User talk:Mandruss/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both are acceptable

A spaced en-dash is (by definition) preceded by a space – preferably a non-breaking one – but sometimes...—I try. --Brogo13 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Brogo13: Both are acceptable - Right, and editors should not mass-change an article from one acceptable form to another.
A spaced en-dash is (by definition) preceded by a space, and {{snd}} does that.
preferably a non-breaking one - According to the doc for {{snd}}, it is equivalent to coding  – and thus will not break before the dash. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
What about real (not coded) snd's when they're inside a parameter—where they are just as likely to break? (I'm talking form as in formatting, not style.) Should we just ignore them? --Brogo13 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Brogo13: I think ignoring them would be preferable to using unspaced emdash there, in an article that otherwise uses spaced endash. And per COinS you can't use {{snd}} or  – in various parameters including |title=.
I'm not very concerned about the risk of starting a line with a dash in a citation – citations are rarely read and most of them have problems considerably more significant than that. When most of those problems are fixed site-wide (ie never), then I'll worry about the finer points of citation formatting. It's all about priorities, since there will never be enough time to do everything. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Stated vs claimed at Michael Brown

Regarding reversion of Michael Brown: I changed the words "stated" to "claimed" because "claimed" is the far more accurate word to use. All the statements were proved to be lies; as such, they are disproved claims. BrewsterM (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

When you post a new comment, don't just drop it in anywhere on the page. Use the "New section" link at the top and remember to enter something meaningful for the subject.
If you want to discuss my revert, please do so at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown so other interested editors might participate. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Merry Christmas


This user wishes you a very Merry Christmas.

I've enjoyed working with you this past year, and look forward to the next year. Merry Christmas! Mgasparin (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mgasparin: Thanks, Happy Holidays to you as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

nbsp in dates

Please see User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates and raise any queries there. GiantSnowman 12:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Process overreach

Greetings Mandruss. In reply to your revert[1], I must interject that I'm disappointed. I was under the impression that the lighter "enforced BRD" ruleset would enable editors to improve the article gradually by series of bold and justified edits, interspersed with good-faith argumentation on the talk page. Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people still operate under the deprecated "consensus-required" straitjacket which favors article obstructionism. In this case it results in repeated reversions to a totally sub-par phrasing until discussion of minute details in 7 separate sub-threads somehow reaches a magical consensus. Ping Awilley for opinion. — JFG talk 23:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Greetings back. It's my opinion that that approach, while not without merit, does more harm than good considering that the same rules have to apply to everybody. I've seen the disruption that usually results when editing is allowed during discussion, and so have you. I think relative peace, considering the multiple costs of the alternative, is more important than getting improvements into the article sooner. But if you're prepared to allow and defend edits like that by Rusf10, which was based on their perception of a discussion trend, I'm prepared to stay out of it and let you and others enjoy your constructive chaos. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@JFG: bold and justified edits That your edits were justified has been hotly disputed on the talk page by multiple editors, which doesn't speak very well for your approach, does it? That's the problem - until there is consensus, what is "justified" is a matter of opinion. And it's a matter of opinion that is far better resolved on the talk page than by vote-by-edit, which is often vote-by-revert. (It's perhaps human nature to perceive that discussion "justifies" the edit one wants to make, but experience shows that such perceptions are unreliable.)
Awilley has yet to show us how to make this Enforced BRD theory work in real-world situations, despite at least one explicit request (by me) for him to do so, and I've yet to see it work in practice. In my view it assumes and requires that most editors are like you and Awilley: mature, well above average in intelligence, and naturally collaborative "team players". That's not realistic I'm afraid. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Your revert also affirmed SPECIFICO's blanket reversal of all my changes, including an edit about USMCA,[2] unrelated to the debated impeachment phrasing. I suggest that you restore that (I can't for 1RR). — JFG talk 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I think there's a legitimate point about not getting carried away into edit wars during discussion. That kind of thing raises tensions and is counter-productive. So I think it's perfectly fine for editors to ask each other not to edit certain parts of an article while discussion is ongoing. Good in fact. But I'm unwilling to formalize that as a rule because I don't want to eliminate the small improvements and compromises that can be made through a combination of editing and discussion. If Editors A through E agree that editing should be paused pending discussion then that's 5 editors who can revert to the status quo if Editor F tries to keep reverting. It's the type of thing that is usually resolved at the editor level without admin intervention, and that's a good thing in my opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Somehow I don't feel any smarter than I was a few hours ago, or any more confident about process at Donald Trump. I think we will continue to spend up to half our time on process disagreements, and that's an awful waste of resources. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

List defined references

Per your comment on BullRangifer's talk page, do you know which bot I can use to remove those errors? It's correct that these errors make no difference to the body of the article, but I certainly don't want them to be there anyway. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: If there is an automated way to do that, I'm not aware of it. You might try WP:HD or, failing that, WP:VPT. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try there. I think you somehow inadvertently edited my signature in my previous comment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Ctrl-X instead of Ctrl-C, apparently, while building the ping. Fixed. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem at all, just thought you might want to know! Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Well I was THAT close to informing you that you had a problem with your signature. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

~Hat? `

File:Happy New Year 2020 Images HD Download (5).jpg ~ Happy Holidays ~
~ duh ~~ Whats a hat again ~ WP:LOL ~ [3] ~mitch~ (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mitchellhobbs: Well a hat is usually a hat, except when it's a {{hat}}. But a hat is never a boot. Happy 2020. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Ochs

Are you familiar with this guy's work? If not, give him a chance! If so, pretty cool, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Huge image

Sorry; I have yet to check the RfC listing itself. Yes, if I had thought about it, I could have worked out that it would transclude the image (which is obviously not appropriate). Schwede66 23:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem, it takes a village. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Cite bundling

Hi there, can you explain why you bundled those citations? I made them unbundled on purpose. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, we made them bundled on purpose (things like that rarely happen by accident). For the rationale, see WP:CITEBUNDLE. See also past discussions in the ATP archives. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think they should be bundled? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Didn't I already answer that question? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I mean in this particular instance. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
For the rationale for this particular instance, see WP:CITEBUNDLE. But never mind all that, this one reason is enough: Six consecutive citation numbers are fugly, and a cite bundle is as easy for readers to use as a string of unbundled cites. I would have no objection to any bundling of four or more consecutive cites, although the article doesn't (yet) go that far. If you want to challenge the convention (used in at least one other place in the article, after the second sentence in "False statements"), please start another ATP discussion and we can hash it out, again. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for giving your reasons. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I was a bit surprised that someone struck through my comment on an AfD. I'm still not sure what to think (especially after reviewing that editor's talk page.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It may not be over, and sometimes you just have to let a dick be a dick. It pretty much depends on who else is around at the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delayed archiving at Talk:Donald Trump

Hey Mandruss, when would be a good time to archive Talk:Donald Trump#In what way does "but" change the meaning of this sentence?? Would it be best to just let the bot handle it or should I wait one more day and then archive it myself? I'm just curious because the close was challenged and I wasn't sure if everything had been resolved or not. Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mgasparin: It remains unresolved, see my comment today. Appreciate the coordination. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the update. Mgasparin (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion

This is not an argument we have any hope of winning, is it? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears not. There has been no movement that I can see. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Columns

Hi Mandruss, I saw this edit, "columns are now done automatically" and was wondering how. For me, that article does not have them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: See User talk:Matt Campbell#Please don't. I don't know much more than that, but perhaps User:MarnetteD could elaborate. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Berean Hunter this was implemented around two years ago. I'm not proficient at all of the technical details but there are several possibilities about why you don't see them including what kind of device you are using and the specs that your browser is set for. Your best bet is to ask at the WP:VPT for a better explanation. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 20:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump

It wasn't a re-revert, it was a single revert. There is no edit war. It's a WP:1RR. Please check what you're saying before you make such an accusation. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A revert of a revert is a re-revert. From the nutshell at WP:BRD: "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." This is not an aggressiveness contest and we don't just keep re-reverting until others get tired of reverting our re-reverts. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
"This is not an aggressiveness contest and we don't just keep re-reverting until others get tired of reverting our re-reverts" is quite the accusation though, because I was never going to continue reverting even once after that one revert. It assumes I would've continued to do so through some tireless effort in brazen violation of all reversion rules, when as far as I was aware I had in mind at the time to follow the rule I understood as the active one. Even if I were wrong, that was a misunderstanding of the rule, not an intent to violate a rule. The closest I've ever come to an all out edit war would be on Françafrique, in which despite 2 years of disagreement with an editor I pursued all avenues I had available, multiple talk page discussions and a request for comment, and it got solved. You calling one revert an edit war in comparison to that, and especially on a high-profile article; you can see why I would've got a little irritated. But that's my last comment; I'm out for now. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I doubt I'll ever understand re-reverting because one deems the BRD challenge revert to be "pointless". AFAIK, there is exactly nothing in the PAGs to support that, and plenty in the PAGs to discourage it. If you prefer the term "disruptive editing" to the term "edit warring", that's fine with me. Per the spirit of Pillar 5 it's about principles and mind-sets, not words and rules. For me, it's no more complicated than that. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I've checked what I said. WP:Edit warring:
  • "Disagreements should be resolved through discussion."
  • "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." That same principle applies to 1RR. Edit warring is not about violating bright-line limits but about trying to resolve disputes by reverts instead of discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You were "a net positive"

We've had our differences. We've had our similarities. But mostly, we found that middle ground and it kind of worked, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! I hope you're doing well. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
more or less well, details (always) on my talk - how about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. Said details don't jump right out at me, maybe you could point me more specifically.
We let Katze go in July, then waffled for months about whether to get a new cat. We brought Whimsey home in early January and she is now six months old. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
That's good to know. Look at the strawberries at the bottom, perhaps. Overview of images here, of what keeps me busy on wiki here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Cats are the best. Sorry for your loss, Mandruss. But also, congratulations on your gain. El_C 08:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@El C: Thanks on both counts. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Nova Scotia killings

Please before you make comments that you are going to blanket revert edits by another user "I will revert that part of the edit in a few days unless someone beats me to" is not collegiate, not assuming good faith and is a battleground mentality. It is also the language that you are acting as an owner and are wanting to impose your preferred version without reading the content which is tantamount to saying you want to edit war. You may say you will be selective or en mass but you are going in with a preconceived notion that the edits should be reverted which is an assumption of bad faith. The edits mainly change pros and remove over linking in the section you are threatening to blanket revert. The way you are behaving through your comments is off-putting to other users and gives off the impression that you are not interested in work collaboratively or to try and find a constructive way forwards.

I have been very careful only to comment on the content of the lede. I made no claims of "general incompetence of editors at this article" which is what you have stated in your first reply to my starting the new section. There was intentionally no mention of other users. It focused on how the lede is in my opinion out step with the manual of style. If you believe that is a "rant". Good for you but avoid commenting on the contributor. If you disagree with what I have written say you disagree but don't attach your own personalisation to it.

I think you need to be careful before making such wild and outlandish comments as you have done. Please also note I am commenting to you on your talk page and not the article page as this is a more appropriate venue for talking to and about individual users and concerns regarding them. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  • A first revert is routine per WP:BRD (that's the R in BRD). Stating that one intends to dispute an edit by reverting it is not "battleground mentality". Don't confuse that with edit warring, which is something very different.
  • You seem to have some incorrect ideas about the meaning of "good faith" and WP:AGF. Good faith means honesty (look it up) and I have not doubted your honesty or implied that I do so.
  • You may say you will be selective or en mass - No, I didn't say that. I said that somebody else might revert you selectively or en masse - at the other article. What that meant is that they may revert only the first-sentence part of your massive edit there (selectively), or choose to use the undo button (en masse).
  • Good for you but avoid commenting on the contributor. Again, a misconception of an editing principle. I did not comment on you personally, I commented on your actions and behavior. The former is properly discouraged, and the latter is absolutely necessary under our highly dysfunctional system which requires us to act as "behavior cops" toward the very people we are expected to work with. I felt that your opening comment in that thread was inappropriate and unconstructive, and you needed to be told that. So I did. That's how it works. This system creates a lot of arguments and ill will (we see some of that in this case, but it often gets far worse than this), but I didn't create it.
Thank you for your comments here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What?

You left me a message, which you promptly reverted. The comment was confusing, and the removal even more so. What happened? —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 20:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, brain fart on my part. That's slang for an embarrassing mistake. I looked at your signatures and misinterpreted what I saw. When I realized the mistake, I self-reverted my comment, identifying it as a brain fart and apologizing, which should be interpreted as if I had never made the comment; i.e. you can ignore both the comment and the reversion. The details of how the mistake was made are irrelevant and not very interesting, even if I could recall them. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop

You aren't the first to notice the attitude. An absolute disgrace. Julia-Clary (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Seventh anniversary on Wikipedia

Hey, Mandruss. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Wow, seven years. I guess I broke a mirror at some point. But thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing of discussion

My thread wasnt even 3 hours old, why did you close it already? Like, could it stay open for at least a day or something SmooveMike (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=959975854&oldid=959967485)

May I say that you seem to have a hearing problem? I clearly explained the reason for my close in my close statement. You did the same sort of thing with what other than making a new thread on a talk page do you want me to do? – in reply to the answer to that question. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@SmooveMike: If you review the discussions supporting consensus #30, I think it will be apparent that a dozen (or so) editor-hours were spent reaching that consensus. Would it make sense to spend a small fraction of that time to arrive at a different consensus? I don't think so, since it seems intuitive that more discussion yields better results. Unless you somehow disagree with that, you would have us spend a dozen more editor-hours on the chance of reaching a different consensus, when none of the relevant factors have changed.
So let's say we spent that dozen editor-hours and reached the same consensus. You would then be satisfied that you at least received a fair hearing, I presume. But what about the next reader, just like you, who arrives at the article to make the same complaint? What should we do at that point? Spend another dozen editor-hours to give them a fair hearing as well? What about the one after that, and the one after that, for at least as long as Trump remains in office? Are you more important than those readers? If you think we have no better things to spend our time on than rehashing the same issues over and over, you're quite mistaken. This is the rationale behind my close, and I hope this more thorough explanation is useful to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not just use the letter of policy

I think you need to read WP:PLAYPOLICY.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could read WP:AGF and then show evidence that I am gaming anything, starting with evidence of my motive for doing so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Well lets see whether El_C thinks something titled "Title to "Death of George Floyd"" is someone asking for the pages to be renamed (and thus moved) to "Death of George Floyd".Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Stellar idea, wish I had thought of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Submission

Please help me to submit these two articles of mine Draft:Muhammad Shafi'u Abdullahi and Draft:Aminu Ladan Sherehu Sadeeqzaria (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How about a new username?

When I created this account, I didn't expect to edit much or I would have put some thought into the username. I've often wished I had something reflecting my affection for silly wordplay. After living with the boring "Mandruss" for seven years, I'm now considering changing it. I would prefer something that at first glance looks like an actual name, but is in fact a restructuring of a common word or phrase, along the same lines as User:General Ization. Tom Foolery and Al Dente are already taken on this site or a different Wikipedia. Other suggestions are requested, as well as any other comments about such a change. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see any problem with your username. It is simple, easy to remember, easy to spell. But if you are looking for a change: Private Eyez? Sir Reptitious? Mickie Pedia? Willie Orwontey? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
None of those are particularly easy to spell. In comparison, Tom Foolery can be spelled by anyone who knows the word "tomfoolery" and Al Dente by anyone who knows a little about Italian cuisine (al dente). Granted that's far from everybody, but it's enough that I could consider them an inside joke between me and other people who have good English vocabularies. I'm guessing lots of people don't know the word "generalization" (sadly, since it's a good word).
"Sir" has some potential as the first word, and neither Sir Reptitious nor Sir Real are in use on en-wiki. But I think I could do better. I've thought of and forgotten six or eight really good ones over the years, and I kick myself for not writing them down somewhere.
If I were female I would love to have Miss Communication, Miss Information, or Miss Conception, but they're all taken. Somebody registered Miss Information in 2006, did one edit, and disappeared forever. Miss Communication has 181 edits ending in 2009. Somebody registered Miss Conception in 2012, created a user page that resembles a social media profile, and disappeared forever. There oughta be a law! – or a provision for reclaiming good usernames that were never used much. Appending stuff to the end merely for uniqueness bites in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Mister Rious? Sir Viss? Ed Youcation? Ed Itor? Jim Nastics? Dick Shunary? Never mind, I can see I need to go get some sleep. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
No opinion about whether you should change your name. It's your brand and you should do what makes you happy. I will offer a pro tip though. If you find a name that you like that is already taken, but has been abandoned, you can WP:USURP it. That's how I became MrX. (I had to fight for it though.) - MrX 🖋 12:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@MrX: Thanks for the USURP tip, that's what I was wishing for (although it looks like it wouldn't work for usernames used on other Wikipedias, such as Al Dente (5 edits on fr-wiki ending 2012)). Who were you before you were MrX? Or is that classified information? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
My usurp target had a couple of edits on frwiki too if I recall correctly. It was several years ago, so I don't remember how I handled that. I remember that Commons was a nightmare. My previous name was umbris. - MrX 🖋 16:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I was considering changing my username again in the same manner that you're considering. One idea I had is Sid Viscous. - MrX 🖋 16:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@MrX: I think MrX is a great name, but it's your brand and you should do what makes you happy. Sid Viscous is good, especially if you wish to convey that you have a thick or sticky consistency. My only suggestion would be not to rush into anything. Let your idea percolate; if you don't think of anything better in, say, six months, it's probably a good choice. Some of the good ones that I've forgotten included an initial, a la Johnny B. Goode and T. Boone Pickens. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Man's Cape? Man Year? Womandruss? Old Mandruss? starship.paint (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Hey there, I think there's been a slight misunderstanding. The content I removed wasn't a historical first, it was actually an instance where something didn't happen rather than something happening for the first time, and only among "elected presidents". If it was the first time a president was named the most admired then that might have been relevant, but this was just being named second most rather. Could you please self revert? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: it was actually an instance where something didn't happen rather than something happening for the first time = Word games. Something did happen, and that something was that he was not named most admired. When it's the first time in history that happened, it's significant enough to include. Please take this to the ATP. But kudos for not simply re-reverting, even with a good editsum.
Actually I don't see where this is supported by the cited source, maybe I'm not looking at it right. If the cited source doesn't support it, your better move would've been to remove as unsourced. Too late now though, you'd have to address that in the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: - Oh I get it now, it's behind a paywall. So I have to assume it's supported. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Right, I mean to say that it's not notable that he was second rather than first in this particular measure, whereas if it was the first time that a president was first, that may be notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Right, and I'm saying I disagree and that your best move is to discuss this at the ATP. I defer to consensuses I disagree with. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Submission

Please help me to submit this Draft:Zainab Usman Sadeeqzaria (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Missing Covid RfC?

Hi Mandruss - I've been reviewing the old RfC on the Trump talk page concerning the lead Covid statement. I see references to 2 RfC's...but I can only find one. It looks like link 2 on bullet 45 may go to a link that has since been archived. You seem to be the custodian of such things (thanks for your efforts!), so I ask you about it. I am contemplating opening an RfC on the specific Option 3b for the lead - I do rather still fumble around in technical approaches sometime, however; perhaps such a move is overly bold at this point. The situation is far more evolved now than what I read on the RfC in link 1 (April/May). I believe MrX has put in a request to close the Covid Talk section; perhaps any next step should occur after that happens. I tried to stay out of the article...I failed... Thx Bdushaw (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: You're right, the discussion linked by #45 link 2 had been archived and nobody had gotten around to updating the link. I have now done so; is that all you needed? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
That's all, thanks! Bdushaw (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand...

... the value or resurrecting archived threads that are very unlikely to have further comments and serve no ongoing purpose. I mean—I know you're in charge of that and all, but a little flexibility wouldn't be the worse thing to ever happen on Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 22:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: Thanks for the comments.
First, I'm not in charge of that, although I'll cop to caring more than most about consistency in such matters. Happy to defend that at length with anyone who wants to hear it.
I don't disagree with some of Sdkb's process concerns, and I felt it was important to let that die a natural death rather than going out of our way to kill it. Sdkb was correct that the consensus was weak, and I felt it needed all the help it could get, including that natural death. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Another factor I considered was that Sdkb is a long-established editor who has earned my respect. I might well have weighed that situation differently otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. I mistakenly archived the closed thread not remembering that Sdkb has commented after the close. This is what I was referring to when I said "you're in charge": [4] Of course, it was kind of tongue-in-cheek. - MrX 🖋 23:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Submission

Please help me to submit Draft:Professor Charles Egbu Sadeeqzaria (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

OK thank you sir. I am very sorry for disturbing you. Sadeeqzaria (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Guideline on Medical Advice

In the period 13-22 April 2018 you contributed to a discussion on the subject of the Reference desk guidelines. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 130#Are all questions about the human body requests for medical advice?

This subject is now being discussed again in a Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Does this page reflect community consensus. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Dolphin (t) 13:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Submission

Please help me to submit these articles Draft:Innocent Ujah Draft:Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority Sadeeqzaria (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sadeeqzaria: I do not know how to do that. Please stop asking me. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did you do undo my revisions?

This in regard to the revisions you undid of mine on the page of Donald Trump. Could you please point out which of my revisions are wrong or no improvement? Thank you. Angus1986 (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  • a number of electors -> several electors
    As seen at United States Electoral College, the number of electors ranges from 3 to 55. "Several" is not a good word to describe that, and in fact I never see it used to describe numbers greater than 4.
  • United States recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
    You changed the left half of a piped link to the article United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel, forcing the use of a redirect for no reason. The change did not affect what the reader sees in the prose; that is the right half of the piped link.
  • we addressed the factual question of whether
    That sentence is a verbatim quote from the Mueller report. We don't copy edit direct quotes from sources.
  • of the political rival Joe Biden
    The previous wording is very common usage, so this is, at best, the insertion of an additional word with no improvement to justify it.
  • Removal of commas preceding "but" or "and"
    We often see such commas omitted, but I believe they are more correct per the grammar experts. As in the preceding sentence.
  • Insertion of comma following "which" in "two miles of replacement fences made of steel posts, which it called the first section of Trump's 'wall'".
    Just wrong. Don't know what else to say here.
  • Removal of the comma in "How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias"
    This is the title from this source. Except for changing "curly" apostrophes and quotemarks to "straight" ones, and changing all-caps to title case, we don't modify titles from sources.
Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed explanation, appreciated. The phrase which contains "which it called..." is still grammatically wrong. I noticed, most of the grammar errors were from the quotes or the titles of other articles. Angus1986 (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Angus1986: I have similar objections to most of this edit, which you made after responding to my comments here. That article has over 1,000 watchers, so you will be reverted soon enough by someone else. My greater concern is that all of your copy edits most likely have errors like that, and many of them will be at articles that receive less attention from other editors. In my opinion your English language skills are not strong enough to be making a lot of edits of that type. My suggestion would be to look for a different way to contribute to the encyclopedia (and there are many to choose from). The choice is yours, but one editor was recently banned after a years-long history of such problems. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion but in your reply above - It must be "In my opinion, your English language skills are not strong enough to be making a lot of edits of that type. My suggestion would be to look for a different way to contribute to the encyclopedia (and there are many to choose from). The choice is yours, but one editor was recently banned after a years-long history of such problems." you missed a comma after "In my opinion". I am quite confident in my English language skills. Thank you! Angus1986 (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Donald_Trump, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Angus1986 (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to United States, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Angus1986 (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ya don't reckon?

Hi! You mentioned Anthony22 in one of your comments about Angus1986. <shudder> I hadn't thought of that. You don't think we could be witnessing a reincarnation, do you?

For the benefit of anyone else watching, Yes—I'm kidding. ;-)

Anyway, I passed by your User page and decided I just *had* to say Hi to anyone who posts part of the chorus from A Whiter Shade of Pale. Take care! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@UncleBubba: Well thanks for dropping by. Yeah imo there is only one word for that particular line: sublime. I can usually forgive per artistic license that it's grammatically incorrect, redundantly repeating the word "that".
There's zero chance that they are Anthony22, in case you weren't completely kidding. The type of errors is different. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop stalking and accusing me.

You left a message on my talk page claiming that I am "socking", kindly do not write false things on my talk page. Angus1986 TALK 06:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you are tired of reporting me(like you did for Edit Warring) and then losing? please don't write such false accusations on my talk page. Angus1986 TALK 06:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Responded at your UTP. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't report me for sockpuppetry, please! Because you will be wasting the time of the admin(who will have to spend time and then conclude it is a false accusation again), and stop stalking me and the other user "Emotioness Expression" It's making me very uncomfortable of you stalking my edits and relating me to the other user. Angus1986 TALK 07:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
If you had read my response at your UTP, you would know that I do not intend to report you for sockpuppetry. But monitoring (for awhile, not forever, as I haven't the time) the edits of an editor who has shown a capacity for unacceptably poor copy edits, and correcting those edits, is neither stalking nor hounding as I understand the terms. If you understand them differently I would be happy to discuss it with you and the admin of your choice, or you may open a complaint at WP:ANI. My suggestion would be to stop making that type of edits, if you haven't stopped already. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I stopped long back ago! Thank you and enjoy your weekend. Angus1986 TALK 16:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Need help!

Hi Mandruss, I need your help with closing an SPI I started, you were right, this one was false positive, and as suggested by @UncleBubbaI will slow things down here and focus on my NPP properly :) Thank you for your help on closing ANI. Angus1986 TALK 19:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Not enough experience with SPI to say for sure. You could add a comment that you no longer suspect socking in that case, and let the experts handle it from there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright! thank you! :) Angus1986 TALK 05:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

MSD disc

Letting ya know here that there's a reply waiting for ya (since I don't know how to inline ping and you seem opposed to it). Creeper Ninja (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm interested to know where I suggested that I don't like pings in general. Actually I can't recall saying I don't want to be pinged in a specific situation, although I occasionally find excessive or unnecessary pinging to be a bit annoying. I may have done so once or twice in 7+ years. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how to inline ping - If you want to know how to do something, you need only look at how others do it. Just edit the discussion and look at the code, which should be self-explanatory. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thought talkback was inline pinging lol. For reference its the MSD shooting talkpage though ill try and ping u there now. Creeper Ninja (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style > Accessibility > CSS colors for text on white

Regarding this reversion to the CSS text colours page; please remember to assume good faith. I removed the second appearance of each apparently-duplicated colour not because I objected to the difference in spelling, but rather because I failed to notice the difference. XAM2175 (T) 17:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@XAM2175: Oh ok, my apologies then. I mistakenly assumed you could see the difference between "Gray" and "Grey", especially when one was directly under the other, in the same boldface font, and vertically aligned. You should have taken more care in my opinion, but it's not a highly visible or particularly important page and no harm done in the long run.
But none of this, there or here, is a failure to assume good faith. I did not and do not doubt your "sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest," or that you were and are trying to help the project. I feel that AGF is one of the most important principles here, and I feel that it's equally important to apply it correctly, as I've said on my user page since February 2018.
Thanks for your comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding a BLP issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Thank you. --Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Good Work

Thanks for revising subsection “Positive COVID-19 test” in article “Donald Trump” I was trying to get around to that very matter, at least on Talk:Donald Trump, when Google Chrome crashed on me. Here is what I planned to publish:

Subsection “Positive COVID-19 test” grammar cleanup

The copy that reads “Later, the First Lady stated on Twitter that both her and her husband were ‘feeling well.’” should read “both she and her husband.” To test this in the usual fashion, disregard the conjunction “and” and its accompaniment, “husband” to arrive at “she was feeling well,” not “her was feeling well.”

Edit summary: Section "Subsection “Positive COVID-19 test” grammar cleanup" was added to page Talk:Donald Trump.


You beat me to the punch! Apachegila (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
For all your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Well thanks. In the spirit of AGF, I'll take that as an olive branch rather than crafty criticism-wrapped-in-compliment-for-the-sake-of-appearances. Happy to be "a sort of wildcard", I guess. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Just a heads up you are technically over 1RR.[5][6] PackMecEng (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverts to consensus do not count against 1RR. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Two things, consensus is something be mentioned not specifically what. The RFCs linked are pretty specific on that. Second there is no exception under WP:3RRNO for that. PackMecEng (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
This closure occurred more than a month after the other one, so it is the only one informed by both discussions. It includes: "As option 3 received the most support among suggestions in this discussion". That sounds a lot like consensus for specific language to me. While not "legally binding", the list entry and hidden comment, clearly specifying and protecting the specific language, have encountered no objection since they were added 11 days ago, strongly suggesting widespread support for the specific language.
3RRNO is trumped by the article's ArbCom Remedy instructions and exemptions: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you link to the ArbCom remedy? I have not seen that before, if that is the case my mistake on that one. As for the RFC Moving forward I suggest that editors focus on identifying and improving specific problems with the wording through a combination of editing and talkpage discussion, making a concerted effort to understand and mitigate the objections of their fellow editors. Then we have the discussion you mentioned which starts with While no single option drew a clear consensus here. When it starts by saying there is no clear consensus I dunno man. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Never mind, found it. JFG added it to the edit notice a while back.[7] PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Could you link to the ArbCom remedy? No, it is not linkable; however you can view the talk page and scroll down until you see Remedy instructions and exemptions and then click "[show]".
As far as I'm concerned, editors who care are expected to watchlist the page Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus and complain if they see an entry created that does not accurately represent the consensus. As I said, no one has complained in 11 days, including you. But I encourage you to seek a resolution with User:Rosguill, who performed the closure, and [[User:Sdkb}}, who added the consensus list entry representing the closure. You can have that discussion here if you like, if they respond to my pings. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Retry botched ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Gotta say yes that was the last wording but I don't see it as the consensus wording and thus requiring consensus to change it. Again the consensus was for something in general and the wording was just last used. 11 days is fairly recent for a page that has few watchers, wasn't on my watch list until now. PackMecEng (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Crated discussion on talk here. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
My intention with the aforementioned close was that, given there was a consensus for "something" to be added in the discussion closed by Awilley, the front-running option should be adopted even in the absence of a strong consensus. Per the weakness of consensus in this situation, the matter can be disputed further in good faith, but in the meantime option 3 should be treated as the new status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
ah, I see now what the actual issue is at the discussion that PackMecEng just started on the article talk page, will chime in there. signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping; I replied at the talk page about the consensus issue. I'm not an expert on 1RR, etc., so I'll defer to others on that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Also here is the link to the talk template that shows the exception you mention, thanks for mentioning that.Template:American politics AE Is that something that should be added to WP:3RRNO? PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it. AP is only one of many content areas under discretionary sanctions, and they don't all have the same rules. Editors are expected to check the talk page for any special rules in effect at the article. To read about DS, see WP:ACDS. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

JOBTITLES

You are more experienced with MOS than I am. In fact, I am hopelessly confused! Would you please give me the benefit of your wisdom in this discussion? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've commented there, but otherwise hope to stay out of it, being weary of JOBTITLES capitalization wars. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the response, thank you. It's frustrating to me that the Manual of Style is so often ignored. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
There have been many years of bitter fighting around MOS, and our system is incapable of resolving it (and seems designed to keep it going indefinitely). After 19 years we still can't agree on the definition and function of "guideline". En-wiki: A castle built on a foundation of sand. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"No obscure corner of Wikipedia is safe from this user's rabid agenda-driven crusade to censor spelling errors."

;P EEng 13:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Censored, thanks. Although I'd be amendable, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Donald Trump is under the 1RR rule, so I suggest you undo your second revert. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion received and declined. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @GoodDay: Currently it is not under 1RR.[9] PackMecEng (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
With so much activity at that article, it's difficult to find that out. Anyways, I've been blocked from the Trump article for 48 hrs. So (at least) for now, Mandruss gets his own way. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW: Since this covers all lame duck officers infoboxes, we should also mention about (designate), as well as (elect). GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this comment applies to the topic of this thread, but I'll play.
I'm not familiar with the term "designate". What is its usage? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Same usage, different word. It's for those lame-ducks who being succeeded by non-elected officials. Like Canadian prime ministers, for example. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump lead

Hi Mandruss, Vjmlhds recently made a bold edit to the Donald Trump lead, and I followed this with a handful of bold edits myself. As you're a regular at the article, and sometimes take a different view to me on issues, I wondered if you'd be willing to review the diffs (they are all to the last para/last 2 paras), and, if necessary, offer input or restore a particular version/revert specific edits if you feel a talk page consensus would be appropriate for these changes. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 17:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As I suspected would be the case, the edits have now mostly been reverted. Are you able to give me some feedback on a draft RfC related to this? Also, would you recommend holding off on opening an RfC given the current election controversy? Thanks again, Jr8825 • Talk 19:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jr8825: That COVID area (at Donald Trump) is a particularly sticky one, as the nature of the consensus is ambiguous. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 125#Consensus 48 question. Generally speaking, RfCs should not be used to try to overturn an existing consensus that one disagrees with. So an RfC would be appropriate or not, depending on who you asked and how they interpret the consensus. As seen in the above-linked discussion, I tried to resolve the ambiguity, failed, and washed my hands of the issue. As an editor relatively new to the article, my guess is that you probably lack the political capital to push that particular issue. At Wikipedia as anywhere else, it's important to choose one's battles carefully (and most disagreements are potential battles, unfortunately). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this issue requires the overturning of an existing consensus – in fact, I don't particularly disagree with anything in CC#48. The closing admin at the previous RfC specifically suggested that the way forward is future examination of the wording, seeking specific improvements. I've spent the last hour rehashing the RfC draft, and I think it's now much closer to being useful vessel for addressing part of an unresolved issue where consensus hasn't yet been found, and making a small but important improvement to the lead. If you'd be able to take another look it'd be appreciated. Jr8825 • Talk 00:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jr8825: and sometimes take a different view to me on issues - By the way, that describes every editor I've ever had contact with. If two editors always agree on everything, there's something seriously wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
There are some editors whose comments I usually find myself agreeing with. It's for pretty much that reason I sought your advice here, as I noticed your take on issues doesn't consistently echo mine. Jr8825 • Talk 00:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825:Unless there's some preliminary show of support for your ideas on the article talk page, it's pointless to launch a cold RfC, which would be like walking onto the golfcourse for the first time and shooting a hole in one. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I agree that WP:RFCBEFORE hasn't been done yet. I'm just soliciting ideas at this point, and I think it might be better to wait a short while anyway to let some of the current discussions run their course or be archived. If I'm not barking up the wrong tree, and others think a similar conversation might have some use, then perhaps I can open a non-RfC discussion and see where it goes from there. Jr8825 • Talk 01:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The lack of an RfC deciding on the exact text does not mean it is not the current consensus. The text could very likely be better written today, but I'm afraid a current revision would be even more clear about the negligence and disastrous consequences of Trump's response. At any rate, it would take a lot of workshopping, including review of RS narratives since last summer, to arrive at proposed improvements for any RfC. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That self revert on the Trump talk page

That was just my fat fingers on my smartphone hitting revert by mistake. I had no intention of doing that. I blocked the account as NOTHERE. Thanks for correcting my error. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Yeah, that made even less sense to me after I saw the block. Thanks for clearing up my puzzlement! Infernal phones! ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Hey sorry about that, I had assumed it to be a mistake. Though I will note that after I changed it I did follow to what linked there and update the links. So no links were broken. I have self reverted those changes as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You may not have known I created those headings, so you're forgiven. That's not the kind of mistake I make, with an exception once in a blue moon. One of the few benefits of being on the autism spectrum. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Give it a shot?

You'd be good at this. [10] SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but it would never work, for a number of reasons. My ideas about behavior are too hard-line for the community's taste. The few times I've commented at AE, my comments got little or no traction. And I have no desire to invest that much of myself in a seriously broken system that nobody else seems interested in reforming, anyway. The sanity/survival strategy that works for me is largely based in resignation and apathy. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
You've just summarised why we need you there. SPECIFICO talk 02:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm just one guy. As I said, there are precious few others who feel the way I do on behavior, and my ideas generally get the online equivalent of blank stares. When there is a Reform Committee with WMF-backed authority to override the "community" consensus of the self-selected, self-interested masses, I'll consider applying. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
If 3 page watchers endorse you on this thread, consider yourself drafted. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Shermanesque statement. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Current consensus at Talk:Donald Trump

Chief Magistrate Mandruss, would you support updating the Current Consensus list to include a point that the "Succeded by" field will not list Joe Biden as successor until after he has taken office on January 20? Mgasparin (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mgasparin: We're omitting the field because it's disputed and there is no consensus to include it, but it doesn't warrant a list item. That list is for consensuses, not no-consensuses.
Judging from the !voting so far, I expect the related RfC to close with a consensus to "Wait". Then we'll be omitting the field for that reason instead, but we still won't have a list item because the list is only for local consensuses, not community consensuses. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah okay. Thank you for your prompt response. Mgasparin (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

Hope and Safe
~ Happy Holidays ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mitchellhobbs: Thanks, Mitch, and same to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

Hi Mandruss. Please revert your edit here. I was in the middle of making another comment in the discussion and there is no consensus to close, and I already reverted your attempted closing before. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I closed it. Two other editors reverted your re-opening. That constitutes sufficient "consensus to close", as we are not going to open a discussion seeking a consensus about whether to close that discussion. Look, if you seriously think there is something to be gained by yet another general discussion about bias, a discussion that actually talks about policy and shows some knowledge of it (I don't think there is), then start a new, fresh discussion that has not been contaminated by all that off-policy stuff. Then be prepared to waste your time. We have been around, and around, and around again on the bias question at that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
And we shall continue to be around and around it. If those two other editors agree for it not to remain open then that would be fair enough, but I have not seen any indication of that in their edit summaries. It seems likely that they felt I had made some editing error which they were attempting to fix. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
It's closed. It should remain closed. This has been discussed ad nauseam. If you have an actual argument, bring a cogent and coherent one with actual reliable sources, not drivel from a troll who is indefinitely blocked. Praxidicae (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I disagree, but regardless that's moot given the aforementioned contamination. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: What I have said is entirely my own. Please do not accuse editors of copying others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Stray click

@Mandruss: Sorry about that. Can't figure out, 'though, what happened there. I was correcting "unheaval" two paragraphs below the table. How come clicking on "(ref)(/ref)" affected the table? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Insertion of the tags at that point made the table's syntax invalid, so it was ignored. Anything more specific is a mystery to me. But I've seen stray ref tags from time to time and I assume they get inserted wherever the cursor happens to be when one accidentally clicks on that button. How your cursor got there I don't know. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Restoring from archives for close versus closing in the archive

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Restoring from archives for close versus closing in the archive. Related to your reversion here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Headed that way. In the meantime let's go with what has been consistent long-time practice at that article, ok? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
You're more familiar with what's the norm for that page, so sure, I'll defer to you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Works cited

I was rather perplexed about Special:Diff/995183131 as well, since the book was listed there before I added the new citation but I didn't see any citations to in the body of the article either; thought I had missed something. Perhaps it was cited in some long-ago iteration of the article and then dropped off at some point? In any event, perhaps some enjoyable pleasure reading about Trump circa 1992 … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

perhaps some enjoyable pleasure reading - Right, but I prefer strict enforcement of such things (at least at that article, where I have a lot of my recent life invested). As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to open a discussion or create a Further reading section, or even just revert me and see if anybody else cares. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, no—I completely agree with the policy re: keeping "works cited" to works that are actually cited. I only meant that I was confused as to why it was listed there beforehand if it wasn't in fact cited. I see no need for further reading; was just trying to make "works cited" more digitally accessible if it turns out it was cited and I had just missed the relevant {{sfn}}. Thanks for all your work on this article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by! ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey

I saw your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 65#Suicide, and I think you might be interested in looking over the discussions about potential RFC questions at User talk:Masem#Williams (warning: long). The main source of disputes is editors who want articles to reflect current recommendations (as embodied in, e.g., the AP Style Guide) and editors who want articles to use what they believe is a traditional idiom. The point of the RFC is to stop the disputes: either that phrase is okay, or it's not, or it's okay under certain circumstances, and we will write down whatever the RFC decides somewhere in the MOS, and then all future disputes can be responded to with the suitable WP:BBQ shortcut that says either it's okay here or it's not.

I think in the end, we are going to have the RFC ask only whether editors are permitted to use the phrase committed suicide. Notice that even if the RFC ends with "No, avoid that phrase" (which I personally suspect is an unlikely outcome), it's still a far cry from anyone declaring that All Articles Must Use The Same Phrase. One could avoid the phrase committed suicide and instead use the equally traditional phrase killed himself, which is also expert-approved.

If I were predicting the outcome, I think editors are most likely to say that any phrase used in a high-quality source is okay with them. Over time, as the language changes, that outcome could affect how often any particular phrase gets used, but it won't result in either a blanket ban or a total acceptance of the disputed phrase. Whatever the eventual outcome, the goal is just to stop the disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

My only strong opinion in this whole thing is that Wikipedia should not lead language evolution, on this or anything else. We should not discourage the use of a phrase that is still widely used "in the wild" (in reliable sources). I had the impression this is an actual Wikipedia principle or tenet.
If that is an actual Wikipedia principle or tenet, any RfC discussing anything other than use "in the wild" is illegitimate from the outset. I doubt it would be constructive to say that in the discussion on Masem's UTP (particularly with McCandlish involved). I assume Masem saw my comments about that at VPM. Let me know if you disagree with this reasoning.
If that is NOT an actual Wikipedia principle or tenet, (1) I'm disappointed in Wikipedia, but it's hardly the first time, and (2) I don't much care what we do regarding "committed suicide".
I would be more interested in confronting the foundational question head-on, but it's looking more and more like my impression has been mistaken, or what was once a principle has now been abandoned in favor of social activism. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Confronting foundational questions head-on can result in poor decisions getting enshrined as The One True™ Consensus Forever. I think that a series of questions is often a better indication of actual consensus. It lets people talk, think, talk again, think some more, talk, and maybe even discover what they really think.
There are already many phrases used in high-quality sources "in the wild" that Wikipedia editors avoid anyway; if there weren't, then Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch would not exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Failing to confront foundational questions head-on results in a lack of foundation. As a useful metaphor, Wikipedia (enwiki at least) is a castle built on a foundation of sand. In my experience, your "actual consensus" is an illusion as different editors read the tea leaves differently according to their immediate needs, desires, and opinions. That is not coherent governance. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

SPAM

If you look at the contribution history of the editor, this does indeed appear to be SPAM. [11] O3000 (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Perhaps. Even if true, the word spam does not occur at WP:TPO and I'd be interested to know which of those bullets warrants this removal. Prohibited? Certainly not in the sense of the examples given there. Harmful? Ditto, and I don't know how spam does enough harm to justify removal. Basically I'm tired of editors thinking their edit count authorizes them to remove just anything that they deem undesirable. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
At some point, it becomes disruptive if an editor posts links like this: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] They are being reverted or immediately archived by multiple editors. O3000 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@Objective3000: Then seeking a block is preferable to bending TPO guidelines. In my opinion. But hey, I don't care to die on the hill and you are welcome to revert me if your opinion is different. I probably wouldn't say that to most other editors, but I'd place you in the top 10th percentile on the reasonableness scale. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'll let it play out and see if the editor gets the point from the other reverts. If not, maybe I'll make a polite comment on their UTP. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
My point has been proven.[20] ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I find that things look better after breakfast. O3000 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The editor made the error of bringing this up at AN [21] Playing out is often the easy path. O3000 (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
If you're saying this shows that bending TPO was ok after all, I disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is bending TPO. That's a guideline set aimed at one type of page. Disruptive editing, blacklisting, NOTHERE (may be too strong in this case, but mentioned), trump TPO as they are more general in nature and apply to all pages. At least, four admins unequivocally said it must stop. O3000 (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Just stumbled across this discussion, which I see is partly about me. WP:TPO provides a general rule, the observation that there are exceptions to the rule, and a long (but not comprehensive) list of possible exceptions. Widespread posting of op-eds by banned users in deprecated sources with no attempt to suggest how they might be used to improve the associated articles doesn't fit nicely into any listed exception, but that's because it's a completely bizarre form of disruption, not because it's actually ok. (As is borne out by the AN thread.) --JBL (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I regret to inform you we're doing it again

Please see User:ProcrastinatingReader/draft. I've been reading some older discussions and you made a lot of insightful comments there, so I thought you might be interested. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 09:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Thanks for the post. I took a look at it and don't have much opinion about the details (or feel particularly qualified to weigh in on them). I'm far more interested in a cultural meta issue, to wit: deprecating risk-averse crystal-balling in favor of a progressive "try it and see" attitude. So I would support a trial of anything you guys come up with. I assume there will be an RfC at VP at some point, and I'll !vote there if I happen to see it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Looking forward to the RfC. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mandruss/Archive_8&oldid=1140207987"