User talk:SMcCandlish: Difference between revisions
Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) →Leave me alone: new section |
|||
| Line 2,311: | Line 2,311: | ||
Hello again!<br />Listening to [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06zdk01 these episodes this week] reminded me of you. Wondered if you were able to [[BBC Radio 4|access]] them in the US.<br />Cheers! <strong>— | [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]] |<small>[[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh]]</small>[[Special:Contributions/Gareth Griffith-Jones|Buzzard]]| —</strong> 14:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hello again!<br />Listening to [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06zdk01 these episodes this week] reminded me of you. Wondered if you were able to [[BBC Radio 4|access]] them in the US.<br />Cheers! <strong>— | [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]] |<small>[[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|The Welsh]]</small>[[Special:Contributions/Gareth Griffith-Jones|Buzzard]]| —</strong> 14:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Leave me alone == |
|||
On the off-chance that you actually didn't understand this the last time I told you, I'll be clearer: Leave me alone. |
|||
Don't follow me around. Don't post on my talk page. Don't presume to take credit for my productivity or anything else that I do. |
|||
If anyone had said about you one tenth of the things that you just said about me, you would be calling them a liar and insist that they stop willfully falsifying your words. Per AGF, let's say that you are just extremely bad at figuring out my motives. It's past time for you to leave me alone. I'm not your business. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 05:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:20, 28 January 2016
Status: Busy 
 | Welcome to SMcCandlish's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply. |
| Most recent poster here: Darkfrog24 (talk). |
As of 2016-01-28 , SMcCandlish is Active. 
|
 |
User talk:SMcCandlish/IP
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Old stuff to resolve eventually
Cueless billiards
UnresolvedExtended 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)
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)
|
Look at the main page
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Look at the main page --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Some more notes on Crystalate
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.[1]; info about making records:[2]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:[3]; "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[4]; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:[5]. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
|
UnresolvedExtended 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) |
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
Your Credo Reference account is approved
UnresolvedExtended content
|
|---|
|
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Circa
UnresolvedExtended 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)
|
You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright
UnresolvedExtended 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)
|
Hee Haw
UnresolvedExtended 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)
|
One of the reasons gardens are walled
Unresolved'We really need an "intro to Wikipedia for academic and professional experts" guide....Still do! Good potential project!
Extended content
|
|---|
Looking at Montanabw's reaction, I think sometimes you fail to look through the eyes of the editors in a narrow field, and end up with enemies instead of friends. I actually left off editing horse articles years ago because of the controversies, and the hammering out of consensus in that project has been decidedly non-trivial. It's important to remember that a local optimum is always optimal, locally, and that getting to a global optimum can involve considerable work, work that many editors thought they had already done. To me, the best way to start out is always "Here are some more general issues I perceive; I see that you do things differently. How can I help you deal with your problems in a way that will meet my goals?" In the case of the bird folks, this probably wouldn't have worked, but I think It's always a good place to start.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
|
- You're right that my cleanup efforts have not been efficient when it comes to horses. (They have been in other areas, including donkeys, with direct cooperation from Montanabw, curiously enough, and in domestic cats, among others.) It is difficult to predict what projects will find article naming and categorization cleanup controversial, and on what points.
I understand the WP:RANDY problem, but I'm not part of it; WP:Manual of Style/organisms could not have been written by a Randy. One problem to me is that too many alleged experts treat everyone who disagrees with them about anything as a Randy, often very insultingly so. And by no means is every editor who claims expertise actually an expert; many, especially in biology projects, are simply fanciers, and others may have studied zoology or botany as an undergraduate, but that's it. I have a degree in cultural anthropology, but would never call myself an expert in that field. Large numbers of, e.g., WP:BIRDS editors don't even have that level of qualification, but will fight to the death to get their way on capitalization (and on a faulty basis – they continually claim that the fact that bird field guides capitalize common names means that the mainstream publishing world is honoring the IOU's convention, when in reality all field guides on everything have always capitalized this way, as ease-of-rapid-scanning emphasis, since at least the 1800s, long before IOU even existed; it's a coincidence, and they know this but pretend this fact was never raised.
Another related issue is that WP:Competence is required – not just competence in a particular field, but online community competence to work collaboratively toward consensus. Not all academics have this, and many are extremely competitive and debatory. Sometimes the only thing to do is not care if this sort leave the project (or even be happy that they've gone). The vast majority of expert editors are a boon to the project, but being such an expert is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card in Wiki-opoly. As one example, several years ago, one alleged (and probable) expert on albinism was extremely disruptive at the page that is now Albinism in humans. He considered himself [writing live; I don't mean peer-reviewed joural articles he'd written] to be a reliable source, and basically refused to do the leg-work to provide source citations for the material he wanted to add, nor to show that material he wanted to remove was obsolete or otherwise wrong. I bent over backwards to try to get him to understand WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, but he just would not listen. Myself and others kept having to prevent him from making the well-source if imperfect article a mostly unsourced mess, and he eventually left the project is "disgust" at other editors' "stupidity", much to a lot of people's relief. The article today is very well sourced and stable (aside from frequent "ALBINOESES LOOK STOOPID" vandalism). The disruptive expert's absence was a boon. I feel the same way about WP:DIVA expert editors who threaten wiki-retirement, WP boycotts, editing strikes, mass editorial walkouts and other WP:POINTy nonsense. We all know that in reality academics have zero problem adapting to in-house style guides of whatever venue they're writing for. Pretending that doing it on WP is onerous is a abuse of WP as massively-multiplayer online debate game.
We really need an "intro to Wikipedia for academic and professional experts" guide, to help prevent incoming specialists from falling into such pitfall patterns (not to mention the one identified at WP:SSF). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're right that my cleanup efforts have not been efficient when it comes to horses. (They have been in other areas, including donkeys, with direct cooperation from Montanabw, curiously enough, and in domestic cats, among others.) It is difficult to predict what projects will find article naming and categorization cleanup controversial, and on what points.
- Just wanted to let you know that I did read this, started an unproductive reply, and then decided I needed to think about it a while.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Curtis Clark: It's a been a while, but I thought I'd get back to you about this. If I resume editing, I may in fact try to draft an "intro to Wikipedia for academic and professional experts" guide. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia might be good enough. Didn't know that existed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just wanted to let you know that I did read this, started an unproductive reply, and then decided I needed to think about it a while.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Kinda old stuff to sort through
Tlg module
UnresolvedI've recreated (some of) {{tlg}} in Lua w/ a shorthand here -- it works 86% percent of the time! Anyway, this way should be easier to maintain, and we'll still have a shorter syntax if the tl-whatever tpls get deleted. If you like the idea, then maybe we can pitch it at tlg's talk page or wherever. If not, then oh well. — lfdder 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Lfdder: Cool beans! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Lfdder:: The temples were kept, marginally, but I agree that the Lua route you were working on is ultimately a better way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Redundant sentence?
UnresolvedThe 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)
- 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.
- 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[8], and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
- 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)
- Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
- 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)
- Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
code vs. tt
Resolved{{Block indent}}.I could say that insisting on the use of <code> rather than <tt> is an example of an un-necessary, if not fallacious, specialist style. :-) I ought to be guilty of it, since I used to teach HTML! I confess that I use "tt" because it saves typing... Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Heehaw! I'm a stickler for HTML semantic purity whenever possible (which reminds me I need to fork
{{bq}}into a div-based block indenter for non-quotations). I try not to make edits like that unless I'm making other ones at the same time and throw them in as an afterthought, on the same basis that just futzing with things like[[chicken|chick]]->[[Chicken|chick]]is considered objectionable by some. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)- Update:
<tt>no longer exists in HTML5. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Update:
- Forgot to update this item: The non-blockquote block indenter is at
{{Block indent}}. Turns out to be pretty useful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
UnresolvedI'm in an intro to archaeological theory class, and a friend pointed out that there's no article on Sally Binford. I don't have the sources to write anything more than a one-line stub... would you have anything? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not right at hand. Have archaeology text books in a box somewhere. I wonder if anyone's written a biography book about her? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not that I can find. Information on her seems to be extremely sparse.[9] There's all of one mention of her in the Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- [tps] So that would establish notability at least? Curiously, before I looked at that link closely, I did a similar search of gbooks but without the quotation marks [10] that turns up her date of death as 1993 by suicide [11] (and hmm, "an explicit movie about elderly sexuality in 1974 titled 'A ripple in time'".) In addition, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned Oxford Companion yields "in addition to his academic publications, a key role in the formation of New Archaeology group identity was the symposium organized in 1965 by Lewis and Sally Binford at the American Anthropological Association in Denver (Binford and Binford 1968...)[12]. (Also he had six marriages, which is at least 3 or 4 too many, but I don't suppose you can put that in.) And from the 1996 edition "Lewis Binford and Sally Binford also conducted an analysis of variability in Mousterian chipped-stone artifacts; their work touched off heated debates that rage to this day. Although further research has undermined the findings of some ..." [13]. Buckets of notability. And three sentences at least. [Tiptoeing out now....] —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's enough probably to establish notability. I find plenty of other stuff with Google "Sally+Binford"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, like a Northwest Archaeology article, an interview, etc., just on first page of results. She's co-notable for all the notable work she's credited as doing with Lewis. He's the more famous of the two, but they're often referred to as a pair, like Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy, or Marie & Pierre Curie. I don't know loads and loads about her, but I'd be surprised if she's not individually credited on various papers and such. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- My professor today, although I don't know his sources, says that she was far more influential than it appears, but a combination of old-fashioned sexism and the popularity of Lewis combined to keep her from many history books. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's enough probably to establish notability. I find plenty of other stuff with Google "Sally+Binford"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, like a Northwest Archaeology article, an interview, etc., just on first page of results. She's co-notable for all the notable work she's credited as doing with Lewis. He's the more famous of the two, but they're often referred to as a pair, like Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy, or Marie & Pierre Curie. I don't know loads and loads about her, but I'd be surprised if she's not individually credited on various papers and such. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- [tps] So that would establish notability at least? Curiously, before I looked at that link closely, I did a similar search of gbooks but without the quotation marks [10] that turns up her date of death as 1993 by suicide [11] (and hmm, "an explicit movie about elderly sexuality in 1974 titled 'A ripple in time'".) In addition, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned Oxford Companion yields "in addition to his academic publications, a key role in the formation of New Archaeology group identity was the symposium organized in 1965 by Lewis and Sally Binford at the American Anthropological Association in Denver (Binford and Binford 1968...)[12]. (Also he had six marriages, which is at least 3 or 4 too many, but I don't suppose you can put that in.) And from the 1996 edition "Lewis Binford and Sally Binford also conducted an analysis of variability in Mousterian chipped-stone artifacts; their work touched off heated debates that rage to this day. Although further research has undermined the findings of some ..." [13]. Buckets of notability. And three sentences at least. [Tiptoeing out now....] —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not that I can find. Information on her seems to be extremely sparse.[9] There's all of one mention of her in the Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Saw your note on Women in Red. She looks fascinating. I had never heard of her. This blog, though probably not useable as a source gives a pretty detailed account of her life and the fact that Binford was only a small part of it. The whole controversy over François Bordes which later erupted gets a whole new light, when you realize Sally had a pre-existing working relationship with him. There are also tons of people and places mentioned here that would help in locating sources about her. She definitely should have an article. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Just realized I didn't give you the blog link, sorry Susie Bright's blog SusunW (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Current threads
<Throws up hands>
In all seriousness, I'm at a loss to know what to do [16]. Is he being intentionally clueless? Since he doesn't seem to understand at all what's happened or what the plan is, I hesitate to resume work for fear he'll start another round of reverting anything not previously discussed. EEng (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it. I think it's just a case of WP:LASTWORD (which you seem prone to yourself; I am as well, so I'd recognize it). This appears conciliatory, and can be taken as a promise to not be obstructionist: '
Anyway, I look forward to your new proposal on the the edits that most of us already agreed (Discussion of individual edits (2)).
' I really think there's not a lot of re-re-re-debate. Of the 12-point list that was pored over, I think we all know what is good to go with. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)- I didn't make myself clear. You may not be aware that, after JS simply went silent for several days during discussion of the famous "12", I (foolishly) assumed he'd wandered off elsewhere, and so continued what I was doing with another 60 or so edits (listed here [17]). Now, I want to be clear: when I've installed the modified set of 12, as so endlessly discussed, is it your opinion I'm supposed to enumerate and justify the next 60 things I propose doing? I feel foolish even asking that, because we both know the answer is No, but I fear he's just gonna repeat his past behavior of reverting and demanding explanations of why each change is "necessary". EEng (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, multiple editors thought many of your changes were good and that mass-reverting them wasn't helpful. I expect he's learned from that. But I also expect you've learned from the experience too: None of your edits in that batch were unanimously supported, and some were supported by no one. I'm skeptical that that page needs another 60 edits any time soon, and beyond skeptical that more than some under-50 percentage of them would meet with consensus. I'm a huge fan of WP:BOLD even when it comes to policypages, but they're not articles, and sweeping changes to them tends to be viewed as disruptive. It's better to take a few at a time and let people adjust to and refine (and sometimes reject) them.
If I could simply "get away with" rewriting MOS my way, it would change in way more than 60 places. But MOS's function isn't to reflect what I want it to say, but what the community needs it to say. Some "rules" in it that I really hate, as a writing style, are better for WP's needs than what I'd prefer. Some are just accepted for better or worse, and changing them won't have a positive effect that outweighs the negative of a zillion pages having to change to comply with them. Some advice I see as missing doesn't need to be added (in a few rare cases it does). I've mostly learned to make a spate of copyedits that do not in any way change the meaning only the facility of the wording, and let those sit a while. Then make a substantive change (usually an addition) by itself, and let people chew on it, for a week or longer even, then do some pure copyedits. When you mix in substantive changes in a series of copyedits (as J-S did recently, hyper-compressing stuff and moving something, and losing some points in the process, in the middle of implementing some of the things that gained consensus on the talk page) it triggers concerns and confusion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not learn that many of my edits weren't universally supported, because there was nothing to learn: I expected in advance that that would happen, at least here and there, since I'm new to /Linking and not tuned in to some of the hard-fought subtleties of phrasing, so that what I intended to be equivalent but tighter (or better-organized) direction to the reader turned out to have subtle substantive implications. But I also expected that would be ironed out through others fixing and building-upon, not obstructionist mass reverting. If you step through a few of "the 60" I linked in my last post you'll see that's the intent there as well (and, of course, I did it in discrete bite-size bits) so I hope we will be able to continue with fix-and-build-on-but-rarely-revert for those too. I did those 60 over about three or four days, with no objection, so I figured I must be doing something right. Then of course the "silent majority" (JS, Albino), having said nothing all that time, showed up to mass-revert again.
- BTW, it's apparent JS did expect yet another "proposal" for the 12 (see [18] -- I'm guessing he watches this page) so I still have a bad feeling he's going to demand pre-discussion on everything new after the 12 are in and settled; let's wait and see how the 12 go first. And Crikey, what a comedy of errors [19] followed by [20] EEng (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Meh. Consensus is consensus. If we'd already agreed some stuff is going in, lets put it in. The recent revert of someone in good faith restoring stuff that some of which is what we actually want, is not helpful. Drawing this out any longer will seem WP:POINTy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- C'mon -- I reverted JS' monolithic reinsertion because it was confusing to such an extent that Flyer re-inserted duplicate material on top of it, thinking something had been deleted that had actually merely been moved -- remember? [21] I'd like to avoid a repeat of anything like that, so I'd like to do it myself. After a month of prevent-bad-changes-at-all-costs obstruction, now he's a bull in a china shop. Just in the last few days he's been babbling about more proposals, then changing his mind, then... It's exhausting just reading his posts. Saints preserve us! EEng (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Noted, but every minute we argue about how things should go or could have gone is time we're not spending editing. It's time to start inserting the consensus changes. I see one was inserted already (and I typo-corrected it). Good start. Let's proceed. It doesn't matter who insert the does-have-consensus change, or in what order; let's just get it done, just not in a confusing mass dump. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- How do talented people such as we let ourselves get lured into the ridiculous time-sinks? In 24 hours I shall swing into action. Thanks for your help. EEng (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus doesn't have to wait for you, though. It's reasonable for others to add in some of the material in question without your "permission". :-) I'll look for attempts to alter what was agreed upon, if someone adds more of it, and if I'm around to notice. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh for heaven's sake, OWN has nothing to do with it. I'd just rather there were no more screwups to attract more sleeping reverters (a la poor innocent Flyer). I'd have done it days ago if Mr. UnclearOnTheConcept hadn't continued to imply he wanted more "proposals". He keeps his foot firmly on the brakes for a month, then suddenly floors it and runs the thing into a tree. EEng (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- My point is that "wait, I want to do it my way" isn't something anyone else is obligated to abide by, and the more you demand that people wait, yet don't actually do anything, the less likely anyone is to keep waiting. I.e. "get on with it". It's not important whether J-S's edit was great or terrible. You've made a production about wanting to do this just so. As Granddad used to say: "Shit, or get off the pot." Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- (It's 4:15am where I am and I just got up to complete a report for work...) Excuse me, but asking for 48 hours because of IRL responsibilities [22] -- that's not a "big production". And IRL only became an issue for me because, after I proposed [23] "What I'd like to do is reinstall the changes we all seem agreed upon, then continue from there, but more slowly this time, with other editors modifying, fixing, and (where necessary) reverting in a targeted way. Are we all on board with this?", it took a week for JS to, um, get on board. And re your comment to PBS, I already got his/her bullshit AE notificiation (User_talk:EEng#WP:LINK) and responded in detail; of course, PBS took no notice at all of anything I said. I appreciate your calming influence but please stop cutting the baby in half. I'm nothing like JS and I'm not gaming -- for a month I've just wanted him to quit his obstructionism. EEng (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Missing the point: Consensus is consensus, so it's entirely reasonable for any editor to make the edits that consensus agreed should be made. There is no obligation for people to wait for you to do it just because you want to be the one to do it, so the faster you get it going the more likely it is to go the way you want. The time you've spent arguing with me on my talk page and making out-of-band complaints about J-S, is all time that could have been spent adding one of the consensus-agreed changes to MOSLIST, to demonstrate progress and assuage concerns that you're stalling for some reason. ARBATC DS notices are not "bullshit", they're a signal you need to take it down a notch. Too many of your posts are about the editor not the edit, and laced with invective, accusations, sarcasm, baiting, and extraneous grousing. If you have an actual editor behavior complaint to make against J-S, please take it to ANI and (to return to the same theme again) just get it over with; don't cloud MOS talk pages with it perpetually, please. Just accept this constructive criticism in the way it's intended and move on. This being my own talk page, you're unlikely to get the last word here. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not looking for the last word, rather looking for an indication that, should JS restarts his obstructionist nonsense you'll understand what's really going on. As recently as two days ago he was still playing the naif wanting "proposals" for everything [24], and I came here for reassurance you wouldn't stand by while I got shot down again. You and I now seem caught in a loop in which you keep telling me to go as fast as possible, and I keep telling you to please give me the 48 hours I asked for (because of IRL entanglements), well, 45 hours ago. I'm very careful about a high-visibility pages like this and want to be sure at each step, lest I get accused of something else. My first step is to assemble all the commentary so I can be sure not to miss anyone's thoughts on each edit (see User:EEng/sandbox). EEng (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. You need to stop making snide comments about other editors, like "he was still playing the naif" (which is both name-calling and insinuation of a motivation or mental process about which you do not have any facts obtained through mind-reading magic). If you do not stop it, especially with regard to MOS topics, one admin or another will block you or topic ban you. See WP:ACDS for how this works; it does not require an ANI case, but can be imposed unilaterally. I am not telling you to go as fast as possible. I already agreed that step-wise changes would be the best approach. But no-changes is not a good approach, and other editors may proceed to move on without you (doesn't mean I will, but two already have, and if you revert a third one, that probably won't go over well). Your IRL entanglements cannot be so great you can't insert one of the consensus-agreed edits, to demonstrate some progress in moving forward; we know this because you're on Wikipedia right now, for a several-hour stretch, spending an even greater amount of time and brainpower arguing with me over common-sense things I asked you not to argue further with me about. Are we done now? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- What I've been putting my brainpower into is matching up different people's comments in that insane discussion (there were at least two different numberings 1-12) to see what people thought they were actually agreeing or disagreeing on. In at least some places it looks like people were talking about two different things without realizing it. I figured this was going on, and that's the main reason I wanted to take some concentrated time to be sure everyone was happy. I have to quit for tonight, but stay tuned. EEng (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. You need to stop making snide comments about other editors, like "he was still playing the naif" (which is both name-calling and insinuation of a motivation or mental process about which you do not have any facts obtained through mind-reading magic). If you do not stop it, especially with regard to MOS topics, one admin or another will block you or topic ban you. See WP:ACDS for how this works; it does not require an ANI case, but can be imposed unilaterally. I am not telling you to go as fast as possible. I already agreed that step-wise changes would be the best approach. But no-changes is not a good approach, and other editors may proceed to move on without you (doesn't mean I will, but two already have, and if you revert a third one, that probably won't go over well). Your IRL entanglements cannot be so great you can't insert one of the consensus-agreed edits, to demonstrate some progress in moving forward; we know this because you're on Wikipedia right now, for a several-hour stretch, spending an even greater amount of time and brainpower arguing with me over common-sense things I asked you not to argue further with me about. Are we done now? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not looking for the last word, rather looking for an indication that, should JS restarts his obstructionist nonsense you'll understand what's really going on. As recently as two days ago he was still playing the naif wanting "proposals" for everything [24], and I came here for reassurance you wouldn't stand by while I got shot down again. You and I now seem caught in a loop in which you keep telling me to go as fast as possible, and I keep telling you to please give me the 48 hours I asked for (because of IRL entanglements), well, 45 hours ago. I'm very careful about a high-visibility pages like this and want to be sure at each step, lest I get accused of something else. My first step is to assemble all the commentary so I can be sure not to miss anyone's thoughts on each edit (see User:EEng/sandbox). EEng (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Missing the point: Consensus is consensus, so it's entirely reasonable for any editor to make the edits that consensus agreed should be made. There is no obligation for people to wait for you to do it just because you want to be the one to do it, so the faster you get it going the more likely it is to go the way you want. The time you've spent arguing with me on my talk page and making out-of-band complaints about J-S, is all time that could have been spent adding one of the consensus-agreed changes to MOSLIST, to demonstrate progress and assuage concerns that you're stalling for some reason. ARBATC DS notices are not "bullshit", they're a signal you need to take it down a notch. Too many of your posts are about the editor not the edit, and laced with invective, accusations, sarcasm, baiting, and extraneous grousing. If you have an actual editor behavior complaint to make against J-S, please take it to ANI and (to return to the same theme again) just get it over with; don't cloud MOS talk pages with it perpetually, please. Just accept this constructive criticism in the way it's intended and move on. This being my own talk page, you're unlikely to get the last word here. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh for heaven's sake, OWN has nothing to do with it. I'd just rather there were no more screwups to attract more sleeping reverters (a la poor innocent Flyer). I'd have done it days ago if Mr. UnclearOnTheConcept hadn't continued to imply he wanted more "proposals". He keeps his foot firmly on the brakes for a month, then suddenly floors it and runs the thing into a tree. EEng (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus doesn't have to wait for you, though. It's reasonable for others to add in some of the material in question without your "permission". :-) I'll look for attempts to alter what was agreed upon, if someone adds more of it, and if I'm around to notice. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- How do talented people such as we let ourselves get lured into the ridiculous time-sinks? In 24 hours I shall swing into action. Thanks for your help. EEng (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Noted, but every minute we argue about how things should go or could have gone is time we're not spending editing. It's time to start inserting the consensus changes. I see one was inserted already (and I typo-corrected it). Good start. Let's proceed. It doesn't matter who insert the does-have-consensus change, or in what order; let's just get it done, just not in a confusing mass dump. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- C'mon -- I reverted JS' monolithic reinsertion because it was confusing to such an extent that Flyer re-inserted duplicate material on top of it, thinking something had been deleted that had actually merely been moved -- remember? [21] I'd like to avoid a repeat of anything like that, so I'd like to do it myself. After a month of prevent-bad-changes-at-all-costs obstruction, now he's a bull in a china shop. Just in the last few days he's been babbling about more proposals, then changing his mind, then... It's exhausting just reading his posts. Saints preserve us! EEng (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Meh. Consensus is consensus. If we'd already agreed some stuff is going in, lets put it in. The recent revert of someone in good faith restoring stuff that some of which is what we actually want, is not helpful. Drawing this out any longer will seem WP:POINTy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, multiple editors thought many of your changes were good and that mass-reverting them wasn't helpful. I expect he's learned from that. But I also expect you've learned from the experience too: None of your edits in that batch were unanimously supported, and some were supported by no one. I'm skeptical that that page needs another 60 edits any time soon, and beyond skeptical that more than some under-50 percentage of them would meet with consensus. I'm a huge fan of WP:BOLD even when it comes to policypages, but they're not articles, and sweeping changes to them tends to be viewed as disruptive. It's better to take a few at a time and let people adjust to and refine (and sometimes reject) them.
- I didn't make myself clear. You may not be aware that, after JS simply went silent for several days during discussion of the famous "12", I (foolishly) assumed he'd wandered off elsewhere, and so continued what I was doing with another 60 or so edits (listed here [17]). Now, I want to be clear: when I've installed the modified set of 12, as so endlessly discussed, is it your opinion I'm supposed to enumerate and justify the next 60 things I propose doing? I feel foolish even asking that, because we both know the answer is No, but I fear he's just gonna repeat his past behavior of reverting and demanding explanations of why each change is "necessary". EEng (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- NB: If you keep throwing up hands, stop eating them. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Remember the truce
We do have a truce, or so I thought. I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down the personal attacks on the race (biology) article. I made the proposal in good faith, just because I have a difference of opinion with you does not mean that I'm being any of the things you accused me of over there. My motives are simple. You apparently missed the earlier party at this which resulted in this. I'm not fond of racism, particularly white supremacism, however masked behind quasi-scientific or quasi-philosophical "debate." I have about zero patience with people like that and I think the article is just bait for this sort of thing. You are, of course, welcome to disagree. But cracks like "The nom needs to just accept her own unfamiliarity with the topic, and drop it," (as if the reader does not exist) and a link to Shrew (archetype) is WAY out of line. Montanabw(talk) 08:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Splitting this into separate subthreads. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
On the personality dispute
Seems to be resolved.
|
|---|
|
Opposition is not an attack, but fine; I made my point there, you made yours, no need to belabor it. I thought we had a truce, too, but you're returning to the tactics you used in trying initially to get rid of the Landrace article. I think it's understandable that this set off some red-flags. I did not accuse you of bad faith; it's just this WP:ICANTHEARYOU thing, ignoring everything that doesn't mesh with where you've already decided this should go. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Ironically, my work on that article was to convert it to something factual and properly sourced, about a literary motif, from what bordered on a sexist attack stub that suggested that the stereotype of the "shrew" is not only an objectively identifiable type of person (which it's not) but an archetype (!!!). Seriously, read its talk page, where someone hell-bent on defending this take tendentiously derailed the RM to Shrew (stock character). I'll be re-proposing that move soon, now that I've rewritten it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
On the article
I didn't miss anything there. I'm the one who went thru every single discussion on that page and archived the resolved ones, specifically to shunt away old invective that might induce more trolling! That #Social_concept one is resolved; the social "concept" (construct) material has all long been moved to Race (human classification) where it belongs. We can't document how the concept was distorted by racists if the very page on the topic is "disappeared". The drama engendered by efforts to wish the page away has been so draining I'm not going to have much enthusiasm for doing that work any time soon, but I'll at least try to rework it in the short term to be narrowly tailored.Mycology and bacteriology haven't abandoned the taxon yet, but even if they had it would still be an encyclopedic topic (as at least 4 other editors have pointed out in that discussion, for the same reason), documenting the facts of its former usage and why it's been increasingly abandoned. If it helps, I pledge that as long as I'm around I will watchlist that page and revert racist bullshit if people try to add any. And if that page didn't exist, watchlisted by scientific minds sharply limiting the scope to the use of the word in biological taxonomy and its decline, and shunting social construct material to the other article which is well-watchlisted, trolls would just create a much worse page, mix-and-matching stuff to try to construct a case that a biological basis for human "races" is plausible, starting the debate all over again. There are a dozen different ways to write a pseudo-article like that, so it would keep getting re-generated in different form. By having this article instead, we're curtailing their ability to go that route, by filling the "race in taxonomy" niche, so that POVforks get nuked. If the niche is empty, there's no forbidden forking, just room to write craftily constructed POV crap that might be hard to get rid of at AfD. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
seems to be resolved
|
|---|
|
- Of Interest: [25] Bernstein's comments about that article are a more articulate expression of concerns similar to those I've had on the article in question. Montanabw(talk) 22:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll have a look-see. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Interestingly (though not surprisingly given my left–right centrism on many political issues), I actually agree with both Bernstein and Blackford, simultaneously. See the lead item on my userpage. Blackford is absolutely right that external "forces" (on all sides, including the far left) are misusing WP as a political propaganda platform, and I consider this the #1 issue facing WP's future. I've been saying this in various forums here for at least 5 years. In that particular case, Bernstein is also correct that the article in question was a nonsense job. The key statement, to me, in AfD#2 on that article is this one: 'A few books have been cited as using the phrase "cultural Marxism", but none of them support the existence of a school of thought called "Cultural Marxism".' The issue with that article was the fallacy of equivocation at work, substituting one meaning for a term in place of another. The race-in-taxonomy article is a different case, though it could be manipulated in that wrong direction. Real sciences really have used "race" as a real taxon, essentially to mean "sub-sub-species"; the difference is that no reliable sources have actually used "cultural Marxism" to really mean a real school of thought or socio-political movement called "Cultural Marxism"; it's a manipulative fiction. The manipulative fiction at work in taxomony has been the extension of the idea of sub-sub-specific taxonomic categorization to humans; modern genetic research has proven that it's a cultural construct, i.e. a fiction. (As an anthropologist by training, the reason for this is obvious to me: Human move around and interbreed much more freely than most species, and have been doing so since tens of thousands of years before written history. Even if we could have been classified this way during, say, the last Ice Age, it's definitely not true today). The place where b.s. arguments about a biological basis for human races is happening is at what is now Race (human classification) (which I'm RM'ing to Race (human categorization); you'll probably have an interest in that RM). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll look at the RM, hope that spat doesn't wind up at arbcom... sigh. I'm all for finding areas where we can find common ground. It's rather surprising that two people with center-left leanings still spat as much as you and I. I do agree that POV-pushing is a huge problem on WP, stuff like the stealth edits by the Chinese government on articles such as Dalai Lama are another example. However, another huge problem - sometimes propagated by the POV-pushers, but not always - is the simple trolling and general meanness - the infobox wars being one example (one still only tries to add an infobox to a classical music article with great caution for risk of having one's head ripped off and being beaten with it... sigh). Well, TTFN Montanabw(talk) 04:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- ArbCom: Well, for a dispute like the "cultural Marxism" one some intervention might have been useful, but I bet they'd've turned it down as it's more of a content dispute than a behavioral one. And it'll probably be back. I stay far away from classical music articles because of that infobox thing and certain other WP:OWN patterns. In the end, I think the "don't you dare put an infobox on one of our articles" camp will lose their war, since there's a general site-wide consensus that infoboxes are useful, and this consensus becomes increasingly inescapable the more and more our userbase percentage shifts to frequent mobile browsing (during which most users don't read anything but the infobox, unless looking for some detail). At some point, as with WikiData and much else, it probably makes sense to fork the infoboxes into an external process, and have it purposely optimized for mobile use.
Anyway, I agree on finding common ground. It's easy to let a temper flare-up lead to obstinacy (I find it helps to write the angry version, to blow the steam off, and post something more measured instead). A large percentage of the cases at ANI are people angry at each other over words and attitudes, while the central issue at whatever article they're fighting over is actually resolvable by some better writing and sourcing. This is one of the reasons I've sworn off ANI (much less AE) actions unless faced with someone who has a clear external agenda to promote some -ism, or who is in some other way WP:NOTHERE for encyclopedia writing. I used WP:AE last year to deal with some anti-[one ethnicity or another] PoV-warrior, letting WP:ARBAA2 disputes spill over into, of all places, the Van cat article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Someone is indeed working on infoboxes. See mediawikiwiki:Extension:Capiunto, being written by Hoo, who happens to be a Wikidata dev. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- A Plan of Goodness +5. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Someone is indeed working on infoboxes. See mediawikiwiki:Extension:Capiunto, being written by Hoo, who happens to be a Wikidata dev. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- ArbCom: Well, for a dispute like the "cultural Marxism" one some intervention might have been useful, but I bet they'd've turned it down as it's more of a content dispute than a behavioral one. And it'll probably be back. I stay far away from classical music articles because of that infobox thing and certain other WP:OWN patterns. In the end, I think the "don't you dare put an infobox on one of our articles" camp will lose their war, since there's a general site-wide consensus that infoboxes are useful, and this consensus becomes increasingly inescapable the more and more our userbase percentage shifts to frequent mobile browsing (during which most users don't read anything but the infobox, unless looking for some detail). At some point, as with WikiData and much else, it probably makes sense to fork the infoboxes into an external process, and have it purposely optimized for mobile use.
- I'll look at the RM, hope that spat doesn't wind up at arbcom... sigh. I'm all for finding areas where we can find common ground. It's rather surprising that two people with center-left leanings still spat as much as you and I. I do agree that POV-pushing is a huge problem on WP, stuff like the stealth edits by the Chinese government on articles such as Dalai Lama are another example. However, another huge problem - sometimes propagated by the POV-pushers, but not always - is the simple trolling and general meanness - the infobox wars being one example (one still only tries to add an infobox to a classical music article with great caution for risk of having one's head ripped off and being beaten with it... sigh). Well, TTFN Montanabw(talk) 04:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Please stop
You now have more edits to this RFA than the candidate does. I believe you have expressed your opinion about the candidate quite well, even eloquently; now it is time to move on. Thank you. Risker (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Risker: I object to your "Please stop" tone, which should be reserved for WP:DE. I find your singling me out here to be interesting, given my outspoken comments very recently at WT:BARC (where your own participation is, amusingly, similar to mine at this RfA). I'm hardly the only one at that particular RfA discussing the criteria that people are, well, discussing, and whether they're valid; I don't see a similar demand from you on the talk page of, e.g., Inks.LWC. It's business-as-usual for questionable criteria to be discussed at RFAs, especially if they're made in opposition to the candidate. The rapidity with which the candidate is making their own responses (which in this case is frankly rather slowly) has no bearing on how quickly others may comment. All that said, I've removed one of my comments in that subthread, as it pertains only to the commenters and not the candidate. I think that's more than sufficient to address any concern you have. I have as much right to clarify my own posts and ask the candidate a question as anyone else does. I also think it's perfectly appropriate to address the issue when someone appears to be treating the candidate negatively simply for being honest, as this erodes the already shoddy and failing RFA system even further. If you think I'm being unreasonable in any way, you know where WP:ANI is. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, SMcCandlish. And here I thought "Please stop" was a polite way to address you; sorry that I have offended you. I didn't single you out because of anything other than the fact that you're the only editor with more posts to the RFA than the candidate (10 in the approximately 18 hours since the RFA opened). Perhaps you might want to reconsider your standards for responding to questions; the candidate has responded to five additional questions already within that 18 hour span. Giving advance thought to RFA questions before responding is not necessarily a weak point. I'm taking my time considering his response to my question, and I hope you do not think that I'm going too slowly. At the end of the day, one important goal of the RFA system is that candidates (whether successful or not) continue to believe that they are valued members of the community.
I have not closely followed your activity at RFA; perhaps you can tell me if being questioned about the criteria you used to determine a vote about a candidate resulted in your changing your vote. (I know it happens occasionally with some editors, but it does seem to be quite infrequent.) If your !vote was questioned, how did it make you feel? I differentiate from occasions when someone may have asked for clarification of some aspect of your vote. No matter what changes are made with respect to RFA, it will always be a stressful time for candidates. Our job as voters is to give our honest assessment of the candidate (with evidence if applicable or asked), and not allow ourselves to get into debates about other people's assessments. That too is part of RFA reform. Risker (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Risker: OK. Maybe I'm being over-sensitive. But "please stop" is what a lot of editors use as the heading or first words of a last attempt to get a point across before filing an ANI grievance, and they're the lead-in words of a lot of the
{{uw-InsertTransgressionHere}}warning templates. :-/ I get your point about advance thought; relates to why I self-moderated with a deletion of one of my comments; more thought before posting would have obviated that post. I think my<del>-and-<ins>self-correction of one of my posts there indicates that I do in fact take seriously others' objections to the validity of a concern I raised (though it wasn't in my !vote, I suppose). I have changed my mind at RfA before, and at various XfDs, based on others' observations and counters. I don't mind people questioning my rationales (with a counter-rationale, not just venting). I find the frequency with which people at RfA in particular respond to such points with an "I can vote any damned way I want" attitude to be unhelpful to anything, even if I'd also agree RfAs shouldn't be treated as discussion boards about extraneous issues (thus, again, my self-deletion).RFA reform and discouraging interleaved commentary: It would need to be applied consistently, e.g. no cross-talk allowed at all, except on the talk page or in a discussion section below the voting sections. A site-wide standard for this that also applied to XfDs, RMs, RfCs, noticeboards, etc., would probably be helpful, and we're moving that way slowly in a de facto shift to using ===Discussion=== sections below !voting ===Comments=== sections. A potential problem with this is that it won't do much to stop dog-piling; someone "influential" can post something utterly stupid, and garner a lot of "me too" parroting from their entourage, without any of them noting well-reasoned objections in the ===Discussion=== section (and this kind of "influence" often has little to do with how reasonable the person is, but simply based on wikipolitics). Maybe a standard template one could insert, that produced
This rationale has been challenged in the [[#Discussion]] section. ~~~~would work. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Risker: OK. Maybe I'm being over-sensitive. But "please stop" is what a lot of editors use as the heading or first words of a last attempt to get a point across before filing an ANI grievance, and they're the lead-in words of a lot of the
- Hello, SMcCandlish. And here I thought "Please stop" was a polite way to address you; sorry that I have offended you. I didn't single you out because of anything other than the fact that you're the only editor with more posts to the RFA than the candidate (10 in the approximately 18 hours since the RFA opened). Perhaps you might want to reconsider your standards for responding to questions; the candidate has responded to five additional questions already within that 18 hour span. Giving advance thought to RFA questions before responding is not necessarily a weak point. I'm taking my time considering his response to my question, and I hope you do not think that I'm going too slowly. At the end of the day, one important goal of the RFA system is that candidates (whether successful or not) continue to believe that they are valued members of the community.
- Check out shiny new Template:Rationale discussion. Heh. Should have done that years ago. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
RFC notification 1 August 2015
DoneHi. Since you participated in an earlier discussion on the same issue on the same page, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RFC: “Common selection criteria” ambiguity. If you choose to reply to this notice, please do so on my Talk page. (Don’t worry, my IP address is static.) Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
Fixed
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cyberpunk may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Notes Toward a Postcyberpunk Manifesto |authorlink=Lawrence Person |last=Person |first=Lawrence]] |date=October 8, 1999 |work=[[Slashdot]]}} Originally published in ''Nova Express'', issue 16 (
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Fixed — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Color blindness may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{quote|Position yourself about 75cm from your monitor so that the colour test image you are looking
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Good luck with the clean-up of the Kurds article - it needs it. Just a note of caution: you may or may not be aware that the description of the Kurds as "an Iranian people" has been a hot topic with long-term edit-warring etc etc. A resolution was reached on how it was to be treated in the lead via an RfC earlier on this year (see last Archive). It may be best to be circumspect when cleaning up anything that touches on that ...can of worms. DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Noted. I wouldn't make an edit like that anyway; has obvious PoV/ambiguity issues due to multiple meanings of the word. My only interest in the article is sourcing cleanup, in the sense of crappy formatting, crappy sources, and crappy misuse of sources. Heh. Actually a fourth would be under-utilization. Pretty much zero of the cited sources have been WP:MINEd for much of anything. Just the stuff cited in the infobox could add several paragraphs of rich material, if anyone bothered. Hell, just converting lengthy citation quotations into encyclopedic prose would do that. But I know little about this topic, so I'm not in a good position to do such work on it. Just WP:GNOMEing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Formatting of this page
I came here because you referred to your talk page at Talk:Harassment. Starting with the section "One of the reasons gardens are walled" and continuing to the end of the page, the formatting of this page on my screen is so messed up that it is practically impossible to read it. Have you any idea what could be causing this? Perhaps some formatting code at the beginning of that section needs deleting. Given that I can't read your talk page properly, perhaps you could reply at my page. Thanks! --Boson (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC). PS: It appears to be trying to render everything as part of a table. --Boson (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom case "Editor conduct in e-cigs articles" has now been opened
On hold until You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 5
FixedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Jetée, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Symbolism (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) 10:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Ward Churchill articles
Just a heads up, Deicas has a very formal, ritualistic way of asking questions. Sometimes it is in the form of a declarative sentence. I'm sure he means well, but he took another editor to ANI over one of the Churchill articles, and he believes that if he asks a question (even in declarative form), that he is entitled to an answer.
I tend to answer him once, if that, and ignore the miscellaneous BS. GregJackP Boomer! 00:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Meh. I'm not worried about other editors' WP:DRAMA or WP:LAWYER litigiousness. People who file frivolous or vexatious noticeboard actions get WP:BOOMERANGed with regularity. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Subway
ResolvedHi there. Regarding your edit here [26], can you confirm whether or not the 'bargain-bin' version of the DVD contains any special features? It would be nice to be able to do a full comparison of the different DVD versions. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: I'll see if I can find it my DVD boxes ... — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- So far it is "eluding capture". Might be in my storage unit. Or I might have ditched it; I really dislike the English-dubbed version. Mine looks/looked like the one shown here, with the blonde hair on "Fred"/Lambert. The good version is this one, though the cover uses a stock photo of Lambert that doesn't match his appearance in the film: [27]. See the top customer review (on both of those pages) for some incomplete details on differences between the versions (though I don't agree that they're "dressed as punks" on the good version's cover, having been hardcore in my day. LOL). I'm actually pretty sure now that I got rid of that version and picked up the good one later, though right now I can't find either one. There's an R2 Blu-ray, but it doesn't have the English audio track. There's an Amazon US listing for a Blu-ray here that says "all regions", and has both audio tracks. There are also various Luc Besson DVD and Blu-ray collections, but I don't see details on them, just that they contain Subway. VHS info is generally no longer encyclopedic, I guess, but the French audio, with subtitles, was available on at least one VHS release; I only ever saw it as a rental, and it was rare in the US; my guess is that it was Canadian. That's how I finally saw it in French for the first time, in the mid-1990s. My French-semi-fluent GF at the time said that the English subtitles didn't always match what the French audio track was saying (but it was more accurate than the English dubbed "translation", which often just replaced various bits of dialog completely with different material. The article should probably have a section on the major dialogue differences between the versions. Having dialogue info in the DVD section probably isn't ideal. There are also a lot of good reviews that can be WP:MINEd for material. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, very helpful :). Freikorp (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- No prob! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, very helpful :). Freikorp (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- So far it is "eluding capture". Might be in my storage unit. Or I might have ditched it; I really dislike the English-dubbed version. Mine looks/looked like the one shown here, with the blonde hair on "Fred"/Lambert. The good version is this one, though the cover uses a stock photo of Lambert that doesn't match his appearance in the film: [27]. See the top customer review (on both of those pages) for some incomplete details on differences between the versions (though I don't agree that they're "dressed as punks" on the good version's cover, having been hardcore in my day. LOL). I'm actually pretty sure now that I got rid of that version and picked up the good one later, though right now I can't find either one. There's an R2 Blu-ray, but it doesn't have the English audio track. There's an Amazon US listing for a Blu-ray here that says "all regions", and has both audio tracks. There are also various Luc Besson DVD and Blu-ray collections, but I don't see details on them, just that they contain Subway. VHS info is generally no longer encyclopedic, I guess, but the French audio, with subtitles, was available on at least one VHS release; I only ever saw it as a rental, and it was rare in the US; my guess is that it was Canadian. That's how I finally saw it in French for the first time, in the mid-1990s. My French-semi-fluent GF at the time said that the English subtitles didn't always match what the French audio track was saying (but it was more accurate than the English dubbed "translation", which often just replaced various bits of dialog completely with different material. The article should probably have a section on the major dialogue differences between the versions. Having dialogue info in the DVD section probably isn't ideal. There are also a lot of good reviews that can be WP:MINEd for material. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
MOS, CONLEVEL and "centralization"
For the benefit of anyone else that may stumble on this I am prefixing this note that the discussion here is about WP:CONLEVEL and centralization of decision making, and not about the two MOS topics from which this arose. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Editorial control
Background material from WT:MOSNUM, for reference
|
|---|
|
- An interesting comment, and a point I think worth some discussion. But perhaps a bit of a tangent to the discussion here. Could we explore this further at, say, your Talk page?
- As to the key point here: do you still stand-by your statement that "
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is all fine and dandy when consensus is actually reachable
"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- As to the key point here: do you still stand-by your statement that "
Re: 'Could we explore this further at, say, your Talk page?
' – Sure. As I recall, it was about the notion that regular editors at an article should have more control over what it says than anyone else. (Actually, I included all that material in the collapsebox above.) It's "your go" for rebuttal on that thread. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm going to take a little time for a good review. BTW, the ping - {{U}} - didn't work, it's not clear why. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging seems very brittle. Been trying different templates to see if some work better. I think it may have something to do to proximity to a new sig by the poster. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
On LOCALCONSENSUS versus CONLEVEL
Re: 'do you still stand-by your statement' – Depends on what you mean, and whether you know what I meant; I'm highly suspicious of (often accidental) fallacy of equivocation with questions like that. The problem is that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is used to mean two different things, one positive and one negative; I almost always use it in the negative sense, and use WP:CONLEVEL for the positive one, so I was being inconsistent there. What I mean in particular is that it is fine and dandy to rely upon a localized, low-turnout, topical CONLEVEL to arrive at a decision on an undecided matter, a) when this decision is actually forthcoming, b) when it does not conflict with site-wide rules (a violation of LOCALCONSENSUS policy), and c) when it does not confuse readers (a violation of WP:COMMONSENSE meta-policy, and WP:ENC, etc.).
The main reasons that MOS and all our other guidelines on content exist are because the CONLEVEL processes frequently fail to produced usable results, leading to interminable conflict on a particular issue, or broader conflict between clusters of editors on the same issue, that are not resolved until addressed in a site-wide manner with broader input from the editing community. This really has nothing to do with MOS in particular. It's how all our policymaking works, it's why WP:RM exists, it's why WP:RFC exists, it't why all the WP:XFDs exist. You can denigrate these as "centralization" all you want (though you seem to only do this with MOS) but they're centralized by definition not by some kind of authoritarian conspiracy. They're centralized for the same reason your liver cells are centralized in your liver instead of randomly distributed throughout your body, and for the same reason your friends are centralized at your house when they come to your party, and are not still sitting in their own living rooms. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
"Centralization" and "freedom"
Background material from WT:MOS
|
|---|
|
{{Historical}} and watch the giant WP:SNOWBALL form against that idea.As cofounder of various wikiprojects and a participant in lots of them, it's not like I'm unaware of or can't understand topically "local" desires for micromanagement of style issues. I really do get all of that. It just does not work here, for the same reason that having writers randomly make up their own styles in the Enclopaedia Brittanica, the New York Times or the journal Science would be a huge FAIL. Every other professional-grade publication in the world has a house style to produce consistency for both readers and writers/editors. I already provided an "your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my face" refutation of the "freedom" argument, over at WT:MOS, but that might be less distracting to go over here. Might even just move it here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- My thanks for your impressive work in assembling the background discussions. I think there are several concepts here worth a good discussion (which is why I have taken some time with this), which might take a little work to disentangle, but they're all related to CONLEVEL.
- I must immediately clarify something which seems to be hitting a nerve with you (and I don't wish to do that!). You seem to feel that I am "
denigrating
" certain policies as "centralization", that I see centralization as "authoritarian conspiracy
", and that I take the MOS to be some kind of "shackle
" on editorial personal freedom. Please! You have mis-taken my views; I am a lot more nuanced than you may have teken me. E.g., I am sure you understand that insisting on across-the-board adherence to some decision (however and where ever made) implicitly reduces the "freedom" of individual editors to decide differently. This is a classic centralization vs. decentralization situation. But please note: I am not saying "centralization is always evil". I have said that it is not always good, and I am sayng that it is not always necessary, but I am not opposed to centralization where it is proper or necessary. (Nor even in some cases where it is merely convenient.) I allude to these other views because others hold them, and I think they need to be addressed, but I am not asserting them.
- I would also disabuse you of any notion that I am any kind of "
MOS opponent ... bent on its dissolution
". Not at all!! I favor having the MOS; my efforts are intended to improve it.
- And I am running short today, so must return later. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'll keep all that in mind. But MOS opponents in favor of total or near-total decentralization definitely exist, so keeping your views distinct from their make take some careful wording (I don't mean with me, but in general). It's similar to the factor by which editors in favor of some kinds of adminship reform become difficult to distinguish from opponents of the adminship system existing, unless they write very precisely about what they see the issues as and what solutions they'd support for what problems. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- What you refer to attests to how how touchy many edtiors have become on these matters. I generally try to be precise in what I say and avoid ambiguity. Though it is often wasted effort with some who don't pay attention, and annoying when people who haven't paid close enough attention run off in a totally irrelevant direction. And it is frustrating dealing with those inexperienced in critical thinking. Which is why we meet here instead of at WT:MOS.
- BTW, I should probably also mention that this "shackling" effect of centralization is not unique to the MOS, and clarify that I did not raise it in order to bash the MOS. I raised it because it is pertinent to the development and application of the MOS. To the extent I am bashing any parts of the MOS it is in order to make improvements of those parts.
- My view of how consensus is applicable at different levels follows from the appropriateness of allowing discretion – that is, the freedom to make decisions – at different levels.
- There are some decisions, such as affect the organization directly, which should be not only decided at the top (centrally), but are properly excluded from being re-decided or modified at any other levels. These include legal matters such as copyright and libel. In such matters ordinary editors and even admins have no freedom to do otherwise, and this is proper.
- There are other matters not so critical that WMF gets involved, but are left to "the community". While I think some invocations of "community" are improper, yet there are matters (such as uniformity of appearance) properly decided at this level. But it should be noted: there has never been any decision where the entire community was involved. Decisions on this level are invariably by a small group of editors (perhaps a dozen, rarely more than a score) who, as you said, "
care enough to participate
". They are NOT "the community", but, lacking objection (ratification by WP:SILENCE), such decisions are accepted on behalf of "the community". This is reasonable, because not everyone can, nor (given general lack of knowledge, experience, interest, etc.) should, participate in every decision. Even if (or especially if) everyone was equally competent and interested in deciding a matter, it would still make a lot of sense to have a many sub-committees handling a few decisions each than everyone trying to decide everything.
- All of the above I grant. But it is proper (and necessary, in that no bureaucratic apparatus can do it all) that some decisions are made at the lowest level, by individual editors. These are usually where something is dependent on some aspect of the subject, and therefore cannot be done properly without some comprehension of the subject. Neither the "community" at large, nor even groups of editors "that care" generally but lack specific familiarity, should presume to assess matters where they lack necessary knowledge. This is where I say de-centralization is most proper. It is not permission for anarchy, it is respect for the knowledge and assessment of others (when the exist) who are best informed on some point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- @J. Johnson: Agreeing with much of that. I'm going to editorialize a bit; this is kind of a draft essay (probably two essays) rather than an argument against you, for the most part.
While of course I agree that, e.g., WP:OFFICE matters can't be dealt with in a decentralized manner, it doesn't automatically follow that everything that does not rise to that level must be decentralized as subject to "local" control. There are several reasons for this, the two biggest being that a) WP has a strong interest in consistency (not just of styling of text in articles, but of application of rules and best practices generally), because this entire project is the largest cat-herding exercise in history and will run off the rails in many ways if not funneled productively; and b) WP has a strong interest in strife reduction, such that the vast majority of the time it's better to codify a "this has already been consensus-decided previously, so do what we already did" rule/guideline/example – when it is feasible to do so because the decision can actually be generalized without "reader-hateful" results – than remain silent on it and allow the debate to re-re-re-recur, page after page. And there are more long-term-stategic, project-survival reasons I'll touch on later.
External authors writing about Wikipedia have observed that the entire place, top to bottom, is run by whoever bothers to chime in at any given moment; this applies top to bottom. So our apparently shared perception in this regard is confirmed by reliable sources, as it were. That doesn't mean that centralized decision making about WP:POLICY (in the broad sense, including guidelines) is a bad thing. If often actually is not the case that a change with a small consensus sticks; such things often get reverted/overturned, and for many processes we have counter-processes expressly for this purpose, e.g. WP:MR to undo bad WP:RMs, and WP:DRV to undo bad WP:XFDs, etc. So there doesn't seem to be a general problem in this regard; we have proof against WP:FACTIONs doing short-sighted things that do not actually reflect the larger community's values (even if that defense has a few holes that have to find and patch from time to time). It's remarkably successful (the only comparable example is probably the free software movement, which is actually possibly more effective because it's a meritocracy; while "anyone" can contribute in theory, not literally "everyone" can in actual practice be a part of GNU/Linux and the like, because incompetence will get you kicked).
Obviously, some things are local decisions; the bulk of our editing is case-by-case application of site-wide norms, and not-so-common WP:COMMONSENSE and (again) competence. We end up with a usable "product" because of the site-wide rules. Given the same five sources, you and I would write superficially very different new articles, but if we're both good Wikipedians, an analysis would show that they cover the same basic points, use the sources in the same ways, have a comparable balance and focus, and follow a similar style, even if every phrase in ever sentence is different. (If the topic is controversial or very complicated, they versions would diverge more the more this is true, with additional input by other editors pushing them toward equivalence over time; the norms would later be reinforced – almost forced – by the GA/FA processes.) Centralization of best practices where feasible is what makes this possible.
Where problems arise is when (most frequently in the case of a lopsided PoV to push, and for MoS-related issues, it's usually a "specialized" one), concerns for "local" control that would be valid for some content editing matters ("I'm a subject-matter expert", "this issue is complicated and needs special treatment at this article because of the facts surrounding this particular topic", "things are just different when it comes to this culture", etc.) are misapplied to something else that is not a local matter, but a site-wide one: style issues [a new one every other day]; how to use sources [see WT:MEDRS right now for a bizarre case of "we want to use press releases as secondary sources" special-exceptionalism]; different civility standards [see WP:RFARB for ongoing e-cigarettes case in which it's seriously being argued that years of flamewarring should be allowed to continue, on some WP:ITSUSEFUL basis]; arbitrary special pleading exemption from sourcing standards [see huge thread atop WP:VPPOL for never-ending demands for transgendered subjects to have history rewritten for them so that their "deadnames" are never used in articles about their lives before "coming out"]; and on and on.
It most often does not come down to anything like "groups of editors ... [who] lack specific familiarity, should [not] presume to assess matters where they lack necessary knowledge". It takes no special knowledge other than of WP policy/procedures/norms to apply it properly to any topical situation that arises here. The world's foremost authority on rocket science does not know better than anyone else, by dint of that expertise, how to best style an article on that topic for WP's audience, how to best behave when editing it, how to best apply sources by type and value to it, etc. Such an editor may well be able to identify sources that, in their content or the reputability of their authors/publishers are less or more reliable, which real-world programs are collaborative vs. full of know-it-alls who may be initially behave differently here, and whether particular styles are more commonly found in journals on that topic; but this doesn't translate in to a change of rules or how we decided them. (As as side point, per WP:5P, actually all editors should "presume to assess matters" to the best of their ability, or nothing would ever get done; we cannot tag every page with
{{Expert}}and wait around. We trust that consensus will sort it out, and that if we collectively err, experts will fix it later.)To return to MoS stuff: We bend over backwards to try to satisfy demands to follow actual real-world standards (especially at WP:MOSNUM) in various fields, but it takes a lot of experience and attention-paying to separate genuine claims in this regard from improper abuse of WP as a WP:SOAPBOX to push something that does not have real-world acceptance [see WP:BIRDCON for the canonical example]. A "respect for the knowledge and assessment of others ... who are best informed on some point" is very frequently demanded where it does not actually apply. It's the "We're experts on X so everything involving an article on X should be under the control X wikiproject" fallacy (which is ridiculous on multiple levels, not just the ones covered here). An even more insidious version of this is the "I wrote most of this article, so you have no business coming in here and messing with anything" fallacy, which is quite rampant and patently un-wiki. If I could undo anything at all about WP:POLICY I would undo the three (I think) places that guidelines default to a "first major contributor" cutoff, and revise these to something not tied to the editor but the edits, e.g. "state of the article when it stopped being a stub" (but in pithier wording). I think an unbelievable amount of future problems would be forestalled with such a change, but I haven't worked out how to approach it yet.
Anyway, the fact that WP is run, at every level, by those who show up to make the decisions means that local control by self-declared experts will not, cannot work, and demands for it are illegitimate. Besides, we can't actually verify credentials anyway; one of WP's biggest scandals was a "trusted" admin who lied like a rug about academic and professional credentials, before WP had learned to be both skeptical of credentialism and of admins, and exerted a lot of control over a particular content area. One consequence of this is that the Dunning Kruger effect (to which no one is immune – see PS at end of that) occasionally leads to bone-headed decisions by gaggles of cluebags wading into a discussion they are not really competent to assess correctly. This is a necessary and very much lesser evil than allowing self-declared expert factions to set up fiefdoms here (more so than they already have). Such WP:RANDY errors are swiftly corrected when the actual experts notice and revisit the issue.
PS: See lead item on my user page; fiefdom projects are ready-made for hostile takeover by real, no-shit, serious professional/paid/agent PoV pushers representing external entities hell-bent on warping WP coverage to suit their PR/propaganda goals. The WP:BIRDCON thing was actually another case in point of this (the project was effectively taken over, quite rapidly, by hard-core pushers of one organization's wanna-be "standard", and they then started trying to spread that pseudo-standard (only about birds) to cover all lifeforms in all WP articles, such that even "Cougar"/"Mountain Lion" was being capitalized (and this disruptive campaign was spearheaded by an admin, who is still an admin). I am not kidding; see its talk page archives, where fans of the forced capitalization blatantly lied about sources). Similar story at bottlenose dolphin. At one point every single rodent species article had been WP:FAITACCOMPLI-moved to capitalized common names. So were all the primate ones, despite an explicit real-world convention against capitalizing primate vernacular names! It was directly comparable to the Franciscan order quietly taking over the WikiProject Catholicism, bending it to Franciscan-only will, and then for 8 years or so, warring to impose Franciscan stylistic and titling norms on all religion articles. This kind of extraneous WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTHERE wikipolitical warfare is a constant threat here; the e-cigs ArbCom case has evidence of four different advocacy camps PoV pushing that entire set of articles. So, yeah, I'm definitely a supporter of "centralized" solutions to things that thwart this kind of abuse of WP resources as a platform for agenda enactment, and more generally for strife reduction of all kinds. Occasional flareups of anti-centralization strife are a sniffle compared to the fatal epidemic we'd have of article-by-article deathmatches without the centralization. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- That is going to take several days to digest! But looking forward to it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was afraid your reaction would be "WTF? TL;DR!" Heh. I think there's the germ of both a WP:Centralization essay, and (with other material elsewhere) a WP:Propagandizing essay in here, after logicking it all out and then compressing it sharply into an outline, then working that into prose the average reader would digest. (The Prop. one would need to merge with similar pages, or just be formulated as improvements to one of them, e.g. WP:Propaganda or WP:Advocacy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, I'm quite good with long, provided it's worthwhile. But I have been rather distracted, so still chewing. (Lots of that log-kicking.) Of course, if all this was obvious there would be no need to sort it out, so of course it takes work. :-0 ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was afraid your reaction would be "WTF? TL;DR!" Heh. I think there's the germ of both a WP:Centralization essay, and (with other material elsewhere) a WP:Propagandizing essay in here, after logicking it all out and then compressing it sharply into an outline, then working that into prose the average reader would digest. (The Prop. one would need to merge with similar pages, or just be formulated as improvements to one of them, e.g. WP:Propaganda or WP:Advocacy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- That is going to take several days to digest! But looking forward to it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- @J. Johnson: Agreeing with much of that. I'm going to editorialize a bit; this is kind of a draft essay (probably two essays) rather than an argument against you, for the most part.
- @SMcCandlish:. Getting some serious distractions, but will offer a partial response. Subject to revision.
- Re WP:OFFICE: strictly speaking that is only about measures where WMF feels the "normal site/community process(es)" must be shortcutted. "
These edits are generally temporary measures to prevent legal trouble or personal harm ....
". Also: "Neither this policy nor actions taken under it override core policies ....
" This is a very minor instance of central action in respect of specific situations. What I have in mind is where "the office" (Jimbo or WMF) decides or determines a policy, such as the Wikimedia:Terms of use, WP:Non discrimination policy ("The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination ...
"), prohibition of "non-commercial" images (per Jimbo; see also WP:FAQ/Copyright), and so forth. This could also include external matters, including legal.
- Re WP:OFFICE: strictly speaking that is only about measures where WMF feels the "normal site/community process(es)" must be shortcutted. "
- Where you say that what is de-central need not be "local": yes; that is a key point of my argument. It is very important to note that while "central" and "centralized" can pertain to matters handled solely at the "center" (or, in a hierarchical organization, at the top), de-central, or not-central, does not mean solely at the bottom: there are multiple middle levels. In brief, it is not a binary either-or. Also, "local" does not necessarily (or at least, properly should not) mean at the periphery or bottom; it means only place (from the Latin locus). The connotation of bottom arises because the "place" most people initially consider is that closest to them (their 'neighborhood"). But "local" can be applied at any level, and properly so. This includes practically all of the "community" level stuff. A good part of my concern is about editors at one level trying to control or preempt discussions at other levels. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Today I am The Concederator
Note to self and WP:JAGUARs: I conceded on two different things in the same debate, pretty much back-to-back: [28] [29]
I sometimes wonder if I should concede points more often. Am I stubborn? But when I review the day's discussions, I find that I generally don't comment without a clearly conceived rationale for what I'm saying (the first example is an exception), and I don't seem to have any difficulty reversing myself, or being shunted into a third option, when I'm clearly wrong, there's a better approach, or I missed something (as in the second example). Still, it's good to spot-check oneself for collaborative collegiality from time to time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Dictatorship of the proletariat
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dictatorship of the proletariat. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Not factually correct
SMcC, I just saw this edit and the edit summary rationale for it: [30]. Based on your rationale, I reverted the change. A majority of American style guides, the U.S. government, the legal professional and most U.S. newspapers continue to prefer "U.S." over "US," the latter largely being favored by non-American media and British and Commonwealth style guides. If you want to make these changes, please discuss them on the MOS talk page first. I believe you will find that significant percentage of our fellow American editors -- especially those who are informed about American style guides and media usage -- will disagree with your take on this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- You misinterpret the point. It has nothing to do with what is or isn't dominant usage in American publications, but with whether MOS should follow its own advice about inconsistent, mixed usage on the same page. I resent your "especially those who are informed about American style guides and media usage" jab. I own probably more style guides than anyone within a 2,000 mile radius, including ones you've probably never heard of, and I don't just cherry-pick media usage data I like, but actually break it down by market segment, etc. (NB: In this regard, American legal usage and U.S. government usage are the same market; the American legal system, like the U.S. military, is an extension of its government.) That said, there are now two threads open about this at WT:MOS, separated into the two distinct issues (MOS following its own advice, and whether what MOS says needs revision). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Snježana Kordić
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Snježana Kordić. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hinting At A Block For Me For "Disruption"?
Moved to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Indicents#Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871SMcCandlish, reverting your arbitrary, one-man consensus rewrite of an essay that's been here for years is not "disruptive".[31] I can direct you again to WP:CON or WP:EW, but that would be pointless, would it not? We are not going to ignore the rules in favor of a ridiculous thing such as this. Your content does not have consensus, and adding it in repeatedly against consensus is edit-warring. Doc talk 03:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to stay away from dramaboards, because they're not productive uses of time here. Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. Who prefers what title and content version at that article right this moment isn't germane; the move and the content change were made in a single administrative closure of that RM. You and someone else are challenging it, and
twothree admins have told you at that discussion that trying to revert it while the WP:MR is in process is disruptive and counterproductive. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)- You and others are hijacking due process here, and it will all come out in the wash. Doc talk 06:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Did you happen to notice how my last revert of Softlavender [32] actually led to them endorsing my opposition to the move?[33] You probably missed it. Do you think it was because I somehow intimidated them? Or do you think that maybe, possibly, you could be wrong here? No of course not. How silly! I bullied Softlavender into submission. Doc talk 08:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're mischaracterizing. She thinks there wasn't actually consensus for it, and that it should be reopened, or that the essays should be split. This is very different from your position, that consensus runs the other direction and that it's all "p.c. bullshit". And it's not your RM. No one is endorsing your noise there; you rather, are endorsing the motion by the MR filer, as is Softlavender. I'm skeptical I have anything further to discuss with you here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Did you happen to notice how my last revert of Softlavender [32] actually led to them endorsing my opposition to the move?[33] You probably missed it. Do you think it was because I somehow intimidated them? Or do you think that maybe, possibly, you could be wrong here? No of course not. How silly! I bullied Softlavender into submission. Doc talk 08:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- You and others are hijacking due process here, and it will all come out in the wash. Doc talk 06:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm
Found this: [34] Decided not to post it at the article talk, per your excellent advice about DFTT, but figured you'd still be interested in it. I think this letter sharpens the horns of the dilemma in that Mayr denounces racism but actively promotes "positive eugenics," and I suspect therein lies the rub; we view them as one and the same today, at least philosophically. Offering no particular solution or advice, just food for thought. Montanabw(talk) 04:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't an uncommon idea in the era (and, in different terms and forms remains one). No one likes the word "eugenics" now (I feel sorry for people who actually call themselves "neo-eugencists"!) because of its association with some really bad ideas and actions (not just Nazis, but all kinds of things like coerced sterilization in US prisons, etc.). But prenatal screening, gene therapy, GMOs, and a lot of other modern "stuff" are all essentially applications of the same idea. Historically and culturally, it's not right to portray Mayr as racist; he was just a product of his time, using the language and science of the era. In 1971 not that many people had heard the word "eugenics" outside academia (it was actually Star Trek in 1967, in the episode "Space Seed" that probably did the trick, but it was watched 100x more in syndication in the mid-to-late 1970s and the 1980s than when originally aired. :-) So it wasn't unreasonable for Mayr to use the term in 1971 and intend to limit it to a notion of "positive eugenics", i.e. the use of genetics to help humanity, even if it's a term we'd say "WTF?" about today. By way of analogy, when I was a child, it was normal and kind of respectful to refer to African-Americans as Negroes (cf. United Negro College Fund), but the word today is considered racism-laden. Same goes for "Oriental", "women's lib", and various other terms that have taken on a negative connotation (while some have gone the other direction, e.g. "queer" has been adopted as a positive self-label in the LGBT community).
I do really think we should avoid any further discussion of Mayr at that page, and how any of the Race (biology) article is thought/hoped by some people to relate to racism in humans, for now, because the page obviously has one goblin under the bridge already. Talk:Race (human categorization) has way more watchers so if such stuff is shunted there it'll be handled better there. I'm trying, when I get time, to nail down Race (biology) in strict, zero-OR, just the facts style, field by field, and encouraging more of same (e.g. the new birds thread). If the article is sculpted to be precise as to how the word is used in biology, any attempts to worm in human racialist stuff will stick out like a sore thumb. I think this will take months, but so be it. It will probably be hazardous to try to include much if any material about how early use of the word in biology was commingled with Victorian views of humans and misused, until the "what this means in science today" material is nailed down really tight. I do think the article should cover that eventually, or at least mention it, but the more I look at it, the more the history section of the human categorization article might be the best locus for it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- And I wish you good luck! "as to how the word is used in biology". Yes, this is precisely the goal. But everything depends on sources. One book by Mayr tells more about this subject than a lot of other sources you might be able to find on the internet. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ranters and philosophy pundits on teh Interwebs aren't reliable about Mayr, but Species problem indicates that his model of how to define species is being questioned. He's a reliable source for one definition of species, but not all of them, nor for his being better. He's not a reliable source for how "race" is defined with regard to people today (no sources more than a few years old are). He may or may not be a reliable source for how "race" is used as an informal taxon, if he said anything about that, but that's not what we're quoting him for. Ultimately we can probably replace the Mayr references at Race (biology) with a "here are the modern, conflicting approaches to that question" material, cribbed from Species problem and Species. We only need to touch on that issue.
The real question for this article is "how is a race, in the biology sense, different from other things, like subspecies, variety, forma, subsection, etc." (some of these are only classifications in botany)? This question's answer will differ based on the four classificatory types of races (physiological, geographic, etc.). My next task on that front is nailing down the difference between "physiological race" and "forma specialis" in botany. One source so far hints that they're effectively synonymous but used in different contexts. I can observe from use in papers that the former is used with non-latin names, e.g. "race N1" and is not used as a part of a taxonomic name (though it may follow one), while the latter is used as part of the scientific name and only with latin names (e.g. Frumiosus bandersnaticus f. sp. pacificae), yet is still officially considered "informal" by the ICN (and thus surely by the ICNCP, though I have not checked yet). But this leaves unclear whether the same exact population can have both kinds of name or whether they're used exclusively, or used overlappingly such that a specimen might have both, but both would not necessarily cover all specimens covered by each. Need an actual explanatory source on that, not just extrapolating from observed usage, as it's easy to engage in OR doing that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, that's a good idea to collect as many different RS as possible about race in biology. However, to my knowledge, these views by biologists, including textbook definitions of races and species are rather similar to the views by Mayr (if you can prove me wrong with sources, that's fine). In addition, I have never seen animal "races" used anywhere except population genetics and evolution, unlike "strains" and "subspecies" that are widely used for biological classification. Once again, you can prove me wrong by collecting more sources. So, good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Done that already. The mycological/phytopathological use has nothing to do with population genetics or evolution, but host species. Species question already illustrates (with sources) that biologists are divided on the matter, largely along cladistic lines. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is not done. The cases you included have everything to do with population biology and evolution. In particular, this your source tells in abstract that "The usefulness of race identification as a guide for the grower in selecting appropriate cultivars is limited because changes or shifts in the pathogen population are common." Actually, this is also one of the reasons why race is not very useful for biological taxonomy. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I decline to argue with you about this, other than to point out when the source tells us that genetics played no role in how they classified these races that's the exact opposite of proof that it's an evolutionary biology matter. I know how to write an article on a biology topic. I have no interest in satisfying you or anyone else in particular, only finding sources and writing proper encyclopedic material based on them. You have a clear agenda to push; that's a WP:POV problem. Assumptions are one thing; I've had to revise my own substantially on this very topic, because the term has much more currency in more fields than I thought it did; but I have no time for your WP:IDHT games. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm comfortable with using Mayr for limited purposes of Mayr can do best, as SMc noted, though newer sources and more updated analysis is best. As a person over 50, I can tell you that mainstream eugenics discussions did predate Star Trek, as literature of the 50s and early 60s (which I was still reading during education years as reference sources and such...) did discuss it a great deal ... law cases such as Skinner v. Oklahoma hit during World War II, yet we still have not explicitly overturned Buck v. Bell either. So the importance of very careful sourcing cannot be overemphasized. Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Right, right. I was thinking "among the non-university-educated unwashed masses". :-) Re: Buck v. Bell: SCotUS generally won't reverse itself unless given a novel case to work with that lets them doublethink their way around the precedent system, to put it critically. We'd need to have new negative-eugenics laws to test in court. I'd just as soon leave Buck v. Bell alone, ha ha, as long as possible, than see a new wave of forced sterilization laws. What's going on these days is that inmates, especially women, and especially minority women, are "offered" free sterilization in exchange for things, or just browbeaten into it during their incarceration. A Puebloan woman I know in New Mexico (who did not opt in) said they were especially pushing Native American women prisoners to go under the knife, as if trying to just "ethnically cleanse" by way of reducing the available mothers in the population to below a sustainability threshold. Have heard of similar crap in Arizona. But it's "voluntary", see? [sigh]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Which is why we still need lawyers and the ACLU. Not a colorblind society yet at all. Montanabw(talk) 21:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. True proof I'm a centrist: I'm a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Which is why we still need lawyers and the ACLU. Not a colorblind society yet at all. Montanabw(talk) 21:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Right, right. I was thinking "among the non-university-educated unwashed masses". :-) Re: Buck v. Bell: SCotUS generally won't reverse itself unless given a novel case to work with that lets them doublethink their way around the precedent system, to put it critically. We'd need to have new negative-eugenics laws to test in court. I'd just as soon leave Buck v. Bell alone, ha ha, as long as possible, than see a new wave of forced sterilization laws. What's going on these days is that inmates, especially women, and especially minority women, are "offered" free sterilization in exchange for things, or just browbeaten into it during their incarceration. A Puebloan woman I know in New Mexico (who did not opt in) said they were especially pushing Native American women prisoners to go under the knife, as if trying to just "ethnically cleanse" by way of reducing the available mothers in the population to below a sustainability threshold. Have heard of similar crap in Arizona. But it's "voluntary", see? [sigh]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm comfortable with using Mayr for limited purposes of Mayr can do best, as SMc noted, though newer sources and more updated analysis is best. As a person over 50, I can tell you that mainstream eugenics discussions did predate Star Trek, as literature of the 50s and early 60s (which I was still reading during education years as reference sources and such...) did discuss it a great deal ... law cases such as Skinner v. Oklahoma hit during World War II, yet we still have not explicitly overturned Buck v. Bell either. So the importance of very careful sourcing cannot be overemphasized. Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I decline to argue with you about this, other than to point out when the source tells us that genetics played no role in how they classified these races that's the exact opposite of proof that it's an evolutionary biology matter. I know how to write an article on a biology topic. I have no interest in satisfying you or anyone else in particular, only finding sources and writing proper encyclopedic material based on them. You have a clear agenda to push; that's a WP:POV problem. Assumptions are one thing; I've had to revise my own substantially on this very topic, because the term has much more currency in more fields than I thought it did; but I have no time for your WP:IDHT games. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, this is not done. The cases you included have everything to do with population biology and evolution. In particular, this your source tells in abstract that "The usefulness of race identification as a guide for the grower in selecting appropriate cultivars is limited because changes or shifts in the pathogen population are common." Actually, this is also one of the reasons why race is not very useful for biological taxonomy. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Done that already. The mycological/phytopathological use has nothing to do with population genetics or evolution, but host species. Species question already illustrates (with sources) that biologists are divided on the matter, largely along cladistic lines. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, that's a good idea to collect as many different RS as possible about race in biology. However, to my knowledge, these views by biologists, including textbook definitions of races and species are rather similar to the views by Mayr (if you can prove me wrong with sources, that's fine). In addition, I have never seen animal "races" used anywhere except population genetics and evolution, unlike "strains" and "subspecies" that are widely used for biological classification. Once again, you can prove me wrong by collecting more sources. So, good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ranters and philosophy pundits on teh Interwebs aren't reliable about Mayr, but Species problem indicates that his model of how to define species is being questioned. He's a reliable source for one definition of species, but not all of them, nor for his being better. He's not a reliable source for how "race" is defined with regard to people today (no sources more than a few years old are). He may or may not be a reliable source for how "race" is used as an informal taxon, if he said anything about that, but that's not what we're quoting him for. Ultimately we can probably replace the Mayr references at Race (biology) with a "here are the modern, conflicting approaches to that question" material, cribbed from Species problem and Species. We only need to touch on that issue.
- And I wish you good luck! "as to how the word is used in biology". Yes, this is precisely the goal. But everything depends on sources. One book by Mayr tells more about this subject than a lot of other sources you might be able to find on the internet. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly. I'm not "up" on how to do WP:SPI these days, though. I haven't filed one in years. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Update: Figured it out, opened the case. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
WikiGnomes
ResolvedHello. I wanted to ask about WikiGnomes as I see you display the icon and do work in this area. I really enjoy reading articles on Wikipedia over a wide variety of subjects, and when I find typos, grammatical errors etc like to correct them. Is there criteria necessary in order to join this group as it seems like an area I could be of service in? Thank you in advance, 79616gr (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- @79616gr: None at all! You can just add the
{{User wikipedia/WikiGnome}}userbox to your user page, or add the category directly ([[Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes]]). And you don't have to self-identify as a gnome to do this stuff anyway, it's just a nice "show of solidarity". There tends to be a slight bias against editors who work on improving content rather than adding new content, so it's nice to take a step toward erasing that. :-) If the changes are truly minor, like fixing typos, it's good to use the "This is a minor edit" feature below the editing window so people's watchlists don't get hit with trivial changes. You might also be interested in WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for a more organized approach to improving articles more substantively. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)- Thanks for that. I'll be adding the icon and will check out the the Guild. 79616gr (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Most welcome. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'll be adding the icon and will check out the the Guild. 79616gr (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Phabricator
UnresolvedHaven't filed a MW bug since they quit using Bugzilla.
from HT:CS1. -> You can log in to Phabricator using your MW name and password. Filing a bug is simple: hit the plus sign in the top right, select "Task". And the rest should be easy. --Izno (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- See also mediawikiwiki:Phabricator/Help/Reclaim_Bugzilla_and_RT_accounts for after you've logged into Phabricator the first time. --Izno (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Izno: Thanks. I had difficulty creating an account there last year, due to some kind of database problem they were having, and never did try to resolve that after giving up at some point. Will try again. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Women in Red
DoneFormal merge proposal There is currently a merge discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Formal merge proposal. As you are a member of WiR, this is a courtesy notification in case you want to join in the discussion. Thank you. Rosiestep (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
UnresolvedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Powdery mildew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Squash
- Sphaerotheca fuliginea/sandbox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to RDNA
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not refactor other editors' comments
ResolvedSMcC, per WP:TPO, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. . . . Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. . . . Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.
I have objected twice to your refactoring of my comments, and you have continued to re-organize the main MOS discussion page, including my comments, to your own liking. Hatting the lists of other editors, while not hatting your own, appears to be some sort of attempt to gain an advantage in the present discussion. Re-ordering/refactoring the comments of other editors, after their objection and contrary to WP:TPO is edit-warring in contravention of the talk page guidelines. TPO could not be more clear, and I have quoted it above for your benefit. Please do not continue to do it. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Again, please do not re-factor other editors' comments. I am now respectfully requesting that you revert your own edit: [36]. You are relying on WP:REFACTOR, an essay. The talk page guidelines specifically state: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." I have raised my objection firmly and politely to your refactoring of my comments. Per WP:TPO, please revert your change and restore the original order of the MOS talk page thread. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Again", see WP:REFACTOR. It's explicitly permissible and encouraged to perform that kind of refactoring. This is not a "normal" case because you are revertwarring (destructively, eliminating intervening edits) to preserve unproductive confusion between two different conversations. Please just drop the stick. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- PS: The very reason I reverted my hatting and refactored instead was because while the hatting was justified – your lists were totally off-topic in the thread in question – it occurred to me that it would look like suppression. I therefore merged the source list into the relevant thread and put yours first. Any insinuation of bias is pretty silly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you are relying on WP:REFACTOR, which is an essay. The talk page guidelines per WP:TPO state "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." SMcC, you have been around long enough to understand the difference between a guideline and an essay, and your reliance on the essay is misplaced in this case, as you well know. The specific guidance of a guideline trumps conflicting advice of an essay every time. You know this already. Again, please revert your refactoring/reordering of comments to which I have firmly objected per the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Again" this doesn't qualify under "normally". How many times do you want to have the same argument on how many different pages? You do not own your posts here. When they're disruptively confusing, its perfectly legitimate to refactor them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe ask for WP:3O. If it's just utterly intolerable to you to be refactored even when you're posting in the wrong thread, I guess we can hat both threads and start all over again, but I think that would be a total waste of time and effort. In the interim, please stop deleting other people's posts in mass reverts just to get your way. What rationale would you have for purposely reducing clarity, muddling one thread beyond recognition, and reducing the other to half the material it should have? Do you not realize that by forcing your sourcing lists into the wrong thread, you're making yourself look like you're intentionally disrupting the one thread, while you're also incidentally stripping your own position out of the thread where it matters? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you are relying on WP:REFACTOR, which is an essay. The talk page guidelines per WP:TPO state "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." Now you're wikilawyering. You have refactored an entire talk page thread, and inserted additional editorial comments after refactoring, apparently with the intention of making the restoration of the original talk page thread as difficult as possible. The order and meaning of comments has been altered by such refactoring. I have timely, firmly and repeatedly asked you to stop refactoring my comments. You rely on an essay, which you know is trumped by the guidelines. I am not "disrupting" anything. Please restore the original thread. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Copy-pasting the same material over and over again is not constructive. There is no "trumping" here because "normally" does not mean "always". WP:COMMONSENSE does not permit you to completely mangle two threads and totally delete others' posts in the process just to get your way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- SMcC, it seems self-evident that you are "playing to the stands" and attempting to build a case for others to read in your talk page comments here. In light of that, I will be as clear and concise as I can. Ignoring the clear advice of the WP:TPO guideline is not constructive, and 95 out of 100 Wikipedia editors would have the common courtesy to drop the stick when another editor objects to the refactoring of their talk page comments. I have repeatedly quoted the relevant portions of WP:TPO, which you apparently did not know existed before this discussion, for your benefit. I am sorry that you find my repeated citation of the talk page guidelines -- the governing guidance on point -- to be objectionable and/or unconstructive. I find your hatting of other editors' lists of relevant references, followed by your complete refactoring of an entire MOS talk page thread to your own liking, highly objectionable, inappropriate and clearly contrary to the quoted passages of WP:TPO. The word "normally" means "normally." There is nothing unusual about the MOS talk page thread that makes it "abnormal," and your attempted wikilawyering of commonly used words is also objectionable, and, well, just plain weird. During your refactoring of an MOS talk page thread, you also inserted several editorial comments, which you now characterize as "deleting others' posts in the process" when your refactoring of the page was reverted. Because you inserted these comments in the midst of your refactoring -- quite possibly intentionally for this reason -- you left the objecting editor with no choice but to remove them. If you would like, I will revert your objectionable refactoring and group your intermixed editorial comments in a separate section for your benefit and to do with them as you like. When you inserted them in the midst of a refactoring to which another editor had already objected, you did so at your own risk.
- Copy-pasting the same material over and over again is not constructive. There is no "trumping" here because "normally" does not mean "always". WP:COMMONSENSE does not permit you to completely mangle two threads and totally delete others' posts in the process just to get your way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- SMcC, the Manual of Style is no one's private playground. Its talk pages are the province of every Wikipedia editor who wishes to bring their concerns about style issues there for discussion. Common courtesy, and, yes, common sense should suggest to you that refactoring the MOS talk page comments of other editors is problematic, especially in a discussion to which you are an involved party.
- In the ordinary and well-understood precedence of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essay, essay form the bottom rank of guidance. As an experienced editor, you know that guidelines trump essays every time when any conflict arises between their guidance. Wikilawyering the word "normally" does not help your case, because there is nothing unusual in this talk page thread -- other than your attempt to dominate this MOS discussion thread. I would suggest that you begin by respecting the opinions of your fellow editors, and make your case(s) as best you can without being disruptive. Also, please be mindful of what Shakespeare once said: "brevity is the soul of wit"; try not to say in 4000 words what might be better said (and better understood by others) in 40. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- How am I "playing the stands" by ensuring that your material gets top-billing in the thread in which it's actually relevant? Deadhorsing this into the ground with a text wall (in which you lecture me about brevity!) that just reiterates in longer form what you already said isn't going to sway me. WT:MOS certainly is not anyone's personal playground, so stop treating at your own, for commingling unrelated issues and making a mess out of discrete discussions. You do not actually own your own posts here. Browbeating me with your belief that guidelines always "trump" essays, when the real issue is your attempt to spin "normally" into "invariably" isn't productive. I'm very obviously not the one wikilawyering here; you're the one posting about "jurisdiction" (the word here is "scope"), and trying to make precedence arguments that WP:POLICY is pretty clear to not exist here. Essays that have over a decade of consensus on WP are just as much a part of WP's consensus on best practices as are guidelines, they're just a different kind of document; as another example, WP:AADD is widely relied upon by XfD closers as reliable guidance. PS: I'm just going to ignore the accusation of bad faith ("quite possibly intentionally for this reason") on the assumption that it's just unclear to you that such refactoring is not and never has been controversial. This is the first time I can recall a dispute about it arising in something like 5 years, and I do this regularly because it's helpful to everyone to not have commingled, confused topics trying to discussion unconnected issues. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Expanded 15:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- In the ordinary and well-understood precedence of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essay, essay form the bottom rank of guidance. As an experienced editor, you know that guidelines trump essays every time when any conflict arises between their guidance. Wikilawyering the word "normally" does not help your case, because there is nothing unusual in this talk page thread -- other than your attempt to dominate this MOS discussion thread. I would suggest that you begin by respecting the opinions of your fellow editors, and make your case(s) as best you can without being disruptive. Also, please be mindful of what Shakespeare once said: "brevity is the soul of wit"; try not to say in 4000 words what might be better said (and better understood by others) in 40. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I know why it was rejected. What is it with you re-re-re-stating the same thing over and over? I am moving on. This tendentious niggling of yours keeps interrupting my work. Drop the stick, drop the stick, drop the stick. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Good. Just to be clear on the definition of the word "niggling," it's niggling when I correct your misuse of the word scope" and provide a link to the Mediation Committee policy page, but it's not niggling when you mistakenly attempt to correct my proper usage of the word "jurisdiction?" Did I get that right, or did I misunderstand you in some way? And, yes, I am laughing out loud as I type this.
- And while we're "niggling," here's another correction of your various assertions above, directly from the text of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:
- Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. . . .
- Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . . .
- Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. . . .
- Despite various essays to the contrary, the generally accepted precedence of policies, guidelines and essays is usually pretty clear. Anytime you want to promote WP:REFACTOR from an essay to a guideline, it's that away for an RfC on point. Cheers, Mac. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ah! Good point. WP:POLICY has changed since the last time I studied it; my bad. Once upon a time it indicated that any page that accurately encapsulated consensus should not be ignored, including key essays, and information pages (Help:, etc.). It's a shame this has been lost. Re: Niggling: Also a fair point. I shouldn't pick at your legalisms while complaining about nitpicking. I don't think you understood the "jurisdiction" point though; it's not how WP normally conceptualizes this, even if you can find one page to the contrary (aside pages about actual law, and aside from WP:Arbitration; ArbCom uses it because it's explicitly modeled on a court). But WP:RFM does not use this word, WP:MEDCOM and WP:Mediation Committee/Procedures do not mention "jurisdiction" anywhere. Nor does the "Request for mediation rejected" notice below. Nor does the rejection message at the request I made, nor do any of the following: WP:Requests for mediation/Guide, WP:RFARB, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:ANI, WP:PNB, or even WP:AE despite it being ArbCom's enforcement. The use of "jurisdiction" outside the context of ArbCom on WP is rare, and it's rare for a reason: The community can determine consensus anywhere it wants to; it usually declines to do so when things are out-of-scope (a.k.a. off-topic) for that page, but no one speaks of "jurisdiction" around here unless they're lawyering. So go ahead and laugh at how clever you are for finding an exception (that could easily be edited right now to say "scope" instead of "jurisdiction" and actually produce a page that better reflects WP's actual operating principles). I just find it sad, but true to form given the nature of this overall dispute, that you're more interested in WP:WINNING on a technicality than being on the right side of things in the bigger picture. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, Mac, let's be crystal clear: it's not about "winning," it's about courtesy. When you say that another editor only cares about winning, it is insulting on at least two levels: (1) first, it's a direct ad hominem attack on the validity of the other editor's argument, i.e., ignore the editor's argument because he is not serious; (2) second, it's an implied ad hominem attack on the other editor's integrity, i.e., they don't care about the substance of the argument. Neither is true here. In the past, you once said that I engage "sport debate," an endemic problem with attorneys in online forums (or words to that effect); that's insulting on three levels, including professionally. I can't with any certainty know whether you intend to be personally insulting when you make such comments, but it's not an unreasonable inference to anyone on the receiving end. If you don't mean to be personally insulting, then I suggest you not make such comments in the future, and I know that your own arguments will be better received substantively and with greater courtesy by others. That's the Golden Rule in practical application. And to be perfectly clear, I am not spending time on your user talk page today because I enjoy the witty repartee; I am quite serious now, and I am not LOL'ing.
- Now for the courtesy part, Mac. Talk page comments are one of the most personal things we do on Wikipedia. Comments are how we interact with others, how we make our arguments, and by and large how other editors evaluate our intelligence, logic, literacy, strength of argument, and personal credibility; apart from our article edits, our comments are how our fellow editors come to know us. By re-arranging my comments, separating them from the supporting lists I had taken the time to compile, and then adding a confusing and not entirely accurate introduction to them, you stripped them of their context and minimized their impact. By burying the lists with your own, you minimized the impact of the fact that 85% of the top 20 major dailies in America are quite consistent in their use. And I'm pretty sure that violates one or more of the basic criteria of the REFACTOR essay, too. I wouldn't presume to tell you how to refactor another editor's comments, but it would have been far less aggravating to me if you had not separated my comments from the supporting data that supplied the comments' empirical support and context. That said, you could have avoided the entire episode by extending one simple courtesy to me: you could have simply asked first, and I would have had the opportunity to share the substance of the preceding sentence with you. If you had extended that simple courtesy, I would have accepted less than my ideal resolution because that's what people often do when they are being courteous to each other.
- As for the "niggling," Mac, yes, it is petty, but let's remember that I'm not the one who started the needling over definitions. If you object to being needled about minor points, I have a suggestion: don't do it, and you will receive far less of it in return. Personally, I think jurisdiction is a far better and more accurate choice of words, but that's not really the point. Don't needle others over minor points if you don't want to be needled in return. Again, another simple extension of the Golden Rule.
- And, finally, the idea that an essay trumps the guidelines is misguided. Well, heck, I'll leave that alone. You seem to agree with me now, so there's no need to belabor the point. And I believe I've answered the substance of your question below, with the second half of my second paragraph above. Contrary to what you seem to believe, Mac, I'm really very agreeable. Treat me with a modicum of respect and common courtesy, and don't mess with my talk page comments without asking. Sort of like: "Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other." Easy-peasy. I might even come to appreciate your sense of humor over time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Taking these in order (and thanks for taking the time to respond calmly and in detail).
- I'll take all of that in the honest spirit in which it's offered, and give no return criticism or rebuttal on this point other than to say a) that much of what you've posted in this entire debate has appeared like sport argument to me, commingled with unreasonable ire that's clouding whether you getting your way is more important than the threads being sensible for everyone else; and b) I don't recall making such a generalization about lawyers. I spent a long time (almost a decade) surrounded with attorneys I respect a great deal, every working day, and noticed a rather consistent pattern of debate technique that is effective in courtrooms and brief but not conducive to a meeting of the minds. I don't think lawyers are bad or stupid or mean, they just tend, though occupational habituation, to a style of argument.
So, that said, I will apologize in several ways, albeit without false confession or simpering attempts to emotionally manipulate you with handwringing: I'm sorry if I've come across as just trying to be offensive. I'm not. Constructively critical when it seems necessary. I do concede that a reference to WP:WIN or a similar page can seem like an accusation, even if I mean "see if something on this page seems familiar in this context and might change your approach". Maybe I should try being that pedantic, but I don't want to come across as one of those "civil-attack" types. I'm not passive-aggressive, but excessively genuflecting language tends to come off that way. I'd rather be seen as a jerk than a Wormtongue, if it comes down to being frowned at either way. I also apologize for not taking your objection as seriously as I could have; it seemed totally pointless argument-for-its-own-sake at the time. It wasn't out of malice, but sheer disbelief that you'd want to keep the two threads mingled in such a way for any legitimate reason. And I apologize for niggling at you about niggling. And I admit fault for not having double-checked my assumptions about what the WP:POLICY page says these days; I had trusted that it was more stable than it seems to be (and I'm surprised by this, but that's another matter).
- Taking all of that at face value, too, I disagree with a few points though not all of it. I accept that you feel this way about your comments. In my experience here that level of proprietary sentiment is unusual, and I don't share it at all. As long as people don't change my meaning or just delete my point, they can do what they like to refactor for forking threads, moving stuff around, collapse-boxing off-topic material, or long lists of stuff, or whatever. If someone incidentally changes my meaning, or (e.g.) moves my !vote to a discussion section, I'll just go in and fix it while also trying to respect their intent, which was probably structural or "on-topical". This is really common. I refactor pretty frequently, without objection. It's just standard operating procedure, and especially routine when moving back-and-forth blather from RfCs and the like into Discussion sections below them. (So feel free to refactor the intro you think isn't accurate! If I signed it, you can take the sig off; don't care.)
"Impact" is where we might have a more serious sticking point: The impact of your dump of sources on the thread into which you put them them was negative. It was totally off-topic and probably would have derailed the entire thing. It came shortly on the heels of reverting me on some other MOS page (with an edit summary about off-WP usage, not MOS's own internal consistency), and leaving a user talk message for me that implied I was ignorant and unread. (What was that about courtesy again? Reread what you wrote above and apply it to yourself, too.) The implication of your revert edit summary was that there should be a consensus discussion about this, so I opened one at the main MOS page. That thread is about whether MOS should be consistent with itself and not use "U.S." since it's also using "UK" and other non-dot country abbreviations. I even clarified this with A numbered list of the actual relevant question and asked which you were objecting to, and you didn't respond.
I expected a quiet, civil discussion to ensue about this very narrow question (and maybe whether MOS should use "US" on MOS pages than mention "UK", but use "U.S." otherwise, or whatever – matters that actually pertained to the thread. You effective hijacked it, whatever the intent, into an irrelevant discussion about what the usage is in mainstream American journalism, as if "should we delete 'U.S.' from MOS's advice?" was on the table (and again accused me of ignorance among other insults; see "courtesy" material above again). You agreed yourself that it would be good to review what the sources are doing (this is a "what should MOS advise for articles?" matter). So the obvious (to me, and I think to most editors) thing to do is separate these threads, for two independent reasons, of topicality and of centralizing content. You'll note that I have nowhere said "Dirtlawyer1's actual plan is probably to just to derail the original conversation", an accusation of bad faith (though that's what the effect would have been). Contrast this with your direct insinuation that me going on with more editing while doing what seems to me to be a routine refactor was for the purpose of thwarting you, and see "courtesy" again. Heh.
Agreed: "you could have avoided the entire episode ..." Noted! I'm just not used to people objecting to topic forks this strenuously, but it will probably change my approach to this. I do also agree with most of the points of the "Comments are how we..." material, even if I don't think it equates to "never refactor" (and maybe you're not even saying "never refactor", but it has seemed that way.) I agree that "85% of the top 20 major dailies in America are quite consistent in their use" is an important point and I'll even go bolster it. I'm being surprised by my own results so far, and had not entered into this with an expectation to find usage this split, with news publications so heavily "U.S.", but dictionaries (so far - more to go through) so heavily "US", and style guides so split (so far, again). I'm not sure how putting this fact and other sourcing material in the thread about sourcing minimizes its impact, instead of leaving it the thread where it's off topic and the only impact it has is to confuse that thread, but my point in saying this isn't to WP:WIN myself, just asking for an explanation how this can be so (related to the question I was asking earlier).
- Conceded, other than about "jurisdiction" being better. It's a word we don't use here except in reference to ArbCom and external law, other than one page at ModCom, where it appears to be a copyediting error.
- I've never suggested that an essay trumps a guideline. Rather, the question of "trumping" doesn't exist here, in my view. The guideline says "usually" for a reason, and that reason is given in detail at the essay. If the essay said "never" or "do not", then it would be a trumping matter (well, the essay would just get MfDed). An MfD of that essay would be a snowball keep today, because REFACTOR is SOP. On agreeability/respect/courtesy: Same here, actually. And on the upside, you've gone up many notches in my view by taking the time to talk through things like this; when discussions of this sort happen, I and whoever often end up much better understanding each other and not getting into conflict later (had similar experience with Noetica before the Admin Who Should Not Be Named pissed him off so much he quit the project). What I hope (besides less conflict in the future, of course) is that, for this particular matter, you can adjust your own material (or the intro, or whatever) as you think is needed, without re-mingling the threads, or reintroducing the out-of-band stuff about "American journalism does 'U.S.'" to the thread about MOS being self-obeying. I really did: undo my collapseboxing out of a realization that it would look one-sided (before you said so); refactor the material to make two productive threads, not to try to deny you a voice in either of them; try to keep your material together, other than replicating a small bit of it, with "..." after it, where originally posted; put your sourcing first, out of respect for it having been posted first, having been moved, and representing the prevailing view; do the refactor at all because the unrefactored topic split leading with my own material made it look like I was denigrating you for having included it in the other thread instead of neutrally forking the topics; and finally genuinely approach the second thread from a fact-finding perspective (I've been altering my own conclusion bullet points as I go). You've been so angry with me these attempts at conciliation have apparently been invisible.
I agree with you that at the very least the American press and TV usage is mostly "U.S." I'm also amenable to more facts showing it is dominant in other areas; maybe my data so far on NOTPAPER news sources, and even the tech press, is actually skewed; I had not spent much time gathering that, since I was mostly looking for paper-related websites. I'm being much more programmatic about the style guides, dictionaries, etc., cracking a book at time (was going to add Blue Book/Red Book next, which is of course "U.S."). My main motivation in this regard is not having "special exception" rules without very good reasons, because they generate ire, GAMING, calls to revolt, "gimme my own exception" demands, and "MOS should be sourced word-by-word" proposals, etc., etc. If we make an exception it should be for defensible rationales based on periodically reality-checked evidence (on the talk page, not by citing stuff inline in the guideline). See my IEC prefixes posts lately at WT:MOSNUM in the same vein. But I wasn't actually going to open that discussion at all until probably 2016, and didn't expect anyone else would want to either, except maybe for the One Who Wants to Source Every Word of MOS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take all of that in the honest spirit in which it's offered, and give no return criticism or rebuttal on this point other than to say a) that much of what you've posted in this entire debate has appeared like sport argument to me, commingled with unreasonable ire that's clouding whether you getting your way is more important than the threads being sensible for everyone else; and b) I don't recall making such a generalization about lawyers. I spent a long time (almost a decade) surrounded with attorneys I respect a great deal, every working day, and noticed a rather consistent pattern of debate technique that is effective in courtrooms and brief but not conducive to a meeting of the minds. I don't think lawyers are bad or stupid or mean, they just tend, though occupational habituation, to a style of argument.
- Taking these in order (and thanks for taking the time to respond calmly and in detail).
I've asked you this question three times, on two pages, in different forms. Still awaiting an answer. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I know it may be hard for others to understand, but I contribute to Wikipedia in between actual work for pay. For me, it's a hobby, not a full-time job, and absent some sort of crisis, I think we both know that the paid job should always come first. You've been busy this morning, and your various activities have occupied a good bit of my job and hobby time, but I will try to get you a reasonable answer to your question today. Hopefully, that's fast enough for you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, of course (though I wonder how WP equates to work time). My point isn't that I demand an answer. I consider the entire issue moot, frankly, and a waste of both our time. If you show up later still pressing this, I would then expect an answer since it's central to this whole [non-]issue. This is a conflict between "what talk pages for, whom they serve, and how" and "Someone demands to never have their posts here touched". I'm pretty sure I know what the community's rede would be on which of these concerns has precedence. The fact that WP:REFACTOR (a
{{Wikipedia how to}}page, not an opinion{{Essay}}) has been non-controversial for over 11 years tells us pretty clearly. WP:TPO tells us it is permissible to sometimes refactor posts; WP:REFACTOR tells us when and how to do that. The refactoring I did fulfills all four of the criteria at the top of that page, and as a "POV" matter it actually strengthened the prominence and relevance of your own material. Cf. WP:Don't spite your face.If this is not really (as it seems) coming from a "don't you dare refactor me ever" standpoint, and is really something more along the lines of "I think the American news writing sources I dug up, which are at the top of section below, also mean that MOS should also use 'U.S.' whether we advise this in articles or not", how hard would it be to just add that statement to the thread? If you're thinking that, even further, "MOS should say to always use 'U.S.' in American WP:ENGVAR articles", or even "MOS should say to always use 'U.S.' in articles", that would be a separate proposal, probably best done as an WP:RFC, and probably advertised at WP:VPPOL since it would affect at least hundreds of thousands of articles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, of course (though I wonder how WP equates to work time). My point isn't that I demand an answer. I consider the entire issue moot, frankly, and a waste of both our time. If you show up later still pressing this, I would then expect an answer since it's central to this whole [non-]issue. This is a conflict between "what talk pages for, whom they serve, and how" and "Someone demands to never have their posts here touched". I'm pretty sure I know what the community's rede would be on which of these concerns has precedence. The fact that WP:REFACTOR (a
DRN
DisregardExtended content
|
|---|
|
I'm attempting to open a WP:DRN request, but the requests page seems to be full-protected. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Formal mediation has been requested
DisregardExtended content
|
|---|
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Refactoring dispute". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 August 2015. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
The request for formal mediation concerning Refactoring dispute, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC) |
Restart
@Dirtlawyer1: Instead of framing this in terms of whose interpretation of what page's wording is right, let's try a completely different approach. What benefit for reader-editors of WT:MOS do you see in re-moving sourcing material about "U.S." vs. "US" usage, out of the thread to which it pertains (what MOS should advise in this regard, based on real-world usage today), and back into a thread to which it does not pertain (whether MOS needs copy-editing to agree with its own advice, regardless what that advice is)? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shit (disambiguation)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shit (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Resolved
Message added 00:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Samuel Tarling (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment
An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Shoutbox sidebar
Done
Template:Shoutbox sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Small favor
DoneHi, Mac. I just saw your RM thread posted to Alakzi's user talk page. I would be grateful if you would just delete it. Alakzi has been blocked for a week for incivility, etc., arising from the conflicts over several essay RMs in which he has been involved. Anything we can to help pour oil on the waters, we should do. Posting to his talk page about heated RM discussions in which he cannot participate for another week is not going to help reduce the emotions involved here, and that have led to the present debacle. Can you see your way to agreeing with me on this one? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- It shall be so. I wasn't really trying to prolong an argument with him, or prolong his argument in that MR, but just move a discussion off the MR page. If he can't/shouldn't participate for now anyway, might as well self-rv. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mac. This whole thing with A may have just taken a turn for the weirder. You may want to read Floquenbeam's post at ANI. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Will do. I actually have started checking into the background dramahz, and agree a little that the 5-hour closure on the userspacing move was excessively short and looks like a supervote. But in a sense that's just PR + bureaucracy, as an argument, since it's very, very clear it would have continued to snowball. A. was definitely being WP:POINTy as well as seemingly irrational (or maybe it was just failure to parse), tagging for speedy deletion as an attack page the SPI page that exonerated him from sockpuppetry. It's puzzling, really. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mac. This whole thing with A may have just taken a turn for the weirder. You may want to read Floquenbeam's post at ANI. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 14 August
Fixed Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Betsy DeVos page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Concerning a comment of yours
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hi, I wish to clarify a certain topic here concerning your comment at: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles/Evidence#SMcCandlish_response_to_S_Marshall. The fact is that the two editors who reverted the addition were 1. SPACKlick and 2. A banned editor acting under a sock-IP (I will soon provide full evidence of this). For that reason I persisted in reverting what I percieved as vandalism (sock-IP).
But the central point is that I misinterpreted your comment to support the dab. I realize this was a lapse on my side, but I had the belief that consensus was on my side (you, me, QG against SPACKlick reverting without presenting proper arguements). You will clearly see I did not persue it any further once you had made your clarification. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @CFCF: I'm not sure I raised an objection relating to your reverts. The actions I recall being disruptive were WP:IDHT/WP:COMPETENCE pursuit of disambiguation exercises that do not comport with WP's disambiguation policies and guidelines, no matter how much the problem with your proposal was explained to you by multiple parties, and pursuing it in a way that many of us were convinced was WP:POINTy, intentionally confusing two distinct topics with the goal of linking e-cig "vapor" to the concept of cigarette smoke, when there is no biomedical connection between them. The topics are as distinct as breathing in gasoline fumes and mold spores. NB: I do not refer to WP:COMPETENCE here in the snide way that some users do, to imply "you must have some mental problem", but in in the literal meaning: You have not yet achieved a competent understanding of WP:POLICY as applied to disambiguation.
That said, the "standard exception" to WP:EDITWAR/WP:REVERTWAR applied to vandal/sock fighting does not apply absent evidence of vandalism/socking. You do not get a free pass for engaging in warring if it incidentally turns out later that your suspicions about someone being a sock puppet were correct. Get the proof first.
Anyway, I just re-read every word of my post you linked to above, and I said nothing about your alleged revertwarring. I also did not submit my issues with your DAB-related stuff as actual evidence, I only posted about them on the talk page, and I don't think I need to convert it into evidence, or I would have done so already, probably. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would argue – by that reading of WP:COMPETENCE noone is competent, as we all run afoul of some policy from time to time – but that is beside the point. I am here because I respect your editing and would not like you to see me as unreasonable, not because I believe the actual incident is of any major concern.
- As for the socking editor, by the very nature of dynamic IPs and WP:SPIs that process is too slow to catch a dedicated sock. This makes it impossible to present in beforehand anything but circumstantial evidence – which is why I am hopeful for an alternative solution by ArbCom. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's not how to interpret WP:COMPETENCE, but I think you know that. The WP:COMMONSENSE interpretation is that when multiple editors are clearly explaining to you why your interpretation of a particular policy or guideline is not competent, you need to listen to them, re-read the relevant material, and reassess your approach, and that when someone habitually refuses to do this, they may have another competence problem, one of not having learned how to work well in a collaborative environment, which requires compromise, instead of always trying to WP:WIN. Your "by that reading of WP:COMPETENCE noone is competent" take is not a plauslible conclusion, or the essay would simply be deleted as patent WP:NONSENSE; it is not reasonable to assume that the stupidest and craziest possible meaning is the one intended by its authors; that's the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum combined with a veiled version of ad hominem.
I agree with your assessment of the difficulty in proving socking, but that doesn't change the fact that you'd can't avail yourself of any "immunity against charges of editwarring" on the basis that your opponent is "probably" a sock. And again, I never accused you of editwarring. You're basically making a case against yourself of editwarring, and doing it rather effectively by implying that you definitely did it but that you feel it was justified on the basis of this sockpuppet theory (which is another failure on your part to properly understand and apply policy, BTW). Especially given that I mentioned this conversation in evidence now (mainly to indicate I was accepting your good-faith explanation for the DAB-related incident), I have to strongly suggest that you not pursue this angle any longer or it will backfire: Others involved are reading this thread.
I also think it would be a good idea for you to get a lot more experience reading, internalizing, and studying the application of WP policies before wading into them vociferously. It can literally take a couple of years to get this stuff right (which is why I almost invariably vote against noob candidates at RfA; they cannot possibly do it right yet). You, and they, remind me of first-year law students who think they're already prepared to take on legal cases. :-) PS: It's not ArbCom's job to reform WP:SPI; that's the community's job. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's not how to interpret WP:COMPETENCE, but I think you know that. The WP:COMMONSENSE interpretation is that when multiple editors are clearly explaining to you why your interpretation of a particular policy or guideline is not competent, you need to listen to them, re-read the relevant material, and reassess your approach, and that when someone habitually refuses to do this, they may have another competence problem, one of not having learned how to work well in a collaborative environment, which requires compromise, instead of always trying to WP:WIN. Your "by that reading of WP:COMPETENCE noone is competent" take is not a plauslible conclusion, or the essay would simply be deleted as patent WP:NONSENSE; it is not reasonable to assume that the stupidest and craziest possible meaning is the one intended by its authors; that's the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum combined with a veiled version of ad hominem.
- CFCF, you probably should not post further here; to anyone examining the case it may look like some kind of "collusion" with regard to ongoing RFARB, and I don't need further dramahz. I've said what I needed to say at the RFARB (and maybe there'll be room to add some of it back off its talk page later). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Ping
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The ping only works if you resign. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Derp. I thought I did. Thx for the note. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
- The word limit for other users is just 500. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I thouht it was 1000 and being asked to be upped to 1500? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- In bold on the page it says "The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users."
- Involved parties are allowed to go up to a 1000. I asked to go up to 1500. You could ask on the talk page to go up to 1000 before they tell you to shorten it. There will be the workshop where users can respond. QuackGuru (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- At this point I don't know if they'll consider me "involved" or not because of the participation in the RFC/RM, another talk discussion, and my comments in this RFARB. I'll just let the clerk know if they think I should restore some of what I said to the evidence page, or leave it on the talk page where I've moved it. I think these word limits are counterproductive and I've said so. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- For this complex case I think they may grant you up to a 1000 words. It does not hurt to ask.
- There is a note at the top of the talk page. "...all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section."
- That seems a bit strange to comment only in one section. QuackGuru (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I already posted on the talk page in support of the 1,500-word limit. The "online in their own section" thing is weird (for WP) but has been that way for a long time. It's to prevent tit-for-tat, gimme-the-last-word threaded discussions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- At this point I don't know if they'll consider me "involved" or not because of the participation in the RFC/RM, another talk discussion, and my comments in this RFARB. I'll just let the clerk know if they think I should restore some of what I said to the evidence page, or leave it on the talk page where I've moved it. I think these word limits are counterproductive and I've said so. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I thouht it was 1000 and being asked to be upped to 1500? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The word limit for other users is just 500. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I am staying away from that topic other than to buy popcorn and watch the show! But I have to deliver noogies to you, SMC - I am shocked, shocked that you need more than 500 words to make your case, as your brevity on WP is one of your most noted traits! (LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 05:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, it was agonizing. I trimmed and trimmed and trimmed, and it was still huge. The weird thing is, I can slice and dice article text down to bare minimal verbiage with ease. Debate vs. encyclopedic writing are as different as songwriting vs journalism to me. [sigh] My background as a policy analyst and activist (career I took when realizing academia wouldn't suit me, though I think I'd like it now) is probably why. Every single point of the other side must be analyzed for flaws; much like in legal briefs, so often not brief. But an alert has to be like ad copy, and highly compressed.
PS: See below for another LOL; we've been over before the "is the WHO a reliable source?" thing, ha ha ha. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, it was agonizing. I trimmed and trimmed and trimmed, and it was still huge. The weird thing is, I can slice and dice article text down to bare minimal verbiage with ease. Debate vs. encyclopedic writing are as different as songwriting vs journalism to me. [sigh] My background as a policy analyst and activist (career I took when realizing academia wouldn't suit me, though I think I'd like it now) is probably why. Every single point of the other side must be analyzed for flaws; much like in legal briefs, so often not brief. But an alert has to be like ad copy, and highly compressed.
- 4 different users will require 1500 words for me. There is circumstantial evidence. WHO is unreliable and it is vapor? QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The long section was moved to a subpage but the paragraphs were not a summary. He claimed it is a behavioral issue, but no editor made any specific proposal about anything. There was no discussion about anything specific. I summarized the Electronic cigarette#Construction section. Editors do not have to discuss making a change before making a change. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I know. My longest post-Preliminary comment was deconstructing SPACKlick's accusations about you. (I don't have a personal bone to pick with SL, but his arguments were poorly supported and reaching/fishing.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The strange thing is that it was OR. Why is this being used as evidence against me when another editor replaced sourced text with OR. QuackGuru (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I trust that the ArbCom will see through the bogus arguments. Two years ago I wouldn't have said that, but the composition of the committee has changed significantly, and the two Arbs that stood out in my mind as most unsuitable for the position are no longer in there. Multiple editors have backed up your actions, even if criticizing some aspects of your approach. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- According to the talk page: "Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions."
- Making "bogus arguments" is a personal attack, yet I do not see any sanctions. Nothing is being done about the misleading accusations. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Making bogus arguments isn't a personal attack; read WP:NPA closely. If you accuse others at RFARB of personal attacks that do not qualify under NPA, you'll likely be WP:BOOMERANG-sanctioned. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I trust that the ArbCom will see through the bogus arguments. Two years ago I wouldn't have said that, but the composition of the committee has changed significantly, and the two Arbs that stood out in my mind as most unsuitable for the position are no longer in there. Multiple editors have backed up your actions, even if criticizing some aspects of your approach. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The strange thing is that it was OR. Why is this being used as evidence against me when another editor replaced sourced text with OR. QuackGuru (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I know. My longest post-Preliminary comment was deconstructing SPACKlick's accusations about you. (I don't have a personal bone to pick with SL, but his arguments were poorly supported and reaching/fishing.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- QG, you probably should not post further here; to anyone examining the case it may look like some kind of "collusion" with regard to ongoing RFARB, and I don't need further dramahz. I've said what I needed to say at the RFARB (and maybe there'll be room to add some of it back off its talk page later). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Sic
DoneHello Stanton. I was wondering if you could take a look at Talk:Stuart C. Lord#Uncalled-for reversion. From looking at the sic template history, you may be able to shed some light on the hide=y parameter in the sic template. Drmies, clever fellow that he is, bowed out of the discussion, but I'm still tilting at windmills. If you want to respond here instead of commenting on the article Talk page, that's fine - whatever you think best. Or you could just stay out of the whole thing if you wish. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The para. is used to have the template be invisible. It's used that way to prevent editors or bots from "fixing" things that are not really typos (or are, but are in quotes), but where we don't want "[sic]" to appear in the article, e.g. because it's not needed, will seem PoV, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Miss Cleo
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miss Cleo. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Moving deprecation comment would remove the appearance of impropriety
DeclinedThe placement of your recent comment under Support (Yes, deprecate the template) in the revisitation of the English variant notice deprecation makes it look like two separate people have supported the deprecation. It would probably be best to move your recent comment just beneath your original one, indented. Then even someone merely skimming the conversation would be able to see that they were made by the same person. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't post a !vote in either case, just a procedural objection and a clarification of intent. Both clearly signed, and labelled as to what they are. Edit summary clearly stated I refuse to !vote in an invalid, forum-shopping pseudo-RfC. The comments there are not numbered, just bulleted. I don't want to indent the clarification because it's more important than the original post (which I would have just replaced, but someone else !voted based on what it said). A claim of impropriety would be silly and look foolish. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, they're bulleted, but people count them anyway. Someone just entering the conversation will scroll past and think that four different people support deprecation instead of three. At least remove the bullet point so that it looks like a response to the previous person. That's what it is, anyway.
- You're so vigilant about propriety yourself that you've brought up votestacking. This would show that you hold yourself to similarly strict standards. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's standard operating procedure to add additional, later notes with Clarification:, Comment:, Update:, etc., etc. No one but you has any problem with this. It's been this way for at least a decade. You're confusing numbered, actual votes (like RfA) with RfC comments. They're different. There is no impropriety here, and no one will ever think there is one. And it doesn't matter anyway. No one can tell MOS:ENGVAR editors that MOS:ENGVAR editors did not deprecate this misapplication of MOS:ENGVAR. The only result of this canvassed forum shopping is going to be to either confirm the deprecation, or to produce an extremely questionable counter "not-deprecation" that can be weighed against the deprecation at TfD. Finally, my Clarification is of the entire thing not of my own comment, and is not a response to the prior person at all (I didn't even read their comment); I'm speaking about the nature of deprecation and of TfD, because everyone in the oppose section is panicking and making incorrect assumption that they were lead to by the opener of the discussion. Please stop pestering me about this trivia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well you've clearly heard me out, but if you're going to complain about being "pestered," remember that Godsy's as convinced as you are that he/she did nothing wrong, and you've made very vocal accusations of improper behavior and bad faith that are far less gentle than the requests I've made here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Godsy knows where WP:ANI is and is welcome to try to make a case that I've abused his honor or something, while the community examines his WP:PARENT actions in detail. Given that the matter is already being discussed on one Administrators' noticeboard page, my assumptions are that he's smart enough to know how WP:POINTy it will look to open a redundant one, and that it would WP:BOOMERANG. It's not your job to raise Godsy's complaints for him; he's already verbally defended his actions in multiple places. And has been missing the point in doing so. This isn't about whether he's nefariously intending to shop, canvas, and thwart consensus (I even said "regardless of the intent" myself), it's about the result; this is a disruptive attempt to immediately overturn a consensus discussion on the basis that he (and people he thinks would back him up) didn't get to chime in. It's a classic example of what not to do. I'm surprised this has not already been shut down. If it were an RM right on the heels of a previous RM it would have been shut down instantly. Same goes if it was an AN discussion seeking to overturn a just-concluded ANI discussion or vice versa, and so on. The only reason this is still open, I suspect, is because no one G's an F about these stupid templates, or pays any attention to misplaced and mis-formatted RfCs in VPPRO. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: Proof of the votestacking is in the votes: No one (or nearly no one – I'm not going to monitor it hour-by-hour, though I checked again recently) is commenting but the canvassed parties. Q.E.D. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Godsy knows where WP:ANI is and is welcome to try to make a case that I've abused his honor or something, while the community examines his WP:PARENT actions in detail. Given that the matter is already being discussed on one Administrators' noticeboard page, my assumptions are that he's smart enough to know how WP:POINTy it will look to open a redundant one, and that it would WP:BOOMERANG. It's not your job to raise Godsy's complaints for him; he's already verbally defended his actions in multiple places. And has been missing the point in doing so. This isn't about whether he's nefariously intending to shop, canvas, and thwart consensus (I even said "regardless of the intent" myself), it's about the result; this is a disruptive attempt to immediately overturn a consensus discussion on the basis that he (and people he thinks would back him up) didn't get to chime in. It's a classic example of what not to do. I'm surprised this has not already been shut down. If it were an RM right on the heels of a previous RM it would have been shut down instantly. Same goes if it was an AN discussion seeking to overturn a just-concluded ANI discussion or vice versa, and so on. The only reason this is still open, I suspect, is because no one G's an F about these stupid templates, or pays any attention to misplaced and mis-formatted RfCs in VPPRO. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well you've clearly heard me out, but if you're going to complain about being "pestered," remember that Godsy's as convinced as you are that he/she did nothing wrong, and you've made very vocal accusations of improper behavior and bad faith that are far less gentle than the requests I've made here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's standard operating procedure to add additional, later notes with Clarification:, Comment:, Update:, etc., etc. No one but you has any problem with this. It's been this way for at least a decade. You're confusing numbered, actual votes (like RfA) with RfC comments. They're different. There is no impropriety here, and no one will ever think there is one. And it doesn't matter anyway. No one can tell MOS:ENGVAR editors that MOS:ENGVAR editors did not deprecate this misapplication of MOS:ENGVAR. The only result of this canvassed forum shopping is going to be to either confirm the deprecation, or to produce an extremely questionable counter "not-deprecation" that can be weighed against the deprecation at TfD. Finally, my Clarification is of the entire thing not of my own comment, and is not a response to the prior person at all (I didn't even read their comment); I'm speaking about the nature of deprecation and of TfD, because everyone in the oppose section is panicking and making incorrect assumption that they were lead to by the opener of the discussion. Please stop pestering me about this trivia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
X one-sentence paragraphs and very brief sections
ResolvedMac, I need a little help locating the pertinent MOS section on point, which generally advises against the use of one-sentence paragraphs and/or very brief sections and subsections with separate headers. I found it three or four weeks ago, but cannot locate it again now that I need to reference it. I would be grateful for any help you can provide. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Dirtlawyer1: No prollem:
- WP:BETTER: "Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. ... One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs. Some paragraphs are really tables or lists in disguise. They should be rewritten as prose or converted to their unmasked form."
- MOS:LAYOUT: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."
- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, MAC. That's exactly what I was seeking, although I remembered a somewhat less detailed version of WP:BETTER. I was always taught to avoid single-sentence paragraphs, except when doing so for emphasis on rare occasions. Or as one composition instructor said, "You get one of those per semester." Sad to say, but many of our backwater articles consist entirely of one-sentence paragraphs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- YW. I think it mostly comes from writing outlines, and then never getting around to expanding the outline. Partly also from junior high school English comp lessons ("one topic per paragraph"), and a bit also from later palimpsestuous insertions/deletions. WP does have way too much of it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Some light reading
Resolvedhttp://evolbiol.ru/ancestor/ancestor.htm#082 222.237.12.104 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have that one. Might be worth a few citations, but mostly at Race (human categorization), not at Race (biology). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
As long as you're collecting smart things said on Wikipedia
One of my favorite Wikipedia observations is the caption of the top image at User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with the first sentence of it, but I spend enough time on policy and talk pages to disagree with the second part. Many edits are internal, not public-facing, but nevertheless necessary. If the statement were revised to pertain to edits to articles in particular, I'd agree with it. When people change article text for PoV-pushing, to revert someone they don't like, or other lame-ass reasons, instead of to improve the content for present and future readers, yes, it is counterproductive. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't your internal edits ultimately intended to bring about benefits for the readers? bd2412 T 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- What about this conversation? :-) Only in the most abstract sense does it do so (i.e. by increasing communication between editors in a tiny way, that might theoretically improve collaboration on some user-facing edit in the future). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't your internal edits ultimately intended to bring about benefits for the readers? bd2412 T 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Apology
Apology for not enough care at Talk:Podosphaera fuliginea. I got frustrated with trying to follow the details and having them not match, and did not give attention to the usernames. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Oh, thanks, and no worries. Honestly, I get frustrated at the amount of conflict you and I get into over interpretational and procedural matters, especially since we so often agree on them, too. I've been trying to work this stuff out with various people, and you were on my list of those to approach in that regard, so might as well start now. :-) So, I apologize, too, for the snappish point-by-point response. Working for a decade surrounded by (and writing with) lawyers has tended me toward nit-picking and over-analyzing, and I know it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sometimes, in trying to be clear, I can be very blunt. Yes, I sensed some frustration, it was unexpected, I was expecting you to be in more humour. On your part, I never sensed point by point responses as snappish of offensive, especially as the points were valid. The other failing I have is commenting only half engaged. I'll try better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I shall be mindful, too. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sometimes, in trying to be clear, I can be very blunt. Yes, I sensed some frustration, it was unexpected, I was expecting you to be in more humour. On your part, I never sensed point by point responses as snappish of offensive, especially as the points were valid. The other failing I have is commenting only half engaged. I'll try better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Good thing...
... Jayaguru-Shishya isn't watching [37], or he'd mass-revert you, forum-shop for an admin to scold and DS you, demand that you enumerate and justify every change, and argue endlessly about who shouldn't have reverted who and whose job it was to open the discussion. EEng (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Good work, BTW. Most of the <! -- --> notes you're engaging are ones I put there about two years ago—good to see someone finally noticed.
- Well, I don't antagonize J-S. Level of interpersonal conflict seems to have a lot to do with how apt people are to revert. As for "finally noticed", this is hint that HTML comments generally don't work very well for this sort of thing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Antagonism had nothing to do with it. He didn't know me from Adam when he started mass-reverting. As far as I can tell the Html comments are working very nicely, in that an intelligent editor has appeared to resolve most of them, which I couldn't do myself. EEng (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, as you saw, some of your edits in that spree were controversial anyway. As for the second thing, my point is that it might have taken 5 years for anyone to get around to your HTML comments, or someone might have just deleted them. It's blind coincidence I'm bothering to try to resolve them. Lots of editors just delete them as "noise" if the issue appears to be unresolved for a long time. "Take it to the talk page." — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Antagonism had nothing to do with it. He didn't know me from Adam when he started mass-reverting. As far as I can tell the Html comments are working very nicely, in that an intelligent editor has appeared to resolve most of them, which I couldn't do myself. EEng (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 20 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Done
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Best regards, Sarah (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I manually added myself the other day. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
DisregardThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem I keep running into
It's happened again, just so you have an example of my recurring whine on the topic: saying "race" instead of "breed". (This time, apparently a French translation). Just sharing the pain. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's arguably a correct usage, though perhaps an archaic and/or confusing one. It's not talking about breeds, but about distinct semi-feral populations within a landrace/type. I'm skeptical that modern English-language sources would prefer "race" in the context of mammals, though. After a month of looking around for sources, I'm mostly seeing "race" used in mycology/phytopathology, ornithology (not too often), entomology, and caudatology so far; it seems to be avoided for mammals these days (this was my impression when I started, from prior schooling, and it's been reinforced by not finding modern sources so far using it for mammals, just ones that go back many decades). In your article in question, it would surely be permissible to replace "distinct races" with "distinct populations", or "distinct variations". At a guess, it might even be two landraces within the type, but that's a specific enough claim a source would be needed for it. Labelling them "breeds" would, too, though, especially given that the sources tell us these are only somewhat-managed, semi-feral populations. That seems to contraindicate "breed". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's a landrace, so same diff (landrace breed, feral beed, standardized breed), the point is it's clearly not a species or subspecies... and in the context I've seen it in othe articles (PSanish and German examples out there I've mentioned at various times), they use it to mean "breed". I think I used the phase "group" or "type" in my fix, the term seems to actually cover a body type as much as anything, not unlike pony. Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Should work. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's a landrace, so same diff (landrace breed, feral beed, standardized breed), the point is it's clearly not a species or subspecies... and in the context I've seen it in othe articles (PSanish and German examples out there I've mentioned at various times), they use it to mean "breed". I think I used the phase "group" or "type" in my fix, the term seems to actually cover a body type as much as anything, not unlike pony. Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Flags and the FINA championships
Mac, please take a look at the use of flags in the 2015 World Aquatics Championships. Perfectly justifiable under the present language of MOS:ICON and all other versions of the guideline that have existed in the last 6 years. While permitted, it's also self-evidently excessive and visually overwhelming. When we were arguing about the use of flags in sports articles, I always said that it was ridiculous that editors were arguing against a single 7mm flag icon in the infobox of an Olympic gold medalist or other national sports team member. Well, we're past that now, but the truly excessive uses of flags continue in many corners, and many of those excessive uses were always permitted. I've been doing best to curtail the secondary use of flags in swimming articles (geographic locations, host nations, non-national team swimmers, etc.), even while reinforcing the legitimate use of flags for national teams and their members. I'm looking for logical rationales to limit the excessive uses while maintaining the core uses.
Anyway, I'm thinking out loud and I'm not looking for an immediate answer. Think about it, and let me know where your spit-balling takes you. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree on that one. The use in the table makes sense, because it helps people find the data they're looking for. In the list below the table, it seems to serve no purpose but confusing decoration, and actually makes the list harder to read. Not sure what codifiable principle emerges from that, though. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You thanked me
Oh, I wasn't expecting that.Curb Chain (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Trying to use that feature more. It's helpful for reminding people that small cleanup edits are often of value. Also good as a "no hard feelings" gesture if someone you've had a disagreement with does something you agree with. And it's useful for quietly agreeing with a WP:SPADE post without dog-piling onto it. As well as the obvious use for thanking someone for big, difficult content work, of course. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Joseon
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseon. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject TAFI
Done
|
| Hello, SMcCandlish. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.
Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 08:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC) |
- I'll think about it, but it's not really my style. I tend to single out problematic stubs, not stuff that needs to be pushed a little to reach GA/FA. I have respect for that work, but it's "sexy" enough of a lot of editors focus on it, while hardly anyone works on really weak stub articles that could but do not yet have much encyclopedic value. I'd rather make a "2" into a "6" than an "8" into a "9". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for considering it. The project has gone through some recent changes. We previously worked on several articles weekly, but after talk page discussions, we whittled it down to one per week in hopes to maximize participation. I'm also a fan of expanding stubs, performing this type of work from time to time. North America1000 09:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Might help if there were a way to "subscribe" for notices of certain topical ones (biology, music, whatever), but maybe that's too much infrastructure for something that happens once a week. I dunno. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- You can subscribe to receive project notices, which includes the weekly selection, at the project Notifications page. However, it is not topical in nature. North America1000 09:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK; seems a good compromise. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, and for the notifications sign-up. North America1000 10:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- ...and for joining the project (missed that initially). Cheers, North America1000 10:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, and for the notifications sign-up. North America1000 10:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK; seems a good compromise. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- You can subscribe to receive project notices, which includes the weekly selection, at the project Notifications page. However, it is not topical in nature. North America1000 09:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Might help if there were a way to "subscribe" for notices of certain topical ones (biology, music, whatever), but maybe that's too much infrastructure for something that happens once a week. I dunno. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for considering it. The project has gone through some recent changes. We previously worked on several articles weekly, but after talk page discussions, we whittled it down to one per week in hopes to maximize participation. I'm also a fan of expanding stubs, performing this type of work from time to time. North America1000 09:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 28
DeferredHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Swayze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Bridge (TV series) (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) 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello.
Lets talk I'm good.
b — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babbitholed (talk • contribs) 03:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- About what? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
ResolvedI changed the bolding format of your post at RM a moment ago. You can either revert or modify. --George Ho (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Right-o. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership
| You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership ← Come and join us remotely! | |
|---|---|
 |
Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015  The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC) |
Please comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2015)
 A Old Colony Mennonite family observing the practice of plain dress
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Historic house • Soufflé Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Re: Trolling
"Greetings! I pretend to be honest but mindlessly follow WP's ad populum model of truth. As such I edit known falsehoods into articles, such as "orthodox" race beliefs based on demonstrable academic fraud. Being a collaborator improves when we remember this about each other. I also call people who disagree with my nonsense "trolls", pretending they are winding me up insincerely, for want of any valid points." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.92.221.62 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- That an "interesting" view of my editing, approach, and thoughts, but wrong on every point, and ill-informed. There is no academic fraud you've demonstrated. I have not edited any known falsehoods into articles. If I were to do so, it would be to attribute them to those who made them (if the views were notable enough to include), and then refute them, also with attribution to those who have published the counter-arguments, per WP:UNDUE. If you read what I've posted at Talk:Race (human categorization) (an article I don't really even edit except trivially, just do sourcing for that others can use as they will), you'll see this clearly. I label as trolls those who engage in trolling, like changing people's statements on their talk pages in an attempt to piss them off. Doesn't work on me. I find your antics silly and amusing, your anger misdirected, and the point you're trying to make unsupported and unsupportable, but feel free to try. If it's you who has been leaving me links to places like Conservapedia or whichever it was, I don't care. Whatever point you are trying to make with them, a) I already understand it, being well aware of the master-race rantings of far-right groups, and b) Wikipedia doesn't care what the "anti-Wikipedias" publish anyway, since they are user-generated content we can't use as sources. Cite some real sources. Show us reputably published reliable sources presenting real research. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- [Note SMcCandlish clearly wishes to discuss so I request the usual suspects do not censor his talk page]
- You mean Rightpedia? There are plenty of references on that page Sir. The patent falsehood referred to is Lewontin's fallacy, described as responsible for the "orthodoxy" you mention. Is it not a fallacy? I can go into more detail. A "troll" is defined as someone writing entirely to annoy his opponent for fun, rather than someone who is correct trying to correct his opponent, possibly with a derisive and mocking tone. 175.124.157.54 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't trust Rightpedia (or Conservapedia, or Metapedia, all of which might as well just merge) to do proper research. They have no equivalent of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but are all on an explicit mission to push an American conservative right-wing viewpoint, cherry-picking their (largely unreliable) sources and excluding any that contradict them. We still can't use Rightpedia, etc., as sources no matter what sources they cite, because of WP:UGC. I have no problem, of course, with people citing some of the same sources here, if they're actually WP:RS, and are being used within the bounds of NOR, WP:UNDUE, etc. Undue weight is often the issue here. The fact that one guy, A. W. F. Edwards, published one paper criticizing Lewontin is unlikely to be significant enough to include at the race-related articles, but it might be significant enough to mention at the article on Lewontin (it surely already is, but I'm not interested enough to go look). If a lot of stuff has developed from Edwards's paper since its publication (in actual peer-reviewed journals, not ranty political blogs), maybe there enough "there there" to either include counterpoints to Lewontin at race-related articles, or remove Lewontin from them, or whatever, as the case may be. My own posts at Talk:Race (human categorization) included critiques of Lewontin (and critiques of those critiques), but it's not my personal WP mission to work on that article or related articles; I really don't care much. I did sourcing to address a then-ongoing controversy, nothing more. You're coming from the viewpoint of a detractor of the ideas behind the uneasy and increasingly challenged consensus in the life sciences against biological human race, and you imagine me to be a supporter of those ideas. I'm not. I'm an observer of the fact that external RS tell us that it's an uneasy and increasingly challenged consensus in the life sciences, and of what the pro and con arguments are with regard to the rationale for that consensus and for the challenges to it (the one coming from medical research is particularly weak because they keep changing their definitions all the time, and can't tell the difference between "race", "ethnicity" as a politician might define it, "ethnicity" as an anthropologist would define it, and "ethnicity" as people self-select on questionnaires that often have pigeonholing problems, and so on). Pestering me personally about this is a waste of time. I have other fish to fry. Where you and I do seem to differ is you appear to be convinced that "race is a social construct" is some lie, and that race is definitively biological. You seem to be on a mission to have WP say this. But the evidence doesn't support this, and it's not WP's job to prove or disprove it anyway, but to report that the RS tell us it's a consensus, what the challenges to that consensus are, and what the challenges to those challenges are. What the sources do support, in my view, is that the question is both complex and kind of pointless. There's a lot going on, that ranges from some traits being particular to certain populations for unknown reasons; other traits being particular to any population that has lived for tens of thousands of years within a particular latitude range or other environment despite being geographically isolated from one another; certain traits being tied to other traits regardless what population they arise in, others not so; evolutionary psychology evidence that we innately want to define people in a racial way (i.e. the social component of race itself may have a universal biological underpinning that it separate from race but determinative of why the idea is so ingrained); conflicting evidence on race and IQ tests; a lot of evidence that IQ tests are culturally biased and thus don't tell us anything useful; confusion between the ethnicity-related concept of human races and the biological, taxonomic use of the term; and add a dozen other things here. As a conceptual model, "human races" is nearing the end of its usable lifespan, if it's not already a zombie, staggering along on autopilot because it science-dead body is being animated by politics and sociological patterns. You can shake your fist at me individually all you like, but it won't change anything.
Trolling: Your definition is one definition. It's not the one we use here, which more broadly includes antagonistic editing designed to get attention, generate controversy, anger people into off-topic responses, or otherwise disrupt business as usual. On WP it's most often done with some particular PoV purpose in mind, not simply for "fun". It's about constructiveness vs. nonconstructiveness. Whether you genuinely find the trolling fun or not is immaterial; if its effect is just pissing people off unnecessarily, without much chance of improving the article, then it's trolling.
I wouldn't be surprised if your posts here get reverted anyway, because you're indeffed (if you really are Mikemikev; I've had my other suspicions), and using IPs to keep posting. I don't really care either way. Your mission is not my mission and doesn't relate to my interests. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't trust Rightpedia (or Conservapedia, or Metapedia, all of which might as well just merge) to do proper research. They have no equivalent of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but are all on an explicit mission to push an American conservative right-wing viewpoint, cherry-picking their (largely unreliable) sources and excluding any that contradict them. We still can't use Rightpedia, etc., as sources no matter what sources they cite, because of WP:UGC. I have no problem, of course, with people citing some of the same sources here, if they're actually WP:RS, and are being used within the bounds of NOR, WP:UNDUE, etc. Undue weight is often the issue here. The fact that one guy, A. W. F. Edwards, published one paper criticizing Lewontin is unlikely to be significant enough to include at the race-related articles, but it might be significant enough to mention at the article on Lewontin (it surely already is, but I'm not interested enough to go look). If a lot of stuff has developed from Edwards's paper since its publication (in actual peer-reviewed journals, not ranty political blogs), maybe there enough "there there" to either include counterpoints to Lewontin at race-related articles, or remove Lewontin from them, or whatever, as the case may be. My own posts at Talk:Race (human categorization) included critiques of Lewontin (and critiques of those critiques), but it's not my personal WP mission to work on that article or related articles; I really don't care much. I did sourcing to address a then-ongoing controversy, nothing more. You're coming from the viewpoint of a detractor of the ideas behind the uneasy and increasingly challenged consensus in the life sciences against biological human race, and you imagine me to be a supporter of those ideas. I'm not. I'm an observer of the fact that external RS tell us that it's an uneasy and increasingly challenged consensus in the life sciences, and of what the pro and con arguments are with regard to the rationale for that consensus and for the challenges to it (the one coming from medical research is particularly weak because they keep changing their definitions all the time, and can't tell the difference between "race", "ethnicity" as a politician might define it, "ethnicity" as an anthropologist would define it, and "ethnicity" as people self-select on questionnaires that often have pigeonholing problems, and so on). Pestering me personally about this is a waste of time. I have other fish to fry. Where you and I do seem to differ is you appear to be convinced that "race is a social construct" is some lie, and that race is definitively biological. You seem to be on a mission to have WP say this. But the evidence doesn't support this, and it's not WP's job to prove or disprove it anyway, but to report that the RS tell us it's a consensus, what the challenges to that consensus are, and what the challenges to those challenges are. What the sources do support, in my view, is that the question is both complex and kind of pointless. There's a lot going on, that ranges from some traits being particular to certain populations for unknown reasons; other traits being particular to any population that has lived for tens of thousands of years within a particular latitude range or other environment despite being geographically isolated from one another; certain traits being tied to other traits regardless what population they arise in, others not so; evolutionary psychology evidence that we innately want to define people in a racial way (i.e. the social component of race itself may have a universal biological underpinning that it separate from race but determinative of why the idea is so ingrained); conflicting evidence on race and IQ tests; a lot of evidence that IQ tests are culturally biased and thus don't tell us anything useful; confusion between the ethnicity-related concept of human races and the biological, taxonomic use of the term; and add a dozen other things here. As a conceptual model, "human races" is nearing the end of its usable lifespan, if it's not already a zombie, staggering along on autopilot because it science-dead body is being animated by politics and sociological patterns. You can shake your fist at me individually all you like, but it won't change anything.
You're invited! Smithsonian APA Center & Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon on APA women
| Asian Pacific American Women World Virtual Edit-a-thon | |
|---|---|
 |
|
- Probably mostly outside my editing range, but it jogs my memory to update articles like Pan Xiaoting and other women cue sports player articles from Asia, some of which probably haven't had much attention in several years. I guess most of them are not Asian-American, though, aside from Jeanette Lee (pool player), which I already was updating a bit the other day. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
ResolvedJust wanted to thank you for your comments here. Very decent of you and I appreciate that you took a solid and neutral look at the situation, then called it as you saw it. Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- NP. I'm pretty good at compartmentalizing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just noticed the user got indeffed. Kind of a sub-optimal result, but the overall pattern seems unconstructive enough that I guess it's a reasonable enough response. Would have rather seem a community close with the probable topic and interaction bans. An indef like this, especially given that the user has socked before, almost certainly means they'll just create another account and be even more recalcitrant. If the account is effectively "dead", there's no incentive not to just restart, while if the account is just a bit restricted, there's an incentive to get in better graces and keep the account going. Oh well. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The Fall
UnresolvableExtended content
|
|---|
|
Reading into things--reason?
StaleAre you okay? You've been reading a lot more problem into posts than is actually there for weeks, both with me and with Curly. Did something happen? Not offended if you delete this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine. What's happened is my patience with tendentious editing, civil-PoV, and slow-editwarring patterns has finally reached a limit. No one who is doing problematic things thinks they are. One cannot self-assess whether one's behaviors are problematic, since it's others who perceive the problems. One who will not listen to others when they raise objections about the problems one is causing, is doomed to keep causing problems until people's tolerance for the behavior pattern runs out. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better
DoneHello!
First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)
Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Scanian dialect
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scanian dialect. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Topic-ban
For edit-warring on WP:MOS and several other pages related to your fight with User:Darkfrog24 over quotation styles, together with your pattern of long-winded, aggressive filibustering on the related talk page and noticeboard threads, including incivility and personal attacks [43][44] and displaying at least as much "IDHT" as the behaviour of the other party you complained of, I am imposing a topic-ban from WP:MOS and related discussions on you for a period of two months. This is done under the provisions of the discretionary sanctions rules for the MOS topic area, and in light of the previous sanctions and warnings you received in that context (quote from a DS ruling in 2013: "SMcCandlish is prohibited from making bad faith assumptions about other participants; strongly advised to avoid commenting on contributor, particularly with regard to WP:NPA and WP:CIV; and encouraged to keep his contributions to a reasonable length"). For the avoidance of doubt, under the "widely construed" rule, the edit-war in article space at Quotation marks in English is included in this sanction. I would have imposed a similar sanction on the other party, except that I can't find evidence the necessary "alerts" have been given to them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'm not going to whine about receiving a temporary topic ban as onerous, and I concede some of these points, but this action is questionable to me for multiple reasons, and raises some concerns about the future of the affected pages, and for dealing with any future disputes, as well as what I can and can't legitimately do in the interim. I'm not asking just to be a pain in the butt or to debate you, but because your reasoning behind the admonitions, and the decision, are unclear to me, and a remedy doesn't remedy anything, really, if the one it's applied to doesn't understand it.
Questions and requested clarifications:
|
|---|
|
- Whatever the intent, this has the effect of "punish more who ever posted more or more loudly" decision (which, if so, plays directly into the hands of civil-PoV gaming, and to the tactic of refusing to address refutation and just re-re-re-stating the same premise over and over again, generating additional refutations until the culprit can claim it's the refuter, the one with the sources and facts, who is being the problem, rather than the fact-denier and OR-spinner).
I would like to work on the article in a sandbox in the interim. I've done an enormous amount of recent sourcing for it (only some of which I used in the MoS thread, and haven't used any of it for the article yet), and spent several hundred US dollars on acquiring sources with which to do so [in part; they'll also be useful for many other discussions and articles]. The article is so bad, The Guardian publicly criticized us for it, and it's actually gotten worse, not better, since then (markedly so). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm going to observe that I've asked repeatedly over two weeks for this TB to be clarified and narrowed, and have no received any response at all. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Moved to #Topic ban belatedly liftedPlease comment on Talk:India
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:India. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2015)
DeclinedHello, SMcCandlish. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:
Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Plain dress • Historic house Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations
Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •Please comment on Talk:Warminster Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Warminster Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
ResolvedHey. I just wanted to say thank you for your comments here [46] without my askance. That was very kind of you and I was relieved to see an editor actually being neutral and not taking sides. Best regards, Pixarh (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Template:Pixarh No problem. I stay out of the dramaboards as much as is feasible, but like to inject balance when I can. PS: Sorry for the late reply; not sure why I didn't notice your note before. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
YMMV
Re. Special:Diff/680761745 - I don't recall having been reverted, but I've been called out on it on a few ocassions, like here. Our readers must've been thrilled to know about the merge proposal of {{Colorbox}} with {{Color box}}. Alakzi (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Meh. It's lame, we (as a community) are doing it less and less, and if there was ever a consensus to bludgeon our readers with TfD notices, it was when most of our readers were also our editors. This is now one of the top-5 most used websites in the world by the general public. WP:CCC and all 'at. Maybe someone will revert that change, but if they do we should probably have an RfC about this, and demonstrate that the consensus changed a long time ago. I have not (intentionally) allowed a mainspace template's TfD notice to be transcluded in so long I can't remember, and people bitch about it all the time when others do it, especially to frequently used templates and inline ones. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Idolatry
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idolatry. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 38, 2015)
StaleExtended content
| |
|---|---|
|
Service awards
ResolvedIn the main WP:Service awards page, I see that each level, even the senior ones, has in the right-hand box a note on the lines of "Incremental service award ribbons are also available, starting at 53,250 edits and 7 years 3 months of service." I presumed that for levels above Yeoman Editor those had been added recently, and that I should remove them as part of the clear-up after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons); but looking at the history, I am surprised to see that they have been there since 2010 or earlier. Was there some earlier version of these incremental awards that was abolished and re-invented by Alex?
Unless you see any reason to keep them, I think those notes for levels above Yeoman should go, anyway, since they ain't true now. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- That solution sounds right. I'm not sure what the full history is. As far as I know, some incremental awards were added some while ago, to the lower-level awards only, as an incentive for new editors (mostly students). Then along came someone who added similar things to every single level (with numbers that conflict here and there), and this is what has been objected to, as unnecessary. If you go back to 2010 or earlier, all bets are off, because people were just randomly messing with this stuff constantly; it was very unstable. What we had last year or so is probably a better guide. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not for the first time, I have been confused by a transclusion. That part of the page was transcluded from Wikipedia:Service awards/Table where, indeed, those notes for the higher levels had been recently added. I have reverted, so they are gone. Sorry you've been troubled... JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- No prollem! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Valiant Little Tailor
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Valiant Little Tailor. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 18
DoneHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iron people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Iranian (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) 14:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Hijra
DeclinedThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hijra. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2015)
I had some input on it, though not a lot.
 "Boy on white horse" by Theodor Kittelsen
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Head • High diving Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople DRV
ResolvedHello; I recently closed a discussion for the above category CFD here. A deletion review of the decision has been opened DRV here. I'm notifying you because you participated in the CFD. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2015)
Declined Personal finance – an example image of personal budget planning software
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Scottish mythology • Head Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Wikipedia:ITSA listed at Redirects for discussion
Done
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:ITSA. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ITSA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 3
ResolvedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bocce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Criollo (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) 10:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture
| You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
|---|---|
 |
|
Congratulations
|
100000 Edits | |
| Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 339 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
|
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
| This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award. |
. Buster Seven Talk 15:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Congrats, SMC. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, folks. The sick thing is, almost none of that 100K is WP:AWB; I haven't used it in years, and only for cleaning up small categories of articles like Category:Cue sports. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Update
DoneYou don't know me, but I just wanted to let you know I replied to your excellent comment from six months ago that you posted at the bottom of this talk page discussion. Have a good day. Czoal (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I commented there and suggested at WP:ANRFC that it be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Yes, there was quite a snowstorm in that RfC. By the way, that debate actually stemmed from this condescending lecture I got from an editor on my talk page after I moved the template from the bottom of an article, where he had placed it, to the top. In any case, thanks for requesting the close. Czoal (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you sitting down?
DoneBelieve it or not, I'm popping by because I think your perspective may be useful here: Talk:Feral_organism#Requested_move_2_October_2015. Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- LOL. I'll have a look at it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I went with Sminthopsis's idea, which retains all the info, but puts the animal stuff in its own article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2015)
Stale.png)
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Personal finance • Scottish mythology Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Please comment on Talk:Special administrative region
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Special administrative region. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikigroan listed at Redirects for discussion
DoneAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikigroan. Since you had some involvement with the Wikigroan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:African American
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African American. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2015)
Declined Costumed performers from the 2006 Bristol Renaissance Faire
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Musical composition • Personal finance Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?
On hold until 08:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- As I think you know, I'm temporarily unable to contribute to that discussion. Thanks for the notice, anyway; I doubt that the issues surrounding the specific page section in question will resolve themselves somehow in a single month, so I'll probably weigh in on it after the TB expires. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of Britain
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Britain. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!
Donehttps://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr
This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.
To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Flags redux
DoneFlags to right of them, flags to left of them, flags in front of them, flutter'd and wave'd.
SMcC, FYI: [47]. I trust you agree that tagging Russian ballet dancers with national flag icons is an inappropriate use. It's kind of funny, but whenever there's a MOS:ICON dust-up on the talk pages, it's always a sports-related article that is trotted out. Personally, I think national flag icons for ballerinas and dinosaur fossils are a lot more egregious, but I suppose there are those flag-waving apatosaurs and raptors that espouse nationalist tendencies too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Dirtlawyer1: Can't do anything about it right now (see on-hold note). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Understood; I was thinking your t-ban only extended to editing MOS provisions, but broadly construed this obviously touches on MOS. Sorry to bother you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- No prob. I'm hoping the frequency with which people keep asking for my input on matters blockaded by the TBan will get the TBan lifted early, but so far the request has been sitting there for weeks. My guess is the TBan will expire before the request is acted upon. [shrug]. As for "broadly construed", the admin in question did in fact extend it directly to at least one article (even though that appears to violate the scope of WP:ARBATC), so I'm not taking any chances. The closest to a chance I'm taking is commenting on style matters in article talk from a strictly external-sources perspective, e.g. what Oxford /Hart's and Chicago say about comma usage. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done, now that the TBan has been voided (and it would have expired by now anyway). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- No prob. I'm hoping the frequency with which people keep asking for my input on matters blockaded by the TBan will get the TBan lifted early, but so far the request has been sitting there for weeks. My guess is the TBan will expire before the request is acted upon. [shrug]. As for "broadly construed", the admin in question did in fact extend it directly to at least one article (even though that appears to violate the scope of WP:ARBATC), so I'm not taking any chances. The closest to a chance I'm taking is commenting on style matters in article talk from a strictly external-sources perspective, e.g. what Oxford /Hart's and Chicago say about comma usage. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Understood; I was thinking your t-ban only extended to editing MOS provisions, but broadly construed this obviously touches on MOS. Sorry to bother you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Denali
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denali. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2015)
Declined Ice hockey is an example of a team sport. Pictured is an 1893 ice hockey match at Victoria Rink, Montreal.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Costume • Musical composition Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Won't fixHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lusitanic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglophone (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) 09:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Tribscent08 and Universal Medicine
Tribscent08 is a WP:SPA with ties tot he cult. Frankly, we need to start topic banning the two or three SPAs on that article, because all they ever do is beef about how it's not promotional enough neutral. It's a cult, it makes batshit crazy claims, Benhayon's daughter claims to have given tens of thousands of pounds' worth of swimming coaching as a donation in kind, in the UK chaorty accounts, but without any trace of any meaningful number of people actually using the swimming facility. It really is a scam. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- @JzG: I don't doubt you (on any of that). I was just doing due "in case it's an earnest noob not an SPI" diligence in explaining how proper sourcing works here. :-) If only it were as easy to deal with lo-o-ong term "civil PoV pushers". Obvious promotionalists are way easier to get the community to do something about than more subtle WP:GREATWRONGS activists on long-game campaigns to manipulate our coverage (see, e.g., top item on my user page re: Pakistan). There's a lot of that going on with regard to GMOs, e-cigs, even linguistic matters. [sigh] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes, this is very much the case. I am increasingly convinced that there will eventually have to be a body on Wikipedia that can make binding decisions on content. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Surely. And we have a countervailing problem that all of the dispute-resolution mechanisms under WP:DR cannot be used except in a content dispute, other than running to ArbCom and spending a month pretending to be an attorney with a bunch of people pretending to be a court, or throwing the dice at ANI, where you will win or lose based on how popular you are with whoever shows up that day, and mostly as a factor of how good you are at being concise and sweet-sounding for the 15 seconds you have people's attention. This dual problem is insanely gameable. If you're a NOTHERE PoV-pusher, you can use one set of tactics and approaches to weasel and skew the content, dancing around the usual DR processes, but ultimately immune to ArbCom as long as you're good at the "civil-PoV" game; meanwhile using a different set of tactics to warp policy and processes (especially to make it easier to keep doing what you're doing to the content), knowing that there's almost no DR recourse available to stop you. All it takes is patience and skill at verbal manipulation to get your opponents to look like the bad guys, and political acumen in persuading people you're not really doing anything wrong. If this double-backdoor is not closed, it will eventually be the death of WP, because all the paid advocates, fringe loons, and propaganda agents will slowly become admins and take the place over, as they gain ground and force out actual encyclopedist editors who oppose them. This is an already ongoing, slow-motion coup d'état. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes, this is very much the case. I am increasingly convinced that there will eventually have to be a body on Wikipedia that can make binding decisions on content. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Requesting guidance
DoneGreeetings
It seems you have been working on culture related some articles too. I am requesting your kind guidance for change of name of one article. When I started working on a new article recently, presently named Poles in mythology actual article name was some thing different, actually due to some misunderstandings some one changed name of the article to Poles in mythology. Matter of the fact is I wanted to cover cultural aspects and festive celebrations as an umbrella article and wanted to have historical mythological, worships wherever concerned as a small part of the main article.
Poles in mythology is altogether a different subject when I am doing research and writing cultural aspects of festive celebrations are also coming up simultaneously and I am coming to a conclusion that for covering cultural aspects of festive celebrations of 'pole' we need to have a separate umbrella article altogether so we will not have more confusions and misunderstandings. Either we need to change present article name or split and create a new cultural aspect related article.
Please let me know your openion and if you are positive to my suggessions what should be the new articles name ? In fact you can join in discussion at Talk:Poles_in_mythology#Change_of_article_name
Looking forward to your kind guidance
Thanks and warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sofia
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sofia. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2015)
Stale Models promoting Zombieland at San Diego Comic-con. A zombie comedy is a horror comedy subgenre that involves zombies.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Team sport • Costume Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Disambiguation link notification for October 26
FixedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Ride-or-die chick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Dyke and Gold digger
- Chicano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to European people
- Colored (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Race
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration proposed decision posted
DoneA proposed decision has been posted in the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science
| You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
|---|---|
| |
Halloween cheer!
Hello SMcCandlish:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– North America1000 01:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.
- Happy (belated) Halloween! North America1000 01:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's still very much ongoing in my time zone, what with Halloween falling on a weekend. My neighbs are partying loudly and will probably be at it for another 4 hours. Guess I'll watch zombie movies. I usually go next door and join in their parties, but don't feel like it this time around. Will take too much effort to work out a costume from the stuff in my wardrobe. Last time, I did a smoking jacket, an old-fashioned hat, and a cravat, as the Thirteenth Doctor, but that lazy pseudo-costume only works once. I'll just wait until they have a non-Halloween party, heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Inventions and Sinfonias (Bach)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Inventions and Sinfonias (Bach). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 45, 2015)
DeclinedHello, SMcCandlish.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Comedy horror • Team sport Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Topic ban belatedly lifted
Hi, I realize this somewhat late, but the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive275#Request_to_lift_temporary_topic-ban has been closed and the ban formally lifted. As far as I'm concerned, you are retroactively unbanned as of a month ago. I realize that this is small comfort, since the ban only had 2 more days to run, but I don't think maintaining unsupported sanctions just because we're too lazy to lift them is a valid reason.
Happy editing.--Aervanath (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Aervanath: Thanks. I appreciate it, "just for the record" if nothing else. It was a pretty silly situation. Unfortunately, I'm eyeballs deep in "real work" right now, and don't actually have time to work on the WP stuff that I did have time to work on a month ago but couldn't because of the TBan. LOL. So it goes. Hopefully I can get back into that stuff in a week or so. The bulk of the source research is done, but the actual content writing will take considerable effort. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also just for the record, I only now realized (that's how little I hold grudges!) that Future Perfect at Sunrise, who issued the TBan that was just vacated, is the same admin who issued me a bogus short-term block last year, predicated on false facts and assumptions, and then pulled the no-response act, dragging it out until it was moot, despite being reminded multiple times "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." This is the second time the same admin has used punitive WP:AC/DS to muzzle me, after a dispute had already wound down, and did so in heavy favor of my opposite party in a content dispute (the first time, on the direct request of that party). Both times, the one-sided sanctioning action was taken on the basis of false accusations of wrongdoing and a total lack of understanding of what was actually happening. In both cases the admin refused to provide evidence of their accusations against me, to respond to my requests to clarify, and to respond to multiple other parties' (including other admins') requests for justification. This is not exactly a trust-inspiring pattern of admin tool use, and there's a procedural remedy for dealing with that which I'll avail myself of, for the first time in my ten+ years here, if it happens again. Many editors would already have done so, but I trust that it will simply not be repeated. We all have better things to do here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Storing these diffs here because I keep needing them: WP:AN rescinded the ban [48], retroactively [49]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Arguments in News discussions
Can you create an essay WP:Arguments to avoid in News discussions or an essay about arguments in WP:ITN/C discussions? --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)@
- @George Ho: Someone could, but I have almost no contact with ITN, so I wouldn't be familiar enough with the "frequently made arguments" there. I'd be more in a position to write WP:Arguments to avoid in style discussions. Anyway, see WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages for starters. Are the ITN problems ones that are not already catalogued there? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- You can do an essay about arguments in style discussions... What are style discussions? George Ho (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- WT:MOS and the talk pages of the other style guidelines, and similar discussions at other pages. Discussions about writing style, punctuation, grammar, spelling, tone, dialect, layout, and other presentation style matters. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- You can do an essay about arguments in style discussions... What are style discussions? George Ho (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Infoboxes and mobile
Just for info - Infoboxes are visible in mobile (at least in the version I'm using which I think is beta). They appear as a link "Quick facts" which expands to display the whole infobox including images. It's sidebars, navboxes, stub templates, hatted stuff on talk pages etc that are the problem! PamD 06:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the solution adopted for infoboxes can probably be adapted to the other cases. Might even just be a matter of applying some existing CSS classes, though I have not looked into that yet. I don't spend much time on WP in mobile (meaning phone) browsers (lots of netbooks use regular browsers; "mobile" is a poor word choice, really, better describing the method of networking than anything to do with the display). If I'm hitting WP on my phone, its usually to look something up in the lead of an article. I've only tried editing WP from a phone a few times; not a pleasant experience. I think I did see something last month about all collapsed content being permanently inaccessible in the mobile skin. That's obviously a problem that needs fixing. It doesn't make any sense that the clickable widget to expand it would disappear in that skin. 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Ping: PamD. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Political correctness
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political correctness. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 46, 2015)
Declined Marie Serneholt at the 48th Guldbagge Awards.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Allegra Versace • Comedy horror Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
E-cigs PD talk page
DoneHi SM, Could you please to move your comments in Awilley's section to your own? I think it might be easier if you do it yourself rather than me moving them around. If you don't (want to / etc) let me know and one of the clerks will. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Callanecc: Okey-dokey. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
TAFI talk
Done
- Hello SMcCandlish:
- You are invited to participate in this discussion at the TAFI talk page regarding improving the automation of project processes and management of the project. Your input is appreciated.
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement's talk page. Message added 14:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC).
Request to revisit the discussion. North America1000 14:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done. I opened a thread, Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Pre-bot streamlining, on ways to improve the presently iffy usability. The page is on my watchlist. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Infoboxes; DS alert
If you want to issue DS alerts to all participants in infobox discussions who called their opponents something unpleasant, you will be a busy man ;) - thanks for logic I find convincing, btw. I use {{infobox person}} for all people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've resolved to deliver them henceforth every time I see WP:ARBATC transgressed in a way that can't be denied, particularly in instances of imputing that another editor has a mental problem (insanity, fanaticism, obsession, etc.) Not because I think the recipient is a WP:JERK, but because this tendency to treat WP talk pages as if they were webboards or Usenet newsgroups (venues for sport debate and flamewarring) is decidedly anti-collaborative (and I say that as someone historically far too flamey). I expect this to have two long-term results (other than some additional being people irritated with me): a general increase in civility in these discussions, and an increase in awareness that the {{Ds/alert}} system is pointless bureaucracy that should be abandoned in favor of assuming that WP:AC/DS can be applied to any regular participants on pages / in processes subject to DS, on the basis that they can't help but know the DS apply after enough participation. I'd like to see the DS, at least in this topic area, either abandoned, or applied 10x more frequently, but more moderately (e.g. 1-day blocks, 1-week narrow topic bans). The present practice of singling out a small number of editors for lopsided punitive treatment has to end one way or the other.
Back to IBs: I default to {{Infobox person}}, but it's often not suited to topical bios where some particular convention has evolved. E.g. the typical snooker bio infobox (as at Ronnie O'Sullivan) has a large number of parameters that do not pertain outside snooker, and which would be onerous if manually coded as custom fields. I'm a little put off by the {{Infobox composer}} one, because it's clearly been "shaped" by a single editor to "forbid" certain kinds of information that would routinely be included (e.g. notable relative, unless there's a separate article on a whole "dynasty" of them). On the other hand, its limitation of the use of the works parameter to only be used for a link to a "list of works" article instead of someone's cherry picked inline list of favorites, is a great idea that should be propagated to other infoboxes, other than for subjects notable only for a very short list of total works. I'm not a "let a thousand flowers bloom" guy when it comes to interface elements and presentation methods, preferring a consistent user experience, but I favor "let 1,000 ideas get tested, and implement the best ones broadly". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Learning. Compare the first approach (Bach's 2013 birthday, archived) to the recent one which people could support. The arbitrators thought they could manage ib discussions by simply taking Andy and me out of the game, - as we see now nothing was solved. The belief in the influence of a single editor is amazing (and wrong). It is not one person responsible for a gender gap, and not two people the cause of unrest in composer ib wishes. Ask the future arbitrators questions about it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I know. At least three admins appear to be convinced that if that damned SMcCandlish is muzzled that disputes about style matters will stop. It's a fantasy. I quit WP for an entire year, other than to pop back in and answer some questions or respond to attempts to undo my template work when others notified me about it in e-mail, and nothing at MoS changed at all, other than for the worse. When it wasn't largely moribund, it was bent in project-unhelpful ways by people on various short-sighed pet peeve missions. The WP:BIRDCON brouhaha (which has notably resulted in a massive amount of calm about article title capitalization after the dust settled) was blamed on / credited to me, but was set in motion by an RM that happened while I was still away during that time, and kicked into high gear by a pro-capitalization editor who launched the RfC on the matter against my advice to let it lie (I'd returned by that point), and after threatening me with DS, by the way. All I did was provide the bulk of the evidence and logic against the pro-capitalization side. And I got sanctioned for proving the case against them because someone took me to AE for statements I made about their tactics that were already proven in their original contexts, and I wasn't given time to re-prove them at AE with another pile of diffs. We call his "railroading". I do more to resolve style disputes, in lasting ways, than I ever do to start any of them. It's just that some people get pissed off and raise holy hell if such a dispute isn't getting resolved their pet-peeve way.
In fairness, I was more vociferously argumentative ca. 2012–2013. But no amount of Judge Dredd admin behavior has changed my attitude toward how to approach content and policy disputes here. What has changed my mind is editors with sometimes opposing viewpoints, like Peter Coxhead, and Dirtlawyer1, taking the time and effort to suggest where I was too debatory and what some better approaches might be. Having people like Montanabw, and earlier Noetica, both of whom I had seemingly intractable long-term disputes with, come around and agree to truces was also very helpful. It takes two to argue, but also two to mend the fence. I'm willing to mend fences with anyone, even people I've not been able to see eye-to-eye with much for a decade. All it takes is some mutual effort. With a few, this doesn't seem practical, though I try to verbally support them any time I agree with them on minor stuff, even if I have to debate them on other things, so it doesn't seem like I'm opposing them just to oppose them. It's all to easy to respond only negatively, an effect that newspaper and PR people have know about for a century (if every letter of praise received represents the views of 5 to 10 times as many as a negative one, because people are spurred to action mostly when they're angry or afraid, not when they're content). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I know. At least three admins appear to be convinced that if that damned SMcCandlish is muzzled that disputes about style matters will stop. It's a fantasy. I quit WP for an entire year, other than to pop back in and answer some questions or respond to attempts to undo my template work when others notified me about it in e-mail, and nothing at MoS changed at all, other than for the worse. When it wasn't largely moribund, it was bent in project-unhelpful ways by people on various short-sighed pet peeve missions. The WP:BIRDCON brouhaha (which has notably resulted in a massive amount of calm about article title capitalization after the dust settled) was blamed on / credited to me, but was set in motion by an RM that happened while I was still away during that time, and kicked into high gear by a pro-capitalization editor who launched the RfC on the matter against my advice to let it lie (I'd returned by that point), and after threatening me with DS, by the way. All I did was provide the bulk of the evidence and logic against the pro-capitalization side. And I got sanctioned for proving the case against them because someone took me to AE for statements I made about their tactics that were already proven in their original contexts, and I wasn't given time to re-prove them at AE with another pile of diffs. We call his "railroading". I do more to resolve style disputes, in lasting ways, than I ever do to start any of them. It's just that some people get pissed off and raise holy hell if such a dispute isn't getting resolved their pet-peeve way.
- Learning. Compare the first approach (Bach's 2013 birthday, archived) to the recent one which people could support. The arbitrators thought they could manage ib discussions by simply taking Andy and me out of the game, - as we see now nothing was solved. The belief in the influence of a single editor is amazing (and wrong). It is not one person responsible for a gender gap, and not two people the cause of unrest in composer ib wishes. Ask the future arbitrators questions about it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think you - kind of neutral - might be able to "mend" between those who think an ib is as normal to an article as images, and those who believe any ib damages the article. You met a few, and there are not many more. The Sibelius talk is probably not the ideal place to hold talks about the editors who take an article to GA/FA. Sibelius is none yet. The principal editor is Ipigott, not a fighter in the battle. Mirokado supports ibs. Sgvrfjs has good ideas on ibs for his compositions, see Talk:The Oceanides (GA). Those who commented so much last night after I had given advice how to avoid it barely touched the article. - Some neutral space for discussion the extra rights of people creating extra quality might be a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that proposing extra rights for some editors should be discussed elsewhere; I was just responding to the suggestion that they somehow already had extra rights. On IBs, I'm not all that neutral, and favor them, except for stubs that don't have enough info to bother with yet, and I'm "wikipolitically" opposed to wikiprojects trying to blockade the addition of infoboxes to any of 'their" articles, so I have two dogs in the same fight, as it were. Not sure I can be much of a moderating factor. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- No question that they believe they already have extra rights, including reverting an IB that was there for years (but talk about respect for a history without one), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- In a nutshell: Talk:Joseph (opera). I have potential arbitrators look at it. They tell me they are not brave enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'd thought there was a previous discussion about removing the old box, not just someone removing it. But I haven't dug into the history much. As for mediators not wanting to get involved, I'm not surprised. Admins in general seem to be increasingly avoidant of anything controversial; as much as I have an issue with 3 or 4 of them, most of them mean well and do pretty well, but take a lot of crap for it. That said, the classical IBox dispute doesn't seem all that bad, it's just tedious and drawn out. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that proposing extra rights for some editors should be discussed elsewhere; I was just responding to the suggestion that they somehow already had extra rights. On IBs, I'm not all that neutral, and favor them, except for stubs that don't have enough info to bother with yet, and I'm "wikipolitically" opposed to wikiprojects trying to blockade the addition of infoboxes to any of 'their" articles, so I have two dogs in the same fight, as it were. Not sure I can be much of a moderating factor. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think you - kind of neutral - might be able to "mend" between those who think an ib is as normal to an article as images, and those who believe any ib damages the article. You met a few, and there are not many more. The Sibelius talk is probably not the ideal place to hold talks about the editors who take an article to GA/FA. Sibelius is none yet. The principal editor is Ipigott, not a fighter in the battle. Mirokado supports ibs. Sgvrfjs has good ideas on ibs for his compositions, see Talk:The Oceanides (GA). Those who commented so much last night after I had given advice how to avoid it barely touched the article. - Some neutral space for discussion the extra rights of people creating extra quality might be a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I just had reason (two questions by different users) to enter the minefield of Mozart, looking at the history. That of Joseph was easier: I inserted in 2013, was reverted, a bit of discussion, - now - with less restriction, I'm on parole, DYK? - I tried again going over the old cases. I should have looked at the history and the talk, but might have liked to check anyway if some people learned in two years. Of all operas reverted in 2013, Joseph is the only one which still is like that. - I think you could run some RfC about the extra rights of principal authors in general, where infobox is only one topic. There's also citation style, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Citations needed tags on MoS pages
ResolvedHi, I hesitate to invite you to enter MoS discussions, given recent admin actions, but I'd like your opinion. I strongly object to the addition of "citation needed" tags to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. This is the thin end of a very long wedge, it seems to me. You have more experience than I do in these matters; I thought there was a clear consensus that MoS pages don't need citations to support decisions recorded there, although they can be added for information. See also Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Improper tagging.
Am I right in my view about previous consensus? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Right.
{{citation needed}}is a WP:V template, and that policy applies to encyclopedia content, not internal documentation like policy/guideline pages, which are a matter of consensus. I thought there was only one editor who didn't understand this, but now it seems we have a pair of them [sigh]. I refactored the editor's concern (which may be valid) to the guideline's talk page. We do sometime use citation templates to provide external links when MoS is explicitly following a third-party standards document (see, e.g., footnotes at MOS:ACCESSIBILITY). But they are not "sources" for why MoS says what it says; the only existing or needed source for that is WP's own talk archives. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think I need to add Category:Tired Wikipedians to my user page too. It does get tiring when we go over the same old ground time and time again. I think that the editor concerned may have a point, but the point is whether this a helpful convention for the English Wikipedia to use to represent English phonemics in its articles, given that some of it seems to be unknown elsewhere, not whether OR is involved or citations are needed. Sigh... Keep calm and carry on, I guess. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
DoneJust a head's up, since you've been involved in this kind of thing, we (I) might have a problem with wording where our sources do not provide (reliable) data on the number of native speakers. Would value your opinion. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I chimed in, and it reminded me of something else, too. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 47, 2015)
 A continuum of goods and services
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Marie Serneholt • Allegra Versace Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
EBSCO request
Hi SMcCandlish, I had tried to send you and email on 15 October regarding your application for access to EBSCO, but it looks to me like there may have been a problem with the email. Have you received it yet? I would be happy to re-send it if it hasn't gone through. -Thibbs (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Thibbs: I don't seem to have it; checked my spambox, too. I do have the "Email this user" featured turned on, and even got a notice that you'd left this message here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm currently conducting follow-ups for those who haven't responded to my first email. When I email applicants I usually retain a copy for my records that I can then re-send if there are problems but for some strange reason I can't find a copy of my original email to you. So it's quite possible I never sent it in the first place... If that's the case then I apologize for the lengthy delay. Anyway I just sent the email so we should be back on track now. Thanks for your patience. -Thibbs (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the followup. :-) I've submitted the form. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm currently conducting follow-ups for those who haven't responded to my first email. When I email applicants I usually retain a copy for my records that I can then re-send if there are problems but for some strange reason I can't find a copy of my original email to you. So it's quite possible I never sent it in the first place... If that's the case then I apologize for the lengthy delay. Anyway I just sent the email so we should be back on track now. Thanks for your patience. -Thibbs (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I sent you a similar email for OUP but don't see a form response there either - did you get that email? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Oh, yes, it just got mis-filtered. I submitted the form just now. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Larry Sanger's NPOV
They have not wandered off. In fact, they want to rewrite the articles as lifestyle products. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Good quote; using that on my userpage along with the Pakistan news. This is a much bigger problem than e-cig article manipulation. With WP in the top-5 sites in the world, and the world's most-used encyclopedia and general "databank", there are tremendous stakes involved, seeking to worm their way in for outright propaganda purposes. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- They are very active. There are socks everywhere. The problems are way too big. Nothing has been done about the problems on Wikipedia. They are accusing me of things they did. They do something against consensus and then they accuse me of what they did. They are accusing me of things I did not do. An editor is being accused of being a meat puppet account for agreeing with me. What would Larry Sanger do? I added about 90% of the content to the e-cig page this year. Now they want me gone rather than collaborate. Once I am gone they will rewrite the e-cig page and related pages. I have seen things like this before. I does not matter who is right or wrong. Larry Sanger's NPOV has been forgotten. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Azov Battalion
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Azov Battalion. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Ahem
Moved back to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § MOS:ELLIPSISRe: [50] I'm hoping that based on you own reverts[51] you might be open to the possibility that this is quite unlikely to be either wiki-laywering/gaming. Having this in the middle of the discussion probably isn't going to help keep things focused. If you can find a solution that you're comfortable with to that, it would be really appreciated. —Sladen (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Sladen: I'm objecting to the "proceduralize this to death" approach. It does smack of wikilawyering. It doesn't matter why we arrived 8 years ago at something. It's been stable and has resisted change so there's a consensus for it. Consensus can change, but it does so by presenting a new rationale for why that change should happen, not second-guessing why a decision was made that long ago. We do not have a time machine and cannot go back and re-examine the entire decision-making process. The breadcrumbs left though old discussions are an incomplete snapshot of what the thinking was. We do not need an endless raft of people showing up at MoS claiming they can't find a decade-old consensus for some line-item that triggers one of their personal pet peeves. Nothing would happen at MoS every again, pretty much, other than dealing with people raising bogus procedural "appeals" against every single thing in MoS they want to change for their own personal reasons. The specific rules in MoS are less important than its stability. Zero editors agree with every single line-item in MoS, and zero line items in MoS have universal agreement. What we do agree on is to operate under it because any project of this sort has to have a style guide, which will necessarily contain many arbitrary things simply to settle disputes and prevent inconsistent usage. Every sport, by analogy, has to have a ruleset, and not everyone will always agree that each of them is perfect, but the game does not go on unless people agree to play by the same rules. If you have evidence that that rationales for the rule against the (for me, nearly impossible to make out) unicode ellipsis character are faulty, then present that evidence. It's a waste of time to try to "re-litigate" an eight-year-old consensus discussion on the merits of the arguments 8 years ago. If nothing else, it's a WP:DGAF matter. No one cares whether the arguments were good 8 years ago. We care what MoS should say now, based on arguments that make sense now. I see no case really presented for the benefit of using that character today. It's hard to read, hard to type, and may well still present font problems on some systems. Even if that last point is no longer true, it is not the only (present-day) rationale against that character. This is part of a wider-ranging set of issues, e.g. about using Unicode fraction characters and so on. Just because a character exists does not mean it is the ideal representation of something in an encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
A drive-by thank you!
I truly appreciated your thoughtful and accurate explanation at ArbCom, re:GMO case. Atsme📞📧 04:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do my best. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- ...which is exceedingly good. Thanks for sharing yourself. petrarchan47คุก 20:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- YW! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- ...which is exceedingly good. Thanks for sharing yourself. petrarchan47คุก 20:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome
... to the cabal of the outcasts! You will have seen that there's WP:QAIPOST for news of project interest, such as: are the recordings of BWV 38 better as a list or a table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Music in your ears and heart! (in a box) - ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- ps: What is it showing the image strangely displaced? Here a simple link, or see my talk today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Looks okay in my browser, if the intent was that it be floated to the right. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Compare for example this, - when I added to your page, the image alone floated left, while the frame was right. I'll try. Now it works in preview, but it did before. Perhaps some html code in a message above?
- Looks okay in my browser, if the intent was that it be floated to the right. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 | |
| A Boy was Born |
|---|
- Btw: I usually archive my talk when I get to 50 messages ;) - Did you see the revert on Sibelius? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Now it works, the image that was removed from the article as pointy. Pointy yes: it points at the fact that our article name is not good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Pings can't be fixed
Hi -- having seen your edit summary, I thought it might be useful to point out a "gotcha" that many editors fall into: it is useless to fix a malformed ping. The reason is that pings are only activated when the auto-signature at the end of a message is rendered. Once that has happened, the ping won't have any effect no matter what you do to it. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which itself is only a necessary condition. You actually need to start an entirely new block of text to ping a user. --Izno (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ping: Looie496, Izno – So, if you fix the username in the ping, it won't work even if you remove your sig and make a new one? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know. Looie496 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Correct. Other fun bits at mediawikiwiki:Manual:Echo. --Izno (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, butt-nuggets. I guess next time I'll have to self-rv the entire block of text, then put it back in with a new ping and sig in a separate edit. This is really sub-optimal. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ping: Looie496, Izno – So, if you fix the username in the ping, it won't work even if you remove your sig and make a new one? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Iranian peoples
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iranian peoples. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Saw a comment at naming (persons)
I'm curious; do you know of any recent central discussion regarding the play of (particularly) WP:STAGENAME with WP:LOWERCASE (since STAGENAME as well as WP:TITLETM are probably the most likely to cause odd capitalization)? There's a guideline discussion related where I've been asked my preference whether odd capitalization is something to capture in article titles. Neither of the above really capture "go with RS", though you seemed to have an opinion on that that may or may not differ from the guidance of the above. --Izno (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Izno: Not right off-hand. I got a bogus topic ban from AT/MOS, and while it was lifted on appeal to WP:AN, it took most of Sept. – early Nov. to get that result, so I'm way behind on these topics. There's some amount of faintly related discussion at both WT:AT and WT:NCP, about rendering of nicknames and pseudonyms, and the gist of it is "follow our conventions, don't do what entertainment industry magazines do (they lack independence because their advertising dollars come from labels/studios, so they do what those $ sources tell them to), and don't do weird stuff to names/titles on WP unless general-audience sources almost invariably honor the weird style, as with "iPod" and "Deadmau5", but not "KISS" or "Ke$ha". See also the ongoing RM at Talk:JIRA, and the talk page and archives at MOS:TM, and quasi-recent RM and WT:MOSCAPS and WT:MOSTM discussions (Aug.–Sep.?) about overcapitalization in song titles. Not sure where else to look for recent material. Where's the discussion you're talking about? Sounds like one I'd want to put my $0.02 into (and I'm asking, so you wouldn't be canvassing :-). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's a listed RFC to which I've contributed in the past few days... it shouldn't be hard to find it through some basic stalking. :^) --Izno (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
What exact name to use varies on a case by case basis, so all this "Option 1", "Option 2" stuff is a waste of time.
A more succinct statement of my position on the 'naming' point. :^) --Izno (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)- I guess I did find it, then. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's a listed RFC to which I've contributed in the past few days... it shouldn't be hard to find it through some basic stalking. :^) --Izno (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Bot automation at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement
Greetings WikiProject TAFI members!
Over the past two weeks, there has been extensive discussion on introducing bot automation to assist with maintenance of the Today's Articles for Improvement project. A bot has now been approved for trial and will carry out the weekly duties. The bots first run will occur around 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) (midnight on Sunday).
If you have been assisting any of the weekly maintenance tasks, please refrain from doing so this week. The bot needs to be tested and proven it can do the job, and it only gets one chance per week. The tasks will include:
- Adding the new scheduled article to Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement and removing the entry from Wikipedia:Articles for improvement
- Set up the schedule pages for the new TAFI, except the adding of an image and caption
- Adding {{TAFI}} to the new article for improvement, remove {{TAFI}} from last week's article and add {{Former TAFI}} to the talk page
- Notify relevant WikiProjects that the new TAFI is within their scope
- Send a mass message to everyone on the notification list of the new TAFI selection
Updating the accomplishments and archiving selections is still done manually, along with daily tasks such as adding approved entries to the articles for improvement page. These will become automated in the near future.
We hope the bot proves to serve well, and by carrying out the routine housekeeping tasks we can boost the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the project. MusikBot thanks you for your service in helping with the weekly tasks in the past, and for your cooperation during this trial period :)
Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • for all project notifications
Read this... thoroughly!
Moved to User talk:Cebr1979- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Don't you EVER put something back on to my talk page that I have removed. Ever.
I never even read whatever you added, nor will I.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Cebr1979: LOL. You need to actually read and understand the guideline you're citing like a weapon. No one owns their own user talk pages; they exist for the sole purpose of facilitating editor–editor communication to improve the encyclopedia via collaboration and to resolve inter-editor conflicts. It's entirely permissible to refactor something temporarily to simply enable a reply. We all know that you nuke everything off your talk page. You know that others find this disruptive and anti-collaborative when you do it so fast and so WP:POINTedly as to make communication difficult. No one takes seriously, for five seconds, your patent WP:GAMING attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER the user talk guideline to make other editors, attempting in good faith to use user talk pages for their intended purpose, look like bad guys and raise a bunch of WP:DRAMA; it's the very WP:LAMEst possible form of conflict generation. I don't know if it's going to take a week or a year, but the predictable ultimate result of this behavior, combined with all the other behaviors that lead people to rarely post anything on your talk page but objections and warnings, is an indefinite block for WP:COMPETENCE / WP:NOTHERE / WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:DE patterns. I'm pretty sure everyone can see this but you. I think that result will be unfortunate, because some of what you've done here has been constructive, and it would not take any real effort on your part to stop this (It takes excessive, unproductive effort, however, to act as hostile and isolationist as you have been). The community has had no compunction in the past closing the gate to sometimes-productive editors who seem unable to get along collaboratively and who treat Wikipedia like some kind of deathmatch game. It doesn't matter whether you refuse to read what people post to your talk page; per the very WP:USERTALK guideline you cite, your deletion of such posts constitutes acknowledgement and understanding of them. There is no provision anywhere for "banning" anyone from your talk page if they have a legitimate reason for posting here (pointing you to applicable guidelines and policies, and their meaning, in the wake of your own excessively hostile, policy-misconstruing post on my talk page is a legitimate reason, and more to the point so is suggesting how to avoid further trouble with other editors here). The WP:ICANTHEARYOU game you're trying to play is a failure before it even begins. Finally, you have no business demanding that others read your talk page posts "thoroughly" if you make a point of ignoring everyone else's. See WP:KETTLE. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't you EVER come to my talk page again!
ResolvedI have said that to you before and this is your last warning! You understand "weapons" (as you called it) as much as you understand the English language (which is not at all, you're a joke both ways). Read this. NOW. And then stop acting like you know wikipedia (and the English language). You're an editor, not a scholar on anything. "LOL..." as you like to say (even though intelligent people are the ones actually "LOL-ing" at you and your nonsense. One more reminder: don't ever come to my talk page again. Cebr1979 (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Cebr1979: I'm not sure on what basis you're making assumptions about my level of scholarship. I never made any claims in that regard anyway. But it's a straw man fallacy; your grammar and punctuation behaviors, in those cases, are wrong because published style and grammar guides uniformly say they're wrong; denial of this fact, and pretense that it has anything to do with my personal views, doesn't make it go away.
Re: your demands: Again, you have no power to "ban" people from your talk page if they have legitimate business there. You'd be best served by abandoning this quixotic quest to treat your user talk page as if you own it. You do not, as a matter of clear policy at WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and as explained in further detail at WP:USERTALK. Some disused essay at WP:DRC (did you write that yourself? I can't be arsed to check) that no one but you seems to cite with any frequency doesn't trump mainline policies and guidelines, so your complaint is still invalid. Since it's not a valid dispute, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop leaving these weir, histrionic demands on my talk page. Feel free to use it if you have a legitimate editorial issue to raise, though. And if it makes you feel better, I have no intention of posting at your talk page henceforth unless I have another legitimate reason to do so. The rest of your venting doesn't appear to need to be addressed in any way other than by reference to WP:TEA and WP:MASTODON.
PS: You can, under especially egregious circumstances, get the community to genuinely ban someone from your talk page and otherwise from interacting with you; this is called an interaction ban or "iban", and you can seek one at WP:ANI. I would discourage you from doing so, since your complaint will not be taken seriously, and you'll get WP:BOOMERANG sanctioned for wasting ANI's time with a frivolous and vexatious demand. Your consistent hostility level toward all who approach you with dispute resolution attempts probably guarantees that at some point another editor will seek an iban against you, however, so you might as well know that the process exists and what it's for. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2015)
.jpg)
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Goods and services • Marie Serneholt Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)
DeclinedThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikicode on WT:MOS
ResolvedAt 22:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC), you added 43,506 bytes to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and something has disrupted the wikicode of the last section (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Supports). I suspect that a few nowiki tags are not matched with /nowiki tags. Please try to find and remedy the problem.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- SMC, look at the paragraph following the phrase 'these journo stylebooks'. It appears that the wiki formatting has been lost in that paragraph (there are lots of naked square brackets). EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your help.—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Pings: Wavelength, GeoffreyT2000, EdJohnston – Sorry about that; I was running late for a Thanksgiving party, and didn't preview closely enough. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your help.—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Atlantis
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atlantis. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Succinct
Seriously, to be effective, get the message across quickly and succinctly. I've asked you to do this before, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. For what it's worth, I know nothing about the machinations of Arb sanctions, unlike you I spend a good portion of my time on Wikipedia improving articles and away from the drama boards, so your message was, frankly, wasted on me. Have a great weekend and remember, less is more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I'm not sure what non-quick, non-succinct post you're referring to ("Huh? What are you talking about?" is a common reaction to overly compressed, rushed posts, BTW). Your opinion about how detailed others' posts may be to keep you satisfied does not create an obligation on their part to compose differently, no matter how frequently you browbeat them about it. The purpose of the {{Ds/alert}} template is to make people aware of the sanctions, so you now no longer know nothing about them. I spend nearly zero time on the drama boards, and a tremendous amount of time improving articles, but thanks for the dual false accusation anyway (not). Less is certainly more when it comes to such aspersion casting. If you're going to say something critical, be constructive about it. There's no need to add belittling falsehoods to it and then double the snideness with fake well-wishing. It just inspires people to write you off.
You're not in a position to criticize anyone for posting too much when your own debate technique consists of repeating the same material again and again, SHOUTING IT IN ALL CAPS AT PEOPLE when you don't get what you want, and then forum-shopping it by opening up a whole new subthread about your obvious-answer question. That's a far less concise and less collegial approach than simply making your point clearly, using multiple sentences if needed, the first time around. Even if I actually agree with you on the article in question and the arguments presented; the ends do not justify the means. Changing minds and swaying debates may not be most optimally done with wordiness, but just pissing people off and yelling until you get the demanded attention is the least effective approach.
Tl;dr version: See WP:KETTLE and WP:MASTODON. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your response is a perfect personification as to why virtually no-one listens to anything you have to say. But thanks for trying, I would advise your attempts at dispute resolution are more succinct too otherwise you'll be losing your audience each and every time. All the best with that, although I dread to think what you'll end up doing to our community by boring them to death with your text walls... by the way, "forum-shopping" is not the same as opening up a new section of the same talkpage when a question (still unanswered, seven times hence) is a fundamental part of the discussion. But then again you just need to fill Wikipedia with your own speech, not worry too much about quality and action I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. Just a word of advice in your future roles, please stop with the links to essays and policies and guidelines and shit. It really doesn't help. Be selective, your overlinking "advice" to people immediately turns them off, and while I'm sure you're trying hard to be helpful, you're just doing the opposite. I've been here long enough to see what does and what doesn't help people, and your approach is simply not helpful mostly. Talk to people like a human, without all the easter eggs and without the overt verbosity, and you may find success in your quest to help the encyclopedia, otherwise I fear you're wasting not just your time, but everyone else's who has to wade through your walls of text and endless links. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- What was that about concision? How many times do you need to make the same "I think you post too much" point in the same thread? You don't seem clear on what the concepts of brevity and verbosity truly entail. I'm not interested in any more of your psychological projection. My input is actually frequently directly solicited by others. The fact that you don't listen to me says nothing about anyone but you and your uncollaborative attitude toward people you don't agree with. You don't want to link to things to support what you're saying? Fine. Then don't yell in all-caps when others don't do it to your satisfaction. And don't then re-reverse yourself and come pester others on their talk pages when they do link, but to things that aren't flattering toward your behavior. I'm detecting a pretty obvious pattern here of "I know what's best, I have a duty/right to tell everyone else how to communicate, and they'd damned well better not contradict or criticize me". Unsolicited, repetitive "advice" and venting is not a useful response to someone dropping off a prescribed ArbCom template. Also not interested in your wikilawyering. "It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." That reasoning applies to forking out pointless threads on the same page even if the examples at WP:FORUMSHOP are about using different pages or asking different admins. Finally, I didn't volunteer to fill a gap at DRN to give you yet another excuse to come here to make insulting predictions and demands. For someone self-declared as averse to drama, you sure seem to be trying every possible avenue and excuse to raise as much as possible with me. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I'll try a restart in the interests of peace and progress: Yes, of course, I recognize that some more brevity on my part would be useful, and you are not the only one to suggest this. It's something I work on a lot, whether you notice any improvement in that regard or not. I hope you will also give my note about AGF/CIVIL matters in AT/MOS discussions some consideration. They are, after all, about policy compliance; there is no WP:BREVITY policy, though I concede that it does not require your compliance with that matter for me to also work on something I need to work on. I think you may be under the impression that I wrote all that verbiage in the template, and were reacting to it as a bunch of WP:BUREAUCRACY on my part. It's ArbCom's wording, no one is permitted to change or shorten it, and they do not permit any alternative "notice" about DS; see Template:Ds/alert. There's a thread open at WT:Arbitration Committee about how pointless this red tape is. All we're allowed to do is add |2=Personal message, like why I'm leaving you this template in the first place., and mine was plenty concise I think. I even inserted a horizontal rule to separate it from the boilerplate because the template itself is already a bit of a text-wall. I didn't make it that way, and it's unpleasant to be vented at for its lack of concision. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but your assumption that an admin would be conversant with the endless Arbcom nausea is ill-founded (to whit, your charming claim of "I'm pretty certain that as an admin you should already be aware that RM discussions are article title and style discussions under the "broadly construed" provision of the WP:AC/DS authorized for WP:ARBATC, and that this qualifies as personalizing a title/style dispute:
"It's time now to start reacting against this kind of insidious editing, demand evidence and guideline or policy support for such single-minded and personally preferential edits."
[53]). Your template also did nothing at all other than make me remove it. I don't even know what it really meant, it would be meaningful to actually address the issue. With your feedback, you should talk to Arbcom, for whom you've become a vessel, and try to reduce the spam and improve the quality and personal aspects of the messages. I have no issue with you personally, other than you continually, continually fail to note and respond to the fact that less is more. But that doesn't make you a negative, it just means your message gets lost again and again in the text walls. Just think about every template and embellishment you post and how much time that's wasting you and the recipient. Do something better instead. Good luck with your volunteering, I hope it improves for you and Wikipedia. I won't be continuing this discussion anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)- The Rambling Man. I'm pretty sure that ArbCom assumes that admins are conversant with ArbCom's output, since it relies on them for WP:AE and WP:AC/DS and "holds them to higher standards" when it comes to the DS-subjected topics. I don't deny that the entire system is a bunch of red tape; I've already initiated at WT:ARBCOM (for whom I'm definitely no vessel; they view me as a gadfly) a thread of observations on how the DS stuff is not working, and it's led to some committee members and other admins agreeing that the system needs a review (the last one was in 2013). There seems to be an urge over there to pass the buck to the next batch of Arbs, next year, so no one should hold their breath. The meaning/purpose of the
{{Ds/alert}}is just "be aware that this topic area is one of the DS ones", and it is the one and only prescribed way to deliver such a notice. Until ArbCom agrees to change it, there is no way to "improve the quality and personal aspects" and "reduce the spam" nature of the DS/alert template. If you think this is un-wiki b.s., I agree. Many of us suspected this kind of bureaucratic nonsense would result from the community accepting something like ArbCom. In the interim, we're stuck with it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)- I'm pretty sure that ArbCom assumes that admins are conversant with ArbCom's output... - now that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Do a straw poll of admins, particularly those who are more interested in improving Wikipedia than lurking around the drama boards, and you'll probably down in single digit percentage points of those who are "conversant with ArbCom's output". Most of us are doing more important things. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Input to that effect might be useful at WT:ARBCOM. The lack of admins' "reality checks" there probably has much to do with why it's so far off the rails. That said, it's nice to see an admin essentially confirm what I've been saying for a long time with no one on the ArbCom/AE side seeming willing to believe it: There's a special "brotherhood" of "enforcer" admins who seem to do little on this project other than crack skulls at ArbCom's behest, while the rest do in fact seem more interested in working on an encyclopedia and avoiding drama – and it's pretty easy to tell the difference. When I point this out, I get called "incivil" (or "uncivil", depending on spelling preferences). I point out that speaking the truth plainly isn't actually a civility problem, but that, too, generally falls on deaf ears. The ArbCom/AE crowd seem to think that "civility" means "appearing to be obsequiously nice, even if you're really being a total dick and hiding it behind flowery words" and that "lack of civility" means "failing to kiss so much ass your lips fall off, even to make a simple observational point about behavior patterns." <sigh> The AE and ArbCom approach to what "civility" entails is increasingly diverging from the community's actual expectations and ground-truth norms. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that ArbCom assumes that admins are conversant with ArbCom's output... - now that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Do a straw poll of admins, particularly those who are more interested in improving Wikipedia than lurking around the drama boards, and you'll probably down in single digit percentage points of those who are "conversant with ArbCom's output". Most of us are doing more important things. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man. I'm pretty sure that ArbCom assumes that admins are conversant with ArbCom's output, since it relies on them for WP:AE and WP:AC/DS and "holds them to higher standards" when it comes to the DS-subjected topics. I don't deny that the entire system is a bunch of red tape; I've already initiated at WT:ARBCOM (for whom I'm definitely no vessel; they view me as a gadfly) a thread of observations on how the DS stuff is not working, and it's led to some committee members and other admins agreeing that the system needs a review (the last one was in 2013). There seems to be an urge over there to pass the buck to the next batch of Arbs, next year, so no one should hold their breath. The meaning/purpose of the
Arbcom is over
See here. Only Larry Sanger can fix this. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- LOL. Sanger quit years ago. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- They stopped paying him. Then he gave up. There is a slight difference. QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- True. I neutrally meant "Sanger has not been actively involved for years", not "Sanger walked out and shame on him" or anything like that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- They stopped paying him. Then he gave up. There is a slight difference. QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Anyway, I've looked over the AE material. Frankly, I think you dug your own hole on this one. The overall claim that you did not moderate your approach in any way in the wake of the ArbCom case seems to be a fair assessment. (For whatever procedurally improper reason, I wasn't notified of the case closing, despite being a party.) Ergo, my suggesting in article talk that you might just have to let PoV-pushers hang themselves with their own rope over 6 months or so appears it will be your involuntary "option". :-) That said, hopefully enough balance-seeking editors will remain involved that no particular PoV camp will actually be permitted to turn the article into a travesty. I also have to agree with some of the criticisms, not just observe that they were made. It really doesn't seem constructive to me to do things like hyperbolize nicotine toxicity as "lethal" and engage in similar edits. I'd defended you in the RfARB as a voice of MEDRS reason, so I'm disappointed to see that critical judgement lapse into a series of tweaks that seem designed to use weasel-wording to make implications that the sources don't really say. Hopefully your impending break from the topic will allow you to shake this all off and come back with a more careful, measured approach to the topic. Due to the heat it generates, I'm unlikely to wade into it much for a while. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- They are taking my edits out of context. I did make follow up edits. They are not showing the diffs where I improved the original edits. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure. That's why I say this is political now. The dramaboards are basically a really shitty UN simulation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- They are taking my edits out of context. I did make follow up edits. They are not showing the diffs where I improved the original edits. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
E-liquid
You do know who created the e-liquid page, right? The sock has returned. One of socks was blocked when you were told they wandered off. QuackGuru (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I generally don't pay attention to that stuff, just the content and its sources. The biggest jackass the world can create a page, and we can still do something with the material in it if it's not all crap. What we don't need is WP:POVFORK pages; these beg for merging. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have seen them do the opposite of what is best. Don't be surprised if they say the Electronic cigarette aerosol is a POVFORK, or is not notable or is duplication of the Safety page. Almost all the balance-seeking editors have left the page. Very shortly that will take turns replacing sourced text with OR, add MEDRS violations, rewrite part of the lede and so on. There is going to be a ton of edits to rewrite the page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- They're not all same "sorts" of editors with the same viewpoints. Many seem to want the same balanced approach I do, though I think some have at least a theoretical "stake" in the issue that I do not (I'm not an e-cig user, a smoker, a former smoker, etc.) I find myself increasingly disagreeing with some (not all) of your MEDRS interpretations. I suspect that you're basically just pissed off and burned out a bit on this topic and the hostility surrounding it, so every edit looks like a conspiracy that must be met with nuclear fire. For their part, many of the other editors on that page are also just pissed off at you personally, and looking to challenge everything you do even when it made sense. I've been commenting in support of whatever proposals seems to make the most sense to me, regardless who's making them or opposing them. Best I can offer. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have seen them do the opposite of what is best. Don't be surprised if they say the Electronic cigarette aerosol is a POVFORK, or is not notable or is duplication of the Safety page. Almost all the balance-seeking editors have left the page. Very shortly that will take turns replacing sourced text with OR, add MEDRS violations, rewrite part of the lede and so on. There is going to be a ton of edits to rewrite the page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other. I created the E-Liquid page. I am not a sock. Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other.Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were a sock; I reported that the creator of the "competing" article thought you were. Don't shoot the messenger. You also mistook my contradicting someone else's primary sourcing point with me contradicting yours, and posted an accusatory text-wall of a rant about it. Please pay more attention to what other editors actually write, instead of jumping on the most negative possible interpretation you can imagine, then posting in a reactionary manner based on such a negative but questionably plausible interpretation. It will save everyone a lot of time, effort, and blood pressure. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I was just saying to QuackGuru (that I was not a sock) grafted on some readily available text to front and back. I may not be perfect, but I am the original and only. Over and out Mystery Wolff (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Mystery Wolff: The socking suspicions are, I would think, raised because you arrived all of a sudden possessing quite a lot of knowledge about WP operations and policy – "just enough to be dangerous" as the saying goes, but enough that it's implausible you aren't a fairly long-term editor. That said, the obvious good faith assumption is that you were extensively editing as an anonymous IP editor, or even under another named account that you later abandoned, and aren't a sockpuppet of an active user (or, worse, a banned one). I myself was an IP editor for months before I finally created an account, so I don't have any difficulty making the good-faith assumption about why you're so ready to cite and quote policy (sometimes incorrectly, but with enough detail that it's clear you've been around). However, WP has changed a lot since my own early days here, and suspicions rise more easily now, especially in topic areas fraught with PoV-pushing and anger, so it's pretty natural that various editors will be suspicious.
You've come in at a bad time (for this topic) and have a handicap against you: This entire topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions, about which I see you've been alerted on your own talk page. A particular one, that's kind of unusual, is outlined here: "Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy". The "discretionary" part means that admins are empowered to make up their own minds about whether to apply such sanctions, without some community noticeboard consensus to proceed. Ergo, anything that looks like sockpuppetry is liable to be interpreted as being sockpuppetry, and admin action taken accordingly without further ado. Especially if it triggers one of the other sanction conditions listed there: "Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely".
Given all that, it's in your best interests to a) not take WP:BATTLEGROUND-like positions and actions that make you appear to be editing with "a clear[ly] shared agenda" in a "tagteam" voting block with other editors who share your viewpoint, instead letting discussion proceed and consensus form more calmlyl and b) avoid disruptive "sport argument" on these articles' talk pages, like most of the objections you've been raising there, several of which were mistaken and pointless, and the rest of which were unnecessarily ad hominem and about the editor not the edits. The only agenda anyone should be advancing at that (and related) articles and their talk pages is producing balanced, well-written encyclopedic material for our readers. Hope this helps, and happy editing. (I mean that. We need more active and constructive editors, who can put aside their reactions and beliefs, and treat this like a collaborative project not a PR machine.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: I am not a sockpuppet. I am a user of these products. I am a researcher, and have been known to work with InfoTrac and microfilm in libraries, prior to the internet. The assumptions that I was editing any of the topics in question prior to this account as an IP editor are wrong. The E-Cig topic was and is locked, you need an account too. I am known to read instruction booklets, and Wikipedia has a large one. I don't see the lock as being a handicap, I see it as one level of BS filter already applied, a good thing. I do believe smoking is health hazard, but I do not think the evidence against Nicotine is there. The FDA agrees with me on both.
- I don't have a shared agenda, I am not operating in tandem with or tagteaming. I mentioned to a friend I was editing Wikipedia, and they said why bother. I guess Stephen Colbert and John Stewart really did some damage to the reputation of WP when they sent fans out to make changes and do screen captures. I know those changes would have been reverted out within minutes. I do think that Wikipedia is a value and resource.
- When you call my some arguments pointless, that is a poor assumption of me that you mistakenly make. Your "good faith" assumptions about me...in the end, are errors. You can reflect on why you made those errors. or not. But they are error.
- The item on the E-Cig talk page was a definitional error on your part. There is a disputed theory that low amounts of cigarette usage are equal harm to high count of cigarette users. That 4 cigarettes a day are as harmful as 2 packs a day. The citation that QuackGuru used was one of 3 individual patients, it was not a study. You already forced me to look up the information on proper primary and secondary sources, so we know the issues. Perhaps it would be wise to not put your personal stories into talk a pages, as a means to bolster support for an edit at controversy. You perhaps would not associate the application of proper WP editing associated with you. As you say the Article in under ARB already, don't put your personal sensibilities into the fray as support for edits.
- In my research on WP, I read QuackGuru saying that he wrote 90% of what was on the Electronic Cigarette pages, and he did not want to see changes. My editing started around the 19th, my familiarity with the topic started years ago. My POV is the truth, and like a bell, it has a certain sound to it™. Houses made of straw need not apply. Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting you; I said I'm assuming good faith, so you need not defend yourself against sock-puppetry suspicions with me. The topic has been so over-run with b.s., not everyone necessarily will assume good faith, though, especially if your primary activity on the articles' talk pages is picking fights over nit-picks that don't matter. I'm just advising how to not draw unwarranted suspicion. Some of your arguments are pointless, like going off on me for supposedly opposing the addition of sources you want to add, when I opposed QG's desire to delete them, and you simply didn't read it correctly. Etc. Let's just drop it and move on. I don't care if someone in particular claims to have written X amount of some article; I consistently (quite frequently in fact) argue against such "ownership" claims (cf. my recent-ish comments in classical composer infobox debates, etc.). Someone can write every single word of an article, and WP:5P, "mercilessly edited", still applies. You keep raising "what QG said" as if it's what I said. I've never said anything, anywhere, ever about whether nicotine itself poses health risks, for example. You're arguing with me about positions you think I'm taking or that I hold, that simply are not there. I've never argued for or against any view that low cig. usage is as bad for one's health as high levels of smoking, so you're again arguing against a straw man, and claiming I made "a definitional error" about it. That's completely imaginary. If anyone were to ask me, I'd say it's ridiculous that smoking a little has the same negative health effects as being a chain smoker; I've witnessed the difference, having had both chain smokers and light smokers in the family, and I remember who got cancer or emphysema and who didn't. And no this is not another opportunity for you to inject a mistaken accusation that I'm engaging in OR with anecdote; OR does not apply to people on talk pages explaining their own levels of skepticism. Can we give this a rest now? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting you; I said I'm assuming good faith, so you need not defend yourself against sock-puppetry suspicions with me. The topic has been so over-run with b.s., not everyone necessarily will assume good faith, though, especially if your primary activity on the articles' talk pages is picking fights over nit-picks that don't matter. I'm just advising how to not draw unwarranted suspicion. Some of your arguments are pointless, like going off on me for supposedly opposing the addition of sources you want to add, when I opposed QG's desire to delete them, and you simply didn't read it correctly. Etc. Let's just drop it and move on. I don't care if someone in particular claims to have written X amount of some article; I consistently (quite frequently in fact) argue against such "ownership" claims (cf. my recent-ish comments in classical composer infobox debates, etc.). Someone can write every single word of an article, and WP:5P, "mercilessly edited", still applies. You keep raising "what QG said" as if it's what I said. I've never said anything, anywhere, ever about whether nicotine itself poses health risks, for example. You're arguing with me about positions you think I'm taking or that I hold, that simply are not there. I've never argued for or against any view that low cig. usage is as bad for one's health as high levels of smoking, so you're again arguing against a straw man, and claiming I made "a definitional error" about it. That's completely imaginary. If anyone were to ask me, I'd say it's ridiculous that smoking a little has the same negative health effects as being a chain smoker; I've witnessed the difference, having had both chain smokers and light smokers in the family, and I remember who got cancer or emphysema and who didn't. And no this is not another opportunity for you to inject a mistaken accusation that I'm engaging in OR with anecdote; OR does not apply to people on talk pages explaining their own levels of skepticism. Can we give this a rest now? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: I am not a sockpuppet. I am a user of these products. I am a researcher, and have been known to work with InfoTrac and microfilm in libraries, prior to the internet. The assumptions that I was editing any of the topics in question prior to this account as an IP editor are wrong. The E-Cig topic was and is locked, you need an account too. I am known to read instruction booklets, and Wikipedia has a large one. I don't see the lock as being a handicap, I see it as one level of BS filter already applied, a good thing. I do believe smoking is health hazard, but I do not think the evidence against Nicotine is there. The FDA agrees with me on both.
- @Mystery Wolff: The socking suspicions are, I would think, raised because you arrived all of a sudden possessing quite a lot of knowledge about WP operations and policy – "just enough to be dangerous" as the saying goes, but enough that it's implausible you aren't a fairly long-term editor. That said, the obvious good faith assumption is that you were extensively editing as an anonymous IP editor, or even under another named account that you later abandoned, and aren't a sockpuppet of an active user (or, worse, a banned one). I myself was an IP editor for months before I finally created an account, so I don't have any difficulty making the good-faith assumption about why you're so ready to cite and quote policy (sometimes incorrectly, but with enough detail that it's clear you've been around). However, WP has changed a lot since my own early days here, and suspicions rise more easily now, especially in topic areas fraught with PoV-pushing and anger, so it's pretty natural that various editors will be suspicious.
- Actually I was just saying to QuackGuru (that I was not a sock) grafted on some readily available text to front and back. I may not be perfect, but I am the original and only. Over and out Mystery Wolff (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were a sock; I reported that the creator of the "competing" article thought you were. Don't shoot the messenger. You also mistook my contradicting someone else's primary sourcing point with me contradicting yours, and posted an accusatory text-wall of a rant about it. Please pay more attention to what other editors actually write, instead of jumping on the most negative possible interpretation you can imagine, then posting in a reactionary manner based on such a negative but questionably plausible interpretation. It will save everyone a lot of time, effort, and blood pressure. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes let's place it to rest. I have asked on the TALK page of ECigs to close out the edit line in question. Made it in such a way that there should be no confusion. If someone wants to keep the line, they will make a case for it there. The argument of what the effects of low cigarette usage are, is a point that is being asserted here http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.full If you look at the studies cited by that author you will find its convoluted. They are combining studies which use different definitions of light smoking. I understand the message that people should not be light smokers. But it is also being used for the agenda that Electronic Cigarettes by the way of dual usage is not affecting harm reduction. Been a while since I dug all the way down on this study, but as I recall you go to the origin cites, and it does not reflect how its being characterized. The FDA has a process of quantification of population level health benefits written into the deeming of Electronic Cigarettes to tobacco product. That journal and its authors contest Tobacco Harm Reduction, by means of reducing cigarettes, in so called Dual usage. But yes I will REST here. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that the question has been raised in sources, and by other editors, it just wasn't raised by me. I haven't read enough of the dual usage material to formulate an opinion yet, and it would have a lot to do with source quality. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Resolved- You said "Where an editor is from (or where someone thinks they're from) isn't tied to what opinion they express anyway"
- I appreciate your other comment, but this bit, sorry, but I didn't say it did, so would you mind withdrawing that comment rather than suggesting the idea that I did. "East Europe" is different from "Eastern European" editors. As the above context makes clear the reference of "East Europe" editors is to those working on the East Europe article corpus, whether they are "Eastern European" or not. I for example am not. Many thanks 13:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, but it's not a distinction many editors would have been likely to intuit. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your other comment, but this bit, sorry, but I didn't say it did, so would you mind withdrawing that comment rather than suggesting the idea that I did. "East Europe" is different from "Eastern European" editors. As the above context makes clear the reference of "East Europe" editors is to those working on the East Europe article corpus, whether they are "Eastern European" or not. I for example am not. Many thanks 13:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2015)
 The First Geneva Convention (1864) is one of the earliest formulations of international law.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Coffee production in Cuba • Goods and services Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Hi,
I reverted your last changes to {{User contrib CentralAuth}}, because this template is designed to work with CentralAuth. I created a new template for tool introduced by you. It's here: {{User contrib GUC}}. problem Regards, --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 17:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort, but why? It would be more practical to rename the template than to fork it in a way that will almost certainly result in a merge at WP:TFD, in favor of the more accurate tool. And your revert also undid the fix to the broken link problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the link. Also we can use a native MediaWiki API to query deleted revisions (example). IMO CentralAuth prints enough information about user's contribution, without printing the list of last edits on each wiki. It's more handy in some cases. GUC is a god extension for CentralAuth's functionality, however that is not always needed, I think. IMO we should keep two templates, one more limited but using the MediaWiki software and the second, which use the external tools, like GUC and xtools-ec. Different design equals different purpose, so both are useful. And IMO not always the more sophisticated tool reflects the user's expectations, so it's good to leave him/her a choice. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I can see that, but this is just a userbox, and the one tool produces less accurate counts, so I've been skeptical about its usefulness for this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why is CentralAuth counter less accurate? --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Rezonansowy: Not sure. At a guess maybe it does not count deleted edits, but it's hard to say for sure. It misses a notable number of them, though. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why is CentralAuth counter less accurate? --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I can see that, but this is just a userbox, and the one tool produces less accurate counts, so I've been skeptical about its usefulness for this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the link. Also we can use a native MediaWiki API to query deleted revisions (example). IMO CentralAuth prints enough information about user's contribution, without printing the list of last edits on each wiki. It's more handy in some cases. GUC is a god extension for CentralAuth's functionality, however that is not always needed, I think. IMO we should keep two templates, one more limited but using the MediaWiki software and the second, which use the external tools, like GUC and xtools-ec. Different design equals different purpose, so both are useful. And IMO not always the more sophisticated tool reflects the user's expectations, so it's good to leave him/her a choice. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox language
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox language. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Political correctness
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political correctness. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Still at it
I see that you are still in the thick of MOS debates and other controversies about the project's operation. I admire your stamina and determination.—Finell 00:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- To a minor extent. I have a lot of real work keeping me busy these days. Pointing out that consensus, not someone's cherry-picked idea of external sourcing, is what determines WP's guidelines isn't really much of a "controversy", though. Six years is more than long enough for everyone to come to accept that WP works on a consensus basis, and agree to work within that framework. This constant rehash of the same proposals to require internal guidelines to be subject to WP:CORE, as if they're articles, is disruptive. We just went through the same pseudo-issue with regard to Help:IPA for English last month. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion
| You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
|---|---|
 |
|
ALERT
Unnecessary
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This notification is complete towards the explanation of the Alert. If you need help with questions, please don't hesitate. Or you can find them at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#aware.aware Mystery Wolff (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I was a party to the case. You don't need to leave these for anyone who was actually in the case; they're already aware of the discretionary sanctions in that topic area. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups
DisregardThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2015)
.jpg) Princess Leia with characteristic hairstyle cosplayed.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: International law • Coffee production in Cuba Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
BA article
Deferred to User talk:EuryalusHi SMcCandlish, taking into consideration my temporary ban front he BA, I'd like to highlight the serious flaws in how user Faustian along with "other" editors changed the "Wrongful Accusations section". They basically flipped everything upside down — they took the views of Hagen which were marginal and "fringe" along with the established arrival date of the army in Poland and simply flipped it. Now the new section is titled "Date of arrival in Poland" — there really is no controversy when the BA arrived, only if you skew the the issue to base it on Hagen's "fringe" claims. I'm actually very taken aback that this is allowed to happen. The article should have received a lock to prevent user Faustian from imposing this views on it. --E-960 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm swamped. I'll defer to Euryalus on this, and said as much at the Talk:Blue Army page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. First, have let E-960 know that the terms of the topic ban also include not taking part in the discussion of the specific topic elsewhere on Wikipedia. Appreciate this has been an inadvertent breach to date. In the issue - I have very little familiarity with the Blue Army, and thanks to you all for the opportunity to read the article. I have to say the discussion on the talk page, while vigorous, is not at present a disruptive one. I don't know who is actually correct on the content question, but the tone of the debate seems fine. Feel free to correct my perception with appropriate diffs if required.
- In passing, e-cigs and Eastern Europe? What next, UK-Ireland? Israel-Palestine? Infoboxes? -- Euryalus (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Euryalus: Who, me? It's an "occupational hazard" of subscribing to a big WP:FRS stream (and actually participating in the RfCs it invites people to); eventually you hit pretty much every topic unless you exclude specific categories of stuff. I have a pretty neutral stance on both the e-cigs debates and the Blue Army thing. I've been commenting in favor of balance, and of following the sourcing policies and guidelines closely so reduce topical strife. I've already been involved in both UK–Ireland and infobox debates. I've probably missed Israel–Palestine by dumb luck. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- In passing, e-cigs and Eastern Europe? What next, UK-Ireland? Israel-Palestine? Infoboxes? -- Euryalus (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Capitalization of institutions
DoneHello. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Capitalization_for_Board_of_Aldermen.2C_etc. as it relates to style guidance you recently helped clarify. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ásatrú
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ásatrú. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2015)
 The word scandal is used a few times in several bibles like Douay–Rheims Bible.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Princess Leia • International law Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 01:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Please comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Template:Unreferenced
Hi there. You (boldly) made this edit to Template:Unreferenced, then in the subsequent discussion said "I'd suggest we just go with 'sources'". I agree. I think the sentence should read, "This article does not cite any sources." Would you be willing to boldly make that as a further change. Alternatively, would you be willing to revert your change and let a fresh round of discussion start with a view, I suggest, to change the wording to "This article does not cite any sources." cheers Nurg (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion already appears to be happening, and has been ongoing for a while. I don't think I should change it to "any sources", since what it should read is still under discussion. I don't see any utility to changing it to the old "any references or sources" since that's redundant and there are objections to it (including from me). In short, I don't think it should be reworded until there's a consensus on what to reword it to. I don't have any procedural objection to someone reverting it to status quo ante, but I do have a slight WP:COMMONSENSE one. I think doing so would be silly and borderline WP:POINTy, because consensus will almost certainly not arrive at "any references or sources". There's no reason to pick one definitely crappy option over the current perhaps crappy one, when we'll probably arrive at a non-crappy one like "sources", which agrees with the wording used in WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOR; there is no requirement anywhere that things be "referenced"; it's just preferred that they be, per WP:CITE (which also uses "sources" in its title). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- This arises from a discussion we are having at User_talk:331dot#Re_Unreferenced_template on how to best proceed regarding the debacle at Template_talk:Unreferenced#References_or_sources. I have identified three issues, the first being whether your Bold edit should be Reverted pending BRD, or whether we should just move ahead towards a consensual wording. While I am not a particular fan of the prior wording, I think that to avoid undermining BRD, and to remove one issue from any subsequent discussion, it would be useful if you were to revert. I think it is not excessively "pointy" to revert, but quite the opposite: that it is a very important point to respect WP:BRD as process regardless of our sentiments regarding any particular content, that BRD is not something to invoke when we like it, and otherwise not. Which form is less crappy is really a minor issue, and quite transient if we can formulate a better version. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- My enthusiasm regarding this idea is still at a nadir. BRD is bold-revert-discuss, not bold–self-revert–discuss, so it does not have anything to do with BRD process at all, much less "respect" for it; BRD has not in fact been invoked. No one likes "any references or sources" enough to revert it themselves (if anyone even likes it at all). I'm not going to self-revert it to the worst possible option just because the present text isn't 100% perfect. Commentary so far appears to favor just "any sources", as I do myself, so it's hard to see any eventual outcome other than "any sources". We're all adults here and can carry on a simple conversation about what the wording of a template should be (which will ultimately probably determine what its name is) without anyone's head exploding. Ultimately, I WP:DGAF. I made a common-sense edit (kinda-resolving a redundancy, by turning a run-on into an explanatory parenthetical while retaining both "references" and "sources" in the same order), that was less bold than it should have been (i.e., simply changing it to "any sources"). I've chimed in on the proposals to resolve the matter, and even launched one of them myself. This is already too much time spent on a trivial matter. If people want to revert me, go for it. This is not important to the encyclopedia and shouldn't be this important to anyone working on it. If it's still unresolved in a week, I'd suggesting taking the matter to WP:TFD (the D stands for discussion not deletion), to get a WP-wide view on the matter, or do what the RM closer said, and make it an RfC at WT:V or WT:RS. Either way, the discussion would not be relegated to the same 5 or whatever people talking about it on the template talk page for a month. It like arguing about what kind of roadkill that was twenty miles back. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't want to revert your edit because it might be taken as confrontational, and most likely would be taken as a comment on the content rather than on the process. I think it is a small distraction either way, but, unfortunately, some of these nominal adults are easily distracted, as illustrated by the disjointed discussions, which do tend to explode. For sure it is a relatively trivial matter, but if we can't work out trivial matters we will never be able to handle substantial matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- @J. Johnson: Like I say, I don't care if someone else reverts. I just don't want to personally make any changes to it while the discussion is ongoing (my general default is to leave stuff alone if it's under discussion, unless something serious is triggered like a BLP concern or copyvio, that mandates an "err on the safe side" approach). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't want to revert your edit because it might be taken as confrontational, and most likely would be taken as a comment on the content rather than on the process. I think it is a small distraction either way, but, unfortunately, some of these nominal adults are easily distracted, as illustrated by the disjointed discussions, which do tend to explode. For sure it is a relatively trivial matter, but if we can't work out trivial matters we will never be able to handle substantial matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- My enthusiasm regarding this idea is still at a nadir. BRD is bold-revert-discuss, not bold–self-revert–discuss, so it does not have anything to do with BRD process at all, much less "respect" for it; BRD has not in fact been invoked. No one likes "any references or sources" enough to revert it themselves (if anyone even likes it at all). I'm not going to self-revert it to the worst possible option just because the present text isn't 100% perfect. Commentary so far appears to favor just "any sources", as I do myself, so it's hard to see any eventual outcome other than "any sources". We're all adults here and can carry on a simple conversation about what the wording of a template should be (which will ultimately probably determine what its name is) without anyone's head exploding. Ultimately, I WP:DGAF. I made a common-sense edit (kinda-resolving a redundancy, by turning a run-on into an explanatory parenthetical while retaining both "references" and "sources" in the same order), that was less bold than it should have been (i.e., simply changing it to "any sources"). I've chimed in on the proposals to resolve the matter, and even launched one of them myself. This is already too much time spent on a trivial matter. If people want to revert me, go for it. This is not important to the encyclopedia and shouldn't be this important to anyone working on it. If it's still unresolved in a week, I'd suggesting taking the matter to WP:TFD (the D stands for discussion not deletion), to get a WP-wide view on the matter, or do what the RM closer said, and make it an RfC at WT:V or WT:RS. Either way, the discussion would not be relegated to the same 5 or whatever people talking about it on the template talk page for a month. It like arguing about what kind of roadkill that was twenty miles back. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- This arises from a discussion we are having at User_talk:331dot#Re_Unreferenced_template on how to best proceed regarding the debacle at Template_talk:Unreferenced#References_or_sources. I have identified three issues, the first being whether your Bold edit should be Reverted pending BRD, or whether we should just move ahead towards a consensual wording. While I am not a particular fan of the prior wording, I think that to avoid undermining BRD, and to remove one issue from any subsequent discussion, it would be useful if you were to revert. I think it is not excessively "pointy" to revert, but quite the opposite: that it is a very important point to respect WP:BRD as process regardless of our sentiments regarding any particular content, that BRD is not something to invoke when we like it, and otherwise not. Which form is less crappy is really a minor issue, and quite transient if we can formulate a better version. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
DoneI started the discussion, so I invite you to it. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I commented there. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Help talk:IPA for English
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA for English. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
American snooker draft
Hello. And I would say welcome to Wikipedia, but you appear to be reasonably experienced. I have declined your WP:RM/TR request to move User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/American snooker into mainspace. This is because we generally don't move any user's drafts without their agreement first – in the past I have seen this cause numerous issues when they author did not feel it was ready, but others kept moving. I'd suggest you contact SMcCandlish (who I have now pinged) and have a discussion with him about moving the draft into article space. If he agrees, he should be able to make the move himself, but please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if the admin tools are needed. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've sat on it long enough; anyone should feel free to work on it. It needs more development, but I frankly forgot about it. The game and its rules are standardized (for several generations) by the Billiard Congress of America. There should be enough sources to write a proper article on it. It's not a popular game, so I'm not 100% certain it would pass WP:GNG, but worth a shot. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Update: I've found some additional sources on this, will try to find time to integrate them over the weekend. It might be enough. The main bit of help I could use is someone working from the BCA rulebook and summarizing the A.S. rules, then also summarizing the differences from IBSF/WPBSA snooker's rules. I did find a (non-authoritative) page that outlined these differences (from 1997) [54], but also saw a webboard comment about it saying that some of the World Snooker rules had changed in ways that invalidated some of the observations made in that summary, so it can't be used as a "checklist" without re-checking each item on it. Still, it might be a good starting point. That page also suggests that BCA stopped publishing the A.S. rules in 1993, and only includes the IBSF ones; I'm skeptical this is true, and am pretty sure that recent editions have included both, but this bears investigating. Some stuff I've dug up are: a photo we can use after cropping [55]; a non-trivial mention in a non-rule book (enough to establish notability), The Bank Shot by Rudolf "Minnesota Fats" Wanderone & Tom Fox [56]; an entry in Michael Ian Shamos's New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards [57]; source that it's been played outside the US (local tournaments in Rabat-Salé, Morocco, ca. 1999 [58]); historical info on the game in "Origins of Snooker" by Norman Clare (notable and reputable source), from his "Days of Old" article series, reprinted by Billiard & Snooker Heritage Collection [59] (this is a good source for our other snooker articles, including History of snooker); another image we can use after cropping [60]; photorealistic 3D models of American snooker equipment even exist [61]. That's all from first 10 or so pages of Google hits. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gender identity in the MoS". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 December 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Gender identity in the MoS, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
- As I predicted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Season's Greetings!
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello SMcCandlish: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 19:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Please comment on Talk:Taqiya
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taqiya. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2015)
 Hors d'oeuvre, also known as an appetizer or starter, is a food item served before the main courses of a meal.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Scandal • Princess Leia Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
"Articles containing overly long summaries"
ResolvedGreetings SMcCandlish, you recently created a category for "Articles containing overly long summaries," but as the word "overly" has a somewhat questionable usage in English, shouldn't the two words simply be replaced with the non-contested "overlong"? Thanks, Jg2904 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Jg2904: "Overlong" isn't uncontested, as it is fairly often hyphenated. And Fowler, writing near a century ago in agreement with 19th-century prescriptive grammarians, doesn't constitute modern conflict. As our own article notes, most major American dictionaries, including the excessively conservative and prescriptive American Heritage, "accept the word ['overly'] without comment". MoS (which doesn't apply to internal material anyway) doesn't proscribe usage that's attested in formal writing as acceptable, especially if the usage has a strong national tie (which critics of "overly" suggest), absent a clear encyclopedia-writing rationale against it. That said, this N-gram [62] would appear to support such a rename. "Overlong" is the term most often used (or "oft-used" if you prefer), though neither "over-long" nor "overly long" are wrong. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Snooker tournament naming
DoneAs one of the few active members of the snooker project would you take a look at Talk:List_of_snooker_tournaments#Six-red_World_Championship please. It involves two different tournaments which unfortunately have the same name. Currently we use the sponsor's name to identify one of them but this is being challenged. It is difficult to describe the dispute in neutral terms but if you look at the recent editing history and the discussion you will get the gist. Observations/suggestions would be welcome. Betty Logan (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Christmas!
|
Happy Christmas! | |
| Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
- @John:: And you! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
 |
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 |
| Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk) |
- @Montanabw: You too! Could be a James Brown Christmas. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Elagabalus
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elagabalus. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 27
FixedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colony (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extraterrestrial (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) 09:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 53, 2015)
File:Kissinger Man of the Year.jpg Hello, SMcCandlish.
Henry Kissinger was a Person of the Year when he was chosen as Time Person of the Year in 1972 along with with Richard Nixon.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Hors d'oeuvre • Scandal Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
I'm all for spirited discussion but you should probably retract the "falsely" comment
There are lots of things in your posts on WT:MoS that I don't happen to like, but there is one of them that crosses a line:
- (i.e. everyone but those who insist on falsely nationalizing quotation punctuation styles and those who don't care)
No one is falsely nationalizing anything. Please retract.
Whether you'd describe this as "Stop calling me a liar," "Stop implying that I'm making things up," or in some other way, you must stop claiming that I am doing something wrong. This violates WP:CIVIL and probably some other rules too.
I have provided sources that show that these two punctuation styles are indeed part of American practice and British practice. You are allowed to have your own opinion. You are allowed to think that you are right and CMoS, Oxford, AMA, APA, and the other sources that I have cited and I are wrong, but the fact that these reliable sources say "This is American and that is British," proves that I personally am not imagining or inventing the national ties involved in this issue, and neither is anyone else who has come to this conclusion by consulting these or concurring sources.
You do not have to agree with the conclusions I've drawn. You do have to stop acting like I am behaving unreasonably for having drawn them, at least in your Wikipedia posts (what you do in private is your business). You hold many beliefs that I consider unsupported and I don't talk about you this way.
Repeat: There are lots of things in your posts that I don't like, but this is where you've done something that you should retract. This comment that I am leaving on your talk page does not pertain to any other part of the posts you have made in this thread at WT:MOS; it pertains solely to this specific issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Darkfrog24: Let's just air this out and get it over with (constructively, I hope). There is nothing to "retract". "Falsely" in modern English is synonymous with "counterfactually", not "with misleading intent", and usage that has been obsolete for generations (though most of us probably understood what Gollum meant when he referred to "false Hobbitses").
Collapsing this, since other editor has publicly refused to engage.
|
|---|
|
- PS: I've largely left this alone, other than the recent argument that I'm already pulling out of, because it's been my studied observation that these issues tend to become more resolvable when both sides drop them for 3–12 months and try to find common ground again later. Hard to do if the other side re-pushes their angle on it at every opportunity, since it tends to necessitate a countering response. :-/ — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Poland
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
TheJack15
ResolvedSee Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheJack15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggerjay (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 December 2015
- @Tiggerjay: Oh great. Well, it's just an investigation/allegation at this stage, and the reasons to undo this personage's closures are a long checklist, so I expect the right thing will be done either way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Gosh I forgot to sign another post, ugh... Anyways, a bit more than just an allegation since the same SUL login was blocked on Commons for sockpuppery, but anyways, it looks like a few experienced RM editors are jumping into clean things up. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Tiggerjay: Allegation: I mean "wiki-legally" speaking; the SSP hasn't closed, so WP:AGF technically mandates that we be seen to presume innocence publicly. I have a years-long history of being targeted by a cadre of particular admins for singleminded, undue sanctioning any time I say anything that they suppose in their own heads means that I'm assuming bad faith (i.e. they get to assume my bad faith and punish me for it, because they're infallible mind-readers and above the policy they enforce, obviously). The fact that ARBCOM has overturned one of them, and AN another doesn't seem to have much effect on the zeal in certain quarters to pillory me, so I'm hedging my bets. Sig: It happens! MR: Just in case, since both of the editors doing the post-TheJack15 cleanup are not admins and might be overruled by an admin on procedural grounds, I've pre-filled an MR template for one of TheJack15's more egregious bad closes, and primed with the necessary argument. It's a commented-out subsection below the multi-MR now open, so it can be uncommented and made "live" without my having to be there (I'm pretty busy lately, and won't be watching the page. I used one or two of your own arguments, I think. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Gosh I forgot to sign another post, ugh... Anyways, a bit more than just an allegation since the same SUL login was blocked on Commons for sockpuppery, but anyways, it looks like a few experienced RM editors are jumping into clean things up. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
2016 year of the reader and peace
 | |
| peace bell |
|---|
Thank you, cabal member, for inspiration, with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- You have a great year, too! :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Political correctness
Already commented in this one.The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political correctness. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! You too. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
ResolvedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Childhood's End (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Still Life (album)
- List of English words with disputed usage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Scots-Irish
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2016)
 King Mswati III, the monarch of Swaziland, one of the Monarchies in Africa.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Person of the Year • Hors d'oeuvre Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 04:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Organized editing
Re your comment here: this summer, right around the time of your post, I was bot summoned to an RfC about Balochistan, Pakistan asking whether the long-running civil war in that region should receive any mention. I was amazed at the laziness of a block of users (who regularly edit on Pakistani topics from a nationalist perspective) all arguing against any inclusion, without serious rationale. All bot-summoned users proposed some kind of inclusion.
I tend to agree with your concerns, and recently found out that half of the editors I've come into conflict with on random Eastern European pages once ran a secret email list serve together before I even began editing Wikipedia: [63]. Organized editing by governments or other major institutions would be that much more dangerous. -Darouet (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- The question now is what to do about it, both generally and more specifically with regard to Pakistan. The obvious Pakistan solution would be to use an account (without overlapping editorial participation at any pages that appears sympathetic to pro-Pakistan PoV editing (without actually making or supporting such editing directly, asking Pakistan PoV pushers to participate with them in e-mail, and seeing if it leads to a private mailing list invite. But I don't know who has the time or inclination to play such "undercover agent" games. In the interim, it seems like we're limited to WP:DUCK. This kind of collusive campaigning exists on a lot of topics, both in article content and in the WP:POLICY space. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. It's complicated because if this kind of disruptive editing is organized by an institution (e.g. government), moles are impossible and detection difficult. If the disruption is just by a group of individual editors, then moles are possible (may have happened in the EE case), but who has time for that? And sometimes I wonder if, in practice, there's really such a big difference between people organizing off-wiki, and simply working together on-wiki long enough to behave as if they were. -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, my hope with regard to "moling" them would be that the organizationally-operated groups are not averse to admitting "converts". As for the big difference, I think the Arb case you link to gets at the difference. The question to me is "what's the difference between using e-mail a little bit for collaboration, and forming a conspiratorial bloc via e-mail? Plenty of us use e-mail between editors – the feature is built in, after all – and there's no cut-and-dry rule, so any given cluster of editors can claim they're doing nothing wrong until their level of off-WP collusion reaches exactly the level identified in the ArbCom case. The case meant well, but has effectively created an avenue for system-gaming. E-mail can be abused in multiple ways, too. One I'm familiar with (as the recipient of it) is the kind that looks like "Just a heads-up, but several other editors at [insert topic here] have contacted me in e-mail and want to pursue a [disruption | NPoV | whatever] case against against you at [ANI | AE | ArbCom | some other noticeboard]. I'm trying to talk them out of it, but not sure I can hold them off very long. Maybe you should back away from this topic area or just leave it alone for a while." Only to find out later that the same editor sent the same message, word-for-word, to every single person with an opposing viewpoint. A recent admin visitor to my page used to pull this stuff all the time, and I nearly filed an ArbCom case about that myself, having gathered sufficient evidence to have them desysopped. (I decided against it, because the on-WP discussion itself resolved out soon enough, against their position, I don't like drama, and the behavior was pervasive and obvious enough that they couldn't keep doing it, or someone else would take care of the matter; there was already an informal mailing list of recipients of such veiled and bogus threats who were preparing a case before I got involved.) These days I'm more concerned with WP:CIVILPOV and "slow-editwar" gaming. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have a lot of faith in the wikipedia project (I guess everyone who sticks around must), but even it has its dirty laundry :). Regarding civil POV-pushers, if editors truly are civil, I find they tend to be less disruptive because civility includes listening, learning and being open to changing your mind. People who don't aren't really civil, and if they stick around for long, it's because the community tolerates them. In a project like this that's hard to deal with. -Darouet (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, what's happened is that the community to an extent, but especially ArbCom and its "enforcers" at WP:AE have come to badly misinterpret WP:CIVIL as meaning "you can get away with anything, as long as you sneakily phrase everything in obsequious and ass-kissy language, no matter how much of an insulting WP:JERK you're really being if one reads between the lines, and no matter how much of a crazy PoV you are pushing." This has led to a lot of problematic outcomes. Straight-shooting editors are being chased off the system, and it's being handed over to long game slow-editwar types. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have a lot of faith in the wikipedia project (I guess everyone who sticks around must), but even it has its dirty laundry :). Regarding civil POV-pushers, if editors truly are civil, I find they tend to be less disruptive because civility includes listening, learning and being open to changing your mind. People who don't aren't really civil, and if they stick around for long, it's because the community tolerates them. In a project like this that's hard to deal with. -Darouet (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, my hope with regard to "moling" them would be that the organizationally-operated groups are not averse to admitting "converts". As for the big difference, I think the Arb case you link to gets at the difference. The question to me is "what's the difference between using e-mail a little bit for collaboration, and forming a conspiratorial bloc via e-mail? Plenty of us use e-mail between editors – the feature is built in, after all – and there's no cut-and-dry rule, so any given cluster of editors can claim they're doing nothing wrong until their level of off-WP collusion reaches exactly the level identified in the ArbCom case. The case meant well, but has effectively created an avenue for system-gaming. E-mail can be abused in multiple ways, too. One I'm familiar with (as the recipient of it) is the kind that looks like "Just a heads-up, but several other editors at [insert topic here] have contacted me in e-mail and want to pursue a [disruption | NPoV | whatever] case against against you at [ANI | AE | ArbCom | some other noticeboard]. I'm trying to talk them out of it, but not sure I can hold them off very long. Maybe you should back away from this topic area or just leave it alone for a while." Only to find out later that the same editor sent the same message, word-for-word, to every single person with an opposing viewpoint. A recent admin visitor to my page used to pull this stuff all the time, and I nearly filed an ArbCom case about that myself, having gathered sufficient evidence to have them desysopped. (I decided against it, because the on-WP discussion itself resolved out soon enough, against their position, I don't like drama, and the behavior was pervasive and obvious enough that they couldn't keep doing it, or someone else would take care of the matter; there was already an informal mailing list of recipients of such veiled and bogus threats who were preparing a case before I got involved.) These days I'm more concerned with WP:CIVILPOV and "slow-editwar" gaming. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. It's complicated because if this kind of disruptive editing is organized by an institution (e.g. government), moles are impossible and detection difficult. If the disruption is just by a group of individual editors, then moles are possible (may have happened in the EE case), but who has time for that? And sometimes I wonder if, in practice, there's really such a big difference between people organizing off-wiki, and simply working together on-wiki long enough to behave as if they were. -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages
DisregardHi, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't change my posts, including by splitting them up or adding my signature, and if you wouldn't change the order of posts. It makes it hard to follow the chronology. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: Fair enough. Then please don't post them as multiple sections on one post with a single sig. It's standard operating procedure to respond within one section to material in that section, and in another section or subsection to material in that section or subsection (and to refactor as necessary to not lose/confuse attribution). If you need a section-like heading within a post the
; Pseudo-heading heremethod works well. I didn't change the order of any posts. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Actually you did, I note, in moving my response to your claims way to the bottom where no one is liable to associate them with what you posted. I'm hereafter going to ignore any requests of this sort from you, since they're hypocritical and nonconstructive. You have no business demanding people leave your poorly formatted and section-OWNing material alone when you have no qualms about refactoring others' posts to make them effectively irrelevant. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)- (talk page stalker). SMcCandlish and SlimVirgin: I've heard that using ; to create pseudo-headers causes problems for low-vision users with screenreaders. I think I read it at MOS:ACCESSIBILITY some time back, so the preferred method is
'''Pseudo-heading here'''(using wikimarkup). As for threaded replies, I wish Wikipedia had a better system for smoothing those in. I have read a couple or ARB cases and their system of section replies is really hard to follow in context because everybody has to reply only to themselves in their own comment section. Cheers!{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}20:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)- Fair enough. I recall there being a bug open about MW treating this markup as DL/DT/DD at all unless more specifically told to do so, but I don't think anything's come of it yet. Anyway, we also have the
{{pseudoheading}}template for this and other purposes, and my point above was that creation of entire talk page subsections and then objecting to anyone using them as talk page subsections isn't how we do things. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I recall there being a bug open about MW treating this markup as DL/DT/DD at all unless more specifically told to do so, but I don't think anything's come of it yet. Anyway, we also have the
- (talk page stalker). SMcCandlish and SlimVirgin: I've heard that using ; to create pseudo-headers causes problems for low-vision users with screenreaders. I think I read it at MOS:ACCESSIBILITY some time back, so the preferred method is
Checkingfax, re: threaded replies, Wikikid has created User:Wikid77/Template:Inreply. I haven't tried it yet, but thought you might be interested. SarahSV (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)
DeclinedThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music
| Women in Music | |
|---|---|
 |
|
--Ipigott (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
. Feel free to delete this entry if you like. Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Smashing Pumpkins. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hiya, I'm sure you noticed that WP:CELTS is a total mess. I decided to have a stab at reviving it. I'd appreciate it immensely if you could help out with this, eg by inviting anyone you know who might take an interest (and/or scouring user categories for Wikipedians who speak Celtic languages, support Celtic nationalism, enjoy Celtic music etc)--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 14:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- No one especially comes to mind. I've not interacted with many editors here on this topic. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2016)
 Depictions of various deities on the entrance tower of Sri Mariamman Temple, Singapore, dedicated to the Hindu goddess of rain; Mariamman.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Monarchies in Africa • Person of the Year Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
The Summit League
DoneHello. It was advised by Dirtlawyer1 to ask you a question about 'The' in an article name. Should The Summit League article be moved to Summit League per WP:THE. IMO, it should as it is just like the universities (e.g. Ohio State University) and No. 2 for the US. Just because the league wants to be called "The Summit League", doesn't mean we need to, as well... I planned on doing a requested move once I got a couple of others' opinions on the matter. Thanks. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 19:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan: Yes. We don't keep "The" except in the titles of published works (The Lord of the Rings), and a small number of conventional cases that are near-universally treated this way (The Beatles, The Hague). For other cases like the United Nations, the Crimea, the Cato Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Labour Party (UK), etc., "the" is dropped. Our readers expect this by now, and it's just redundant to include it. Several university RMs are good precedents to cite, along with MOS:TM and WP:COMMONNAME. The inclusion of "The" in a logo is just a stylization, if the vast majority of reliable souces do not both include it and capitalize it as part of the proper name, even if it legally is one, as in the case of the Brunswick Corporation which is technically "The Brunswick Corporation". Per WP:OFFICIALNAME, what the official legal name is takes a back seat to the common name. If sources are apt to refer to things like "a 2015 report by the Summit League" (not "The Summit League"), or "the current Summit League president", etc., this is a good sign that the common name does not have "The" in it, regardless of the logo. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! I see more with just the lowercase "the" than I do with the capitalized "the". Appreciate the response! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 20:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan: Glad to help. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! I see more with just the lowercase "the" than I do with the capitalized "the". Appreciate the response! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 20:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: I've requested the move on the article's talk page. Thanks of the help! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
![[55]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laucke_in_competition_against_Georges_Chenier,_the_North_American_snooker_champion.jpg){kind=link}
![[60]](http://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/alderfer/43/411743/H0067-L39629270.jpg){kind=link}
- Noted! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note at the end of your comment on the article. I forgot to give y'all credit for the help. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan: Oh, it wasn't a credit thing, I just didn't want people to think my participation was canvassed. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Never thought of that... you still played a good part for the rationale! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 04:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Corkythehornetfan: Oh, it wasn't a credit thing, I just didn't want people to think my participation was canvassed. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note at the end of your comment on the article. I forgot to give y'all credit for the help. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Noted! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:January 8
DisregardThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:January 8. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
RE this matter, I agree -- it shouldn't have required a RFC but for some reason I was unable to fix it. It seemed to be embedded somewhere (see [64]) -- no place to make any correction -- no lead text. Quis separabit? 01:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Rms125a@hotmail.com: Understood. This kind of situation doesn't arise much. When the top of the article looks something like:
{{pp-pc1}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{calendar}}
{{This date in recent years}}
{{Day}}
- You can simply look in each template in series (Template:pp-pc1, etc.) until you find the one with the broken content. Very few articles have template-generated leads, though. Arguably, this template should be substituted in all such cases so that the lead content is in the article proper, not still in the template. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
FixedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sơn Đoòng Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spelunker (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) 09:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you get my ping
Hi, Did you get my ping from here? I botched it because I used the 'ping group' template and it does not work on meta, so I tried to reset the ping but that does not always work. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:09, 15 Jnuary 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure. On mobile right now. I did follow your link above, and sent the Eventbrite form request per the messagev there :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:IPAc-en
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:IPAc-en. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Plot and weight, plot and source preference
When it comes to including trivial details that aren't controversial, but which don't seem encyclopedically relevant, that's more a poor vs. good writing matter, not a style matter in the sense usually meant here, and is a matter for editorial discretion at the article.
I think your points are good, but they are rarely enforced (when does a plot claim become dubious?), which I believe speaks to our silent consensus on plot usage. The question I'm after is whether plot coverage should be proportional to secondary source coverage, as a matter of due weight. (That isn't a sourcing requirement but the corollary is about preference—when we do source a plot, why do we not say that we prefer secondary sources for plot over primary sources, when we prefer secondary sources for everything else per the primary source guidelines? I didn't think that would require a WP:V discussion as it seems very straightforward.) That "poor vs. good writing matter ... editorial discretion at the article" conversation isn't happening (at least in the video games wikiproject), and it makes for plot sections like that of Freedom Planet (a featured article): three whole paragraphs, in great detail, even though the reviews barely cover the basic plot. The discussion is at MoS because this was a Writing about fiction question but it could also fit in a number of other talk pages. What's your take? czar 22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Plot claims frequently become dubious, especially in summaries of plots about which there are debatable interpretive points (e.g. the "Is Deckard a replicant?" debate among Blade Runner fans), and in summaries of TV episode plots when people bring their personal interpretations of how events in episode 47 relate to those in episodes 12 and 29, etc. I don't see how plot coverage on WP can be proportional to secondary source coverage of plot points at all. The purpose of a WP plot summary is neutrality and adequacy. The purpose of most plot-discursive material in secondary sources is a) commentary on what's popular/surprising/exciting/controversial, and b) analysis of that which is subjective/complex/subject to interpretation. For WP itself to pursue the former is a WP:NPOV problem, and the latter is a WP:NOR problem. WP's own coverage of the former belongs in a "Reviews" or "Public response" or "Critical reception" section, and the of the latter in a section on literary/film studies and other academic approaches to the subject, with specific interpretive views (which are primary source material) being credited to those making them. I don't have an immediate answer to the problem of over-detailed plot summaries in video games, I just don't think that tying it to what the gaming press wrote about as exciting or as subject to conflicting interpretations has much to do with how WP should summarize the plot, to the extent a game has one (many really don't). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes
DoneThere is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2016)
 New England clam chowder
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Deity • Monarchies in Africa Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Misinterpretation on WT:MoS
ResolvedBy saying that you might have a "good reason" and "we should all hear him out," I was trying to be affirmatively supportive.[65] I know you have trouble with AGF, but this was my thought process in this case. Maybe now it will be easier to recognize. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not misinterpreting anything, or making any assumptions, much less bad-faith ones. Using unctuous working to disguise the fact that you don't trust any other MoS editors [66] doesn't make that any less an assumption of bad faith on your part. This is just more of your WP:CIVILPOV habitual opposition to MoS saying anything unfamiliar to you personally, unless and until someone "sources the MoS" with external material to back up each and every point in the guideline, which as you well know but refuse to admit is based not on external rule-book thumping but, like all of WP:POLICY, on consensus observation of what does and doesn't work well on WP.
Let's turn this on its ear: You provide reliable sources that say specifically that the other reliable sources that support this kind of hyphenation when it's needed are wrong, and which make a good case why they're wrong. Absent that, all we have are a) sources who favor and disfavor the practice, and thus b) the observable fact that the practice exists and is supported by some sources. Ergo, even if MoS were subject to WP:CORE like an article, which it of course is not, this imaginary "MOS sourcing" requirement would be satisfied already. We're done here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
January 2016
Fixed Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nine-ball may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {cuegloss|bar pool}} players, using coin-operated tables that deliver a full set of fifteen balls.{[clear|both}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Request for comment
DoneYour attention is called to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Request for comment, where a discussion is being held concerning the Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles, article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Disregard| Hostile, circular chest-beating isn't a valid use of my talk page. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
We're obviously not going to agree on your interpretation of events, so I'm not going to rebut it—but, wow, do you seriously need to advertise this grudge? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Reboot: I have no feud with you. I just ask that you not recharacterize my arguments as other than they were and then respond to your version of what you think I'm saying, versus what I actually said. It's unnecessarily antagonistic whether intended that way or not, and all it results in is wasted time and effort: you to try to restate me and argue against that restatement, me to object and then repeat what I said the first time, then both of us to re-argue what our points really are and how they relate, plus side-band mutual complaining like this user-talk thread. WT:MOS and similar pages already have too much off-topic debate on them, so let's not contribute to it. I will endeavor to not make the same error with you. I also concede that my expression of frustration about what I saw as the same pattern happening again could look like an attempt to revive an earlier dispute, or just pointless sarcasm. It wasn't intended that way; it was an "I thought we were past this already" sentiment, but it clearly didn't come across as intended. Live and learn. Your own post here, though less temperate than I would like, ultimately appears to express the same "I thought we were past that" message. Can we be good with each other now? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Please comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Salt Mud Slide. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Gaming industry listed at Redirects for discussion
DoneAn editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gaming industry. Since you had some involvement with the Gaming industry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thanks Si Trew (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Talkback
Resolved
Hello. You have a new message at Hungryce's talk page. Message added 00:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC).
I just replied to your comment. Thanks! Hungryce (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Noted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please let us know if you could add to your remarks.[67] Qexigator (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 27
ResolvedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hand-waving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Misdirection (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) 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Anthropolgy series on my favourite radio station
Hello again!
Listening to these episodes this week reminded me of you. Wondered if you were able to access them in the US.
Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 14:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Leave me alone
On the off-chance that you actually didn't understand this the last time I told you, I'll be clearer: Leave me alone. Don't follow me around. Don't post on my talk page. Don't presume to take credit for my productivity or anything else that I do. If anyone had said about you one tenth of the things that you just said about me, you would be calling them a liar and insist that they stop willfully falsifying your words. Per AGF, let's say that you are just extremely bad at figuring out my motives. It's past time for you to leave me alone. I'm not your business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)