User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 130
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 125 | ← | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | Archive 131 | Archive 132 | → | Archive 135 |
September 2017
Please comment on Talk:Bee Gees
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bee Gees. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Arbcom
Thanks for your recent posts there, much appreciated. Just one thing, it's normally TRM, rather than TPM, but we all know who you meant. Oddly I think you've done that before. Anyhow, cheers for the independent assessment. Arbcom won't do anything about it, it would make some of them look incredibly stupid, but I very much appreciate your additions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I dunno whereTF I'm getting "TPM" from. It's not even an acronym that means anything to me. Derpa! Anyway, I feel pretty much compelled to comment on the matter given the repeat of history I'm seeing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again. The admin who went from pillar to post to accuse me of lies without any kind of evidence was Arthur Rubin. There's another Arbcom case for that currently in the "Evidence" phase but I think the community has become utterly dismayed by the comprehensive ineptitude of Arbcom. The situation went through ANI (as I think you said) and it was a landslide "Admin fail" result yet Arbcom, in their infinite "wisdom", decided to make it a full-blown case, and included an analysis of my behaviour as part of it (which, of course, completely derails the point). A week in and almost nothing has been added to the page. I hope Arbcom realise what this means and learns from it, but somehow I doubt it. Add to that the mysterious behaviour and disappearance of one of the Arbs who clearly should be site-banned and the personal attacks and uncivil commentary from at least one of the other Arbs (who hasn't recused), and you get a bunch of jokers who wouldn't be fit to run a jumble sale, let alone arbitrate on one of the busiest and most vistied websites in history. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I never bring RFARB cases myself, despite frequently having cause to. Tar baby. Every time I've drafted one, I've slapped myself and come to my senses. I don't have beefs with the current sitting members (aside from one supervoter who caused a year-long problem as an RfC closer, but that's just a reason to not re-elect him, and he doesn't seem to be a bad guy). They did resolve a very long-term MoS disruption problem that badly needed to be dealt with. But who doesn't have a beef with how the "institution" operates? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't bring this case either. It was, as far as I was concerned, fully covered off at ANI and just needed some actual abritration at ANI to deal with it rather than "referendum it", somehow dragging me into it as befits Arbcom's latest proclivity to get me banned no matter what. This odd perception that they are somehow better, more responsible, better place to judge etc than the average editor is way off the mark. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I seem to have missed something serious somewhere. Since when has the community – which has the power to CBAN people indefinitely and at least theoretically the ability to close ArbCom and replace it with something else – lost the ability to desysop without ArbCom approval (more likely interference)? A clear ANI mandate for a desysopping, well, is one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- The community never had it. There have been a half-dozen proposals but every one has been shot down. As such, ARBCOM has been the only entity able to remove someone's bit. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I guess I fail at WikiBarrister. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- The community never had it. There have been a half-dozen proposals but every one has been shot down. As such, ARBCOM has been the only entity able to remove someone's bit. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I seem to have missed something serious somewhere. Since when has the community – which has the power to CBAN people indefinitely and at least theoretically the ability to close ArbCom and replace it with something else – lost the ability to desysop without ArbCom approval (more likely interference)? A clear ANI mandate for a desysopping, well, is one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't bring this case either. It was, as far as I was concerned, fully covered off at ANI and just needed some actual abritration at ANI to deal with it rather than "referendum it", somehow dragging me into it as befits Arbcom's latest proclivity to get me banned no matter what. This odd perception that they are somehow better, more responsible, better place to judge etc than the average editor is way off the mark. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I never bring RFARB cases myself, despite frequently having cause to. Tar baby. Every time I've drafted one, I've slapped myself and come to my senses. I don't have beefs with the current sitting members (aside from one supervoter who caused a year-long problem as an RfC closer, but that's just a reason to not re-elect him, and he doesn't seem to be a bad guy). They did resolve a very long-term MoS disruption problem that badly needed to be dealt with. But who doesn't have a beef with how the "institution" operates? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again. The admin who went from pillar to post to accuse me of lies without any kind of evidence was Arthur Rubin. There's another Arbcom case for that currently in the "Evidence" phase but I think the community has become utterly dismayed by the comprehensive ineptitude of Arbcom. The situation went through ANI (as I think you said) and it was a landslide "Admin fail" result yet Arbcom, in their infinite "wisdom", decided to make it a full-blown case, and included an analysis of my behaviour as part of it (which, of course, completely derails the point). A week in and almost nothing has been added to the page. I hope Arbcom realise what this means and learns from it, but somehow I doubt it. Add to that the mysterious behaviour and disappearance of one of the Arbs who clearly should be site-banned and the personal attacks and uncivil commentary from at least one of the other Arbs (who hasn't recused), and you get a bunch of jokers who wouldn't be fit to run a jumble sale, let alone arbitrate on one of the busiest and most vistied websites in history. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:RY is now an essay, by the way. An RFC concluded it wasn't and should never have been a Wikpiedia guideline. I'm sure you can find the "debate". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I already added a whole section about that to Evidence page (of the Rubin case). PS: I was the one who dug up the original "debate" and pointed out at the recent RfC that it was improper. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Statement at Arthur Rubin Case page
Hi SMCCandlish. I've moved your statement from the case page to the evidence page as no additions should be made to the case page after the case has been accepted. Feel free to remove it from evidence and add it to another relevant page if you feel it would be better placed though. Amortias (T)(C) 21:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Amortias: Ah! Yes, sorry. I'm tired and need a big sleep. That's two wrong-page edits in one hour, so time to put down the keyboard and back away slowly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- If a misplaced edit is the worst thing you've done today your probably doing better then most of us. Amortias (T)(C) 21:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- But two ... TWO!? That probably warrants at least a fingertip. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- If a misplaced edit is the worst thing you've done today your probably doing better then most of us. Amortias (T)(C) 21:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Thanks you for the Project namespace and TL/SUPPLEMENTAL updates.....been trying to get that wording right for a long time. Would love your CE skills at WP:ESSAYPAGES guideline section and the infopage Wikipedia:Essays. I try to keep them upto date with community norms, but get very little feedback. Moxy (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC) |
- Oh, thanks. I'll go look at those. I'm not being very comprehensive about this. Was just looking at one page and it led me to another and another, so I've been copy-editing various essays and info pages and so on. About to propose a merge of WP:Common sense is not common and WP:NOCOMMON. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Moxy: I twiddled with WP:Essays a bit, but didn't do a lot there. The page seems pretty good. I suspect a few key points in it could be integrated into the WP:ESSAYPAGES section, but it's harder to get edits to that page to "stick" if they're not pre-discussed. Was there anything in mind at either page that you thought needed addressing in particular? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried...?
Ctrl+enter? I use it out of habit and having no issues with Chrome -- on the odd occasion I use it. Of course, you could always use Lynx, or just contribute to Wikipedia using the power of your mind! Keira1996 03:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Keira1996: Well, it's even weirder than that. It's happening when the edit window auto-linewraps at the end of the line, and does so between various code elements that aren't just plain text, e.g. between
...blah blah [[link here]].and the<span ...>...that begins my rendered sig. I'm mostly encountering this "getting an unintended line break with Chrome, on Mac OS X" immediately before my sig, though it's also happened between two links in series or two templates or whatever, just not (so far) plain alpha-numeric ASCII. Been happening for several days now, and I haven't discerned a fixed pattern in any more detail than that yet. I'll see about installing a new Chrome tonight, in case it's some regression they've already fixed. PS: I love Lynx and Links for various purposes (mostly to do with system administration), but can't imagine them as practical for WP; I tried it once and gave up, several years ago. PPS: People already complain that, at least on policy talk pages, I insert too much stuff directly from my own mind. LOL. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Logging of old sanctions
Saw your comment. This is a topic I've also wondered about (the question of where Arbcom should put old sanctions). The January 2015 motion says that old notifications and warning 'are not sanctions' which may mean they wanted *not* to carry over the old notices (later known as 'alerts') but they did want to carry over actual bans and blocks into the DSLOG, regardless of how old they were. So logically, we would have *all* the pre May 2014 notifications left in the case logs, and all the actual sanctions removed from there. So when we look at the enforcement log of WP:ARBATC we should still see all the old notifications listed. And in fact, what you are objecting to seems to be a notification of yourself? So now that I review this for the N-th time, maybe the system is consistent after all, at least for ARBATC? EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: It's not consistent, with anything, even most of the other case pages (even those that still have such entries do not have them consistently moved after a particular cut-off date; it's just random "did we get around it yet" scattering). Current notifications and warnings aren't done on the case pages, so it's inconsistent in that more direct regard. When I asked about this previously, I was told that the only reason they're still on the case page is because a clerk hadn't gotten around to moving them yet. Honestly, I really don't care about rationalizations for why to not do the cleanup; they're weak and don't mean anything substantive. What's substantive is that their current location intensely biases things against certain specific individuals for no reason, and it also makes the actual log pages incomplete and misleading. That's two serious reasons to move the entries versus one suppositional un-reason to not move them. And no, I'm not talking about the entry about me in particular (which is just a notice), but all of them that still remain on all these case pages. It obviously stands to reason that the problem would be more likely to be brought up by someone whose felt their consequence. Implying that I have some personal-only motive is a victim-blaming exercise. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Can you point to some items that you think should have been moved into the DSLOG, according to the language of the 2015 motion? It looks to me that the entries in the WP:ARBATC case are now in compliance with the motion as written. There was no mandate to remove the old notifications/warnings from the cases, so far as I can tell. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hmph. The codicil at the end of it would, it appears, put you in the technical right on this, and will keep things in the ethically wrong status quo, so I'll open an amendment request. I hate filing ArbCom motions, but this needs to be done. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever solution you recommend, I hope it won't lead to old decisions becoming any more hidden than they are now. The courtesy blanking of more than five-year-old DSLOGs already hides old bans from the search engine, even those that are still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- It won't affect the decisions at all; it's not like someone's going to delete the case pages or their remedies sections. This is just cleanup; if people actually subject to current sanctions get "courtesy blanking" then why would we retain blame, forever, pointed very misleadingly at people who just received {{DS/alert}}, which expires after 1 year anyway? It's senseless. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- There is an ambiguity on the word 'warning'. The old notices were often viewed spoken of as warnings, but in addition, there were *actual* warnings issued at AE that might now be better described as 'logged warnings'. So even a motion to remove all the old 'alerts' would encounter the problem that you can't tell what was purely an alert, in the old days. But if you wanted all the old alerts/warnings/logged warnings moved en masse into the DSLOGs, that might handle it. Then we would still have the annoying courtesy blanking but it wouldn't delete the underlying data. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- That was retroactively fixed a couple of years ago; the DS/Alert-related "warned" entries in the log sections were changed to "notified" wording (maybe some instances were missed, but I know it was done for WP:ARBATC). I don't see that it matters, since the Motion wording under question lumps "notices" and "warnings" together, and so do the current log pages (by excluding them both, and only logging more specific actions like sanction and page protections). Anyway, I've opened the amendment request here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you search the current WP:DSLOG for the word 'warned' you'll notice that logged warnings were still being issued at least as of 2016. For example, do a search in WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2016. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fine by me. It's even fine if all the warning and notice log entries in the case pages are just moved to the new log pages, and all the old, blanked entries are restored to the log pages. The only result I can think of that's intolerable is the warning/notice entries remaining in the case pages. PS: If the warning-logging practice stopped in 2016, then it presumably did for a reason, and apparently wasn't being done for notices anyway. They get logged in the editfilter system somehow; that seems to be all. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you search the current WP:DSLOG for the word 'warned' you'll notice that logged warnings were still being issued at least as of 2016. For example, do a search in WP:Arbitration enforcement log/2016. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- That was retroactively fixed a couple of years ago; the DS/Alert-related "warned" entries in the log sections were changed to "notified" wording (maybe some instances were missed, but I know it was done for WP:ARBATC). I don't see that it matters, since the Motion wording under question lumps "notices" and "warnings" together, and so do the current log pages (by excluding them both, and only logging more specific actions like sanction and page protections). Anyway, I've opened the amendment request here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- There is an ambiguity on the word 'warning'. The old notices were often viewed spoken of as warnings, but in addition, there were *actual* warnings issued at AE that might now be better described as 'logged warnings'. So even a motion to remove all the old 'alerts' would encounter the problem that you can't tell what was purely an alert, in the old days. But if you wanted all the old alerts/warnings/logged warnings moved en masse into the DSLOGs, that might handle it. Then we would still have the annoying courtesy blanking but it wouldn't delete the underlying data. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- It won't affect the decisions at all; it's not like someone's going to delete the case pages or their remedies sections. This is just cleanup; if people actually subject to current sanctions get "courtesy blanking" then why would we retain blame, forever, pointed very misleadingly at people who just received {{DS/alert}}, which expires after 1 year anyway? It's senseless. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever solution you recommend, I hope it won't lead to old decisions becoming any more hidden than they are now. The courtesy blanking of more than five-year-old DSLOGs already hides old bans from the search engine, even those that are still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hmph. The codicil at the end of it would, it appears, put you in the technical right on this, and will keep things in the ethically wrong status quo, so I'll open an amendment request. I hate filing ArbCom motions, but this needs to be done. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Can you point to some items that you think should have been moved into the DSLOG, according to the language of the 2015 motion? It looks to me that the entries in the WP:ARBATC case are now in compliance with the motion as written. There was no mandate to remove the old notifications/warnings from the cases, so far as I can tell. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article
| Closing this per WP:DONTFEED; user has already been determined to be a WP:Sockpuppet of a banned user. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I see that you're a frequent good contributor to this MOS and discussion about it. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then? Thanks if so, 174.23.148.58 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
As long as I'm asking you for MOS help...Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?
Thanks for your opinions, 174.23.148.58 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
"Never a good thing," Keira? Like I told SM here, I was just trying to see which one of a few editors might work with me the best, rather than causing contention. Beside that, even if bringing together more than one editor were supposedly "never a good thing," then what happened to the thing that Wikipedia wants us to do, which is to seek consensus? If that IS a good thing, then what's so "wrong" with alerting a few editors that there are some issues that are seeking consensus? And what alerted you to this discussion, anyway? S. McCandlish, it seems like you've misunderstood several of the things I was saying, so it's fine if you don't try to give your input at the article in question.
Even if the term "initialism" is relatively recent, that doesn't negate that the word "acronym" does 'not fit "CDTV," because you have the words "acronym" and "abbreviation" mixed up. You claimed that initialisms are subsets of acronyms, but it's really the other way around: acronyms are subsets of abbreviations in general. Abbreviations are all shortenings of words or word groupings, and then they fall into their subcategories from there. And if we were to include initialisms in this, then they go like this: I. Abbreviations (all shortenings lumped together)
So even if the word "initialism" didn't catch on like I thought it had, there are still different kinds of abbreviations in general, which acronyms are only a subset of. That's why it's incorrect to call "CDTV" an acronym. A lot of people have misunderstood the true meaning of the word "acronym," but I've cleared that up by showing you the above. By the way, you can't use the word "acronym" to mean "only acronyms that are pronounced as words," because that's infinite recursion (read: trying to define a word using that word itself). You don't know what most people own in their houses these days, but traditional home stereo system equipment is probably being supplanted by the smaller devices that dock smaller players and still connect to big speakers, etc. But thanks for agreeing with me that a qualification word is necessary there, which is why I used it there and am asking that we put it back. Okay, you're mixing up the word "traditional" with "ancient." "Traditional," in the sense of products, basically means the original, plain style, or conventional. If you still disagree for some odd reason, then I guess we could use the word "conventional." That's about the same. But a lot of people already use the word "traditional" to mean the basic original style or technological version of a given type of product. Either way, "traditional" or "conventional" are fine with me. That's what I mean by a "traditional computer" (or "conventional computer"): the basic rectangular unit that sits on your desk or the floor with an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse, etc. So that's why either "traditional" or "conventional" should be the word used to compare against this more entertainment-specific stripped-down computer system. Yes, thanks for agreeing with me about including the word "floppy" before "disk drive." You basically echoed the point that I'm making with that. 75.162.196.158 (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I decline to address this in any further detail, per WP:DONTFEED: You've already been determined to be a WP:Sockpuppet of a banned user, and most of your recent IP addresses are already blocked. It doesn't matter what your intent was; you're not supposed to be editing here at all unless and until your block is lifted, which seems unlikely given the nature of what you're doing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Wait, please; you didn't even give me a chance to reply to you two.Wow, McC, etc., so I go away for the day and then I get home to find that I have a butt-load of crap to clean up and fires to put out! Please don't just move on with a dismissal before I've even had the chance to respond to your new replies, okay? Please don't jump so quickly to drink the Cool Aid from the user who was trying to hype you into believing that just because I'm using more than one IP address I must be a "sock." Is it not obvious that I'm not trying to fake you guys out every time my number changes? I don't know exactly what the problem is, but it looks like he thinks that just because I have a dynamic IP address, which is why it changes a lot, that means I must be sock-puppeting. We're not socks just because our IP addresses change. In case you don't know, the way a dynamic IP address works is that you have one address for a little while, and then when you're not online, the ISP gives that address to someone else. There may be more than one way this happens, so you never know when it's going to happen or why. But these IP addresses are me; I'm not going around pretending to be other people here. So if you would please give me the benefit of the doubt instead of just buying all that hype, I'd appreciate it. Okay? Keira1996: Why, what's so "wrong," to you, with telling an editor that I'm okay if he doesn't want to help in the discussion now? Man, with what you and others say, you guys act like EVERY little thing is "WRONG" and people have to walk around egg shells with everything they do! Is this how you tell people to be in person: "No, never tell anyone that it's okay, never mind, you don't have to help me, etc."? Can I not get ANYTHING right because you other wiki editors think almost literally everything is just "wrong," "wrong," "wrong"? Since when is it "wrong" to tell someone here, "Oh, never mind, then, don't worry about it," etc.? And how do you figure you can read my mind that asking someone what they believe is supposedly assembling a team who explicitly agrees with my NONnitpicky (uh, you don't need a hyphen just before the suffix ending with "y") changes? Case in point: there's an editor who felt that he may not be so great at working on the specific points that I brought up. So what am I supposed to do then? I can never try to get another editor instead of him? I'm just dead in the water with no hope of ever getting someone to go to the discussion because I lost my one shot at the editor I tried to get? Why should I not try more than one editor just in case the first one I happen to pick turns out to be a dud--even based on his own claim? And why should I not refactor someone's comments if other people are allowed to do it, just like McC did to mine by adding numbers? Why is it supposedly "not okay" for me to do it even though it's "okay" for him to do it, according to you? Loopy30, no. Again, just seeing who would be most suitable to discuss the issues at hand, because as you can see from my case in point above, one editor told me he's not really the man for the task. Well if we're supposedly "not allowed" to discuss editors' beliefs or understandings of certain subjects, then what: just dead in the water? How should we ever seek consensus as we are instructed to do?
No, that's not what asking someone how they believe on a subject is. And I ask you the same thing as I've asked the others. How are you supposed to seek consensus? (See my above questions, so that I don't have to "reinvent the wheel.")
75.162.246.29 (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
AfC? Oh, cool. How do I do that, then?Hi, friends McCandlish, Sb2001, and Keira1996, Okay, Steve, is it? Well, whatever the first S in "SMcCandlish" stands for, I know I could go in and edit your closed discussions, but I want to respect that you've closed them. However, wouldn't it be okay if you could give someone a day or 3 to get back to a discussion instead of closing it at a time that seems sort of premature? Oh, no no, what I meant by something like "assuming that someone thought I was a sock-puppet" was simply if he saw me with one IP address at one moment and then another at another moment. I only thought that the guy was trying to tell you that simply because my IP address changed a few times, or even once, it supposedly meant I was a "sock-puppet." If you think it involves more than that, then I'm sorry for confusing you about what it looked like I thought he was trying to tell you. I hope that none of you thinks that just because I have more replies to replies I'm not somehow "bad" (or even supposedly "getting worse" than any supposed "already bad" that any of you might have unfortunately already thought I was). Ya've just gotta give a guy a chance to get something all discussed and have new things learned, right? Keira, and (Sb2001 if you think the same thing), I'm not sure how you think I was supposedly being "passive-aggressive," but let me assure you that I'm not intending to be. Would either or both of you please try to explain what ways I was saying things that made you believe I was being that way? However, someone did point me out to WP:CANVASSING, and I have now read it fairly thoroughly and think I understand now what your complaints were about my asking individuals what they believe about certain things and why you had them. And you did answer one of my questions about how to request help on an article's or project's talk page-discussion, part of the B/R/D cycle that we are expected to follow, which you said is this "RfD." Okay, great, I have no problem with that! I just never knew about it before. But if that's the right way for us to request help of several editors in a consensus discussion rather than going to people individually, then I have no problem with that and will do it that way! So what is an RfD (including what this non-acronym abbreviation stands for), and how do I use it? Also, very nice job, Mc., on your edits at CDTV. You know, I'll have to say that that's a job well done, even if you didn't restore all of my present-tense edits. I've read your explanation for why you didn't restore some of them, and they make sense to me. I'm sorry for not being more careful with those, because had your point about that been made before, I wouldn't have changed those. Right, things that happenED in the past should stay in the past. I have no issues with that. Well, I figured "based on..." would be an ongoing thing though, simply because as a product continues to exist without changes, it is still based on whatever it was based on during the design process. But if the general understanding around the 'Pedia is that we're supposed to leave "based on" in the past, then I don't have a problem with that. And as for the problem with just saying "stereo-like" and "computer" instead of something more specific there, wow, I really didn't even consider the idea of simply removing those like you did, but given your explanation there, that makes sense to me too! And even with whatever differences we may have had regarding the word "acronym" until I showed you the real definition and the way the categories and subcategories of abbreviations break down, I like that you just took that wording right out of there! I guess I could only think of replacing one word with another, or with a multi-word term, but since removing that worked for you, then hey, it works for me too! So you know what, Mc.? I think I've gotta say that you're quite a good editor here! With what you've done to help out here, I think I like you and I really trust you! I hope we can continue to work together here. And Sb2001 and Keira, thanks for your help too. All right, guys, since you told me that this RfD tool exists and I'm ready to learn more about it and how to use it, are we friends now? How do I use this RfD tool? Thanks if so, 174.23.176.109 (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Um, FYI, keira, "Steve" or "Scott," or whatever his first name is, didn't need any extra patience, and neither should you, because I asked you guys what to do instead of what I was doing that you didn't like, and you answered me (RfC being one of them), and now I have replied with willingness to do things those ways that you guys said, if he would only teach me how to do an RfC. What are you acting like I'm still "bad" for? 75.162.243.237 (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Please hear me out.I'm not faking you out. Thinking I'm a sock is one thing, but assuming that it means I should've known what an RfC is and used it long ago is quite another. "Thanks" for your vote of faith even though I told you how much I trusted you. Now please, just show me how to do an RfC and I will do my best to do everything the Wiki way. I already showed you that I took your suggestion on the line-spacing and related things, didn't I? 75.162.243.237 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Date formats...
Not wanting to derail the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about date formats - but besides scientists in the US, many historians of subjects other than United States history also tend to use DMY. I had it drummed into my head during college to use DMY and it's stuck. And I find it difficult to use MDY for US topics. Just a data point for you to consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: Please post that there; I don't have your same .edu background, so it'll mean more coming from you. People do dig up old MoS discussions after they're archived; good to have it be part of "the record". Would be especially helpful to cite something, even a textbook or a university history dept.'s style sheet, or something, though AGF would tell people not to call you a liar or crazy. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Interleaving talk page comments
ResolvedG'day Stanton (or do you prefer Mac?)
it's been a while.
I'd very much like your opinion on interleaving comments on talk pages... which was the start of the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Guidance against interleaving replies. An example (which has proved rather provocative) is here. It is claimed that this leaves the first paragraph of my post, and also the paragraph preceding it, both unsigned.
I have always regarded this form of detailed reply as normal, and there are many examples of it in my past years of contribution, but it's rare enough that I'm finding it hard to come up with examples where either I or someone I've replied to has used it.
It seems likely that such interleaving will now be prohibited. No great loss, but I'm unconvinced it's a good thing to ban it. Andrewa (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Address: Whatever is fine; "Mac" is a nick I've never had before WP, but I've gotten used to it, and it's shorter. Heh.
I already posted at length in the WT:TPG thread, including about this. Is there somewhere else I can insert [irony intended] the argument where I've not already done so, without being a WP:BLUDGEON? The short version is that I think the practice is harmless and sometimes quite useful, as long as the attribution is copy-pasted to avoid any confusion about who said what. A "rich" example that provides one of various indications why someone might want to split and interleave, and additional stuff they might do in the process:
Extended content
| ||
|---|---|---|
and does this to them (I mean to the original post, not a quoted copy of it):
|
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox family
Hello! I saw your great job on Template: Infobox person. Would you care to help out finishing the merge that I have attempted to initiate on Template:Infobox family after Cfd decision as well? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is this about Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 27#Template:Infobox family name, merging Template:Infobox noble house to Template:Infobox family? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Sorry, I updated the link. Yes, it is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 27#Template:Infobox noble house, and that one above that you linked. Would you be willing to lend a helping hand? It seems none else has the knowledge to. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Chicbyaccident: I've sandboxed one merge. The other requires more input. Discussions are at the relevant template talk pages. PS: You don't need to ping people when you post on their own talk page; they get automatically notified already. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Sorry, I updated the link. Yes, it is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 27#Template:Infobox noble house, and that one above that you linked. Would you be willing to lend a helping hand? It seems none else has the knowledge to. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Exodus
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Exodus. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
- Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
- On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
- Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Interweaving
Hi, I've made a bold attempt to illustrate a point about interweaving by interweaving some good faith smart assery into your example. I did this here. If it bugs you or seems unhelpful by all means, please revert my comment. I was attempting to point out that when you posted the example, you probably were assuming that the "no interweaving" guideline that now exists would be followed by everyone, but of course if we open talk pages to interweawving we invite unexpected third parties to squirrel off into all sorts of different directions. Apologies if this attempt to make the point is taken the wrong way.... I'm trying to be fun and constructive, but understand not everyone will see it that way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, I agree with the other editor in that the examples weren't really interweaving. Maybe it explained later. Tl,dr. Sorry to bother you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's not interleaving in the sense under discussion at all, but using indentation to interrupt/interject without affecting anyone's actual posts. Also, if you follow the discussion with DIYeditor in that very section, you'll see that they already tried exactly that kind of WP:POINT exercise (with actual interleaving), without actually making the point at all; their first break was repaired by copy-pasting the attribution, and the second could have been (by reverting an edit that broke one of my sentences right in half) if I'd been inclined to object. I.e., the attempt to show disruptiveness failed, and the entire second examples there already shows how it can be disruptive and why we wouldn't tolerate it – we already have a means of dealing with it, as WP:DE like any other form of DE. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Cats of Downing St
[1] I have just seen this. It seems a remarkably good idea to have such a page. In Mr Cameron's final days, there was plenty of news coverage of what may happen to Larry. It certainly meets notability. If the colour of the curtains in the Oval Office deserve mention, why shouldn't this? If it covers the whole street, comment can be made on George Osborne's cat, and the cat conflicts: [2]
–Sb2001 talk page 18:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- LOL. Definitely more interesting than various pseudo-celebrity bios we have. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
ARCA
Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015) (September 2017). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Miniapolis: meaning what? The matter does not appear to have been resolved/closed, with 3 arbs agreeing and none opposing, so far. Why would that request be archived when others on page have been there much longer? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's my guess that the clerks will just go ahead and do this, though I am unclear on exactly what was agreed to. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- That makes two of us, Ed. In an email to the clerks-l email list, we were instructed to remove and replace logged notifications and warnings "with a link to the current central log. Just replace that section (which might be called 'Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions') with the 'Enforcement log' in the case template". I went there and didn't know what (if anything) to do—AFAICT, the template had last been edited in March—but have emailed the requesting ArbCom member for advice. Miniapolis 23:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Miniapolis and EdJohnston: Sounds like progress; it looked at first like this just got archived in mid-discussion and would result in nothing happening. Anyway, I think they mean to copy-paste this template section over case sections like this one (of notifications and warnings). However, sections like this (of actual bans, blocks, and other sanctions) were already supposed to be merged into the newer WP:Arbitration enforcement log – and might well already have been, just not removed, after merge, from some of the original case pages like they were supposed to be. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- That makes two of us, Ed. In an email to the clerks-l email list, we were instructed to remove and replace logged notifications and warnings "with a link to the current central log. Just replace that section (which might be called 'Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions') with the 'Enforcement log' in the case template". I went there and didn't know what (if anything) to do—AFAICT, the template had last been edited in March—but have emailed the requesting ArbCom member for advice. Miniapolis 23:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's my guess that the clerks will just go ahead and do this, though I am unclear on exactly what was agreed to. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Your warning
Kindly do not put tags on my talkpage, as you did here, when you have absolutely no knowledge of the background issues involved. Ask before leaping to assumptions. X4n6 (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Declined. X4n6, the entire purpose of such notices is that they go on user talk pages where the user will be certain to see them (and in the particular case of {{ds/alert}}, they are absolutely required to go there). Your talk page is not magically immune to them. See the WP:USERTALK guideline. No one needs a long and detailed history of the personal issues between you and EEng to observe WP:ASPERSIONS in action. Please read that page. You made a serious accusation without evidence. If you think you have an actual case of WP:HOUNDING, and sufficient evidence to bring one, the venue for that is WP:ANI, not WT:MOS. The entire reason we're all subject to DS in MOS/AT discussions is precisely because of off-topic, personalized "pick a fight with this editor I don't like" behavior at WT:MOS and WT:AT. The editorial community, ArbCom, and the MoS/AT regulars are all really damned tired of it. So, yes, if you do that you'll get a notice on your talk page, a page which you do not WP:OWN. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)- I am not required to provide "evidence" of HOUNDING on a talk page. As you know very well, that is not the forum for a formal complaint, so what purpose would "evidence" serve? My comment was to warn that individual - who's first comment was a personal attack. Meanwhile, you inserted yourself with an assumption that my comment was based exclusively on the question at that talk page. It was not. Nor did you make a civil inquiry. Instead, you leapt to a conclusion, took a side and made a threat. That doesn't fly. Stay in your lane. If you can't, per WP:AGF at least ask civilly first. 10:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you sure the hell are required to provide evidence. Read WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. Where ever you are getting the idea that you can make any accusation you want without evidence as long as you avoid doing on it a notice board, you are wrong, both factually and ethically. You received a notice about applicability of DS to a particular page, with a very clear and non-hostile explanation why you were receiving it. There are no civility or AGF issues associated with leaving such a notice. You have been notified, nothing more. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. It's hypocritical that you think you can misuse guideline talk pages as a venue for delivering bogus personal "warnings" in furtherance of off-topic personal disputes, then you go apoplectic when someone leaves a legitimate and prescribed notice on your own talk page, which actually exists for (in part) the receipt of such templates in the first place. No further reply is needed; I have zero interest of any kind in your personal sense of being immune to behavioral standards here, and if you post more in that vein, I will just keep pointing you to the behavioral policies and guidelines until you get it or you run out of self-contradictory excuses and pointless hand-waving. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- You still don't get that you could have/should have just asked a damn question. Instead you assumed. You'd much rather have a pissing match, or finger point - since, God forbid, you're never wrong. But since there's nothing constructive going on here, we're done. I'm just reminded when you point with one finger - the other four point back at you. But since it matters to you - you take the WP:THELASTWORD - that I won't read. X4n6 (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @X4n6, pre 2014 these warnings worked different and meant something different. But there is a new system. Under this new system the DS alert notices are no fault, no shame, no nothing..... just a simply FYI that DS applies to a topic area. I have given them to myself each time I enter into such an area. In addition, the explicit rules for DS notices require use of this template for the opening comment, and prohibit other methods. If you go bonkers when you get a simply FYI in compliance with the rules, you're announcing to everyone that in your case there's an above average possibility there will be problems for which DS should be applied. I have no idea where the locus of your dispute is... I haven't looked and don't plan to look.... I'm just offering neighborly advice from an uninvolved ed. Suggest you dial it back. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- @X4n6: pinging you since NewsAndEventsGuy didn't. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @X4n6, pre 2014 these warnings worked different and meant something different. But there is a new system. Under this new system the DS alert notices are no fault, no shame, no nothing..... just a simply FYI that DS applies to a topic area. I have given them to myself each time I enter into such an area. In addition, the explicit rules for DS notices require use of this template for the opening comment, and prohibit other methods. If you go bonkers when you get a simply FYI in compliance with the rules, you're announcing to everyone that in your case there's an above average possibility there will be problems for which DS should be applied. I have no idea where the locus of your dispute is... I haven't looked and don't plan to look.... I'm just offering neighborly advice from an uninvolved ed. Suggest you dial it back. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- You still don't get that you could have/should have just asked a damn question. Instead you assumed. You'd much rather have a pissing match, or finger point - since, God forbid, you're never wrong. But since there's nothing constructive going on here, we're done. I'm just reminded when you point with one finger - the other four point back at you. But since it matters to you - you take the WP:THELASTWORD - that I won't read. X4n6 (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you sure the hell are required to provide evidence. Read WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. Where ever you are getting the idea that you can make any accusation you want without evidence as long as you avoid doing on it a notice board, you are wrong, both factually and ethically. You received a notice about applicability of DS to a particular page, with a very clear and non-hostile explanation why you were receiving it. There are no civility or AGF issues associated with leaving such a notice. You have been notified, nothing more. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. It's hypocritical that you think you can misuse guideline talk pages as a venue for delivering bogus personal "warnings" in furtherance of off-topic personal disputes, then you go apoplectic when someone leaves a legitimate and prescribed notice on your own talk page, which actually exists for (in part) the receipt of such templates in the first place. No further reply is needed; I have zero interest of any kind in your personal sense of being immune to behavioral standards here, and if you post more in that vein, I will just keep pointing you to the behavioral policies and guidelines until you get it or you run out of self-contradictory excuses and pointless hand-waving. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not required to provide "evidence" of HOUNDING on a talk page. As you know very well, that is not the forum for a formal complaint, so what purpose would "evidence" serve? My comment was to warn that individual - who's first comment was a personal attack. Meanwhile, you inserted yourself with an assumption that my comment was based exclusively on the question at that talk page. It was not. Nor did you make a civil inquiry. Instead, you leapt to a conclusion, took a side and made a threat. That doesn't fly. Stay in your lane. If you can't, per WP:AGF at least ask civilly first. 10:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
![[2]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/12/15/0201990000000514-3686476-image-a-97_1468332715020.jpg){kind=link}
Kauffner
diff In ictu oculi (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure I get the "Kauffner" reference. Haven't had coffee yet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, that Kauffner. I thought that name rang a bell. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted material in British Longhair
Resolved
Your addition to British Longhair has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
I didn't undo modifications entirely, just removed portions of text I found verbatim elsewhere. Nowhere man (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Nowhere man: Aside from WP:Don't template the regulars, please be more careful whom you're pointing fingers at. That material had nothing to do with me [3] other than I made a complete sentence out of it. The gist of it was from a merge of a WP:POVFORK at British Semi-longhair, the history of which indicates the underlying material was added by 176.180.154.24 [4]. The original wording was "These cats ... are more likely to suffer from kidney complaints than various other cats", which is too short and plain a phrase to be subject to copyright anyway. The later phrasing "British Longhairs are more likely to suffer from kidney complaints than various other cats." was constructed during the merge process; if that exactly coincides with text on external sites, that's pure coincidence. Anything this simple and short should normally have been reworded rather than deleted, but it was
{{cn}}-tagged anyway. Since it's a salient fact, I've restored it in different and much more specific wording, with a veterinary manual source [5] (also added to Persian cat). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)- I'm new to this part of the WP process, thanks for the pointers. I'll pay more attention to edit summaries now. Nowhere man (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Coolio. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 05:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm new to this part of the WP process, thanks for the pointers. I'll pay more attention to edit summaries now. Nowhere man (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:David Ferrie
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Just a note
I know you and I butt heads at times, but we always seem to get right back on the same track and leave all the drama in the past afterward. And I don't think I'd have it any other way. Like I stated before, even when I vehemently disagree with you, I respect your point of view and try to see where you are coming from. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Reborn: Agreed, and it's mutual. The whole "just RfC it" thing wasn't meant as hostility, just a "this discussion will never F'ing die if we don't just get it over with" push, and you seemed to be the one who really wanted to RfC it. (You may have noted that just today I opened two more RfCs on similar "monster threads", and I plan to do that more and more, especially with perennial MoS crap that keep regurgitating endlessly. Anyway, I sometimes forget that this medium often poorly conveys emotion and can "invent" it where not actually present originally; sorry if I came off as angry or picking a fight or something.
I'm disappointed in the outcome of that RfC (though the result was predictable given the discussion). Virtually no one understood a damned point I was making, despite my efforts to make them very clearly. Being on the seen as on the same side as another editor (whose views were actually different – I was cutting a middle path) after several editors had been venting at him didn't help; I'm not sure that could be avoided – anything that even hinted at agreement with a single aspect of anything he said seemed to be taken as "You are not one of Us, ergo you are The Enemy". And the whole thing was overrun by "don't you dare touch my posts" thinking, but oh well. In time, when people of that mindset start interfering with legitimate refactoring more and more, it will piss off more and more editors, and the wording with adjust to curtail their nonsense. As I said before, I trust the community to get it right eventually. I'll continue to do the same refactoring I've been doing for almost 12 years, and adjust as necessary, which probably won't be much, since none of it is the disruptive (and mostly imaginary) kind of "interleaving" that fragments posts into jibberish, which what people are doing the Chicken Little act about.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)- PS: I first parsed the opening line as "I know you and I are buttheads at times ..." LOL. Reminds me of my greatest PR score ever. Back around '94, I was handling a press call about some privacy-invasive, anti-encryption crap the FBI had been pushing in Congress, which we [i.e, EFF, who I worked for at the time as their online activist] defeated. I got quoted as saying something like "This is what happens when law-enforcement butts heads against the civil liberties of Americans", and one of the major newspapers (NYT, or WashPost, I forget) ran it unedited, so most people probabaly had to do a double-take and first parsed it as "law enforcement buttheads". Very intentional on my part in that case. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Category:Darts non-player personalities has been nominated for discussion
Done
Category:Darts non-player personalities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox writer
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox writer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Where to go from here?
Your proposal on the main MOS page would almost definitely solve the problem on MOS:FILM (and probably every other problem on every other MOS subpage for that matter), but it doesn't look like it's gonna get majority support on either venue as is. (If User:EEng et al were watching the MOS:FILM discussion go down, proving the premise for your proposal 100% correct, they would almost certainly change their minds, but it really doesn't look like they are, else I wouldn't be the only one agreeing with you that "film reviews aren't always secondary sources, regardless of context, merely by virtue of being film reviews".)
Honestly, I'm getting kind of tired of MOS:FILM for the time being (I experienced some pretty obvious hounding, which resulted in some disastrously bad content being readded to the Star Wars Holiday Special article, almost immediately after I started posting there, and things have only gone downhill from that), and I think I'm only three Arb votes away from getting my TBAN suspend so I can crawl back into my Japanese poetry content creation hole indefinitely, but if you decide to open an RFC at some point, feel free to notify me.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's fine; I don't expect proposals like this to "take" the instant they're proposed, and that one's just a discussion draft. What I would expect in the long term is for WP:NOR or WP:RS to address the matter of reviews in a section, which we'd cross-reference as needed. This "trial run" identifies the biases, misconceptions, and language (wording and syntax, I don't mean English vs. other) problems that have to be overcome to get traction on the problem. Also demonstrates that its a real problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but how did I get into this? EEng 20:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably something said in the now-closed discussion fork at the main MoS page (the one that started when I tried to direct people to the WT:MOSFILM thread). Rather than why you were pinged, I'm more interested in what you think of the underlying problem and how to resolve it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- @EEng: Sorry, I should have included the links. It wasn't really clear what I was referring to. I meant that if you (and the other editors arguing against SMcC's proposal on the main MOS talk page) had been monitoring the concurrent discussion here and to a lesser extent here, you would almost certainly have changed your mind about how effectively our MOS (including all of its subpages) works in applying common standards across the Encyclopedia, and about how beneficial or otherwise SMcC's proposal (which I had read, perhaps fallaciously, as meant to overrule LOCALCONSENSUS on the talk subpages by forcing all discussion onto the main talk page) would be.
- @SMcC: On a loosely related note, I feel it really undermines the discussion process when everyone coming into a policy or guideline discussion has a different assumption about what the other parties "know" going in. I didn't realize until after you opened your separate section (the "here" in my above response to EEng) exactly what the root of the problem in my original thread (the "to a lesser extent here") had been. I was assuming that other people just didn't like the wording of my edit because it was a bit clunky, but now (close to three weeks later!) I really think that a significant number of people believe that film reviews are secondary sources, not primary ones, for a film's overall critical reception at any given point in time, and it somewhat concerns me that I wasted so much time trying to convince people based on a premise that those people did not accept, apparently because of their assumption that I held the same beliefs they did.
- It bothers me even more, though, that the compromise wording that will likely be put in place will continue to be interpreted (although the explicit linking of WP:SYNTH means it was not interpreted thus by its creator -- courtesy ping) as meaning something completely different from what I intended.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have followed it, and my mind is not changed. I did not argue against SM's proposal to merge small-traffic talk pages, but I did say we should do that first and see what happens before considering any kind of "MOS help desk". EEng 00:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Right. I hadn't detected EEng being opposed to the substance of what I was saying and trying to do (which is much, much broader that resolving quarrels about critical reception). As to the critical reception matter in the original discussion, I agree with Hijiri's summary of what has been going on and what the unfortunate outcome has been. I decline to stress about it much. Often the only way to break a WP:OWN/WP:LOCALCONSENSUS bloc of wrongheadedness is to let them dig their own hole deeper until the community can't stand it any longer and forces change. If the twits in that discussion actually start treating all reviews as secondary sources for every single thing they say about a film, then the OR problems are going to be so severe that the community, in particular those who policy WP:CCPOL violations, will eventually have no choice but to correct the interpretation. I know from broad editing experience that my interpretation is correct (i.e. agrees with how we handles sources in every topic) and that the film-focused editors ranting on over there are engaging in a combination of special pleading and just plain confusion, with a little territorial stubbornness mixed in, all with a communication-failure cherry on top. That whole sundae is just going to melt after it sits out long enough.
But this can take years. E.g. WP:MEDRS still states that press releases from entities like the American Medical Association and the British Department of Health are secondary sources, when we all know that's not true (they can sometimes be secondary for source review material when they include any, but they are by definition primary sources for the positions they're taking and the conclusions they're reaching on their own). People over at MEDRS have been having an extended brain-fart, such that they're refusing to understand the difference between a source that is secondary and a source that is high-quality but still primary. You'll also see this confusion throughout our medical (and sometimes other science) articles, where people keep insisting on citing primary research papers from journals when what WP wants is literature reviews and other secondary sources (though primary work can be secondarily cited as "backup" and for the interest of med students).
This is a subcultural conflict, stemming from academics treating literature reviews as boring, rote, "unoriginal" material no one wants to read much less be tasked with writing, while primary research is the exciting stuff. This psychology has a lot to do with the film reviews problem, too: Truly secondary review material, which is just neutral summary of the films content, or academic analysis of what lots of reviewers have been saying, without the writer of the secondary material injecting their own novel views, are boring; the "interesting" stuff is the opinionated material, which is of course primary.
A secondary factor in play here is abject fear that lots of one's work is going to be deleted if anyone catches on to the fact that we have lots of articles on questionably notable films (and sometimes science stuff, too) that is supported only or primarily by primary sources that some are falsely treating as secondary.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)- You're telling me? EEng 05:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Tellin' the world. Testify! [insert cheesy electric organ and tambourine music here as the choir starts]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- You're telling me? EEng 05:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Right. I hadn't detected EEng being opposed to the substance of what I was saying and trying to do (which is much, much broader that resolving quarrels about critical reception). As to the critical reception matter in the original discussion, I agree with Hijiri's summary of what has been going on and what the unfortunate outcome has been. I decline to stress about it much. Often the only way to break a WP:OWN/WP:LOCALCONSENSUS bloc of wrongheadedness is to let them dig their own hole deeper until the community can't stand it any longer and forces change. If the twits in that discussion actually start treating all reviews as secondary sources for every single thing they say about a film, then the OR problems are going to be so severe that the community, in particular those who policy WP:CCPOL violations, will eventually have no choice but to correct the interpretation. I know from broad editing experience that my interpretation is correct (i.e. agrees with how we handles sources in every topic) and that the film-focused editors ranting on over there are engaging in a combination of special pleading and just plain confusion, with a little territorial stubbornness mixed in, all with a communication-failure cherry on top. That whole sundae is just going to melt after it sits out long enough.
- I have followed it, and my mind is not changed. I did not argue against SM's proposal to merge small-traffic talk pages, but I did say we should do that first and see what happens before considering any kind of "MOS help desk". EEng 00:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably something said in the now-closed discussion fork at the main MoS page (the one that started when I tried to direct people to the WT:MOSFILM thread). Rather than why you were pinged, I'm more interested in what you think of the underlying problem and how to resolve it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but how did I get into this? EEng 20:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
No kidding
I really mean this... One of your posts in the last few days (forget where) was in two pieces, one bit a summary/highlights, and a longer bit one of your usual comprehensive analyses, in a collapse box. (And again I really mean this...) I think this is a great innovation. I often like reading your analyses, but not always, and it's great to be able to just get the summary without having to plow thought the full treatment if I don't have time for that. Please keep doing that. EEng 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Good feedback. I've occasionally used this style for years, but haven't known if anyone cared, or even if people didn't like the box or splitting approaches. I've been trying especially to do this with RfCs and even "enforce" keeping long back-and-forth in the "Further discussion" section by refactoring, and it seems to be going okay, despite some people (the same ones being pains in the "interleaving" discussion) being anti-refactor. Anyway, I'll try this split-and-box technique more frequently. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker sneak attack!) ...also, it helps to keep the weaksauce TLDR dismissals off of your spicy analysis noodles. Primergrey (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Mmmm... spicy analysis noodles with weaksauce. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Damn, now I'm hungry for a spicy noodle bowl. But I still have leftover pizza. Curses! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Algerian War
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Algerian War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:For glossary
Done
Template:For glossary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Race and Crime
Hi. I noticed you wrote this "Last I looked, the scientific consensus was that crime rates are a socio-economic matter without any proof of a genetic component." Is there any proof it's entirely a socio-economic matter? Last time I looked science (other than perhaps mathematics) didn't proceed by "proof" where you then assume the contrary based on nothing. 94.119.64.2 (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Let's not be silly. I'm pretty sure any reasonable person understands that when, in the course of an everyday-English conversation, the term "proof" is used in reference to science, the intended meaning is "well-tested and -accepted evidence". A WP talk page is not a refereed journal article, and we are not here to be the Language Police pestering each other about how we phrase things in informal chit-chat.
With modern genetics, we know the idea is absurd. There's more genetic diversity between two neighboring African peoples than there is between the Japanese, the Irish, and the Australian Aboriginals. It's quite likely that more specific gene pools (sometimes thought of as narrower ethnicities, though that, too, is a misnomer) may have some slightly more marked neurological trait differences, but even this research is very spotty, e.g. showing multi-generationally strictly endogamous Ashkenazi Jews having around a 5 IQ-point lead above average, but only according to a few studies. Virtually no one has a taste for pursuing this kind of research. Given that in urban environments there virtually are no endogamous groups any longer, and haven't been for a long time, none of this is going to matter in a generation or two, and it barely matters at all now even as a statistical curiosity. If you hire someone just because they're of European Jewish ancestry and you think this means they'll be smarter than the other candidates (or reject a Japanese or or Hispanic candidate for not being Ashkenazi), you're an idiot.
All the dirt-farmers in the world can keep marrying their neighbors and cousins, and it won't stop the overall hybridization of the human species. The only major population nut that's not being cracked much yet is China, but it's already wildly multi-ethnic anyway and has been for thousands of years. Westerners don't understand this, usually, because they don't know anything about China and its peoples. Along lines of Victorian racialist thinking, they see epicanthic folds and assume that everyone east of around Kazakhstan are all the same. Anyway, that which isn't socio-cultural is really all about haplogroups, not "races" or "ethnicities".
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Done/See also
DoneTemplate:Done/See also has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:United States dollar
DisregardThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States dollar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Opinion Barnstar
I just wanted to say "thank you" for coming in and definitively closing the Request for Comments regarding an anonymous user's fringe theory about the nature of the U.S. dollar. In case you had looked, the article had been hijacked by a rolling series of I.P. users since January of this year. User:Khajidha and I would attempt to bring some sanity to the situation, only to be flooded by lengthy diatribes of little worth. Nobody seemed willing to do anything about the situation, so I started a RfC in the hope that some sane Wikipedians would come to the rescue. I then stepped back so that I wouldn't appear biased. Some brave souls did come, but they were pummeled by the same ad nauseum arguments. Finally, at the first light of the fifth day, the cavalry arrived. Thanks to edits by User:NewEnglandYankee, User:Ronz, User:TenOfAllTrades, and finally, thanks to your definitive opinion in the RfC closure, the article seems to have been wrestled back to reality.
For these reasons I bestow upon thee the esteemed
|
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your definitive non-admin closure of a RfC, thereby asserting a sane consensus and bringing U.S. Dollar back to congruence with reality. BirdValiant (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC) |
- LOL, thanks, and in retrospect I should have looked a little bit closer at the history. What I saw was all the weird personal rambling about gold being "illegal" to own in the US (WTF? I guess I'm a big ol' criminal then), and how "theoretically" you could still maybe get gold for a dollar if yadda-yadda-yadda. The entire thing looked exactly like those rants about gun "statistics" that far-left fringies pull out of nowhere, or about being able to avoid federal income tax because "The United States" and "The United States of America" are different entities and doodle-doodle-dee that the far-right fringies pull out of nowhere, and it just had to stop per WP not being Facebook or 4Chan. People will troll all day (from both directions) on stuff like that, just because it's fun to argue. I did notice the "slow editwar" stuff going on to push the WP:FRINGE idea that the US dollar isn't a fiat currency, I just didn't pay attention to who in particular had opened the RfC, thus didn't deduce the intent of it. So, sorry if I "shot" you by accident. Of course, it being a WP:NAC, someone who wants to keep blathering about their pet economics hypotheses could reopen it, but we can hope not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Family Guy post RfC discussion
DonePlease accept my apologies for disturbing you but I am trying hard to work towards a resolution at the discussion at Talk:Family Guy. However, there are "issues". Earlier, you indicated support for either "animated sitcom for adults" (with appropriate wikilinks) or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" as the new text. Could you please visit the discussion again and confirm whether or not you are still willing to accept this wording? Thankyou. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: Please try to compromise with CT. If you get a version of the wording you like and he gets the wording not being in the first sentence, I think the whole thing just goes away. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 01:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that's true given this post, which resists the outcome of the RfC while applying his own interpretation. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you are both pushing back against everything the other is saying, that will make heels dig in. I used to be a professional political activist. One thing I learned quickly is that if Side 1 really wants Result A and doesn't care much about B or C, which it knows that Side 2 really will not accept, but Side 2 pushes back against Result A, and offers X instead, then Side 1 will push hard for A, B, and C as if of equal importance, in turn causing Side 2 to demand X, Y, and Z in response; in reality both sides could compromise on an Result M that balanced A and X, without drawing B, C, Y, or Z concerns into the matter at all (and possibly make those all moot), if both sides would just calm down, offer to compromise, exhibit a "voice of reason" attitude, and talk with each other instead of at each other. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've had my fair share of politics and I don't disagree with anything that you've said, but I'm not pushing back, I just can't see the benefit of splitting one simple sentence and CT isn't helping by going off on tangents. It's hard to compromise when the other party keeps moving the goal posts. He even agreed to the proposed wording at one stage. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with any of that. But it isn't actually important for these details to be in the lead sentence. Especially since it's likely that additional sources on demographics are going to cause the exact wording of the audience description to change, and most likely lengthen. Done properly, it could even be an entire short paragraph in the lead section. If it's in the lead sentence, it's going to be a "fight to the death" magnet every time someone touches a single character in that wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless, he seems to be doing everything to avoid any outcome other than total exclusion, even now having resorted to an ANI report simply because I asked discussion participants if they still felt as they did, or whether they had changed their minds. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with any of that. But it isn't actually important for these details to be in the lead sentence. Especially since it's likely that additional sources on demographics are going to cause the exact wording of the audience description to change, and most likely lengthen. Done properly, it could even be an entire short paragraph in the lead section. If it's in the lead sentence, it's going to be a "fight to the death" magnet every time someone touches a single character in that wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've had my fair share of politics and I don't disagree with anything that you've said, but I'm not pushing back, I just can't see the benefit of splitting one simple sentence and CT isn't helping by going off on tangents. It's hard to compromise when the other party keeps moving the goal posts. He even agreed to the proposed wording at one stage. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you are both pushing back against everything the other is saying, that will make heels dig in. I used to be a professional political activist. One thing I learned quickly is that if Side 1 really wants Result A and doesn't care much about B or C, which it knows that Side 2 really will not accept, but Side 2 pushes back against Result A, and offers X instead, then Side 1 will push hard for A, B, and C as if of equal importance, in turn causing Side 2 to demand X, Y, and Z in response; in reality both sides could compromise on an Result M that balanced A and X, without drawing B, C, Y, or Z concerns into the matter at all (and possibly make those all moot), if both sides would just calm down, offer to compromise, exhibit a "voice of reason" attitude, and talk with each other instead of at each other. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 08:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that's true given this post, which resists the outcome of the RfC while applying his own interpretation. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
To be quite blunt, I don't like the heading that you gave my assessment at the discussion when you converted it to an RfC. To someone who hasn't been following the discussion it makes it look I rushed in and declared consensus during the RfC, which is not the case. What I wrote was a comment on the posts by all those who had made previous comment on wording, well before it was converted ti an RfC. I did change it to something that I felt was more appropriate,[6] butin true form, Curly Turkey reverted.[7] His edit summary is somewhat ironic given that you aren't "a neutral third party". Could you please change it because I'm not comfortable with it at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Nothing was "meant" by it. I saw your rewording of it, and agreed it was better. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't think you meant anything by it. The problem was only interpretation by other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)