Talk:Cal

message: User:Vmavanti is engaging in edit warring and unjustified wholesale deletions. I have checked and confirmed that every one of the entries I've restored is legitimate. Contrary to Vmavanti's assertion that every single retained entry must be justified to their satisfaction, the opposition of two experienced editors shifts the onus of proof on Vmavanti. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I haven't. Please use words more carefully. Two editors have reverted my edits without rational explanation, and I haven't even complained about that. BKonrad and I are in fact discussing this matter at this moment. I have sent messages to his page. Remember, civility is one of our rules here. Look before leaping. We are going to go over the entries one at a time. Either we debate or you revert my edits. Those are the only choices.Vmavanti (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Without rational explanation"? Just who's being uncivil? You have engaged in edit warring. Per WP:EDITWARRING, "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule". Further you have not justified your action to delete so many entries. Simple statements do not constitute incivility, merely opposition. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm ... maybe you're not familiar with the saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater", which was referenced in my edit comment. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  First, that's the second time you have falsely accused me of edit warring, and I have again refused to respond in kind by stooping to the level of name calling and false accusation. A revert is not "edit warring". If anyone is edit warring, it is you. You reverted all that work I did, in full, instead of changing one or items and, giving rational explanations, and then discussing them. Second, you are quoting an essay as though it were policy. Third, you seem to think there is a rule about the quantity of information that can be changed on any article at any one time. I am unaware of any such rule. Fourth, you refuse to answer why alphabetical headers are unacceptable. Fifth, you accused me of "wholesale deletion" without explanation. That's a lie. I did explain in my edit summary there were was too much reliance on slang terms, nicknames, and acronyms. I hope we get into that when the discussion begins. And so, sixth: I have stated repeatedly to you and the other on his Talk page, while you were getting angry at me and insulting me, that I am ready to go over the entries one at a time. How many times do I have to say that? Which entry would you like to discuss first?Vmavanti (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I had initially started going through your massive removal of entries to restore individual valid ones, but it turned out there were so many that, as Clarityfiend put it, it appeared there was "much baby, little bathwater" being thrown out. It was better to revert and put the onus back onto you to justify so many invalid removals. older ≠ wiser 18:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gave reasons, but they were ignored (twice now) by reverters. Maybe the discussion should start with the question I have asked probably five times already: What is your argument against alphabetical headers? Then we can discuss the items one at a time. The discussion should involve anyone who reverted my work.Vmavanti (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've given no reason to justify removal of valid entries. And your tone and badgering of other editors is becoming the problem here. older ≠ wiser 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I did. I continue to raise points that you continue to ignore. I don't give a goddam about tone. I care about honesty. Your tone and badgering of other editors is becoming the problem here. You know what's worse than "tone"? Ignoring the rules, insisting you are always right, insisting on doing your own thing, refusing to ask and answer simple questions, and impulsively reverting an entire  page of edits repeatedly while giving no rational explanation other than "I don't like this". And then accusing other people of edit warring. All the while wasting my time because you think that is how you can win. Win what? I don't now. I'm trying to move the discussion, but no one wants to get past step one: What is the argument against alphabetical headers? ALL of my edits were removed. Not just one. So let's examine ALL of the edits if I was wrong about every single one of them.Vmavanti (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you have not given any reason for removal of valid entries. You did give a reason, but it was wrong, as pointed out by PamD below. And if you're going to continue making baseless accusations of others while seeing yourself as blameless -- well, that is not a good start for a civil discussion. No one has claimed you were wrong about every single one of [your edits]. The issue was that on the whole the effort involved with separating the wheat from the chaff was more than the benefit. Both Clarityfiend and PamD have made subsequent edits to sort out some this. And for the record, I don't have any real concern one way or the other regarding alpha sorted headings. It is not a requirement. In many cases this is the most helpful arrangement. In other cases, there may be good reason to place more prominent uses at the top regardless of alpha sort. older ≠ wiser 15:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  The purpose of  the disambig page is to help the reader navigate ambiguous terms. Hence the title: to make less ambiguous. You seem to think the disambig page is for any article remotely related to the term. That isn't it. That approach (the kitchen sink) is what causes disambig pages to become bloated, confusing, and unhelpful. It's not a trivia contest. I am puzzled by the bias against the delete key and the refusal to follow fairly simple rules to benefit readers.Vmavanti (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The simple rule, to benefit the reader, is more or less "If the reader might know this title and be using it to try to find the article, and it's mentioned in the article, then it belongs in the disambiguation page". So nicknames, abbreviations, older or newer forms of names, all have a place in a dab page. PamD 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're oversimplifying and expanding simultaneously. The rule isn't: "to benefit the reader" and that's that. The rule is: to help the reader navigate ambiguous terms. That's the purpose of DAB pages. Not "any term" or "any remotely related term which my neighbor used once as a nickname" or "any term that Sports Illustrated uses as an acronym".Vmavanti (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Bkonrad: Whose rules are you following? Many people on your Talk page have accused you of playing by your own rules. Is it possible that all those people are wrong and you are right in every instance? Perhaps you are reading between the lines, so that in effect you are playing by your own rules without realizing it. I don't know because you are not very forthcoming. A bad sign. You haven't answered my questions. "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater" isn't a legitimate reason for reverting my edits, which you are now doing across multiple articles, and that's beginning to look like stalking. You have lied multiple times about my edits. I don't know what your problem is, but you need to clean up your act quickly if you want to continue editing on Wikipedia.Vmavanti (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your repeated accusations here and on my talk page are becoming annoying. People do come to complain on my talk page -- in most cases, it is due to their lack of understanding WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. Do you have any specific instances of me "playing by my own rules" that have any merit? To the best of my abilities, I follow WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. I do not think your edits on this page were in alignment with them. Two other experienced dab editors have also disagreed with your edits. And yet you continue to think you are right and make baseless accusations and threats. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean aside from the wholesale deletions, the religious objection to the delete key, the inability to read and heed edit summaries, the refusal to answer simple and direct questions, the insults, the snobbery, the tangled syntax and periphrasis, and that you are now following me around Wikipedia?...Off the top of my head: entries with no links; entries where you add "Emperor" or "Sir" when it isn't part of the Wikipedia title; creation of categories with only one item; creation of categories with only two items; a religious objection to alphabetical order and chronological order; a religious objection to alphabetical headers in favor of what you feel ought to come first; using WP:DAB or MOSDAB as an excuse without specifying exactly which rule you in those articles you are referring to; entries you include because you are interested in them, and the promotion of a relative's book on your home page. The purpose of DAB pages is to clear up ambiguity, not add to it.Vmavanti (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't even know what you are talking about now. If you're not going to do anything more than cast baseless accusations, I've nothing further to say to you. As for following you about, on the one hand, I have tens of thousands of pages on my watchlist, many, if not most of them disambiguation pages. So don't be surprised that I'll notice bad edits to them. But beyond that, when an editor makes more than a few dubious edits, it is often worthwhile to check if there is a pattern of similar edits. 23:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale deletions