From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I will reply to a discussion where it was started. This means that I would prefer that you not use {{talkback}} unless the issue is urgent.

If you wish to revert my edit, please do not remove the default "Undid revision ###..." text entirely from the edit summary. This is to ensure that the notification system works correctly.

Speaking of notifications, to avoid creating unnecessary noise in the "mention" subtype:
Please avoid wikilinking my username in an existing discussion (i.e. one not newly started by you) within the talk namespaces.
(Copying and pasting discussion from another venue is an exception; I do not expect my username to be unlinked.)
In particular, do not use {{reply to}} when making the first and only reply to a discussion started by me.

Generally, I will voluntarily follow "0.5RR": I will not revert more than once before discussing, nor will I re-revert any good-faith reversion without first discussing it.

I use {{tlx}} even when {{tl}} would suffice because I've been told that the <code> formatting is more semantically correct than plain type.

Notes on categorizing redirects[edit]

When I mention in an edit summary that "R from related word has been deprecated...," I am referring mainly to the use of {{category diffuse}} on the category page Redirects from related words. I am aware that the R from related word template does not use {{tdeprecated}} and is unlikely ever to do so.

When are edits to redirects minor?[edit]

I used to flag all edits that solely affected the categorization of a redirect as minor. (On the other hand, I have always treated any change to the target of a redirect as non-minor.) I have since revised my guideline:

  1. Any RCAT change that affects printability is non-minor.
    (This refers to any change in the overall status of a redirect as printworthy, unprintworthy, or neither. For example, adding {{R from misspelling}} to a redirect already categorized as {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} would not fall under this rule, as the redirect would already be unprintworthy due to the latter. As the concept of printability only applies to mainspace, this rule is irrelevant in other namespaces.)
  2. The addition of RCATs related to attribution is non-minor; this includes {{R from merge}}, {{R from duplicated article}}, {{R with history}}, and {{R with old history}}
    ...except that {{R from move}} is still minor, because (1) it describes an action that is logged anyway, and (2) the MediaWiki software is configured to add it automatically to new redirects created from moves; adding it to old moved redirects constitutes trivial maintenance.
  3. The removal of (an) existing RCAT(s), whether or not it is (they are) replaced with (an)other(s), is non-minor...
    ...except for removal of categories that are nonexistent (redlinked) or that constitute blatant vandalism.
  4. Any edit that affects (adds, removes, or replaces) three or more RCATs is non-minor.
    Rationale: Edits that affect two RCATs are common, but those that affect three or more RCATs are rare. (Example)

If the edit only affects categorization and does not meet any of the above criteria, it is minor. (Again, edits that affect the target of a redirect are non-minor.)

Mistakes to fix[edit]

  • I may have misused {{r from modification}} for grammatical modifications where a more specific template is available, such as the "r from (part of speech)" templates. I'm not sure how big a deal this is, but I'll try to fix it nevertheless.
  • I may have misused {{r from former name}} together with rcats for names of different length ({{r from long name}}, {{r from short name}}, {{r from initialism}}, {{r to initialism}} etc.); discussion has since determined that such categories require the long and short forms of the name to be in simultaneous official use.
  • I may have used {{r from long name}} in isolation when a more specific r to... (acronym or initialism) template is available.
  • (FIXME: This is not an RCAT issue; figure out where to put it.) I've often failed to mark simple additions of wikilinks as minor; the problem is that I've confused wikilinks with "visible tags or other templates."

Article drafts to work on[edit]

I have no specific timeline for this work due to things going on in my life. If you really want me to work on one of these ASAP, I encourage you to talk.

Notes to self/general wall of shame[edit]

WP:BURDEN says "adds or restores," not "adds or removes." Therefore, it is generally improper to revert, without first discussing, any "out-of-process" removal of content with notability/sourcing concerns. In particular, this means discussion in order to organize a search for references.

WP:PRESERVE focuses on the inclusion of content within an article; WP:ATD also covers alternatives to the deletion of entire articles. WP:V may not be a suicide pact, but neither is PRESERVE nor ATD; that is, they are not carte blanche justifications for inclusionism.

"Consensus can change" does not mean "consensus must change." Perhaps this is better worded, "'Consensus can change' does not mean you can change any consensus you want." Statistically, one person is unlikely to change an agreement by multiple people, or else it would be meaningless to speak of a consensus in the first place. In other words, it is redundant to say "established consensus," because a consensus must be inherently hard to disestablish. (See also "A word of caution" in Wikipedia:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid.)

Count of mistakes caught by bots[edit]

  1. ^ Original mistake, notification, and correction

I am a native speaker of American English, but that doesn't make me 100% reliable at subtleties like this, especially when there's so much else going on in my mind. (Note to self: In the future, try to reword the sentence to avoid tricky cases.)