User talk:Adamdaley/Archives/2022/August

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: @Boing! said Zebedee: @Valereee: @Cullen328: @

Some of you maybe aware that I was recently banned for one month between July 19 and August 19, 2022 for disruptive editing. My experience at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was overwhelming. Overwhelming because so many users who I've never seen before on Wikipedia, wanted their say or their "2 cents worth" in my case at WP:ANI. What made it a really bad experience for me, was because of these people, because I have

What other editors failed to see, is that the a percentage of my edits were some-what constructive. Trying my best to cleanup talkpages so they are able to load faster. Not all articles are able to be improved in "load time". Let's take Nguyễn Khánh; I removed 535 bytes and let's go by WikiProject by WikiProject.

Let's go line by line, WikiProject by WikiProject. There is no "talk header", I'd remove the space for "talkheader". While this is not a redirect as some editors like Ljleppan automatically assumes (I've pinged Ljleppan as a curtesy to let them know what I'm saying; and talking about them). Same thing with "WikiProjectBannerShell" removing those spaces can be used elsewhere in the WikiProjects and the WikiProject attributes. Whatever they maybe since every talkpage is different!

WikiProject Biography: The only attribute added was the "Politician Priority".

WikiProject Vietnam: Left "as is".

WikiProject Military history: I removed the "long" form with the "short" form. I added the following attributes: "Biography", "Southeast Asian" and "Cold War". Even the current template at WikiProject Military history would have been shorter than the current "long" form. Why isn't the Military importance listed here? It is better served in WikiProject Biography hence the: "|military-work-group=y|military-priority=mid"

WikiProject Politics: Left "as is". The "Importance" could have been assessed as "Low". Why "Low"? I'm not that familiar with the article in question, so I assessed it as "Low" importance. If it was meant to be a higher assessment, someone can edit it.

Four things Ljleppan, did bring up "4. Reordering named arguments of WikiProject Biography -- Order of named arguments has no effect on anything; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change". Let me make this clear, I follow the template. If you don't like that, then get consensus at the WP:Biography to change their WikiProject template. "7. British-task-force → British etc. -- Replaces valid parameter with alias; unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change" as the current WP:MILHIST template, the short form of countries are acceptable instead of the longer-form such as "British-task-force". The "task force" has simply been dropped."5. Removing linebreaks from WikiProject Biography -- unnecessary, no visual/meaningful change"; who says it needs each attribute on a separate line? Basically compact it to achieve less wasting of the talkpage. "9. Removing priority=Mid from WikiProject Military history -- Presumably a mistake hidden by the massive changeset. If not, summary should explain why it was removed" in Biographies, the MILHIST importance is better suited in the WP:Biography banner. Other non-Biography-MILHIST articles the importance is invalid code and does appear during the visual banner of WP:MILHIST by users.

At this point, my aim would be to undue what I've done and I am hoping it will show to other editors that I am trying to make up for my past editing prior to the ban.

For those who are still reading to this point, I've had countless "thanks" from editors who've seen my changes. I am humble to those people. Then people named above, why not just come to me and ask why I do what I do. If that was done, then I wouldn't have felt so badly, overwhelmed, etc. As for the Biographies on WP:MILHIST, I'm going to try and change my edits that got me banned for a month, this time, I'll be following the WikiProject templates as to they appear on their respective WikiProject pages. If people still have problems with me following the WikiProject Banner templates as they are "text-wise", then I don't know what to say to you if you have a "problem" with another user following it that specific way. Adamdaley (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the community does not want you to make edits that do not change the appearance of the page that are instead "Trying my best to cleanup talkpages so they are able to load faster." The vast majority of talk pages load very rapidly and your changes have negligible impact on load time. This is a project to build and improve an encyclopedia for the benefit of our readers. Do not make functionally useless edits that that clog up other editor's watch lists. You were blocked (not banned) for one month, but now you are unblocked. Please do not return to the same or similar pattern of behavior because the next block will come much more swiftly and will last much longer. Instead, find something indisputably useful to do. Cullen328 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Adamdaley. Don't think I've interacted with you before, nor did I participate in the ANI discussion. I did also notice the edits that got you in trouble however, so I decided to keep track of the situation by adding this talk to my watchlist. Now that you're unblocked, like Cullen here said I reckon the best thing you can do is find something that is indisputably positive for the project, and I'm not sure going back to the talk pages is the best idea for that. I know you think that articles are pretty much regulated, and I mean they are to an extent, but vandalism slips through all the time, especially subtle vandalism on low profile articles. You said before you wanted something to keep you busy I think, so why not patrol recent changes instead? Just change the filter to feed you likely problematic edits and you can stay busy for as long as you'd like, that's what I was doing when I started editing regularly and it's satisfying to protect the hard work people have put in to create articles, not to mention often the people they are about. Just a suggestion, no idea if you've done it before but it would be an unquestionably productive activity that would ensure you're a net positive with your contributions. TylerBurden (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI is often a pile-on, and rarely succeeds in both correcting AND retaining editors. Agree with TylerB, recent changes patrolling is probably an area you could be highly productive in. In the Milhist space you surely have enough experience to do basic assessments of new articles. You know the criteria for Stub, Start and C, and it is highly unlikely that you are going to get them wrong or strike a conflict. If you do, feel free to ping me and I will advise on the best course of action. If you look at Category:Unassessed military history articles there are currently 44 articles that need assessment against the

WP:MHA#CRIT. Why don't you have a crack at assessing a few and drop me a line after you've done some so I can run an eye over your assessments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me

) 05:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: -- You're right about not communicating until today. For those who read this topic, I respond to things constructively not negativity. I was fortunate enough to edit and that's why I completely didn't lose my mind altogether. Hope to work with you in the future, Tyler. Adamdaley (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)