his temper that was arroused, do i have to explain more? Besides a daughter of Frederik Ruysch married a certain Jan Munnicks, an apothecary. Taksen (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are very arrogant, not responding or changing the lemma. Besides you translated my article from dutch on Caspar Commelin, without letting me know, which made me wonder. Should Wikipedia become known as a bunch of thieves?Taksen (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm arrogant - busy with other things is probably a more accurate reason. Translating articles from one language to another is common practice in Wikipedia - it is certainly not regarded as plagiarism or thieving. The fine print tells you quite clearly that when you write something for WP, it is no longer your property. The other thing about WP is that you are free to correct any error you come across - you certainly don't need my permission nor have you to wait for me to make the correction. As it says in your welcome:Be bold in updating pages! ciao Rotational (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "disruption"

Hi Rotational. Please dont make a POINT in this way, you have already caused significant disruption by ignoring requests to stop formatting to your personal preference. And you must not make personal attacks, as you did in the edit summary. Please see about expanding the content of wikipedia instead, you have a talent for that! cygnis insignis 09:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly do not disrupt or vandalise articles. Except for Rkitko, my formatting style does not seem to affront editors - in fact if you dig out Rkitko's objection to his stalking in the archived admin. incident records, you'll find that my views do enjoy some support. Rkitko is the only one who is pursuing this ridiculous crusade and making a habit of stalking the pages I work on. Rotational (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made my views clear above, and have done so before. Your blinkered view that you personal preferences should be enforced on articles has become very disruptive, you have taken up the 'cause' of user accounts that were blocked - only seeing value in those contributions. You fail to heed the advice of many users. You have made a personal attack that completely contradicts my experience of that user, it is a belligerent tactic used in pursuing a trivial issue as a broad-ranging vendetta. You have wasted your time, and my time as well, a valuable contribution from any user. Consider this very carefully: Don't waste any more! Apply your talents to improving pages so I can read your articles, rather than your unfounded personal attacks. cygnis insignis 12:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the benefit of your views. You seem to have a very low opinion of my views - "blinkered", pandering to my "personal preferences", taking up causes of blocked accounts, failing to heed advice. Do I do anything that carries your stamp of approval? If you go to the trouble of looking up the admin incident referred to above, you'll see that on a number of occasions Rkitko admits to stalking behaviour (I assume that this is what you mean by personal attack). That it contradicts your experience of the user does not mean it doesn't happen. As for being belligerent, nothing could be further from the truth. I have stated repeatedly that I would like Rkitko off my back, so that I can get on with writing articles - he is the only editor who persists in grinding me down - don't take my word for it, look at his history. He did exactly the same to Raasgat, harassing him/her to the point of quitting WP. So please don't label my mild criticism as an "unfounded personal attack". "You have wasted your time, and my time as well, a valuable contribution from any user." - I don't understand what you are driving at here - I don't consider the time I spend on WP as wasted and what you do with your time is your choice - if you want to label it as "wasted", that is your prerogative. Finally, I write articles for the general user - if you find them interesting then I am happy, but do bear in mind that my sole mandate in life is not necessarily to afford you pleasure. Rotational (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're still misrepresenting what I've said, I guess. I come across your contributions because some of them show up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult page, especially archive9, which I was working through when I found several of your contributions. As I do with other editors who have patterns that need to be fixed across their articles, I went through your contributions and updated them per WP:HEAD. Again, if you have a problem with the MoS or {{botanist}}, take the discussion there. Your changes might enjoy some support. (By the way, the only support I see in the discussion you copied below is for the list you've been working on, otherwise it seemed that the conclusion was you must follow the MoS or endeavor to change the guideline.) The way not to go about things is to continue reverting to your preference in violation of the MoS's advice, exposing your ownership issues regarding these articles. Wikistalking is a serious accusation, one which you have not shown to be true. Accusing me of unfounded wikistalking can be seen as a personal attack. I urge you to begin discussions and lay out your proposed changes in a rational argument at WT:MOS and Template talk:Botanist, respectively. And until change is agreed upon, follow the MoS. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership and accusations of wikistalking

(pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive381#Ownership_and_accusations_of_wikistalking)

I've been dealing with a user, Rotational (talk · contribs) for some time now on his style preferences for the articles he creates. In the style dispute over WP:HEAD and {{botanist}} usage, I asked for a WP:3O (here) but got a rather weak reply that offered wise advice on compromise, but didn't really address any of the substance of the dispute. I know ANI can't resolve content disputes, but it has become a bit more than that now. This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style. diff, diff, diff, etc. This display of ownership also appeared in his other sockpuppets (see case) when asked to alter style or consider changes. Since it's become an ownership issue and because this editor has accused me of wikistalking (previous diffs), I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this. What to do when one is accused of wikistalking? Is this a clear case of ownership? I've since cooled it as I don't want to continue edit warring and was hoping the TO would be helpful. Appreciate any advice. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 03:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the MOS. He needs to follow it; if he wants another style, he should argue for it and see if he can get consensus. Otherwise, I'll personally mercilessly edit the article to follow it. If not, someone else will. I've informed him of the discussion as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This user, in my opinion, is now violating WP:OWN by continually reverting changes to his preferred style I don't think that editing to conform to one's preferences shows ownership - that would make us all guilty - but Rkitko seems to forget that every edit of mine is countered by a revert on his part. He, of course, feels that his interpretation of the MoS is the only correct one, which puts him slightly below Jimbo Wales and God. Fact is that he does stalk the articles I work on and I resent being targeted by him, especially since I don't dog his footsteps making a nuisance of myself. I don't vandalise articles and I try to make useful contributions, which is sometimes difficult in the face of a vendetta. I've since cooled it is typical of Rkitko's doublespeak, since he immediately trots off and turns his dissatisfaction into an Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. His grievances go back to his accusations of sockpuppetry and his attempts to have me permanently blocked. When that failed, he made a special mission of watching my every move. It would be nice if he could get off my back. Rotational (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the argument. Rotational, you are putting article with headings at level 5, and have been told about WP:HEAD. I understand the content you provide, but you have to know the formatting by now. Unless you read "primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on" from WP:HEAD completely different than me, it's fairly clear. If you don't want to format articles, just put a {{cleanup}} notice and let somebody who's into that sort of thing take care of it. I've cleaned up some of your articles (and I'll just say that List of florilegia and botanical codices was a ton of useless work because you don't follow any of the structure here), and you should follow the style. It just makes more work for others. I don't understand the desire to put articles in your personal preference, as it will be edited out anyways. Also, Rotational, please provide diffs of reverts from him. The last 10 or so articles you have in your contributions have no edits from him, so he isn't reverting every edit of yours. He pointed to diffs, and it was clear what was going on. It's only fair to ask you to do the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll note that this is first edit from Rkitko to this noticeboard since September. It looks to me like he asked you to not do that, he went to 3O, he got a 3O response, he came here, specifically about the stalking allegation, it seems. I really don't see him following your around, Rotational. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do admit to going through his contributions every once in a while, but that alone is not stalking. Rotational's articles sometimes show up on the User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult page, which leads me to see if any of his other contributions need a clean up. But there is no intent to harass. In posting this here I was seeking advice on how to work with a user that was involved in an edit war with me but refused to discuss the issue with me. Thanks for responding to my request for advice, Ricky. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you "couldn't care less about the argument". The background and history of the affair is interesting, because it shows up both Rkitko's stalking and his hypocrisy. I agree with jossi that it is "amusing". This whole matter is a storm in a teacup, but it's a storm which Rkitko insists on blowing up. He's determined to have his way and not interested in reaching any compromise "I admit I'm a bit stubborn on this point, but there is no other acceptable position than to follow the MOS and to use the botanist template." and rejects the 3O advice of jossi. Rotational (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that the Manual of Style exists for a reason, Rotational. If your edits aren't conforming to it, they're likely to be changed. As the Wikipedia edit page says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." --clpo13_(talk) 06:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Clpo13. It is the Manual of Style, though, and not the Manual Of Rules Never To Be Broken If You Value Your Life. It is a collection of guidelines, hints, rules, procedures, suggestions and advice, covering the entire spectrum. If there were no problems with its interpretation, then any forum for discussion, such as this one, would become superfluous. Thank heaven Wikipedia still leaves some things to human judgement! Rotational (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I doubt anyone wants to hear this, and it will certainly be ignored by many editors who insist on strictly following the MoS without question, but Rotational's layout looks better than the standard layout. This is because in a stub article or near-stub article without sections in the body of the article, the sections at the bottom ("source", "notes", "references", "external links" and so on) look very big and therefore out of place. For that reason, the smaller headings used by Rotational are a better, more visually balanced choice.

Of course, I've been known to champion non-standard layouts for other, similar reasons of visual impact, balance and ease of use, which I reckon will now be brought up to devalue my comment. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking specifically at List of florilegia and botanical codices which Rotational has rotated back to his style at the momemt, I have to agree that in this specific article his style is visually much more appealing, or I should say much less distracting. The header underlines count for nothing, and the resulting large amounts of whitespace simply don't help. That said, I have often cleaned up article headings that had been inserted at the wrong level, since in general they look bad.

Unless ALL of Rotational's articles are lists of plants with images down the right side I can see no reason for always violoating WP:MOS. It exists for a reason, and I can understand an editor happening by and zapping thigns to match. But visual and textual flow is as important as factual accuracy (since poor flow can harm comprehension), and they both trump blind adherance to a set of formatting rules. On the numerous other points brought up above in the original discussion I make no comment.Loren.wilton (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But visual and textual flow is as important as factual accuracy (since poor flow can harm comprehension), and they both trump blind adherance to a set of formatting rules. Thank you, I couldn't have said it better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a single editor's view of what makes for better visual and textual flow shouldn't overrule a style guide put together by many collaborating editors. In certain cases the Manual of Style is fit to be ignored. It says so itself. However, that usually requires a good reason. In the case of the articles in question, I can understand a different style. But as Loren.wilton said, that doesn't condone ignoring it all the time just because one's opinion of what constitutes proper style happens to differ from what the manual says. --clpo13_(talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the MoS is in most instances a valuable guide, and that it creates the framework for a unified look for Wikipedia, which is a valuable thing, but there's a tendency amoung many editors to consider it Holy Writ, and to expect that merely citing the MoS is sufficient to counter anyone who's actually taken the time to consider issues of visual impact and balance, ease of use, reader functionality, textual flow and so on. Dogmatic adherence to what is repeatedly stated is a set of guidelines and not absolutely rules is taken as a substitute for discussion of the merits of the specific instance, and that's a shame. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Even so, a guideline should not be ignored solely on the basis that it is a guideline. I can't speak for others, but I follow the MoS because I don't find anything wrong with it, not because it's there. --clpo13_(talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely that ignoring the MoS just for the sake of ignoring it is wrong. Someone who uses non-standard formatting should be able, and willing, to justify their actions in discussion. Unfortunately, a lot of editors -- thankfully not all -- consider waving the MoS to be the end of the matter and are unwilling to engage in conversation. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset) And Rotational continues, diff and in one of his new articles, diff. I agree with the users above on opportunities to ignore the MoS, but Rotational has not presented any sufficient reason to not use the headings beyond his dislike for them. Could an uninvolved admin evaluate this for ownership issues and take appropriate action (whatever you deem that to be)? --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no ownership issues here except in the fevered minds of those who want to hang a simple stylistic matter on a peg labelled "GROSS VIOLATION" of MoS. Rkitko has often objected to my rendition of an author abbreviation on the grounds that it did not automatically add the botanist's name to the List of botanists with author abbreviations. When I took care of that objection by manually adding the name to the category, it was promptly reverted. I maintain that if the information content of two styles is the same, then Wikipedia should be flexible enough to countenance both. I like my version more, because it doesn't surround itself with an unjustifiable box and stand out from the rest of the text like a sore thumb. As for the heading issues, I have never understood the alarm and hysteria at trying to avoid meaningless lines cutting across the article and making it appear like a schoolboy's first essay. If one could separate the headings from the lines I would embrace the headings, sobbing with gratitude. To summarise - surely it should be possible for a FEW reasonable versions of style to peacefully co-exist. That way WP would be more like an evolving organism investing in speciation, instead of placing all bets on one potential dinosaur. Rotational (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rotational, other editors and I have told you that there are places to discuss changes to the MoS or to the botanist template. Take your issues with those features there and try to gain consensus instead of making potentially WP:POINTY reverts. Many might agree with you, but we won't know that until you start the discussion there. My objection to your version of the author abbr. statement is that it doesn't utilize the botanist template. For the sake of future maintenance, like possibly changing the design of the template, it is wise to be consistent on each page. A while ago there was a deletion discussion regarding Cat:Botanists with author abbreviations, in which people were considering using the template to alter how the category would be used (or not used). It would have been a surprise to them when they altered the template but still had plenty of articles in that category! Regardless, this is not the place to dispute content issues. I believe with the evidence I've shown that you revert to your preferred style and that so far you've been unwilling to discuss this at WT:MOS or Template talk:Botanist, instead continuing to revert to your style to make your point that you dislike what the MoS calls for. And so it continues today: diff. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. cygnis insignis 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of attacking other editors when I have done nothing of the sort. If you and your sidekick Rkitko feel like blocking me, then do so, but try not to fabricate violations in the absence of anything tangible. Ciao Rotational (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Typewriter Company

Sir, regarding diff, please also see WP:MOS#Images where it states not to place images directly below the headings with three equals signs (===) as it disconnects the text from its heading. Flow and readability are more important than whether a portrait image is facing in or out of the page. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCookie

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Collingwood Smith

Thanks for creating the William Collingwood Smith article! While it is still a stub, would you add a more specific stub tag to it, such as {{UK-painter-stub}}? I am trying to keep Category:Stubs relatively small, but do not want to edit this article while it is {{inuse}}.

Thanks! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oops, in use

Sorry, I was looking at a clock that was 3 hours fast (fancy radio controlled thing; probably the neighbors kid found the remote control). I stub sorted Charles Vyse‎ while you were working on it, since I thought the in use tag had more or less gone stale, sorry.

While I'm here, do you think {{artist-stub}} (including actors, painters, poets) or {{sculptor-stub}} (where pottery is only a related field) is better? Near as I can tell, there are no better options than those. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Margaret Hale00.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Margaret Hale00.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniela Denby-Ashe pic

I read your comment on her talk page, and fully agree... it does seem slightly ridiculous... Adaircairell (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)