User talk:109.76.150.178

April 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stargate Origins. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 18:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• To clarify, the template's name is Template:Plainlist, not Template:Plain list. Template:Plain list is a redirect to Template:Plainlist. If you have a problem with this, I suggest that you open a requested move discussion at Template talk:Plainlist. Note that template names are not required to follow normal spelling conventions. Please do not continue to arbitrarily change content in the article. If you persist you will very likely find yourself blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You assert that Plainlist is more correct. You have not given proof of this. I only reverted once to show my objection to your unfounded assertions.

The closest you have come is to say that a template is better than a redirect, but you have not said why it is better. This is not proof, you haven't clarified at all. Why are there redirects if we aren't supposed to use them? Where is the guideline saying don't use redirects, or explaining why it is better to avoid them?

You are entitled to your opinion and Wikipedia allows for different formatting choices but stop asserting that things are more correct if you cannot prove it. You assert your way is correct, why is it so hard to show that? It should be easy for you to prove your point if it is as obvious as you seem to think it is.

There are many situations were stricter formatting is optional or "not required" but that doesn't mean it is better or worse or that if someone does format things another way you should rush to revert it. Don't you think it would be better to avoid unnecessary misspellings when it is so easy to do? Strict use of hyphens and dashes is "not required" but you wouldn't revert and editor who made a good faith effort to format them more strictly (and I know it's not an ideal example because that is less a matter of opinion and preference but a clearer question of strict formatting).

It is misleading to represent minor changes to the wikimarkup as "content changes", a disproportionate response to a single revert of a formatting change. It was only one of several changes, including expanding the plot section, an actual content change not a formatting change. Article content is far more important than formatting. Selectively complaining about unconstructive edits like as if it was vandalism based on a dislike of my formatting choices is ridiculous.

I would much prefer if Wikipedia had more automation and clearer policies on what formatting was best so that neither of us wasted any time on this. Blaming other editors and calling them disruptive due to the lack of consistency and clear policies is misplaced. Editors who understand policies well enough to throw a block of regulations at a user over a few extra spaces are surely in a better position to understand how Wikipedia works and bring clarity and consistency to the labyrinthine system of rules and guidelines.

Make the changes to Template:Plainlist yourself to make it clearer why redirects should be avoided. I'm not the only one who prefer to format Plain list with the extra space. -- 109.76.150.178 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You assert that Plainlist is more correct. You have not given proof of this. - Rubbish! As you very well know, since you've posted on the talk page, the template itself is titled "Plainlist", not "Plain list".

The closest you have come is to say that a template is better than a redirect, but you have not said why it is better. - Do you not understand the purpose of a redirect? In this case the redirect redirects to the template, which is at Template:Plainlist.

Why are there redirects if we aren't supposed to use them? - More often that not, redirects are used to cater for incorrect spellings, such as when somebody types "plain list" instead of "plainlist". If the redirect didn't exist then an error would result. For example, if somebody typed plane list. There is no obligation to use redirects, especially when it come to templates.

There are many situations were stricter formatting is optional - I really don't understand what you're on about here. Formatting is irrelevant to spelling the name of the template correctly. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's the default so it's "correct", is that your argument? I see no problem with using more redirects, I don't see why using them even bothers you.

I'm saying it is an option, a preference for formatting. An option is not "correct" or "incorrect" it is merely a choice. I place no obligation, I'd like others not to place any obligation on me either to use the way they prefer or say their way is the only "correct" way. I'd like others to accept that it is a formatting option that it is okay for me or others to use it and even to occasionally revert back to using it without being accused of being disruptive over an extra few spaces here and there.

Of course I'm not oblivious to how Wikipedia works, I have to accept your preference too. I have to accept that more active editors and bots will format things in all kinds of ways I might not think are the best. Ultimately some things get decided not by actual consensus but by whoever is most active. Maybe others will go along with my formatting, maybe not. I'd still like to be able to format things the way I prefer without abruptly being accused of being disruptive. -- 109.76.150.178 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to be gained by using redirects for template names. There's no reason why you shouldn't be using the correct name and you shouldn't be arbitrarily changing template names in article just because that's what you prefer. Everybody prefers different things and, as I've already said, if everybody edited Wikipedia according to their preferences, there would be chaos. If you don't want to be accused of being disruptive, then don't edit disruptively. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

---