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

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