User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 179
 | 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 175 | ← | Archive 177 | Archive 178 | Archive 179 | Archive 180 | Archive 181 | → | Archive 185 |
October 2021
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Apple cider vinegar on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
TikTok
Hi SMcCandlish. First, I really appreciate the level-headed consideration you've given to my proposed edits at Talk:ByteDance. (Not every editor is willing to give disclosed paid editors the time of day!) I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my colleague User:Bkenny44's recent proposal at Talk:TikTok#Re-arranging content to comply with MOS:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT. He and I think that the TikTok article would read much more cleanly if the lead/body balance were improved and the layout re-organized, but his post from Sep. 24 has yet to attract any attention from other editors. One thought was to start an RfC, similar to the one I started back in May, but maybe that's overkill? Thanks, JatBD (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- It would be overkill. RfCs are for settling protracted disputes, and this doesn't appear to be one. I'll take a look at the material in question. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Nicole Kidman
Resolved
Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and the dispute should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it or an alternate version.
I could also be at fault here, and if that's the case I apologize, but I honestly don't think that the MOS in question should be applied yet if it doesn't specify for this situation. Therefore, until it has been thoroughly clarified, I don't think it's fair to assume how to apply such MOS when it isn't properly addressed. I have elaborated my thoughts on the respective talk pages, and if the consensus is to not capitalize, then so be it. But until then, the status quo was otherwise. — Film Enthusiast✉ 18:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:CONLEVEL policy. One random editor, or a wikiproject, or some other little cluster of "rebellion" cannot trump a site-wide policy or guideline. I won't bother un-reverting, since we both know how this is going to turn out, just a little later rather than sooner. I suggest you find something more productive to do that pick protracted fights over utterly trivial style matters that are already settled questions and have been for over a decade. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Never once did I say or suggest that the guideline doesn't apply to the article (or any other BLP for that matter, as many are constructed the same way). I would never go against an established and clear policy or MOS, but the issue here that you still seem to be overlooking is that there is currently no specification on how to apply for the situation at hand, and the guideline doesn't explicitly oppose it either. You might not care for
utterly trivial style matters
but that's simply your view of editing things, whereas I like to be exact and precise. And this specific case has not beensettled
for over a decade
. If the community decides that it's not proper, then I will gladly agree, but I prefer to wait for more inputs. That's what a talk page is for. To discuss disagreements, try to resolve the dispute, and come to a consensus. — Film Enthusiast✉ 19:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)- By reverting me making the page comply with our guidelines you are directly and much more than "suggesting" the guideline doesn't apply to your pet article. If you can't understand this, then future discussion with you is going to be a waste of time. The dispute you're talking about already has a known and codified conclusion and is certainly a waste of time. It should be closed as
{{Resolved}}by reference to the extant style guide section. Move on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- By reverting me making the page comply with our guidelines you are directly and much more than "suggesting" the guideline doesn't apply to your pet article. If you can't understand this, then future discussion with you is going to be a waste of time. The dispute you're talking about already has a known and codified conclusion and is certainly a waste of time. It should be closed as
- Never once did I say or suggest that the guideline doesn't apply to the article (or any other BLP for that matter, as many are constructed the same way). I would never go against an established and clear policy or MOS, but the issue here that you still seem to be overlooking is that there is currently no specification on how to apply for the situation at hand, and the guideline doesn't explicitly oppose it either. You might not care for
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michael Asher (explorer) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
October thanks
 |
Thank you for improving articles in October! - Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - click on songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Template:Commonwealth English editnotice
DoneTemplate:Commonwealth English editnotice, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Commonwealth English editnotice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:Commonwealth English editnotice during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AFreshStart (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Éric Zemmour on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Utada Hikaru on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)