Hello, TheCurrencyGuy!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Template:Pound (currency) was small but not minor. For the long version, see WP:MINOR but briefly it is used for trivial corrections to spelling, grammar or formatting that has no material effect ‎on the 'message' of the article. Changing "not" to "now" is just a one letter change but is certainly not minor.

Please use the edit summary box to let other editors know what you are doing and why. See Help:Edit summary.

No harm done, these mistakes are made by almost all new editors. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact your edit was a minor one, because you removed a duplicate. Which goes to underline the importance of edit summaries! Some you win, some you lose. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nudge

Please use the edit summary box to let other editors know what you are doing and why. See Help:Edit summary. Again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, I notice that you are removing claims that have no supporting citation. Applause.

If you see something that is unsupported but at least looks like it might be true, you can append a ((citation needed)) (or just ((cn))) [remove the tl|, just used to show the syntax without actually invoking it]. Ideally you should revisit the page in say a month to check if it has been reseolved.

But if, as you say, you have made a reasonable search for evidence and found none, go ahead and delete. It is for those who have that page on their watchlist to make good. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the heads up, I'm currently trying to bring some consistency to articles on a number of currencies, since as you can tell from my username numismatics is a key interest of mine.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure.

FYI, because I welcomed you, your talk page is automatically added to my watchlist for a month. Thereafter, I won't see any messages here unless (a) you use ((ping)) or ((reply to)) (((rto))) to alert me or (b) you write it on my talk page. You can use the ping/rto syntax on any talk page (including article talk pages), not just here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing books

You may notice that I revised the citation you added to Pound Sterling, so best I explain what I have done as I guess you will want to use this a lot. But first and most important, finding citations is the hard bit – anybody can make them look pretty. So if you only have time to a simple citation, then just do that and someone else will polish it.

You wrote:

• ((cite web|url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Leach_s_Tax_Dictionary/C_AhEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1|title=Leach's Tax Dictionary - page 838 |website=google.co.uk/books |date=8 March 2021 |access-date=2022-06-22 |url-status=live))

I changed it to

• ((cite book |title=Leach's Tax Dictionary |page=838 |isbn=9781913507190 |location=London |publisher=Spiramus Press Ltd |year=2021 |first=Robert |last=Leach |chapter=Section 2: Abbreviations |chapter-url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Leach_s_Tax_Dictionary/C_AhEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA838))

for these reasons:

1. ((cite book)) provides the best pro-forma for book citations. ((cite web)) is better for unstructured data. See also ((cite news)), ((cite journal)) and even ((cite press release)).
   1. Google Books is a great URL if and only if they give you a preview the specific page, which they often do if you have searched for a specific term or phrase. If they don't, there is no reason to give their URL – other book-sellers are available. But occasionally it is possible to tickle them into providing it anyway, by adding &pg=PA838. It took me years to discover that trick!
   2. A weakness of cite book is that it doesn't [at present] have a page-url= but it does have a chapter-url= which we can use in this case because it coincides conveniently with the page we want.
   3. But in general it is best to provide the ISBN and let readers choose where to get the book. Worldcat (in this case, Leach's tax dictionary entry at Worldcat.org) is pretty good at providing the standard metadata – and also where it might be borrowed.
2. You don't need [and it is invalid] to give url-status=live unless you also give archive-url= and archive-date=. Life is too short to go digging in archive.org etc for such things, leave it to an automatic process to provide.
3. You should give access-date= for web pages and things likely to change. You don't generally need to do so for books (though you may need to provide edition=

Here endeth the lesson! I hope you will find it useful. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I'm still a novice to all this stuff. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We all were. I stumbled around bumping into things because I didn't know what I needed to know before I could ask a question about it. So I like to give new editors some starting points. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very frustrated by @Oppa gangnam psy's reversion of some significant work I'd done. It feels like my ambitions to do some good on this site have been crushed out of spite. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nearlyevil665 was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:£ stg and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:£ stg, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

nearlyevil665 22:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheCurrencyGuy! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! nearlyevil665 22:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you take heed of OGS's block because your contribution to talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling was perilously close to a similar WP:NPA violation. (It would have been better had you self reverted, but I've done it now.) How did you think that such a fit of pique would advance your argument? On the contrary, it could only result in entrenched positions. Yes, you are correct that fillibuster has no place on Wikipedia and indeed has resulted in editors being referred to WP:ANI and getting blocks and even topic bans for their pains. Persistent production of reliable sources is the best way to achieve consensus. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. I will try to avoid this from now on. I have thanked you for your revert and made a more productive post. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let him without sin etc.

You were unwise to open three battle fronts at once. I had thought it was very likely that we would succeed in getting the banknotes article moved but I doubt it now as not many editors will avoid "voting the slate". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll live and learn, we do still have seven days to try and get this through. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —{Canucklehead} 05:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're responsible for tbe sockpuppetry or not, thats not why I'm contacting you, I'm contacting you to say if you were to open up an ANI thread about OGP's behaviour, I will support you'd like me to. He's treading extremely thin ice, casting aspersions, literally admitting to hounding, and generally being uncivil. Please reply and ping me if you would like my assistance. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have indeed opened another thread on him. I suspect he might have made those sockpuppets himself to deliberately get the request shut down. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way he's behaving at the moment strongly suggests he was the puppeteer, to me anyway. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er, OGP has just been indeff'ed for personal attacks. Happy editing I guess once you're cleared of the SPI I guess haha. A right proper mess... X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 21:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. He really was driving me up the wall. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If OGS's behaviour had not been so egregious, you would both have been given a temporary block. I advise that you be a lot more circumspect. Please pay attention to the comments made at talk:Pound sterling and take them into account in your editing. Hoping to slide your POV in by a series of minor edits or changing a pipe to use a redirect article is at best childish and at worst will provoke a counterproductive backlash.

BTW, when I wrote that redirect targets are in bold, that only applies to genuine, widely used, alternative names and not for spelling errors or constructed alternatives like shilling sterling. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only used "shilling sterling" to be consistent with "pound sterling" and "penny sterling", as far as I remember I did not put "shilling sterling" in bold. I would like to note that you took out "or the non-ISO code "STG"" which I hadn't even added recently and probably ought to be put back in. I did make these last edits in good faith, I am not deliberately trying to provoke, I am sorry if that is the impression I gave. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely accept your good faith but be careful lest you create the impression of trying to Right Great Wrongs (caps deliberate). I don't for a moment consider that you set out to provoke but many people don't like changes to the habits of a lifetime and need to be persuaded gently. See Metric martyrs for a real-life example. So it is wise to be aware of sensitivities when editing. "Embrace and extend" as Microsoft used to say about taking over a de-facto standard (rudely known as "embrace and strangle"!).

"Shilling sterling" (although reasonable to have as a redirect in case someone somewhere tries that in a search) is not seen in the wild. Your invisible changes like shilling to shilling is what I meant by "changing a pipe to use a redirect article". At best it is an annoying cosmetic edit, at worst WP:POINTy.

No, I don't suggest that you did put it in bold: I was concerned lest I had previously given you a misunderstanding of MOS:BOLD, lest you might understand (incorrectly) that merely creating a redirect would allow you to give it undue emphasis.

Yes, I know it was the IP editor with the STG obsession that added that, and who also added STG to ISO 4217#Unofficial currency codes. IMO the first one was inappropriate in context, the second dubious but I let it stand (it really needs a citation though). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for this. I am still a pretty new editor and have a lot to learn. I have tried my best and can always stand to learn more. I will try to avoid things like this in future. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I recognise that you are doing this with the best of intentions. If I may, I suggest that you stop completely from editing currency articles for a month [apart from reverting blatant vandalism] and spend the time working on other unrelated articles such as those suggested in the ((welcome)) spiel. That will give you a broader perspective that will improve your editing all round. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I finish some edits I was already working on first before taking a rest? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it was only a suggestion. It might interest you to look at another intractable dispute, Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque, to see how difficult such debates can get and it consensus seems impossible: the fall-back is WP:STATUSQUO though that can advantage filibustering. Another useful essay worth a read is Wikipedia:Edit warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars although, too be fair, you mostly managed to keep your cool under heavy provocation and I'm not sure that I'd have done as well in the same circumstances. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TCG’s faits accomplis. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IBAN request. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created Sterling crisis as a disambiguation article (it was previously a rather useless redirect to Currency crisis). At present, there are no specific articles for 1931, 1947 or 1967 so I have pointed readers at (rather thin) material in other articles. Maybe you might like to try your hand at creating a new article? If so, I advise that you start with just one, because it will have to go through the approval process which is rather exacting (standards are higher now than they once were). If so, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Help:Your first article. Have fun! John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far. I think I might tackle the 1967 crisis, as that was arguably more severe than the 1976 crisis (as it largely annihilated the sterling area). I do have a couple of comments on your work so far (which generally has been.... sterling), I think the article titles would work better as (for example) "1976 sterling crisis" or "1976 British currency crisis". Not all economic crisis articles explicitly identify a nation in their title, Kibbutz crisis for example isn't called "Israel kibbutz crisis" and Crisis of 1982 isn't called "Chile crisis of 1982". Just my penny's worth. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the "UK" redundant too but it was already used for the 1976 one. I resisted the temptation to just move it until I had time to investigate the implications. Why did anyone ever think there was a good reason to put UK in the title? It jars so much that perhaps there is? So I wanted to check the "what links here" first. But I expect that we will be able to discard it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if moved it will surely still redirect to the right article, as happened with my move of "Bank of England 10s note" to "Bank of England 10 shilling note", /– was by far the most common abbreviation but s. was very common as well (especially at the heads of columns on price listings and financial statistics), so writing the word in full seemed the logical compromise. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page and recoded all relevant links. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, when you change a section title, especially one like "quid (slang)", it is considered good practice to create an WP:ANCHOR with the old name. Fortunately you don't have to learn the complex coding because we have templates for that. Just append ((subst:anchor|quid (slang))) (as the case may be) to the new section title (without the nowiki tags, of course). Regrettably, not a lot of people bother. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC) More info at ((anchor)). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Template:Currencies of Asia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"SlushFlame"? I think you better cool off. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm just frustrated. I've already said I'm going to log off until this is forgotten. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Under other circumstances, it might be cute, but given the nature of the thread you started, this term of reference to SnowFire drifts well in the realm of ad hominem attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to stop by and recognize that you're upset by the way things have gone, and I appreciate and understand that. That said, the interactions you have dealt with have been pretty standard for Wikipedia. Here's a sincere wish for all the best, editing or otherwise, and I hope your day only gets better. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I just felt they were an attempt to wind me up, my mind can't cope sometimes, and I lost my temper. I tried to do things in accordance with the guidelines but when I feel someone is out to get me I get what I call "the red mist". I got irritated by some of his comments on the Oceania talkpage and it snowballed. I am not good at.... anything.... TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. ANI should be the last stop 2. Taking a break when another editor annoys you is encouraged 3. En-Wiki is over twenty years old, no matter how right you might be or how strong your position is, you can not change it in 20 days. Example: Lower-casing "President of the United States" irks me to no end , but I've accepted begrudgingly the community believes that the lower-case makes sense 4. Content creation, rather than stylistic changes will go further in advancing your position 5. WP:RFC is the process to get formal outside opinions on content. Third opinion and dispute resolution are also less formal options. 6. WP:TEA and WP:HD exist to get general opinions 7. Don't take this place too seriously. Slywriter (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just.... my head hurts now.... TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a wiki-break. In the words of Joey LaMotta (played by Joe Pesi) - "You're driving me 'bleeping' crazy". GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath. If you don't know what do and you're stressed, as some of your recent replies suggest, I'm sure in a few hours you might have a better mindset. Honestly at this point the discussion had nowhere else to go, so you really had nothing to worry about. --VersaceSpace 🌃 22:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although your efforts to standardise the intros to British currency articles are generally positive, it is a bad idea to express things in terms of a "shilling sterling" which, as John Maynard Friedman points out above, "is not seen in the wild." I'm also very dubious about penny sterling, although there is an article, google turns up little and it is an AfD or requested merge may be in order. It is (in my view) better simply to refer to shillings and pence. Also, I'm somewhat dubious that a threepenny bit, shall we say, should be referred to as a "unit" of currency. Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply describing the units (eg. this item costs 5 shillings sterling) rather than assigning a name to the unit per se. It is purely to disambiguate from other units named "shilling". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited, making the disambiguating nature of my use more obvious, completely separating the currency and unit names in the links. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to say "pence sterling". Even if that's a thing (I doubt it, really), the context makes it very clear. If you want it, start a discussion and get consensus. Remember that these articles (on the florin and double florin) are featured articles and have been reviewed by British editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, its a disambiguation using the name of the currency, I'm pretty dubious about "pound sterling" as a name rather than description. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the articles so when listing the units the term "sterling" appears only once at the end of the sentence. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know that you are splitting hairs to keep your preferred usage, that "sterling" should succeed "pence". You know there's an objection to that, that pence sterling is not a thing. So why do it?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is, as the Oxford Dictionary describes it, a "distinctive epithet of lawful English money or coin":[1]

"The shilling Scots is the 12th part of a shilling Sterling, or one penny Sterling; the pound Scots‥is equal to one shilling and eightpence Sterling." TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, you are using it as an adjective rather than as part of a compound noun. However, it is much more common without the "sterling". Note that the OED says (2.a) "2. a. Prefixed as the distinctive epithet of lawful English money or coin. Now rare." and your usage is dated to 1806. Why don't we start a discussion somewhere and abide by the outcome?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. We could take it to the main article, as I also think sterling suffixed on "pound" is also a disambiguating adjective. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable, though "pound sterling" has become a compound noun current today in a way that "shilling sterling" never did. Also, I've found that when you are trying to communicate something to the reader, doing it straight out is generally the way to do it, where there are options, rather than phrasing it in a way that the OED dates to the times of the Napoleonic Wars. If you're doing it to communicate that these were British pounds, just say they were British pounds, or British shillings, or British pence (possibly pre-decimal pence).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion: Talk:Pound_sterling#Is_"pound_sterling"_actually_a_compound_noun? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already advised you that your editing is crossing the boundary into WP:disruption. You have done a lot to improve Wikipedia but if you continue this obsessive WP:POV-pushing of sterling, it is only a matter of time before you get a topic ban on all currency and numismatics articles. Please cease and desist. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what I'm doing at this point..... I don't believe I'm POV-pushing.... but.... gah.... I don't know.... TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I panicked a little in my first response. But I hope my new edits are acceptable. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that you need to stop appending "sterling" irrespective of context. If disambiguation is not essential then it is superfluous, annoying and affectatious. And counter-productive as it is likely to lead to your other work being undone and you being t-banned. A far more effective use of your skills would be to create new content, not fiddle with the detail of stable articles. Where are you with the two missing sterling crises articles? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know anymore..... my mind is a bit.... wonky... at the moment.... all I know is that other guy with his obsession with retaining "sterling" after "pound" but taking it out everywhere else (even though it is always a suffix, never in the middle of a statement) is really grinding my gears. All I'm trying to do is mark the currency of note appropriately. I know I originally put it in the wrong place, but I have admitted I was wrong on that, and now its just frustrating, especially with that guy's misrepresentation of what I did. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've said that I mistyped it, and I apologise for relying on my memory. But the bottom line is that you are pushing having the "sterling" constructions, however you do it. I have no doubt you consider it an elegant way of phrasing things, but it is very dubious to me that the reader, most of whom have little to no experience with pre-decimal coins, are going to understand the nuance you are trying to impart to them. And you aren't convincing people. Let's find a way of phrasing things that we can both accept and move on. I've got better things to do and it sounds like you do too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it to be a "construction", but the grammatically accepted identification. For example one would say "five pounds, ten shillings and sixpence sterling", never "five pounds sterling, ten shillings and sixpence", this is still the case today, only with the shillings and pence substituted with the centesimal new penny (ie "five pounds, fifty-two pence sterling"). TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but it's something that is rarely used, and, as a practical matter, is unnecessary in this context. And the bottom line is, a number of editors have expressed opinions, and the weight of opinion says it is not needed and should not be included.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting citing the currency the coin represents is a massive mistake. I simply do not see how mentioning the currency is "unnecessary". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The currency is the pound sterling. Most British coin articles express the denomination at some point as a fraction of a pound sterling. I don't think there's great disagreement there. Why not see if we can find common ground there?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The currency is sterling, the "pound" is a unit of sterling. There is no debate on this issue, all reliable sources agree. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you still view "pound sterling" and "penny sterling" in the same light. It is not so. "Pound sterling" is a thing, it has become so by usage, whatever its origins, part of the gloriously messy English language. Using "sterling" following an amount (without "pounds") is a rare and archaic formulation that is more likely to confuse than to educate our readers. Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is only "rare and archaic", as you put it, due to inflation making most cited amounts of money contain a pound. A sum of money containing pounds and pence with "sterling" following it always places "sterling" after the final penny, not after "pounds". For example £67.28 would be "sixty-seven pounds, twenty-eight pence sterling", never "sixty-seven pounds sterling, twenty eight pence". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are technically correct but nonetheless the construction has become very rare because disambiguation is very rarely needed and to use when no ambiguity arises it is at best pedantic etc. In the Scottish court judgement you cited elsewhere, 'sterling' is postpended to the amount in pounds and pence to make it unambiguously clear that the amount is not in Pound Scots, even though this case is being decided under Scottish law. Just as in articles about weights, we would just write "a gallon of water weighs ten pounds". Not "ten pounds avoirdupois" unless we were making an in joke at a goldsmiths' convention. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not remotely unique to Scottish legal instruments. In legal documents if an amount of money is cited it is appended with "sterling". For example this Border Force penalty notice. [2]

Once you have decided where you want your appeal to be heard you should send that court the completed appeal form N161 and the court fee of £140 (sterling), a postal order or cheque should be made payable to ‘HM Courts and Tribunals Service’

And a rental agreement here.[3]

Rent: £14,384.24 (Fourteen thousand, three hundred and eighty four pounds and twenty four pence sterling)

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say it was unique to Scotland. I gave it as a case where disambiguation is considered appropriate. Border Force is another: it is (just barely) conceivable that someone might want to pay with Egyptian or Syrian pounds. And some official documents will specify it "for avoidance of doubt" because that is what they've been doing since the Australian Pound was devalued and someone would have to take an actual decision to stop. But if I see something on an e-commerce site, they won't feel the need. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I was seeking to establish in this specific instance is to explain to Wehwalt that if the disambiguating adjective is used, it is always placed after the final penny. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is certainly the correct (only?) style. Did Wehwalt ever say otherwise? I read their remarks as saying the same as I have been saying: that to append the word 'sterling' irrespective of context is just poor quality writing. [I have the same view of prepending "pound" to every use of the noun (sterling), but it is so widely done that there is no future in trying to fight it.] But I have intruded enough and will step back now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually want to try to avoid using any of these spurious compound forms where possible, when simply identifying the currency I use "the pound" (when the context is totally clear) or "sterling" alone when it is not. My advocacy has, I admit, at times gone too far in the other direction, but I believed the infoboxes ought to contain a nod to the currency the coin in question was part of because this does seem to be the standard practice on other coin articles.

My preference is for the "value" to be expressed in multiples of shillings and pence as these were the active units of account and were not treated solely as fractions themselves. I believe the "value" tag ought to be concise and straight to the point, including other fractional values in the opening line of the introductory paragraph.

The concerns about 2/6 you expressed are understandable, but can easily be resolved if we decide on 2s.6d. for example. I've no particular objection in this instance, I admit amounts that do not end in a round shilling can be confused for fractions by the uninitiated, and the xs.xd. format was used on some coins (such as the Irish half crown).

My interpretation of Wehwalt's statement (please correct me if wrong) was that he objects to appending "sterling" to an amount that does not end in a rounded off pound. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Are you actually trying to get blocked or topic-banned? Why do you keep pushing the same two POVs (sterling and the nn/- notation) when you are clearly in a minority of one? You are a constructive editor who has done a lot to improve Wikipedia but your editing has become obsessive and wp:disruptive. Please stop wasting your talents like this.

This is a formal warning that applies to all your changes to British coinage articles:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I am trying to do is find a middle ground answer, one that actually works. I've no idea what I'm supposed to do. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it appropriate to include the currency in the infobox because infoboxes are supposed to link to relevant articles. That is all I was doing. I have no idea what I am supposed to do at this point. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are supposed to do is accept that you don't have consensus for these two changes that you keep trying to make in one guise or another. Repeatedly trying to force them through will not work: they will keep being reverted (see WP:status quo). To continue to chew away noisily on the same bone just makes it less likely that you will secure support towards consensus for other changes (such as the 'value' one) that you want to promote. See also Serenity Prayer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case all I did was move a line of text from one tag to another. I didn't add it per se. I do not intend to pursue any further changes to the decimal coin articles. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of what you did, as you well know, was to push the qualifier "sterling" back in where no disambiguation was needed and where the consensus is that it should not be given. Don't quibble with words, you know exactly what I mean. I will not continue debating this, so there is no point in filibustering. If you feel lucky, escalate to WP:ANI yourself. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said I have no further interest in pursuing those particular edits. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheCurrencyGuy, I have reverted your page move of Kopek to Kopeck. The main reason this was a bad move is that you copied and pasted page content from one page to another. While intuitively this might seem like a reasonable idea, it doesn’t work for Wikipedia because we need to move the whole article and its page history and talk page with it. These need to stay together, because even though anyone can edit Wikipedia, we need to keep the history of exactly who made each edit.

It’s also a little troubling that you moved the page while discussion is technically still open at Talk:Ruble#Is it ruble or rouble? (and kopek or kopeck). I don’t think this is too big a deal, because that discussion wasn’t going anywhere, but usually we avoid making moves like this while discussion is still open (you can imagine the chaos if we let people move pages while their names were still under discussion). At this point, because I don’t think the case for Kopeck over Kopek is clear cut, I recommend starting a move request (see WP:RM for details). If you wanted to pursue a move at Ruble (to Rouble), that would be the most appropriate approach there too. — HTGS (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't work out how to move it otherwise. I'm sorry. Its just that that is a particularly annoying spelling because it does not seem to have much support anywhere. Again, I'm very sorry. I will see what I can do. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No stress, it’s not a major problem that couldn’t be fixed… just something to be aware of in future. There’s a lot of bureaucracy, but it generally is there for a good reason. As far as there not being much support, I note that Google indicates that most people seem to prefer kopek when searching ([4]). — HTGS (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to start a debate over the name here; I just want to point out that there is clearly more to it than just a simple “right” answer and a quick move. But that’s fine, because that’s what move discussions (via move requests) are for. You can start that conversation formally whenever you like, and people can weigh in and we can find the best name through community consensus. — HTGS (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for the tips :) TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCurrencyGuy: It seems like you are going through a number of articles and changing "ruble" to "rouble" en-masse. Given that the above-mentioned discussion hasn't yet resulted in a consensus, I would advise you refrain from doing this until a consensus on common spelling conventions is more firmly established. Because at the moment it seems to be a case of American and British English spelling differences, so attempting to standardize it as "rouble" across all articles can be problematic, especially if you are changing it to the American spelling on articles that use British English. Grnrchst (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bit of a "high" moment (not literally, drugs are bad kids). "Rouble" is the British English spelling, so I set about changing the instances of "ruble" on British English articles to "rouble" to correct that issue, and I might have got carried away. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned about whether or not you're using substances, I'm concerned about potential POV-pushing. Personally I prefer the direct transliteration of rubl, but as that's clearly not commonly used, I'm not going to be going around enforcing my personal preferences on the wider platform. The consensus process is important. So long as you're engaging with that process before pushing changes like this, there'll be no issue. Grnrchst (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh everything is POV when you're trying to work to a schizophrenic standard because English is a pluricentric language and nothing works because of a lack of set standards. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I implore you to immediately cease your en masse edits which change currency names into esoteric currency notations, as you have done in here. As I contended when I still went by NotReallySoroka on-wiki, such acts are faits accomplis done without the requisite community consensus. I would also contend that outsiders to the numismatic or economic world would not understand what "Rbl." is, while they could infer what the Soviet ruble is, and as we orient ourselves to readers first and foremost (Wikipedia:Readers first) we should go with using currency names. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care anymore. It is over. I tried my best, but this website is totally broken and just puts about nonsense. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, I tried so hard, but oh no, I've been derailed because this website is an insane mass of contradictions. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TCG, the world is imperfect and you will drive yourself insane if you continue to try to straighten it out. Every page has compromises: you only see the ones that you care about but other editors see you breaking previously negotiated compromises. You really need to take that WP:wikibreak or at the very least stay away from these hot-button topics. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure if I will edit this version of Wikipedia again. At present I believe the best solution is to create a fork written entirely in Commonwealth English prioritizing Oxford English spelling (and of course giving only the Imperial and metric units with no US customary), since Webster seems to be the dominant one on this incarnation. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCurrencyGuy, with the greatest respect, I truly understand your desire to have a Wiki in the language you are most accustomed to and familiar with. Not having to work out whether other people are using a word the way you expect makes things a lot easier. Or using a measurement you understand, for that matter.

I'm from Australia; we mostly use English spelling (colour, neighbour, and so on) but also have our own special quirks. In particular, we normally use kilometres for distance but feet and inches for adult height and centimetres for baby length, not to mention grams and kilograms for weight (adult humans and other objects) but pounds for baby weight which makes no sense whatsoever since babies are measured in centimetres but okay Australia whatever. Trying to assess how far 100 miles is, or how heavy 100 pounds is, makes things online even wilder. I spend a lot of time telling my American partner '30 centimetres is a ruler' to help with measurement translation for small lengths. Don't get me started on Fahrenheit temperatures.

If Wikipedia is causing you upset and frustration, take a break. You can always come back if you feel like it. The site is not perfect, of course, and there is plenty of work to do. If you do come back, you have the chance to contribute to bringing it closer to perfection the way you see it. I know little or nothing about currency, so I've always been interested if I see you pop up with ideas about currency - you can bring attention to things I hadn't considered and would never have thought of considering. But if Wikipedia is not for you, then walk away with the comfort of knowing that there are lots of people who are also interested in the things you are, people who will raise the ideas you would have wanted to raise - and other people, like me, who will have learned a bit more from the information you've already left here.

Good luck whatever you choose to do, and if you want someone to talk to about the weirdness of measurement systems, my page is open. :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCurrencyGuy I’m an American living in England. From my experience and looking at your examples, you’re wrong. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eg Fish and chips contradicts you. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cod and Doritos with mushy guacamole, please, love" <blechhhh>

Is this a moot discussion? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StartGrammarTime weights and measures are a hot-button issue themselves, the US Customary measures are similar to imperial measures (in some cases they have the same definition), but some measures are different because the US did not go along with the 1824 reform that established the unified imperial system, notably the US gallon and the US ton. My preference is to give the imperial first followed by a metric conversion in brackets, but not using US customary at all. I consider Fahrenheit/Celsius division to be a sort of separate issue, since both are arbitrary and both predate metric by decades. I would prefer it if Kelvin were used, but that would be a very hard sell. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I had forgotten the existence of Kelvin...although I've just learned that both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales are now defined by the Kelvin, which is very interesting and makes perfect sense. I think you're right; since Kelvin is not commonly used in any countries (that I am aware of, anyway), and as always measurements must be usable by the average person, that would be a tricky one to have standardized.

Metric vs imperial weights is also an interesting one, especially once you toss in the US going their own way - I have to admit here that I think most Australians would struggle with imperial weights, since we mostly don't use them in everyday life. I was going to say we don't use them at all, but we do seem to use the ton both as a metaphor for 'very heavy thing', as in 'that must weigh a ton!', and in my former industry they inexplicably used kilograms for wheels but tons for the entire vehicle in question. Having looked the weights up, I now want to campaign to use the barleycorn once again.

May I ask whether the UK in your experience solely uses imperial measures? I was under the possibly mistaken impression that it's a bit of a mix, like Australia, with some systems being used for some things and other systems for other things. It's so odd how we decided to stick with, say, pounds and ounces for a baby's weight, but kilograms for an adult. And makes it fairly impossible to standardize which system is used, even within a single country! Looking it up, we officially only use metric measurements, but in reality that's not quite correct.

Foolishly I just went to look up whether we still order beer in pints, which we do (along with other incomprehensible things like pots, schooners and stubbies), and yet other alcohol is measured by the glass or bottle, but all non-alcoholic liquids are measured in millilitres...

If this discussion is causing you more frustration I sincerely apologize and don't mind at all if you want to drop it. I'm just very interested in how different countries deal with the same problem, and why they choose such different paths. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not frustrating me, I'm quite enjoying it to be honest.

In Britain, in my experience, the preference is still heavily leaning towards imperial, with only lip service paid to metric. Food packaging has to be labelled in the metric value, but is usually sold in quantities matching an imperial value. Items such as clothes and televisions are exclusively listed by their imperial sizes (for example 42 inch chest or 21 inch screen). Metres and kilometres are not officially mandated as measures of distance, so are not commonly used in vernacular speech unless a person works in a specialist field such as engineering or the military and they default to metric out of habit. Road signs can legally only list speed and distances in miles, attempts to metricate road signs in the 1970s failed because of the very large number of vehicles constructed prior to a law mandating that all vehicles had to display both mile and kilometre values on their speedometers, Britain had more vehicles per mile of road than any other country so it would have been extremely difficult and dangerous to do. One odd paradox of the law about listing prices in metric quantities is that fuel consumption is only ever quoted in miles per gallon, but fuel may only be sold per litre.

BBC News' style guide states that imperial should be listed first with a bracketed metric value afterwards for US/UK specific articles, and reversing it for articles relating to elsewhere, but never using only one and not the other. The style guide believes the similarity between the weight of the imperial ton (1,016 kg) and the metric ton (2,204.6 lb) is so close that the metric value can be used exclusively without having to provide a conversion. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StartGrammarTime: Oh it is much more fun than that. We also have shrinkflation: products like ground coffee were sold in 250g packs (and still are, if imported from Italy) became 0.5 lb (227 g) – and most recently are increasingly just 200g. Big supermarkets still sell milk in pints and quarts but elsewhere 500ml and 1l are the norm. We also have 'patronisation' of the people: for decades, new-born babies are weighted in SI but relayed to parents in lb. Roads and railways are engineered in SI, even have location reference signs in SI but signs for Joe Public are again translated. It is suggested that anti-metrication was one of the reasons for people, especially older people, voting for Brexit, so we have a proposal from the Minister Brexit Opportunities (!) to reverse all metric measures everywhere. There is even a lobby to bring back £sd. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an early stages proposal which may be of interest. Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Splitting the English Wikipedia TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, its immediately failed because of American cultural imperialism. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's language policy is an inconsistent mass of burning litter. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply no solution, Wikipedia's consensus is that it cannot spell or use grammar and it enjoys that. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start an alternative to Wikipedia with a better style guide on language and grammar. English Wikipedia seems content to stew in its own shortcomings. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TCG, please let me remind you of something I wrote earlier:

There is no field of human existence where the rules are perfectly clear, unambiguous and unarguable (unless you get into religious fundamentalist belief and even that has disputes about what is truly canonical and what is not.) Try to remember the aphorism "the perfect is the enemy of the good" because perfection does not exist and searching for it is a fruitless endeavour and a waste of time. What you see as cynicism and dismissiveness at the Village Pump is actually that virtually everybody else sees this as a closed and firmly locked topic. You are not the first to have raised this (mainly by Americans!), and the policy is set down in MOS:RETAIN. Even then, war occasionally breaks out over WP:TIES.

Your proposal has a less than zero prospect of being taken seriously, let alone succeeding, but you might find Conservapedia instructive. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please dedicate your talents to productive use and take yourself out of this ever-decreasing circle before you do some serious damage to your wellbeing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry.... I just lost it.... it just strikes me as odd and hypocritical that there are two Norwegian Wikipedias (one of which caters to a potential population of just 600,000 users), yet American English and Commonwealth English have to cohabit.

And the two Norwegian wikipedias are often quoted as the exemplar of where we end up when people are being truly silly. So instead of one half-way decent Norwegian Wikipedia, they have two feeble efforts and consequently Norwegians just use en.wiki (and, in the dead of night, using DuckDuckGo and Tor, by torchlight under the blankets, se.wikipedia). There are many compromises in en.Wikipedia but it is still one of the world's busiest and most trusted websites, because it has so many contributors from all around the world. Your concerns are not new (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/National varieties of English) but the consensus is that we are stronger together than apart and we just have to rub along. The end justifies the means. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what to do anymore. It feels like every single time American English always wins. I had tried to work within the constraints, but I just lost it over the rouble/ruble thing. While spelling is the most commonly quoted distinction, I feel that is mainly a symbolic thing, and a deeper issue is grammar, syntax and vocabulary. These are not nearly so easily handwaved as spelling because they can be quite confusing. In text Commonwealth English users generally default to British English to avoid confusion (for example South Africans use fewer Afrikaans loanwords, Australians use less rhyming slang, and Indians use the Western numeral system in contexts where they are aware that it may be confusing or frustrating to other English users), whereas American English users often seem unaware or unconcerned that their vocabulary and grammar may not be widely understood. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever said that life had to be fair? There are a lot more of them than there are of us. People who learn English as a second language almost invariably learn American English. The US dollar dominates world trade. TV and cinema is filled with American productions. You have to decide what is important: nobody is going to be confused or even upset by Rouble/Ruble or Kopek/Kopeck: whichever they type in the search box will get them to the article. But compare for example Derry/Londonderry name dispute where careless talk costs lives. I'm sorry but I really do feel that you have lost perspective here and are getting yourself worked up over minor details. Wikipedia has flaws, many flaws, but the niceties of English grammar come very low on the list. As compared to, for example, insisting on using the Christian dating notation (AD/BC) rather that the non-denominational CE/BCE – even in articles about Islam where no qualification whatever is required. [Yes, that one is my top irritation. I've learned to live with it.]

What it comes down to is this: do you consider Wikipedia such a useful resource to the world [actually or potentially] that you are prepared to live with its flaws to contribute and will stop whining about being surrounded by incomptence; or that you find them so intolerable that you must decline to participate further and just walk away. It really has come to that: now is the time to decide once and for all, accept it is or move on. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment from me, I hope you don't mind. You say "American English users often seem unaware or unconcerned that their vocabulary and grammar may not be widely understood." With the possible exception of Indian English, American English is the most widely understood variant in the world. As John Maynard Friedman points out, American English is the most widely spoken variant among those who have it as a second language. It's the standard across pretty much all of Asia (apart from the countries using Indian English). My Asian-born wife learned English, and she speaks American English. I'm British, and I never have any trouble understanding American English - I never think things like "What's this 'ruble', is it some kind of strange American food?" (attempted humour there, to try to keep things light). I wouldn't really care if Wikipedia used American English exclusively. I can understand it every bit as well as British English, because the sentence structure is the same, and almost every word is the same (with minor spelling variations which are still pronounced the same). And where a different word is used (sidewalk, gotten, apartment...) I know it well through extensive exposure to American TV, movies (sorry, films), books, internet... And if I find a Wikipedia article that uses an American English word or phrase that I actually don't understand, which is almost never, I pretty much invariably find it explained ("known in the UK as..." for example). The point of Wikipedia is not to provide an academically rigorous treatment of the varieties of English language, but to provide an educational source that as many ordinary people as possible around the world can understand. The current WP:ENGVAR approach seems to be working extremely well in achieving that aim. So you do absolutely have to drop it now, and move on. If you try to pursue your proposal any futher to create a second set of all seven million articles (and presumably edit them all to change the English), I'm sure it's going to be seen as disruptive. And sanctions (blocks, bans) will likely follow, to stop you. If you can't live with Wikipedia the way it is (and the way it has been working, successfully, for 20 years), you should find something else to do. Anyway, that turned out far more long-winded than I anticipated, so sorry about that. I'm just trying to offer some hopefully helpful guidance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a more mild proposal: each project ought to choose a language form and stick to it. I'm.... not exactly smart much of the time. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I doubt you'd get much traction with that either. Today's WP:ENGVAR is a policy that has had a lot of discussion over the years, and has a lot of community support. In short, it really is not a problem in any practical sense, and I've seen little appetite over the years for making policy just for pedantic or academic reasons. I really would suggest you just forget it, live with it the way things are, and move on. Anyway, it's up to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal isn't a sitewide blanket or anything, just more intensive tagging of "use American English" or "use British English" so individual articles are consistent within themselves. The random flips are extremely frustrating. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCurrencyGuy Can you give examples of these “random flips”? I can’t think of a time I’ve seen it in at least the last five years, but I’m also worried that your proposals here would only serve to cause more random flips. In fact, your move to convert ruble to rouble was the closest I’ve seen. Excuse me, I misinterpreted the meaning of “flip”.

And while we’re at it, I haven’t seen any examples of “American English vocabulary and grammar that may not be widely understood” (paraphrased). I would like to see examples if you have them. And—I say this hoping you’ll tread lightly—but if you do see American terminology that does not readily make sense to a global reader, you should be changing it to a more widely—and mutually—understood wording. That is the entire point of MOS:COMMONALITY. (Hopefully it goes without saying that ruble is intelligible enough to the commonwealth reader.) Basically, I see a lot of commenters here responding to the merits of your claims, without consideration for the facts. — HTGS (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add, if you see an article that mixes use of “favour” and “color” you are right to correct that. But I am concerned that many people are annoyed at you for changes that are far more intrusive than that. I actually don’t think it would be a bad idea to tag articles that have a clear and settled English variant, but like a lot of people have got at before, it’s more likely just a poor use of time. — HTGS (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend "ruble" to be an example of vocabulary that is not widely understood (it just looks like poor spelling), I meant more things like "engineer" for a "train driver" (this one is extremely strange to people not from the US and Canada), or phrases such as "table the motion", which outside the US has exactly the opposite meaning. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Can I use a techalt?. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your RfC at Talk:Ruble. I just want to note to you personally that this is primarily for bureaucratic reasons, and we can still discuss moving the page, but to do that you should open a move request.

On an even more personal note, I am concerned that you are getting too wound up on the small stuff, and that you are finding pushback on your edits stressful. First of all: don't panic. If Wikipedia really should make specific changes, that will happen eventually, but there is no rush. Take your time, and put forward your best argument for a change (such as via an RM on talk:ruble) and the community will evaluate this change. But be realistic here. We have used ruble for seventeen years now, since the page was created in 2005. If it has worked for Wikipedia this long, a few weeks or months more won't hurt anyone.

Second: if you do find that through consensus the community has a different opinion to you, it is not a personal attack or a loss to you personally. Take time to read people's opinions and evaluate them as fully as you can. If the many thoughtful, and often well-educated editors here disagree with you, they may just have a point that hasn't occurred to you before.

Third, and more seriously, if you continue to "fight" with others and ignore other people when they suggest you are being too hasty or rash, you will find sanctions imposed on you that impede your ability to edit the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is a big project, and there is bureaucracy for a reason. If you are blocked or limited, you will be in the worst position to make changes, so I suggest a softly-softly-gently approach for most of your more drastic changes. — HTGS (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about it all. I just got extremely frustrated and got burned out. I had tried to work within the "Wikipedia prefers no specific variety of English" policy, but it just started to grate on me in a deeply visceral way about the dominance of American English on the website, especially when I kept noticing articles which flipped at random. I do not see why all forms of English should have to co-habit. It isn't just this specific example, there are many others. The policy seems a little forced considering there are two separate Norwegian Wikipedias, even though Nynorsk and Bokmal are exclusively written languages and not spoken ones. In general, the written form of English can be divided into American English and Commonwealth English. Commonwealth English is in practice fully mutually intelligible in its written form (the spoken forms can be a little more distinct), an English-speaking person from Barbados is unlikely to run into many issues corresponding with an English-speaker from India. American English and Commonwealth English are mutually intelligible to an extent, but they are not as fully mutually intelligible as is often supposed. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best.... but there is nothing to be done.... this website is simply insane. Any suggestion I make immediately gets torn to shreds. Wikipedia is an illiterate mess. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious consensus on this absurd website is American English ueber alles, since it refuses to even consider a fork. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact: as a Brit, every article I've ever written here was in British (well, Scottish) English. Not once has an American editor tried to Americanise (is that a word?) any of them. I have however, more than once, had English editors try to correct my 'spelling mistakes' when I have followed the spelling used in the sources I am following.

Long story short: the English language is a wonderful, variable thing. When we speak our native dialects, we can't always understand each other - I say this as a Glaswegian, who has tried his best to chat with a deck hand from Louisiana, and had to resort to sign language. When we write though, in formal encyclopedic English, that's a different matter - that's entirely mutually comprehensible, it's just a few spelling variations. We can live with that.

What you seem not to understand is the sheer scale of the proposal you are making. This website has nearly 7 million articles. Are you seriously saying the we should fork it, and rewrite then all, in some preferred variety of BrEng? And maintain them separately from the AmEng versions? The language variations are a minor annoyance; your proposal isn't a sledgehammer, it's a shipping container filled with JCBs. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points. I am sorry. Sometimes I do have a tendency to "see red", as it were. I do have a proposal now I have cleared my head. And that is that every project ought to have a discussion on which form of English is to be used in their articles. As this would clean up those articles which flip at random. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate my previous imploration that you cease "your en masse edits which change currency names into esoteric currency notations", as you recently did to the Egyptian pound article. Even if Wikipedia has too much American spelling (not true), you still need to seek consensus before making mass changes like this. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to seek consensus and made no progress. Besides, "LE" is demonstrably in extremely common use. It is hardly "esoteric" as it appears on Egyptian stamps and banknotes. There was an ongoing dispute about the sign used, I tried to compromise on it. Another user kept adding "E£", which is not used.... anywhere.,., if anything they were being more esoteric by adding something that isn't even used. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Egyptian pound shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fun Is Optional (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheCurrencyGuy reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: ). Thank you. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Egyptian pound. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheCurrencyGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was trying to engage with a very angry user, but he refused all appeals to mediate in the talk page and simply kept blunt-force reverting

Decline reason:

Both of you were edit warring; both of you are blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

While I know that the Great British Pound page is known as "Pound Sterling" now, the ((GBP)) is in no way defective as it still presents a correct way of giving that currency in a symbolic change. I know you had had issues with this change before, eg #About your mass changes to currency notations and so you need to stop and get consensus for the change. Note that since it is a template, it is far easier to change the template once to make the change than what you are doing. Masem (t) 03:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template produces an incorrect sign, which is why I took it out. I am trying to achieve consensus, but it seems achingly slow. The sign it produces is by all measures incorrect, verging on WP:HOAX. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it is better to be very careful and get consensus before making mass changes like this. The reason is that it requires a lot of work from you to make these changes, and then if the consensus ends up not being for your preferred alternative, it then requires a lot of work from you or someone else to go through and undo all of the changes. Getting consensus can be slow but the alternative is often a lot of wasted effort or needless fights, and the world will not end if the wrong currency symbol remains on those pages for another week or so. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been informed on the consensus process, warned against POV-pushing and faits accompli, and participated in a number of discussions about the spelling of "ruble"/"rouble" - so can you explain what you are doing here and here? Because, given your vocal dissatisfaction over how these discussions/disputes have concluded, it comes off as a blatant attempt to game the system. —{Canucklehead} 03:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was insert an appropriate reference that I had found. I'm sorry if facts disagree with you. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was insert an appropriate reference - This is simply not true. In the first diff, you had changed a number of instances of "ruble" (something you have already been told to seek consensus for) including the infobox heading, bringing them into conflict with the title of the article. In the second diff, you added pipes so that the navbox would present links to articles using your preferred spellings rather than the established titles of those articles. The problem isn't the reference you added; it's that you look like you're trying to find some way to "win" against consensus and - with this reply - now appear to be dishonest about what you're doing. —{Canucklehead} 03:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're just shifting me back toward my belief that there needs to be a different general wiki with no American English in it. This is one of those things where it comes down to a popularity contest based on the American mass media's preferences. I tried my best to demonstrate my case, but was rebuffed into a minor breakdown. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you forcing British spelling ("rouble") on Wikipedia is no less wrong than (your hypothesis that) other editors forcing American spelling on Wikipedia. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Rouble" is used in most forms of English other than AmE. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part of "seeking consensus before doing X" is "not doing X if consensus ends up being not to do X." The fact that you tried to get consensus for a change and were rebuffed is not a good reason to do the change anyway -- in fact it's a good reason not to do the change. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] TCG, that split just is not going to happen and fiddling with detail like this just makes you look petulant and a bad loser. There is no-one in the world who will be confused by this minute difference in spelling. Please stop wasting your undoubted knowledge and expertise on unimportant trivia: those two missing Sterling Crisis articles aren't writing themselves. Its time you made a serious difference. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, can we at least agree to regard these as examples of the pluricentric qualities of English and not force one or the other in every circumstance? Otherwise one might as well insist on "defense" in every article about a government ministry dealing with military matters. In this instance I added a reliable source on the subject matter to establish the official translation and naming it at the top of the infobox. I did not change every instance of the spelling "ruble" in the article. I would also like to point out that in the infobox I changed "Belarusian ruble" to "Belarusian rubel" as this is considered the official English name of that currency (and also, in my opinion, helps distinguish the two, for example we do not standardise the Indian and Indonesian currencies on "rupee", even though "rupiah" and "rupee" are cognates). The historical currencies in the infobox (which do not have their own articles) whose names I assigned as "rouble" were from an era prior to "ruble" being the primary spelling in American English. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I the archived discussions that it pointed out to you before, this problem is a perennial one and essentially we have agreed to disagree. Formally expressed, that policy is MOS:RETAIN and WP:TIES. Judgement of Solomon time: we are not going to cut the baby in half so we just have to accept that life isn't fair. On the scale of outages perpetrated on WP, I have to say that this one is insignificant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting to split the Wiki at this point, I am just saying that this should be regarded as a spelling distinction between different forms and that neither should be forcibly prioritised and imposed on the other in a popularity contest. I am basically saying Wikipedia should not attempt to standardise these two forms, forcing all articles to use one specific form. I would suggest marking these currencies with their official English language name endorsed by their issuers at the top of the infobox, even if the article title itself is not moved. It feels as though the spelling "ruble" is being imposed in all circumstances on all articles regardless of the language the article otherwise uses, when both are simply Latin alphabet approximations in two different forms of English of a Slavic word written in Cyrillic. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TheCurrencyGuy. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this ANI reference will peter out without any action being taken, but maybe you would be wise to be extra cautious about bold edits for the next few months while tempers cool. Yes, as I said there, you should be entirely within your rights to BEBOLD but there are certain topics where discretion is the better part of valour: currencies seem to be one of those. The next ANI reference might not go so well and it would be a real pity if you got even a one-month topic ban given your undoubted expertise and access to sources. So I advise that, rather than dive in and correct what is wrong, you first add an item to the talk page stating what you plan to do, leave it to marinate for a few days and then do it if no-one has challenged.

I know you don't like to describe what you are doing, so why not say something like this (for the change I've just made at Syrian pound: "I propose to change

• The pound (or livre in French) was introduced in 1919 and was pegged at a value of 20 F.<ref name="latimes">

to

• The pound (or livre in French) was introduced in 1919 and was pegged at a value of 20 Francs.<ref name="latimes">

"per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC and because the abbreviation F (for Franc) is not widely recognised and is inappropriate to abbreviate at first use." (which is just the text of the edit summary you would have to do in any case.

Make sense? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly second this suggestion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So am I to take your subsequent edits to Syrian pound and Lebanese pound as being your response to my advice? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to take a deep dive after earlier discussions. I was genuinely unable to find any recent uses of £L or £S and I believed these were uncontroversial. Please accept my apologies if I was misinterpreting the situation. I have decided to take a voluntary time-out. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that timeout didn't last long. You made a major and controversial change to Template:Most traded currencies without any prior proposal, which I have reverted pending a formal proposal and consensus (which you won't get for removal of 円 and 元 in particular, nationally used symbols in general. With regret, I must add these recent events to your ANI reference because it seems that you are incapable of accepting gentle advice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your edits on Keroche Breweries: is "KSh 18.5 billion/=" really the standard way of writing (with the "/=" after the English word "billion")? It looks weird to my eye but I am not an expert. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked some sources, and it appears "/=" is affixed when the amount consists only of numerals, not words, I will change it, thanks for pointing this out. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you cast your eye over my draft for comment at Template talk:Most traded currencies#"Symbol" column needs two columns?, please? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clean up the confusion you have created at Template:List of currency symbols? We have now a link to C$ that point to the Canadian dollar while the template points to a Nicaraguan currency. Can you be more accurate? The Banner talk 09:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"C$" as a sign for the Canadian dollar is merely an unofficial abbreviation, while "C$" is the cordoba's official sign. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you look into ((CHF)) where the link action is reversed (links to the currency page when link=no and doesn't link when link=yes)? (e.g. refer to the infobox in Lindt) Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see the problem, I will definitely look into it, I'm a novice at this lark. Thanks for pointing it out. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it should be fixed now. Ptrnext (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of currencies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livre.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving it to you to provide the citations that say that sterling (unqualified) is the currency of the UK, as requested at the talk page ("WP:v"). Right now, the BoE citation which says that the "pound sterling is the currency of the UK" is explicit and unambiguous. It is, as you said, the only place where that statement is made but for it to be wrong there would need to be multiple statements on the BoE site saying the "sterling is the currency of the UK". I haven't found any. As I said a while back, inferences made from examples of usage do not make valid citations. (aka WP:NOR). I'm beginning to wonder if is time to consider Cromwell's advice. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi can you explain please why you keep changing ‘gulden’ to ‘florins’ when that’s a. Not what the source says and b. obviously wrong? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The currency was exclusively known as the "florin" in English, far from "obviously wrong" it is correct. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well the source (from Salzburg) says “gulden”. We also have a whole article in the currency here. Mccapra (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is written in German, I am unsure whether the "gulden" referred to is infact the South German gulden or the Austro-Hungarian florin. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The archbishopric of Salzburg was not part of the Habsburg domains at that time, and Austria-Hungary didn’t even exist until 1867. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, so the original link was wrong. It had originally linked to the Austro-Hungarian florin, it needs to be changed to the South German gulden. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok done. Mccapra (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Austrian schilling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulden.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I think we are finally emerging from the briar patch at talk:pound sterling, I won't respond to your question there lest we get bogged down again. (This answer applies to every article on Wikipedia, not just that one.) Examples of use are not valid citations if they require the editor to infer the author's intent. That is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or both. They often make good footnotes, though. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate my point, you might find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#ordnancesurvey references interesting. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand what you are doing here. First I thought you were changing "zloty" to "Polish zloty" (wikilinked and piped as "zloty"), which is unnecessary since the redirect is fine (WP:NOTBROKEN), but now I see that you changed "Ten [[Polish złoty|złotych]]" to "Ten [[Polish zloty|zloty]]" and then to "Ten zlotys/[[Polish zloty|zlotys]]"--so you changed what was correct and direct into something that's not incorrect but certainly not direct, and why? Just to change "złotych" to "zlotys"? Sorry, but I don't get that, and the fact that you didn't add edit summaries makes it even more difficult to understand. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the Polish grammatical structure is appropriate for an English language encyclopaedia. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so you have declared, but you don't [yet?] have consensus for that view. Until the RtM at Polish złoty#Requested move 10 September 2022 is resolved, it is wp:disruptive to try to sneak the equivalent change through on related articles. Please stop. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all of that was about "grammatical structure" (really, "declension"), why didn't you EXPLAIN what you did in a summary, and simply replace "złotych" with "zlotys"? But you did more than that, for reasons unknown. Start writing edit summaries please. This, and especially "Last 150 major edits with summaries 26 · (17.3%)", does not look good. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I will keep that in mind in future. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request for enhancement at Template_talk:Infobox_currency#unit= option needed, to request a unit= option. I think "superunit: pound" looks silly but to omit it entirely is arguably worse. FYI only, watch and wait. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —blindlynx 14:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved the article back, and let me leave a couple of comments here.

1. The article was moved back to its original name as a result of requested move. This is a valid procedure described in the policies. What you are doing is known as WP:Move warring and is also described in the policies. If you move it again I will block your account as an uninvolved administrator.

2. I do not see any evidence supporting your claim that there was no consensus in RM. However, even it it were the case, the RM followed your unilateral move without any discussion. No consensus would mean article gets moved back to the original name.

3. If you are unhappy with the outcome, you can start another move request. However, unless your argument that this one was closed incorrectly, I would strongly recommend against this, because the discussion just have been closed, and your argument was already rejected.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/) for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Star Mississippi 23:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were cautioned to stop disrupting the discussion, and you did not heed those. You're welcome to continue contributing elsewhere while this page block is in place. Star Mississippi 23:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: It appears the pblock hasn't worked, as they can still edit the page (seems the block is missing "Incidents"). Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheCurrencyGuy, in the meantime, I'd suggest refraining from posting at ANI. A technical error doesn't negate the fact that you've been blocked from that page for a week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was about the topic ban. I did not realise it related to the ANI discussion.

I just feel very upset about it all. I have no idea what to do. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Isabelle Belato @Firefangledfeathers. Tech issues strike with me again. @TheCurrencyGuyIt is about the topic ban and to let this discussion continue until it reaches its end point. You have made your point clear. Please allow other editors to weigh in. That's why it's only a seven day block. Star Mississippi 01:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know exactly. I would be happy to have a discussion here about what I can possibly do. I'm not an SPA, I have made other contributions. But I prefer to tackle one topic at a time generally unless it is a quick fix type of thing. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there's nothing wrong with being an SPA. When you seem to have friction with many other editors, that begins to be a problem. Sincerely, all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried very hard to contribute something positive to this site, and now its all crashing and burning around me and I don't know what to do. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best you can do is to let the discussion reach its conclusion and see what you can learn from it. It's never nice when your behavior is discussed by others in a negative manner, but if so many editors seem to agree that your pattern of editing has been causing issues in that area, then you should try to take that criticism to heart. If you need, take a break from editing Wikipedia, and when you come back refreshed, edit other topics where you have less of an attachment to. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I feel irritated is that they keep going back to an example (Egyptian pound) where I tried very very hard to follow policy, but a user was extremely unwilling to collaborate constructively and it all got very heated. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to have it explained to me in clear language what I have been doing wrong and how I could have handled things differently. I just feel so distressed by all this, TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship with User:MoonlightHowling666? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it, that is me. I just want to try a clean slate. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not the way to do it. I would suggest stepping back and getting some perspective. Maybe plunge into something completely out of your usual fields, something new? As you can see from the WP:ANI, an awful lot of people want you to figure out a way for you to continue doing your good work on Wikipedia without getting into these conflicts. I believe you deeply care for this amazing project and want to contribute to the fullest of your ability. I understand why you wanted a clean slate, but to do that you also have to change your behavior. But if you're going to change your behavior, you don't need a clean slate. Please don't do that again; my usual inclination would have been to slap a checkuser block on this account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I don't know exactly what to do. It hasn't been put in clear language for me. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I.... I don't understand what I am supposed to do. I tried very hard to adhere to the guidelines, but sometimes it feels like the guidelines are moving goalposts. This whole situation emerged because of a hypocritical opinion. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest quickly self-reverting your change to Belarusian ruble, because that's the sort of edit that tips a topic ban over to a block for being unable to work within Wikipedia norms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no room for anything other than shonky translations into American English on the website? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are topic banned. So the question simply does not pertain. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried very hard to improve this website, but it seems nobody actually cares. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been edit warring, socking, and disrupting in other ways, and a simple topic ban isn't enough to rein it in. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh everything is disruption now. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if you're capable, I would recommend just doing something else for a few days and staying away from this website. You are not helping yourself. Happy Friday, whatever occurs. Dumuzid (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It just feels like a witch-hunt at this point. We all know what is going to happen because all of this has proven that Wikipedia's manual of style is only applied selectively based upon personal whims and even trying to defend oneself earns a topic ban for "disruption". I tried very hard to bring the site's pages in line with its own style guide, and this is what happened to me. Its just a heaving maelstrom of hypocrisy and favouritism. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's clear some sort of adverse action will be taken. Even if it is indefinite, remember that does not mean "forever." The best advice I can give you is to try to honestly assess your part in all of this. That doesn't mean you need to agree with others' criticisms, but you need to look at yourself. Because--again, with all due respect--you have played a part. Have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CurrencyGuy, "Oh everything is disruption now" and "It just feels like a witch-hunt"--the more you say shit like that (cause that's what it is), the more you are digging that hole for yourself. If you cannot accept that a. this is a collaborative environment, b. that you have been severely disruptive, and c. that others are having a hard time dealing with you, then a block per WP:NOTHERE is not far off. You need to take Dumuzid's advice and settle down. I don't even want to begin to address all the things you're saying here, because all of is just so indicative of a serious inability to work with other people. I mean, "I tried very hard to bring the site's pages in line with its own style guide", that shows a lack of understanding. We don't have "one" style guide, and it's not set in stone, and if a plurality of editors think that you are wrong, then guess what--you are wrong. And even if you are not wrong, then edit warring and complaining is not the proper way to respond. So please take this advice, even if it's medicine that does not taste good to you. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the topic ban proposal as successful, and a log of your restrictions has been added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. Accordingly, the follow will go into effect immediately:

• Pursuant to the proposal, TheCurrencyGuy (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all currency topics, broadly construed. This is understood to be all pages on or pertaining to the subject of currency as well as all talk pages concerning currency unless explicitly invited to comment on the subject by editors on a given talk page.
• Additionally, in light of the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy, TheCurrencyGuy is indefinitely restricted to the use of a single account. Editors encountering suspected socks of TheCurrencyGuy are required to log their suspicions at the aforementioned SPI page for documentation in addition to reporting them at WP:ANI for breach of this account restriction.
• After 1 year TheCurrencyGuy may appeal the topic ban and/or account restriction by petitioning for a review of his case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, at which time he will be required to notify all parties privy to this discussion and provide a link to this discussion as part of his appeal. Otherwise, both the topic ban and account restriction shall be in place until such time as community consensus at WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM rule otherwise. For the purpose of this topic ban, any action taken at SPI to address abuse of multiple accounts shall be considered a separate action from this community sanction.

- TomStar81 (Talk) 14:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not sure what scope was exactly intended here by the closing admin, if I were you I would avoid changing currency notation on articles unrelated to currency -- that is likely to attract negative attention. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Broadly construed" means just that – make no changes to any references to currencies or currency symbols anywhere. You may use the article talk page to request a change but you should preface it with an explanation of why you need to ask. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JMF that the ban includes any edit to currency symbols. I disagree about requesting changes at the article talk pages; this is generally not allowed TBAN behavior. If you'd like, you can ask an admin for clarification on the scope of the ban (per WP:BANEX). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fff is correct. My mistake – I argued that you be allowed talk page access but the tban is unambiguous: ... as well as all talk pages concerning currency unless explicitly invited to comment on the subject by editors on a given talk page. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all talk pages concerning currency is not unambiguous imo. In fact, if I were reading from afar, I would be inclined to say that it does not include a hypothetical “all conversations regarding currency on any talk page”. — HTGS (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was notice that there was a piece of nonsense on a non-currency related page and took it out. This is pretty creepy stalking behaviour. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you edited a high-profile guidance article (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples) to push your POV on "GB£" (which has been discussed to death, it is not a wp:HOAX as you claim. Please don't raise it again, the discussion is closed.) Surprise surprise, it got noticed there.

As a general guidance, please try to learn to accept that those who disagree with you are not doing it to troll you. Their argument is made in just as much good faith as yours is and, to move forward, you need to search for common ground. And sometimes you may just have to accept that the consensus does not favour your position and nothing further is to be gained by prolonging the argument. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"GB£" does not exist in any valid source anywhere, that is why I took it out. This is all just so frustrating. An encyclopaedia should not propagate fiction. It feels like the sword of Damocles is just itching to pierce my heart despite my good faith attempts to comply with the topic ban. Can you find a verifiable reliable source for "GB£"? if not then it must go. It is not POV pushing to require things have verifiable sources. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Sword of Damocles waiting for you. Any potential ill fortune is brought on yourself at this point. Nobody here wants anything bad for you; we all just want you to stop participating in a disruptive manner.

It may help to consider that none of this matters. If some pages use a made up abbreviation for pounds, does that really affect the world in any deep way? Is it truly a problem if Wikipedia uses an American spelling of ruble, rather than rouble? What changes? Your problem is that you have picked fights about trivial details, and you have exacerbated these fights in the face of disagreement.

Wouldn’t it be better to expand Wikipedia in some other way? Clearly you care about currency, but maybe there’s an area of human knowledge that won’t get you feeling so hot about the issue. — HTGS (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. For clarity, note that WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES applies to "all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed."

-M.nelson (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]