User talk:Darkfrog24

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


Invitation[edit]

Faravahar-Gold.svg

WikiProject Zoroastrianism

We invite you to join WikiProject Zoroastrianism. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Zoroastrianism related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the other participants or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 22:55, 26 March 2013‎ User:Amadscientist

Mail call[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Darkfrog24. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

DR/N[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Straw Poll[edit]

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

MOS[edit]

I'm taking the discussion offline. The difficulty with your proposal—again I know where you are coming from—is that MOS is not a policy, and is far from an essay, so there is nothing else generally acceptable to call it. Describing in MOS itself the level at which some people guard it would be setting an unwanted battleground tone. It's not entirely hopeless to change MOS; I know of this case at least :-) All the best.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What proposal? "The MoS is a set of rules"/"no it's just a guideline" isn't a proposal; it's just something that comes up a lot. There is nothing to propose. The MoS is called a guideline and it is treated as a set of rules in the article and talk page space. Referring to the MoS as a set of rules does not create a battleground; it acknowledges that the battleground is already there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortuantely, I'm sure that those that created the battleground probably don't know it exists, and would disagree with your characterization. It's safe to assume you have first-hand experience with these "rules". If you ever need an outside opinion or guidance on whatever transpired in the past, I'm willing to listen. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the example I gave you earlier from my own experience, a lot of users on separate Wikiprojects want to use their own, Wikiproject-specific capitalization systems. WP:BIRDS is the most frequent. This is tied in with the specialist-vs-generalist argument. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim to know the specifics. However, at a high level, this is not inconceivable. Per WP:CONLIMITED, "limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale ... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right ..." Either the broader community has accepted it, or it has not been contested. In the end, it's all about consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's how things are supposed to work, but it's only sometimes how they do work. For the time being, that's holding for the capitalization of species names, but that hasn't always been the case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (Policy)#Appending the Manual of Style on gender-neutral language[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#Appending the Manual of Style on gender-neutral language. Thanks. RGloucester 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

I see your canvassing. If you do not remove those messages, I will take you to AN/I. RGloucester 00:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester:
1) Why do you think this is canvassing? Read WP:Canvassing. I have no reason to think that people who frequent Wikipedia's noticeboards are any more or less likely to support the creation of a new board than anyone else. I do have reason to think that they will know firsthand whether the opponents' concerns about drama and forum shopping are merited or not.
2) Why are you objecting to promotion of awareness of your proposal, which you have seen that I support?
3) On the off-chance that you did remember and are messaging me because you're being extra-careful that everything about your proposal is above-board and rule-compliant, is it that you think my message is not neutral enough? I am willing to hear any constructive criticism that you might have and would consider any reasonable changes. Here's a rule of thumb: If you cover up my name and only look at the text I added to those talk pages, can you tell what side I'm on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It is selective canvassing. You chose to canvas noticeboards with regular participants, as it is likely that those who have engaged frequently with such noticeboards will support their use. None of the pages you put notifications on are directly related to the proposal. That's clear canvassing. I've seen you do this before, and I see that other users have raised similar concerns. If you will not remove the notices, AN/I it is. I never consent to underhanded tactics or general politicking. RGloucester 00:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester:
What are you talking about? Doing what before? What users? Before this, the only comments I've had on my publicization of RfCs have been "good job" and "thanks." EDIT: Now that I recall my opponent in one debate did object to my "canvassing" by promoting an RfC on the exact kind of talk page where I'd met him, so I consider his complaints unfounded.
It seems we have a legitimate difference of opinion about what is and is not canvassing. This sounds like an appropriate issue for a third opinion. I have requested one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I have an idea. If your concern is that you think this is canvassing, then why don't we just also promote this proposal somewhere else too, like WT:FORUMSHOPPING or something? I've temporarily withdrawn my request for a third opinion but I will reinstate it if you think we can't work this out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
You must promise never to canvass again. The RfC was already advertised at the appropriate place. The other notifications were clearly selective, and had no relevance to actual proposal. I repeat: do not canvas again. Do not post advertisements for RfCs in places where they don't belong. If an RfC is on a page, and that page is tagged by Wikiprojects, you can notify only the projects that have tagged the page (and you must notify all or none). If it is on an MoS matter, it is acceptable to place a notice at the main MoS page. If it is a matter that is encylopaedia-wide, like this RfC, it should only be advertised in the centralised discussion box. RGloucester 05:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
1) I'm not canvassing now. 2) Demanding promises from me is inappropriate. 3) WP:CANVASSING is actually a lot looser than what you've laid out here; no we are not limited to promoting RfCs and proposals only at places that have tagged the page. I've promoted RfCs far more widely than this before and I got "thank you" for my efforts. I think you might be reading too much into things. 4) I've restored my request for a third opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: The first item listed under "appropriate notification" is, verbatim, "The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion." Noticeboards are directly related to noticeboards, so WT:RSN is an appropriate place to publicize the proposed creation of a noticeboard directly modeled off of RSN. Do you see where I'm coming from now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Noticeboards are most definitely "NOT" related to this proposal. I will filing an AN/I request by the time the day is through. RGloucester 13:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That's premature. If you don't want to wait for the 3O we could ask about this at WT:CANVASSING. I'm confident the regulars there could put your mind at ease. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No, we can't. Behaviour issues are dealt with at AN/I, and since you are content to run around to various outlets to forumshop to inappropriate venues for "help", that doesn't really ensure me about your behaviour. RGloucester 14:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
RG, you think that my posts violate under WP:CANVASSING and I don't. We have both read the policy and are interpreting it differently. The thing to do next is consult consensus and find out which of us is right. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That's what an AN/I is for. If my grievances are proven right at AN/I, you'll receive admonishment for your behaviour. RGloucester 14:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I clearly can't change your mind. But AN/I is premature. 3O isn't forumshopping. It's one of Wikipedia's official ways of resolving conflicts of this kind. You don't have to take my word for it: If you ask at the 3O or AN/I talk pages, they'll tell you the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"3O" is only for content disputes, which this isn't. Your request was already removed. The fact that you even issued a 3O request demonstrates the problem. RGloucester 14:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there certainly is a problem, but the problem is that we disagree about how to interpret policy. Consulting consensus to determine which one of us is correct is the solution.
I don't think I've been clear enough: If my posts are found to violate the consensus interpretation of WP:CANVASSING then I'll remove them, but I'm confident that they do not. I've now asked about this as WT:CANVASSING. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Is something else going on here, RG? Do you just not like that someone else took it upon themselves to publicize a proposal that you filed? I'll grant it's unusual but it's not actually against the rules. You're allowed to feel however you feel about it but I honestly figure that most people would take it as a compliment and sign of support. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Corruption, whether in favour of my proposal or against it, is not something that I ever tolerate. I am as pure of heart as a lily. RGloucester 15:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Now you're being very inappropriate. "Corruption"? That's not civil. Wikipedia's policies not only permit the promotion of proposals and RfCs on related talk pages; they encourage it. If you don't want to take the lesson from me, you don't have to: ask around, ask the admins, look for precedents, but if you want me to remove my posts, it's on you to make the case for why I should. Don't give orders; you have no right to. Don't swag in like you own the place; you don't. Actually read the rules before you accuse other people of breaking them:
If you look under WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, it lists not one but four appropriate places. "Central location" isn't "the appropriate place"; it's one of four appropriate places, listed below "talk pages of articles, projects and collaborations directly related to the proposal." You covered the second option and I covered part of the first.
And for context, I had been planning to publicize this proposal still further on a few more relevant pages, maybe hit up the feedback request list a bit. I like to stagger the work a bit. I've paused so that we could have our discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

RG, if this is still bothering you, you could always ask about it at the WP:administrator's noticeboard. They'll tell you that my actions are consistent with the consensus on appropriate notification and that your concerns are not necessary. Considering that one of the objections to the proposal is that MoS regulars like drama too much, double-checking the rules before bringing an official complaint against another editor might be a good thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not canvassing as long as the messages weren't promoting one side over the other. It's routine to notify talk pages likely to have various people on multiple sides of an issue.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Writing style help - somewhere[edit]

Regarding Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: creation of "style noticeboard" and now Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Details for making WT:MoS the official page for style questions: What can I say, but keep up the good work. What we're talking about seems transparently obvious and harmless to me, but it is equally obvious that some others see something completely different. I haven't the energy to give right now, but know that I think you are on the right track and you've got my support.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @SchreiberBike:. That's a big help. Dank says he believes in working with others and addressing their concerns. I think if we can get him to understand he might support the idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for your very professional edit summaries. -120.149.113.197 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I try. Also, if you're being sarcastic I have no idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you have to ask, does that suggest you might think someone would have grounds to think your summaries were anything otherwise?

-120.149.113.197 (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No. It suggests that someone forgot that I can't hear their tone of voice online. I've gotten both compliments and complaints about the way I operate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:AGF is policy for a reason. LOL. Sarcasm is usually more obvious.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Critic Summary, Re: Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken[edit]

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think WP:Fringe applies in this case for several reasons. First, the author's view as a whole is part of the much repeated criticism of the disparity of outrage at sexual assault depending on the plot relevance and gender of other characters. Second, the author's opinion does not appear to be getting upset about the rape of a female character infantilizes women in of itself. Rather that the disparity between reactions according to the gender of the character which is a victim of sexual assault represents a reflection of patriarchal values depicting women as more delicate and inherently more pure than their male counterparts. Third, the point itself is not the main view in of itself, but critical context of their two wider points regarding the differences in perceived outrage and as part of the broader feminist critique, neither of which are fringe points of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.113.197 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This is in reference to this quote: "The contrast between the outrage on behalf of female victims and the blasé attitude toward violence (even sexual violence) toward males ironically replicates a quintessentially patriarchal trope: the assumption that women are fragile creatures who deserve special protection and greater sympathy if they are mistreated." Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Common ground[edit]

Wish we could find some common ground on MOS stuff. Your gist in the more recent message, about MOS's value as a "strict" (I read: consistent and well-reasoned) set of rules to be "enforced" (I read: agreed to be followed, and not rebelled against by wikiprojects and other WP:FACTIONs who can't be bothered to try to change MOS to get what they want and accept it and move on if consensus doesn't agree with them). And I agree with your take that people can't just say "MOS is stupid", "We don't need rules about dumb grammar crap", etc., and expect to be taken seriously in the debate. But this view of MOS, its importance, and its role seems sharply at odds with much of what you say and do in relation to MOS. I find it puzzling, and am not sure how to arrive at mutually more useful approach and compromise (not just with me, but the rest of the more frequent MOS editors).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "at odds with what I say and do"? If you're talking about WP:LQ, I've made it quite clear that I think it's wrong and should be changed. I don't see how this contradicts the idea that the MoS should trump other style guidelines. My take on this is that the MoS will get more respect if its contents are based on reliable sources rather than on whims and personal preferences. This is the case for most of its contents. WP:LQ is a glaring exception. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not based on "whims and personal preferences", though. You just think it is because it's not agreeing with yours.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I think that because it directly contradicts all the sources and because we have no non-arbitrary support for it. A lot of people like it because it appeals to them + absence of other reasons = based on personal preferences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: you say things like, "I already explained this" and I have no idea what you're talking about – Exactly. You just don't. Again and again you raise the very same questions/points in a cyclical pattern in the same debate, miring it until it dies, or people just ignore you. You exhibit this same pattern in multiple debates. It's a clear indication that you are not paying attention to what you are reading, or just not reading it. That's the civil assumption; there are others. Regardless of the reason, it's disruptive. From my point of view, the most anti-disruptive way to address it is by refusing to enable it. If a point has already been addressed, then neither I nor anyone else should repeat it (then re-repeat it for you later, then re-re-repeat it later, ad infinitum). Go back and read it when it as posted the first time. As just one example among many: You asked me four times in the last discussion about the requester of one of my changes and where that was, when the very first line I posted in the thread says where it was, and the rationale of the changes says what it was about and I even told you which line of the rationale contained this information. It means that even if you are reading this stuff it's going "in one eye and out the other", or is indicative of any of a number of other issues, none of which are my problem and none of which are Wikipedia's problem. WP:COMPETENCE is required. If you cannot even follow along with policy debates, you should not be involved in them.

If you can't understand something, then ask for a clarification of what you don't understand, don't simply start over with the same assertions or questions that have already been answered, or you'll either just get the same answers you didn't understand the first time, or you'll be (increasingly) ignored. I'm skeptical that failure to understand something about the answer that was already provided is the issue, though. It's more that you seem to not just recognize the very existence of responses half the time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: the reason I don't always understand you is because the ideas that are in your head don't always make it through your fingers to the keyboard to the screen where I can read them. You say, "The national connection to [British and American punctuation] has been debunked." I say, "What? When?!" you say "So many times." I say "What are you talking about?" and it's only when you finally explain in detail that I realize, for you, finding exceptions is enough to consider it debunked. It's not that I'm not reading your posts. It's that your thought process (exceptions=debunked) is so different from mine (exceptions=non-universality) that I couldn't tell that you thought we were talking about the same thing.
No, your first like doesn't say anything about the requestor. (First overall: "I've made the following tweaks"/First rationale:"The second sentence was awkward in several ways"/First reply to me:"Interested in the clarity problems.") Same deal with non-hypothetical examples. Your bullet point talks about "sloppy partials" but that doesn't tell me whether you've actually seen any or are merely supposing that they exist. I did reread your posts, repeatedly, and I didn't find anything until the fourth reread of one of your subsequent posts. As for your second bullet point, "Someone pointed out" doesn't tell me anything about who or where or what they said.
In fairness, in part because of your, your wall-of-text writing style, sometimes I do miss a few things, especially if the answer comes in a way I don't expect. I ask for information and expect a diff; instead you answer with a vague sentence buried in twenty others. When I asked about non-hypothetical problems or whether anyone had asked you for the changes, I was expecting a diff. Now you can't read my mind either, but your "ask for clarification" advice could easily go both ways.
Don't cry "disruption" when you really mean "something I don't happen to like." Don't say "abuse of BRD" when the discussion did not involve me automatically agreeing with you. Of all things, you complain that my posts are too long? I made one short comment and planned to leave it at that, but then you asked me to elaborate. You have no grounds to complain whatsoever.
I do ask you for clarification. I guess you miss things from me too. As for "repeating" yourself. If you give an answer, and it doesn't get you the result you want—in this case because it might not have been recognizably related to the question—then change the way you phrase the answer. Look at what I did with TL/DR. You didn't understand me so I kept saying it in different ways until you did. It worked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You do sometimes ask for clarifications, but then you don't understand the clarifications, even when they respond to you point-by-point. See your WT:MOS post beginning "I don't have a problem comprehending issues". Too often you don't ask for clarifications, but just ignore the responses and restate your refuted premise, or say that the responses just aren't understandable, and restate your refuted premise.
Are we going to get into LQ/TQ again? OK. This is actually a really good example of precisely what I'm talking about, the WP:IDHT problem. At least twice in the related thread at WT:MOS I've pointed out to you that it's more than the fact that many counter examples have been found. Yet you ignore tha, and the huge collapse-box pile of material covering all this, and the references to previous discussions and RfC and stuff, and go immediately back to exactly what your position was before it was refuted, that no one has any refutation other than some counter examples. And if we resolved that, you'd go back to demanding "proof" even after you've already been told it's in previous discussions you can go read for yourself. Then you'd simply not see the proof in it, and return to demanding proof. If it was re-researched point by point, you'd ignore the proof and go back to restating your premise as if no one had ever challenged it. You've been doing this, on at least this one issue, for years. Seven years, I think. If you keep it up another year, you'll beat the WP:BIRDS record for most tendentious campaign against a MOS rule in WP history. I don't think there's a barnstar for that.
Yet another example of this circularity, you just posted recently. I pointed out you were filibustering, by contesting my edit and refusing to yield unless you get something you can't have (source citations for an MOS point). Your response to this was "WP:FILIBUSTER is inappropriate. The only thing I've withheld from you is my own approval, and I gave you some easy instructions for how to get it if you want it." That's the very definition of WP:IDHT and self-contradictory circular reasoning. You actually confirmed precisely what I said you were doing to filibuster, in your denial of filibustering!
"Requester": The first line does say so: "I made the following tweaks (to my own examples, and in response to a clarification request on my talk page)...", emphasis added. This is referred to again in line 2 and line 5 (or 3.2, depending on how you want to count nested lists) of "Detailed rationale". And who cares? This gets back to the AGF thing. Just accept that someone else's request inspired me to return to this section if I say it did, otherwise you're basically calling me a liar. It doesn't even matter if it's true, anyway. The edit's content is what matters.
"Wall of text": You're simultaneously complaining that I post too much for you to go through, and that I don't post enough for you to understand ("ideas that are in your head don't always make it through your fingers to the keyboard to the screen where I can read them" ... "it's only when you finally explain in detail"). You also have a wall-of-text style, which I'm imitating here. Yours is just differently formatted from mine, consisting of points you feel are separate each on their own line preceded by ":" while I use <p>...</p> markup instead, because the spacing between paragraphs is a little bigger, so it's easier to read.
"I don't get it, reexplain" "I still don't get it, reexplain" "I STILL don't get it, reexplain". It is disruptive, and it is filibuster-abuse of BRD. Your excessive use of it has actually singlehandedly destroyed my faith in BRD remaining a WP tool. And yet I'm sure you mean well and just think I'm being mean to you and unreasonable.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: SmC, requiring that people all think the way you do is unreasonable. I am not a magical telepathic Betazoid from Star Trek. You have as much trouble understanding me, and you don't see me complaining about having to re-explain myself.
You seem to think that I didn't listen to you when what really happened was that I didn't agree with you. I used to think this way, "Well I'm right and my reasoning is sound, so everyone who disagrees with me must not have listened to me," but that's not how people work. For example, a while ago, you complained that I hadn't "gotten the point" about WP:LQ—which I am using here as an EXAMPLE of our communication issues. It's not that I didn't read your posts about "debunking" the national split. It's that I find your arguments unconvincing or at least less convincing than those made elsewhere. The reverse is also true: I've repeatedly shown you sources that prove that my position is right. Did you not hear that? Are you ignoring me? Or is it the more benign reality that you simply don't agree with the conclusions I've drawn? (There's my assumption of good faith.)
I READ YOUR RATIONALE. REPEATEDLY. I DID NOT SEE THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS THERE. That's why I asked for more information.
As for "wall of text," it's that you are, from my perspective, spending a lot of space on things that don't matter and skimping on the things that do. Example: In your rationale, you mention your "requester" but don't give the name, the diff, or say exactly what was requested. You spend a lot more time on other things. The points that I'd find convincing are hidden in a soup of things I find only minimally relevant. However, considering that I'm only one of many people with whom you're trying to communicate, you should consult others before making any serious changes to your posting style.
Whoa whoa whoa... (leaving example town) You say you pointed out that your WP:LQ was "more than examples." When? What was your argument? Again, your approach to this issue is so different from mine that I might not have realized that that was what you were talking about. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh and per your accusation? WP:FILIBUSTER: "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected" I didn't do that. I only re-explained my own position to the sole other editor in the discussion. So saying that I violated it is inappropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The idea that WP:POLICY pages should be cited to external sources clearly qualifies, and you are definitely repeatedly pushing it. I rest my case. Not going to respond to the rest of this. It's clearly having no effect other than increasing resistance. Haranguing you isn't the point. A cessation of circular time-wasting patterns is the point, so engaging in one here will be counter-productive. Peace.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: SmC, what I said was, "If you want to convince me to support your addition, show me a source or a problem that it solves because that is what I find convincing." I assure you, that idea has never been discredited. This is what I mean when I say you misunderstand me as well. Even if the community had rejected the idea of sourcing the MoS—and it hasn't—there is nothing that says I can't use it as a personal criterion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
And right back to restating your original assertion as if it was never addressed, just as I predicted. I'm done with this conversation. 17:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: With things like WP:LQ and the specialist vs generalist issues, we've had discussions and even RfCs that are specifically about that issue. We haven't had any of those with the issue of whether the MoS should be sourced. That's what I mean by not addressed: We never actually sat down and talked about whether or not we should do it. If I'm wrong, and there's a conversation about this in the archive go ahead and point it out to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)