User talk:Grufo

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 31 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

Nomination for discussion of Template:If then verbatim else error

Template:If then verbatim else error has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for discussion of Template:Plural/testcases/empty-name parameter

Template:Plural/testcases/empty-name parameter has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 19:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus

Please stop promoting your templates on Catullus 5 and Catullus 3 . Editwarring is not of any help. The Banner talk 17:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are also not helpful. The Banner talk 18:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have literally no idea what you are talking about. --Grufo (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I advice that you read your own edit summaries. The Banner talk 18:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and they answer your own words. --Grufo (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your accusations. Giving pushback is not the same as editwarring. The Banner talk 19:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague Grufo, just a comment: you edit Wikipedia for a long time, and definitely know the local WP:conflict resolution well. These processes are instituted to save everyone's time (for example, mine - I have written a lot of text in Catullus 3 and, naturally, watch it, being forced to read each revert of the revert). Викидим (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Викидим. I am glad you contributed to Catullus 3. What do you suggest I should have done differently in this case? --Grufo (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could have discussed the issue with our colleague The Banner on some talk page, say, Talk:Catullus 3, while leaving the article as it was before your change (as this - reverted - state was clearly consensual). If this discussion would have failed to produce a result, the resolution could have been escalated by attracting the other editors (as it is now going per links below) that are, unlike me, are proficient in Roman poetry. For the avoidance of doubt, I am a tyro here and have no position on the subject of poetry layout whatsoever. Викидим (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Викидим: I really understand the annoyance. What I normally do, especially if the edit I am reverting is disruptive or lacks consensus, is opening a discussion after my second revert, because I assume that my first edit summary should suffice. And so, after my second revert at 17:47, I opened a discussion at Talk:Catullus 3 § Numbered verses and metric scheme at 17:57. As you might have noticed (if you had a look at the history between me and The Banner), the dispute about the templates in question (#1, #2) might not have anything to do with Catullus, nor are the templates specific to Latin literature, so there is no need for proficiency in Roman poetry if you want to express your opinion. --Grufo (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And again you after the editor and not the content. The Banner talk 21:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for a detailed response. By the way, I had actually amateurishly dabbled in the subject (as any good tyro would do), mostly trying to sort out for myself the different notations (cf. [1], so I do appreciate the difficulty of committing scansion to pages). Викидим (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Викидим, and sorry again for the noise. I would love if you discussed scansion ideas at Template talk:Quantitative metre. The template still lacks a few things. Some are quite obvious (like transforming || to ‖). Others might be more subtle. --Grufo (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for discussion of Template:Quantitative metre

Template:Quantitative metre has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 17:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for discussion of Template:Numbered verses

Template:Numbered verses has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 18:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:New SVG" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:New SVG has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 21 § Template:New SVG until a consensus is reached. The Banner talk 20:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Mfl" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Mfl has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 21 § Template:Mfl until a consensus is reached. The Banner talk 20:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn The Banner talk 20:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Da. --Grufo (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Minusplus

Instead of edit warring over an extremely minor detail, please be aware that notifications can be placed by tools that are programmed in a certain way. When you are not happy with that, please inform the authors of that tool for a modification. Good luck. The Banner talk 20:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no idea what you are talking about. --Grufo (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be your standard response when edit warring. The Banner talk 01:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hum no. That really happens only when I have absolutely no idea. I'll try to activate your empathy, because this is what I saw:

I fix your usage of {{subst:Tfd}}, although you should know by now how it works with inline templates (“For deletion of an inline template: {{subst:Tfd|type=inline}} and don't add a newline after the notice”)
You revert my edit saying “nowhere to be found on that page”—yet check line 72 of the current version of the tutorial
Again, after I re-cite the rule, you decide to revert my edit again, repeating “your code is nowhere to be found on that page”

Okay… You are still kind of excused so far: you might still simply be someone who is very bad at finding text in a page. But then, after your two reverts, you also decide to leave this mysterious message on my talk page, saying that notifications can be placed by tools that are programmed in a certain way. Okay? What does that mean? Can you please explain? Did some tool revert the page twice for you? --Grufo (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not understand from the concept of edit warring? The Banner talk 03:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand that concept. What I do not understand is how it is connected with tools that are programmed in a certain way: Do these tools force you to edit-war? Did you tell the programmers? --Grufo (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I solve your unnecessary edits? Just look at Twinkle. The Banner talk 04:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? In the last five days you did three similar reverts, always trying to push back that new line character in inline templates (#1, #2, #3). What does it have to do with Twinkle? But, most importantly, why do you do what you do? --Grufo (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI January 2026

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you are involved. The thread is Continued antagonism by The Banner towards Grufo. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About your deleted template

Hello! I'm here from the ANI thread; I was also one of the folks who participated in the RfD that Banner started and re-opened.

You mentioned your {{Sanitize HTML attribute}} template had been deleted in a discussion. I looked in the deletion discussion, and I do feel the delete !voters didn't make a good enough argument that your template was not going to be useful. I just wanted to say: I think, given Banner's (likely) bad faith delete !vote, you might have sufficient grounds to either ask the closing admin to re-open the discussion or to open a deletion review.

That's all. Have a lovely day! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MEN KISSING: Thank you a lot! I don't know if I have the strength to ask a new deletion review right now—there is already the deletion review of Template:List with serial comma going on at the moment, and participating in all these deletion discussions in the past months has already been stressing enough. But I will definitely be on your side if you do ask an admin to undelete the template! Have a lovely day you too! And Happy New Year! --Grufo (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes...

...the most persuasive argument is just not replying. When another editor is asked to provide evidence and does not, personally I find that the way to make that clearest to other !voters is to just let it sit or at most to briefly call out that they were asked to show X and did not. Anything more than that just risks muddling the issue/being ignored as TL;DR at best and being accused of bludgeoning at worst. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 14:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you are right, Sdkb. So much bureaucracy and now also this made me realize that it is incredible that Wikipedia does not have a way to challenge the content of deletion discussions. Or maybe is our amount of bureaucracy a direct consequence of that? --Grufo (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]