User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 25

August 2008

Hello Candish

Resolved: Request responded to.

Hey Candish this is (Hpt lucky (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)), You are only memebr of Wikiproject Carrom. I want to ask you few questions. I have to copy the articles from various website to complete the articles on wikipedia so can i copy it as i am member of carrom federation and they will not give any kind of copyright violation to me. Italy Carrom, UK Carrom, etc etc many carrom federations are there whats youir view please tell. (Hpt lucky (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia would still consider it a copyright violation and delete them. You need to use the information in the other web pages to write articles in your own words, and cite the original pages as sources, but you can't simply copy-paste the material from the sources. Also, I strongly recommend keeping the number of Wikipedia articles to a minimum. For example, there should probably be one article on the International Carrom Federation, with sections in it for material on the regional/national affiliates, but if you create an article for Italy Carrom and another for UK Carrom, etc., they will probably be deleted as failing the Wikipedia Notability Guideline. As you probably recall, the articles on various bits of carrom equipment were already merged into the main Carrom article for the same reason. The goal is article quality rather than quantity. Hope this helps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TimRoseTheGambler1977FrontCover.jpg)

Resolved: Restored image to proper article.
⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:TimRoseTheGambler1977FrontCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Top 16 snooker players

Resolved: Just a chat.

Thanks for tidying up this article, I was intending to change the title anyway and also add years instead of yrs. Samasnookerfan (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. External editors are good for that sort of thing (search-replace function); took about 30 seconds. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
No offence taken! I have become a lot more experienced on Wikipedia than when I started, as i'm sure you have noticed, and I intend to improve a lot more snooker related articles. Is it possible to explain what you are saying about references again, because i'm still not quite sure what you mean (I still have a lot to learn on Wikipedia!), such as by giving an example? Samasnookerfan (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
See WP:CITE for the details. As an example, see the source code of William A. Spinks. If you go down and edit the "References" section, you'll see that they are not actually in there, they are embedded in the text of the article at various points. So, instead of just adding "Magazine Article X" by Joe Bloggs in the Sunday Complainer, 3 June 2008, as a source in the references section, without any indication what particular fact(s) in the article it supposedly source, you put it right into the article text with <ref> in the place(s) where something in the article is sourced by this particular reference. WP:CITE has instructions on the use of <ref>. The Spinks article is a good, short example of its use, since it shows single-use references like some patents, as well as some that are referred to several times in the article (the markup is different on subsequent uses - you just use <ref name="Whatever" /> by itself to refer to a previous <ref name="Whatever">a bunch of source details here</ref>), and it shows how to use all this stuff with the {{Cite}} family of templates, which provide consistently-structured source information - {{Cite book}}, {{Cite web}}, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:41, August 16, 2008 (UTC)
So basically describing what the references are intended to source, am I right? That makes sense but some are self explanitory. Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
No, describing the publication details of the source, and putting the source citation immediately after anything in the article that it is supposed to be sourcing. Open William A. Spinks or Five-pins in edit mode and you'll see how it works. PS: The sources are often "self-explanatory" if you go and individually read them. We try not to force our readers do that (though they are free to do so, of course; that's why we give them URLs and ISBN numbers of books, and so on). They should be able to look at the "References" section and see: What the piece's title is, where it was published, what the name of the overall site/book/magazine/whatever is that it was taken from/appears in, who wrote it, and when, so they can decide if they want to examine the source in more detail or not, decide how much they feel they can trust the source, etc. Without editors going this extra mile, every source just shows up as yet another URL that the reader knows nothing about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, very few articles seem to 'go the extra mile', but it is certaintly helpful as a reader to go more in depth about the source. Samasnookerfan (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Art forgery

Resolved: Just a chat.

How dare we intimate that cues are works of art!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Just a buncha damn kindling. Did you see my other msg., on your talk page? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I did and responded yesterday. Left you a bunch of Spinks notes as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, duh! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you attest to the notability of Eddy Merckx (billiards player) ?

Resolved: Discussion moved to Talk:Eddy Merckx.

I think he's got to be an inherently less likely search item than the greatest cyclist to have ever lived. Note that Michael Jordan, a comparable case, is not a disambiguation page; rather, there is a Michael Jordan (disambiguation). A {{for}} can serve a reader seeking the billiards player just fine. I gotta say I'm kinda scratching my head over this page move, especially as there are hundreds of internal links that clearly are bound for the cyclist.

WP:DAB states:

When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic.

I really think the cyclist is that well-known, primary topic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 03:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the billiardist is a world champion in arguably the most difficult cue sport of all time (and, world-wide, the third most popular, after eight-ball and nine-ball pool, with snooker being fourth), and he's a current player. The cyclist is long since retired and no longer in the sports (or other) press with any regularity. The new page move system, I thought, was supposed to update links like that automatically (it says that it does, on the move page), but it will be a fairly simple AWB task to fix them. I won't proceed with that just yet, since you dispute the move to begin with, and it would suck to spend an hour updating the links and then another hour un-updating them later should the move turn out to be a bad idea. Anyway, my reading of the "primary topic" maxim applies to something like eight-ball, with derivative uses at a DAB page (magic eight-ball toy, eight-ball as a slang term for 1/8 oz of cocaine, various album names, etc., etc.) clearly deriving from and subordinate to the original. I don't see that two world champion sportsmen are in a relationship like that, even if one, by accident of parental whim, has a namesake in the other; nothing about what makes Merckx the billiards player notable is in any way derivative of or subordinate to the talents or other aspects or qualities of the elder, cyclist Merckx. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
PS: It doesn't strike me as necessary that Michael Jordan not be DAB page, just permissable, as none of the others rise to his level of notability. If Michael Jordan (Irish politician) somehow managed to reunify Ireland, or otherwise become a bigger deal, I would expect the former to change to a DAB page. Also, I don't see any evidence that the quoted WP:DAB passage does, or was intended to, apply to {{hndis}} pages as well as {{disambig}} pages, as it seems to me to be couched firmly in terms of non-human disambiguation (personal names are neither "terms" nor "phrases" as those words are generally used). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
PPS: It's important to keep in mind that en.wp is written for all English speakers. Those in Hong Kong, Singapore, etc., where three-cushion billiards is a huge deal, may well care a lot more about this Eddy Merckx than the cyclist. I honestly don't know whether it is fair to think of this in terms of sheer numbers - clearly the majority of en.wp users are Americans, followed by the British, Canadians and Australians, but does that really mean anything? Open question, I suppose. Another is whether cycling by its nature as an Olympic sport (billiards is still pending with the IOC even after 20 years, for reasons to do with organizational in-fighting over international rules <sigh>) automatically "trumps" billiards. I tend to say "no" on that one, as lots of notable sports (American football, baseball, etc.) are not Olympic either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
PPPS: It seems to me that there would inevitably be massive PoV problems with applying the "primary topic" guideline to humans, as this would often entail enforcing a highly personal sense of who is more "important" out of a list of two or more notable persons - a popularity contest, basically, tinged with individual and systemic bias on a topical basis as well ("I like basketball and think cricket is stupid, so the basketball player must necessarily be the 'primary topic'...", "basketball is popular, and jai alai isn't [in America and the UK], so the basketball player must necessarily be the 'primary topic'..." - that sort of thing) much of it probably subconscious. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's centralize discussion here. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply

Resolved: Just an FYI.

Hey Stanton. I left a message for you here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Keen. Replied back there as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike White (baseball)

Resolved: Discussion moved to WT:NCP.

Just a friendly note on your move of Mike White (baseball) to Mike White (baseball player). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) says that the original version is preferred.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Various alleged naming conventions created by WikiProjects, like that one was, frequently conflict with the naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines overall (just as WikiProject style "guidelines" often conflict with the WP:MOS), and do not represent a WP-wide consensus, but only that of a small number of topically-focused editors, sometimes just a single editor, that no one bothers to contradict until his/her/their advice actually starts causing problems or its conflicts with actual consensus are noted. We have to deal with this sort of thing all the time at WT:MOS. There's an ArbCom ruling that (among various other things) says categorically that project-created would-be guidelines cannot trump Wikipedia-wide genuine guidelines arrived at by large-scale discussion and consensus. One of those is that disambiguation parentheticals for persons be descriptive of the person - John Smith (chemist) not John Smith (chemistry). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) needs to be corrected to agree with larger-scale guidelines that have a lot more buy-in. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide links to the ruling for my edification? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Right off hand, no; it came up and was linked to at WT:MOS or WT:MOSNUM, but that was probably over a year ago, so it is buried in one archive page or another. I may go look for it when I get some time, as the issue will probably come up again. I'm not sure it's all that important though - the matter is pretty much common sense to begin with. Policies and guidelines don't get to be ignored with impunity by an editor simply because he/she is in a "club" of 10 or 100 editors who feel the same way, out of many thousands with a consensus in the opposite direction. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
If you find it, I'd love to have the link.
Just to be clear, my intention is to not ignore policies and guidelines. I just need to know, from the source, what they are so I can bring it to the attention of the "club of 10 or 100 editors". The reason Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) was written was because of the then chaos in naming the articles. If it contradicts ArbCom rulings or the MOS, I and others will argue strongly that it be changed.
I sense a lot of frustration from you over this issue, but please don't direct it at me. I'm not the villain here -- I'm trying to do what's right, as I'm sure you are too.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
No hostility intended. It is a little frustrating, as we have to deal with out-of-control WikiProjects at WP:MOS and its subpages fairly often, and they tend not to listen, but you don't seem like that. :-)
Anyway, I have yet to locate the arbcom case in which this is buried, but it's not really important, as there's a higher authority on the topic to begin with, namely WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy, not a guideline: "[Consensus] always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies." Ergo, if a WP policy or WP-wide guideline conflicts with a WikiProject-written "guideline" the latter is subordinate to the former. If the project members feel strongly about it, they should work on the talk page of the main policy/guideline to get wider consensus for an exception, or a change to the policy/guideline. WP:CONSENSUS continues, "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is the right course of action."
In one ArbCom decision, the principle that wayward WikiProject "guidelines" can be brought into conformity with long-established policies or guidelines without longwinded justification is affirmed: "Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it."
As for the specific case at hand, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), in the section on bracketed qualifiers, uses nothing but "-er" type examples (drummer, player, musician, chemist) that are descriptions of the article topic as a person, not of their occupation (drumming, sports, music, chemistry). More to the point WP:DAB states, "For biographies, it is generally preferred to use a formal disambiguating noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation. ... For example, Sam Biguation (guitarist), not Sam Biguation (rocker), Sam Biguation (music), Sam Biguation (rock music), Sam Biguation (the Southwest Spice Band), Sam Biguation (1974–2006), nor (per the simplicity principle above) Sam Biguation (rock guitarist), unless Sam Biguation (guitarist) itself needs to be disambiguated between Sam Biguation (classical guitarist) and Sam Biguation (rock guitarist)." Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I actually wrote most of that, a couple of years ago (the Southwest reference is a memory-jogger). Anyway, I just tightened that up a little by removing "it is generally preferred to" from the first part, an edit I suspect will stick, since guidelines should not offer wishy-washy "maybe"-ish guidance, and exceptions were already mentioned after this passage, making the wording redundant. Now that I think about it again, I actually wrote a whole lot of WP:NCP. I'd completely forgotten! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the examples from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and WP:DAB. I was able to quickly find the paragraphs in question by searching on the text, and now I can bring it up at WP:MLB and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). The only question remaining is why couldn't I find it the three times I read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) recently? Must be old age setting in. *grin* Again, thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No prob. It's not just baseball either; this has been a problem in basketball, ice hockey, and rugby as well. I think what needs to happen is WP:SPORTS needs to have a debate about this, come to a consensus on it, and if that small consensus differs from the larger consensus at WP:NCP, then convince WP:NCP to change so that the conflict no longer exists. I really don't care what NCP says (on this particular matter) one way or other, but I'll try to "enforce" what it does say, otherwise we might as well not bother having naming conventions at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
PS: I've raised this issue at WT:NCP#Sports "revolt", and also notified WT:SPORTS about the discussion. It should probably be centralized there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll update the discussion I started at WT:Naming conventions (baseball players) and move it over to WT:NCP#Sports "revolt". --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. I love your example name! Brought a much needed smile to a hectic day. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Wanderone, Jr.

Resolved: Remaining issues with my edits to this article are being hashed out at Talk:Rudolf Wanderone, Jr.

There are some references that do not appear to be coded properly, for example a number of references in the "Early life and career" section. I have no idea how to fix them; can you take a look at them and see what you can do? Otto4711 (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure; I'm good at fixing those things. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they all seem to be correct now. A few were red when I first saved the article, but I already fixed those. If it still doesn't look right to you, I think maybe you are simply not familiar with Template:Rp. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back at the style guides!

Resolved: Just a chat.

I guess you took an extended break from the maelstrom. Hope your studies are proceeding well. Tony (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, it's been a bit grueling but I'm getting there. Went to Mexico for 5 weeks on an intensive Spanish course (I get to skip an entire year of Spanish as a result). Should graduate by summer 2009 (finally!). I just now fixed something at WP:MOS, about spacing of adjacent quotation marks, that has been bugging me for over a year. I wouldn't be surprised if someone reverts it, but the change needs to stick, because the original advice is semantically just plain wrong. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RFA/SMcCandlish

Resolved: RfA nomination declined for now.

Hello. I saw that you'd like to be an admin and that you postponed the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2. I think you'd be a good admin, and I think you have a darn good chance at passing. Can you be persuaded to accept the nomination? WODUP 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll think on it. I have actually been considering it again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I was actually quite surprised when I took care of a few of your {{editprotected}} requests the other day - I thought you were already an administrator! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
<Shrug> After my first RfA was sabotaged by a (later self-confessed!) sockpuppet, I didn't bother trying another, plus I've just been sort of busy, and a little concerned about picking up the bucket if I don't have time to do a good job mopping. But I've been back more actively lately. I got granted the ability to use admin rollback some while ago (without asking for it), and think I've used it responsibly (I mostly use undo, because it has an edit summary I can add an rationale to), and I also see block log stuff and other admin-ish things in my watchlist (maybe part of rollback, or maybe some other quasi-admin thing someone set me up with, I'm not sure). I try to act like an admin as much as possible (thinking in terms of policy, not my preferences, and acting in accord with what's best for the encyclopedia instead of what's most convenient for me), so I get the "I thought you already were an admin" comment pretty often. :-) If I do go forward with this, I will probably take a lot of lead time to pre-prepare answers to common questions and also pre-prepare responses to some predictable attacks (I've been embroiled in some pretty intense policy debates here, some while back, and did not emerge with everyone my best friend). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Urodela move

Resolved: Just an FYI.

I am planning to combine the Urodela article into Salamander, probably in the next 72 hours. StevePrutz (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'm shocked this hasn't happened years ago! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits and conduct at WP:NCP

Resolved: Any remaining issues will be hashed out at WT:NCP.

I assumed that your original points and discussion were made in good faith and that even your edits to the guidline during the discussion may have been. However since you seem to be making changes to the guidline regularly and for some time, with no discussion or consensus and then claiming that they are long standing consensus I am starting to think you are editing in bad faith. Your edits today are an example of what I am talking about. The responsibility is yours to prove that there is consensus for that. There is blatently no current consensus for what you are trying to reinsert to the guidlines as demonstarted by the talk page and you have not provided any link to a previous discussion to demonstarte a previous consensus. You appear over time to have added many things arbitrarily to the guidlines so I would ask that you please refrain from editing WP:NCP until the discussion has reached consensus. You are bordering on an edit war and WP:3RR can apply regardless of actually reaching three edits, so counting is not the problem, intent is. Paul  Bradbury 20:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You also now appear to be in violation of WP:CANVAS since having read your cross-posting I would not consider it impartial, you do not simply invite users to go and read the discussion you provide your own editorial of that discussion. Paul  Bradbury 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a few breaths before wandering into a dispute you have no direct part in and evidently haven't been following closely, since failure to do so in this case has obviously lead you into misreading virtually everything about it.
  1. I am a regular editor of the MOS and numerous other guideline pages; I know what I am doing, and am not a noob.
  2. "Making changes to the guidline regularly and for some time" isn't true at all; I have rarely edited either WP:DAB or WP:NCP, as they have mostly been stable and adequate (while MOS and many of its subguidelines have not).
  3. You do not appear to understand how WP:CONSENSUS works. WP:BOLD is policy. People do not have to discuss things before making changes. When they do not, they are often reverted. When they do not and don't know what they are doing or talking about, they almost always get reverted. Normal part of the WP:BRD process. When they don't but do know what they are doing and talking about, their edits are often accepted, as my minor addition of clarifying wording to WP:DAB was. Silence generally equals assent to changes, and this is especially true of guideline pages watchlisted by thousands of active editors. Any change that is against consensus is usually reverted very quickly. Simple observation of actual bio article naming in practice demonstrates that even how it was originally written was very accurate, except that it failed to account for justifiable exceptions; that failure has been rectified in the latest version of it.
  4. Over six months of stability of othat material in one of the most important and guarded guidelines on the entire system is very clearly a long-standing consensus (even if, as noted, the wording needed improvement).
  5. When someone deletes long-standing guideline material, the burden of proof is on the deleter (User:Francis Schonken in this case), not on the restorer of the material, regardless where they restore it to. (In this case I chose WP:NCP out of respect for Schonken's otherwise sensible decision that WP:DAB's section on human name disambiguation would be better as a simple cross reference to the larger guideline on the topic.
  6. I don't have to provide a link to previous discussion to establish consensus; the fact that it's been a part of WP:DAB for over half a year already demonstrates that. Under your view, about 99% of Wikipedia could be deleted as not having consensus, since most edits are not discussed but made boldly, and adjusted or reverted if necessary.
  7. You are further misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS in the supposition that undoing a deletion requires a new consensus discussion, or that a small number of vocal editors can declare a localized "consensus" (e.g. a few people in WT:NCP) against Wikipedia-wide consensus (over six months of stable WP:DAB history). WP:CONSENSUS quite specifically rejects this notion (twice in two different passages, even).
  8. Furthermore, you are probably unaware of the history of the debate at hand, in which I went to pains to notify the four most-affected wikiprojects on sports that were in conflict with the original guideline wording at issue, of the debate. I didn't have to do that, but I did. As a result, the currently active participants at WP:NCP have been swollen by editors from those projects (the majority of the current commentators are from there), and this is a major biasing factor.
  9. Next, I don't think you are parsing WP:CANVAS correctly. Just as I notified the affected projects (and some other relevant pages) of the original dispute about whether sports projects should use "John Doe (baseball player)" vs. "John Doe (baseball)", so I notified the relevant projects and pages with regard to the new, more general debate about whether to retain anything about this in the guidelines at all. This is courteous. I'm sorry you don't feel that the message was neutral enough, but it reads neutrally to me: I've described, in factual not heated terms, what the issue is, and presented both sides of the argument. I even put the opposition's opinion first so as not to appear to be denigrating them. A close read can probably tell that I have a position on the matter, but I'm clearly not trying to sway anyone's opinion; simple disclosure of a position is actually also polite, as a disclaimer.
  10. I am not bordering on an edit war, and I'm very well aware of WP:3RR and of how many reverts I made (2). I did not even go to three, because I'm also well aware that being punished for doing 4+ reverts does not "entitle" one to do 3. I stopped editing, sought advice (very clearly stipulated as such - advice, not redress of a grievance) at WP:ANI, opened a discussion on the talk page, and did not even revert the change to WP:DAB, which would actually clearly be justified. My two reverts were as fully justified as possible in the space of an edit summary; such reverts are often successful when the other parties realizes your purpose better and stops overreacting. This is normal WP editing, too. So, please stop being so alarmist.
  11. Why are you showing up on my talk page to demand that I stop editing a guideline until discussion plays out, when I've already obviously done so, opening the discussion myself on the talk page, and following up the last revert of my last edit with a null-edit comment that I'm not going to transgress 3RR and have opened discussion on the talk page? Have you actually done anything to verify the opinions you are forming off-the-cuff? Do you understand that lambasting me for editing you disapprove of and then lambasting me for opening discussion (but in a way you disapprove of) sounds schizophrenic?
  12. Finally, I am not acting in bad faith, you are simply assuming it: You assume I am constantly making changes to those guidelines, when in fact I've barely touched either of them in many months other than for typographical fixes and clarity twiddles. You assume that I don't know what I'm doing and am getting into editwars just for the hell of it, when I clearly have a WP:POLICY-informed purpose to what I'm doing. You assume that I'm ignoring WP:PROCESS, when in fact I'm trying to enforce it. You assume that I'm trying to push something against consensus, when in fact I'm really, really obviously trying to defend long-accepted material against deletion by people who have not gained consensus for its removal, except among the 5 of them, and it is material that is followed by around 95% of editors who bother reading guidelines at all. You assume I'm canvassing when in fact I'm doing routine notification of a debate at point A that is likely to have strong impact on points B, C, D and E, and without stating an opinion either way on what that impact might be, while also not misleading anyone into thinking I am not a party to the debate, and even suggesting that I may be completely wrong and that no such guidance will appear at all at the end of the consensus process. You assume that my edits to guideline pages are "arbitrary", while if you'd actually tracked my participation in policy matters over time you'd see they are anything but (aside from Tony1, I've probably had more impact on WP:MOS and its subpages than any other editor, from 2007 to early 2008, and about 9/10s of what I've put into them are still in them, suggesting that I actually have a fantastic policy-editing track record). I could go on, but you should get the point by now.
Next time you feel like criticizing an editor, please try to be more constructive and less attacking about it, and don't assume so much. "When you ass-u-me, you make an ass out of both u and me" ( - Robert Anton Wilson).
SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not looking for a fight fight please keep this WP:CIVIL. I didn't wander in to a discussion that I havn't been part of, I went there, commented, to which you responded and then continued reading.
  1. Then you should know better
  2. Over the last few days you have made regular changes and most of the changes under discussion seem to be yours
  3. You do not seem to understand WP:CONSENSUS or WP:PROVEIT. Just because someone didn't spot an edit that was incorrect does not make it correct, anything controversial as this evidently is should be sourced (in this case by a discussion that shows consensus)
  4. It appears to only have been stable because it was neither discussed or enforced
  5. Says who? What is your source for that comment? That appears to contradict WP:PROVEIT
  6. Again proof of consensus is the burden of the person adding not subtracting. Time is mentioned nowhere
  7. Fair enough, I came from a post from WP:FOOTY which was placed from another editor
  8. Like I said it just reads that way to me and given the way you have been acting I am starting to assume bad faith rather than good.
  9. I wasn't aware of your WP:ANI request, I assume you will be following the advise and ceasing further edits until this has played out in the discussion page (which is all that I have asked you to do)
  10. I didn't demand, I requested. It was not obvious you would refrain from your edits, just that you wouldn't make any more until the 24 hours had past.
  11. I havn'y lambasted you for opening the discussion I think that is appropriate, I have only asked you refrain from editing the things that are in discussion until that discussion has been concluded.
  12. Of course I am assuming, since I am unable to read your mind I cannot accurately verify your intent I can only assume it based on your actions.
Next time you respond please keep it WP:CIVIL
Paul  Bradbury 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"I am not looking for a fight" - What you initially wrote suggested otherwise, but I'll take you at face value on that; your repeated suggestion of bad faith makes this more difficult than necessary. Bad faith is essentially a claim that I am trying to harm Wikipedia or abuse it to serve my own ends (what evil plot or profit scheme would be enhanced by making sure that WP bios are disambig'd consistently?). That you were actually in the discussion: Sorry, I didn't remember; I thought I had kept track of who was in the debate, and evidently failed to do so. My bad.
I don't think there was anything particularly uncivil about my response; irritable maybe, but you'd be irritated to if someone popped by to accuse you of bad faith editing for reasons that to you seemed completely contrived or mistaken. But it hasn't been long since I wrote it; maybe tomorrow it will seem less than civil to me on a later re-read. Hard to say. Will endeavor to be more consciously civil this htime around.
  1. "Know better": Cute, but non-substantive, since I don't see that I'm doing anything nefarious or stupid.
  2. I've edited recently. So? If an issue is raised and it can be solved with an edit, it is a good idea to try to resolve it with an edit. People have objected, I've stopped editing. So you can stop beating this horse.
  3. CONSENSUS and PROVE: <shrug> As I've said, I think its you who is misinterpreting policy. Stalemate on that one, then, I guess. For one thing, WP:PROVE it applies to articlespace, not guidelines. People sometimes add a {{fact}} to a guideline page as a smartass comment on something they find dubious, but we all know that the process is different. We are not trying to verify WP:POLICY matters with external sources - there is nothing to prove - but rather building them from within from our own ideas, insights, agreements, lessons and experience. In guidelines, the burden of proof is still on the one who wants to change something, as Schonken did by deleting something the deletion of which is now disputed; much earlier, I added something (to WP:DAB) the addition of which was not challenged. WP:CONSENSUS: "In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community." Over six months in one of our highest-profile guidelines, addressing one of the most frequent disambiguation needs on the entire system, is clearly "adequate exposure" beyond all shadow of doubt. The principal difference is that in an article, everything must be sourced, while in policyspace everything must make sense for Wikipedia and work well; destroying guidance that prevents utter chaos in biographical article names does not make sense or work well. Also it is not "evidently controversial" - it has been very stable and well-accepted. That approximately 5 to 10 editors, who I effectively targeted by notifying their projects that I was criticizing their disambiguation practices, are resistant to my ideas all of a sudden isn't evidence of any change of consensus, nor any genuine "controversy". It was only fair that I notify them of the criticism and where it was located, and I fully expected to catch hell for it. I have a thick skin, and I don't mind taking one for the team when I feel that the issue is important enough to settle firmly. I harbor no hard feelings, as my WP:ANI clearly indicates. Further, advice in guidelines is neither "correct" nor "incorrect"; rather, it either has consensus or doesn't. Something stupid does not survive in a major WP guideline, especially if it is a change that was not hashed out beforehand. Mine survived. It did age and needed revision (already done - that's the version I'm trying to put back in and which I'm being reflexively reverted on just because people's tempers are hot), and it wasn't perfect, but the community had over half a year to raise and issue with it and did not. Schonken's deletion, however, has been immediately contested by me, and I know there were a couple other parties in the original debate that supported that language and said so (I do not know if they have commented on the most recent debate point; I've been editing other stuff besides this material, so I'm starting to lose track of who said what, where and when). Still, irritated or not, those editors have a right to have their say, thus the consensus discussion I opened, which even expressly puts on the table the idea that the entire passage could be removed with no trace if consensus really wants that, and that maybe I'm just full of it. Yeah, that's a really, really bad faith way to do things, isn't it?
  4. Old discussion; enforcement: Not everything needs to be discussed. Self-evidently sensible things just work. When over time practice changes and the wording no longer matches the practice, they need to be adjusted, but it very rarely the case in WP that old advice that can be updated should instead be discarded entirely. Not enforced? I'm not sure what you mean. Guidelines are not policy, and usually not treated as policy (WP:N kind of is treated as policy at WP:AFD, but it's an unusual case), so "enforcement" isn't applicable. Editors by and large have been abiding by it, except where it made things difficult for them as it did at some sports projects.
  5. Burden: WP:CONSENSUS says so: "[G]enerally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. ... If the reason for an edit is not clear, it is more likely to be reverted, especially in the case that some text is deleted." Please just see the flowchart image there (it is Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg, for your convenience. I'm going to speak in terms of it here: There was a "very" previous consensus, that what WP:DAB said way back when was good enough. I and various others disagreed with it and I made an edit to address that issue. It was not edited further with regard to that addition, ergo it was a new consensus. (Especially after 6 months! Generally, one would declare a new consensus after a few days). Seeking a quick-'n'-dirty way to end the sports naming dispute, Francis simply deleted the material in the course of redirecting the DAB section to NCP (this was no accident; in his report of the change, he made it clear that the entire purpose for that change was to get rid of that passage and thus end the dispute by fiat). So, back to the chart: There was a previous consensus (the guidance I inserted months ago at DAB). Francis made an edit (the deletion and soft direct to NCP). The page was edited further, and I at least did not agree with the change, so no new consensus; go up the chart into the discussion phase, which is where we are now. Please note that nothing in this process indicates that the previous consensus just disappears. If no new consensus emerges we know that other processes take over, such as dropping the matter and cooling off (XfDs close with "no consensus" and keep things the way they were before the proposed deletion when there is no consensus for the change, for good reason), taking the matter to any of at least 4 levels of mediation, going to ArbCom if something is really wrong, etc. If the "Implement" phase of that chart never leads to "New consensus" then the situation is a WP:FILIBUSTER, which is considered a form of disruptive editing. I hope this is clear now. My attempt to restore the material was simply an attempt to return to "Previous consensus" (albeit with updates that should make the sports editors happier by more explicitly recognizing that the general preference here cannot be forced on them if it causes problems). So that was an edit, resulting in further editing that did not agree with that change, thus discussion phase, which should lead to new implementation and edit that hopefully will not result in further changes and disagreement and require another discussion phase and editing round.
  6. Burden on adder not deleter: WP:CONSENSUS says the opposite, as quoted above. Adding, deleting or simply altering can all trigger a need to reach consensus, but deletion is especially likely to do so. Schonken's deletion at WP:DAB was not discussed there, and only discussed at WT:NCP, among a group of active participants that largely consisted of people unhappy with the guideline, specifically because those are the ones I made a point to invite so as not to marginalize them! I don't even regret doing it. The discussion has been more tooth-gnashy than necessary, but good things are coming out of it, especially the sports projects actually standing up and saying that they need the guidelines to reflect their needs on this matter, instead of just quietly ignoring the guidelines, which as led to a lot of sporadic editwarring over sports bio article titles. I really do have a WP-serving purpose in mind when I stir the pot like this. After all is said and done, and (as I believe will happen) some version of the language is restored, that keeps most DAB'd articles consistent, but also allows sports and other projects with particular needs the leeway they need without having to constantly cite WP:IAR at people and get in arguments, then everyone will be happier and things will work much better. It's a "no pain, no gain" situation, but the gain is right there within reach
  7. "Fair enough". Okay.
  8. Bad faith: I hope I've changed your mind.
  9. Stop editing pending discussion: Yes. The dead horse is now just a puddle of goop.
  10. No reason to think I wouldn't be a disruptive editor: Please, just AGF, and check my userpage. I've been on this system for years, and heavily active enough to have over 35,000 edits at this point. I've never been blocked for anything, much less 3RR. Editors like that don't go around violating policies. Why would I get myself blocked just to make a WP:POINT or something? Plenty of people have been blocked for 3RR because they've gamed the system by doing precisely 3 reverts a day, clearly violating the spirit of the policy. And it's just not productive. If people can't get the point or do get it and honestly disagree with it after 2 well-explained attempts, it's time for more discussion, in detail.
  11. Didn't know about ANI, etc. Okay, I understand that. Maybe it was a timing thing - I could have been doing the ANI and discussion opening while you were writing here. I shouldn't ass-u-me either...
  12. Assumptions: And I didn't mean "be psychic", I meant ask if uncertain, look into the background more, take more time to formulate an opinion about other editors, etc. It's not like there's some emergency here and you are the first responder. If worse had somehow come to worst, that page would simply have been temporarily protected by ANI, as a routine "there's editwarring going on" block. As Douglas Adams says, "Don't panic!" :-)
I think that addresses it all (I'm not 100% sure the numbers match up right - your #7 seems to address my original #8, but it ought to be clear enough). I also hope this is coming across as more civil. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Glossary editing link

Resolved: Issue apparently fixed.

I was just making a few edits to the glossary and when I clicked on the edit link next to bar pool I was taken to the edit page for baulk rail's definition. This displacement seems to hold true for many other entries I just checked. Many possibilities present themselves such as that: this is a long-standing problem in this article having to do with the large number of entries the software has to parse; something isolated to my browser; a new and temporary sitewide bug; etc. But I also though it might have something to with with CompactTOC8, anchor codes, things you know about. I don't know that you have any ability to provide a fix, but I thought you'd be a good person to inform.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't reproduce the problem (using a SeaMonkey, a Mozilla-based browser with the same core codebase as Firefox, under MacOS X). What browser and platform are you using? Is it still happening? My initial guess is that something like a {{Anchors}} tag was not closed, and some browsers are confused by this, and some aren't. I'll search the source code for that error first. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I did find an unclosed {{Anchors}}; fixed that. Is it still happening? PS: {{CompactTOC8}} wouldn't do anything like that; all it does is draw the ToC boxes. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Windows XP, Mozilla Firefox 3.0.1. The error is still happening for me using Firefox, but I checked and using both IE and Safari the error is not reproduced.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Just chalk it up to bad electrons. If I restart I bet it goes away. Thanks for looking!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Frakkin' weird. Will have to fire up the Wintel machine, I guess... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it is working fine for me in WinXP, Firefox 2.0.0.16. I think maybe your cache just needs to be flushed. Lemme know? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this thread

Resolved: Just an FYI.

Wikipedia_talk:Accessibility#Heading structures. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented there. Pigs raises good points, but the "revolutionary" tone isn't going to carry the day. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)