Dicklyon

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is said by many that A picture is worth a thousand words. Wikipedia articles are vastly improved and enhanced by the use of images. Dicklyon's user page displays just some of the over 500 images he has added to Wikipedia articles making the articles more enjoyable and interesting for our most important commodity, our reader. WP:Photography. He is a long-time veteran editor with over 137000 edits (58% in mainspace) who always uses the edit summary to clarify his edits and communicate his intentions to following editors. He also participates in various timely and important WP:Manual of Style discussions to improve what and how we do things around here. A trusted, productive and helpful editor that deserves recognition as an Editor of the Week.

Lingelbach (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

that's for these hacks:

•  
  Permutation test
•  
  Correlogram
•  
  Correlogram

There we go again, commenting on the quantity of my edits instead of the quality. But minor thanks anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add new topics at the bottom please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M40_gun_motor_carriage&diff=prev&oldid=1236303188

Are you about to start another campaign to remove all capitalisation, despite going directly against all sources? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Books tend to lowercase that one, though there's a recent move toward caps since Wikipedia starting capping them. Dicklyon (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dicklyon, I'm going to request that you self-revert your moves of several load-bearing equipment-related articles. You're clearly aware from our discussion at Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment that there are editors out there who disagree with this change (me, for one). You should have started with a RM discussion, not unilaterally made what you should have known were going to be controversial moves. And now you're mass de-capitalizing what appears to be every single piece of military equipment on Wikipedia -- including several that are clearly proper names per MOS:MILTERMS? Where is the consensus for this change? Given your contentious history in this area, you should know better than this. Please self-revert before we have to take this further into dispute resolution. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

SJ, you seemed to have shut down discussion where we were talking before (you introduced analogous topics and then said not to discuss them any more, so I stopped). As for the "Interceptor" one you linked, that's clearly the proper name, while the varying descriptor terms that follow are not part of the proper name. I'm willing to discuss any for which you think there's a case for proper name status, but I don't think there's a reason for me to revert a bunch of well-motivated work at this point. In particular, I don't understand Andy's point that started this section. Also the ALICE thing; it's easy to find sources that use lowercase (in sentence contexts), so per the criteria in MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we should not be treating it as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've not "shut down" discussion; I asked you to stay focused on the topic applicable to that page, to answer the direct question I repeatedly asked you (to justify your argument for why you believe the page is clearly not a proper name) and not veer off deeply into discussion of other articles simply because they were brought up as comparisons. And you know full well that MOS:MILTERMS states The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page. -- yet you've made no attempt whatsoever to reach that consensus in advance of your moves, in cases where there was actual uncertainty. If you don't believe there's a reason for you to revert what is clearly controversial work, simply because you were "well-motivated" for it, then I will simply have to revert it for you, and we can have the discussion like we should have had from the beginning. But that's a very disappointing result. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will be happy to have an RM discussion on any that you revert. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted the few ones that I'm intending to revert (and created talk page sections for them), so feel free to list away at this point. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll start a multi-RM on those few for now; we can discuss more later if needed. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• This should go to a topic ban. There is a long history of Dicklyon doing this (see Talk:Motor Gun Boat and many naval articles, and even Apollo Command Module) and they have absolutely no interest in doing it any other way, regardless of policy, sources or other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  What you're showing is the long history of my moves and move proposals being in agreement with the community consensus. This is always based on policies, guidelines, and sources, though I know there are some who interpret those differently sometimes (e.g. you, often). Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Two people shouting louder and more persistently is not consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Andy Dingley: since you're talking in various places about moves I've made without discussion, I thought I should clarify what I've been up to. You might note from my move log that I've moved about 500 titles so far this year, mostly from uppercase to lowercase. These are mostly without explicit discussion, though generally they follow patterns of previous discussions. At the same time, I've started many multi-RM discussions, resulting in over 1000 page moves for those where the discussion closed in favor of lowercasing (moves done by closers who declared the consensus to do so). In the case of the "gun motor carriage" and "howitzer motor carriage" and "mortar motor carriage" and such titles, those follow the consensus guideline at WP:MILCAPS, and follow the precedent of five multi-RM discussions (none of which were started by me) on letter/number light tank, medium tank, heavy tank, armored car, etc. (and several of which I did not even comment in, and all of which were unanimously in support of lowercase). In doing post-move cleanup on over-capitalized links to those, I found myself editting lists where various other letter/number military vehicle titles were unnecessarily capped. For each of them, I looked at sources and verified that lowercase is not unusual before do the moves. I've been at this (among other things) for about a month, starting with M1 Heavy Tractor on June 30, it appears, and got very little reaction or pushback; mostly just some thanks (18 in the last 30 days, on case fixes and case discussion comments). When you opened this section (with an obnoxious unconstructive question), I pointed out the source evidence for why I had done the move. You didn't push back with anything like a serious claim that "Gun Motor Carriage" is a proper name, or other reason why you came to comment on it. You didn't revert the move, either. When people revert or make a serious complaint, I stop and discuss. You haven't done that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The brook trout is a resident of the Hudson River area, as were many artists of the Hudson River School. {{trout small}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Kryn (talk • contribs)

Randy, I modified your unsigned trout a bit, to make it look more like discussion. I had not looked at that one; it was added to the RM later, by another user. As for the decapitalizations at the template, that's what I was doing before the RM, when I noticed some red links that motivated the RM, not the other way around. I might have done more there later; don't recall. But it was not in support of the RM as you suggested in your broad revert. No matter, we can fix it again after the RM. Dicklyon (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know another user added Hudson River School to your RM but you allowed it to stay, hence the trouting (I think that's the second trout I've ever given, a fine fish in but not out of water). The Hudson River School decapitalized! Appalling to say the yeast. As for the navbox, you gnu these lowercasings would be controversial, so another trout should have joined the first, which would have made the two fish a school. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't actually know that a few of the schools might turn out to be controversial. I should have vetted that one (which I admit I had never heard of). Still, per our guidelines and the fair number of sources showing the caps to be unnecessary, I'd favor downcasing; I just wouldn't be confident that it would go that way. Dicklyon (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reasonable, thanks. Maybe that one should be removed and BarrelProof can put up his own RM if he still feels strongly about such a fishy endeavor. I haven't checked n-grams on any of the other schools, as vetting is usually a good plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

At least now you've become aware of the Hudson River School. They are a major part of American art history, as well as the history of depicting nature. They moved that art genre to a new level. If some of your good photographs were paintings they'd be something like what these guys were doing, a way of addressing and communicating nature to viewers. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks for filling that hole in my sorry education. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I mentioned you in an ANI thread at WP:ANI#User:Andy Dingley, regarding the behavior in the RM on Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment. I don't think you need to do anything, but I wanted to make sure you were aware. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I left a comment there re his behavior on my talk page, too. Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dicklyon, I have noticed that you have been mass moving pages to sentence case (e.g. M270 multiple launch rocket system. I request that you please stop this unilaterally moving pages that have stable titles. Schierbecker (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's been a week since I had a move reverted or objected to, so I don't see why you used the heading you did here. The group of 3 that were reverted are being discussed at an RM. Are you objecting to the M270 one now, or was that just an example from my 5 moves per day over the last couple of days? I wouldn't call that mass moves. Feel free to revert any that you think I got wrong, and we can discuss them. Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do think it's problematic that you're systematically mass moving titles of military articles to sentence case without going through an RFC or RM first, given that you're aware there's been objections to several of them already based on the same underlying core arguments that are, based on the current trend, unlikely to result in a consensus to move. That seems like a remarkably poor decision for someone who's been so recently blocked for move warring -- I would object to essentially all of these moves, but I don't have the energy to fight the same battle over and over. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes. -- finding of the Arbitration Committee in the MOS case, to which you were a party. You've clearly got an objection here (from Schierbecker). You should have been aware of the likelihood that there would be objection to making additional moves based on the RM discussion as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We've had at least 5 RM discussions on military vehicle capitalizations, which closed unanimously for lowercase (mostly on tanks), and I haven't heard a specific complaint here from Schierbecker yet. I asked if he objected to that one, or just used it as an example of the fact that I'm doing moves to sentence case. Generally, I'm sensing some unease with the quantity of my work, but little or no specific complaints that I got something wrong. If you have a complaint, let's hear it, so we can discuss. As for "unilaterally moving pages that have stable titles", as FFF notes below, that's how article titles that get created in title case generally get fixed when someone gets around to it. Move warring would be moving titles that are not stable. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Schierbecker, "page move edit warring" doesn't seem like an applicable title here. Your request that DL "stop this unilaterally moving pages that have stable titles" is too broad. Most page moves are unilateral and uncontentious. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dicklyon. You have redirected the page I created for [Wikidata Q90405608] to University of Erfurt, where the information is basically lost. The important thing is not that FactGrid is hosted in Erfurt (it will move anyway). The important thing is that it is part of Germany's National Research Data Initiative NFDI, and I assume it fulfils the notability criteria in this range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FactGrid&direction=next&oldid=1209715004

As your redirect is basically a deletion I assume there is a deletion debate on it. Can you give me the link, so that I can see the rationale? --Olaf Simons (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just realise you did not delete the page - it was User:Alpha3031 - I'll ask him, thanks for the case fix. --Olaf Simons (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Case fixes I do. The rest I have no idea what you're talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well the entire article is deleted - not the way this is usually done. (I was an admin for a decade, but I do not feel like intervening). --Olaf Simons (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I reverted that, since I found no discussion about deleting or merging FactGrid. We'll see. It looks like it needs work. Maybe some of the "Further Reading" items can serve as sources. Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply