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.

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)

I see that you placed a notification of a discussion at User talk:RGloucester. Special:Contributions/RGloucester shows that he/she has an indefinite block. So do not expect him/her to contribute.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, @Toddy1:. I notified everyone involved in that discussion and did not check anyone's block status. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:26, 12 October 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)

Request for comment[edit]

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) 07:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Register[edit]

I noticed your edits at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register. Can you expand the gender identity section to include the actual reasons people are entitled to their point of view?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: I suppose I could but in general I prefer to stick to the facts on MOS:REGISTER and MOS:FAQ. "These guys say this" and "These guys say that" seems less likely to cause fights. The register should report, not advocate. But if you have something that you think is an improvement in mind, why not expand the section yourself? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentor[edit]

I'm going camping for the weekend and won't be back until Sun/Monday. Saw you mention mentoring, have never heard of that before (but can guess based on the name). If it's what I think it is, I'm okay with that. Will look it up when I'm back (if I'm able to - time'll tell).Cebr1979 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: WP:MENTOR I've never done it; I've never talked to anyone who's done it about it; I don't know if it really works the way I think it will, but at least two of the problems people have had with you are clearly due to you not knowing what was expected of you. The biggest thing I can say is that if multiple editors who don't know each other keep telling you the same thing, there's probably something to it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Darkfrog24 reported by User:SMcCandlish (Result: ). Thank you.

Good thing for me that preferring sourced facts to your opinions is not a blockable offense. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

I have just imposed a topic-ban from WP:MOS on User:SMcCandlish in the context of your mutual feud over quotation conventions. I have to say that I would have imposed the same on you for your edit-warring, if it hadn't been for the purely procedural reason that I can't find evidence you have been formally notified of the discretionary sanctions regime for WP:MOS (and, for the record, I strongly disagree with the Arbcom's insistence on this kind of bureaucratic red tape). For the record, and since Arbcom forces me to do this, you'll find the standard "alert" blurb below.

I'll probably just shut down those recent threads at WT:MOS, seeing as no other editor apart from you two seems to have taken any interest in them, and strongly advise you to give the matter a rest.

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, 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.

Fut.Perf. 08:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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) 00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on new rule you put on WP:MOS on gender identity[edit]

I see that you added a new rule to WP:MOS. It's saying that in general, we still refer to trans women as she/her. However, we refer to a trans woman as he/him in an article involving an event related specifically to an event involving her life before she was known to be a trans woman. Any corrections to what I said?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say that I added it, @Georgia guy:. If you'll see the talk page, there was an official close to the earlier MoS:Identity discussion, and Francis S moved the discussion of gender identity from a bullet point within MOS:IDENTITY to a dedicated subsection. [1]
The part that I added was the stipulation that the person's previous name only be used if it is relevant.[2], which was the finding of the policy discussion: we are to say "Bruce Jenner" when discussing the 1976 Olympics specifically because her role as a man was found to be relevant to a men's athletic event. My interpretation is that we would still say "Caitlyn Jenner," possibly but not necessarily with "(then Bruce)," when discussing other events in 1976. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't miss my reply (it got buried)[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24.
 I posted a reply to your recent message on the MOS talk page; but it kind of got buried among other messages.  You may have to hunt for it.  (It begins "My gut feeling........".)
Rich
Richard27182 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol[edit]

This edit summary made me laugh :) Cheers. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to amuse. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A Technical Question[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24.  I see that the Gender Identity RfCs' closing dates have been extended.  Please understand I have absolutely no objection to this; but I am curious about something.  I'd always thought that the normal way to extend the run of an RfC was to simply manually change the first date stamp (normally the date stamp generated  by the first "~~~~" signature) to a later date:  
Wikipedia:Requests for comment
"RfC may be extended beyond 30 days by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date."

But in this case, a much more complex technique seems to have been used:
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1447259585}}
{{rfc|bio|style|policy|rfcid=A89D3CD}}

Does this technique have any advantages over the simpler one? And if it does, I'd like to learn how it works.  Could you explain it to me (or even just provide a  link to where I could learn it)?  Thanks.  I appreciate your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't extend the RfC date; I extended the archive date. There is a slight difference.
The RfC tags will disappear on schedule, after 30 days. The threads just won't go into the archive right away. The purpose of this is that I have requested formal closure of both threads, but this can take time. I don't want the threads archived until after an admin has had a chance to read and close them. But as to whether the RfCs need to stay active past the usual 30-day period, I don't see why they would. Of course, people can still comment if they want to, and it will still count, but the threads won't still appear on lists of active RfCs elsewhere on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, I personally prefer not to retroactively change dates. All these concerns we've seen about rewriting history. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Darkfrog24.
 Thank you for clarifying that for me.  I think I understand now: the RfCs' normal running time of 30 days is not affected; it's how long they remain unarchived afterward that's affected.
 I do understand what you mean about not liking to retroactively change dates.  I was quite surprised when I first read in "Wikipedia:Requests for comment" that an editor may extend an RfC's running time by going back and altering that first date stamp.  It almost sounds kind of sneaky.  But apparently it's not only allowed but, under certain circumstances, an appropriate procedure.
 Anyway all this does lead me to a couple more questions:
  • When an RfC has its "{{rfc}}" template automatically removed after 30 days, under normal circumstances, how long until it is automatically archived?
  • If an RfC has had its template automatically removed, and the participants have not declared consensus, and the RfC has not yet been archived, and no uninvolved editor has performed a formal closure; under those circumstances is it appropriate for editors to continue casting "!votes" and posting opinions and having discussions?  Or does the removal of the "{{rfc}}" template basically close it to further comments, etc.?
I really appreciate your help and advice.  (In the six months I've been learning how Wikipedia works, I would say about 80‑90 percent of what I've learned has been from asking experienced editors questions.)  Thanks again for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the archive settings for that particular page.
Yes, people can continue to post in the thread even if the RfC tag has expired, though if the conversation is still active, they're allowed to put the tag back. Our two threads appear to have wound down naturally. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.
 I see that not only have the RfCs on gender identifiction had their time run out , but a request has been made for formal closure by an administrator.  Based on your past experience, how long might it take for an uninvolved administrator to accept?
 Also I sort of have a list (not a real list; just a mental one) of experienced editors I turn to for help and advice when I'm confused or have a question.  Would it be OK if I add you to the "list"?
Richard27182 (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I made the request for formal closure last week. It is not at all unusual for it to take more than two weeks for someone to respond, especially if the answer looks complicated. (Also, there are lots of requests for closure that do not specify closure by admin, and anyone is allowed to come and close them, so if you want to get a fix for Wikidrama or Wikiprocedure without getting involved with it, go on and close someone else's discussion (just maybe sandbox your first draft).)
I would be incredibly flattered, but I think you may have overestimated my knowledge base. Until this VPP discussion, I didn't know how to prevent thread archiving, and I messed it up when I tried it! [3] [4] [5] [6] Francis S and PaleAqua had to fix it for us. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.  I suppose it's possible I may have slightly overestimated your knowledge base, but I'm sure you know tons more about Wikipedia than I do.  (I've only been editing for six months).  I look forward to your future assistance in certain areas where I may be needing help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
And I'd be delighted to provide it. I love meddling in other people's business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WT:MOS#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Supports[edit]

I'm hoping not to scrape open a scab here, but I have to suggest that it's questionably appropriate for one of the most active editors at MoS to cast WP:KETTLE aspersions about it being "based on the whims and arbitrary personal preferences of a clique" that one is here to do something about. That sounds an awful lot like an accusation of mass bad faith, topped off with a battlegrounding pledge, which are not permitted in MOS talk per discretionary sanctions rules about which you were recently given a {{Ds/alert}} and administrative warning, while I got even worse. Some of us have strong feelings about these matters, but we're going to have to restrain the impulse to negatively characterize other editors and their motivations. It has become clear that certain admins appear to be actively seeking to punish people for raising their voices too sharply in MoS/AT discussions, and it casts an expression-chilling pall over the entire WP:ARBATC scope when it is targeted in this way. I'm making a strong effort to avoid doing things like that myself, henceforth, and hope you will as well. I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on some things, but I've found it constructive in the past (with Noetica several years ago, and more recently with Montanabw on livestock topics) to propose a mutual, explicit truce on hostile wording, and to seek ways and topics on which to collaborate. (To that end, I'm open to similar concerns being raised directly on my talk page, and will endeavor to accept them at face value.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: I noted and appreciate the sourcing kudos. I also self-reverted some LQ-related murmuring on my part. While I don't agree with your position on it, have done a huge sourcing run on this matter the results of which I haven't even arranged and done anything with yet, and was a bit miffed that after the Sept. dispute and warning you're still pursuing that matter, including into this /Supports page, I needn't inject my own views on that at every opportunity, since it can seem like picking a fight. We'll hash it out at some point, but it should be over what the sources say, not what our views are or why we hold them. :-) Other debates may be looming, like what to do about breed names. Coxhead and several others are convinced they should be lower-cased except where they contain a proper name; most of the pet/livestock regulars feel the opposite (and some have tended toward BATTLEGROUND/OWN on the matter); meanwhile I've settled into a firmly neutral position on it, because there are interesting arguments on both sides, and sources are divided. There's a thread on it at WT:MOSCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Wait, is this about my comment "MOS:SUPPORTS proves that the MoS isn't entirely based on arbitrary whims made up by a clique"? SmC, the MoS regulars have been accused of being a clique. It's in the archive. I was pointing out that MOS:SUPPORTS refutes this accusation.
If it's about my comment that parts of the MoS are whims, well that's just true. WP:LQ is based on whims and arbitrary personal preferences. I know this because it directly contradicts established sources and because no non-arbitrary reason to have it there exists. I know you don't believe this but you know that I do. This isn't new business.
As for truces on hostile wording, I think it's a good idea, but remember that "hostile" does not mean "anything that SmC personally doesn't like." You have a history of conflating the two. Case in point: Remember when I asked you to stop complaining about my referring to British style punctuation as "British"? I showed you sources proving that that's just the predominant name of the practice, that I'm not making it up just to mess with you, and you don't seem to have accepted that. The flip side of that is that you like to call American style "typesetters" even though, among other issues, it frames the practice as more old-fashioned than it really is, but I put up with it because I know what you mean and because they're just your own, signed talk page posts. Call it a "painter" if that feels natural to you—it's rare but it's not as if you made it up—but don't insist that I stop saying "mountain lion."
As for your LQ sourcing, whenever you feel like posting them, I'll take a look. No one can say you don't do the work. If by "still pursuing the matter," it would help if you said exactly what you're talking about. We've known each other long enough that I'll explain my reasoning to you if you wish, but I'm not going to sit here and guess at what I might have done to disturb you.
On the Supports page, I added sources that describe British style. They prove that you guys didn't make it up out of whole cloth. That doesn't undermine WP:LQ; it supports it. It's not like I added sources proving that British style is incorrect in American English, and you know that I have access to many.
As long as you don't think "the admins are watching, so let's try to get along" means "Darkfrog, let me have my way all the time," then this can work. I'd be delighted, in fact. I get that you think you're right about a lot of these things, but you're going to have to accept that I disagree with you and take my views in stride the way I've taken yours in stride. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24.  I just wanted to check with you what the current status is concerning the two MOS gender identity RfC's.
Richard27182 (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Richard27182: Status is that formal closure has been requested, and the ball is in the admins' court. It's not unusual for it to take more than a week to get a response. It is unusual for it to take more than a month, but given the importance and level of complexity of the two threads, I'm not at all surprised. I've extended the DNAU for another stretch. You can keep yourself updated by checking on the closure request thread at WP:ANRFC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.  I wholeheartedly agree with you that these two RfC's have a very high level of importance and complexity, and as such, they deserve formal closure by an actual administrator.  However if no administrator comes forward to accept that responsibility, does there eventually come a time when you would consider asking any experienced uninvolved editor to do the close?  (The RfC's will serve no purpose if they never get evaluated and closed.)  Please don't take this the wrong way; it's just a suggestion.  And not even that really; more of a simple, honest, and sincere question.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You're at perfect liberty to make that suggestion yourself. Don't overestimate my authority. All I did was start the request thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.  Thank you for clarifying that. But since you are the one who started the thread, I feel you would be the most appropriate person to make such a decision. I would only intervene and formally suggest accepting closure by a non-administrator if it ever gets to the point where it is clear that no administrator will ever accept that responsibility. And we're certainly not at that point yet.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Since this is such a controversial point, I happen to think an admin would be better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkfrog24.  I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression that I'm about to request closure by any uninvolved editor: I'm not.  I agree with you completely that something this important should be formally closed by an actual administrator.  But I also feel (and hope you would agree) that having it formally closed by a non-admistrator would be better than having it remain forever unclosed.  Also, if it remains unclosed long enough (I'm not talking weeks but rather months), then many would see the whole discussion as "stale" and no longer necessarily reflecting the current opinion of editors.  I'm not suggesting setting any particular deadline at this time; but I do think we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that the year will end with the RfC still unclosed.  If it comes to that, then I do believe it would be time to consider alternatives to formal closure by an administrator.  (Again I'm sorry if my previous message was misleading.)
Richard27182 (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No, that's the impression I had. Go ahead and say this in the closure thread if you want. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

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[edit]

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.)

Wishing you all the best . . .[edit]

Merry Christmas, Darkfrog, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You too @Dirtlawyer1:. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Manual of style talk page[edit]

I appreciate your eloquent and well-rendered comments at the Manual of style talk page. Before you registered those comments, I felt out-gunned a million-to-one and that other editors were viewing me as crazy to bring up the topic of commas and quotation marks (on a "settled" topic). You have made me feel less crazy, particularly in light of your command of the subject, which is far greater than mine. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:LQ has a long history of controversy. The others told the truth when they said it's been talked about a lot but they failed to mention that that's because it is the single most frequently challenged part of the MoS. At least once a year, someone shows up and points out that it doesn't match U.S. English rules. It's a lot easier to try to bully challengers into shutting up than it is to repeat the same arguments ...and sit through the explanation of why those arguments don't hold water. (Example: Tony1 cited a science style guide, and you pointed out that it's not for the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia.)
You see, lots of computer programmers like British style because computers treat words and punctuation as literal strings (the human visual system doesn't). That means a lot of early Wikipedians really really preferred British style because it's what they were used to from work. This rule got stuck in the MoS early and it's hard as heck to get it out again. The last time we had an RfC, one of the editors wrote such a biased text that it was hard to tell what we were talking about.
If you choose to start an RfC, you'll have my support. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
How would I be able to do that? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The instructions are at WP:RFC. However, I have to warn you, these things can get really nasty. There's no rule saying you have to stick around for the whole thing, but it can get pretty bad. You might also want to look at MOS:REGISTER before deciding whether or not you think it's a good idea to file one. Under "inside or outside," it has a list of a lot of previous discussions. Some of them are RfCs and some are not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
In the last week I had to fend off a rabid deletionist who was singling out and targeting articles I'd written--luckily that individual has had no success at it--but it has been stressful. If venturing into that Rfc would be like jumping into a snake pit, then maybe I should wait until the clouds clear--I could take that issue up at a later time. I desperately need peace of mind right now to be able to work on articles without a lot of drama. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: But hey, on a lighter note, I write a lot about a lot of 60s music--much of it obscure garage bands, so that may be of some interest. Of course, everybody has their own tastes--I don't know if the music of that that era is your cup of tea, but if you like that period, then you'd love to read some of the articles I've worked on. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
1) There's no time limit on improving Wikipedia. 2) No one owes it their blood pressure. Ah, band articles! So many song titles! So much urge to tuck those commas inside the quotation marks just a little bit... Heh. One of my first experiences on Wikipedia was correcting punctuation in that exact way. And it was my first run-in with WP:LQ. Back then, I didn't even know the Brits had their own system. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
When they did the GA review for the Garage rock article (it recently went GA!), they canged the commas at the top to be in "Wiki" style, but after the first couple of sections, just left all of the commas "tucked" the way we had them--even the British editors were "tucking" the little commas--proof that even in Britain you can do it both ways! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: Maybe it is just a matter or aesthetics, but I think the little "tucked" commas look better! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Me too but in my experience people prefer the look of whatever system they're more used to.
Even featured articles routine ignore WP:LQ. The only real effect of this rule is to annoy people who want to use correct American punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Darkfrog24, if we take you and you alone out of the equation, LQ is rarely challenged by anyone, and when they're informed why WP uses it, they get it and drop the matter. When a single editor campaigns incessantly on the same issue for 6.5 years, I don't think it's everyone else at WT:MOS who's being "bullies", but that additional attack has been noted. So has this "grooming" of new editors with false information like "featured articles routine[ly] ignore WP:LQ". A ratio of only 24 out of 303 featured articles using typesetters' or what you call "American" quotation style (versus 221 for logical quotation, and 54 mixed) is nothing like a "routine"; compliance with LQ is the routine part.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't started a thread challenging WP:LQ in years. The last time I brought up LQ at all without someone else challenging it first was when I suggested that we might have an incorrect comma in the wording and that we should fix it. I don't campaign incessantly. I cease all the time. But when you guys circle around someone with some sense and claim that there's no support in the sources for what they believe, you're darn right I'm going to reply with some links so that they don't have to think that they're crazy or being a pest or breaking the rules. They're not.
Like I explained to you at WT:MoS, the fact that only 60-odd percent of even featured articles use British style means that changing the rule would not disrupt Wikipedia's operations.
Don't post here again unless you have something new to say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I think your edits since these comments qualify as "incessant". Moving your argument to various obscure subpages that you control, hammering on it excessively, trying to set the stage for an ENGVAR-like challenge to the currently recommended style, is obnoxious in the extreme. Just let it go. The current scheme works well, and is most appropriate for a world-wide encyclopedia. Your American exceptionalist approach just mucks things up. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Your selective removal of SMcC's correction of your lies here is also staggering. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Dicklyon, if you feel that you are being "hammered" when someone supplies sources that show that the terminology that you're inserting into Wikipedia's pages is wrong, then you are on the wrong site. If you think someone's lying just because they don't agree with you, and the sources that I've provided prove that I'm not lying they you need a very large adjustment.
I'll repeat your own words to you: Back off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard[edit]

An issue in which you are involved has been raised at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

AE[edit]

Please see this thread at the arbitration enforcement page. RGloucester 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a proposal in the AE discussion that mentions your name. Can you make a voluntary offer that is enough to convince the admins this battle won't continue? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
RG is overreacting, EdJohnston, to put it kindly. Dicklyon and I continued working while this thread was going on and the text has been stable for days. It's done.
Now for another matter. From what you posted on the thread, it seems you have a problem with me in some way. If I'm wrong about that, fine, no action required. If not, the thing to do next is to be specific about what you think I did and then listen to my response. I'm saying this because SMcCandlish does have a problem with me, and if all you do is read his screeds, you're not going to get an accurate picture. He does not like that I don't agree with him and he is not good with WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. He doesn't believe me when I offer to work with him; he doesn't hold back with the invective; he accuses me of cherry-picking even when I quote sources that he brought to the table. Even though I've shown him sources that support my position, and I was not kidding any of the times that I told him, "but if you have better sources that prove these wrong, please do show them," he still accuses me of making things up. I don't know what else to do with him.
Any response to his accusations would have to be almost as long as his post itself, and I've noticed a too-long-didn't-read problem with that. And, frankly, I'd also have to say some things that aren't very flattering about another editor, and I'd rather not do that unless it's specifically necessary. So just tell me what exactly you think is wrong, and we'll deal with that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I actually don't have a problem with you at all, only with particular behavior patterns you engage in when it comes to style disputes (more than one, but especially this quotation marks thing). The problem here is a recurrent one with you: Apparent unwillingness (I don't believe it's inability) to distinguish between criticism of behavioral, logical, and sourcing problems on the one hand, and some kind of personal vendetta on the other. "I don't agree with your tactics and approach to this matter" is not equivalent to "I don't like you".

After almost 7 years, no, I'm not going to waste hours or days yet again providing you the same source citations you always ignore (plus lots of new ones!). Any sourcing work I do on style and usage matters will be done to improve our mainspace articles on these topics (where any further PoV and OR can be addressed as WP:CORE content disputes by noticeboards that will not touch purely-MoS disputes). NB: Yes, it is still cherry-picking and OR if you take what you like from a source, contort it to seem to mean what it doesn't actually say, and ignore the rest of it. No, it is not a "screed" to provide 200+ diffs of evidence (just the tip of the iceberg; I skipped about 5 intervening years of similar disruption on the same topic, and almost 7 years of similar disruption on other WP:ARBATC-scope topics).

You keep psychologically projecting this "He does not like that I don't agree with him and he is not good with WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL" stuff, which is transparently hypocritical. All you are doing in uncivilly casting bad-faith personal aspersions on my motivations for getting in the way of you getting your way. Meanwhile, I've never even theorized about your motivations. I honestly have no idea why this punctuation matter is something you won't let go of, or why so many other style matters are. I don't care at all whether you agree with me, and refuting your arguments is a dispute against those arguments, not a personality problem I have with you. Again, you as a person are distinct from the reasoning and behaviors you present to the project. For all I know, we'd get along famously in some other context. What I do care about is abuse of WP and its policies to pursue (for unknown motivations) a personal agenda at the expense of the project, the community and the individuals who make it up. You had multiple opportunities, from EdJohnston and others, at this AE to get why your patterns have been disruptive, but you "mooned the jury" and basically made a TB inevitable, then sealed the deal with a bunch of canvassing and more IDHT, like continuing to cast unsupported personal aspersions in a venue the primary purpose of which is imposing sanctions on people who cast such aspersions. If I'd long wanted that kind of TB result, I would have pursued an ArbCom action against you years ago. The main reason I had all this evidence piled up was I've written that RFARB several times, and decided not to file it, giving you further assumption of good faith that you'd come around. But you just don't. This latest "MOS:SUPPORTS" thing, back-to-back with more editwarring at Quotation marks in English, and labeling everyone who disagrees with you at WT:MOS to be a bunch of "bullies" is just too much.

Take your year off this topic. Everyone will be glad to have you back if you return with an attitude something like [a more concise version of]: "I see that I should live with WP having a house style I don't personally prefer, just as I would not try to impose my own on Nature if I submitted an article to that journal. I will henceforth work collaboratively to have MoS be stable and serve the encyclopedia's needs as determined by consensus, while resisting temptation to try to reshape it to suit my subjective preferences. I understand that WP guidelines are based on internal consensus, which does not always agree with the most common external approaches to everything, that WP:POLICY is distinct from mainspace, and that consensus is something to work within, not against. It is more important that WP have a 'playbook' we agree on and do the work under than that everyone be 100% satisfied with every line item in the playbook, repeated argumentation over which is a waste of editorial time and patience." A WP:STANDARDOFFER post along these lines would undoubtedly succeed, including with my and others' support. PS: I actually recommend a near-total break from WP for a year. I've done it, and it was very useful, both off-WP and on, and I take 1-3 months breaks periodically for a refresh. If you instead use this time to shift your anti-consensus disruption to some other pet peeve, I think we all know what the result will be, since it will demonstrate a WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE problem that can't be ignored any longer.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

SmC, does Wikipedia have a word for when you accuse others of the thing that you yourself are doing? Maybe you think you don't have a problem with me but you clearly do.
You accuse me of ignoring sources, when you refuse to acknowledge the ones I've shown you. (You've also accused me of doing this immediately after I made a post discussing sources that you'd mentioned by name.) [7] [8][9] [10]
You call me a liar and delusional and say that I'm making things up. I call you uncivil because you are not even trying to get along. I have used euphemism after euphemism to describe what you do.
You accuse me of OR even when I have provided sources that explicitly state the things that I am saying. It's one thing to not agree with me, but OR is out of line in these cases. And you keep insisting that your conclusions are not only right but so right that anyone who disagrees but me a troublemaker even though you don't source them.
You insist that I use your preferred terminology even when I can show that the terminology that I use is more common.
You refactor other people's posts but complain when they do it.[11]
Any time that anyone mistakes your meaning by so much as a hair, you accuse them of lying or deliberately misrepresenting you, but you have zero qualms about doing that with other people's posts. When someone asks you questions, you're fine with answering just the ones you want to, but you complain when other people do that."I note that you dodged virtually everything I said" You need a pretty big attitude adjustment.
Basically, you need to learn how to accept that other people don't agree with you. The thread started by Garagepunk66 was pretty much over before you recharged it with your big diva act. When you are that confrontational, don't complain when people confront you.
It's possible that you just have a big problem with AGF. When I typed out the contents of those sources you'd named and asked you questions about them, did you think that was an act? It wasn't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt anyone else wants to read this, so I'll box it, since people may have AE-related business to deal with here in the next day or so.
Even your diffs are a waste of time, as they don't support the claims you make, only the innocuous background behind the claims, which have no support at all but your own imagination. Using CYA language like "It's possible that ..." doesn't make a personal attack less of a personal attack. See WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Repeatedly casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS] by accusing me of WP:AGF problems without evidence (that's three times in one day, including inside AE itself, and after asked to stop) is a pattern of AGF/CIVIL/NPA-problematic verbal abuse itself, that WP:ANI will act on independently of your ongoing AE case. Given the numerous times over the last 4 months that you've been politely asked to stop engaging in this particular hostile, dispute-personalizing behavior, this will the the last such request. People can disagree about rationales, sources, and editing behavior patterns without imputing mental problems and nefarious motives to other editors, but you appear unwilling to comply with WP's behavioral guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't read most of this. Here's what stood out to me.
"Cherry picked"? Let's let Google Books do the picking: "American" + "quotation mark" [12] Out of the first five, four say some version of "American is this and British is that" and the other one doesn't discuss the matter. "British" + "quotation mark" [13] gives us roughly the same. "Typesetter" + "quotation mark" [14] gets us #1 a mention of actual typesetters (not relevant), #2 a source that uses the term to mean "curly quotes," #3—5 inclusive, more references to typesetters (not relevant).
The idea that "logical" does X and "British" does Y is your opinion. Some of the sources say that "logical" is placement by position [15] and others say that it's placement by grammatical sense [16]. Still others use the term "logical" descriptively but don't specify anything else. The Chicago Manual of Style uses the term "British" for both rationales. This is not OR, at least not on my part.
"Diffs that don't support the claims"? I added "Use caution when challenging this rule" and you claimed I was trying to encourage people to challenge it. You are really making me wonder what is wrong with you. I mean, are you annoyed that you got yourself boomeranged last year? I would be too but it's not like I did that to you. You did it to yourself.
You need a mirror, you need a serious attitude adjustment, and you need to stop posting here. I'm going to give you far more benefit of the doubt than you deserve and assume that you actually don't understand what you're doing wrong. It's time for you stay away from me. I am sick of trying to be nice to you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, rats. I'd written up a "let's try a different approach" and "put it all on the table" or "full disclosure on my thinking and why we're disagreeing" thing, with an explicit eye to dispute reduction, which I think would have been appropriate as an alternative to just buggering off, but the TB dropped before I could post it. I've moved it to User talk:SMcCandlish/LQ open letter to Darkfrog24, and while you can't yet respond to it here, maybe it will provide cogitation material (and I'm always open to an e-mail discussion). Anyway, I don't have any problem staying away, if that's what you want, unless something comes up that seems like it "must" be posted here. I guess with the ping system, that's hardly ever.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Quotation marks in English 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Please do be careful not to give editors the impression that you are canvassing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: I notified people in two rounds. The second is more straightforward: You will notice that I notified all the participants in the conversation that Dicklyon mentioned, including the ones who do not agree with me, excepting only those who were already participating or who had already been pinged. Izno and Giraffedata sided with Dicklyon and SmC in that conversation, and Peter agreed with neither of us. Per neutrality rules, I left them the same message that I left Slim. Regarding the first, please note this: [17] I asked whether I was allowed to call witnesses at the AN noticeboard. When I say that I got no answer, I mean my request was closed with no answer. The pages on AE and discretionary say nothing about this issue and time was ticking, so I made my best guess. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My name[edit]

It may save you typing trouble if you refer to me as KC or the puppy or Puppy - I answer to all. You can also refer to me as KillerChihuahua, or KillerC. I'd prefer you not use KillerChi or Killer Chi. Thank you so much! KillerChihuahua 22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Easily fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I do appreciate it. :-) KillerChihuahua 22:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem at all. At least something in this whole mess was easy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

Commons-emblem-hand.svg The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted. You may use quotes and quotation marks, and edit pages that include them, subject to normal editing rules (e.g. regarding edit warring). This ban may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after it is placed.

You have been sanctioned per the Arbitration Enforcement thread involving you

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the questions you asked on my talk page:

Regarding the longstanding MoS rule, you just have to accept that consensus is not with you and you need to move on, even if you disagree with it. Do not bring it up anywhere, and do not contribute to discussions about it brought up by others - doing so would be a breach of your topic ban and could see you blocked. The reason you have been topic banned is that you have not learned to let it go or to drop the stick.
The offers of a voluntary restriction all missed the point, SMcCandlish explained it well - the problem is not excessive reverting so 1RR would not solve the problem. One comment a day would very likely lead to you making a comment every single day, this would not be dropping the subject. You have had your say, very, very, very extensively. Everybody has heard your arguments, but they are not convinced by them. At this point your continued participation is disruptive to the topic area. The only voluntary restriction that would have been accepted would have been one where you promised to stay away from the subject completely.
What you can do over the next six months is demonstrate that you can constructively contribute to completely unrelated areas of the encyclopaedia without engaging in the behaviour (edit warring, excessive repetitive discussion, etc) that you have exhibited in relation to quotation styles. I very strongly recommend that you unwatch the pages related to quotation marks and quotation styles and ignore any changes you see to them otherwise.
Your topic ban does cover everything to do with quotation marks and quotation styles anywhere on Wikipedia - articles space, talk pages, MoS and other project space pages, templates, user talk pages, categories, etc. Everything.
No you are not allowed to notify someone about changes to the articles, as that would be discussing quotation marks or quotation styles and in breach of your topic ban. I repeat my earlier advice to just unwatch all the pages and stay completely away from the subject for at least six months. If people see your actions as testing the edges of your topic ban then they are less likely to accept any appeal (which will not be decided by me, btw) than if you have stayed completely clear. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Slight misunderstanding: I wasn't talking about discussing WP:LQ during the topic ban. I meant afterward. Whether the first appeal is successful or not, it will be lifted sooner or later, and I'd like your input on how to handle the matter then. You clearly don't see my support-but-don't-initiate policy as sufficient for a non-banned Wikieditor, so what would you see as sufficient? WP:LQ tends to be independently challenged once or twice a year.
SMcCandlish was not honest with you. By this I mean that he would say try to turn MOS's own FAQ into a rallying point for "challenging MOS" to get "satisfaction" when the line I actually added to the FAQ was Please exercise judgement if you are considering challenging this part of the MoS. Consider reviewing previous discussions first to see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction. Almost everything he said was like that. I have to guess that he was betting that if he made his posts long enough no one would bother to look at what he was saying thoroughly.
Regarding voluntary restriction, why didn't you just say that that was what you had in mind? This is not a rhetorical question: Was that a test of some kind?
recommend that you unwatch I did that as soon as I was notified of your post this morning. We're on the same page there.
I believe that Full stop and its talk pages are a good example of the way I operate in the article space. I think this is closely consistent with what you mean by editing without disruption or excessive talk page activity. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I have no intent to perpetuate any further dispute on this matter; I'm just responding to what I'm being challenged on/accused of, and will move on (I'm not watchlisting this talk page, and never have). I'm also hoping that DF24 and I can collaborate constructively on this issue when they can return it to and have had time to formulate a distinctly different editorial approach to the topic, that satisfies WP:STANDARDOFFER. To get to the points: The MOS FAQ exists to answer frequently asked questions about MOS, not to plant WP:BEANS up people's noses about issuing challenges to WP guidelines and making sure they gear up tough for them. This faux-warning style, which comes across as a "Do you have what it takes to win this badass combat game!?" challenge – closely mirrors the interaction with the new editor further up this page, paraphrasable as 'I'll support if you if you RfC this. There're all a bunch of bullies and you and I are right. Here's where the RfC instructions are. You'll need to be tough and resolute, though; this isn't for wimps.' It's transparent reverse psychology that will appeal immediately to newcomers used to "Internet debate" and unfamiliar with our behavioral policies and guidelines. I firmly stick by calling it out for what it is. Next, I'm counting on people looking at what I'm saying (and diffing) in detail, or I wouldn't bother writing it all so precisely. It's noteworthy that not a single person appears to have bought any of DF24's "that's not really what happened, that's not really what I meant, SMcCandlish is lying to you" antics. The difference between my sometimes lengthy posts and DF's own text walls is that mine are responsive and on-point, not distracting handwaves and circular restatement of what's already been refuted. Finally, Full stop and its talk page are rife with DF24's same nationalism-based campaigning, and multiple editors' negative reaction to it. I absolutely agree with DF24's self-assessment that "Full stop and its talk pages are a good example of the way I operate in the article space." It simply doesn't lead to the conclusion that immediately followed that statement, and I predict that the TB will be extended if DF24 doesn't avoid all of these style, usage and punctuation topics, because the temptation to engage in the same behavior will be very high. But, I guess that's not my business/problem. [shrug].  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: But that wasn't what you said about me, was it, SmC? You said I was out for "satisfaction" and trying to get people to rally and challenge WP:LQ. That's not true and you have more than enough information to know it.
Yes, please do scroll up on this page and look at what I actually said to Garagepunk66 about whether he should run an RfC. Yes please do look at Full stop. And if you like you can pick any of SmC's claims about me at random. I'll show you how it falls apart. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Technically, DF24 should not be discussing quotation marks anywhere on Wikipedia, including on DF24's own user talk. So I'd recommend people stop leaving them messages that mention Full stop and other such pages. Also I recommend that DF24 not respond to editors who have opposed them in the quotation mark debate, unless there is a brand new topic that needs attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston, I have already asked SmC to stop posting on this talk page. However, since he is responding to some negative things that I've said about him, I'd see an exception as reasonable. But yes, he did behave dishonestly. It's possible that his perception of this matter is so skewed that he doesn't realize how much he's twisted things, but that's as much benefit of the doubt as I'm willing to give this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
This needs to be the end of this. Darkfrog24, you are actually still trying to continue the dispute, in violation of your topic ban. SMcCandlish is probably responding because you impugned his character across multiple talk pages under the guise of clarifying the terms of your topic ban. If you make any further posts referring to the subject of your topic ban or to the dispute, you may receive a block per the terms of your ban. --Laser brain (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No guise. I'm quite serious, both in my requests for information and advice and in what I have to say about SMcCandlish. He characterized neutral and anti-disruptive posts as disruptive and made false claims about both my motives and activities. He's flat-out called me a liar. If impugning people's character is an issue, the solution has to go both ways. He has said things about me that are not true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I for one feel that one has pretty much carte blanche to reply on their own talk page to anything posted there, so Laser Brain, don't be threatening to interpret these as ban violations. Her words hang her well enough without help. Now I will drop the interaction with DF, and advise SMcCandlish to do the same. Dicklyon (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration enforcement request involving you[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Darkfrog24.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion on "Are articles or documents hosted in the Wikisource project valid source material for Wikipedia articles? - where is it?[edit]

I noticed you deleted my request for a WP:Third Opinion on the Active Disagreement "Are articles or documents hosted in the Wikisource project valid source material for Wikipedia articles?" - but you didn't actually leave a Third Opinion, simply deleted the Active Disagreement and supporting cites.

Do you intend to enter a Third Opinion? loupgarous (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vfrickey: I entered it several minutes ago. Here it is: [18] Is it on the wrong page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I was looking in the wrong place, I guess - WP:Third Opinion. Thinking about it, I don't see any guidance as to where the Third Opinion should appear, so your choice was as reasonable as any. Thanks for your opinion, and I appreciate your work toward helping us improve wikipedia. loupgarous (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The 3O is customarily placed on the talk page indicated by the person who places the request. You're welcome. It took a but of rundown. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

Commons-emblem-hand.svg The following sanction now applies to you:

You are from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. This replaces the topic ban issued previously, and may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016).

You have been sanctioned Per Arbitration Enforcement

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Answers to clarifications requested on my talk page: I am inferring that the previous stipulation that the topic ban does not cover editing under normal rules is still in effect. Is this correct? This would mean that I may, for example, correct a miscapitalized word, replace the generic he or remove an unnecessary "that" and write an edit summary per normal rules but that I may not explain or discuss any such change on the talk page. You may edit in all areas that are unrelated to the manual of style. For example you may correct capitalisations, fix typos, replace "he" with "they" (if appropriate to the situation, obviously), etc on articles that are not related to the manual of style. For example you may do these things on the megabat article but not on the singular they article.

I am inferring that the topic ban does cover issues not related to quotation marks such as the MoS's rules on the generic he and the MoS's rules on gender identity. Is this correct? This topic ban covers issues related to all manual of style topics, not just quotation marks.

I am inferring that the topic ban does not cover articles not covering issues not related to quotation marks, such as articles on the generic he or articles on gender identity. This topic ban covers articles related to all manual of style topics, including but not limited to quotation marks.

If I am working on an article such as Caster Semenya, am I permitted to discuss gender identity and to what extent? You are permitted to discuss gender identity, and any other topic, as long as it is not related to the manual of style.

I am inferring that the essay on WP:LQ that I have been working on for a few years has to wait until after the topic ban is over. Is that correct? Yes.

I am inferring that I am not banned from discussions of other users' behaviour, such as the one I had with Curly Turkey about SMcCandlish. Is this correct? You may discuss other users behaviour as long as the behaviour being discussed is unrelated to the manual of style. For example, you may not discuss another users opinions of MoS topics, nor their editing on MoS pages or topics. There was some support for an interaction ban prohibiting you discussing SMcCandlish though, so I would think twice before doing so and make sure that you are not harassing them.

I do not believe that the duration of the topic ban should have been extended and I do not follow your reasoning on this. I'd like it if you explained. The duration of the topic ban remains the same - indefinite. The time before you may appeal was lengthened for the reasons given in the AE thread, i.e. you completely missed the point of why the topic ban was placed and the extended time before appeal is indented to encourage you to actually move on from MoS related topics completely.

I'd also like it if you said that you had read my rebuttal of SMcCandlish's accusations. I'm not saying that you didn't. I'm saying that I'd feel better if you affirmed that you had. I read everything in the AE thread.

What can I do over the next twelve months to give you the confidence that I can be allowed back to work? Stay completely away from all manual of style related topics (the phrasing of this questions shows you still haven't done this). Don't attempt to skirt the edge of your ban, or see how close you can get without breaking it. Demonstrate that you are able to contribute to other areas of the encyclopaedia without engaging in the behaviour that got you topic banned here - crusading, not dropping the stick, battleground approaches, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Took a few days to think over your answers. The biggest one is this: You keep saying that I missed the point. From your perspective, what did I miss? I have several guesses, but guessing at other people's thought processes is hit or miss.
You say that the topic ban allows me to discuss gender identity. Are you aware of this passage in the manual of style, MOS:IDENTITY? That's why I brought it up specifically. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You can discuss the gender identity of a person, in terms of what they identify as, but not how gender identity should be represented. You should not though be looking for edge cases or to find the exact boundary of where the topic ban is (it's almost impossible to frame a restriction without grey areas, and context can matter) you should be staying completely away from it so there is no question.
I'm not sure I can explain how you missed the point any differently to how it has already been explained in the discussion, but I will keep thinking. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I appreciate that. One way to do this would be to say exactly when you think it was explained: by which person, in which post, with which words. The admins involved were extremely taciturn. Do you mean someone else?
From a strictly practical standpoint, I can't avoid the edges if I don't know where they are. Under my own interpretation, the original topic ban did not cover asking involved admins for constructive criticism, but under yours it did. Under my own interpretation, the original topic ban covered the entire MoS, but under EdJohnston's it did not. I cannot read anyone's mind. However, I do plan on hanging out on AE to work on my FAQ draft. Perhaps a pattern will emerge. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Bones (season 11)[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24, first, please forgive me for coming to your talk page and deviating from the discussion on the noticeboard, but some of my comments were getting lost in the mess, some just wanted to clarify my points here. Regarding DISQUS, people do not go to www.disqus.com and type on the website, that just doesn't happen. People go to the actual website and comment on the page, and the collection of comments are stored on the DISQUS site. So in essence they function as comments, not a forum. Let me briefly explain the difference between the two in my view: (capitalization isn't being rude, it's just pointing out the important parts).

In a forum, the discussions and comments THEMSELVES ARE THE CONTENT. The entire point of a forum is to talk and discuss various topics, so the discussion is the purpose to go to a forum. A comment section greatly differs from this because they THEMSELVES ARE NOT THE CONTENT. Comments are IN RESPONSE to an article or informational piece of which IS THE CONTENT. The comments on the DISQUS page are IN RESPONSE to an informational article and the person providing information found in the comments IS THE SAME person who wrote the initial information in the original article. This bring me to my point that these comments actually function AS AN EXTENSION to the article, and not a stand alone entity.

I understand that is may be difficult for some editors or even some readers to understand this concept (as evidenced by the noticeboard), but that's just how it works. When I originally put the Disqus URL in the page as a source, it was for convenience. At that time, TV Media Insights still existed, but since the information that was being cited was in the comments below the article, I thought it would be more convenient to have the link go straight to where the information was, rather than trying to have the readers struggle to find it on their own.

If the website still existed, this would be a simple matter of using a different URL, but the simple fact that the website is gone, presents a challenge. DISQUS is unique in that even though the website where the comments were originally hosted is gone, the comments themselves are still available. The only alternative to using the DISQUS link as the URL is to find cached versions of all of the links, but that is next to impossible to do. I will try to find as many as I can, as that seems to be the only way to resolve this situation.

Please let me know if you have any questions, or if there is anything j can clarify. Thank you again for your time. Rswallis10 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean you felt like your voice was drowned out so you came somewhere quieter instead of screaming? I think we're good on that. If you're concerned about capitalization, you can use italics by leaving two apostrophes ''like this'' on either side of the word.
It can be very annoying when people call a source a forum when it's not. I get that DISQUS is not a forum. The source in question, however, is a comment and not an article. Wikipedia does have a separate policy for comments under WP:NEWSBLOG. It says "Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources," which I personally interpret as covering comments and replies. Now if the comment is left by the author that might be another matter. It is my understanding that SonoftheBronx has been concretely identified as the author of the article in question, Douglas Pucci, and that this fact is not in doubt. The way I see it, if this author meets Wikipedia's expert criteria, then he's usable per common sense.
Your choice of convenience link seems entirely apt.
The issues that have to be addressed are whether Pucci is himself a reliable source. If he is, then I personally don't see why we can't use information that he provided in a comment, but the issue does seem to be in the gray.
Remember, I don't get to decide this issue, at least not by myself. This isn't formal mediation or anything and I'm not an admin. I'm just one Wikieditor who lucked out on a content dispute and got familiar with the RS rules. Right now, I'm not sure which way I'd cast my support in an RfC on whether Pucci is reliable and my own best solution to this would be to just find a less controversial source. Rswallis10, do you think that if you took the time and energy that you're using at RSN and invested it in searching for other sources, that anything would turn up or do you believe you have exhausted all other possibilities? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I found some information that suggests that the SotB figures may not be accurate. While the issue is verifiability, not truth, if we have reason to believe they're not true, then finding out which side of the line Pucci is on may not be worth our time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you tell me what info you've found that shows his figures are not accurate? He's been quoted on TV by the Numbers, The Futon Critic, and is a regular contributor to AwfulAnnouncing.com as well as the station Y100.1. All of his numbers match up with the numbers on other reliable sources such as TVBTN, but he answers reader requests, which TVBTN does not. Another site, ShowBuzzDaily, also answers reader requests in the comments (but those comments are not DISQUS, so there has never been a reliability issue). A big part of getting Nielsen information is trust; we have to trust that we are getting reliable information since we ourselves do not possess the data. Only a select few have privy to that information, and that is something we have to understand. There is no reason for people like Douglas Pucci, (or Mitch Metcalf at ShowBuzzDaily, or Rick Porter at TVBTN, or Rick Kissell at Variety, or even Joe Adalian at Vulture) to make up the information. They are simply reporting the information they have, because they are passionate about ratings.
Believe me, I'm searching and searching to try to find another source for the numbers. I think the main reason they were requested to begin with is simply because they couldn't be found elsewhere. I firmly believe (and I thought that we all believed) that SonOfTheBronx is a reliable source, so I thought the issue here was the fact that they came from DISQUS, not the fact that they came from Douglas. If the issue is with DISQUS, then there is a fix for that: I am trying to find cached versions of all of the pages that the ratings were on because those still contain the comments on the actual page. If the issue is with Douglas himself, then there really isn't much I can do for that. TVBTN is the only site that regularly posts Live +7 data, so I'm quite certain that there is no other place the data can be found, but I will keep looking through press releases, and on other sites.
If you look here, you will see a list of all shows that I've found viewership information for, and I've spent hours/days/weeks/months trying to fill in some of the blanks, so I will continue to keep looking. This is mainly what I do on Wikipedia, and I've leaned quite a lot about ratings over the past 2 years, so when someone like AussieLegend brings forth a claim of using an unreliable source, I take that very seriously. Someone once told me that I would never be able to find any of the ratings for the second season of Dexter and I ended up finding 10/12 of them (& I'm still actively searching for the other 2). If I find any other sources, I will replace them on the Bones page, but I'm fairly certain it's a long shot. Rswallis10 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you've certainly done your due diligence. I posted the info that I found to the RSN thread so that Aussie could see it as well. Basically, I found other sub-RS that reported numbers different from those reported by SotBronx. Even an expert can make a mistake, but if he did, then whether or not he is an expert is moot in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I left my refutation on the main noticeboard page. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Habits (Tove Lo song)[edit]

Can you check any unreliable sources (WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES) 123.136.106.174 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@123.136.106.174: The customary thing to do is to begin a discussion of these matters on the article's talk page so that other people who've worked on it may learn of your concerns. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)