User talk:Snow Rise: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiPlatypus.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Respect: about nurse, and collapsing and hiding
Line 278: Line 278:


:::::::My suspicion is that neither side will view that (or most middle ground solutions) as viable. The anti-group will still see it as an "eyesore" messing up the formatting of a page with an otherwise "perfect" tidiness, and the majority who support infoboxes will not see the point of making a user go through the step of revealing content and will point out that this is generally against all general style and content guidelines in this area, which direct against hiding any elements in mainspace except for in the limited case of truly immense tables (and even this exemption is almost never utilized). It's still an idea worth putting out there (what can it hurt at this point, right?), but my observation of some of the discussions on this topic makes me suspect that the more entrenched parties involved will not buy into a "compromise is when everybody goes away a little unhappy" perspective on this. [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup>'''''I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles'''''</sup>]] 01:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::My suspicion is that neither side will view that (or most middle ground solutions) as viable. The anti-group will still see it as an "eyesore" messing up the formatting of a page with an otherwise "perfect" tidiness, and the majority who support infoboxes will not see the point of making a user go through the step of revealing content and will point out that this is generally against all general style and content guidelines in this area, which direct against hiding any elements in mainspace except for in the limited case of truly immense tables (and even this exemption is almost never utilized). It's still an idea worth putting out there (what can it hurt at this point, right?), but my observation of some of the discussions on this topic makes me suspect that the more entrenched parties involved will not buy into a "compromise is when everybody goes away a little unhappy" perspective on this. [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup>'''''I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles'''''</sup>]] 01:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New day: what I came to say is that I have been accused to be a warrior in the battles (have seen no evidence though), but I rather feel like the nurse who has to take care of the wounded and wants to prevent battles, simply to avoid more work. (I received the [[User talk:Gerda Arendt#(whistle- imagine the sound file)|Nightingale award]] recently, - it was not intended that way, but sent me the message ;) )

Now to the question about hiding: following the slogan ''Curtains conceil, infoboxes reveal'' (also on my talk), hiding and collapsing is not really what an infobox is for. There was [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 7#Collapsed or hidden infoboxes|a lengthy discussion]]. (The first example quoted has now a real infobox, - unhiding it was [[User:Gerda Arendt/Vote ACE 2013|an edit]] which was presented in the arbcom case as a reason to ban Andy.) A collapsed infobox is for example on [[Little Moreton Hall]] (which I translated to German), one way of compromise. Another is the so-called identibox, first installed on [[L'Arianna]] (in 2013), now also on [[Chopin]] and [[Handel]]. I fail to see how such a thing is "messing" up anything ;) - but perhaps my tolerance for mess is too high. (The word appears on my user page.) - I also fail to see why an infobox which was stable for more than a year (including presentation on TFA day) is suddenly removed, twice. As said above: I am too lazy to care for more wounded. [[User:Montanabw|Montanabw]], who {{diff|William Burges|649342562||reverted the bold edit}}, just returned from real life eye surgery. Visions, please, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 09:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


== Please comment on [[Talk:Winged unicorn#rfc_586B11D|Talk:Winged unicorn]] ==
== Please comment on [[Talk:Winged unicorn#rfc_586B11D|Talk:Winged unicorn]] ==

Revision as of 09:29, 2 March 2015

NAVI-HUB 3000

Community/Discussion/Oversight: Community portal · Annoucements · Village Pump · Requests for Comment · Central Discussion · AfC · AfD · Requested Articles · Requested Translations · ANI · SPI · Signpost · IRC channels · Mailing lists · GA · WikiProjects directory · List of policies · List of guidelines · List of essays · Noticeboards · Requests index · ArbCom
Reference Desks: Science · Language · Humanities · Mathematics · Computing · Entertainment · Misc. · Wikipedia Library
Utility Pages: Editor's Index · Department Directory · Help Directory · Upload · Special Pages · Useful Templates · Tools · User scripts · Help Desk · Color Tools · Color-Hex · GunnMap
Portal: Wikimedia Index · Wikidata · Wikiversity · Wiktionary · Wikiquote · Wikinews · Wikispecies · Wikibooks · Wikisource · Commons · Meta-Wiki · MediaWiki · Other Wikipedias · Wikimedia Foundation



The Signpost
25 April 2024
 


Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. 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.

Avatar: The Last Airbender (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Flashback
Total Recall 2070 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Noir

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Indigenous Aryans

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indigenous Aryans. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015


Ref Desk proposal

Hi Snow, I don't know if you've been following the most recent thread on the ref desk talk page, but I have a simple proposal that I'd like your feedback on before I shop it to the whole group. It's very simple: For a trial period (1 month?), we agree to not remove or hat any questions for reasons of seeking medical/legal advice (and perhaps extend to include requests for opinion). Rather than a free-for-all, we first respond with boilerplate or a template, something along the lines of this:

At that point, we can remove any responses that diagnose, proscribe, treat any illness or legal situation, but allow links to RS. Perhaps even demand that any responses include references, or risk removal. Would that seem ok to you? The thing is, we really don't get that many medical legal questions, and I like how this puts us in the position to police ourselves as respondents, rather than posters. As I see it, this proposal is consistent with our guidelines, and it might forestall some debates, because hopefully the use of a template will warn all our regulars (and irregulars) to be on their best behavior. On the upside, we can then provide useful information, such as links to other people's opinion pieces, links to WP pages that are about medical topics, peer-reviewed literature, etc. So, any thoughts? Would you support such an experiment? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya SM. Well I'm of different dispositions to different elements of that approach. On the one hand, I'm quite keen that the needlessly taxing discussions about hatting stop -- especially as some of them of late have begun to strain civility -- so adopting a strategy that eliminates that response surely has its advantages. At the same time, I'm very wary of any proposal that would (even incidentally and non-intentionally) seem to empower or encourage contributors to venture answers that provide direct advice or evaluation simply because they can point to a source that they feel supports that perspective. Mind you I think that the vast majority of our editors in that space are able to parse the distinction appropriately, but there's a small handful that I'm very much concerned will go hog-wild on this manner of request if they get the notion that stances have softened towards the acceptability of direct advice. Indeed, some of the comments I've seen in the recent talk page discussions by some contributors casting doubt on whether there are significant ethical and legal issues involved make me worry about this possibility especially. Accordingly, while I don't think a moratorium on hatting is such a bad thing, I'd like to see a great deal of caution in the wording of any stock response we use in its place, and a clear local consensus that even if we change our procedural approach, we still cannot respond in any significant manner to requests involving a specific medical or legal situation, and that even providing a general RS on the issue at hand might violate that principle, though not necessarily universally.
At least, those are my initial thoughts. Please bear in mind that I'm incredibly sleep-deprived and harried just at the moment, so my perspectives might be more refined and nuanced after I'm rested and in a clearer state of mind. I'll ping you again when I've had a chance to sleep and reflect on the matter further -- probably tomorrow -- but I wanted to respond with something now, however general. In any event, thank you much for sharing the matter with me; I'd disengaged from the talk page for a few days but this is definitely an important matter for which I want to keep up with the developments. Snow talk 04:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm now pretty sure the template should not explicitly say that replies to advice-seeking are allowed (they are allowed, as per our guidlines, as long as they don't give advice.) To do so could indeed encourage bad behavior. While I am keenly aware of the ethical issues, the potential legal threats are utterly absurd, IMO. My belief is that no user, WP, or WMF has any real risk due to anything on the ref desk. Of course I am not a lawyer, but WMF has some pretty good ones. If med advice were something WMF lawyers were concerned about in terms of actual risks, we wouldn't have a ref desk! So I want to do no harm - but out of ethics, not laws, as the laws are fairly irrelevant IMO, because WMF has already done their job in that arena (e.g. [[1]], [2]).
BTW, if you are interested, I also posted similar comments on the talk pages of StuRat, Jack of Oz, Jayron, Medeis, and a few others. Medeis seems fairly on board (which would be great if it prevents contentious hatting/deletion), but oddly enough Steve Baker has bee rather bitey about it. -- I will also be putting this aside for a few days, but still look forward to your collaboration to see if we can take something like this forward. Small change, incremental improvement, and ideally prove that we can be civil and reach consensus at the ref desk :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry for the prolonged delay in further response, Manto -- it's been one of those weeks and I somehow missed your response here altogether. I've reviewed the discussions you had with the above-referenced users and have caught up with the threads on the talk page, and I think your proposal has merit. Mind you, I actually thought that hatting was the best approach to these situations. In circumstances where the concern about professional advice was warranted -- that is, where the request was clearly seeking direct advice -- the hatting forestalled further comment from those who might have otherwise pushed the envelope. In cases where the hatting was excessive, the thread remained visible and the hatting could be easily reversed. The system worked (and spared us the kind of drawn-out and excessive discussions we've seen of late) because the vast majority of Ref Desk contributors all understood the distinction between an individual medical (or legal) case and a request for general information on a principle of physiology (or law). There were minor disagreements at times, but by and large I always observed Ref Desk contributors to be on the same page and to view the distinction as general non-controversial.
So if I'm to speak bluntly on this, I don't view this issue as one that is primary about a shortcoming in our approach as much as it is a matter of one gung-ho editor who views their own intuition on these matters as paramount and does not seem to want to take their ques from the "soft" consensus that seems to be shared by just about everyone else contributing in that space. Now, it's just my impressionistic observation here, but it seems to me that this one party hats about as much as any other ten editors active at the Ref Desks combined; and, for a certainty, when they do hat, they then defend those decisions tenaciously (and often seem incapable of doing so without directing bite at both the OP and those who disagree with the action). They even go so far as delete the contributions of other editors in circumstances which are not consistent with the extremely narrow circumstances in which policy allows this.
More problematic still, it's very hard to label this behaviour as disruptive, because we don't have firm guidelines on the situation they are reacting to. Nevertheless, I do think that if this persists, we need to start conceptualizing that it may very much be disruptive editing, since they don't show much willingness to move toward the overwhelming consensus and indeed (more often than not) are outright hostile to their actions being called into question. On the other hand, that party is clearly operating in good-faith and is just trying to see that the rules (as they see them) are followed, presumably because they feel it's for the good of the project, so... ~throws up hands~ ...I don't know what's to be done about it. It would be nice if the editor in question could self-correct on this and attempt a more moderate approach, but I don't think that is in the cards.
The irony is that they are going to force the rest of us to adopt a policy that stands a good chance of allowing a much more permissive approach to the type of responses they oppose. That is, by using hatting so excessively, they are going to force us to move away from utilizing it altogether and towards the use of another strategy (be it your template or another approach altogether) and any strategy that doesn't nip problematic requests in the bud is going to A) leave more wiggle room for those who want to push the boundaries of professional advice and B) is inevitably going to lead to more acrimony and talk page debates since, once we get in the business of assessing individual responses to this type of question, nobody is going to like being the one called out (especially if other responses were allowed) even in cases where they would have respected a hat (had one been in place) and responded not at all.
Anyway, as the most moderate alternative procedure and the best of the limited options available to us here, I can get behind your proposal. I hope we can keep the language strong enough that it forestalls comment on outright requests for medical or legal advice nearly as completely as hatting did. I still very much wish we could convince the excessive party to adopt a middle-ground approach on these matters, but that seems untenable. Of course, there is every possibility that, having forced us to go with a template, they will then start to view responses to such inquiries which the template allows for as inappropriate and will just start deleting individual responses from other Ref Desks contributors at which point we will have to face that this is an issue with said editor's behaviour which will need to be addressed. In other words, I hope that your work to find a compromise solution doesn't end up being a lot of wasted effort that only delays our dealing with a more root issue. Snow talk 09:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Le Morte d'Arthur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extralegal (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) 09:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

  • "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
  • "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
  • "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Deletion Process of Siddharth Shetty

Hi Snow! I am the person responsible for creation of the Siddharth Shetty Wikipedia Article. Disclaimer: All my other accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry (a term I learned of earlier today). I had to create this new account to get in touch with you. I am new to Wikipedia, and was extremely reckless and stupid in the way I conducted myself earlier - not knowing how serious of a community this actually is. I didn't have any malefied intentions behind my actions, and I'm sorry if it appears like I had. If there are ways for me to clean up my earlier actions, I would be more than glad to do that. I just thought I should disclose this information before I proceed further. Rather than taking my own decisions, I am seeking your help.

I created Siddharth Shetty as I read of him in numerous national articles, and subsequently realized that he did not have a wikipedia page, so I went ahead and created one. It was reviewed by other community members and no one had any issue with it, till a few days back. Now, whenever you visit Siddharth Shetty you see a big notice on the article. How do we proceed with closure of the deletion process? If the article needs to be deleted, I do not have any issues. If the article needs to stay, I would be glad. However, this issue seems have dragged on for some time and I would like it to reach a logical conclusion as soon as possible. How could we do that?

Gbawden first tried to proceed with speedy deletion of Siddharth Shetty, and only later processed it via AfD. I'm sure he had logical reasons for doing so, and once I realised his reasons - I updated the article with the latest information. Therefore, his reasons he had for deletion of the article have been addressed, and logically, the AfD should be closed. Who takes a final decision on the AfD process?

I would greatly appreciate it if you could guide me on how to proceed, and improve the way I interact within the Wikipedia community.

Thank You Sohynn (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sohynn, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you got off to a rocky start, but looking at the circumstances -- and especially your eagerness to understand and work within the rules -- the situation should be repairable, though it may take some effort. The first thing you're going to want to do is read WP:APPEAL and WP:GAB (and be sure to read the sections specific to sockpuppetry). Unfortunately, you've stumbled upon one of the behaviours for which blocks are hardest to appeal; sockpuppetry is taken very serious because it is seen as an attempt to subvert the normal process of consensus building upon which all collaboration on Wikipedia relies, which is why you did not receive any warnings before being blocked. However, given the fact that you show every sign of being new to the project and wish to work towards editing according to policy, I think your appeal has a decent chance at success. Here are a few pointers to increase your odds:
  • Make sure to lodge your appeal from your original account. Once you've done that, avoid making further edits through this or any other account. Needless to say, don't open further accounts. Be sure in your block appeal to mention that you opened this account (Sohynn) but that you only did so because you didn't know how to appeal your block and just needed to reach out to someone for help. You can link to this discussion that we're having now to further clarify the situation by using this syntax: [[User talk:Snow Rise#Deletion Process of Siddharth Shetty]].
  • Be sure that you're familiar in detail with the policies that were violated so that you can demonstrate that you know what went wrong and that you are dedicated to not repeating the same mistakes. To this end, I recommend reading WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Looking at the article edit history, I think you should also read through WP:EDITWARRING, because this seems also to be a root issue that you'll need to understand; when you are facing a lot of opposition from other editors on a given article, it is better to take the issue(s) in question to the article's talk page, rather than repeatedly reverting the changes of others, even if you are certain you are in the right. Discussion is a hallmark of the Wikipedia process and engaging on the talk page will not only let you and the other editors come to a consensus on the matter at hand, it's the quickest way for you to get know the process and principles by which content decisions are made.
  • Just be transparent in exactly the way you were with me here. Point out that you know that you screwed up a little, but that you're not here to be disruptive and are seeking a second chance to prove it.
As to the AfD itself, it will ultimately be decided via community consensus. This means that a number of editors will continue to comment about whether they believe the article should be kept or removed. At present the comments are leaning towards a keep consensus, but there have been only a handful of comments on the matter. Do be patient with the process as we're generally not in a rush to a decision on these matters; it's not unheard of for an AfD to take weeks, though in this case I suspect it will be closed in a couple of days. Once some degree of consensus is formed, an administrator or other experienced editor who has not been previously involved in the article or the discussion will close it with a finding that reflects that consensus. Until such time as your appeal has been addressed, don't comment further on the AfD or edit the article; indeed, avoid any kind of activity except on the talk page of your original account (the one upon which you file your appeal).
I hope this helps some. With a little bit of patience over the next couple of days, I think you have a decent shot at overcoming the block. I hope so, since you seem to be a civil contributor looking to do things the right way. I think you just need to adjust a little bit to the methodical speed at which we do things here and to the process by which we form decisions. In any event, I'll keep an eye on your appeal, since you won't be able to solicit further information from me via your blocked primary account until after your appeal is successful. Again, I do recommend that you reference this discussion in your appeal, so that it's obvious that you are trying to be above-board and did not create User:Sohynn just to evade your block. If your appeal is succesful and you go back to editing, please feel free to make further inquiries here whenever you are uncertain of a policy or procedure and I'll give what advice I can. Best of luck! Snow talk 06:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lizabeth Scott

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lizabeth Scott. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddie Izzard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Non-sequitur (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) 08:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Japonic languages

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Japonic languages. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido

You are right - I misread what I originally wrote. Still don't like the word formulated since all of Ueshiba's techniques really are adopted from elsewhere rather than invented. A quibble I know.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRehse, no, it's a worthwhile distinction. I'm just not sure which alternatives wouldn't reflect the same issue. I suppose we could say something along the lines of "but each contains some degree of similarity to the techniques Ueshiba taught his own students", though there might be some implication there that the styles are only vaguely related. I'm not an Aikido pracitioner (though I admire its philosophy and form greatly) but even to my outsider's eye it seems like a family of disciplines that are much more uniform than other Japanese arts, so I'd be worried about that implication. Snow talk 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK leaving it as formulated. I can't think of another word that doesn't require further qualification. From an insider's view I see a huge variation in style and practice depending on when student's studied with the man. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Apology

Snow Rise, without further ado, it is out of my respect for you as a contributor and editor that I apologize to you for my behavior at Tacitus. And I sincerely hope that if you cannot forgive me, then you can at least forgive the Prednisone. I underwent surgery last Monday (9th), and the meds have been wreaking havoc with my system. This moment, however, is a very clear moment, so let me explain. When asked to check your edits at Tacitus, my clouded estimate was that you were an ass, so I decided to "fight fire with fire". I have a lot of experience being an ass, myself. I was wrong, and I am so sorry to have put you through the ringer like that. You are a good editor and this project needs good editors. I've seen things like this before brought on by other people and have watched as one editor would slap himself on the back while the other would disenchantedly leave Wikipedia. I would not want that to happen, so please forgive me and let me know if there is anything else I can do to make it up to you. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 09:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paine: Wow, this is quite unexpected given the context, but very much appreciated and (not meaning to be the least patronizing here) impresses me considerably with regard to your character. As far as I am concerned, it is utterly and completely water under-under-the-bridge. When the dispute first began, I went to your talk page to get a general impression of your approach to discussion -- this is my standard approach in such circumstances to try to gauge how far I should extend myself in compromise and when I might need to solicit outside help to resolve the issue -- and I saw there every indication of an editor who was friendly and collaborative; that's why I was surprised when matters became so acrimonious so fast. But I absolutely appreciate the context; a loved-one of mine has had to take prednisone for prolonged periods in the past, so I fully appreciate the alternatingly amped-up and drained-out effect it can have on a person. I appreciate your kind remarks here, apologize in turn if there was any point at which I got particularly pointy myself in response, and I really hope we have an opportunity to work together in a more harmonious fashion in the future. Best wishes on a speedy recovery! :) Snow talk 10:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and there is no reason for you to apologize, for that burden is on me. And again, let me know if there is anything else I can do. I have placed a "real" summary at the bottom of the discussion at Talk:Tacitus that will hopefully, among other things, serve as a more public apology to you. And again thank you very much for your consideration and understanding! – Paine  10:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T.

Snow Rise, I want to apologize for what I said at T. I don't know what came over me. I wasn't even that concerned with the issues in the article. In response to your, let us say, assertive, comments to Paine, I went into defend-my-friend mode. Also, I knew that Paine was not feeling well, so I regretted getting him involved with the probable rise in blood pressure. You and Francis are doing an excellent job of editing T. Again, I am sorry. CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD, it's quite alright; I'd much rather we had concerned editors at that article -- even if it did mean dealing with a little bit of incidental overzealousness the once -- than that it be completely devoid of interested parties, like many of our entries for Roman history at present. :) / :( By the way, keep your eye on the page tomorrow if you're around because I've got a perspective on that awkward "translation" of prose that I'd like to get everyone's opinion on. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 02:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring you in to this

But I have quoted you at ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Medeis_hatting_and_deletions_on_the_ref_desks

Medeis, no apology necessary at all; of late I've not been keeping up with the Ref Desks as regularly as I typically do, so in fact I appreciate being kept in the loop. Unfortunately I have to tell you, after the fact, that my perspectives on the matter are only half-aligned with yours, as you'll see from the comments I've left there. I wholeheartedly support your interpretation that the injunction against medical (and similar professional) advice needs to be taken more seriously than it is by some Ref Deskers. That being said, I think your approach to this problem has sometimes grown disruptive enough to be more problematic than the very issues your are trying to head off. If you really want to alter the status quo in these scenarios, I think you should spend more time trying to shift the consensus through discussion of the general principle, rather than repeatedly altering RD content itself in a similar fashion to that which has received significant criticism by the other editors working in that space. I know that your concerns are for the ethical and practical consequences of not assuming a restrictive position in this regard, but I think your current strategy is actually doing more harm to the standing of those principles than good. It's made people inclined to assume your edits in this area as excessive and it's led to various proposals that would actually allow for a more permissive approach to these manner of inquiries. Sorry I can't give you fuller support here, because I really do hope the ultimate consequence of this discussion is that we adopt a more cautious approach in this area. I just don't think we get there using your current approach. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. 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.

Arthur C. Clarke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Space travel
Cowboy Bebop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hacker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Azure

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Azure. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

A kitten for you!

thanks for your helpful comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordFire Press about lists:)

Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks Coolabah; seems I can't escape kittens this week, on-wiki or off! :) And I'm glad the comments were of use to you. For my part, it was interesting to learn of the presidential facial hair article! Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 03:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

I over-exhausted my allowance of two comments here, - more general thoughts started under Respect each other, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now - and shortened: Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox peace talk. I dropped the recent example mentioned above, as rather special. You decide if you want to take your last remark to one or the other. The problem I see is that the term community consensus doesn't cross the mind of a self-made main editor sure to "improve" an article. I have less of a problem to accept that a composer travels toward FA who never had an infobox, than this silent removal under the edit summary "rewrite", with the blessing of a FA delegate who terms it "common practise". - So I thought. Looking closer, even that composer had an infobox twice, first in 2009 with a mention on the talk, then again from 19 May 2012 until this which was probably not meant as an April Fool ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these statements of common practice with regard to "main editors" are an overstep and not in any sense policy-consistent, but I'm not going to have time to contribute to the discussion today and would rather start any comments I decide to make in the context I find when I join, rather than having my perspective from a previous discussion framing my involvement, so I've removed my edit that was moved to the page for the present time. Sorry that it swiss-cheeses your beginning there, what with Nikkimaria making the same decision for other reasons, but I'm afraid it's a matter of necessity today. I'll give what insight and support to the discussion I can when I have an opportunity, likely tomorrow. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 19:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No complaints, we have ten more months to stay within the ten years, dated 23 December 2005 ;)
... and if you can find a more neutral respected conference venue than the project for the outcasts, even better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could always take the matter to WP:CD or WP:VPP, but I'll be honest with you -- I don't see the point. The main editor concept is so far outside of community consensus (and indeed so directly in conflict with the most basic of principles of policy on local consensus) that I can't imagine it will survive very long in discussion even with regard to that one article, let alone spread to other discussions on the topic. If some do persist with it, they'll only hurt the standing of their own arguments and if they edit war against consensus (as produced through the usual process), I imagine someone will take it to ANI to sort it out. If I were you, I'd just stand well clear of the matter; given the history here, and the ArbCom ruling, you don't want to be caught up in an issue that could (unfarily or not) pain you in the light of being contentious, especially when the situation is certain to collapse under its own weight anyway.
As to the larger issue of trying to bridge the gap between the two sides, this is going to sound a bit strange, but I don't think that's the way forward. The problem here is that the idea of these "camps" has already been validated and entertained much further than it should have. The solution is to let regular editors who have not already been drawn into that drama make their decisions through the normal editorial process, without overanalyzing strategy to affect broad change one way or the other. I understand that you believe this militancy against infoboxes is silly and predicated on reasoning that, at best, weakly aligns with policy and common sense. In a majority of cases, I'm inclined to agree, but getting drawn in to setting up an "opposition" group only weakens your position when otherwise you are supported by community consensus.
I know when you see others seem to be collaborating to force these issues across numerous articles it can be hard not want to counter with an organized approach to moderate that influence. And then, being the sort who doesn't like acrimony, you also want to bring those two sides together to come up with a middle-ground solution. Perfectly admirable, but the problem is that we have some real zealots on this issue now, and I don't think that kind of discussion is going to accomplish anything except to make certain parties more entrenched, more impassioned on the subject, and more convinced that this is a serious issue worth battling out again.
My suggestion is really simple: if you want to keep at work on this issue, the best thing you can do is just make sure it gets RfC'd everytime the subject becomes contentious on an article you're involved on. Sometimes it might not work out, but the vast majority of such discussions that draw attention will probably favour your stance on this issue. You have policy on your side, so use it. Don't get drawn into arguments with people who try to use their subjective aesthetics/criteria in place of policy. If they were willing to accede to policy, they would have by that point, and you can't afford to be drawn into that because A) you're limited by how many times you can reply, whereas they are not, and B) you risk being seen as disruptive on the issue broadly, however unfair that may be. So call in the community (through the normal, allowable, non-canvassing methods) and play the numbers game with them. I suspect (from seeing the same faces appear time and again whenever this issue arises) that some of your opposition on this issue are canvassing themselves, but if so I suspect they do it via email rather than site-side. That's unfortunate and inappropriate, but you can't prove it (not without a knock-down argument anyway) and they remain a minority in most discussions on this topic (that I've observed anyway) even with these tactics.
Honestly, I think you should maintain your distance and trust that the infoboxes will work their way back to spaces where they are useful but have been removed for silly visual aesthetic reasons. They exist because their basic utility is obvious and they fit so well into Wikipedia methodology. The (incredibly vocal) opinion of a small cabal opposed to them for stylistic reasons hasn't stopped them from remaining basically ubiquitous across the project. If anything, sooner or later this behaviour may provoke a collective response from the community to codify in MoS circumstances in which infoboxes are always allowed. If not, I'm still confident the vast majority of editors will continue to support their use broadly. You've done your share of the work in that process, but I think you're letting it consume too much of your attention now, when you are so much more useful in other areas, as an editor and collaborator. I say you should just sit back and let the tide of progress and overwhelming community consensus handle this. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 14:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Seek delight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I'd like to add that I support infoboxes for every article, but I can see how intransigent some other editors are. I'm wondering whether for certain types of articles -- film stars were mentioned at L. Olivier talk page, and I think music articles is another -- the infobox could be created, but then hidden, with an icon one can click on in the upper right hand corner (or even an image) to reveal it. If this can be done, it might be a compromise acceptable to the pro- and anti-infobox editors. I would urge that this be limited to certain types of articles where these anti-infobox editors feel that infoboxes are inappropriate. CorinneSD (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion is that neither side will view that (or most middle ground solutions) as viable. The anti-group will still see it as an "eyesore" messing up the formatting of a page with an otherwise "perfect" tidiness, and the majority who support infoboxes will not see the point of making a user go through the step of revealing content and will point out that this is generally against all general style and content guidelines in this area, which direct against hiding any elements in mainspace except for in the limited case of truly immense tables (and even this exemption is almost never utilized). It's still an idea worth putting out there (what can it hurt at this point, right?), but my observation of some of the discussions on this topic makes me suspect that the more entrenched parties involved will not buy into a "compromise is when everybody goes away a little unhappy" perspective on this. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 01:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New day: what I came to say is that I have been accused to be a warrior in the battles (have seen no evidence though), but I rather feel like the nurse who has to take care of the wounded and wants to prevent battles, simply to avoid more work. (I received the Nightingale award recently, - it was not intended that way, but sent me the message ;) )

Now to the question about hiding: following the slogan Curtains conceil, infoboxes reveal (also on my talk), hiding and collapsing is not really what an infobox is for. There was a lengthy discussion. (The first example quoted has now a real infobox, - unhiding it was an edit which was presented in the arbcom case as a reason to ban Andy.) A collapsed infobox is for example on Little Moreton Hall (which I translated to German), one way of compromise. Another is the so-called identibox, first installed on L'Arianna (in 2013), now also on Chopin and Handel. I fail to see how such a thing is "messing" up anything ;) - but perhaps my tolerance for mess is too high. (The word appears on my user page.) - I also fail to see why an infobox which was stable for more than a year (including presentation on TFA day) is suddenly removed, twice. As said above: I am too lazy to care for more wounded. Montanabw, who reverted the bold edit, just returned from real life eye surgery. Visions, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Winged unicorn

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Winged unicorn. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snow_Rise&oldid=649512665"