User talk:Opabinia regalis

Need a cat

... I mean a cat image that says unmistakably ignore ignore ignore. Can't be said enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

ps: it's an anniversary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This cat looks pretty good at ignoring stuff.

My cats seem to be quite good at ignoring things! Specifically me. Specifically me saying things like "no, get off the table" and "don't chew that" and "don't sit on my keyboa.,lmkl....mklllkmkl <opens 9 new tabs> <minimizes window> <reboot>". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Cat does look good in ignoring, but it's not the first you see. The problem about ignoring is that it is hard to be distinguished from overlooking. I'd like a decent way of marking "seen but chosen not to react, to deescalate", - don't see though how that won't still escalate. True ignoring without reaction is probably safer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a kids' cartoon about this :) "I'm ignoring you!" "Hey! Didn't you notice I'm ignoring you?" "Stop ignoring the fact that I'm ignoring you!" Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Lovely! - Did you know that I made a DYK especially with you in mind, and got it, pictured? - It was great fun to sing the works for the English composer, anxious of what he would say, and he said "Fast zu ernst" (in German! - a title by Schumann, meaning: almost too serious), and "I almost forgot that I composed them.", and then conducted them, all once more, obviously enjoying it (while we had trouble guessing what he wanted). Photos were taken, but that was before digital photography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Aww, thanks, photos or no photos, that illustration is cute :) Glad you enjoyed it! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Small world. (I just met a user who explains on the user page how their articles are connected, which would in my case cause a tangled display similar to the chemical ones you sometimes show.) A soprano sang with us right after she was engaged by a conductor, - and today the two are on the Main page. Coincidence? - Different: I recently wrote about an opera because it seemed named after a user (so much for connections), - now that user finds himself blocked indef and doesn't know why. How to proceed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer is probably "email arbcom", but hopefully someone else knows what's up, because I don't! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that this page should have the way to do that. I never had any reason, so don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, or just send an email to User:Arbitration Committee. We seem to have a ton of bloated and useless pages, but the instructions are actually on this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Something seems to have worked, - editing again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Spraggle upon waggle.jpg

"Did someone say bloated and useless?"

By "a ton of bloated and useless pages" I take it you mean "98% of Wikipedia"? If you want to email Arbcom, Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee is a more elegant solution and avoids messing about trying to work out if that little line in "arbcom-l" is a dash or a hyphen. – iridescent 2 08:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I never had reason to email arbcom, and hopefully never will have. The best they ever did was this 2 comments max limit (which was actually my idea). Just imagine how much less bloated discussions would become if that was teh rule for all. I still try to follow but made 3 (or even 6?) comments here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's make that a rule for all AN/ANI threads... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to respond but I was distracted by your cat's magnificent belly floof. I had to drag my own chubby, floofy gray cat out of his spot by the window just to stick my face in his fur. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

When happy hour runs into overtime.

Meet Siam...the cat that adorns my user page - speaks volumes. 🙀 ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Love it! That cat must've been hitting the 'nip. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I expanded just a bit to make her fit DYK demands. Please check. Too bad the research of cat cuteness has not resulted in an article. - You don't need to tell me that some people think to make a selection of recordings is OR, - we recently had Klaus Huber's list, see talk. I fear for Joe, DYK? So he said fuck off twice and received an indef, and now that is requested for arbitration. - I think a junior admin made a mistake with that block, and we should forgive him and be silent. - What cat for the case request? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your article looks good! Cat cuteness may be red, but at least we still have Cats and the Internet. The look my cat just gave me when I shoved him off the desk was definitely uncivil, maybe I should put him on the arb pages :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You have Cats That Look Like Hitler (which has survived nine years without deletion) if that helps ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Poor cats looking like Hitler. Always helps DYK if you mention Nazi, sadly. - Now we need another cat image, for "You said what I feel better than I could". Opabinia regalis, I will make your post the starting point for my question for the candidates. To mention infoboxes is forbidden ;) - Look. I just saw Götterdämmerung, and think I won the battle of pleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

But no Infinite Cat Project? I think my old kitty is in there somewhere...

I can't believe people are talking about candidates and elections already. Didn't we just do that? Maybe 🐱 wants to run, he always wants to be on the keyboard while I'm trying to edit! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I just hope that you will run. As long as the others listen to you, it doesn't matter who they are :) - Nice coincidence with the archived case: the wake-up call for justice in our time on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm still in denial that it's even November yet! Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Question about Overlapping gene article

Hi,

I was just looking at the overlapping gene article that you greatly expanded back in 2016. Thanks for the great contribution. In the classification section I think that the convergent and divergent labels might be the wrong way round. I would think that <== ==> was divergent and ==> <== was convergent. At least that is the convention when talking about gene transcription. Do you agree? Alexbateman (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbateman: I think you're right and I'm a doofus, but I only changed which arrow characters were used, not the directions [1] - which makes me wonder if I checked and confirmed at the time. But I don't have access to the sources at the moment, so if you get a chance to double check, go ahead and make whatever edits you need... otherwise I'll look later. Maybe Evolution and evolvability knows offhand? I'm really a protein person, not a genetics expert; IIRC I came to that article after writing about some viral proteins encoded that way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbateman: OK, that's such a dumb mistake that I thought sure I must have been missing something, but nope, I just had a brain fart and nobody noticed till now. Fixed, thanks for the correction! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the corrected naming. I think it stems from this reference (box 1):

Rogozin, Igor B.; Spiridonov, Alexey N.; Sorokin, Alexander V.; Wolf, Yuri I.; Jordan, I. King; Tatusov, Roman L.; Koonin, Eugene V. (2002-05-01). "Purifying and directional selection in overlapping prokaryotic genes". Trends in Genetics. 18 (5): 228–232. doi:10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02649-5.

Well spotted! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If the animal world...

...had their own Wikipedia, they'd have cats as admins to guard off vandalism. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of our vandals are like that octopus! Now I'm wondering if judicious treat deployment can get my cat to block people for me... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, a cat might not be able to get the job done, but a mouse can. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Normally I don't follow ArbCom...but...

...I hate like hell to drop more fluff on you back-to-back, but I was bored (stuck in living quarters in a horse trailer for one more day) so I went over to ArbCom just to see what was going on - you know, needing a little something to liven things up a bit from the everyday hum-drum. After reading your elaborate summary of the case, it brought back memories of when I worked as an independent producer for PBS affiliates, WKNO-Memphis and KUHT-Houston. There are quite a few similarities between the formalities of proper English used at PBS (early to late 90s), and what we see today regarding profanity used by WP editors who don't think a whole lot of it. One audio documentary in particular was circulating around PBS stations nationwide, and eventually ended up in our edit suite in Dallas, TX. You may have already heard this recording, but in case you haven't...it's a fun listen. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I'm stealing that one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you continue to talk common sense at Arbcom, as you did here, you may be thoroughly ostracised as being a smart alec. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

She is cloaked in it, Ritchie...she's batgirl! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I wish! Sorry, but arbcom has a common-sense quota. You'll find it in the third paragraph of the fifth section of part 2B of WP:ARBPROC#OMGWTFBBQ. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

On eggshell armour salesmanship

It's very difficult to not respond to hammer strikes. That's why the eggshell armour shop went bankrupt last year. Now if we found a way to convert rubber into plasticine we might be in business.Sorry, I just need to follow up on that metaphor train somehow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha, I think we'd do better marketing a fake nail as a hammer-strike decoy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

that pesky I/P area again...

Ok, so a question came up here, how is this to be interpreted? Take an example, in an article under ARBPIA sanctions:

First addition by Editor 1: 14:43, 30 October 2017

Removed by Editor 2: 16:51, 31 October 2017

Second addition of same material by Editor 1: 18:59, 31 October 2017

My question is, has Editor 1 broken the 1 RR rule, as they reverted less than 24 hours after Editor 2 reverted? Or is Editor 1 in the clear, as they have more than 24 hours since their own last edit? I know I intended that Editor 1 should be in the clear, but is that what I got? (Hmm.... I have been burned before!) Should perhaps this go to WP:ARCA? Huldra (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, I hate to tell someone to go to ARCA but nothing makes me feel like I've run into the Peter Principle quite like DS procedure questions :) My reaction to that description is that if anything really depends on the exact timing of Editor 1's next edit then there are bigger problems than whether or not they strictly followed 1RR. But this seems to be the same question that's come up before, about whether 1RR is meant to be a per-edit or per-user restriction, and to be honest I don't remember what the conclusion was.... probably Callanecc knows, he's the procedure expert! Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll wait for the answer from Callanecc, then, before I run off to WP:ARCA. (Btw, thanks for the Peter Principle link. I knew the expression, but not the name. ....and I feel like a 100% idiot at times, editing in the I/P area.... Oh well.) Huldra (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I always just called it "promoted to level of incompetence", didn't know it actually had a name.

Editor 1 has breached the prohibition, yes (If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours). That sentence was included to replace the previous 'consensus required' provision which required that a consensus be formed before something could be reinstated after it had been removed. It's intention being to reverse the status quo which exists else where, that it's harder to get new stuff out of an article (two reverts) than it is to put it in (one addition then a revert). Having said that though, some of the things an admin would take into consideration would be whether the editor knew that what they were doing breached the restriction and whether the edit actually had anything to do with ARBPIA (notwithstanding that the whole page is covered by the restriction). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc. Sigh, its back to WP:ARCA, then. The intention was indeed to fix the old order, where it took two editors to keep out the additions of one editor. As an editor in this area I like fixed rules: 1RR, or 1 edit per 24 hours is one such rule. With the above interpretations, one could get blocked even with less than 1 edit pr 24 hours, and that was never my intention. Huldra (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what this does. It keeps the edits of one editor out of an article by stopping them from reverting the revert. The change from the last version was it got rid of the consensus required version which created more headaches then it solved. I can't, off the top of my head, think of another way to make this work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, it is that editor1 make an edit more than 24 hours after his last edit to the article, and you say he breached the prohibition. That was never my intention. (The "consensus required" was indeed a mess up, and something none of the "us regulars" in the area had asked for.) Huldra (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So you were thinking that the "24 hours" in sentence I quoted above was measured from the edit by the original editor which introduced the material, rather than the measured from editor B's revert of the material being inserted? I see where you're coming from, but that would mean this scenario would be acceptable:

1. Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
2. Editor B reverts at 23:50, 1 Jan
3. Editor A reverts at 00:05, 2 Jan

Editor B can't revert it for nearly 23 hours so the material ends up staying in the article anyway.

Under the current system editor A wouldn't be able to reinsert the material until 23:51, 2 Jan which circumvents the status quo issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Callanecc yeah, you are right, that was the way I was thinking. And you write "editor B can't revert it for nearly 23 hours so the material ends up staying in the article anyway.".....but that is only because editor B was late reverting. If we had, say, early reverts:

1. Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
2. Editor B reverts at 00:02, 1 Jan
3. Editor A reverts at 00:03, 2 Jan
4. Editor B reverts at 00:04, 2 Jan

..then the material would have stayed mostly out of the article.

Actually, thinking about it, in your version, (lets call it Version 2), late reverts, has

1. Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
2. Editor B reverts at 23:50, 1 Jan
3. Editor A reverts at 23:51, 2 Jan
4. Editor B reverts at 23:52, 3 Jan

….the material stays in the article, about half of the time

Version 2, early revert would have

1. Editor A inserts material at 00:01, 1 Jan
2. Editor B reverts at 00:02, 1 Jan
3. Editor A reverts at 00:03, 2 Jan
4. Editor B reverts at 00:04, 3 Jan

….the material stays in the article, about half the time, in the long run.

I think I can live with both; either Version 1 (my version), or Version 2. Both are much better that what we had before December 2016, namely that A's first edit didn't count towards reverts, so that in a 1 to 1 situation, the editor inserting info always won.

I just need to be 100% sure which version is valid! And as you can see from the discussion which brought me here, I'm not alone in being unsure, Huldra (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can relate, Huldra. The problem I see with it is that admin action is based on an editor's patterned behavior, not content, the latter of which should actually be the priority for the benefit of the project; i.e. getting the article right, although I understand perfectly well why it's important to keep behavior in check and why our PAGs are the way they are for the most part. Unfortunately, the latter doesn't eliminate the fact that behavior is an internal matter, or that our readers could care less about it. Their primary concern is having free/easy access to a non-politicized, factually accurate, NPOV article. I liken our editing disputes vs reader expectations in much the same way as I view a customer going into the grocery store to buy a pound of hamburger and by chance, arriving at the same time the store manager is arguing with the butcher over (a) how the hamburger was packaged, (b) the fact that the hamburger is not 100% sirloin per the label, and (c) having an incorrect date stamp on it. Looking at it from a customer's POV, would you keep shopping there? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Atsme, I got my first proper block this spring, totally out of the blue (for me!)...as I had no idea that I had broken any rules. And that was not.....a pleasant experience, to put it very mildly. So this time I want to make 100 % sure that I understand correctly. As I edit in a controversial area, there are no lack of candidates to report me to the drama boards if I get anything wrong...(Last time I was reported to AN/I it was because I had misread 200 BCE, instead of 200 CE. Oh well.) And I'm sure you are familiar with the quote, misattributed to Otto von Bismarck: "Laws are like sausages — it is best not to see them being made." We can add Wikipedia to that. Huldra (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Whew, Callanecc to the rescue! :) The "half and half" net result seems reasonable enough to me, in a two-person dispute with no other input and where the material is disputed but not obviously inappropriate (BLP violations and so forth). Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, "half and half" result from a one to one encounter seems reasonable (To anyone reading this: it rarely, if ever, ends up this way. Normally we end up on the talk, and tweak the material until both parts can live with it). Though actually both version 1 and version 2 can end up in the "half and half" result. But I assume you meant version 2? Thats ok, but we need to "spread the word"...as you can see from the discussion that brought me here: presently editors are most confused..Huldra (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to spread the word, and this is a question that's come up often, an ARCA section with a linkable result is probably more effective for that job than a talk-page section. Sorry for being useless, I'm traveling at the moment (hence the alt) and only looking in via plane wifi (which I ought to be using for real work, but never mind... :) Opabinia externa (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)