User talk:Kelapstick

Let sleeping pugs lie.

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Helpful again! Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yay! From me too. Did you happen to run CU on those cats on my user page? Anything interesting? Drmies (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I did not. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Dark-sky preserve

Hey K-stick on the run, have you arrived yet? Hope you and yours are well.

An edit on Dark-sky preserve I saw go by, by Brandmeister, suggested there's a bunch of articles to be written on Canadyan topics. Perhaps we can counter our ArbCom combat fatigue and write some up and get them up at DYK, so we can pretend that we're also regular folk writing stuff for the betterment of mankind blah blah. How about it? Drmies (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I guess you wrote to another user, but anyway I just noticed that the article uses hyphen inconsistently, sometimes as dark-sky preserve and sometimes as dark sky preserve :) Brandmeister^talk 15:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Brandmeister, I restored your message since it's useful. I didn't notice the hyphen; I suppose we can bring that up on the talk page. I corrected one of the wikilinks for a redlink, and wrote up a real short stub for McDonald Park. Your help is appreciated! Also, since Canada is on fire a brandmeister can be quite helpful. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

RGloucester, I think a hyphen makes sense. How about you? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't mind, I briefly thought it was my talkpage. I'm not sure which hyphenation to use, as I, for one, would support either. Brandmeister^talk 16:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Invading Canady, eh? I added the hyphen to the first line, and the RGloucester I pinged knows a thing or to about mechanics and grammar. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• This is a tricky issue, I'm afraid. Traditionally, a hyphen would have been used in this case. Generally speaking, MOS:HYPHEN supports using the hyphen, though it allows for editorial discretion. I tend to support using the hyphen, and it seems that the "International Dark-Sky Association" also uses it in its name, but not in reference to specific parks/reserves/preserves, &c. Journalistic usage, on the other hand, is much more mixed, leaning toward omitting the hyphen in this case. I'd say that, if this is a matter that editors are "concerned" (as much as one can be about such trivialities) about, a non-targeted WP:RM should be held to assess consensus and allow for the presentation of evidence. The only thing that I would say with certainty is that the article should be consistent in usage. If the hyphen is used in the title, it should also be used in the body of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That confirms my suspicions about usage here. But...but...TRIVIALITIES? Them's fighting words for some, RGloucester! Drmies (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that even that "some" would feel tepid at best in such a wishy-washy case as this...or not? Who knows. On another note, perhaps one of you fine administrators would care to do me a favour by closing a village pump RfC that is long overdue for such a closure? It is this one, if one feels willing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I gotta pass on that one--too big. Plus you wanted a fine administrator. Well, who's finer than Randykitty or Sphilbrick? Drmies (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice suck-up (or is it suckup?) I’m tempted to be snarky and say I’m not about to do a favor for someone who thinks hyphen usage is a triviality, but the real answer is that while I am active in some areas of admin work, there are a couple areas I’ve been quite deficient – anything and everything to do with SPI, and closing RfCs. I really ought to address that shortcoming, but if I do, I think I should start with something simpler.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A comment, which really doesn't belong here, but, too bad.

I'll offer one reason why that RfC hasn't been closed.

It is my experience that many arguments in WP have quite a back-story, and it isn't easy to jump into the middle. The writer of this RfC attempted to recognize this by starting with a summary sentence and providing some background. The goal is laudable, the execution, not so much.

The summary sentence:
"What guidance should WP:Disambiguation give for article titles that do not result in a conflict between two or more articles, but which are not inherently unambiguous to a general audience?"

My guess is that if you gave me an example, I'd do a facepalm, and agree that the summary sentence is a nice summary, but at the moment, I don't know what it is talking about.

I pressed on. The background starts with a link. It is to a diff, and I'm not sure which of the hundreds of words is the point. I'm actually interested in dab, and the concept of precision, but do not yet grok the disagreement.

I pressed on.

The next entry is another diff, removing something because they think it is not about dab.
I still don't know what the disagreement is about.

I stopped pressing on. I suggest that other admins considering closing this RfC may have run into the same problem - "what the hell is this about?"

I sort of want to know, but my main point is that while the closing admin is expected to read the whole discussion - if they cannot even understand the nature of the dispute early on, they may bail. While it is somewhat frowned upon to add material to the early part of an RFC late in the game, perhaps a summary with a clear example , and a note that it was added late, but turn on the light for me or someone else.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I will try to give a basic clarification. There is a dispute between those who view "disambiguation" on Wikipedia as something that only applies if there is ambiguity between various articles titles, and those who view "disambiguation" in the real word sense of removing ambiguity in general in the interest of "precision". As an example, one has a title like Flemish Giant. In the real world, "Flemish Giant" could refer to various things. The term itself does not clearly define what precisely is "giant", rendering it ambiguous. However, because there are not Wikipedia articles about other things that could be termed "Flemish Giant" (e.g. Flemish Giant cat), some editors believe that the article about "Flemish Giant rabbits" should be at "Flemish Giant" in the interest of "concision". Does that make the dispute a bit clearer? RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'm there yet. I'll try a little stream of consciousness and see if it helps me. I can imagine that if I'm at a cuniculture conference, I would expect that a speaker could refer to Flemish Giant, without explaining that it is a breed of rabbit. I don't know whether every member of the audience would know this but they would either know this because they are familiar with the breed or infer this from the context.

In contrast, if I'm at a cocktail party where someone asked what I'm up to, and I tell them I'm thinking about acquiring some Flemish Giants, I need to add more information, as most people won't know the term. I'll presume, for the sake of this discussion, that there are no other items in the universe also called Flemish giant, so it isn't the case that they are unclear whether I mean Flemish Giant rabbits versus Flemish Giant aardvarks, they simply do not recognize what I am talking about when I use the term. If there were Flemish Giant rabbits and Flemish Giant aardvarks, then we would be talking about disambiguation—which of two possible terms do we mean by the shorter phrase. I think this is what someone is getting at when they say this isn't strictly a disambiguation issue.

However, when I'm missing is what problem is it that we are trying to solve. If I mentioned in casual conversation at a cocktail party that I am considering acquiring some Flemish Giants, I can't put square brackets around the term so that those who do not know the term can look it up. We are constructing rules for cocktail conversation we talk about protocols for Wikipedia. If some notable person decided to raise Flemish Giants, we could state that in an article, blue link the term and those that know the term can read on and those that don't can click on the link. I don't see a need to add the term "rabbit" to the text.

It is even less obvious why I need the term in the title. If I see the term somewhere and it is not explained I might decide to search for it. But, presumably, the reason I want to look it up is that the original source didn't mention that it was a rabbit so I'm not going to type in Flemish Giant rabbit I'm going to type in Flemish Giant. And I will show up at the right article.

It is possible I'm missing what is right in front of me what —namely that some people take my position but others take a different position and the disambiguation page is the right place to discuss how it ought to be handled in Wikipedia. I see that our article does have "rabbit" in the title, so at least one and presumably a number of people hold a different opinion. But now conflating two issues one the issue of how this specific article title should read, and the other is whether it is a proper subject of discussion anywhere and in particular in the disambiguation guideline.

So maybe it is sinking in to me. While I have one particular view on how it should be handled, and others have a different view, that isn't even the issue okay—the issue is whether that discussion is properly a disambiguation discussion or something else. Off the top my head, I can understand the position that it's not technically a disambiguation topic but since those who hold each of the opposing views have differing views on how the title should read (which is typically a disambiguation subject), I guess I can agree that it's as good a place as any to discuss it. I suppose one could argue it ought to be at Wikipedia:Article titles. I see that this policy does have a section on precision and disambiguation and this feels more like precision than disambiguation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding @RGloucester: --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You're getting it. Essentially, the WP:AT policy asks us to weigh the importance of the given WP:CRITERIA in a particular case through editorial consensus. The question is, can the fact that the WP:DAB guideline suggests that "disambiguation" can only be used to disambiguate multiple Wikipedia articles, as opposed to removing inherent ambiguity in a given title, be used to support the removal of something like the "rabbit" from article titles, which is in "Flemish Giant rabbit" in the interest of precision and recognisability, i.e. in the interest of meeting the article title criteria as suggested by the article titles policy, as opposed to in interest of disambiguating multiple Wikipedia articles? RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Applicability of US amendments to Canadians

Well, when you visit 'merica the twenty first applies to you -- that's one of my favorites. NE Ent 09:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

This is true, I will have to take that into consideration when I head down there Tuesday. Cheers, NE Ent.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Unban

I asked some of your fellow arbs about this and none were willing to discuss it. Doug Weller says nothing, GorillaWarfare says I can only appeal on or after "Jan. 19 2017" a strangely specific date that she doesn't explain, Guerillero haughtily tells me he has "no interest in conversing with me," DGG just archives my comment, etc. etc.

I was perma-blocked in 2012 on an allegation of sockpuppetry. I never did it. I cleanstarted (WP:CLEANSTART) on privacy grounds. My former account was in good standing in every respect. I tried to be unblocked but found myself stuck in an appeals system that doesn't work very well, and really is completely susceptible to being foiled by hounders. It is accurate that when my every official appeal avenue was cut off, I block-evaded via raw IP (like this) clearly disclosing my username. Some call that "socking" but if you look at a dictionary socking requires a deceptive element. They could just say "block evasion" but I feel the intent is usually to insult. At any rate I didn't even use IPs prior my original perma-block.

My value as an editor is shown, for example, by five or six articles I created in my previous account. Though I only had a couple months before being blocked in this account I did at least make Rain City Superhero Movement. Well, I'll limit myself to three paragraphs, but if you're willing to help me, or just have a constructive discussion, let me know. But please don't tell me "wait until next year" I feel like four years of being unjustly blocked is enough, and next year the same people will tell me wait another year, and most of them evilly smile to themselves when they say it. Colton Cosmic.

PS: According to your user page, you and I started editing about the same time.

Jan 17 2017 is probably one year after your last instance of sock puppetry. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)