Jump to content

User talk:SMcCandlish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user uses PGP for secure communications (click to view this user's key)
This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.
This user helped get "Golden Cue" listed at Did You Know on the main page on June 2, 2010.
This user helped get "Ground billiards" listed at Did You Know on the main page on March 25, 2019.
This user helped get "William A. Spinks" listed at Did You Know on the main page on March 2, 2007.
This user helped get "William Hoskins (inventor)" listed at Did You Know on the main page on February 12, 2019.
This user significantly contributed to the "Good Article" status of "Cornershot" become a good article on July 24, 2006.
This user significantly contributed to the "Good Article" status of "Jasmin Ouschan" become a good article on September 12, 2009.
This user significantly contributed to the "Good Article" status of "William A. Spinks" become a good article on April 22, 2016.
This user is a WikiGnome.
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
Email this user
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least fifteen years.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This editor is a Grandmaster Editor First-Class and is entitled to display the Grandmaster Editor First-Class Ribbon.
This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is not an admin.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user
This user is a metapedian.
This user is a member of the WikiFun Police.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 29 October 2017 (→Steve Davis: moved discussion back to article talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Status: Busy

Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other.
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Worm That Turned 2 147 0 1 100 09:47, 18 November 2024 6 days, 9 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Template-edit requests, etc.

9 template-protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Module:Lang-zh (request) 2024-10-10 09:41 Template-protected (log) From Module:Zh: Protected by HJ Mitchell on 2014-05-03: "High-risk Lua module"
Template:Coat of arms (request) 2024-10-30 09:36 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2020-08-29: "High-risk template"
Template:WikiProject Cricket (request) 2024-11-08 09:21 Template-protected (log) Modified by Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 on 2016-10-15: "Highly visible template"
Template:Country data United Kingdom (request) 2024-11-09 00:05 Template-protected (log) Modified by WOSlinker on 2013-10-19: "allow template editors to modify"
Template:Country data United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (request) 2024-11-09 00:10 Template-protected (log) Modified by MelanieN on 2019-02-16: "Highly visible template"
Module:College color/data (request) 2024-11-10 03:37 Template-protected (log) Modified by Galobtter on 2019-01-24: "High-risk Lua module"
Module:Political party (request) 2024-11-11 00:06 Template-protected (log) Protected by MusikBot II on 2021-11-18: "High-risk template or module: 13487 transclusions (more info)"
Template:CDNblock (request) 2024-11-11 14:01 Template-protected (log) Protected by L235 on 2023-12-03: "Highly visible template: used in a significant number of block messages and in User:AntiCompositeBot/ASNBlock/config.json which is upstream of many blocks"
Template:Infobox language (request) 2024-11-11 23:47 Template-protected (log) Modified by MusikAnimal on 2021-08-16: "Highly visible template: transclusion count now over 9,000; most recent editors are still able to edit"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 23:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 7 November 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Most recent poster here: SMcCandlish (talk)

Mini-toolbox:

Articles for deletion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Requested moves

As of 2017-10-29 , SMcCandlish is Active.
I'll reply to your message within 24 hours if possible.

WikiStress level
Wikimood
[purge] [edit]
The Signpost
The Signpost
Please stay in the top 3 segments of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.
 User talk:SMcCandlish/IP

Old stuff to resolve eventually

Cueless billiards

Unresolved
 – Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.
Extended content

Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crud fits for sure. And if the variant in it is sourceable, I'm sure some military editor will fork it into a separate article eventually. I think at least some variants of bar billiards are played with hands and some bagatelle split-offs probably were, too (Shamos goes into loads of them, but I get them all mixed up, mostly because they have foreign names). And there's bocce billiards, article I've not written yet. Very fun game. Kept my sister and I busy for 3 hours once. Her husband (Air Force doctor) actually plays crud on a regular basis; maybe there's a connection. She beat me several times, so it must be from crud-playing. Hand pool might be its own article eventually. Anyway, I guess it depends upon your "categorization politics". Mine are pretty liberal - I like to put stuff into a logical category as long as there are multiple items for it (there'll be two as soon as you're done with f.b., since we have crud), and especially if there are multiple parent categories (that will be the case here), and especially especially if the split parallels the category structure of another related category branch (I can't think of a parallel here, so this criterion of mine is not a check mark in this case), and so on. A bunch of factors really. I kind of wallow in that stuff. Not sure why I dig the category space so much. Less psychodrama, I guess. >;-) In my entire time here, I can only think of maybe one categorization decision I've made that got nuked at CfD. And I'm a pretty aggressive categorizer, too; I totally overhauled Category:Pinball just for the heck of it and will probably do the same to Category:Darts soon.
PS: I'm not wedded to the "cueless billiards" name idea; it just seemed more concise than "cueless developments from cue sports" or whatever.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no "categorization politics". It's not an area that I think about a lot or has ever interested me so it's good there are people like you. If there is to be a category on this, "cueless billiards" seems fine to me. By the way, just posted Yank Adams as an adjunct to the finger billiards article I started.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool; I'd never even heard of him. This one looks like a good DYK; just the fact that there was Finger Billiards World Championship contention is funky enough, probably. You still citing that old version of Shamos? You really oughta get the 1999 version; it can be had from Amazon for cheap and has a bunch of updates. I actually put my old version in the recycle bin as not worth saving. Heh. PS: You seen Stein & Rubino 3rd ed.? I got one for the xmas before the one that just passed, from what was then a really good girlfriend. >;-) It's a-verra, verra nahce. Over 100 new pages, I think (mostly illustrations). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I happen to come across it in a used book store I might pick it up. There's nothing wrong with citing the older edition (as I've said to you before). I had not heard of Adams before yesterday either. Yank is apparently not his real name, though I'm not sure what it is yet. Not sure there will be enough on him to make a DYK (though don't count it out). Of course, since I didn't userspace it, I have 4½ days to see. Unfortunately, I don't have access to ancestry.com and have never found any free database nearly as useful for finding newspaper articles (and census, birth certificates, and reams of primary source material). I tried to sign up for a free trial again which worked once before, but they got smart and are logging those who signed up previously. I just looked; the new Stein and Rubino is about $280. I'll work from the 2nd edition:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I haven't tried Ancestry in a while. They're probably logging IP addresses. That would definitely affect me, since mine doesn't change except once every few years. I guess that's what libraries and stuff are for. S&R: Should be available cheaper. Mine came with the Blue Book of Pool Cues too for under $200 total. Here it is for $160, plus I think the shipping was $25. Stein gives his e-mail address as that page. If you ask him he might give you the 2-book deal too, or direct you to where ever that is. Shamos: Not saying its an unreliable source (although the newer version actually corrected some entries), it's just cool because it has more stuff in it. :-) DYK: Hey, you could speedily delete your own article, sandbox it and come back. Heh. Seriously, I'll see if I can get into Ancestry again and look for stuff on him. I want to look for William Hoskins stuff anyway so I can finish that half of the Spinks/Hoskins story, which has sat in draft form for over a year. I get sidetracked... — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not IPs they're logging, it's your credit card. You have to give them one in order to get the trial so that they can automatically charge you if you miss the cancellation deadline. Regarding the Blue Book, of all these books, that's the one that get's stale, that is, if you use it for actual quotes, which I do all the time, both for answer to questions and for selling, buying, etc. Yeah I start procrastinating too. I did all that work on Mingaud and now I can't get myself to go back. I also did reams of research on Hurricane Tony Ellin (thugh I found so little; I really felt bad when he died; I met him a few times, seemed like a really great guy), Masako Katsura and others but still haven't moved on them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the credit card. I'll have to see if the PayPal plugin has been updated to work with the new Firefox. If so, that's our solution - it generates a new valid card number every time you use it (they always feed from your single PayPal account). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PayPal Plugin ist kaput. Some banks now issue credit card accounts that make use of virtual card numbers, but mine's not one of them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying. It was worth a shot. I signed up for a newspaperarchive.com three month trial. As far as newspaper results go it seems quite good so far, and the search interface is many orders of magnitude better than ancestry's, but it has none of the genealogical records that ancestry provides. With ancestry I could probably find census info on Yank as well as death information (as well as for Masako Katsura, which I've been working on it for a few days; she could actually be alive, though she'd be 96).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad...

How well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading stuff from that era, it's also amazing how important billiards (in the three-ball sense) was back then, with sometimes multiple-page stories in newspapers about each turn in a long match, and so on. It's like snooker is today in the UK. PS: I saw that you found evidence of a billiards stage comedy there. I'd never heard of it! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jackpot. Portrait, diagrams, sample shot descriptions and more (that will also lend itself to the finger billiards article).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the main page

Unresolved
 – Katsura News added (with new TFA section) to WP:CUE; need to see if I can add anything useful to Mingaud article.
Extended content

Look at the main page --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't appear to have seen this near to the time I left it, it might be a little cryptic without explanation. Masako Katsura was today's featured article on January 31, 2011.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supah-dupah! That kicks. WP:CUE's (and your?) first TFA, yes?! And yeah I have been away a lot lately. Long story. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my first, though I have another in the works (not billiards related). I think François Mingaud could be a candidate in the near future. I really wanted to work it up to near FA level before posting it but another user created it recently, not realizing my draft existed, and once they did realize, copied some of my content without proper copyright attribution and posted to DYK. I have done a history merge though the newer, far less developed content is what's seen in the article now. I'm going to merge the old with the new soon. Glad to see your back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My front and sides are visible too. ;-) Anyway, glad you beat me to Mingaud. I'd been thinking of doing that one myself, but it seemed a bit daunting. I may have some tidbits for it. Lemme know when your merged version goes up, and I'll see what I have that might not already be in there. Probably not earthshaking, just a few things I found in 1800s-1910s books. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more notes on Crystalate

Unresolved
 – New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.
Extended content

Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.[3]; info about making records:[4]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:[5]; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991[6]; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:[7]. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll have to have a look at this stuff in more detail. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked most of it in. Fences&Windows 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! From what I can tell, entirely different parties held the trademark in different markets. I can't find a link between Crystalate Mfg. Co. Ltd. (mostly records, though billiard balls early on) and the main billiard ball mfr. in the UK, who later came up with "Super Crystalate". I'm not sure the term was even used in the U.S. at all, despite the formulation having been originally patented there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SAL

Unresolved
 – Not done yet, last I looked.
Extended content

No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Unresolved
 – Needs to be renewed
Extended content

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • Account activation codes have been emailed.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Unresolved
 – Needs to be renewed.
Extended content

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

  • Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
  • If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
  • Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
  • Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
  • If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circa

Unresolved
 – Need to file the RfC.
Extended content

This edit explains how to write "ca.", which is still discouraged at [[MOS:#Abbreviations]], WP:YEAR, WP:SMOS#Abbreviations, and maybe MOS:DOB, and after you must have read my complaint and ordeal at WT:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Circa. Either allow "ca." or don't allow "ca.", I don't care which, but do it consistently. Art LaPella (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good WP:RFC. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been hard to get opinions on circa in the past. Anyway, can I undo that edit, until when and if someone wants to edit the other guidelines to match? If we leave it there indefinitely, nobody will notice except me. Art LaPella (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care; this will have to be dealt with in an RfC anyway. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done (now I don't need to wonder if the RfC will ever be acted on :) ) Art LaPella (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright

Unresolved
 – Need to fix William A. Spinks, etc., with proper balkline stats, now that we know how to interpret them.
Extended content

That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did a bunch of archiving yesterday. This page was HUGE. It'll get there again. I'd forgotten MCQ existed. Can you please add it to the DAB hatnote at top of and "See also" at bottom of WP:COPYRIGHT? Its conspicuous absence is precisely why I ened up at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright! Haven't seen your balkline response yet; will go look. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Haw

Unresolved
 – Still need to propose some standards on animal breed article naming and disambiguation.
Extended content

Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truce, certainly. I'm not here to pick fights, just improve the consistency for readers and editors. I don't think there will be any scholarly articles on differences between landrace and breed, because there's nothing really to write about. Landrace has clear definitions in zoology and botany, and breed not only doesn't qualify, it is only established as true in any given case by reliable sources. Basically, no one anywhere is claiming "This is the Foobabaz horse, and it is a new landrace!" That wouldn't make sense. What is happening is people naming and declaring new alleged breeds on an entirely self-interested, profit-motive basis, with no evidence anyone other than the proponent and a few other experimental breeders consider it a breed. WP is full of should-be-AfD'd articles of this sort, like the cat one I successfully prod'ed last week. Asking for a reliable source that something is a landrace rather than a breed is backwards; landrace status is the default, not a special condition. It's a bit like asking for a scholarly piece on whether pig Latin is a real language or not; no one's going to write a journal paper about that because "language" (and related terms like "dialect", "language family", "creole" in the linguistic sense, etc.) have clear definitions in linguistics, while pig Latin, an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally-managed form of communication (like an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally managed form of domesticated animal) does not qualify. :-) The "what is a breed" question, which is also not about horses any more than cats or cavies or ferrets, is going to be a separate issue to resolve from the naming issue. Looking over what we collaboratively did with donkeys – and the naming form that took, i.e. Poitou donkey not Poitou (donkey), I think I'm going to end up on your side of that one. It needs to be discussed more broadly in an RFC, because most projects use the parenthetical form, because this is what WT:AT is most readily interpretable as requiring. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the drama of an RfC, particularly when we can just look at how much can be naturally disambiguated, but if you think it's an actual issue, I guess ping me when it goes up. As for landcraces, it may be true ("clear definitions") but you would be doing God's (or someone's) own good work if you were to improve landrace which has few references, fewer good ones, and is generally not a lot of help to those of us trying to sort out WTF a "landrace" is... (smiles). As for breed, that is were we disagree: At what point do we really have a "breed" as opposed to a "landrace?" Fixed traits, human-selected? At what degree, at which point? How many generations? I don't even know if there IS such a thing as a universal definition of what a "breed" is: seriously: [8] or breed or [9]. I think you and I agree that the Palomino horse can never be a "breed" because it is impossible for the color to breed true (per an earlier discussion) so we have one limit. But while I happen agree to a significant extent with your underlying premise that when Randy from Boise breeds two animals and says he has created a new breed and this is a problem, (I think it's a BIG problem in the worst cases) but if we want to get really fussy, I suppose that the aficionados of the Arabian horse who claim the breed is pure from the dawn of time are actually arguing it is a landrace, wouldn't you say? And what DO we do with the multi-generational stuff that's in limbo land? Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really certain what the answers are to any of those questions, another reason (besides your "STOP!" demands :-) that I backed away rapidly from moving any more horse articles around. But it's something that is going to have to be looked into. I agree that the Landrace article here is poor. For one thing, it needs to split Natural breed out into its own article (a natural breed is a selectively-bred formal breed the purpose of which is to refine and "lock-in" the most definitive qualities of a local landrace). This in turn isn't actually the same thing as a traditional breed, though the concepts are related. Basically, three breeding concepts are squished into one article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: I tend to support one good overview article over three poor content forks, just thinking aloud... Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; the point is that the concepts have to be separately, clearly treated, because they are not synonymous at all. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 02:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article isn't well-sourced yet, I think that you might want to add something about that to landrace now, just to give whomever does article improvement on it later (maybe you, I think this is up your alley!) has the "ping" to do so. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it's on my to-do list. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have been an evolutionary biologist for decades, I only noticed the term "landrace" within the past year or two (in reference to corn), because I work with wildland plants. But I immediately knew what it was, from context. I'm much less certain about breeds, beyond that I am emphatic that they are human constructs. Montanabw and I have discussed my horse off-wiki, and from what I can tell, breeders are selecting for specific attributes (many people claim to have seen a horse "just like him"), but afaik there is no breed "Idaho stock horse". Artificially-selected lineages can exist without anyone calling them "breeds"; I'm not sure they would even be "natural breeds", and such things are common even within established breeds (Montanabw could probably explain to us the difference between Polish and Egyptian Arabians).
The good thing about breeds wrt Wikipedia is that we can use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE to decide what to cover. Landraces are a different issue: if no one has ever called a specific, distinctive, isolated mustang herd a landrace, is it OR for Wikipedia to do so?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reluctant to use landrace much out of a concern that the concept is a bit OR, as I hadn't heard of it before wikipedia either (but I'm more a historian than an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know?): Curtis, any idea where this did come from? It's a useful concept, but I am kind of wondering where the lines are between selective breeding and a "natural" breed -- of anything. And speaking of isolated Mustang herds, we have things like Kiger Mustang, which is kind of interesting. I think that at least some of SMc's passion comes from the nuttiness seen in a lot of the dog and cat breeders these days, am I right? I mean, Chiweenies? Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first use of the word that I saw referred to different landraces of corn growing in different elevations and exposures in indigenous Maya areas of modern Mexico. I haven't tracked down the references for the use of the word, but the concept seems extremely useful. My sense is that landraces form as much through natural selective processes of cultivation or captivity as through human selection, so that if the "garbage wolf" hypothesis for dog domestication is true, garbage wolves would have been a landrace (or more likely several, in different areas). One could even push the definition and say that MRSA is a landrace. But I don't have enough knowledge of the reliable sources to know how all this would fit into Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Landraces form, primarily and quickly, through mostly natural selection, long after domestication. E.g. the St Johns water dog and Maine Coon cat are both North American landraces that postdate European arrival on the continent. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see some potential for some great research on this and a real improvement to the articles in question. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant sentence?

Unresolved
 – Work to integrate WP:NCFLORA and WP:NCFAUNA stuff into MOS:ORGANISMS not completed yet?
Extended content

The sentence at MOS:LIFE "General names for groups or types of organisms are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, Bryde's whales, rove beetle, Van cat)" is a bit odd, since the capitalization would (now) be exactly the same if they were the names of individual species. Can it simply be removed?

There is an issue, covered at Wikipedia:PLANTS#The use of botanical names as common names for plants, which may or may not be worth putting in the main MOS, namely cases where the same word is used as the scientific genus name and as the English name, when it should be de-capitalized. I think this is rare for animals, but more common for plants and fungi (although I have seen "tyrannosauruses" and similar uses of dinosaur names). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I would leave it a alone for now; let people get used to the changes. I think it's reasonable to include the "general names" thing, because it's a catch-all that includes several different kinds of examples, that various largely different groups of people are apt to capitalize. Various know-nothings want to capitalize things like "the Cats", the "Great Apes", etc., because they think "it's a Bigger Group and I like to Capitalize Big Important Stuff". There are millions more people who just like to capitalize nouns and stuff. "Orange's, $1 a Pound". Next we have people who insist on capitalizing general "types" and landraces of domestic animals ("Mountain Dogs", "Van Cat") because they're used to formal breed names being capitalized (whether to do that with breeds here is an open question, but it should not be done with types/classes of domestics, nor with landraces. Maybe the examples can be sculpted better: "the roses", "herpesviruses", "great apes", "Bryde's whale", "mountain dogs", "Van cat", "passerine birds". I'm not sure that "rove beetle" and "oak" are good examples of anything. Anyway, it's more that the species no-capitalization is a special case of the more general rule, not that the general rule is a redundant or vague version of the former. If they're merged, it should keep the general examples, and maybe specifically spell out and illustrate that it also means species and subspecies, landraces and domestic "types", as well as larger and more general groupings.
  2. I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to MOS:ORGANISMS, which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at Lynx or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With Lynx, I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization there[10], and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
  2. I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "Canna" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
  2. Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Current threads

How do you know I'm a real person?

I could just be a really intelligent bot. --110.93.236.75 (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

Unresolved

Finish patching up WP:WikiProject English language with the stuff from User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and otherwise get the ball rolling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Diacritics

Unresolved
 – An anti-diacritics pseudo-guideline is a problem and needs an RfC.

Greetings. I was referring to conventions like "All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics.". Cédric HATES TPP. 23:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cedric tsan cantonais: Wow, thanks for drawing that to my attention. Don't know how that one slipped past the radar. That is actually a bogus WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "guideline" and needs to be fixed! My point still stands, though, that "any" covers both this any any new proposal someone might come up with. :-) Anyway, I'm not sure how to deal with the "screw the MoS, we're going to ban diacritics in hockey" crap, other than probably an RfC hosted at WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, I'm using "any and all" on the template so both our grounds can be covered. Cédric HATES TPP. 05:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, the universe did not implode.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent mini-tutorial

Unresolved
 – Still need to do that essay page.

Somehow, I forget quite how, I came across this - that is an excellent summary of the distinctions. I often get confused over those, and your examples were very clear. Is something like that in the general MoS/citation documentation? Oh, and while I am here, what is the best way to format a citation to a page of a document where the pages are not numbered? All the guidance I have found says not to invent your own numbering by counting the pages (which makes sense), but I am wondering if I can use the 'numbering' used by the digitised form of the book. I'll point you to an example of what I mean: the 'book' in question is catalogued here (note that is volume 2) and the digitised version is accessed through a viewer, with an example of a 'page' being here, which the viewer calls page 116, but there are no numbers on the actual book pages (to confuse things further, if you switch between single-page and double-page view, funny things happen to the URLs, and if you create and click on a single-page URL the viewer seems to relocate you one page back for some reason). Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Thanks. I need to copy that into an essay page. As far as I know, the concepts are not clearly covered in any of those places, nor clearly enough even at Help:CS1 (which is dense and overlong as it is). The e-book matters bear some researching. I'm very curious whether particular formats (Nook, etc.) paginate consistently between viewers. For Web-accessible ones, I would think that the page numbering that appears in the Web app is good enough if it's consistent (e.g., between a PC and a smart phone) when the reader clicks the URL in the citation. I suppose one could also use |at= to provide details if the "page" has to be explained in some way. I try to rely on better-than-page-number locations when possible, e.g. specific entries in dictionaries and other works with multiple entries per page (numbered sections in manuals, etc.), but for some e-books this isn't possible – some are just continuous texts. One could probably use something like |at=in the paragraph beginning "The supersegemental chalcolithic metastasis is ..." about 40% into the document, in a pinch. I guess we do need to figure this stuff out since such sources are increasingly common.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (about figuring out how to reference e-books), though I suspect existing (non-WP) citation styles have addressed this already (no need to re-invent the wheel). This is a slightly different case, though. It is a digitisation of an existing (physical) book that has no page numbers. If I had the book in front of me (actually, it was only published as a single copy, so it is not a 'publication' in that traditional sense of many copies being produced), the problem with page numbers would still exist. I wonder if the 'digital viewer' should be thought of as a 'via' thingy? In the same way that (technically) Google Books and archive.org digital copies of old books are just re-transmitting, and re-distributing the material (is wikisource also a 'via' sort of thing?). Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Ah, I see. I guess I would treat it as a |via=, and same with WikiSource, which in this respect is essentially like Google Books or Project Gutenberg. I think your conundrum has come up various times with arXiv papers, that have not been paginated visibly except in later publication (behind a journal paywall and not examined). Back to the broader matter: Some want to treat WikiSource and even Gutenberg as republishers, but I think that's giving them undue editorial credit and splitting too fine a hair. Was thinking on the general unpaginated and mis-paginated e-sources matter while on the train, and came to the conclusion that for a short, unpaginated work with no subsections, one might give something like |at=in paragraph 23, and for a much longer one use the |at=in the paragraph beginning "..." trick. A straight up |pages=82–83 would work for an e-book with hard-coded meta-data pagination that is consistent between apps/platforms and no visual pagination. On the other hand, use the visual pagination in an e-book that has it, even if it doesn't match the e-book format's digital pagination, since the pagination in the visual content would match that of a paper copy; one might include a note that the pagination is that visible in the content if it conflicts with what the e-book reader says (this comes up a lot with PDFs, for one thing - I have many that include cover scans, and the PDF viewers treat that as p. 1, then other front matter as p. 2, etc., with the content's p. 1 being something like PDF p. 7).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the shortcuts you recently created

The original shortcuts can then be moved. Please do not undo my changes and add extra spaces such as adding extra spaces to the refs. Please do not remove the wikilinks. It is incorrect if one of the sentences has a missing wikilink. The Template:Wikipedia essays in the essay was intentionally expanded. Please do not collapse the other parts of the essays. I want them all to be shown. The shortcut SOME was restored in order for editors to know it exists and for editors to use the shortcut. The WL unsupported attributions is still in the section. I moved it up. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the shortcut is not going to be used that is widely divergent from the title then you could nominate it for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When quoting an article the wording or quote marks can't be changed. QuackGuru (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can just undo what you disagree with; I won't editwar over it. It's not necessary to delete then move shortcuts; you were already "advertising" the ones in the odd spaced style, and "redirects are cheap", so its harmless for them to remain; if no one ever uses them after a while, then WP:RFD will delete them as part of routine maintenance. Purely typographic-conformity changes can be made to quoted material; see MOS:QUOTE. I don't know what "It is incorrect if one of the sentences has a missing wikilink" is referring to. If that's referring to quoted material, no it is not necessary to preserve links in quotes (not that MoS concerns actually apply to essay pages anyway). If the link is already present in the material above the quote with the same link, the second link is redundant. Having the essays template fully expanded to show every essay defeats the purpose of the template having collapsible sections. A template almost a third as long as your entire essay [I guess that depends on screen resolution] is not necessary, and is abusive of the reader. The collapsed portions are to categories of essays that don't relate to yours anyway. But if it's not in userspace, it's not really "yours" now, which is why I feel empowered to have edited it for conformance with standard operating procedure. I did not change the intent or message of the essay in any way, and even improved its clarity in a few places (despite disagreeing with its premise). If you really want to fight with me to make reference citations harder to read, be my guest, but also be aware that making edits to pages for no reason other than to futz with code spacing (especially in citations) is discouraged and considered a waste of editorial time and productivity. If you're going to react with this level of alarm and "do not!" any time someone touches an essay you've written, I strongly suggest keeping them in userspace, where they generally will not be touched except for necessary technical reasons. No essay needs that many shortcuts, especially a new one no one mentions but its author. A shortcut that has no obvious referent, isn't unambiguous, isn't memorable, and/or isn't likely to be used, is known as "polluting the namespace", routinely deleted at RfD. WP:SOME appears to go to WP:WEASEL, so I'm not sure why we're talking about it. The fact that a shortcut exists does not mean it needs to be advertised. The more that are added, the fewer of them actually get used, because it interferes with their memorability.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is annoying to have to uncollapsed the other essays. They are interrelated. The essay also proposes to unhide hidden citations. Adding extra spaces to citations makes it harder to edit articles. I didn't want just a link to weasel. I also wanted editors to know about the shortcut. I fixed that and other things. I made changes since my last comments. I think it is fine now. QuackGuru (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. "The more that are added, the fewer of them actually get used." I deleted a few of the shortcuts including the shortcuts you created. Less shortcuts equals more use of each shortcut. Too many equals shortcut overkill. QuackGuru (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation readability

[Subheading added to help find this discussion should it be needed later.]
Like I said, I'm not inclined to fight with you about it. I've given rationales, and either they work for you or they don't. If this were article text, I would care more. Will debate one point: Adding spaces between citation parameters definitely does not make articles harder to edit, but much easier, especially for citation checkers and completers, who are doing some of our most important work. It does not help to add excessive spacing like | parameter1 = value | parameter2 = value. But |parameter1=value |parameter2=value is much more readable than |parameter1=value|parameter2=value. It also helps to add a space between |url= (and especially |archive-url=) and the actual URL, since it shortens the long string and permits line-wrapping sooner. This is only needed for URL parameters, since other parameters' values do not have enormous unbroken strings dumped into them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are various ways to improve the editability of articles. Adding extra spaces to the citations decreases the editability of the content because it is easier to spot where the citations are when they don't have spaces. This means it is harder to differentiate between the words and citations when both have spaces. Therefore, removing extra spaces inside the citations improves the ease of editing for articles.

Main citation spacing correctly (without extra spaces)

​​<ref name=Grana2014>{{cite journal|last=Grana|first=R|author2=Benowitz, N|author3=Glantz, SA|title=E-cigarettes: a scientific review.|journal=Circulation|date=13 May 2014|volume=129|issue=19|pages=1972–86|doi=10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667|pmc=4018182|pmid=24821826}}</ref>

Main citation spacing incorrectly (with unnecessary spaces)

​​<ref name=Grana2014>{{cite journal |last=Grana |first=R |author2=Benowitz, N |author3=Glantz, SA |title=E-cigarettes: a scientific review. |journal=Circulation |date=13 May 2014 |volume=129 |issue=19 |pages=1972–86 |doi=10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667 |pmc=4018182 |pmid=24821826 }}</ref>

Short citation correctly (without extra space and without quote marks)

​​<ref name=Grana2014/>

Short citation incorrectly (with unnecessary space)

​​<ref name=Grana2014/ >

Short citation incorrectly (with unnecessary quote marks)

​​<ref name="Grana2014"/>

I'm not sure which page this advise goes.

Adding extra spaces does make it more difficult to edit articles. What a mess. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<ref name=Grana2014/>: is permissible (MediaWiki parses it correctly), but is malformed XML, so it harms WP:REUSE.
<ref name=Grana2014 />: Same but not quite as bad (has one XML error instead of two).
<ref name="Grana2014" />: Best. It's perfectly valid in MediaWiki, and is proper XML, so zero tools properly written will ever have trouble parsing it. It's also "futureproof": If a later editor doesn't like this scrunched up format (and there are many who do not), if they change it to <ref name="Grana 2014" /> (and in the original cite, of course) the result will still be valid, while <ref name=Grana 2014 /> will not be (nor will <ref name=Grana 2014/>). Your labeling of <ref name="Grana2014" /> as "incorrect" is, well, itself incorrect. It's simply not the shortest possible construction that MediaWiki won't barf on. That doesn't mean <ref name=Grana2014/>, the shortest possible one, is the preferable one, because other stuff will barf on it. Using that extra-compressed format also directly encourages incorrect markup elsewhere, e.g. in span, hr, and br elements. Failure to properly close singular elements (i.e. those without separate open and close tags) with space-slash-greaterthan also messes up the syntax highlighting.
<ref name="Grana2014"/ > or <ref name=Grana2014/ >: Malformed.
"[I]t is easier to spot where the citations are when they don't have spaces" – I'm highly skeptical any usability study would demonstrate that to be true, and it's subjectively not true for me. The very presence of the space helps distinguish, while visually scanning, this markup from other markup like the original <ref name="Grana 2014">...</ref>. The presence of the quotation marks also helps, by making it easier to spot ref citations and distinguish them from other foo=bar constructions, such as template parameters. But again, I'm not going to editwar with you over this stuff. You can take into account what I'm saying and revise your assessment, or not.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tighter full citations and tighter short citations is easier for me to edit articles.
If it becomes "malformed" and/or "messes up the syntax highlighting" then that is a software problem that should be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly flew right over all this, but all the bolded "Short citation incorrectly..." stuff snapped me right back. QuackGuru, please note: the "<ref name= .../>" construct – a named ref – is NOT a "short citation". It is a way of linking to a note (or "footnote") made with the <ref>...</ref> tags, which note may contain a citation of some sort, or something else. This is not merely a terminological error, it is a conceptual error, and the cause of many discussions going at cross-purposes. Fortunately for this discussion it doesn't matter, as you are using the named ref only for purposes of illustration. But I would have this point clarified in anticipation of future discussions.
As to the topic here (whether spaces add clarity): QG, it appears you have never done much programming, where clarity is crucial. As generations of English teachers (likely with other languages, but not within my personal knowledge) have taught: spaces – that is, breaks or gaps between words – are the primary means of distinguishing the parts of sentences. And there was a time, back in the days when writing was as esoteric as coding is nowadays, when all the text was run together without spaces. (Maybe vellum was expensive?) If you don't think spaces are useful, just try leaving them out. Same thing applies to coding. And there were several studies on such matters in the 1960s and 1970s, of which the most notable is Kernighan and Plauger's The Elements of Programming Style. Their bottom line: formatting style is important, and clarity is paramount.
Now please note that I do not argue that extra spaces are always good. But judicious use can be very useful. E.g., prefixed to vertical bars (" |") makes it easier to identify and distinguish parameters (as SMC has illustrated). But I would go a little bit further: add a space after an equal sign, but not before it. E.g.: "|parm1= value |parm2= value". This makes the value stand out better, without letting the equal sign be a big distraction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When citations have spaces they are harder to initially distinguish from sentences that have spaces. If there is a problem with it becoming malformed or the syntax is not highlighting then the WMF needs input to create new software programs to fix the problems no matter how the citations are formatted. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy it. Except in mathematics-heavy articles, which must be edited with utmost care to avoid messing stuff up (i.e., we don't just rapid-skim them and edit willy-nilly), "sentences that have spaces" are not also going to be riddled with = and > and other such symbols. It is not credible that a typical means of distinguishing regular prose from <ref>...</ref> spans is the presence or absence of spaces, especially given a) these spans most often contain reference citations and b) they almost always have spaces in them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does depend which article is being edited. Citation-heavy, longer articles can be an issue with the citation style. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that excessive spaces (breaks) can confuse one's parsing of syntax (which is why I don't have spaces after vertical bars or before equal signs). But let us note the context of where you are having problems: the use of citation templates (i.e., {{cite xxx}} and {{citation}}) in the text, where you have all those "sentences that have spaces." But if you squeeze all the spaces out of your "coded text" (the template parameters, etc.) to distinguish it from the natural language text, it gets harder to read, and find errors in, the coded text. If this is a real serious problem for you one option is, as Floquenbeam suggests: use an edit tool (or editor) that color codes your text.
Here is (IMHO) a better option: don't mix your full citations (with all their parameterized bibiliographic detail) in with your article text. Put them in their own section (preferably "Sources"), using short cites in-line. And in "Sources" use (mostly) vertical format; it is a LOT easier.
Please note: what you see as the problem is distinguishing code-text (template parameters, etc.) from natural language text it is mixed in with. I say the problem is in the mixing of these two kinds of text. Separating them greatly alleviates this (and some other problems). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was done with many sources at Wikipedia's Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation). There are still a few left that were not added to the Reference section. I can't change how it is done on other articles. This requires community consensus to redo the citations. If there was such a consensus a bot would have to do all the work to move the full citations to the Reference section. QuackGuru (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This approach introduces a different and more serious usability problem though: it interferes with the ability to edit on a section-by-section basis. People at least have to be permitted to add cites inline, with someone or something moving them later. Putting all references in the refs section at the end is really only a good idea for articles that are already at the FA stage and unlikely to change much in the future. If they're still in development, this citation method both discourages new content work, and encourages addition of content without any sources at all. Also leads to disputations over whether to alphbetize the list or give it in order of use of the source. The former produces a more orderly bibliography but at the cost of ref citations being in a confusing order like "A fact here.[27][3][32]"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned from this discussion that there is no best approach for the citation style that will fit all articles. QuackGuru (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this has been the general consensus or wiki-wisdom for a long time now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You prefer named-refs?? Now there's a useability problem: if the master named-ref is elsewhere all your slave named-refs (all the "<ref name="Grana2014"/ >" stuff) come up with big error messages. And if, after saving your section, there is an error, you have to hunt through the entire article to find the master ref. (Oh fun.) On the other hand, with short cites you don't get an error on your section preview. And if, after saving it, there is an error linking to the full citation you know exactly where to look: in "Sources".
Nor is this good idea "only for FA articles". It is good for ANY article that needs to "re-use" a citation — that is, to cite a source more than once — and even for articles that do not "re-use" citations. Simply getting all that bibliographic detail out of the text makes the text easier to read, and having all the full citations in one place (without the text!) makes it easier to read, verify, compare, maintain, and collate them. And in no way should it discourage new work.
Speaking of collation: what is the problem? Bibliographies are almost invariably collated by last name of the first author. Notes — as in footnotes — are ordered and numbered by {reflist} in the same order as found in the text. If any the numbered note-links (e.g.: [1]) show up out of order it is because you are using named-refs. For shame!! Did I not state, at the very start of my irruption here, that a named-ref is NOT a "short citation"? No wonder you have problems. And yet another instance of why we need to respect the terminology.
QG: on the contrary, you can "change how it is done on other articles." Just get consensus. Of course, a larger or more prominent article, with more editors involved, is more likely to run into resistance. And, frankly, you seem to generate a lot of resistance. But this kind of change is possible, and it doesn't require a bot. Let me know if you would like to try it somewhere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already said what the collation problem is. Bunching up citations at the end of the article is not particularly "good" for any article that needs to re-use a citation, just one of several functional options that all have their benefits and weaknesses. Just using <ref name="whatever" /> works fine regardless where the <ref name="whatever">...</ref> is, and often works better because it is fairly likely to be in the same section and thus render in the preview. It is no longer the case that refs outside the preview generate an error; they generate a notice that the refs are outside the preview and are not displayed. The majority of editors prefer this system; it is much easier on editors most of the time, and readers don't care one way or the other; the technical geekery underlying all this is transparent to them. The only time you find more complicated reference citation systems on WP is when either a) it's a GA, FA, or PR article (or candidate to be one) with a lot of references, and consensus has determined that separate references-and bibliography sections are needed; or b) the article started out that way because the principal original author of it is wedded to that citation format and uses it habitually, even when it is not helpful. It is never helpful with stubs and other short articles, in which it can produce redundant citation material that is longer than the actual content of the article; nor in articles with only a few sources, since it is bureaucratic overkill for something very simple; nor in articles with numerous sources each only cited once (or multiple times but at the same pages), for the same reason. It's only helpful in long articles with numerous sources many of which are cited repeatedly and at different pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? The use of allegedly "more complicated" systems is because "the principal original author of it is wedded to that citation format and uses it habitually"? Surely you have noticed that most people stick with what they started with, and, on WP, having figured out some way of doing citations, are loathe to have their fragile grasp of the matter in any way challenged. Most editors are "wedded" to a particular "citation format" (method), but most of them are abusing <ref>s.
You say that short cites (right?) are "never helpful with stubs and other short articles, in which it can produce redundant citation material that is longer than the actual content of the article ...", which is baffling, unless you are duplicating something. Which would be just a flat-out error. The whole point of short-cites is to avoid duplicating the full citation (with all the bibliographic detail). And perhaps you have not considered that stubs often grow up, but if the first editor abuses <ref> then, per CITEVAR, it's pretty much an uphill battle to ever switch to something better.
Well, I would love to bandy this about with you (too bad we're not in the same town, as this would be good over a beer or two), but I have "real fights" (fires?), etc., to attend to. Later. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The differences are a) editors who just use the <ref> system as their go-to default vastly outnumber those who do not (i.e., it's a norm not a variance); b) those who do the simply system generally won't pick fights with editors who want to use a more complex citation approach – i.e., they are usually able to recognize and willing to concede when the simple system is not the best for a particular article. Those on the opposing, "complicating" side often have a strong "it's done this particular way in my field, so it must be done this way in articles about my field" perspective and may be extremely resistant against any contrary viewpoint. There is no demonstrable problem of the <ref> system being "frozen" in long and complex articles; CITEVAR is almost always leveraged by opponents of that citation style to defend more complex citation styles even where they are not helpful, and when the've set their sights on changing an article away from the simple system, then generally show up in numbers (I wonder why that is?). They are the people who wrote CITEVAR, and if you attempt to change a single word of it, you'll hear from them very angrily, with all kinds of venting about people who use <ref>, which will then diverge into rants against MoS editors, against "non-experts", against people who weren't already long-term editors of the articles in question, against infobox fans, against other wikiprojects than their pet one, against particular editors they don't like, and whatever else happens to be short-circuiting their critical thinking at that moment. Been there, done that.

What "abuse" of the <ref> system do you mean? It would help to see an example, and to know what guidelines or policies it isn't following.

Redundant citation material in short articles: I didn't say duplicated. If you have a short piece, then two separate sections for handling citation material, with entries in one referring to entries in the other, is redundant and unnecessarily complicated and lengthy, any time these can be compressed into single entries in one section. Or a main entry and shorter subsequent ones with a page number added, e.g. <ref>Johnson 1999, p. 32</ref> when a full cite to the same book [or whatever] has already appeared. There's no particular reason to do this in separate sections with two templating systems, unless the list of sources has become very long and some of them are cited over and over. Even then, there are plenty who do not feel the two-sections approach is the most useful here, even for long articles.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All these different issues should be thoroughly explained somewhere in a guideline. There is too many to remember. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what WP:CITE is for, but it has been controlled by a clique for about a decade, so good luck changing anything in it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've thought of starting an alternative, but I don't have time (yet?) for such a major undertaking. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITEBUNDLE says "Bundling has several advantages". The word "several" is misleading. It does not explain when there could be a problem with bundling citations. The new essay does explain when there could be a problem with bundling. There is even a section called "Bundling citations". I think a link to the specific section "Wikipedia:Citation_underkill#Bundling_citations" would benefit editors. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines and policies do not link to contrary essays.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITEBUNDLE is misleading and contrary to common sense when it does not explain when there are times when bundling is a problem. To understand all sides of the issues editors must be given an opportunity to read when there are times bundling may be a disadvantage. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So raise a dispute about this at WT:CITE. No one is ever going to take seriously the idea of adding links to essays in there, only to changing the text to better reflect actual practice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new essay is not even a month old. If others notice a problem with WP:CITEBUNDLE after reading Wikipedia:Citation_underkill#Bundling_citations, then it will be time to update WP:CITEBUNDLE. New content will not stick if I am alone trying to update WP:CITEBUNDLE. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Others would likely back a proposed change if it were well-founded and argued on its own merits without reference to an essay. The moment you mention the essay people will say "pshah, that's just an essay, and we're not going to change a major guideline just because some essay disagrees with it."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the extreme one side view of WP:CITEBUNDLE I would have little chance of succeeding at the moment. Things will change at WP:CITEBUNDLE in the future after more editors read Wikipedia:Citation_underkill#Bundling_citations. Probably in about a year or two. QuackGuru (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) (not sure why this talk page is on my watchlist) Not taking a side here, but if anyone on either side of the disagreement doesn't know about the Syntax highlighter, it parses the edit window and helps identify reference text from comments from normal text from templates, etc., using colored shading. It's a gadget, look under the "editing" heading. Not perfect, but certainly useful. Apologies if everyone knows about this already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I use it; one of the reasons I'm strict about syntax (stricter than MediaWiki absolutely requires) is that the syntax highligher will break on various forms of sloppy coding that MW itself can compensate for. The syntax highlighting also makes the "I can't tell the differences between regular sentences and citatoins if the citations have a space character in them" idea all the more implausible. Even if one is color-blind, the luminosity difference between regular text and markup is still discernible.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Italy

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Italy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for openion

 Done

Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D+T UK

Resolved

You have added a note to the top of the page. You say that phrases such as 'you must not' should not be used. This is not an opinion. This IS fact, added by an editor for reasons of their own. They were - as far as I can tell - well informed.

Regarding selective sources, I can add one which advises a colon for time. I did not know of any until recently. No other editors seem no have been able to find any either, though. I wil fix this.

I did recently change some of the article to read in a less prescriptive tone, ie not pushing one point of view when others are active.

If you have any other details about why it is regarded to be of an un-encyclopaedic tone, I would be very grateful, so they can be resolved. I am also interested in what attracted you to the page.

Regards,

-Sb2001 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not use "must" and "you" language; it is not an encyclopedic style. See WP:TONE, MOS:YOU, WP:NOT#GUIDE, etc. And no, that bit is not a "fact", it's a subjective opinion about what is "proper" or "correct" based on prescriptive grammar notions. It's great that you've already been working on the page to remove some prescriptive language. The cleanup tag I added just indicates that more such work is needed; it's not a condemnation of the article or of previous work to improve it. Colons: Glad a source has been found. I ended up at the page while looking for and undoing your eg and 4.01pm edits, which don't comply with our style guide.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: Sb2001

 Done
Hello, SMcCandlish. You have new messages at Sb2001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-Sb2001 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deprecation of /ᵻ, ᵿ/

 Done

Hi, I was wondering if you might be be interested in giving opinion at Help talk:IPA for English § RfC: Proposed deprecation of /ᵻ, ᵿ/ since I see you have previously participated in the conversation regarding dropping another diaphoneme /ɵ/. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOS/Capital letters talk page

 Done

Hi, SMcCandlish

I pinged you on the MOS/Capital letters talk page, regarding the note you left on my talk page. If you'd like to weigh-in on the MOS/Capital letters talk page - and the current proposals being discussed there - please do. X4n6 (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right-oh. I added some commentary, but closed with a suggestion to start drafting an outline. "I support change!" is pretty meaningless, especially when the work to actually implement a change that will make sense to people and gain consensus is quite difficult for something like this. This is a really thorny one to explain, about on par with the distinction between dashes (of two kinds) and hyphens, and how to use them exactly. That's something WP wrangled with for months and months, with sporadic dispute lasting for years, and there are still some unanswered questions (I ended up disagreeing with two other MoS regulars on some fine point of it only a few months ago).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution there. I think your exchange with the other editor will be useful, as you can provide some historical background regarding how these issues have been dealt with here in the past. I think you can also add some guidance regarding the question of the appropriate forum for addressing changes to the MOS. I believe we both agree this cannot be accomplished exclusively by a handful of folks on a guideline's talk page, an RfC notwithstanding. Please continue to follow up and contribute there. X4n6 (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@X4n6: Well, it's normal for MoS changes to be done at WT:MOS and often with an RfC. What's not normal is changes that affect the main MOS page to be made by a couple of editors, without an RfC, on the talk page of an MoS subpage, then changing the MoS subpage to conflict with MOS:MAIN, then trying to make the main MoS "comply" with the new changes at the subpage (or just leaving the guideline conflict to sit there indefinitely). Also irregular is a discussion taking place at a wikiproject, an article talk page, or a template talk page and its handful of participants agreeing that they have a "consensus" to change the site-wide MoS (or to write their own topical "anti-guideline" that contradicts it). Changing MoS substantively usually only happens by RfC (or for trivial stuff a regular discussion) at WT:MOS, or if a big brouhaha is expected, at WP:VPPOL. I increasingly lean toward doing significant changes (those that might affect thousands of articles or more) at VPPOL, especially if there's any "emotional involvement" by any camp of editors about the matter; a VPPOL RfC has better value as a consensus record due to the broader editorial input. That's how the MOS:JR issue got settled, and it's also been used for MOS:IDENTITY, etc. But, VPPOL is not a magic wand. For example, getting MOS:JR actually implemented in mainspace required dozens of WP:RMs, with the same handful of opponents tendentiously resisting every single move of names like "Robert Downey, Jr." to "Robert Downey Jr.", despite the RfC and despite every previous RM going the way the RfC said it should. It was a ridiculous waste of editorial time and energy. C'est la vie.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are basically in accord here. Among the other relevant issues covered, I just wanted folks to be clear that an RfC on that page wasn't substantial enough to merit a guideline rewrite, as had been proposed. Thanks for lending your view. Will continue to welcome it there, should more discussion occur. X4n6 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2017

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:How to mine a source

Can an editor use a source if it does not got into a full discussion on a specific subject? The source is about regulation, but it covers so much more. I think Wikipedia:How to mine a source should explain what an editor can or can't do with using a source in this type of circumstance. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: Hmm. I would think that it's a matter of general WP:RS determination. Is the author reputable in the particular field? Then it's treated as a good source by default, unless/until a better source comes along (e.g. more recent and more in depth on the side topic at issue), and even then we might note a conflict between sources, or if multiple sources suggest a scientific consensus against the summarized view in the original source that was used, maybe just remove that contrary view. his is standard operating procedure especially in WP:MEDRS vs. WP:FRINGE matterse. (But I'm particularly thinking of side-comments on linguistic matters by zoologists, and other such cases; "is reliable on x" doesn't mean "is reliable, period".) Is the author drawing on sources, or speaking from personal (including professional) experience and observation? If the latter, then it's a primary source for that material, even if it also contains secondary material on its main topic. There are probably other such considerations I'm eliding. Not really sure how to work that stuff into the essay, or if it's necessary to do so. I'd be more apt to warn against over-generalizing from tertiary sources that aren't written by experts (e.g. Encyclopedia of Dog Breeds-style coffee-table books).

The piece you link to an abstract of (full text is pay-walled) looks like a literature review, though not a systematic review, in a generally reputable journal, by a set of authors who are mostly previously published under peer review (some a lot), and covering "the available data regarding safety and public health impacts of e-cigarettes" and "the status of US regulations and policies affecting their sale and use"; so, two inter-related topics on which it is presumptively reliable for being a lit. rev. published in a major journal. Is there something you or someone else wants to cite from it that isn't within those two topics? I guess I'm too unclear on what the issue(s) is/are to know why this example has been picked, and what it's an example of.

It's unlikely to be reliable for anything predictive (that'd be a primary-source opinion), or a novel conclusion the authors draw which can't be traced to any of the sources being reviewed (that'd be the authors' own primary research, which is discouraged in lit. revs. but not unknown). It also may not be reliable for anything that involves increasingly politicized "doctrinal" disputes raging between "e-cigs are just an evil" and "e-cigs are an improvement over real ones" viewpoints (among others, like "e-cigs are different and a simplistic comparison is meaningless"). There's considerable evidence these are increasingly US versus EU/UK viewpoints, as well as even more a split between different kinds of professionals, and that in either case various national bodies are staking out unwavering stances one way or another, including the American Cancer Society, in whose journal this appears. An authorial push in one direction or another on such matters would also be primary source material (socio-political opinion of the authors and their institutions, and possibly even the post hoc editorial opinion of the publisher inserted as a condition of publication). PS: Whether other editors are willing to concede that it's clearly going to be unreliable for these sorts of things (if it includes any of them) is another matter entirely.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract says "This review highlights the available data regarding safety and public health impacts of e-cigarettes and details the status of US regulations and policies affecting their sale and use."[11] One of the points is the following: "Overall, e-cigarettes have the potential to significantly harm the public’s health, with particular concern for the health of adolescents and individuals from certain underserved populations."[12] An editor could say it is unreliable because the review also says "A full discussion of the potential for “harm reduction” with e-cigarettes and the balance of their harms versus benefits is beyond the scope of this review;"[13] I know it is a high-quality review, but I have seen editors say a source is mainly about one thing and it is unreliable for anything else or we can only draw from the conclusion and not use anything else from the source. The general point I was making was for clarifying things like this for Wikipedia:How to mine a source. A source is mainly about one thing or two, but it may have other points that can be used to expand the article or a subpage. Is there an essay or any policy or guideline that covers this? QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@QuackGuru: I don't know of any WP:P&G page on that; it's just a factor of editorial consensus about applying the interplay between WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, to a particular claim and the source for it. The "Overall ..." bit sounds like a primary-source conclusion reached by the authors of the review – their collective summary of the state of things; it could be cited with attribution (probably to the paper, since it would be tedious to name all the authors). But it might also be genuine lit. rev. material, a summary of the actual consensus in the field. No way to know without the full text and a close examination of who they're citing for what. I don't think the "A full discussion ..." disclaimer matters, because the "Overall ..." statement isn't a full discussion, but a summary of [their potentially novel view of?] the current consensus in the peer-reviewed material. Regardless, I would be inclined to attribute this, and virtually everything else in this topic, because one camp's "fact" is another's "bogus politicized claim" and vice-versa. Basically, all sources on a topic like this verge on primary, at least for some of what they're saying. PS: I added a new section at WP:MINE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is not the conclusion under the heading "Conclusion", but it is a conclusion. If there is a serious disagreement then it will require attribution. The only problem with this topic is that there are too many reviews. Every month there is about three new reviews. "A caution on misapplication" touches on my concerns on all sides of the issues. Thanks. The correct wikilink to use in A caution on misapplication is WP:CCPOL. QuackGuru (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on attribution; I'm not sure even "serious disagreement" is required. Too many lit. revs.: yeah, I gave up trying to keep track of this issue over a year ago. I don't have the time or patience for the real work, much less for all the Wikipedian un-work (interpersonal bullshit, etc.) involved. Glad the caution-on-misapplication material hit the spots. I was kind of guessing, and then elaborating from other ideas I'd been percolating on where sourcing goes wrong, especially with trying to pull "small" facts from sources. CCPOL: fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the review after another new review will slow down. It is too much work. I am the only editor doing all the work. There are times one review can be used on multiple pages. Imagine spending two to three hours summarizing one review. I added one sentence to citation underkill with a wikilink to How to mine a source and now How to mine a source discusses it in more detail. Job well done. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zankyu beddy mush! I empathize – the kind of sourcing work I do id much like that, time- and tedium-wise, but more often it's checking 20+ style guides and other such works on a grammar or punctuation matter (mostly to undo bogus nationalistic claims in various articles on English. See, e.g., footnotes at Exempli gratia, material that mostly needs to move into an article on comma usage in English; at Talk:Comma I've proposed a WP:SPINOUT of the long section on this into a separate article for detailed and sourced development like this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think readers may want to keep the English language and other languages on the same page for comparison. QuackGuru (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why WP:SUMMARY style exists.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is done by a case-by-case basis. The English language must be very long to split it into another page. QuackGuru (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just told on the talk page that a paper that is about mainly about one thing cannot be used for other things from the same paper. QuackGuru (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It already is long, and will get much longer. Most of the source research I do for MoS disputes is saved and is ultimately intended for use in articles. It's not in articles yet mostly because we have almost no articles on English usage, only sections, which are already large. What we need, this being the English Wikipedia, is articles on English, and summary-style sections of them in world-wide articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is like having an article specifically on English Wikipedia. Got it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, more that people are mostly going to be looking for [encyclopedic, not "advice"] English-usage material when they look something like a capitalization or punctuation matter here. For each person looking to compare comma usage between Russian and German and French (or whatever), there are probably 1000 or more looking, at en.wp, for info on how commas are used in English, according to what sources. Addressing those English punctuation/style/grammar topics fully will result in articles that, on English in particular, are much larger than the multi-language overview articles we present have and which are more and more looking like "in English, plus some tidbits about other languages, when we bother", which isn't a good way to write about something like the comma as a mark in world languages. As an example, to adequately source "A. B. Ceesdale Jr./Jnr" versus "A. B. Ceesdale, Jr." (with a comma) style requires several paragraphs about North American and Commonwealth English and the changing of patterns over time, with dozens of sources. It's a level of detail that belongs in a section about this on an article on comma usage in English, not in the article on the comma as a punctuation mark in languages in general, nor in the article on abbreviations used with names (which also covers PhD, Dr., Rev., OBE, and many other subtopics, which don't have anything to do with punctuation mechanics in our language in particular).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking google books can provide sources to expand the soon-to-be Comma (English language) article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no shortage of sources. I own almost English every style guide and major (non-learners') English grammar work in print, and many that no longer are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help! No not what you think

Hi! Forgive bad effort at light hearted subject heading. This is *about* help pages. You are primary author of help essay WP:MINE. Currently its tagged with Template:Wikipedia how-to, which is great. FYI I have proposed moving that template to Template:Wikipedia help page (which I created as a redir to the former). I'm interested in moving as many help pages to help namespace as possible. Would you consider moving your essay over there, and leaving a redir in the Wikipedia mainspace? Thanks for thinking about it! All help pages, seems to me, are best grouped as help pages in the help namespace. Of course, that's a bit like saying we'll sort the beach sand,but ya gotta start somewhere! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; it really is more a "Help:"-namespace item. Re: "moving as many help pages to help namespace as possible" – exercise caution; some stuff purporting to be a help/how-to page is really a "how to do something my weird way that isn't supported by consensus". Even my own page on this reflects just a particular editorial point of view, though no one has challenged a single aspect of it. QuackGuru, above, suggested some clarification/disclaimer material, and I added, just now, probably more than he had in mind, with close reference to the core content policies. It probably better reflects consensus now than it did before.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewsAndEventsGuy: PS: Template rename and merge discussions are, these days, conventionally done at WP:TFD. People may object if it isn't done via that venue (or they may not).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedback. Somewhere I saw that templates are moved via the conventional move process, but that may need updating. I'll add the TFD tags on top of the one I already used. Its true there's a lot of excellent material, and a lot of totally whacko material, appearing as quasi help pages under various labels and templates scattered across Wikipedia and help namespaces. And people argue about their enforceability regularly. If any of it lacks enough consensus to be a help page, then it should probably just be an essay. At present I'm just focussed on things that already have the wikipedia how-to tag. I'm not touching high traffic high impact ones for the time being. Blah blah blah etc. Thanks for the help! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewsAndEventsGuy: I stand corrected, actually. Was thinking of categories, where move/rename is folded into CfD. It's merge/split discussions that have been folded into TfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the followup. Transparency is key! Can you suggest improvements on what I have already done? From that bots also tagged the project page and listed it at the requested move page. I posted FYI links at talk for project namespace and policy page Policies and guidelines. Think at the vpump and project helpspace too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NewsAndEventsGuy: The RM/proposal seems adequate to me, though I would have done it as an RfC (and someone might try to wikilawyer that RMs can't be used for more-than-move results; they'd be wrong, but I see people make this argument sometimes, e.g. when a discussion is leaning Merge and they oppose the merger). It can be converted into an RfC just by changing the template code from RM to RfC, and changing the heading (keep the old one functional as {{anchor|Requested move 11 July 2017}} right after the new one). I refactored my long post into a small !vote, and moved our lengthening discussion to the Discussion section. I would definitely agree on including the Pump; this is kind of a systemic change when the entire proposal is absorbed. Just a neutral notice along these lines would do it:
==The Help namespace and Wikipedia how-to pages==
{{FYI|Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.}}
Please see [[Template talk:Wikipedia how-to#Requested move 11 July 2017]], for a proposal to rename various "how-to"-titled pages, and to move more internal Wikipedia-namespace help/how-to material into the Help namespace. ~~~~
(or link to whatever the RfC heading is, if you decide to go the RfC route). WP:VPPOL is probably the right venue, since it's about how we categorize/label pages, would move stuff out of the policy/guidelines namespace, has WP:NOT#HOWTO resonance, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for those thoughts but I think I'm OK leaving it the way it is . The only real proposal in that thread is to change the template name and a tiny bit of text as listed in the proposal . . Weather any given page should be moved does not bear on the question about the template name and text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hokay-dokay.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing at TFD which i didn't know about. After sleeping, I realized I could just skip the templates and post a pointer link which I did here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW thanks for moving the ciscussion to discussion. I think you broke your sig and I think I fixed it. Just thought I should FYI you in case you want to double checkI didn't screw up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Comma

Disregard
 – That's my own RfC.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Comma. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

For later memory-jogging: this was about this thread at WT:MOS.

Didn't want to mess with your user page, so:

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For going above and beyond to help with a query — Anakimitalk   20:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anakimi: Oh, thanks. It was my pleasure (literally – I get a thrill out of resolving long-term, vexing problems with small bits of code). I hope it solves similar layout issues for other editors in other topics, too. I may add a div wrapper for content, as well.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anakimi: Done: Template:Gallery layout content. I updated Real Madrid C.F. to use the "less HTML and CSS geekery" version.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Monogram Pictures

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monogram Pictures. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 Done

Please see revision and opine whether you still support, or have further thoughts etc. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inanimate whose revisited

Care to take a look over Inanimate whose? I'm hoping to polish up up for GAN soon. I've actually found a pile more sources I could add, but it's gotten to the point where they're all just saying variations of the same thing, and I don't want to load up the article with tedious, redundant quotes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a bit of time; very backlogged right now. My main concerns (without yet looking at the current revision) would be the following (some copy-pasted from a draft essay on "How to write about English at the English Wikipedia"; didn't have time to write up all this just now, though thinking on this i-whose topic pointed out two things I need to add to the essay):
Various bullet points:
  • Inappropriately using low-end or limited-scope sources, such as the house style sheets of particular newspapers (and other publishers) like The Guardian and The New York Times: these are not reliable sources for anything at all other than what one publisher's rules are for its own employees. They can be used in the aggregate to illustrate potential trends (e.g. a common preference across numerous British news publishers, or whatever), as long as it doesn't wander into OR (e.g. to assert trends that no reliable sources actually identify).
  • Asserting individual authors' opinions in "Wiki voice" as alleged facts: I've found by experience that it is best to cite things very specifically, e.g. "According to the Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed., 2010), frequently relied upon by non-fiction book and academic journal publishers in North America, [claim here, quoted if it has any advocacy of other subjective tone]", rather than by suggesting in encyclopedic wording that something is fact and just providing a cite. There are virtually no usage matters of any kind in this language on which sources do not disagree, so asserting almost any of them as fact is bad encyclopedia writing. Applicability to i-whose: Uncritically reporting advocacy assertions as if facts: any claims such as that the centuries-long view against inanimate whose is "a myth", or any other such subjective wording, is dubious to include at all, and should be quoted and attributed if included, e.g. because a leading, general-audience style guide says it.
  • Downplaying one side of a controversy [here, the view against i-whose]: Our job is to record that there's a very long-running controversy over the matter; that modern sources mostly lean toward permitting the usage; that descriptive linguistics works record that its use is well attested, for a long time; and that a few style guides are against it, while some that permit it still suggest writing around it. (This is a "favoritism" point I need to add to the draft essay.)
  • Having multiple citation options that say the same thing, but not using the most reliable among them: Chicago, New Hart's, Fowler's, Elements of Style, and Scientific Style and Format are probably the top-5 most influential (the last only in the sciences, of course). If one of these gets at it, there is probably no need to cite something derivative (Turabian follows Chicago on everything, for example), with low general applicability (e.g. a style guide from one particular discipline like chemistry or marketing), or with low real-world buy-in (like the UPI Stylebook) – at least not as a "stacked" cite. As the article gets developed, more and more such sources could be added as corroborating, but they're not good as "front-line" sources. (Also need to add this to the essay draft.)
  • Couching anything in terms of "American" or "US" vs. "British" or "UK": That stuff is almost always wrong (including in style guides that make assertions about it; many of them over-nationalize, without evidence or sources, and directly contradicting other sources, because it helps them sell books). Such a claim is frequently just an editor making an OR assessment assessment (usually based on "I saw it in a [my country here] newspaper's stylesheet, and that magically makes it a universal in my country" – an anecdotal synthesis. Most of what is said about UK style, and which can actually be proven to be nearly universal there (or universal in a field, like journalism, in the UK), is applicable to Commonwealth English generally (or in that particular field, in other Commonwealth countries and Ireland). Much of what applies in US English publishing also does in Canadian, aside from "colour", "theatre", and a few other British vestiges. Not sure any of that will apply to this i-whose material, but it comes up a lot in researching English style and usage matters. I've been gathering Australian, Canadian, and other guides to use as sources in such articles, to give less of a "there are only two countries that count" bias.
  • Relatedly, making assertions about "American English" and "British English" (dialects mostly determined by spoken usage) rather than than norms of American and British (or whatever) publishing, and sometimes the norms of certain kind of publishing: Any linguist will tell you that few written style matters are in fact connected to national or regional dialect (a handful are, like -our/-or and -re/-er); rather, most of them are part of pedagogy and practice regimes of writing and editing that are tied to specific industries and academic fields, sometimes also geographical, and sometimes generational, aside from some being publisher-specific. Asserting them as dialectal differences is more OR, based on misreading and misunderstanding of the sources. And due sometimes to underlying misunderstandings by their authors; it does not matter if 10 style guide authors, almost none of whom are linguists, assert something "is American English" if the assertion is linguistically bullshit, for the same reason that 1,000 aromatherapists asserting what they do is a science isn't treated as reliable either; it's a WP:FRINGE matter.

    Authorship of style guides, usage manuals, and grammar tutorials is by definition an endeavor of prescriptive grammar, which is subjective (personally and with the biases of various cultural forces, often classist), and the diametric opposite of the scientific observation approaches of real linguistics. Some (including non-notable me, and author Bryan A. Garner) have some experience of both approaches and can generally separate them, but some writers exhibit great difficulty separating their preferences from the facts. E.g., the new editions of both Fowler's and New Hart's veer wildly from prescriptive grammar to descriptive linguistics, in a confused fashion that often makes them useless, with a "we give up, just do whatever you want" end result, which is the last thing anyone wants out of a style guide. (These faults in those works are obviously due to a change in editorship, made within a year or so of each other for both volumes, and a rush to put something out about half-way through revising to reflect a change in approach. Both of them are quite literally self-contradictory in places, which only happens as a result of incomplete revision and editing.)

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SMcCandlish. You have provided yet another insightful comment that reflects sober critical thoughts on editing and the WP project as a whole. We need more editors like you. Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Loopy30: Nice to know someone cares!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: Great work! I got some sleep, and just read Inanimate whose top to bottom, did some minor copyedits, and left some additional sourcing suggestions and such on the talk page (mostly notes-to-self, since I own all the books except one, a mid-century edition of Hart's Rules). I would support this for GA, and it doesn't trigger any of my draft essay concerns, though many other articles here do, especially Quotation marks in English, a disaster of nationalist PoV pushing and OR. PS: Did you see Talk:Comma#RfC: Split off section to new "Comma in English" article?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic Location Template

Hello. I saw your name attached to a discussion regarding the Geographic Location Template. (I don't know where to start, so I started here with you.)

This template has been added to the middle of a bunch of Los Angeles neighborhoods like Pico-Union. I tend to find them disruptive in the middle of the page. As Wikipedia is about consensus though, I don't want to move or delete them without first finding out if there has been any discussions and/or decisions regarding plopping these in the middle of pages. Any insight you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Phatblackmama (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phatblackmama:: Oh, geez, that is totally against our guidelines on the use of navigation templates. I would suggesting reverting the templates (citing the WP:NAVBOX guideline), and retaining textual information on geographical relationships, but working it into existing sections (we do not create entire sections for one or two sentences).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I removed it but retained the worded information in the "Geography" section. Please see the Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pico-Union,_Los_Angeles#Navigation_box). Is there any reason I can add for NOT placing it at the bottom of the article? (I ask this because the user who placed it there is stubborn (and is just coming of a 3-day ban) and will want to know WHY it can't be at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Phatblackmama (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@McCandlish:I was in the process of removing the navboxes from Los Angeles neighborhood pages, and then I saw that Larchmont, Los Angeles had a Geographic Location Template that in 2014 someone moved from the center to the bottom of the page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larchmont,_Los_Angeles&diff=next&oldid=621745693). I know you suggested working the geographic information into the text, which I did on Pico-Union, Los Angeles and other pages, but should I have moved the boxes to the bottom like on Larchmont, Los Angeles rather than removed them? Is that what you meant when you said to "revert the templates"? Please advise Phatblackmama (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removing them is fine. I'm unaware of any consensus that these templates should be used at all. They're usability disasters, and someone should probably nominate them for deletion at WP:TFD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phatblackmama: I started a long-overdue TfD here. Meant to do this several years ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@McCandlish: Thanks for all your assistance. You have been a real help. Again, thank you. I have added a my thoughts to the TfD.

Discussion at User talk:JDDJS

Providing such a well researched and thought out WP:3O was generous, and for me, instructional. Thanks.Grenschlep (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than I or anyone would normally do, but we clearly need to make cross-conformance revisions to two guidelines, so the detail was necessary. That took about 2.5 hours. Blech. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is now open at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Resolving conflicts between (and within) PERFNAV, FILMNAV, and PERFCAT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Nival_(company)#Nival got hacked last year. Encyclopedic to include?

Disregard
 – Discussion was hatted as unproductive before I got to it.

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nival_(company)#Nival got hacked last year. Encyclopedic to include?. Pavel Novikov (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

T.K. Maxx and hhgregg

I saw your RM submission at T.K. Maxx. I wonder what you think of the article title for hhgregg. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would move it to H. H. Gregg fpr the same reason. But would also wait for the outcome of the current RM which may need relisting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may recall this conversation. Now, perhaps predictably, the wording that you inserted at MOS:TM (i.e., "Do not 'correct' the spelling, punctuation, or grammar of trademarks") is being used to assert that the article should say "HHGregg" instead of "H. H. Gregg". This seems clearly contrary to what you yourself thought that this guidance meant. I think that language needs to be improved to clarify what it is intended to mean. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:BarrelProof: re-read the RM discussion, and then present the facts fully, eg mention that another editor said MOS:TMRULES should take effect in an article's text, but not the title. The guideline makes complete sense, and should be followed. How about you actually take notice of what it is saying (do not change trademarks because you do not like them), which is—I might add—a very useful piece of advice which has clearly been carefully considered, instead of arguing about this so that you may have the article consistent with the title. You would not have accepted the title being brought in-line with the article, so why should your opposite proposal be effected? –Sb2001 talk page 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And now the same language is being used to argue against your own RM proposal at T.K. Maxx as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this obvious problem of that language being interpreted very differently from what its author intended, I removed it. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not reasonable. The idea that 'SMcCandlish wrote it, therefore it must be right' needs to end. This totally limits/removes the role of reasonable discussions. I was the one who initially mentioned moving TK Maxx, actually. Read the thread. Anyway, I will revert your MoS edit, and take it to the talk page. I see that you omitted this stage. Im my opinion, it is a major change, so there needs to be a discussion first. Take your reasoning and evidence to the talk page discussion. –Sb2001 talk page 22:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sb2001 and BarrelProof: It's not a "do not change trademarks" matter; the company itself is inconsistent, and is not asserting any particular exact spelling/punctuation as their wordmark. It's a "do not try to mimic logos with styling shenanigans" matter. In the end, I don't really care much. It's just stupid that we have confusingly different article titles for two articles on divisions of the same company with near-identical names. Any result (use one style, use the other, or merge the articles) is preferable to this situation. The "MOS:TMRULES should take effect in an article's text, but not the title" argument is patent nonsense. We never, ever do that, and a long-standing principle is that the text and the title should be consistent; we have templates that "enforce" this, e.g. by italicizing the display of book titles in our article titles, etc. The "in text but not titles" b.s. is anti-consensus, anti-MoS activism and should be called out as such. I'm too busy to go re-argue this stuff at various RMs, and will just have to trust that the closing admins have common sense and experience (if that assumption proves faulty, or a non-admin who seems to lack these qualities produces a senseless close, take it to WP:MR as a faulty closure analysis.

I don't mind the removal of the "Do not 'correct' the spelling, punctuation, or grammar of trademarks" MoS wording, since, yes, it is being misinterpreted. If we run again into the problem of someone going around trying to impose MoS rules about plain English on trandemarks like DaimlerChrysler and iPhone, we can re-address it with clearer wording. This probably won't be necessary: between the time I inserted that language and today, MOS:TM was also updated to include a rule to permit unusual stylization when virtually all the sources are consistent about it, which is the case with things like DaimlerChrysler and iPhone; ergo, the issue should not re-arise. Removing the old wording is plus, because it prevents "we must mimic logos" misinterpretation that directly conflicts with other parts of MOS:TM.
I've rethought this and commented at WT:MOSTM.

PS: Neither I nor anyone else I'm aware of holds that whatever I add to MoS is "right". While I have a much higher than average rate of getting logical refinements to MoS to stick, they do not all do so, and I've changed my mind over time about some of those that people have raised issues with. I do listen, and I do learn. That said, MoS is in far better shape today than it was when I arrived at it over a decade ago and started working on it. I'll elect not to take Sb2001's comment as an implication that my work there isn't of value. It's among the work of which I'm proudest. My Wikipedia side mission to eradicate inconsistencies, conflicts, and inclarities in the guidelines' wording, remove WP:CREEP and nationalistic or other prescriptivist nonsense, and insert new rules that prove necessary because of repeated disputes over trivia, has saved us probably many thousands of community man-hours of pointless style fighting. No shit.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important that you read the RM discussion before making assumptions. As I said here, it was another editor who said that the title is different to the article ... I disagree with this PoV. And no—I was not suggesting that your work is worthless. I am really quite disappointed that you would think that. However much you may dislike my contribution history, I am still awn editor on here who wants to make a positive difference. 'The "in text but not titles" b.s. is anti-consensus, anti-MoS activism and should be called out as such': if you meant that as a swipe a me, I clearly got you wrong. Despite all of your scrutiny of my work, I thought, 'Well, at least he is bothered. He wants to do the right thing, and will understand my lack-of-experience is the reason for these edits'. I am staring to doubt that now. Maybe you need to read WP:AGF yourself, instead of just tagging it. I always assume good faith; I thought you did too. Maybe not. Well, anyway, it is good to see you back from your break. –Sb2001 talk page 02:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sb2001: I know you were reporting what another editor said about title/text disagreement; sorry if I seemed to imply otherwise. I also indicated I was not assuming you thought my work was pointless. I guess I'm having clarity issues today. I did elaborate on why it's not pointless because I have a lot of talk-page stalkers and sometimes I write here with them in mind. Heh. I'm sure you do mean to make a positive difference, and I'm not criticizing you in any way in the above. I really must be having communication issues today; I'll chalk it up to being distracted with other stuff and writing in haste.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add this to the fact that it was 4 am here ... bound to be issues in clarity/understanding. Well—at least that is sorted. I will deal with the other stuff at the relevant talk pages. –Sb2001 talk page 13:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was tired, too! :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Elijah Daniel

Moot
 – Already closed by the time I looked.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elijah Daniel. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Please comment on Talk:George Duke discography

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Duke discography. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Since you have so little understanding of the core elements of the issues, I had hoped you would withdraw your RFC and work together to propose something that cuts to the core. It is premature to argue about language until we even have the core elements resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't mean to point to you like it sounded. No one quite knows what the core elements are. We need an RFC that will get people to say what kind of content we want protected by this guideline and what type we want to discourage. That is going to be better served by something other than "Hey do you like this language". We should start with an RFC that says. Do you want A, B, C, D, etc. type of content in X type of navbox and X, Y, Z, etc. in Z type of navbox. Then, when we know what everyone wants in or out, we can work on the language. Jumping to the language is not likely to result in consensus on this topic. I won't be online much over the weekend, but next week I will be putting together an RFC to isolate specific content types. You are free to help me put that together. I can tell you for certain we are not going to achieve any consensus with your RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: No worries, let's just work past it. I think we simply have sharply differing philosophies of what RfCs are and what they're for. Too many people see them as a "voting" mechanism. What you want to do sounds like a good approach, but only to one set of issues (navboxes). I'm principally concerned with a) reconciling the conflicts between PERFNAV and PERFCAT, and b) reconciling the conflicts within each guideline that are leading to LAWYER/GAMING problems and general confusion and dispute. The main way to fix both of these problem is to use the exact same "yes, we really mean everyone in the industry, there is no magical exception for a specific job title" broad definition in both documents, and then – only when there is intended to be one – outline specific possible exceptions for specific guideline line-items. What you want to do only comes in at the end of that part. And then there's c) the sharp mismatch between the "primary creators" nonsense and what we've actually been doing for years, which is something like what I formulated as a inseparable identification of the bio subject with the work and vice versa – whatever language we really need if isn't that. We know for sure it has jack to do with job titles, only with reader navigation expectations. If we get any progress on these three things I'll be happy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:John Oliver

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Oliver. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lindy West

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lindy West. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Collapse compact

Disregard
 – Deletion is fine.

Template:Collapse compact has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

 Done
Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ted Kaczynski

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ted Kaczynski. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

  • Library card
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
  • Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Consequent anthropomorphization?

With this edit to Journalese, you introduced the text "and consequent anthropomorphization", which was flagged as a misspelling. I don't think you mean "Anthropomorphism", the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities. Can you fix this? I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Thanks, [[User:|wbm1058]] (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me Google that for you: [14].  :-) Anthropomorphization is the use or application of anthropmorphism, the act or process of anthropomorphizing. You need a better spell-checker.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: ping just in case you didn't notice I'd replied.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; I hadn't seen your reply as I'm not watching this page. I might have gotten back here on my next pass of the linked misspellings list. Anthropomorphization is no. 8 on the latest version of that weekly report. My spell-checker is fallible as it's updated by Wikipedia editors. Odd that it had been tagged as a misspelling 11 years. I just reverted to the version of 9 July 2006. But, as I was still confused by the destination of the redirect, I found Anthropomorphism vs Anthropomorphization - What's the difference? Anthropomorphism attributes human characteristics and behavior, or as the lead says, "attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities". I wasn't following the logic that gave the 1990s human emotions and intentions when the decade "saw" an increase in crime. But I do follow what you mean by endowing the 1990s with human qualities (attributing human characteristics to something that is nonhuman). The sentence endows the 1990s with human eyes, but nothing more than that. So I changed it to link to the Wiktionary definition. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: I made a bug report at Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Linked misspellings. The link change seems like hair-splitting to me. The WP article is clearly wrong (an error of omission) in only covering a single meaning. The solution is to fix the article, not sweep it under the rug by linking to a different one. I guess the link change is okay short-term, since it could help a reader understand the meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This single-word change is probably sufficient, though I've not read the article in detail. Having eyes to see things with constitutes a "trait" in the meaning of this article, the Wiktionary article, other dictionaries, and the context in which I linked it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made this edit, the bot will remove it from the linked mispellings list on the next run, since the word is no longer tagged with {{R from misspelling}}. The bot runs every Thursday. wbm1058 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right-o.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to RfC at NOT

 Done

You participated at this RfC; the proposal has changed a bit. Just providing you notice of that. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jared Taylor

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jared Taylor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

 Done
Hello, SMcCandlish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Trusttri (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, SMcCandlish. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 01:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Birth date and age

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Birth date and age. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bee Gees

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bee Gees. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Thanks for your recent posts there, much appreciated. Just one thing, it's normally TRM, rather than TPM, but we all know who you meant. Oddly I think you've done that before. Anyhow, cheers for the independent assessment. Arbcom won't do anything about it, it would make some of them look incredibly stupid, but I very much appreciate your additions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno whereTF I'm getting "TPM" from. It's not even an acronym that means anything to me. Derpa! Anyway, I feel pretty much compelled to comment on the matter given the repeat of history I'm seeing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. The admin who went from pillar to post to accuse me of lies without any kind of evidence was Arthur Rubin. There's another Arbcom case for that currently in the "Evidence" phase but I think the community has become utterly dismayed by the comprehensive ineptitude of Arbcom. The situation went through ANI (as I think you said) and it was a landslide "Admin fail" result yet Arbcom, in their infinite "wisdom", decided to make it a full-blown case, and included an analysis of my behaviour as part of it (which, of course, completely derails the point). A week in and almost nothing has been added to the page. I hope Arbcom realise what this means and learns from it, but somehow I doubt it. Add to that the mysterious behaviour and disappearance of one of the Arbs who clearly should be site-banned and the personal attacks and uncivil commentary from at least one of the other Arbs (who hasn't recused), and you get a bunch of jokers who wouldn't be fit to run a jumble sale, let alone arbitrate on one of the busiest and most vistied websites in history. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never bring RFARB cases myself, despite frequently having cause to. Tar baby. Every time I've drafted one, I've slapped myself and come to my senses. I don't have beefs with the current sitting members (aside from one supervoter who caused a year-long problem as an RfC closer, but that's just a reason to not re-elect him, and he doesn't seem to be a bad guy). They did resolve a very long-term MoS disruption problem that badly needed to be dealt with. But who doesn't have a beef with how the "institution" operates?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bring this case either. It was, as far as I was concerned, fully covered off at ANI and just needed some actual abritration at ANI to deal with it rather than "referendum it", somehow dragging me into it as befits Arbcom's latest proclivity to get me banned no matter what. This odd perception that they are somehow better, more responsible, better place to judge etc than the average editor is way off the mark. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have missed something serious somewhere. Since when has the community – which has the power to CBAN people indefinitely and at least theoretically the ability to close ArbCom and replace it with something else – lost the ability to desysop without ArbCom approval (more likely interference)? A clear ANI mandate for a desysopping, well, is one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The community never had it. There have been a half-dozen proposals but every one has been shot down. As such, ARBCOM has been the only entity able to remove someone's bit. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I fail at WikiBarrister.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RY is now an essay, by the way. An RFC concluded it wasn't and should never have been a Wikpiedia guideline. I'm sure you can find the "debate". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already added a whole section about that to Evidence page (of the Rubin case). PS: I was the one who dug up the original "debate" and pointed out at the recent RfC that it was improper. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement at Arthur Rubin Case page

Hi SMCCandlish. I've moved your statement from the case page to the evidence page as no additions should be made to the case page after the case has been accepted. Feel free to remove it from evidence and add it to another relevant page if you feel it would be better placed though. Amortias (T)(C) 21:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias: Ah! Yes, sorry. I'm tired and need a big sleep. That's two wrong-page edits in one hour, so time to put down the keyboard and back away slowly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a misplaced edit is the worst thing you've done today your probably doing better then most of us. Amortias (T)(C) 21:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But two ... TWO!? That probably warrants at least a fingertip.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks you for the Project namespace and TL/SUPPLEMENTAL updates.....been trying to get that wording right for a long time. Would love your CE skills at WP:ESSAYPAGES guideline section and the infopage Wikipedia:Essays. I try to keep them upto date with community norms, but get very little feedback. Moxy (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks. I'll go look at those. I'm not being very comprehensive about this. Was just looking at one page and it led me to another and another, so I've been copy-editing various essays and info pages and so on. About to propose a merge of WP:Common sense is not common and WP:NOCOMMON.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: I twiddled with WP:Essays a bit, but didn't do a lot there. The page seems pretty good. I suspect a few key points in it could be integrated into the WP:ESSAYPAGES section, but it's harder to get edits to that page to "stick" if they're not pre-discussed. Was there anything in mind at either page that you thought needed addressing in particular?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

 Done
 – already

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried...?

Ctrl+enter? I use it out of habit and having no issues with Chrome -- on the odd occasion I use it. Of course, you could always use Lynx, or just contribute to Wikipedia using the power of your mind! Keira1996 03:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Keira1996: Well, it's even weirder than that. It's happening when the edit window auto-linewraps at the end of the line, and does so between various code elements that aren't just plain text, e.g. between ...blah blah [[link here]]. and the <span ...>... that begins my rendered sig. I'm mostly encountering this "getting an unintended line break with Chrome, on Mac OS X" immediately before my sig, though it's also happened between two links in series or two templates or whatever, just not (so far) plain alpha-numeric ASCII. Been happening for several days now, and I haven't discerned a fixed pattern in any more detail than that yet. I'll see about installing a new Chrome tonight, in case it's some regression they've already fixed. PS: I love Lynx and Links for various purposes (mostly to do with system administration), but can't imagine them as practical for WP; I tried it once and gave up, several years ago. PPS: People already complain that, at least on policy talk pages, I insert too much stuff directly from my own mind. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logging of old sanctions

Saw your comment. This is a topic I've also wondered about (the question of where Arbcom should put old sanctions). The January 2015 motion says that old notifications and warning 'are not sanctions' which may mean they wanted *not* to carry over the old notices (later known as 'alerts') but they did want to carry over actual bans and blocks into the DSLOG, regardless of how old they were. So logically, we would have *all* the pre May 2014 notifications left in the case logs, and all the actual sanctions removed from there. So when we look at the enforcement log of WP:ARBATC we should still see all the old notifications listed. And in fact, what you are objecting to seems to be a notification of yourself? So now that I review this for the N-th time, maybe the system is consistent after all, at least for ARBATC? EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston: It's not consistent, with anything, even most of the other case pages (even those that still have such entries do not have them consistently moved after a particular cut-off date; it's just random "did we get around it yet" scattering). Current notifications and warnings aren't done on the case pages, so it's inconsistent in that more direct regard. When I asked about this previously, I was told that the only reason they're still on the case page is because a clerk hadn't gotten around to moving them yet. Honestly, I really don't care about rationalizations for why to not do the cleanup; they're weak and don't mean anything substantive. What's substantive is that their current location intensely biases things against certain specific individuals for no reason, and it also makes the actual log pages incomplete and misleading. That's two serious reasons to move the entries versus one suppositional un-reason to not move them. And no, I'm not talking about the entry about me in particular (which is just a notice), but all of them that still remain on all these case pages. It obviously stands to reason that the problem would be more likely to be brought up by someone whose felt their consequence. Implying that I have some personal-only motive is a victim-blaming exercise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to some items that you think should have been moved into the DSLOG, according to the language of the 2015 motion? It looks to me that the entries in the WP:ARBATC case are now in compliance with the motion as written. There was no mandate to remove the old notifications/warnings from the cases, so far as I can tell. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph. The codicil at the end of it would, it appears, put you in the technical right on this, and will keep things in the ethically wrong status quo, so I'll open an amendment request. I hate filing ArbCom motions, but this needs to be done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever solution you recommend, I hope it won't lead to old decisions becoming any more hidden than they are now. The courtesy blanking of more than five-year-old DSLOGs already hides old bans from the search engine, even those that are still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It won't affect the decisions at all; it's not like someone's going to delete the case pages or their remedies sections. This is just cleanup; if people actually subject to current sanctions get "courtesy blanking" then why would we retain blame, forever, pointed very misleadingly at people who just received {{DS/alert}}, which expires after 1 year anyway? It's senseless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ambiguity on the word 'warning'. The old notices were often viewed spoken of as warnings, but in addition, there were *actual* warnings issued at AE that might now be better described as 'logged warnings'. So even a motion to remove all the old 'alerts' would encounter the problem that you can't tell what was purely an alert, in the old days. But if you wanted all the old alerts/warnings/logged warnings moved en masse into the DSLOGs, that might handle it. Then we would still have the annoying courtesy blanking but it wouldn't delete the underlying data. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was retroactively fixed a couple of years ago; the DS/Alert-related "warned" entries in the log sections were changed to "notified" wording (maybe some instances were missed, but I know it was done for WP:ARBATC). I don't see that it matters, since the Motion wording under question lumps "notices" and "warnings" together, and so do the current log pages (by excluding them both, and only logging more specific actions like sanction and page protections). Anyway, I've opened the amendment request here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you search the current WP:DSLOG for the word 'warned' you'll notice that logged warnings were still being issued at least as of 2016. For example, do a search in WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2016. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. It's even fine if all the warning and notice log entries in the case pages are just moved to the new log pages, and all the old, blanked entries are restored to the log pages. The only result I can think of that's intolerable is the warning/notice entries remaining in the case pages. PS: If the warning-logging practice stopped in 2016, then it presumably did for a reason, and apparently wasn't being done for notices anyway. They get logged in the editfilter system somehow; that seems to be all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article

Closing this per WP:DONTFEED; user has already been determined to be a WP:Sockpuppet of a banned user.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Hi, Mr. McCandlish,

I see that you're a frequent good contributor to this MOS and discussion about it. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then?

Thanks if so, 174.23.148.58 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't specific enough to act on. Where is the dispute, and what is its nature?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, SM, and thanks for your reply! Well, I just wanted to find out what your core understandings and beliefs are about these kinds of things, and and then see from there if we might work well together. Cool?
174.23.180.206 (talk)
I can't offer anything specific without knowing what the context is. There isn't anything magically special about MOS:TENSE; it's applied to the extent any other MoS section is. They're all guidelines, and what that means is covered at WP:Policies and guidelines. They're not inviolable laws, but should generally be followed unless there's a clear contextual reason no to, that outweighs the reasons to do so. That varies on a case-by-case basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I'm asking you for MOS help...

Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?

  1. Which to you is more accurate: calling abbreviations in which letters are pronounced individually, like a lot of initialisms such as "CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are, as "acronyms," even though they are not (since they aren't pronounced as if they were just single words like "LASER," "SCUBA," "PIN," and "VIN," etc. are, and so those abbreviation examples are acronyms (even as "laser" and "scuba," and probably several others, have long been commonly lowercased), or just calling them "initialisms" when they are indeed NOT acronyms?
  2. Which to you is clearer: saying that a given model of computer or game system looks like just a "stereo" (which could be anything from a non-portable, traditional home stereo system, to a vehicle stereo system, to a tiny little MP3 player), or saying that it looks like a traditional home stereo system component?
  3. And then, as a follow-up regarding systems that look like home-stereo equipment, if they are still computers, then which makes more sense: to compare them with other devices that look like just "computers" (even though these still are computers, so they look like their own unique type of computer), or to compare them against computers that look more like traditional computers?
  4. Which do you believe is clearer: that when a specific computer-derived entertainment system can be converted into that computer by adding back specific peripherals such as a floppy disk drive like the derived-from computer model the system came with has, to simply say "disk drive" (which is ambiguous because it can refer to the CD drive that the machine already has, or to a hard disk drive which is only secondary to the floppy drive on those computers), or to be more specific by saying "floppy disk drive"?

Thanks for your opinions,

174.23.148.58 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of numbering the points above for detailed response here.
  1. First off, before this goes any further at all, please see WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, WP:GREATWRONGS, and WP:No original research. If you've come here to engage in debate about nomenclatural trivia, and to push your views about them, you're going to end up getting sanctioned. Wikipedia has a sharply reduced patience these days for "style warrior" behavior. I'm not tracking your edits or anything, and make no accusation; the question just seems pointed toward trying to "win" a tedious argument everyone is already tired of. (We've been over it many, many times before here.)

    Second, the distinction you're trying to impose is not recognized by many people at all, is artificial and recent, and framed the way you've framed it, is simply factually incorrect. The term "initialism" was invented, in a single journal article, in the late 1960s or early 1970s (I can dig up the cite if you want), and has been adopted by very few reliable sources. Even the few mainstream style guides that mention the term do so in a dubious tone (e.g. Chicago Manual of Style). Acronyms in the original, continuing, and dominant sense of the term include everything that some people want to call initialisms. Initialisms are a subset of acronyms. The idea that the term acronym can only be applied to those that are said as words, like AIDS, is a language-change, usage-prescription "activism" position about how things logically should be according to a particular camp. It does not reflect the reality of actual usage. To the extent that the term "initialism" has caught on at all, the actual usage around it has evolved since that paper, to use "word acronym" to refer to those that are said aloud as words, specifically because the attempt to redefine the base term acronym to only mean those cases has been an abject failure. If it doesn't work after approx. 45 years, it is time to give the hell up and stop beating the dead horse. >;-)

    That said, I and many others consider the clarified version of the distinction actually useful, and we write things like "acronyms (sometimes divided into word acronyms like AIDS and initialisms like FBI)". This is the treatment that should be used in WP articles about such matters. I don't think anyone cares who uses what terms on talk pages, but if you use "acronym" in an idiolectal manner to mean "only initial abbreviations pronounced as words" without explaining that this is what you mean, people are going to misunderstand you and it's going to lead to a lot of wasted time and lost patience in discussions.

    But I cannot stress enough that if you try to insist, either in articles or in WP:MOS discussions that '"CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are not acronyms', and other such WP:TRUTH pronouncements that actual reliable sources on English contradict, in large numbers, then nothing good is going to come of it.

  2. I would use something more like the second, but that exact phrase is unnecessarily tumid. "A home stereo-system component" is more concise. I agree just "stereo" is too vague; that's what I call the thing in my car, and most people today no longer even own a multi-component rack stereo system. The word "traditional" doesn't really apply; there is no quaint, folkloric stereo to be found by anthropologists, still preserved in the Ozarks or among the nomadic tribes of Siberia. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, "traditional" doesn't work here. Computers and their form-factor are market trends, not "traditions". As an anthropologist by training, I get miffed when people misuse words like that (and "culture", and "community", and "myth", among others). Without seeing the discussion and the component to which it refers, it's hard to say what good wording would be. I don't like false dichotomy questions like this; there is no either/or here. MoS rule no. 1, in its lead section, is to rewrite to avoid conflict or confusion. At a blind guess, I would say to use something like "looks similar to a desktop computer case", or something more specific, e.g. "looks similar to a mini-tower personal computer", or whatever the case may be. If that's really necessary. Often, such comparisons are subjective and not actually encyclopedic.
  4. "Disk drive" is ambiguous, so be specific. Technically a CD/DVD drive is a "disc drive", but many people are not aware of this micro-distinction. It's better to refer to hard drives as "hard drives", though. If the device really does use a floppy drive, say so and link to the topic (lots of kids today have no idea what a floppy disk is).
Hope this helps, in more ways than one. PS: If you find yourself in a lot of heated arguments (especially over trivia), the essay I wrote about my own learning experience in this regard may be helpful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)If you weren't already aware, both Corinne and EEng have received essentially identical messages. IP seems to want to bring a group of editors together with the same opinions on small grammatical issues, which is never a good thing. Any luck with your Chrome? Keira1996 02:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I started the reply off the way I did. Chrome: I didn't get around to installing an update yet. The issue is intermittent anyway, like 0–3 times per day, in a long day of editing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I also agree with Iridescent's version of answers to this questions, which raised some additional issues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Never a good thing," Keira? Like I told SM here, I was just trying to see which one of a few editors might work with me the best, rather than causing contention. Beside that, even if bringing together more than one editor were supposedly "never a good thing," then what happened to the thing that Wikipedia wants us to do, which is to seek consensus? If that IS a good thing, then what's so "wrong" with alerting a few editors that there are some issues that are seeking consensus? And what alerted you to this discussion, anyway?

S. McCandlish, it seems like you've misunderstood several of the things I was saying, so it's fine if you don't try to give your input at the article in question.

  1. I wasn't trying to make a battleground. I already explained what I was doing, which instead, was trying to see which editor would be most peaceful with me, which is the opposite of making a battleground.
  2. I wasn't trying to include my original research. You've blown the issues I was asking you for what your beliefs about are way out of proportion if you were thinking OR was any kind of issue here.
  3. I wasn't trying to "win" anything either; just trying to show why certain wordings are clearer than others, which you'll see more explanation of below, as part of my rebuttal to what you said above.

Even if the term "initialism" is relatively recent, that doesn't negate that the word "acronym" does 'not fit "CDTV," because you have the words "acronym" and "abbreviation" mixed up. You claimed that initialisms are subsets of acronyms, but it's really the other way around: acronyms are subsets of abbreviations in general. Abbreviations are all shortenings of words or word groupings, and then they fall into their subcategories from there. And if we were to include initialisms in this, then they go like this:

I. Abbreviations (all shortenings lumped together)

A. Truncations ("ind." as short for "independent," etc.)
B. Initialisms ("ATM," "LASER," "CD," "A.M.," "P.M.," "LCD," "VIN," "ABS," "PIN," and "SCUBA," etc.)
i. Acronyms (the initial abbreviations that sound like words, such as "LASER," "VIN," "PIN," "SCUBA," etc.)
ii. NON-acronym initialisms (the ones that cannot be pronounced as words, so are pronounced as separate letters, such as "ATM," "CD," "A.M.," "P.M.," "LCD," and "ABS," etc.)
C. Hybrids (combinations of initialism with truncation, such as "CoDec" ["Compression/Decompression"], "RaDAR" [though we don't normally cap it that way, but "'Radio Detection And Ranging,"] "LiDAR" ["Light Detection And Ranging"--same thing about the unusual capping], etc.)

So even if the word "initialism" didn't catch on like I thought it had, there are still different kinds of abbreviations in general, which acronyms are only a subset of. That's why it's incorrect to call "CDTV" an acronym. A lot of people have misunderstood the true meaning of the word "acronym," but I've cleared that up by showing you the above. By the way, you can't use the word "acronym" to mean "only acronyms that are pronounced as words," because that's infinite recursion (read: trying to define a word using that word itself).

You don't know what most people own in their houses these days, but traditional home stereo system equipment is probably being supplanted by the smaller devices that dock smaller players and still connect to big speakers, etc. But thanks for agreeing with me that a qualification word is necessary there, which is why I used it there and am asking that we put it back.

Okay, you're mixing up the word "traditional" with "ancient." "Traditional," in the sense of products, basically means the original, plain style, or conventional. If you still disagree for some odd reason, then I guess we could use the word "conventional." That's about the same. But a lot of people already use the word "traditional" to mean the basic original style or technological version of a given type of product. Either way, "traditional" or "conventional" are fine with me. That's what I mean by a "traditional computer" (or "conventional computer"): the basic rectangular unit that sits on your desk or the floor with an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse, etc. So that's why either "traditional" or "conventional" should be the word used to compare against this more entertainment-specific stripped-down computer system.

Yes, thanks for agreeing with me about including the word "floppy" before "disk drive." You basically echoed the point that I'm making with that.

75.162.196.158 (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you're trying to do is not find which editor might "work with you the best" -- it is to find editors that explicitly agree with your viewpoint to cement your nitpick-y changes. That is what is never a good thing, because you're specifically bringing on board only editors that you perceive to agree with you. That is canvasing, and very much not a good thing, no. I was alerted to this discussion because I watch the talkpages of SMC, EEng, and Corinne, and only posted here to bring to the attention of the former that you've brought this up in multiple venues. Additionally, please do not refactor others talk page comments, as you did above.
I'll leave responding to the bulk of your post to SMC, if he so chooses, but I would highly advise against comments such as "so it's fine if you don't try to give your input at the article in question." and the like in future. Keira1996 10:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) and even more blatant canvassing over at Peter coxhead's talk page. Loopy30 (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP address: there is something extremely disturbing about your tone. I shall say this very bluntly—people do not agree with you as a favour. You do not need to be thanking them. This looks, to outsiders, like you are pressuring them into following a certain way of thinking. To go around several experienced MoS editors' talk pages solely with the intention of finding out with whom you may work best (I'll let you know that you did not choose the right ones if you want someone to continuously fight for you over insignificant stylistic quibbles in one article). You would have done a lot better by posting this on the MoS talk page, and waiting for a range of answers; this would have prevented editors from seeing your behaviour as 'canvassing'.

    When you are choosing a select few editors with whom you think you may have a chance, other MoS editors will start to question why they were not selected. The few you have chosen have been active for a long time, and will command respect amongst others. I suspect that that is the reason you opted for them. Nothing will happen for you by going down this route. For help with the MoS, or to request clarification, you need to go to its own talk page. This may not work for you—my first trip there ended in disaster—but you will gain the opinions of numerous editors, some of whom will undoubtedly be on your side.

    Please stop with the threads on individual editors' talk pages. (I have no authority to command you to do so, but I strongly advise it. Your tone so far will attract unwanted attention, and your edits will be monitored far too closely for comfort. Anything which sounds like you telling an editor what to think, and offering to make 'deals', will sooner or later see you in some trouble, which none of us want.) I always advise account creation for IPs, partly so we can be sure that we are talking with the same person and partly for accountability (ie so we can advise you of where you are going wrong). You may choose not to take my advice. That is up to you. The best way forwards for you is to go to WT:MOS, and present your argument there. I wish you luck with this. –Sb2001 talk page

I decline to address this in any further detail, per WP:DONTFEED: You've already been determined to be a WP:Sockpuppet of a banned user, and most of your recent IP addresses are already blocked. It doesn't matter what your intent was; you're not supposed to be editing here at all unless and until your block is lifted, which seems unlikely given the nature of what you're doing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, please; you didn't even give me a chance to reply to you two.

Wow, McC, etc., so I go away for the day and then I get home to find that I have a butt-load of crap to clean up and fires to put out! Please don't just move on with a dismissal before I've even had the chance to respond to your new replies, okay?

Please don't jump so quickly to drink the Cool Aid from the user who was trying to hype you into believing that just because I'm using more than one IP address I must be a "sock." Is it not obvious that I'm not trying to fake you guys out every time my number changes? I don't know exactly what the problem is, but it looks like he thinks that just because I have a dynamic IP address, which is why it changes a lot, that means I must be sock-puppeting. We're not socks just because our IP addresses change. In case you don't know, the way a dynamic IP address works is that you have one address for a little while, and then when you're not online, the ISP gives that address to someone else. There may be more than one way this happens, so you never know when it's going to happen or why. But these IP addresses are me; I'm not going around pretending to be other people here. So if you would please give me the benefit of the doubt instead of just buying all that hype, I'd appreciate it. Okay?

Keira1996: Why, what's so "wrong," to you, with telling an editor that I'm okay if he doesn't want to help in the discussion now? Man, with what you and others say, you guys act like EVERY little thing is "WRONG" and people have to walk around egg shells with everything they do! Is this how you tell people to be in person: "No, never tell anyone that it's okay, never mind, you don't have to help me, etc."? Can I not get ANYTHING right because you other wiki editors think almost literally everything is just "wrong," "wrong," "wrong"? Since when is it "wrong" to tell someone here, "Oh, never mind, then, don't worry about it," etc.? And how do you figure you can read my mind that asking someone what they believe is supposedly assembling a team who explicitly agrees with my NONnitpicky (uh, you don't need a hyphen just before the suffix ending with "y") changes? Case in point: there's an editor who felt that he may not be so great at working on the specific points that I brought up. So what am I supposed to do then? I can never try to get another editor instead of him? I'm just dead in the water with no hope of ever getting someone to go to the discussion because I lost my one shot at the editor I tried to get? Why should I not try more than one editor just in case the first one I happen to pick turns out to be a dud--even based on his own claim? And why should I not refactor someone's comments if other people are allowed to do it, just like McC did to mine by adding numbers? Why is it supposedly "not okay" for me to do it even though it's "okay" for him to do it, according to you?

Loopy30, no. Again, just seeing who would be most suitable to discuss the issues at hand, because as you can see from my case in point above, one editor told me he's not really the man for the task. Well if we're supposedly "not allowed" to discuss editors' beliefs or understandings of certain subjects, then what: just dead in the water? How should we ever seek consensus as we are instructed to do?

Sb2001:

  1. Uh, NO. Where did you get the strange idea that I was supposedly trying to "make deals"?

No, that's not what asking someone how they believe on a subject is. And I ask you the same thing as I've asked the others. How are you supposed to seek consensus? (See my above questions, so that I don't have to "reinvent the wheel.")

  1. "Disturbing tone," eh? How is that? How is trying to figure out who's suitable for discussion (instead of, like, oh, say, the guy who doesn't think he'd be good to join) supposedly a "disturbing tone"?
  2. "Insignificant stylistic quibbles"? Oh, how so? Since when is trying to apply the MOS (as now SMcC has successfully done there) such "insignificant stylistic quibble"? Since when is trying to make things more clear, like "floppy disk drive" instead of just "disk drive," like S has also successfully done then, such "insignificant stylistic quibble"? Or making things clearer by not just saying "stereo-like" (which KIND of stereo)? Why is it that when McCandlish makes the changes you don't accuse him of making "insignificant stylistic quibble," but when I do it, that's all you can call it?
  3. "You need to go to its own talk page"? Uh, I DID do that. But then how do you call people over there? You look for editors who might seem capable of discussing such things and then call their attention to it! If not, then what? It just sits there and sits there and sits there, hoping that one year someone might happen to go look at the talk page? Who does that without having their own issue to propose a fix for or without being asked to go there? So what's so "wrong" with calling attention to it?
  4. Why do we even HAVE talk pages if we're supposedly "not allowed" to TALK about the issues we're having, then?
  5. Why would wikipedia make a way to edit without using an account if that's supposed to be "disallowed" too, or if it's at least frowned upon? Well why don't they just make it required then?
  6. Why should I not tell people what to know about a word's definition if they are obviously wrong? (Just take this one over at Corrine's page, because I got into more detail with you there and don't want to have to "reinvent that wheel" here either.)

75.162.246.29 (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quack.
Quack quack.
If it quacks like a duck...
 Your passive aggressive tones are not appreciated here, nor is your blatantly attempting to vet editors before showing them the issues in question. The correct venue for determining consensus is an RfC on the talkpage of the article in question, which will notify editors interested in the general topic, and possibly notifying a few editors who've previously worked on the article (regardless of their agreement or not with your beliefs). These discussions have been closed for a reason, and you've been blocked as a sock multiple times. Just... WP:DROPTHESTICK Keira1996 10:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll only entertain this briefly and with remediation in mind.
  • I don't have access to all the tools the SPI admins do in investigating sockpuppetry, so I'm not in a position to contradict them. The fact that clearly the same editor from the same block of IP addresses has been previously blocked for disruptive editing is sufficient; you can't keep editing from a rotating pool of IP addresses to evade those blocks, whether you really are socks of User:stylizeD or not. I.e., even if you are not that user or any other banned user and thus are not socking, you're still block-evading, which is grounds for an indefinite block. What you need to do is create an actual account and convince the community you're a separate person from stylizeD, and more importantly that you realize why you've been repeatedly blocked and why people are objecting to every other thing you do, and that you won't continue to do it, or you won't be allowed to edit without getting blocked again and again until you give up and go find another pastime. If you really are not stylizeD, then, yes, this is unfair and a hassle, but life is unfair and a hassle in many ways on many days. You cannot seriously pretend you haven't made this bed for yourself; you do have to lie in it, regardless.
  • No one is giving you short shrift; several of us devoted more time and patience to these style nit-picks of yours than was probably warranted, and I even implemented (not necessarily without future reversions) some of your proposed changes at that article when they were actually supported by policy, sources, or common sense. I also declined to implement some of them, because they're clearly wrong. I may well actually get reverted on some or all of it, because it was WP:BOLD on my part and on the heels of a dispute, but I don't really care. WP:NODEADLINE applies; it doesn't matter much whether the article is tip-top right this second, as long as it incrementally improves.
  • No one is "reading your mind"; you explicitly stated, repeatedly, that you were looking for people who agree with you, and that you were looking for help to apply your view of MoS rules to a particular page, and then tried to hide the page from us until we arm-twisted it out of you.
  • Please don't ping people to come here and engage in further discussion. My user talk page isn't for you to make your case about various things pertaining to you. Create an account and have your own talk page.
  • Everyone commenting on the various versions of this tedious thread on various user talk pages agrees you're trying to "make deals" and drum up a WP:FACTION, and have explained why that perception is strong. Asking someone to re-re-re-explain why they have that perception is disingenuous and another symptom of the WP:ICANTHEARYOU problem you strongly exhibit at every turn. Just accept and listen and do things differently, or you'll keep getting blocked for multiple kinds of disruption.
  • You are the one obviously wrong about the definitional fights you are picking. An enormous pile of sources already cited at Acronym proves this beyond any doubt. Perhaps more importantly, it's tendentious, disruptive editing to continue fighting for some WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY cause at Wikipedia even if you are correct (which, again, you are not). I referred you to WP:HOTHEADS once already; please do read it, especially the closing section about trying to argue Wikipedia into submission. It does not work and it will get you banned.
  • Finally, no, you imposing your spelling and grammar preferences on other people's posts is not in any way comparable to someone organizing threads for clearer-to-follow responses. You're making a classic confusion of content and presentation. How your content is presented doesn't change its meaning. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech is still his speech whether you embroider it into a blanket or format it in HTML and put it on a website. If you change its wording to "Me had some visions", then it is not that speech. If you don't get this distinction automatically and innately, it is probably not possible for you to be a useful contributor at Wikipedia.
Now, please go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you're blocked, you're blocked as a person, never just as an account, or individual IP address/range. So you can't be "block-evading" if you've never been blocked, regardless of who was using your IP before it was assigned to you. However, in this case, the rotating IP's clearly do belong to the same banned user. And oh God, we need to stop encouraging him to create accounts, because the last time someone did that, he actually listened. Sro23 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was kinda confusingly phrased (as to the second sentence). I think you're trying to say "If an IP was blocked and it wasn't you, you're not subject to the block". Or something like that. But yes, your first and third sentences clearly apply here. As for the final one, the message I'm sending to the IP editor is "if you are not really a sock of a banned user, then create an account, make amends to the community, and ask for an unblock, since the blocks of you as an IP are blocks of you as an editor and do apply to you." If he really is a sock of stylizeD [or any other banned user], then all bets are off; he shouldn't ever be editing here, and a range block may be needed to enforce that. WP:AGF insists that as a lowly user I lean toward the "maybe isn't a sock of a banned user" by default; if I were a CheckUser admin I might already be certain whether this group of IPs are socks of stylizeD (or someone else). But I'm not. It's a little time-consuming to try to "work on" this editor as potentially salvageable, but this is also a dull Sunday for me, so it's not been excessively onerous. My patience for it has worn to the breaking point now, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC? Oh, cool. How do I do that, then?

Hi, friends McCandlish, Sb2001, and Keira1996,

Okay, Steve, is it? Well, whatever the first S in "SMcCandlish" stands for, I know I could go in and edit your closed discussions, but I want to respect that you've closed them. However, wouldn't it be okay if you could give someone a day or 3 to get back to a discussion instead of closing it at a time that seems sort of premature?

Oh, no no, what I meant by something like "assuming that someone thought I was a sock-puppet" was simply if he saw me with one IP address at one moment and then another at another moment. I only thought that the guy was trying to tell you that simply because my IP address changed a few times, or even once, it supposedly meant I was a "sock-puppet." If you think it involves more than that, then I'm sorry for confusing you about what it looked like I thought he was trying to tell you.

I hope that none of you thinks that just because I have more replies to replies I'm not somehow "bad" (or even supposedly "getting worse" than any supposed "already bad" that any of you might have unfortunately already thought I was). Ya've just gotta give a guy a chance to get something all discussed and have new things learned, right?

Keira, and (Sb2001 if you think the same thing), I'm not sure how you think I was supposedly being "passive-aggressive," but let me assure you that I'm not intending to be. Would either or both of you please try to explain what ways I was saying things that made you believe I was being that way?

However, someone did point me out to WP:CANVASSING, and I have now read it fairly thoroughly and think I understand now what your complaints were about my asking individuals what they believe about certain things and why you had them. And you did answer one of my questions about how to request help on an article's or project's talk page-discussion, part of the B/R/D cycle that we are expected to follow, which you said is this "RfD." Okay, great, I have no problem with that! I just never knew about it before. But if that's the right way for us to request help of several editors in a consensus discussion rather than going to people individually, then I have no problem with that and will do it that way! So what is an RfD (including what this non-acronym abbreviation stands for), and how do I use it?

Also, very nice job, Mc., on your edits at CDTV. You know, I'll have to say that that's a job well done, even if you didn't restore all of my present-tense edits. I've read your explanation for why you didn't restore some of them, and they make sense to me. I'm sorry for not being more careful with those, because had your point about that been made before, I wouldn't have changed those. Right, things that happenED in the past should stay in the past. I have no issues with that. Well, I figured "based on..." would be an ongoing thing though, simply because as a product continues to exist without changes, it is still based on whatever it was based on during the design process. But if the general understanding around the 'Pedia is that we're supposed to leave "based on" in the past, then I don't have a problem with that. And as for the problem with just saying "stereo-like" and "computer" instead of something more specific there, wow, I really didn't even consider the idea of simply removing those like you did, but given your explanation there, that makes sense to me too! And even with whatever differences we may have had regarding the word "acronym" until I showed you the real definition and the way the categories and subcategories of abbreviations break down, I like that you just took that wording right out of there! I guess I could only think of replacing one word with another, or with a multi-word term, but since removing that worked for you, then hey, it works for me too!

So you know what, Mc.? I think I've gotta say that you're quite a good editor here! With what you've done to help out here, I think I like you and I really trust you! I hope we can continue to work together here. And Sb2001 and Keira, thanks for your help too. All right, guys, since you told me that this RfD tool exists and I'm ready to learn more about it and how to use it, are we friends now? How do I use this RfD tool?

Thanks if so, 174.23.176.109 (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stylized, what even are you talking about. Nobody is accusing you of sockpuppetry simply because your IP changes on its own. It's because you are banned. Sro23 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Steve" -- I applaud your patience. ;) Keira1996 02:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, FYI, keira, "Steve" or "Scott," or whatever his first name is, didn't need any extra patience, and neither should you, because I asked you guys what to do instead of what I was doing that you didn't like, and you answered me (RfC being one of them), and now I have replied with willingness to do things those ways that you guys said, if he would only teach me how to do an RfC. What are you acting like I'm still "bad" for? 75.162.243.237 (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please hear me out.

I'm not faking you out. Thinking I'm a sock is one thing, but assuming that it means I should've known what an RfC is and used it long ago is quite another. "Thanks" for your vote of faith even though I told you how much I trusted you. Now please, just show me how to do an RfC and I will do my best to do everything the Wiki way. I already showed you that I took your suggestion on the line-spacing and related things, didn't I? 75.162.243.237 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Blocked repeatedly means stop editing here unless and until all those blocks expire. Even then, given that several admins have concluded you're a particular banned user engaging in sockpuppetry, you'll have to resolve that matter as well. Please stop posting here, or anywhere else on this site until then. If you want to make a case that a) you're not a sockpupeteer and b) that you understood why you were blocked, why you should not have been evading the blocks with IP-address-hopping, and that you will no longer engage in block-worthy behavior, then after the recent blocks expire, go to WP:ANI and open a topic about yourself. Try to avoid switching IP addresses during that discussion. My talk page is not a venue for this or any of your other issues. Seriously, please stop replying here and begging for "hearings". I can't give you one, and neither can anyone else at their user talk page. The hearing you need is WP:ANI. And if you do not stop editing while subject to one or more blocks and keep using different IPs to keep editing, you will never get that hearing and will just be blocked and shunned until you give up and go away. This has already been explained to you multiple times. At this point, I probably will revert (or not unrevert) any further posts by you here, because there's nothing further to say on this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats...

Not wanting to derail the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about date formats - but besides scientists in the US, many historians of subjects other than United States history also tend to use DMY. I had it drummed into my head during college to use DMY and it's stuck. And I find it difficult to use MDY for US topics. Just a data point for you to consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Please post that there; I don't have your same .edu background, so it'll mean more coming from you. People do dig up old MoS discussions after they're archived; good to have it be part of "the record". Would be especially helpful to cite something, even a textbook or a university history dept.'s style sheet, or something, though AGF would tell people not to call you a liar or crazy. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interleaving talk page comments

Resolved
 – I put a version of this constructive vs. disruptive example stuff back into the original discussion at WT:TPG where is might do some good.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Stanton (or do you prefer Mac?)

it's been a while.

I'd very much like your opinion on interleaving comments on talk pages... which was the start of the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Guidance against interleaving replies. An example (which has proved rather provocative) is here. It is claimed that this leaves the first paragraph of my post, and also the paragraph preceding it, both unsigned.

I have always regarded this form of detailed reply as normal, and there are many examples of it in my past years of contribution, but it's rare enough that I'm finding it hard to come up with examples where either I or someone I've replied to has used it.

It seems likely that such interleaving will now be prohibited. No great loss, but I'm unconvinced it's a good thing to ban it. Andrewa (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Address: Whatever is fine; "Mac" is a nick I've never had before WP, but I've gotten used to it, and it's shorter. Heh.

I already posted at length in the WT:TPG thread, including about this. Is there somewhere else I can insert [irony intended] the argument where I've not already done so, without being a WP:BLUDGEON? The short version is that I think the practice is harmless and sometimes quite useful, as long as the attribution is copy-pasted to avoid any confusion about who said what. A "rich" example that provides one of various indications why someone might want to split and interleave, and additional stuff they might do in the process:

Extended content
  • I agree. – SnorkelWeasel, 12:34, 30 February 2112 (UTC)
    Can you be more specific? BTW, what's the story behind that username? – TheQuestionizer, 12:39, 30 February 2112 (UTC)
Then:
  • I agree. – SnorkelWeasel, 12:34, 30 February 2112 (UTC)
    Can you be more specific? – TheQuestionizer, 12:39, 30 February 2112 (UTC)
    Per WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:ENC, the user in question shouldn't be using their userspace for posting hundreds of pictures of their cats with cutesy captions, even if a handful of them might be encyclopedically useful.Those can be uploaded to Commons and used in actual articles (without anecdotal captions). – SnorkelWeasel, 12:54, 30 February 2112 (UTC)
Off-topic
BTW, what's the story behind that username? – TheQuestionizer, 12:39, 30 February 2112 (UTC)
"Snorkel" and "weasel" seem like the funniest words ever to me, and their combination conjures a hilarious visual. Let's use user talk for any further discussion of this. :-) – SnorkelWeasel, 12:54, 30 February 2112 (UTC)
 
I do this sort of thing quite frequently, and of the four cases I can think of where someone blew up on me about refactoring, only two of them involved this sort of thing, so my success rate with it is around 99%.

I do think that on WP in particular, people have a case to make that doing it without copy-pasting the attribution (even in absence of something like a collapse-boxing or a re-sectioning) is apt to be confusing and should be avoided (e.g. by repeating the attribution). Not because it's impossible to figure out who said what, but because it takes work to do so, and because the only-one-sig-at-bottom-despite-interleaving style simply isn't the "tradition" here, it's not usual, it's not part of "the way we do stuff". Occasionally refactoring posts and their responses to them – or even entire threads – to make them more useful is actually well-accepted, though as with everything there are a few naysayers.

It's unfortunate that the discussion at WP:TPG has been dominated by ideas about disruptive comment-splitting and interleaving, which is rare, and a not a discrete issue of any kind (it's simply DE and can be addressed at ANI, etc., like any other form of DE). If someone habitually takes posts like this:

  • I oppose this proposal, on the basis of WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:ENC. – SnorkelWeasel, 11:14, 30 February 2112 (UTC)

     and does this to them (I mean to the original post, not a quoted copy of it):

  • I
Yeah, you, you, and more you. You've been harping on this for months.
oppose
See WP:NOTAVOTE.
this proposal,
It's not a "proposal", it's an RfC question.
on the basis of WP:NOT#FORUM
Look who's talking; all you do here is argue on talk pages.
and WP:ENC. – SnorkelWeasel, 11:14, 30 February 2112 (UTC)
Try actually reading that policy and applying it to yourself. Only 10% of your edits are to mainspace. – AckJass 09:22, 31 February 2112 (UTC)
then User:AckJass is headed for a block if they don't stop. Even aside from the fictional user's tone, this is disruptive because it makes it harder for other people to parse or follow at all, and its clear intent is to render the original commenter's post into fragmented gibberish, to deny that editor a voice. This is radically different from constructively splitting apart unrelated comments in the same post, which need to be separately addressed, into separate but self-complete pieces (sometimes they're even split into new sections if they're important). The abusive kind of split-and-interleave stuff is very rare. It doesn't make any sense for us to enact crazy "control freak" provisions in TPG to prevent such things (with the fallout of outlawing constructive refactoring) since doing disruptive monkeying around on talk pages is already addressable by extant policy and procedure, and there thus is no actual problem to solve. It's a canonical example of WP:CREEP. Cf. WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it, one of our shortest but most sensible essays.

If you think it would be constructive, Andrewa, I can add this entire explication, with these examples (or different ones) to the TPG debate as a section.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox family

Hello! I saw your great job on Template: Infobox person. Would you care to help out finishing the merge that I have attempted to initiate on Template:Infobox family after Cfd decision as well? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 27#Template:Infobox family name, merging Template:Infobox noble house to Template:Infobox family?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Sorry, I updated the link. Yes, it is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 27#Template:Infobox noble house, and that one above that you linked. Would you be willing to lend a helping hand? It seems none else has the knowledge to. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident: I've sandboxed one merge. The other requires more input. Discussions are at the relevant template talk pages. PS: You don't need to ping people when you post on their own talk page; they get automatically notified already. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:The Exodus

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Exodus. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Interweaving

Hi, I've made a bold attempt to illustrate a point about interweaving by interweaving some good faith smart assery into your example. I did this here. If it bugs you or seems unhelpful by all means, please revert my comment. I was attempting to point out that when you posted the example, you probably were assuming that the "no interweaving" guideline that now exists would be followed by everyone, but of course if we open talk pages to interweawving we invite unexpected third parties to squirrel off into all sorts of different directions. Apologies if this attempt to make the point is taken the wrong way.... I'm trying to be fun and constructive, but understand not everyone will see it that way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC) On second thought, I agree with the other editor in that the examples weren't really interweaving. Maybe it explained later. Tl,dr. Sorry to bother you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not interleaving in the sense under discussion at all, but using indentation to interrupt/interject without affecting anyone's actual posts. Also, if you follow the discussion with DIYeditor in that very section, you'll see that they already tried exactly that kind of WP:POINT exercise (with actual interleaving), without actually making the point at all; their first break was repaired by copy-pasting the attribution, and the second could have been (by reverting an edit that broke one of my sentences right in half) if I'd been inclined to object. I.e., the attempt to show disruptiveness failed, and the entire second examples there already shows how it can be disruptive and why we wouldn't tolerate it – we already have a means of dealing with it, as WP:DE like any other form of DE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cats of Downing St

[15] I have just seen this. It seems a remarkably good idea to have such a page. In Mr Cameron's final days, there was plenty of news coverage of what may happen to Larry. It certainly meets notability. If the colour of the curtains in the Oval Office deserve mention, why shouldn't this? If it covers the whole street, comment can be made on George Osborne's cat, and the cat conflicts: [16]
–Sb2001 talk page 18:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Definitely more interesting than various pseudo-celebrity bios we have.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015) (September 2017). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: meaning what? The matter does not appear to have been resolved/closed, with 3 arbs agreeing and none opposing, so far. Why would that request be archived when others on page have been there much longer?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's my guess that the clerks will just go ahead and do this, though I am unclear on exactly what was agreed to. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes two of us, Ed. In an email to the clerks-l email list, we were instructed to remove and replace logged notifications and warnings "with a link to the current central log. Just replace that section (which might be called 'Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions') with the 'Enforcement log' in the case template". I went there and didn't know what (if anything) to do—AFAICT, the template had last been edited in March—but have emailed the requesting ArbCom member for advice. Miniapolis 23:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Miniapolis and EdJohnston: Sounds like progress; it looked at first like this just got archived in mid-discussion and would result in nothing happening. Anyway, I think they mean to copy-paste this template section over case sections like this one (of notifications and warnings). However, sections like this (of actual bans, blocks, and other sanctions) were already supposed to be merged into the newer WP:Arbitration enforcement log – and might well already have been, just not removed, after merge, from some of the original case pages like they were supposed to be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning

Kindly do not put tags on my talkpage, as you did here, when you have absolutely no knowledge of the background issues involved. Ask before leaping to assumptions. X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. X4n6, the entire purpose of such notices is that they go on user talk pages where the user will be certain to see them (and in the particular case of {{ds/alert}}, they are absolutely required to go there). Your talk page is not magically immune to them. See the WP:USERTALK guideline. No one needs a long and detailed history of the personal issues between you and EEng to observe WP:ASPERSIONS in action. Please read that page. You made a serious accusation without evidence. If you think you have an actual case of WP:HOUNDING, and sufficient evidence to bring one, the venue for that is WP:ANI, not WT:MOS. The entire reason we're all subject to DS in MOS/AT discussions is precisely because of off-topic, personalized "pick a fight with this editor I don't like" behavior at WT:MOS and WT:AT. The editorial community, ArbCom, and the MoS/AT regulars are all really damned tired of it. So, yes, if you do that you'll get a notice on your talk page, a page which you do not WP:OWN.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not required to provide "evidence" of HOUNDING on a talk page. As you know very well, that is not the forum for a formal complaint, so what purpose would "evidence" serve? My comment was to warn that individual - who's first comment was a personal attack. Meanwhile, you inserted yourself with an assumption that my comment was based exclusively on the question at that talk page. It was not. Nor did you make a civil inquiry. Instead, you leapt to a conclusion, took a side and made a threat. That doesn't fly. Stay in your lane. If you can't, per WP:AGF at least ask civilly first. 10:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you sure the hell are required to provide evidence. Read WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. Where ever you are getting the idea that you can make any accusation you want without evidence as long as you avoid doing on it a notice board, you are wrong, both factually and ethically. You received a notice about applicability of DS to a particular page, with a very clear and non-hostile explanation why you were receiving it. There are no civility or AGF issues associated with leaving such a notice. You have been notified, nothing more. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. It's hypocritical that you think you can misuse guideline talk pages as a venue for delivering bogus personal "warnings" in furtherance of off-topic personal disputes, then you go apoplectic when someone leaves a legitimate and prescribed notice on your own talk page, which actually exists for (in part) the receipt of such templates in the first place. No further reply is needed; I have zero interest of any kind in your personal sense of being immune to behavioral standards here, and if you post more in that vein, I will just keep pointing you to the behavioral policies and guidelines until you get it or you run out of self-contradictory excuses and pointless hand-waving.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't get that you could have/should have just asked a damn question. Instead you assumed. You'd much rather have a pissing match, or finger point - since, God forbid, you're never wrong. But since there's nothing constructive going on here, we're done. I'm just reminded when you point with one finger - the other four point back at you. But since it matters to you - you take the WP:THELASTWORD - that I won't read. X4n6 (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @X4n6, pre 2014 these warnings worked different and meant something different. But there is a new system. Under this new system the DS alert notices are no fault, no shame, no nothing..... just a simply FYI that DS applies to a topic area. I have given them to myself each time I enter into such an area. In addition, the explicit rules for DS notices require use of this template for the opening comment, and prohibit other methods. If you go bonkers when you get a simply FYI in compliance with the rules, you're announcing to everyone that in your case there's an above average possibility there will be problems for which DS should be applied. I have no idea where the locus of your dispute is... I haven't looked and don't plan to look.... I'm just offering neighborly advice from an uninvolved ed. Suggest you dial it back. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@X4n6: pinging you since NewsAndEventsGuy didn't.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner

diff In ictu oculi (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I get the "Kauffner" reference. Haven't had coffee yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that Kauffner. I thought that name rang a bell.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material in British Longhair

Resolved

Copyright problem icon Your addition to British Longhair has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

I didn't undo modifications entirely, just removed portions of text I found verbatim elsewhere. Nowhere man (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nowhere man: Aside from WP:Don't template the regulars, please be more careful whom you're pointing fingers at. That material had nothing to do with me [17] other than I made a complete sentence out of it. The gist of it was from a merge of a WP:POVFORK at British Semi-longhair, the history of which indicates the underlying material was added by 176.180.154.24 [18]. The original wording was "These cats ... are more likely to suffer from kidney complaints than various other cats", which is too short and plain a phrase to be subject to copyright anyway. The later phrasing "British Longhairs are more likely to suffer from kidney complaints than various other cats." was constructed during the merge process; if that exactly coincides with text on external sites, that's pure coincidence. Anything this simple and short should normally have been reworded rather than deleted, but it was {{cn}}-tagged anyway. Since it's a salient fact, I've restored it in different and much more specific wording, with a veterinary manual source [19] (also added to Persian cat).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this part of the WP process, thanks for the pointers. I'll pay more attention to edit summaries now. Nowhere man (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coolio. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:David Ferrie

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

For the TPS crowd, this is about WT:Talk page guidelines#Guidance against interleaving replies.

I know you and I butt heads at times, but we always seem to get right back on the same track and leave all the drama in the past afterward. And I don't think I'd have it any other way. Like I stated before, even when I vehemently disagree with you, I respect your point of view and try to see where you are coming from. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: Agreed, and it's mutual. The whole "just RfC it" thing wasn't meant as hostility, just a "this discussion will never F'ing die if we don't just get it over with" push, and you seemed to be the one who really wanted to RfC it. (You may have noted that just today I opened two more RfCs on similar "monster threads", and I plan to do that more and more, especially with perennial MoS crap that keep regurgitating endlessly. Anyway, I sometimes forget that this medium often poorly conveys emotion and can "invent" it where not actually present originally; sorry if I came off as angry or picking a fight or something.

I'm disappointed in the outcome of that RfC (though the result was predictable given the discussion). Virtually no one understood a damned point I was making, despite my efforts to make them very clearly. Being on the seen as on the same side as another editor (whose views were actually different – I was cutting a middle path) after several editors had been venting at him didn't help; I'm not sure that could be avoided – anything that even hinted at agreement with a single aspect of anything he said seemed to be taken as "You are not one of Us, ergo you are The Enemy". And the whole thing was overrun by "don't you dare touch my posts" thinking, but oh well. In time, when people of that mindset start interfering with legitimate refactoring more and more, it will piss off more and more editors, and the wording with adjust to curtail their nonsense. As I said before, I trust the community to get it right eventually. I'll continue to do the same refactoring I've been doing for almost 12 years, and adjust as necessary, which probably won't be much, since none of it is the disruptive (and mostly imaginary) kind of "interleaving" that fragments posts into jibberish, which what people are doing the Chicken Little act about.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I first parsed the opening line as "I know you and I are buttheads at times ..." LOL. Reminds me of my greatest PR score ever. Back around '94, I was handling a press call about some privacy-invasive, anti-encryption crap the FBI had been pushing in Congress, which we [i.e, EFF, who I worked for at the time as their online activist] defeated. I got quoted as saying something like "This is what happens when law-enforcement butts heads against the civil liberties of Americans", and one of the major newspapers (NYT, or WashPost, I forget) ran it unedited, so most people probabaly had to do a double-take and first parsed it as "law enforcement buttheads". Very intentional on my part in that case. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Darts non-player personalities has been nominated for discussion

 Done
Category:Darts non-player personalities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox writer

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox writer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where to go from here?

Your proposal on the main MOS page would almost definitely solve the problem on MOS:FILM (and probably every other problem on every other MOS subpage for that matter), but it doesn't look like it's gonna get majority support on either venue as is. (If User:EEng et al were watching the MOS:FILM discussion go down, proving the premise for your proposal 100% correct, they would almost certainly change their minds, but it really doesn't look like they are, else I wouldn't be the only one agreeing with you that "film reviews aren't always secondary sources, regardless of context, merely by virtue of being film reviews".)

Honestly, I'm getting kind of tired of MOS:FILM for the time being (I experienced some pretty obvious hounding, which resulted in some disastrously bad content being readded to the Star Wars Holiday Special article, almost immediately after I started posting there, and things have only gone downhill from that), and I think I'm only three Arb votes away from getting my TBAN suspend so I can crawl back into my Japanese poetry content creation hole indefinitely, but if you decide to open an RFC at some point, feel free to notify me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; I don't expect proposals like this to "take" the instant they're proposed, and that one's just a discussion draft. What I would expect in the long term is for WP:NOR or WP:RS to address the matter of reviews in a section, which we'd cross-reference as needed. This "trial run" identifies the biases, misconceptions, and language (wording and syntax, I don't mean English vs. other) problems that have to be overcome to get traction on the problem. Also demonstrates that its a real problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but how did I get into this? EEng 20:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably something said in the now-closed discussion fork at the main MoS page (the one that started when I tried to direct people to the WT:MOSFILM thread). Rather than why you were pinged, I'm more interested in what you think of the underlying problem and how to resolve it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Sorry, I should have included the links. It wasn't really clear what I was referring to. I meant that if you (and the other editors arguing against SMcC's proposal on the main MOS talk page) had been monitoring the concurrent discussion here and to a lesser extent here, you would almost certainly have changed your mind about how effectively our MOS (including all of its subpages) works in applying common standards across the Encyclopedia, and about how beneficial or otherwise SMcC's proposal (which I had read, perhaps fallaciously, as meant to overrule LOCALCONSENSUS on the talk subpages by forcing all discussion onto the main talk page) would be.
@SMcC: On a loosely related note, I feel it really undermines the discussion process when everyone coming into a policy or guideline discussion has a different assumption about what the other parties "know" going in. I didn't realize until after you opened your separate section (the "here" in my above response to EEng) exactly what the root of the problem in my original thread (the "to a lesser extent here") had been. I was assuming that other people just didn't like the wording of my edit because it was a bit clunky, but now (close to three weeks later!) I really think that a significant number of people believe that film reviews are secondary sources, not primary ones, for a film's overall critical reception at any given point in time, and it somewhat concerns me that I wasted so much time trying to convince people based on a premise that those people did not accept, apparently because of their assumption that I held the same beliefs they did.
It bothers me even more, though, that the compromise wording that will likely be put in place will continue to be interpreted (although the explicit linking of WP:SYNTH means it was not interpreted thus by its creator -- courtesy ping) as meaning something completely different from what I intended.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed it, and my mind is not changed. I did not argue against SM's proposal to merge small-traffic talk pages, but I did say we should do that first and see what happens before considering any kind of "MOS help desk". EEng 00:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I hadn't detected EEng being opposed to the substance of what I was saying and trying to do (which is much, much broader that resolving quarrels about critical reception). As to the critical reception matter in the original discussion, I agree with Hijiri's summary of what has been going on and what the unfortunate outcome has been. I decline to stress about it much. Often the only way to break a WP:OWN/WP:LOCALCONSENSUS bloc of wrongheadedness is to let them dig their own hole deeper until the community can't stand it any longer and forces change. If the twits in that discussion actually start treating all reviews as secondary sources for every single thing they say about a film, then the OR problems are going to be so severe that the community, in particular those who policy WP:CCPOL violations, will eventually have no choice but to correct the interpretation. I know from broad editing experience that my interpretation is correct (i.e. agrees with how we handles sources in every topic) and that the film-focused editors ranting on over there are engaging in a combination of special pleading and just plain confusion, with a little territorial stubbornness mixed in, all with a communication-failure cherry on top. That whole sundae is just going to melt after it sits out long enough.

But this can take years. E.g. WP:MEDRS still states that press releases from entities like the American Medical Association and the British Department of Health are secondary sources, when we all know that's not true (they can sometimes be secondary for source review material when they include any, but they are by definition primary sources for the positions they're taking and the conclusions they're reaching on their own). People over at MEDRS have been having an extended brain-fart, such that they're refusing to understand the difference between a source that is secondary and a source that is high-quality but still primary. You'll also see this confusion throughout our medical (and sometimes other science) articles, where people keep insisting on citing primary research papers from journals when what WP wants is literature reviews and other secondary sources (though primary work can be secondarily cited as "backup" and for the interest of med students).

This is a subcultural conflict, stemming from academics treating literature reviews as boring, rote, "unoriginal" material no one wants to read much less be tasked with writing, while primary research is the exciting stuff. This psychology has a lot to do with the film reviews problem, too: Truly secondary review material, which is just neutral summary of the films content, or academic analysis of what lots of reviewers have been saying, without the writer of the secondary material injecting their own novel views, are boring; the "interesting" stuff is the opinionated material, which is of course primary.

A secondary factor in play here is abject fear that lots of one's work is going to be deleted if anyone catches on to the fact that we have lots of articles on questionably notable films (and sometimes science stuff, too) that is supported only or primarily by primary sources that some are falsely treating as secondary.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me? EEng 05:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tellin' the world. Testify! [insert cheesy electric organ and tambourine music here as the choir starts].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding

I really mean this... One of your posts in the last few days (forget where) was in two pieces, one bit a summary/highlights, and a longer bit one of your usual comprehensive analyses, in a collapse box. (And again I really mean this...) I think this is a great innovation. I often like reading your analyses, but not always, and it's great to be able to just get the summary without having to plow thought the full treatment if I don't have time for that. Please keep doing that. EEng 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good feedback. I've occasionally used this style for years, but haven't known if anyone cared, or even if people didn't like the box or splitting approaches. I've been trying especially to do this with RfCs and even "enforce" keeping long back-and-forth in the "Further discussion" section by refactoring, and it seems to be going okay, despite some people (the same ones being pains in the "interleaving" discussion) being anti-refactor. Anyway, I'll try this split-and-box technique more frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker sneak attack!) ...also, it helps to keep the weaksauce TLDR dismissals off of your spicy analysis noodles. Primergrey (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... spicy analysis noodles with weaksauce. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, now I'm hungry for a spicy noodle bowl. But I still have leftover pizza. Curses!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Algerian War

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Algerian War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:For glossary

 Done
 – Responded at TfD.

Template:For glossary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Crime

Hi. I noticed you wrote this "Last I looked, the scientific consensus was that crime rates are a socio-economic matter without any proof of a genetic component." Is there any proof it's entirely a socio-economic matter? Last time I looked science (other than perhaps mathematics) didn't proceed by "proof" where you then assume the contrary based on nothing. 94.119.64.2 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be silly. I'm pretty sure any reasonable person understands that when, in the course of an everyday-English conversation, the term "proof" is used in reference to science, the intended meaning is "well-tested and -accepted evidence". A WP talk page is not a refereed journal article, and we are not here to be the Language Police pestering each other about how we phrase things in informal chit-chat.

With modern genetics, we know the idea is absurd. There's more genetic diversity between two neighboring African peoples than there is between the Japanese, the Irish, and the Australian Aboriginals. It's quite likely that more specific gene pools (sometimes thought of as narrower ethnicities, though that, too, is a misnomer) may have some slightly more marked neurological trait differences, but even this research is very spotty, e.g. showing multi-generationally strictly endogamous Ashkenazi Jews having around a 5 IQ-point lead above average, but only according to a few studies. Virtually no one has a taste for pursuing this kind of research. Given that in urban environments there virtually are no endogamous groups any longer, and haven't been for a long time, none of this is going to matter in a generation or two, and it barely matters at all now even as a statistical curiosity. If you hire someone just because they're of European Jewish ancestry and you think this means they'll be smarter than the other candidates (or reject a Japanese or or Hispanic candidate for not being Ashkenazi), you're an idiot.

All the dirt-farmers in the world can keep marrying their neighbors and cousins, and it won't stop the overall hybridization of the human species. The only major population nut that's not being cracked much yet is China, but it's already wildly multi-ethnic anyway and has been for thousands of years. Westerners don't understand this, usually, because they don't know anything about China and its peoples. Along lines of Victorian racialist thinking, they see epicanthic folds and assume that everyone east of around Kazakhstan are all the same. Anyway, that which isn't socio-cultural is really all about haplogroups, not "races" or "ethnicities".
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Done/See also

 Done
 – Responded at TfD. This is an ironic one, given the template I'm filling out right now.

Template:Done/See also has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:United States dollar

Disregard
 – Invalid RfC. I WP:NAC'd this one.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States dollar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I just wanted to say "thank you" for coming in and definitively closing the Request for Comments regarding an anonymous user's fringe theory about the nature of the U.S. dollar. In case you had looked, the article had been hijacked by a rolling series of I.P. users since January of this year. User:Khajidha and I would attempt to bring some sanity to the situation, only to be flooded by lengthy diatribes of little worth. Nobody seemed willing to do anything about the situation, so I started a RfC in the hope that some sane Wikipedians would come to the rescue. I then stepped back so that I wouldn't appear biased. Some brave souls did come, but they were pummeled by the same ad nauseum arguments. Finally, at the first light of the fifth day, the cavalry arrived. Thanks to edits by User:NewEnglandYankee, User:Ronz, User:TenOfAllTrades, and finally, thanks to your definitive opinion in the RfC closure, the article seems to have been wrestled back to reality.

For these reasons I bestow upon thee the esteemed

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Thanks for your definitive non-admin closure of a RfC, thereby asserting a sane consensus and bringing U.S. Dollar back to congruence with reality. BirdValiant (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, thanks, and in retrospect I should have looked a little bit closer at the history. What I saw was all the weird personal rambling about gold being "illegal" to own in the US (WTF? I guess I'm a big ol' criminal then), and how "theoretically" you could still maybe get gold for a dollar if yadda-yadda-yadda. The entire thing looked exactly like those rants about gun "statistics" that far-left fringies pull out of nowhere, or about being able to avoid federal income tax because "The United States" and "The United States of America" are different entities and doodle-doodle-dee that the far-right fringies pull out of nowhere, and it just had to stop per WP not being Facebook or 4Chan. People will troll all day (from both directions) on stuff like that, just because it's fun to argue. I did notice the "slow editwar" stuff going on to push the WP:FRINGE idea that the US dollar isn't a fiat currency, I just didn't pay attention to who in particular had opened the RfC, thus didn't deduce the intent of it. So, sorry if I "shot" you by accident. Of course, it being a WP:NAC, someone who wants to keep blathering about their pet economics hypotheses could reopen it, but we can hope not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy post RfC discussion

 Done

Please accept my apologies for disturbing you but I am trying hard to work towards a resolution at the discussion at Talk:Family Guy. However, there are "issues". Earlier, you indicated support for either "animated sitcom for adults" (with appropriate wikilinks) or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" as the new text. Could you please visit the discussion again and confirm whether or not you are still willing to accept this wording? Thankyou. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: Please try to compromise with CT. If you get a version of the wording you like and he gets the wording not being in the first sentence, I think the whole thing just goes away.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure that's true given this post, which resists the outcome of the RfC while applying his own interpretation. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are both pushing back against everything the other is saying, that will make heels dig in. I used to be a professional political activist. One thing I learned quickly is that if Side 1 really wants Result A and doesn't care much about B or C, which it knows that Side 2 really will not accept, but Side 2 pushes back against Result A, and offers X instead, then Side 1 will push hard for A, B, and C as if of equal importance, in turn causing Side 2 to demand X, Y, and Z in response; in reality both sides could compromise on an Result M that balanced A and X, without drawing B, C, Y, or Z concerns into the matter at all (and possibly make those all moot), if both sides would just calm down, offer to compromise, exhibit a "voice of reason" attitude, and talk with each other instead of at each other. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had my fair share of politics and I don't disagree with anything that you've said, but I'm not pushing back, I just can't see the benefit of splitting one simple sentence and CT isn't helping by going off on tangents. It's hard to compromise when the other party keeps moving the goal posts. He even agreed to the proposed wording at one stage. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with any of that. But it isn't actually important for these details to be in the lead sentence. Especially since it's likely that additional sources on demographics are going to cause the exact wording of the audience description to change, and most likely lengthen. Done properly, it could even be an entire short paragraph in the lead section. If it's in the lead sentence, it's going to be a "fight to the death" magnet every time someone touches a single character in that wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  09:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, he seems to be doing everything to avoid any outcome other than total exclusion, even now having resorted to an ANI report simply because I asked discussion participants if they still felt as they did, or whether they had changed their minds. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite blunt, I don't like the heading that you gave my assessment at the discussion when you converted it to an RfC. To someone who hasn't been following the discussion it makes it look I rushed in and declared consensus during the RfC, which is not the case. What I wrote was a comment on the posts by all those who had made previous comment on wording, well before it was converted ti an RfC. I did change it to something that I felt was more appropriate,[20] butin true form, Curly Turkey reverted.[21] His edit summary is somewhat ironic given that you aren't "a neutral third party". Could you please change it because I'm not comfortable with it at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nothing was "meant" by it. I saw your rewording of it, and agreed it was better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't think you meant anything by it. The problem was only interpretation by other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna titles seastar

The Fauna Barnstar
Thanks for the big progress recently on sorting out fauna titles – and other titles, too. Keep it up. Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self on MoS copyrwriting essay

I keep meaning to do some kind of "copywriting is hard" or "MoS is mainly for gnomes" essay. This will be a good example of how much work is entailed and how much knowledge of MoS is required, to totally overhaul even a fairly short article article for MoS compliance, though the edit also did a few other things like removed a bogus reference, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll just start a running log of these:

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  last updated 09:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea where it comes from?

I was thinking (partly because I'm drafting some secondary-sourced articles on pre-modern Japanese works off-wiki in preparation for Asian Month) about how we came to allow (per guidelines like MOS:FILM and MOS:TV) plot summaries to be based on the works themselves. Virtually everyone I have discussed the issue with in fora other than MOS talk pages has expressed some degree of discomfort at Wikipedians being able to create original plot summaries, picking and choosing themselves which story elements to cover and in how much detail, just as long as they avoid explicit "analysis".

We don't seem to encourage this practice for pre-modern works like the narrative books in the Hebrew Bible. Many of our articles on Shakespeare's plays, such as the FAs Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet, contain primary-sourced plot summaries, but the latter appears to address the issue by going into excessive detail in a 1,500-word summary -- so minimizing the amount of detail that Wikipedians have chosen to leave out?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one of the many flaws of WP largely being driven by entertainment-industry fandom. For every editor working on an article about something like a classic Japanese poet, or Roman-British history, or exoplanets, there are 100 working on trivial articles about pop-culture garbage. Until WP:Notability is overhauled to restrain this, we're stuck with the effect you observe and many other side effects. On the other hand, there's nothing more stupid or frustrating than writing something like "The protagonist of the story is Joe, a football player from Weed, Texas", cited the first first page of the novel which says so, and having some asshat put a {{citation needed}} on it because they incorrectly believe that basic facts can't be taken from a primary source when the facts are about the actual contents of the source itself. So, it can't swing too far in the other direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I always look to the existence of other templates when stuff like that happens. Template:Non-primary source needed clearly implies that some stuff can be primary-sourced and that it's only certain types of information (well, most types of information, really) that shouldn't be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, the way things are now. I'm thinking ahead of consequences/fallout, if there were to be a sea-change in our treatment of sourcing about works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI comment

RE: "CT hasn't been too accepting of reason why it should at least remain in the lead section."—I've never opposed such, and I believe I actually stated during the RfC that I'd accept such a solution. Could you strike that comment? I resisted commenting on it there because ANI's not the place to discuss content disputes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can revise it. Skimming over your comments there, you'r sending mixed signals, e.g. "I'd prefer the demographics were made clear, explicit, and unambiguous elsewhere in the lead" but "I'm not alone amongst the commenters here in thinking it doesn't belong in the lead at all.".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I've written implies anything about the lead paragraph. "Elsewhere in the lead" includes the opening paragraph, and I've shown no opposition to that. Whatamidoing even suggested moving it to the second sentence, and I had no opposition to that. No mixed signals. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "nothing" except "I'm not alone amongst the commenters here in thinking it doesn't belong in the lead at all." I'm glad you're not actually opposed or on the fence about it being includable in the lead somewhere. That should make resolution much easier. Just a matter of getting AL (and anyone else hot to have it in the lead sentence) accept that idea, and all should be well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that. Given nearly his entire participation has been stonewalling and dodging, I don't expect a straight response to a proposal modelled like Whatamidoing's. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I will point out that this entire situation has arisen because Curly Turky took exception to the word "adult", which he equates with 'porn'": this is the kind of thing that makes it impossible to have a discussion with AussieLegend—he's still disputing the outcome of the RfC and taking its result as a personal affront. This goes a long to towards explaining why he will entertain no sort of compromise. Don't expect him to accept even what Whatamidoing suggested. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can't read his mind or predict his reactions, but anyone taking a he-said-she-said kind of stance on this isn't going to help resolve it. I hope that will stop, but in the end I have no control over anyone's temper but mine (and not always that one, LOL).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    he's still disputing the outcome of the RfC - Rubbish! I specifically said at ANI I was happy for the RfC closer to implement his outcome. Provide an actual draft of your proposed changes (something better than The show targets is viewed primarily by an audience of adults and teenagers" or whatever that you wrote before you said that "animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences" was fair) and we can look at it. Because you've provided no actual draft it's not possible to work with anything. Vague suggestions don't help. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion draft probably would be helpful. So many slight variants have been proposed it's hard to keep track of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rubish" indeed—the last comment at the "discussion" I responded to has you arguing that "adult animation" stood for four years supposedly without issue, therefore the problem was me (of course, more than one disputed it, as I've linked to there). You continue to dispute the outcome of the RfC, and that's the root of the current impass. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please get it into your head that I am NOT disputing the outcome of the RfC at all. The root of the current impasse is that you want to move the text out of the lead sentence but you persistently refuse to provide a draft of what you want the new text to be. If you don't explain exactly what you want, how can anyone agree to it? We have a draft of "my" proposal but not yours. Why not? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look! You're doing it again! "he didn't have a problem with 'adult' being equated with 'porn'" ... if you have an actual argument for all this stuff, and are acting in good faith, why do you keep resorting to "Curly Turkey thinks 'adult' means 'porn'"? 20:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Once again, you've avoided answering the question about the draft. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tempted to just go edit the text and see if it sticks. That approach sometimes works. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish, do you see how AussieLegend is claiming in the discussion now that I suggested including struck-out text in the article? Do you accept such an assessment as a statement of good faith? Obviously I don't—AussieLegend is doing whatever they can to disrupt the discussion with this horseshit, just as they do when claiming I believe "adult" = "porn" or by mocking me by parroting my comments ("you're avoiding answering the question", etc). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably work best for youse both to just clean-slate this. Drop all assumptions about what the other thinks, put aside the irritation, pretend neither of you have said anything about this at until right now and just state what you want the wording to be and where, don't try to predict the others' response, don't inject any kind of finger-pointing or testy language. I know that's hard, but it's unlikely that progress is going happen without it. WP:HOTHEADS might help (I wrote it about myself, FWIW).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought we'd agreed to that, but an agreement doesn't work when it's one-sided. I need to see some demonstration of good faith from AussieLegend. Claiming I suggested inserting struck text into the article is the opposite of that. That's not "disagreement"—that's messing with heads. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to see an actual draft of CT's proposal. That's all I want at this point. I'm not going to support text I haven't seen. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at this—he's sticking to his guns and insisting I suggested inserting struck-out text into the article. The striking was in resonse to a comment of yours, SMcCandlish, and I explicitly stated I was doing so—CTRL+F: "I've thus altered my proposed wording above".
    They're "not going to support a text they haven't seen", and they're not going to acknowledge having seen any text that's been presented to them. This has been going on since before the first RfC. Can we stop pretending AussieLegend is participating in good faith? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe both sides should go watch at least an hour of your favorite stand-up comic and have at least three beers in the process, then try again. Something needs to lighten the mood.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to reboot if AussieLegend is willing to revert the last two comments he made, claiming I suggested adding struck-out text to the article. There's no excusing that—no "misunderstanding" or "disagreement" resulted in those comments. A simple act of faith. What do you say, AussieLegend? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just do it – I double-dog dare ya! Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I retract the offer. Looking over the current RfC, there doesn't appear to be any chance of AL's preference reaching consensus, so his trolling isn't doing the damage he hoped for (unless his only goal was to get under my skin, which it probably was). I can't comprehend such a mentality. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You often complain about personal attacks but claiming that somebody is trolling is a personal attack in itself, as is unless his only goal was to get under my skin, which it probably was. As for what I wrote, I based that directly on what you wrote. It is true and accurate so there is no way on Earth that I am going to withdraw it. I've asked you several times now to provide a draft that we can work with and your standard response is "it's in my first comment". I looked at your first comment and what is there is flawed and incomplete. I specifically drew attention to the struck through content because that shouldn't be in a draft. What is left, Something like "The is viewed primarily by an audience of adults and teenagers" or whatever is incomplete. I explained that there is no way that "The is viewed primarily by an audience of adults and teenagers" is something that could be added to the article. It's quite obviously missing something after "The" and, as I also explained, you haven't bothered explaining where the text is supposed to fit into the article. The fact that you included "Something like" and "or whatever" clearly demonstrates that this is not a draft, it's just an idea.
    there doesn't appear to be any chance of AL's preference reaching consensus - Firstly, consensus isn't a count of votes. Secondly, let's leave the result of the RfC, which is still 29 days away, to a neutral third party. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Troll someone else, AussieLegend—I'm done with you and your games. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refrain from making personal attacks. I'm sure SMcCandlish doesn't want them on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if they're against someone I don't like, e.g. that p.o.s. who vandalized my car.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalising cars is a hanging offence IMO. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RM NACs

FWIW, because I don't want to clog the move review, my reading of WP:RMNAC is that any close of a move requires it to be taken to move review if the closer doesn't self-revert. Having been on the end of people questioning my NACs in the past, this was certainly my understanding, though I am generally open to courtesy relists/reversions if asked. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoisted by my own petard then! I guess the RM-specific rules have diverged from NAC since last I looked at them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the specifics of that page in terms of history, though RMs are now generally the most NAC friendly forum on en.wiki largely because of the extendedmover permission. Non-admins have the capacity to implement virtually any close, and can take them to WP:RM/TR if they aren't. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yar. I'm a PM myself, though I don't use it much (yet). Mostly will need it for tedious reams of template cleanup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Smartest conference slideshow of all time

Guttmann, Peter (18–23 May 2008). "Ding-ding, and Away!" (PDF). Things that Make us Stupid. AusCERT Asia Pacific Information Security Conference. Gold Coast, Australia. pp. 5–6. Retrieved 2 October 2017 – via University of Auckland.

I can think of lots of uses for this (especially from p. 5 onward, after the crypto geekery [22]).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  01:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Christian denominations

 Done

Hello! I have tried to invite more users to express their opinions on my proposal on Talk:List of Christian denominations, but am having a hard time. I suppose voices of more users are needed in order to accomplish a grounded decision there. Do you have any tips, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicbyaccident: Use {{RfC}}; that will automatically attract more people over time. You can also list it at WP:Proposed mergers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meyers Manx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aftermarket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability_(sports)

 Fixed

Hi. Seeing as you are a pretty regular commentator at these sorts of discussions, it is understandable that you might have forgotten that you already supported the proposed change at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#NSPORTS introduction. Or maybe you meant the second support to be in a different section. Thought I would just let you know. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Oh! Yeah, I forgot I'd already said something; there've been several of these SNG/GNG normalization debates lately. I combined my two !votes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input at Talk:Linda Sarsour. However, it appears that you have misinterpreted quotes taken from sources as proposed text to be added to the article. I quoted several news sources to show that Yiannopoulos and Geller were instrumental in the protest of Sarsour's CUNY speech. This would seem to be crucial in order to accurately identify the source of the protest. The secondary sources that you ask for are already linked in my comments. I would appreciate your having another look at them and revising your own comments as necessary, as I fear that the confusion may sidetrack the building of consensus on the issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and I will.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sangdeboeuf: Done. Sometimes speed-reading bites me in the buttocks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please see my further reply. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move review

 Done

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in the requested move, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal

 Done

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo#Infobox proposal. Smerus (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

You removed another user’s comment

Hi, this edit of yours removed another user’s comment. Did you intend to do that or was it a mistake? Cheers, LinguistunEinsuno 19:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional. RfAs are not a place to make random commentary on numeric coincidences that last a couple of minutes. It's no different from posting "Ooh, I had chocolate cake for breakfast" or "I wish Trump wasn't so aggressive" on that page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for explaining. LinguistunEinsuno 19:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the current practice is to refactor to the talk page, works for me. Or just revert me, but I expect one of the people who "officially" patrol RfAs to either remove or move it; happens all the time when people post off-topic noise in RfAs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if we even have a current practice, but moving it to talk is fine. Helps for posterity. LinguistunEinsuno 19:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm sure my grandchildren will study this page in detail. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn’t what I meant by “posterity”, but I couldn’t think of a better word. I didn’t even really know what posterity meant (I know, I’m entirely undeserving of my username). LinguistunEinsuno 23:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm being silly. Since this isn't someone's RfA page. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  02:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elves in fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warhammer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tulle massacre

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulle massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gram stain, gram-negative, etc. etc.

Hello! I saw your recent edit to Escherichia coli changing "gram-negative" to "Gram-negative". I know this seems like an obvious change, but of course as with most largely-unimportant technical details, the capitalization of Gram has been the source of some discussion. The U.S. CDC recommends lowercase. The American Society for Microbiology prefers uppercase. Various other groups and style-guides have taken sides as well. There was some discussion a while ago at Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria, the latter of which led to the somewhat inelegant compromise of a section titled "Orthographic note" at the relevant pages. Anyway, I think the capitalization is best considered a "stylistic choice" at this point, and so I've undone your edit to E. coli. No malice intended. If you'd like to talk more about this, I'm more than happy to do so. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: Already aware of that. WP has its own style guide, and it capitalizes eponyms, and uses capitalization consistently within the same article. Two solid reasons versus one weak one ("some journals don't capitalize it"). We can RfC it if necessary. WP goes with consistency (per MOS:ARTCON) over WP:SSF preferences, so I can predict what the outcome will be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I must say I didn't realize that. In the case of E. coli the older versions of the article definitely appear to have uppercase "Gram-negative" so I'm not sure when that was changed (and I lack the willpower to search through revisions to find out), so your reasoning per MOS:ARTCON is unimpeachable. For some other articles, the lowercase adjectival version of gram-neg/pos is the only version used in the article. For those I understand your argument for switching to the uppercase version, but could you point me to the part of WP:MOS suggesting eponyms are generally capitalized? I poked around in MOS:CAPS to no avail (unless you're looking at MOS:NAMECAPS?). Anyway, I'll use the capitalized adjectival form in the future, but I'm not sure it's worth our time to go through and correct the lowercase forms that currently exist. I certainly won't stop anyone who tries. Thanks for the note! Sorry for the original misunderstanding on my part. I hope that didn't take up too much time. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just RfC it. People are revert-warring, on confused bases, at both Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Peter Hore

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Hore. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
    • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
  • Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
  • Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of OpenBSD security features for deletion

 Done
 – Commented at the AfD.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OpenBSD security features is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenBSD security features until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Spanish Empire

 Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Spanish Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to redo the RFC.

 Done
 – Commented at the new version.

In light of the changes you made to my draft, I'm pulling the RFC and once Legobot removes it, I'll again put it up, this time including your draft, as the proposed version of the text. I'll let you know when that happens. In light of this, you may want to consider editing your response. Thanks. --Deathawk (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new version is up. --Deathawk (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello SMcCandlish:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 14:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thanks; happy All Hallows and Samhain to you as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darn revdel

Thanks. Darn revdel. I'd better change the link in the block log too. Bishonen | talk 14:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

On the possibility of an RfC on parenthetical vs comma disambiguation

Hi SMcC, I'm not sure whether we've acquainted with each other properly yet but I'm Neve-selbert and I would just like to give you my thanks straight-off-the-bat for supporting my side of the argument here, here and here. Your line of reasoning was better than mine, I must admit, and I greatly appreciated your input on the issue. On the subject of RfC however, you have said that this is such an issue that should be settled by a request for comments, which I feel inclined to agree with. I understand that you "don't care much" but if you had the time to draft a rationale for me I would really appreciate it. You certainly know your way with Wikipedia policies better than I do .--Nevé–selbert 15:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will think on it. The comment here probably has the jist or at least germ of the RfC angle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Davis

Moved to Talk:Steve Davis#World Team Classic match details

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to say thank you for your message. I have tried to reply to Betty's message on my talk page but have probably not done so correctly. It is worth spending time editing the wiki encyclopaedia but frankly it is not worth my time learning how to have arguments with other users. Ultimately the information I posted, while provably correct, is not sufficiently important for me to continue the debate. It is a shame wiki readers are denied correct information because of over-zealous wiki-police. I work in archive television and am an acknowledged expert in the field. I understand that Betty wasn't to know that, but since I do not have a history of arguments or edit wars on Wiki, I'm not entirely clear why she chose to take issue with a fact that is impossible to verify online without uploading the match on Youtube, which it isn't particularly my place to do. I regularly come across old domestic video recordings, and came across a recording of the match in question recently. I thought the information was notable as it came from Davis' golden period. I can send you an mp4 of the recording if your really want one! But since you clearly know your stuff on here, I will leave it to your judgment whether my edit it should remain or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diariser (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diariser: See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:TRUTH. "I damned well know it, and I'm a professional" isn't reliable sourcing. :-) Even Stephen Hawking, if he chose to edit here and correct our physics and astronomy articles, isn't a reliable source in and of himself, straight from his opinion or memory. Has to be published material. A TV show counts as published, but one has to be able to cite the broadcast date and the time in the program so that others, with some access to the material somehow, can verify it. A two-sided-coin consequence of this is that WP does have some incorrect information (and, more often, missing information), but the information we do have is generally much more reliable than can be found on random webpages. It's rather like the justice system and standards of legal proof. They are not perfect – some criminals walk and some innocent parties get wrongly convicted – but it works properly more than 99.9% of the time. I don't know enough about the dispute in question to know whether some version of your edit should be reinstated; I was just responding to your need to be able to cite something. A televised snooker match can be cited as a source, if it's done right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Thanks for the info, which is appreciated. Alas life's too short really to learn technicalities of how to it, it's just not worth the time! I'm just trying to add a bit to the sum of knowledge. Maybe next time I'll just put how I know in the edit summary, and leave others to decide whether to keep it in. I do of course understand that there are many peopple who will post incorrect info, but surely this kind of over-zealous policing just discourages good sources from contributing? But thanks again for your advice. Diariser (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Diariser[reply]
@Diariser: I have to repeat that "discourages good sources from contributing" isn't the right mindset; you are not a source – only published works are sources. It's important to main the distinction between editors (volunteer writers, i.e. providers of copyediting and sourcing labour) and sources (inanimate things we create citations to). No one wants to discourage productive volunteers. But adding unsourced or improperly sourced material isn't actually a net positive, even if one is certain that the info is ultimately correct, because it creates work (and often dispute) for other editors to deal with, i.e. it's a productivity drain. By way of analogy, think of a major software development project, like maybe you've been hired to work on Microsoft Word 2018. It might be an awesome idea to have Word be able to directly edit PDF files as a native format, and you might be certain this will work, and could even have developed a sandbox version that is functional. But Microsoft isn't going to integrate your major change into the finished product until it's been through rigorous processes like code documentation, internal testing and QA, alpha and beta testing with real user, and user documentation being written. There's a gulf of work between "this would be an improvement" and "this will be in x version of the finished product". It's the same here; doing WP right requires quite a lot of work, and it's very similar to a QA process.

All that said, please don't get discouraged. Figuring out how to do WP, including fiddly citation templates, and what kinds of facts need what kinds of sourcing (mostly covered at WP:NOR and WP:RS), is something that people absorb over time, usually after a lot of reverts and challenges from more experienced editors. It can be a bit of a trial by fire, or at least by tedium. Also, it's not actually required to use citation templates. You can just do a manual citation, something like <ref>Mark Selby vs John Higgins, final, session 1 (at 03:42); ''World Snooker Championship BBC 2017'' broadcast (30 April 2017); BBC Sport. Via [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIjwZFetjsA Snooker Planet] YouTube channel. Accessed 27 October 2017</ref> The {{Cite AV media}} and {{Cite episode}} templates have parameters for such details, but the templates aren't really necessary. Lots of "important" snooker stuff can be found on YouTube, including Steve Davis material [23]. It's not necessary to even have a URL, if you have something on tape or DVR, though it's probably a good idea to do a talk page post indicating that you have a recording of the show for verification, and that you verified the original broadcast date somehow. PS: You don't need to use {{Ping}} when posting on someone's own user talk page; they're auto-notified.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish:thanks. I guess what I would say is that for many people, wikipedia is not enough fun to learn the details, and if you insist on this before accepting any edits, particularly in areas which are rare and thus valuable but unverifiable sources (i.e. video recordings of old TV shows), then that will be massively discouraging. If it can just be put in the edit summary as you suggest, then that is a lot easier. Is it possible to post a screen grab on a talk page. It just occurred to me to take a screen grab of Davis at the table with the scoreboard showing he needed a snooker. Maybe that will be enough for Betty!
@Diariser: We're not supposed to use screen grabs, as a copyright matter. That's why you don't see them on our TV show, movie, and video game articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Noted, thank you. Of course I did not use it for illustrative purposes, simply for verification purposes, so could now remove it. If only I knew how!

Diariser (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: Any input? It would be nice to retain the material, especially since it involves other era greats like Eddie Charlton. It is permissible to cite TV broadcasts and recordings thereof; just need sufficient details, like original air date, and broadcaster, and time into the broadcast that the event/detail in question appears.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, to both: See Maximum break and all the video material cited in its table.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  04:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a provided a comprehensive explanation at Talk:Steve_Davis#World_Team_Classic_match_details. I think it is probably better to continue an article discussion there (it always annoys me when editors conduct article discussions on my talk page) and then other editors can join the discussion if they wish. Betty Logan (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&oldid=807751863"