Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 06:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC) |
As of 2015-07-08 , SMcCandlish is Active.
I'll reply to your message within 24 hours if possible.
Archives |
||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Most recent poster here: Legobot (talk).
Contents
- 1 Old stuff to resolve eventually
- 1.1 Cueless billiards
- 1.2 Look at the main page
- 1.3 Some more notes on Crystalate
- 1.4 WP:SAL
- 1.5 Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
- 1.6 Your Credo Reference account is approved
- 1.7 Circa
- 1.8 You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright
- 1.9 Hee Haw
- 1.10 One of the reasons gardens are walled
- 2 Kinda old stuff to sort through (mostly barnstars I didn't move to my /Barnstars page yet)
- 3 Current threads
- 3.1 Updating of Wikipedia guidelines and essays
- 3.2 Tlg module
- 3.3 Redundant sentence?
- 3.4 code vs. tt
- 3.5 Diacritics: Moving forward
- 3.6 Cite4Wiki development
- 3.7 Informal note
- 3.8 Credo
- 3.9 Royal Society Access
- 3.10 WP:JSTOR access
- 3.11 WP:OUP access
- 3.12 Landrace
- 3.13 Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_160#Italics_re._toy_lines
- 3.14 Please comment on Talk:September 11 attacks
- 3.15 GA Cup
- 3.16 Shooting of Michael Brown
- 3.17 August 2014
- 3.18 Please comment on Talk:White people
- 3.19 September 2014
- 3.20 Please comment on Talk:Government of Louisville, Kentucky
- 3.21 You've got mail!
- 3.22 Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles
- 3.23 Reference Errors on 7 September
- 3.24 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
- 3.25 Disambiguation link notification for September 12
- 3.26 Please comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
- 3.27 WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup
- 3.28 Please comment on Talk:List of ethnic cleansings
- 3.29 Please comment on Talk:South African Republic
- 3.30 Livestock and poultry breed articles
- 3.31 Can't fathom...
- 3.32 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics
- 3.33 WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN
- 3.34 "Participants" vs "members"
- 3.35 Landrace balance
- 3.36 Reference Errors on 24 September
- 3.37 Please comment on Talk:Nazi Party
- 3.38 Reference Errors on 26 September
- 3.39 Asking here, not there
- 3.40 Interview for The Signpost
- 3.41 Please comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians
- 3.42 Sally Binford
- 3.43 RfC guidance requested
- 3.44 Disambiguation link notification for October 2
- 3.45 Please comment on Talk:Julian calendar
- 3.46 October 2014
- 3.47 Software solution?
- 3.48 Capitals and MOS guidance
- 3.49 Please comment on Talk:Arab Winter
- 3.50 Your behaviour
- 3.51 Nomination for deletion of Template:Bxt
- 3.52 Nomination for deletion of Template:Bxtn
- 3.53 Please comment on Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka
- 3.54 Please comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid
- 3.55 Please comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona
- 3.56 Nomination for deletion of Template:Gbq
- 3.57 Category:Modified Volkswagen vehicles
- 3.58 Nomination for deletion of Template:Glossary
- 3.59 Nomination for deletion of Template:Glossary end
- 3.60 Nomination for deletion of Template:Term
- 3.61 Nomination for deletion of Template:Defn
- 3.62 Nomination for deletion of Template:Ghat
- 3.63 Response requested
- 3.64 Glossary templates
- 3.65 Please comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS
- 3.66 Please comment on Talk:Chinese as a foreign language
- 3.67 Please comment on Talk:Gary Webb
- 3.68 Please comment on Talk:Punjabi language
- 3.69 November 2014
- 3.70 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
- 3.71 Edit-warring
- 3.72 Goats
- 3.73 Your uncontroversial move requests at WP:RM
- 3.74 Blocked
- 3.75 Disambiguation link notification for November 8
- 3.76 Template talk:Engvar
- 3.77 Please comment on Talk:Arius
- 3.78 Please comment on Talk:Boletus edulis
- 3.79 Please comment on Talk:Ukraine
- 3.80 Please comment on Talk:Light bulb (disambiguation)
- 3.81 Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette
- 3.82 Your Recent Edits to Template:RMassist
- 3.83 Please comment on Talk:Charles Fahy
- 3.84 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates
- 3.85 Please comment on Talk:Cambodian genocide denial
- 3.86 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education
- 3.87 Old sandbox
- 3.88 Please comment on Talk:List of ethnic slurs
- 3.89 RfC United States same-sex marriage map
- 3.90 Please comment on Talk:God the Son
- 3.91 Please comment on Talk:List of literary awards
- 3.92 WT:AT
- 3.93 Perhaps an alternate account
- 3.94 Quotation marks RFC
- 3.95 Enjoy!
- 3.96 Please comment on Talk:River Soar
- 3.97 Discussion regarding Template:Rating
- 3.98 Happy Holidays!
- 3.99 Please comment on Talk:Goryeo
- 3.100 Please comment on Talk:Newport Beach, California
- 3.101 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
- 3.102 Please comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia
- 3.103 Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#Custom notices on user .js and .css pages
- 3.104 Nomination for deletion of Template:Hatnotes
- 3.105 Please comment on Talk:Mobile, Alabama
- 3.106 Please comment on Talk:Guy Fawkes mask
- 3.107 Stylization of the "common name"
- 3.108 Please comment on Talk:Mexicans of European descent
- 3.109 Comment
- 3.110 Please comment on Template talk:American socialism
- 3.111 Move Review
- 3.112 Please comment on Talk:Arab Winter
- 3.113 Please comment on Talk:Indigenous Aryans
- 3.114 Please comment on Talk:Israel
- 3.115 Please comment on Talk:Chris Kyle
- 3.116 Please comment on Talk:Bhutanese passport
- 3.117 Please comment on Talk:Lizabeth Scott
- 3.118 Please comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia
- 3.119 Please comment on Talk:Japonic languages
- 3.120 RfC re allowing use of all caps
- 3.121 Please comment on Talk:Korean language
- 3.122 Please comment on Talk:Altaic languages
- 3.123 Nomination for deletion of Template:AZBilliards
- 3.124 Nomination for deletion of Template:BCA 2011
- 3.125 Please comment on Talk:Misnomer
- 3.126 Thoroughbred breeding theories
- 3.127 Please comment on Talk:Japonic languages
- 3.128 Disambiguation link notification for March 3
- 3.129 Please comment on Talk:Winged unicorn
- 3.130 Please comment on Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar
- 3.131 Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)
- 3.132 Please comment on Talk:Liberty
- 3.133 Please comment on Talk:Littleton, Colorado
- 3.134 Amphibians and reptiles of Bulgaria
- 3.135 Please comment on Talk:Supersessionism
- 3.136 Disambiguation link notification for March 22
- 3.137 Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown
- 3.138 Please comment on Talk:Fremantle Prison
- 3.139 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion
- 3.140 Please comment on Talk:Nazi Germany
- 3.141 Please comment on Talk:Bengali people
- 3.142 Nomination of February 31 for deletion
- 3.143 Please comment on Talk:Proper noun
- 3.144 TWL HighBeam check-in
- 3.145 Please comment on Talk:Minority language
- 3.146 Move review for Carbon (fiber)
- 3.147 Please comment on Talk:Hapa
- 3.148 Italics
- 3.149 Please comment on Help talk:IPA for Italian
- 3.150 Your changes to WP:MOS 6 days ago
- 3.151 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan
- 3.152 Please comment on Talk:The male gaze
- 3.153 TWL Questia check-in
- 3.154 Please uncollapse
- 3.155 Would you like to respond?
- 3.156 Please comment on Talk:List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries)
- 3.157 Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
- 3.158 Persondata RfC
- 3.159 Please comment on Talk:Nazi Germany
- 3.160 Please comment on Talk:Genocides in history
- 3.161 TWL Questia check-in
- 3.162 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan
- 3.163 Please comment on Talk:History of Slovakia
- 3.164 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian states
- 3.165 Restart
- 3.166 Wise words
- 3.167 Despicable
- 3.168 Please comment on Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet
- 3.169 Serbo-Croatian (disambiguation)
- 3.170 Please comment on Template talk:H:IPA
- 3.171 Please
- 3.172 May 2015
- 3.173 Redir to redlinked page.
- 3.174 Please comment on Talk:New Mexican English
- 3.175 What you said
- 3.176 Please comment on Talk:Upstate New York
- 3.177 FYI
- 3.178 Small Adirondack Blue comment
- 3.179 Please comment on Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters
- 3.180 Please comment on Talk:Palestine grid
- 3.181 Using the "Online Slang Dictionary" As A Reliable Source
- 3.182 Please comment on Talk:Mexico City
- 3.183 RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
- 3.184 Nomination for merging of Template:UPC search link
- 3.185 Please comment on Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey
- 3.186 Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
- 3.187 RfC: red links in navboxes
- 3.188 Missing deletion argument
- 3.189 Please comment on Talk:Miroslav Filipović
- 3.190 Please comment on Talk:Chinese language
- 3.191 Please comment on Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre
- 3.192 The Wikipedia Library needs you!
- 3.193 Please comment on Talk:Chemicals in electronic cigarette aerosol
Old stuff to resolve eventually
Cueless billiards
Extended content |
---|
Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Sad...How well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Look at the main page
Extended content |
---|
Look at the main page --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Some more notes on Crystalate
Extended content |
---|
Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.[1]; info about making records:[2]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:[3]; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991[4]; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:[5]. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
|
WP:SAL
Extended content |
---|
No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Extended content |
---|
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
Your Credo Reference account is approved
Extended content |
---|
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Circa
Extended content |
---|
This edit explains how to write "ca.", which is still discouraged at MOS:#Abbreviations, WP:YEAR, WP:SMOS#Abbreviations, and maybe MOS:DOB, and after you must have read my complaint and ordeal at WT:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Circa. Either allow "ca." or don't allow "ca.", I don't care which, but do it consistently. Art LaPella (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright
Extended content |
---|
That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Hee Haw
Extended content |
---|
Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
One of the reasons gardens are walled
Extended content |
---|
Looking at Montanabw's reaction, I think sometimes you fail to look through the eyes of the editors in a narrow field, and end up with enemies instead of friends. I actually left off editing horse articles years ago because of the controversies, and the hammering out of consensus in that project has been decidedly non-trivial. It's important to remember that a local optimum is always optimal, locally, and that getting to a global optimum can involve considerable work, work that many editors thought they had already done. To me, the best way to start out is always "Here are some more general issues I perceive; I see that you do things differently. How can I help you deal with your problems in a way that will meet my goals?" In the case of the bird folks, this probably wouldn't have worked, but I think It's always a good place to start.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
|
-
-
- You're right that my cleanup efforts have not been efficient when it comes to horses. (They have been in other areas, including donkeys, with direct cooperation from Montanabw, curiously enough, and in domestic cats, among others.) It is difficult to predict what projects will find article naming and categorization cleanup controversial, and on what points.
I understand the WP:RANDY problem, but I'm not part of it; WP:Manual of Style/organisms could not have been written by a Randy. One problem to me is that too many alleged experts treat everyone who disagrees with them about anything as a Randy, often very insultingly so. And by no means is every editor who claims expertise actually an expert; many, especially in biology projects, are simply fanciers, and others may have studied zoology or botany as an undergraduate, but that's it. I have a degree in cultural anthropology, but would never call myself an expert in that field. Large numbers of, e.g., WP:BIRDS editors don't even have that level of qualification, but will fight to the death to get their way on capitalization (and on a faulty basis – they continually claim that the fact that bird field guides capitalize common names means that the mainstream publishing world is honoring the IOU's convention, when in reality all field guides on everything have always capitalized this way, as ease-of-rapid-scanning emphasis, since at least the 1800s, long before IOU even existed; it's a coincidence, and they know this but pretend this fact was never raised.
Another related issue is that WP:Competence is required – not just competence in a particular field, but online community competence to work collaboratively toward consensus. Not all academics have this, and many are extremely competitive and debatory. Sometimes the only thing to do is not care if this sort leave the project (or even be happy that they've gone). The vast majority of expert editors are a boon to the project, but being such an expert is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card in Wiki-opoly. As one example, several years ago, one alleged (and probable) expert on albinism was extremely disruptive at the page that is now Albinism in humans. He considered himself [writing live; I don't mean peer-reviewed joural articles he'd written] to be a reliable source, and basically refused to do the leg-work to provide source citations for the material he wanted to add, nor to show that material he wanted to remove was obsolete or otherwise wrong. I bent over backwards to try to get him to understand WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, but he just would not listen. Myself and others kept having to prevent him from making the well-source if imperfect article a mostly unsourced mess, and he eventually left the project is "disgust" at other editors' "stupidity", much to a lot of people's relief. The article today is very well sourced and stable (aside from frequent "ALBINOESES LOOK STOOPID" vandalism). The disruptive expert's absence was a boon. I feel the same way about WP:DIVA expert editors who threaten wiki-retirement, WP boycotts, editing strikes, mass editorial walkouts and other WP:POINTy nonsense. We all know that in reality academics have zero problem adapting to in-house style guides of whatever venue they're writing for. Pretending that doing it on WP is onerous is a abuse of WP as massively-multiplayer online debate game.
We really need an "intro to Wikipedia for academic and professional experts" guide, to help prevent incoming specialists from falling into such pitfall patterns (not to mention the one identified at WP:SSF). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're right that my cleanup efforts have not been efficient when it comes to horses. (They have been in other areas, including donkeys, with direct cooperation from Montanabw, curiously enough, and in domestic cats, among others.) It is difficult to predict what projects will find article naming and categorization cleanup controversial, and on what points.
-
-
-
-
- Just wanted to let you know that I did read this, started an unproductive reply, and then decided I needed to think about it a while.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Curtis Clark: It's a been a while, but I thought I'd get back to you about this. If I resume editing, I may in fact try to draft an "intro to Wikipedia for academic and professional experts" guide. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia might be good enough. Didn't know that existed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just wanted to let you know that I did read this, started an unproductive reply, and then decided I needed to think about it a while.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
-
-
Kinda old stuff to sort through (mostly barnstars I didn't move to my /Barnstars page yet)
Chapeau
... for this one! Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! I actually like hats. :-) Your readability tweak was a good idea. I was a little concerned about it myself, but I'm not a cards editor, so I wasn't sure if there was a typical way of making hands more legible. (Also not sure if people conventionally use the card symbols that are available in Unicode, etc.). I do edit a lot of games articles, but almost exclusively in cue sports and related. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 12:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- I specially like hats when there's a set of dice under them :-)
- Perhaps you don't know, but overhere we use the name chapeau for the cup and, by extension, for the game itself. As you can see here—als je Nederlands een beetje in orde is—, we play an entirely different game with it, a game where one can practice the fine art of subtle bluffing, downright lying, assessing oponents' behaviour, and accurately estimating probabilities. We also play the "Mexican" variant, which is even subtler. Check it out and cheers! - DVdm (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know that, about the chapeau. I thought you were awarding me a virtual hat. :-) . I am familiar with the bluff game (possibly the Mexican version, since I learned it in California), but have always played that one with regular dice. Anyway, if you like what I did in the English version, certainly feel free to "port" it to the Netherlands Wikipedia. I may be able to work through the Dutch enough to add something about the other variants to the English article here, since it is rather paltry. Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it was meant as a virtual hat award as well - I had seen a hat on your user page :-)
Porting from there to here could be a bit problematic, as there's not many sources around, alas. - DVdm (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll have to dig through my game encyclopedias and stuff. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it was meant as a virtual hat award as well - I had seen a hat on your user page :-)
- I didn't know that, about the chapeau. I thought you were awarding me a virtual hat. :-) . I am familiar with the bluff game (possibly the Mexican version, since I learned it in California), but have always played that one with regular dice. Anyway, if you like what I did in the English version, certainly feel free to "port" it to the Netherlands Wikipedia. I may be able to work through the Dutch enough to add something about the other variants to the English article here, since it is rather paltry. Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 04:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar comment
Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.
Don't delete this! -
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
For behaving in a genteel fashion, as if nothing were the matter, and for gallantry. --Djathinkimacowboy 03:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
- Sankyu beddy mush! Hardly necessary for me just behaving properly. Heh. But I appreciate it anyway. I left you a note at your page about that Guidance rename idea. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Cheers!
A beer on me! | ||
for all of the thoughtful posts through the extended discussion at MOSCAPS. I've appreciated it. JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank ya verra much! I was thirsty. >;-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 15:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Barnstar Creator's Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your submission of the Instructor's Barnstar. It's now on the main barnstar list. Pinetalk 15:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC) |
Keen beans! Thanks.
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
This comes as a recognition of your kindness in developing the Firefox Cite4wiki add-on. It has been helpful and a great resource. I was also happy to learn you contribute to Mozilla which I do as well :) ₫ӓ₩₳ Talk to Me. Email Me. 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks, though some others deserve more credit than I do, especially Jehochman (talk · contribs) for the original concept, and Unit 5 (talk · contribs) for the bulk of the code still used in this version. I mostly just added the ability to customize the output for specific sites, and fixed some consistency issues, as well as set up the WP:Cite4Wiki page for it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 21:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
In recognition of your general fine work around the 'pedia, and the staunchness and standard of argumentation on style issues. And if for nothing else, I think you deserve it for this comment Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC) |
- <bow> — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 07:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar | |
It's a bit delayed, but for your rather accurate edit summary here. Keep up the good work on various breed articles! TKK bark ! 18:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Why, thank ya verra much! :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Heroic Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your recent work at WP:MOS: A model of unflagging effort, precise analysis, institutionally broad and historically deep vision, clear articulation, and civil expression under great pressure. Unforgettable. DocKino (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks. I do my best. At this point I'm being attacked on multiple pages in a concerted effort of harassment, and suspect that their goal is to get me to simply quit the project. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Some Wiki-love for you
The Purple Barnstar | ||
You've been putting up with a lot of crap from other quarters; just want to let you know that people out there do, in fact, manage to appreciate your work. illegitimi non carborundum! VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 04:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks. That means a lot right now, actually. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
I couldn't quite find a suitable barnstar for this, but I found it insightful when you brought up the issue of accessibility within TfD#Template:Tn. Maybe it was kind of a small realization you had, but on behalf of the disabled friends I have, thank you for bringing it up. A step in the right direction for making this everyone's encyclopedia. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks. As someone with really poor eyesight,
{{tn}}
has actually meant something to me from an accessbility point of view (honestly, I don't even like that its functionality has been pared to do this {{!}} instead of {{!}} this to begin with, but one thing at a time, I guess. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
Except of course that would be 30 min on the treadmill. But we can still look. Thank you for well measured comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
- <nom nom nom> Thanks. I'm actually headed to the gym in 15 minutes, coincidentally. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- So was I when I sent it, hence the thought... In ictu oculi (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Current threads
Updating of Wikipedia guidelines and essays
I saw the discussion and thank you for your help through Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A simple way forward on common names of species. Would you also like to update (check consistency with the consensus) the guidelines and essays related to the discussion (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bird article names: related Wikipedia guidelines and essays pages)? Thanks in advance! Selai Poisvre (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC).
- Working on it. I've already taken the first step of removing the "local consensus" stuff that suggests capitalization of birds, but don't know if I'll get resistance on this. Just because one RfC is closed doesn't mean everyone in favor of the capitalization will accept the result. This isn't the first such RfC. Assuming acceptance comes this time, we'd need to get the taxobox changed to support the parameters I added (they're just in a sandboxed version), and then add mention of how to use them to the relevant guidelines (maybe; that part might not be needed, and might even be objected to, since not everyone agrees all articles should have infoboxes). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Tlg module
I've recreated (some of) {{tlg}} in Lua w/ a shorthand here -- it works 86% percent of the time! Anyway, this way should be easier to maintain, and we'll still have a shorter syntax if the tl-whatever tpls get deleted. If you like the idea, then maybe we can pitch it at tlg's talk page or wherever. If not, then oh well. — lfdder 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Lfdder: Cool beans! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Lfdder:: The temples were kept, marginally, but I agree that the Lua route you were working on is ultimately a better way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Redundant sentence?
The sentence at MOS:LIFE "General names for groups or types of organisms are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, Bryde's whales, rove beetle, Van cat)" is a bit odd, since the capitalization would (now) be exactly the same if they were the names of individual species. Can it simply be removed?
There is an issue, covered at Wikipedia:PLANTS#The use of botanical names as common names for plants, which may or may not be worth putting in the main MOS, namely cases where the same word is used as the scientific genus name and as the English name, when it should be de-capitalized. I think this is rare for animals, but more common for plants and fungi (although I have seen "tyrannosauruses" and similar uses of dinosaur names). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
-
- I would leave it a alone for now; let people get used to the changes. I think it's reasonable to include the "general names" thing, because it's a catch-all that includes several different kinds of examples, that various largely different groups of people are apt to capitalize. Various know-nothings want to capitalize things like "the Cats", the "Great Apes", etc., because they think "it's a Bigger Group and I like to Capitalize Big Important Stuff". There are millions more people who just like to capitalize nouns and stuff. "Orange's, $1 a Pound". Next we have people who insist on capitalizing general "types" and landraces of domestic animals ("Mountain Dogs", "Van Cat") because they're used to formal breed names being capitalized (whether to do that with breeds here is an open question, but it should not be done with types/classes of domestics, nor with landraces. Maybe the examples can be sculpted better: "the roses", "herpesviruses", "great apes", "Bryde's whale", "mountain dogs", "Van cat", "passerine birds". I'm not sure that "rove beetle" and "oak" are good examples of anything. Anyway, it's more that the species no-capitalization is a special case of the more general rule, not that the general rule is a redundant or vague version of the former. If they're merged, it should keep the general examples, and maybe specifically spell out and illustrate that it also means species and subspecies, landraces and domestic "types", as well as larger and more general groupings.
- I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to MOS:ORGANISMS, which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at Lynx or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With Lynx, I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization there[8], and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
- I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "Canna" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
-
- Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
- Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
-
code vs. tt
I could say that insisting on the use of <code> rather than <tt> is an example of an un-necessary, if not fallacious, specialist style. :-) I ought to be guilty of it, since I used to teach HTML! I confess that I use "tt" because it saves typing... Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Heehaw! I'm a stickler for HTML semantic purity whenever possible (which reminds me I need to fork
{{bq}}
into a div-based block indenter for non-quotations). I try not to make edits like that unless I'm making other ones at the same time and throw them in as an afterthought, on the same basis that just futzing with things like[[chicken|chick]]
->[[Chicken|chick]]
is considered objectionable by some. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Diacritics: Moving forward
I too have no very clear idea about how to word an RfC, other than that it should be in relation to specific proposed changes to the MOS and not something vaguer. I also think it's very important to keep to the issue of diacritical marks in the original orthography of the language, and not stray into either additional letters (like eth or thorn) or the use of diacritical marks in transcription/transliteration (like retaining accents when going from πότε to póte or marking long vowels by macrons in transliterating a number of languages, including Greek and Japanese). These are separate issues.
The problems, for me, are primarily in the first paragraph of WP:DIACRITICS, which is evasive, muddled and inconsistent:
- The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged – this is just evasion. Their use or non-use should be motivated, and hence should be encouraged or discouraged according to the strength of the motivation.
- when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works) – this encouragement to count "hits" just results in muddled policy, apart from the problem of the weasel word "general". However, this bit seems clear that the "modifications" are to the same word, i.e. can be treated as stylistic modifications.
- The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. This seems to me not to be consistent with the sentence before: is "the common name" here supposed to be with or without the added diacritical marks? "[V]ersions of a word" above should mean that "the common name" is the same with or without the diacritical marks.
Is it possible to re-write this paragraph to achieve consensus? I don't know. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Agreed those are separate issues
Agreed the first quoted passage is evasive, but motivating use or avoidance of diacritics seems to be the sticking point. Did you have some particular direction in mind? My take has been that if reliable sources show that their use is normal for the names in question that they should be used here, except where particular subjects eschew them. E.g. for a baseball player named Eddie Sandoval we'd give him as Eddie Sándoval if some reliable sources did (it can't be based on a majority of English language sources, since majority of them ignore diacritics entirely, as a matter of editorial/publishing convenience). It's the same principle that we can cite a single source for Eddie's birth date and place even if most sources don't mention them. A fact does not have to be provided by every single source to be considered reliable. And it's not a matter of sources conflicting (analogous to giving two different birth dates); some giving only Sandoval without the diacritics is like some sources giving a birth year but not a full birth date; it is incomplete information, not conflicting information. On the other hand, if Eddie himself is quoted saying he doesn't use the diacritic that should be a trumping factor (unless WP totally ditches subject preference in all areas, which seems unlikely given the number of discussions going on to make more allowances for subject preference all over the place). This can apply to geography, too (Santa Fe, New Mexico is "Santa Fe" not "Santa Fé" despite the popularity of the diacritic in certain circles; the official name of both the city and the county are "Santa Fe" with no accent. People frequently cite WP:OFFICIALNAME as if it were a policy, but it's actually just an essay, it may not accurately reflect the nuances in cases like this, and people often cite it without actually understanding what it says to begin with (it's frequently misinterpreted as being against use of official names, when it's really only against using them when they're directly unhelpful to readers, while otherwise we would almost certainly use the official name)
I'm not sure "general" in the second passage is actually a weasel word, rather than just lack of clarity. It's not clear if it means the predominant use in reliable sources generally, the predominant use in general-audience sources, or both. The inclusion of "and reference works" strongly suggests the former. Regardless, the "hit-counting" aspect is a problem because of the aforementioned facts that a) English-language sources tend to ignore diacritics for their own convenience (and sometimes for socio-political reasons - you'll find that right-wing sources in English virtually never use them), and b) it only takes one reliable source to establish a fact, for WP purposes.
Yes, the third passage means that the name for WP:COMMONNAME purposes is the same and that the diacritics are just a style matter. But I'm not sure we care what this passage says since it's just an interpretation of "the policy [sic] on using common names and on foreign names". An interpretation of policy doesn't trump actual policy and can be rewritten to more clearly reflect it.
The location of this material at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified letters (WP:DIACRITICS) seems a bit problematic, and it should mostly be merged (in whatever form) into MOS:DIACRITICS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Spelling and romanization. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
-
- To take the last point first, absolutely; this (now) has nothing to do with titles per se.
- My gut feeling is that the policy should be that personal or place names originally in a language that uses the Latin alphabet extended by diacritics should be written in their original orthography by default, unless there is evidence that the name has been assimilated into English. Sources are then relevant for two purposes: to determine whether the name is assimilated (including sources showing the preference of people for their own names), and if it is not assimilated, to determine how the word is written in its original orthography. Placing the onus on editors to show that a name has been assimilated seems to me likely to work better than being neutral and asking what sources do. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Makes sense to me. Even moving the stuff from the NC guideline to the MOS proper shouldn't be hard, since they're both guideline-level. It'd be nice if both the WP and MOS shortcuts went to the same text. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Dohn joe: You've been silent on this for a while. What's your take? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Even moving the stuff from the NC guideline to the MOS proper shouldn't be hard, since they're both guideline-level. It'd be nice if both the WP and MOS shortcuts went to the same text. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Cite4Wiki development
During the time you were not editing Wikipedia I sent you a request to be added to the list of developers at Mozilla for Cite4Wiki. That request did not pan out because I had changed my user name there between when I made the request and when you were able to work on it. I replied to the email you sent me, providing my changed Mozilla user name. However, I did not hear anything more from you on the subject. It is quite possible that my email did not reach you.
I would again like to request to be added as a developer so I can release a new version of Cite4Wiki that is compatible with the current version of Firefox, includes automatic and semi-automatic archiving, etc. I also desire to put up an alpha/beta version with page scraping for more parameter values (authors, identifiers, etc.).
My user name on Mozilla is the same as my user name here: Makyen
Thanks. — Makyen (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- After making this request I realized that the position I was coming from was still that you were not participating in Wikipedia, or that you would stop doing so. In that situation, there was a need for an active developer able to post updates to Cite4Wiki to Mozilla. Given that you are back there is not a need for me to have this access. Convenient, yes, but not a need. It would also be possible for me to put a package somewhere where you could download it, review, make changes, and then upload to Mozilla if your choose. — Makyen (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
-
- I do need to give everyone access who needs it; I don't have any further development interest in that little project, but it's a needed tool. Keep pinging me about it, if I don't get around to it in short order. (I have a lot on my plate right now, so I've been dawdling on it.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- It has been several months since my original request and closing on two months since my request here. It is clear that this is not a high priority for you. That's fine. Given that, it looks like the most appropriate thing for me to do is create a new extension name, something like "Cite4Wiki Phoenix". I will proceed with doing so. — Makyen (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It has been several months since my original request and closing on two months since my request here. It is clear that this is not a high priority for you. That's fine. Given that, it looks like the most appropriate thing for me to do is create a new extension name, something like "Cite4Wiki Phoenix". I will proceed with doing so. — Makyen (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
-
Informal note
Hey, I notice that you have HighBeam access and you seem to have a few topicons. That being said, if you are interested, I've created {{Wikipedia:HighBeam/Topicon}}
. No reply to this message is necessary (and I won't see it unless you ping me), just wanted to let you know it was available. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Credo
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Royal Society Access
Hey SMcCandlish, please make sure to follow the instructions in the email I sent nearly 2 weeks ago to ensure that you can get WP:RSUK access, Sadads (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:JSTOR access
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.
WP:OUP access
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.
Landrace
Excellent work you're doing on this article. It would be good to work into the article the general point that all attempts to produce rigid boundaries when defining groups/taxa of organisms are bound to fail, because of inherent genetic variability between individuals. Darwin's statement "I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" applies equally to distinctions between landraces and breeds or cultivar groups and cultivars. However, although I've looked I can't find a source for this exact point. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yeah, I've been keeping an eye out. I can find lots of sources for the fact that there are different definitions serving different interests (some very broad, some very narrow, most in the middle), but I've not run into anything about the underlying genetics reasons that make it a thorny problem from the outset. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'd almost bet money that we don't find a universal definition. Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- We don't need one, just an operable one that doesn't significantly contradict what less narrow and more reliable sources are getting at. Automobile is a good case in point; it provides the reader with a general-consensus definition assembled from how use in most sources' overlaps – i.e., it a non-novel synthesis, permissible under WP:NOR – and that article allows for (right there in lead) other, less common definitions without dwelling on them (which would be WP:UNDUE under NOR), and it makes it clear that the article is not principally about those alternative views (a permissible form of WP:SELFREF). We would not tolerate a lone editor trying to force a PoV at that article that the term must include 18-wheelers, in WP's treatment of the subject, just because they encountered some definition somewhere that did; nor that we must not include SUVs because this editor personally can't stand the term being applied to SUVs or thinks that off-roading magazines (a narrow, specialist source) mostly don't use the term to refer to SUVs; or that we can't have an article that provides a general, broad definition, on the basis that it's somehow original research to note what the sources do agree on, or not every source agreeing on every aspect of a definition makes it somehow an invalid approach.
I detect all three types of this reasoning being applied against the Landrace article, and it's not how we do things here. A very large number of our articles provide general-purpose definitions and treatments of a term/subject, note that other definitions exist and sometimes what they are, then move on, with the rest of WP mostly using and linking to the term as used at that article. For another case in point, see Species. All sorts of PoV pushing could be done with regard to that topic (and has been tried), but we shut it down, because it's anti-encyclopedic noise. Enough has been written, in reliable sources (but perhaps only by one researcher, which may itself present a PoV issue) about definitional disagreement that perhaps a section can be devoted to it (it's not like it rises to an article-level issue like the species problem), but even that may be overkill.
At any rate there's no such thing as a "universal definition" of anything. WP nevertheless goes on just fine. This too shall pass, and we'll end up with a perfectly fine landrace article, and articles on animal and plant varieties that properly refer to it and stop abusing the word "breed" for everything that isn't a wild species, whether that happens this month or ten years from now. Hell, it took ~9 years for the species common name capitalization issue to sort out (if it really has). I take the long view of these things. I could disappear off the face of the earth, and it'll still happen eventually, just because of how the WP community builds and cross-references articles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- We don't need one, just an operable one that doesn't significantly contradict what less narrow and more reliable sources are getting at. Automobile is a good case in point; it provides the reader with a general-consensus definition assembled from how use in most sources' overlaps – i.e., it a non-novel synthesis, permissible under WP:NOR – and that article allows for (right there in lead) other, less common definitions without dwelling on them (which would be WP:UNDUE under NOR), and it makes it clear that the article is not principally about those alternative views (a permissible form of WP:SELFREF). We would not tolerate a lone editor trying to force a PoV at that article that the term must include 18-wheelers, in WP's treatment of the subject, just because they encountered some definition somewhere that did; nor that we must not include SUVs because this editor personally can't stand the term being applied to SUVs or thinks that off-roading magazines (a narrow, specialist source) mostly don't use the term to refer to SUVs; or that we can't have an article that provides a general, broad definition, on the basis that it's somehow original research to note what the sources do agree on, or not every source agreeing on every aspect of a definition makes it somehow an invalid approach.
- I'd almost bet money that we don't find a universal definition. Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_160#Italics_re._toy_lines
Hi. Sorry for not seeing this before it got archived. Yes, I would be happy to support your suggestion for updating MOS in an RFC if you started one on the subject. Best, It Is Me Here t / c 12:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:September 11 attacks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:September 11 attacks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!
As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:
For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.
For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).
The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.
--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Shooting of Michael Brown
I saw your comment at the Michael Brown talk page. I remember working with you years ago at WP. I don't do much here other than occasional clean up, mostly without logging in. But I use WP to get to the heart of information, as I feel that for most topics the system works. For that reason I came to the MB article last week and was upset by the POV and bias in the Lede. There was subtle and not so subtle sensationalism. I think that it is better now. But I think it could be better. You gave some broad direction, but could you be more specific? I hope that all is well with you and that you are having a great weekend. Kevin. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tam Lin may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- publication date of ''[[The Complaynt of Scotland]]'' that mentions "The Tayl of the [[Yogh|Ȝ]]ong]] Tamlene" ('The Tale of the Young Tamelene'}}) among a long list of medieval romances).{{Refn|Child, ''ESPB'' '''II''': 336<ref name="child-tam-
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:White people[edit]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:White people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Celtic League (political organisation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- There are various [diaspora]] branches, that play little part in the annual general meetings.
- Supports Independence First |work=Independence First |date=2007 |accessdate=7 December 2007}}{{dead link|date=October 2012}</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Landrace may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Government of Louisville, Kentucky
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Government of Louisville, Kentucky. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 03:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder! I submitted the form just now. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles
Pursuant to our discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, I have created an essay Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles, and would welcome your input into that essay. I believe that it should quickly be refined with whatever additional points are needed to fully reflect our practices with respect to consistency, and moved to guideline status. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- @BD2412: Looks good so far, though I have not pored over its every detail. I wouldn't bet on guideline status. It's hard enough to get even an essay on this sort of thing to stick around in projectspace (Born2cycle has had three WP:AT supplementary essays userspaced recently). The key is probably just avoiding WP:OWN problems. I think it should cover consistency of disambiguation in more detail, too, but no hurry. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 7 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Freebase page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Snus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mint. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup
WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers. Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC) To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.
|
Please comment on Talk:List of ethnic cleansings
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of ethnic cleansings. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:South African Republic
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South African Republic. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Livestock and poultry breed articles
Why don't we just solve this via a general RFC at WikiProject Agriculture, rather than stringing out a bunch of split arguments across many articles. It would be easiest for all involved to discuss the issue in one place. Steven Walling • talk 03:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Steven Walling: This will be a pretty detailed response, and I am interested in your thoughts. Because not all domestic animal breeds are agricultural, that wikiproject wouldn't seem to be an appropriate locus, even if having such discussions hosted by wikiprojects wasn't problematic for bias reasons. RMs and RFCs about naming that are hosted on wikiproject pages almost always go the way the wikiproject wants them to, because most wikiproject participants have the wikiproject pages watchlisted and are thus brought into the discussion in much larger than normal levels, resulting in a skewed WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that doesn't reflect a site-wide perspective, and which will just be challenged later, because lots of people are aware of this RFC/RM-skewing effect of hosting them on wikiproject pages. When we get to the point where some RFC might be viable, it should be hosted at WT:AT because this is a WP:AT matter, and AT is a topic-neutral policy page for everyone. It's vaguely possible that one could succeed there now, but I wouldn't bet on it.
All that said, attempts to resolve these matters centrally are attacked as trying to force a one-size-fits-all view, an external rule, a style cabal straightjacket, [insert something else histrionic here]. Meanwhile, attempts to resolve them one article at a time are attacked as trying to tendentiously drag out and nickel-and-dime everything in a war of attrition, picking on articles that violate (non-existent or invalid) wikiproject-level naming rules, and [insert various personal attacks here]. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, in which the desire to have wikiprojects autonomous and making up their own "naming conventions" that conflict with the next project over, leads to both WP:FILIBUSTER tactics being used by the same parties; neither approach to cleaning up the breed article naming mess can succeed, because both are blockaded.
Do you really feel an RFC would be effective now, and if so how would it proceed? The devils are really in the details on this, and virtually all the involved projects want there to be no site-wide rules to comply with, only their own internal convention on "their" articles.
My tactic lately has been to try a third approach that is much harder to prevent community consensus about, and it's one that is usually effective, regardless of topic. That is to sort RMs into groups of titles that all raise the same problem (e.g. confusabilty with an ethnicity), that is already clearly addressed by WP:AT policy and/or WP:MOS rules, and propose moves to names that comply with those rules. Then it's not an animal breed names (or whatever) discussion, it's a discussion about article compliance with actual, site-wide naming conventions generally, and this either eliminates drama or makes the drama much easier to detect and ignore as just drama. After enough such moves, a pattern of how to name breed articles will naturally, automatically emerge (in theory), and can't be easily WP:BATTLEGROUNDed against. An RFC at that point should cement things into an actual, written naming convention that is adopted as a guideline and doesn't conflict with WP:AT policies.
Unfortunately, the mess at Talk:Teeswater sheep is liable to result in a confused, confusing and disruptive mass status quo ante reversion to inconsistent and AT-violating names, and necessitate an whole new round of these discussions. Fortunately, I've already sorted them, at that page, into 7 different kinds of article titling issues, so they can probably be addressed in 7 RMs, the results of which will effectively be a new naming convention. Unfortunately again, the main problem is that the launcher of that RM mess has vowed to launch several more such messes, which will simply drag this out even longer, because they interfere with the other RMs.
So, you tell me – why would an RFC, even one hosted at WT:AT, be effective now, instead of just derailed by more grandstanding and handwaving? And more importantly by inter-wikiproject canvassing to protect WP:LOCALCONSENSUS interests (i.e. to protect the status quo of chaos and inconsistency simply because it's not a rule to comply with)? What can be done to prevent a handful of combative wikiproject editors from derailing the entire thing again? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- There's an interconnected issue, which is that there has never been a community-wide decision on the capitalization of breed names. (Personally I see no argument for it that does not apply to capitalizing the English names of species, which was decided against, so I can't see how a properly discussed RfC could decide otherwise than to de-capitalize breed names, along with all generalist sources I can find.) The relevance is that if breed names are put into sentence case in titles, the distinction disappears between "Big Pig" as a full breed name but "Big pig" as a breed name followed by natural disambiguation, and this is intimately connected with the current discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: I've enumerated some (probably not all) of the differences between between breed caps and species caps at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Breeds. I've long agreed that in theory breeds should not be capitalized where they do not contain a proper name, and noted that most off-WP style guides agree. But the WP:BIRDCON drama would probably be considered a mild little discussion compared to the shitstorm that would surround de-capping breeds. The majority of active editors of breed articles are strongly in favor of capitalization, because all the specialist sources use it. This is different from bird caps, because it's cross species. Bird were weird because the same standard wasn't being applied to mammals or arachnids or ferns or whatever. But all the breed articles are cap'd, other than I think I ran into two that weren't, and procedurally RM'd them to be consistent. In some cases, breed editors agree on nothing but the capitalization, and otherwise are antipathetic. Despite a strong logical case for doing so, I don't think WP will successfully decapitalize domestic animal breeds. I no longer bother advocating it, as it seems utopian. Heh.
I'm not sure that the Big pig vs. Big Pig stuff would make any difference; "The breed is closely related to the American Quarter Horse" vs. "The breed is closely related to the American quarter horse". Who cares? Obviously people who like to capitalize breed names do, but I mean that for encyclopedic reasons, it doesn't matter; the actual article wording will correctly give the breed name in the lead (here it would be "The American Quarter Horse is..." vs. "The American Quarter is..."). There may be one or two cases where a breed and a landrace or type name would coincide, because of a WP:DIFFCAPS disambiguation, but those are dumb ideas in this topic area anyway, and if there are still any, they should be renamed. If one wants to make the argument that using parenthetical disambiguation would "protect" a breed name, lower cased, from being confused with something else, it wouldn't really, because the horse project for one consistently uses parenthetical dab. for the names of individual horses (mostly racehorses) and these sometimes even coincide with breed names. We have such limited ways of dab'ing, there is no one perfect solution. The least conflicting one is: "Foo Bar baz" means a domesticated baz breed named Foo Bar; "Foo Bar Baz" means a domesticated baz breed named Foo Bar Baz; "foo bar baz" (or "Foo bar baz", if Foo is a proper name) means a non-breed population or type of bazes; "Foo Bar (baz)" means some term Foo Bar that relates to the baz species, most often a body part or an individual. The "Foo Bar (baz)" structure can already mean almost anything, and it's senseless to operator-overload that further to also mean breeds. At least one person purporting to represent the horse project will go to the mat on this, and "Foo Bar baz" naming has been totally uncontroversial in several other species such as cats. (Most of the "controversy" that exists at all, is three individual editors being loud about it. One doesn't even agree with the stance she's taking and openly says she's doing it just because she doesn't like me, which means her position can be ignored by the closer. One of the others has such serious English language comprehension problems, including with regard to capitalization basics, that the competence of their input renders their !votes basically useless, too. So that leaves one editor mostly responsible for the filibustering of consistency in these categories.) Thet fact that getting these names consistent would mean they could be easily mass-moved with regard to capitalization, disambiguation style, is clearly among the reasons for resistance against consistency in breed article titles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
- You may be right about the impossibility (at present anyway) of getting agreement to decapitalize breed names, however illogical that is given the decision about English species names. I entirely agree with you on using natural disambiguation where at all possible; there are already far too many confusing and inconsistent uses of words in parentheses in titles (and see the discussion at Talk:Cereus (disambiguation) where there was an argument for "disambiguating" an already disambiguated title by adding another word within the parentheses). So I'm certainly not arguing for "Foo Bar (baz)" over "Foo Bar baz", just that it mustn't be accepted that the capitals show that this is the breed "Foo Bar" of the species "baz", because one day it may become "Foo bar baz" (and there should be a redirect there anyway under the principle of having redirects at alternative capitalizations). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Completely concur. I don't want to be mistaken as making the "one true case" that "Foo Bar baz" necessarily means a breed, Foo Bar of the species baz; rather, for as long as we're capitalizing it, any such breed would be rendered this way if the species were appended, unless it's a rare "Foo Bar Baz" case like "Norwegian Forest Cat". I.e., it's an automatic result, not an ideal. In many cases a landrace name and a breed name will be indistinguishable, because most of both are just in the form "Foo baz"; you have to read the Van cat article to know which it is, for example. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- You may be right about the impossibility (at present anyway) of getting agreement to decapitalize breed names, however illogical that is given the decision about English species names. I entirely agree with you on using natural disambiguation where at all possible; there are already far too many confusing and inconsistent uses of words in parentheses in titles (and see the discussion at Talk:Cereus (disambiguation) where there was an argument for "disambiguating" an already disambiguated title by adding another word within the parentheses). So I'm certainly not arguing for "Foo Bar (baz)" over "Foo Bar baz", just that it mustn't be accepted that the capitals show that this is the breed "Foo Bar" of the species "baz", because one day it may become "Foo bar baz" (and there should be a redirect there anyway under the principle of having redirects at alternative capitalizations). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: I've enumerated some (probably not all) of the differences between between breed caps and species caps at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Breeds. I've long agreed that in theory breeds should not be capitalized where they do not contain a proper name, and noted that most off-WP style guides agree. But the WP:BIRDCON drama would probably be considered a mild little discussion compared to the shitstorm that would surround de-capping breeds. The majority of active editors of breed articles are strongly in favor of capitalization, because all the specialist sources use it. This is different from bird caps, because it's cross species. Bird were weird because the same standard wasn't being applied to mammals or arachnids or ferns or whatever. But all the breed articles are cap'd, other than I think I ran into two that weren't, and procedurally RM'd them to be consistent. In some cases, breed editors agree on nothing but the capitalization, and otherwise are antipathetic. Despite a strong logical case for doing so, I don't think WP will successfully decapitalize domestic animal breeds. I no longer bother advocating it, as it seems utopian. Heh.
- There's an interconnected issue, which is that there has never been a community-wide decision on the capitalization of breed names. (Personally I see no argument for it that does not apply to capitalizing the English names of species, which was decided against, so I can't see how a properly discussed RfC could decide otherwise than to de-capitalize breed names, along with all generalist sources I can find.) The relevance is that if breed names are put into sentence case in titles, the distinction disappears between "Big Pig" as a full breed name but "Big pig" as a breed name followed by natural disambiguation, and this is intimately connected with the current discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- @SMcCandlish: Whether a centralized discussion is at a WikiProject (I suggested Agriculture because it is popular and generic, rather than specific to Livestock or Poultry or Equines) or at a page like WP:AT or MOS:ORGANISMS makes zero difference to me. I am just tired of seeing essentially the same argument spread across too many individual article talk pages. People with lives outside Wikipedia don't have the energy to have the same argument in a dozen different places. I think if you're concerned about getting participation from people with expertise in article title issues who are not livestock/poultry aficionados, you'll have a better chance if we don't make people chase the issue around a collection of different breed articles. Like I said on a few pages, I'm neutral on the actual issue. I just want to see it dealt with so we can get on to more important stuff. Steven Walling • talk 22:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Steven Walling: I agree with your feelings on this, I just firmly predict that any such RFC will get filibustered. The entire point of that mess at Talk:Teeswater sheep, a mass status quo ante discussion to blanet-revert months worth of article moves without discussion of the merits of the article names, is to move them all away from increased naming consistency back to utter chaos in animal breed article titles, and stall consistency by requiring yet another round of probably page-by-page move discussions, which the general editorship will probably been too tired an bored to engage in, leading to WP:WINNING by the camp opposed to site-wide standards, instead of any real consensus. Those with an interest in preserving the inconsistency chaos (which amounts to wikiproject-level, insular autonomy from WP:AT, in effective practice) repeatedly strenuously object whenever even a few RMs on the merits are grouped and covered in a single discussion. It's WP:LAME, but many things on WP are, increasingly so since the end of the 2010s, since most important articles have already been written, and the "sexy" work is therefore done, leaving a core editorship that, with every passing month, is smaller, more topically obsessive, and more invested in WP as a game/pastime/sport for their own entertainment. Some of this stuff getting tedious is inevitable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: Whether a centralized discussion is at a WikiProject (I suggested Agriculture because it is popular and generic, rather than specific to Livestock or Poultry or Equines) or at a page like WP:AT or MOS:ORGANISMS makes zero difference to me. I am just tired of seeing essentially the same argument spread across too many individual article talk pages. People with lives outside Wikipedia don't have the energy to have the same argument in a dozen different places. I think if you're concerned about getting participation from people with expertise in article title issues who are not livestock/poultry aficionados, you'll have a better chance if we don't make people chase the issue around a collection of different breed articles. Like I said on a few pages, I'm neutral on the actual issue. I just want to see it dealt with so we can get on to more important stuff. Steven Walling • talk 22:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Can't fathom...
I've just had my attention drawn to your request on AN. I really don't understand why you didn't avoid the drama and ask me directly. Always always always try the most drama-free method first - the worst that can happen is I'd say "take it to AN". the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- @EatsShootsAndLeaves: Live and learn. I was trying to avoid drama, because the exact wording of my 3-month move ban was basically editwarred over by two admins, and it seemed like I'd be immediately accused of parent-shopping if I were to ask one not the other to change the wording again. It's interesting who's come out of the woodwork to mire a simple "can I move my own pages?" clarification with a string of incessant personal attacks about unrelated matters. I sense that will be an ANI issue very shortly, despite my efforts to get said parties to engage in WP:Dispute resolution, because the ad hominem pattern is not abating at all, but continuing at Talk:Landrace and other pages. I don't think they take WP:ARBATC very seriously either, but I don't wish WP:AE on anyone. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- You really didn't need to ask for a wording change ... simply ask "just to clarify, am I allowed to move pages inside my own userspace?" - wouldn't have hurt anyone. About "unrelated matters", that's the problem when you file at AN or ANI, those unrelated things can and will be used against you - not only is it allowed, it's at the top of the page! the panda ₯’ 09:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Noted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- You really didn't need to ask for a wording change ... simply ask "just to clarify, am I allowed to move pages inside my own userspace?" - wouldn't have hurt anyone. About "unrelated matters", that's the problem when you file at AN or ANI, those unrelated things can and will be used against you - not only is it allowed, it's at the top of the page! the panda ₯’ 09:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN
Unfortunately, you have misinterpreted my position. I never meant to suggest that projects control content of articles included in their projects. I was talking about project scope and which articles are included. Even after your changes (done without consensus), it still holds that projects have a strong say over which articles they include. My issue was that linking to that section appears to accuse project banner removers of WP:OWN, which isn't necessarily the case. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think we're just having mutual communications problems. The rewritten text still clearly indicates that project scope is principally a matter of wikiproject participants' consensus, while getting rid of all the policy-violating language, and irrationality, in that section; so I don't see what the issue is you want to raise here. I don't need a new consensus to correct those violations; the policies already are consensus, the strongest we have. And a consensus arrived at by the community about the "member" language remains a consensus, absent any later discussion clearly overturning it on WP:CCC grounds). WP:BOLD is also a policy. You can WP:BRD revert the changes if you want, but I'm wondering on what possible policy-cognizant basis you'd defend the older language, which itself in various places was petulantly modified without and, more to the point, against consensus, to be a big show of territorial chest-beating and very un-wiki admonishments. :-) Within minutes of making the changes I started receiving "thank" notices for having done so. I agree that the WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN shortcut is weird and unhelpful, but the fix for that is to go make a new one, like WP:PROJGUIDE#BANNERWAR or even just WP:BANNERWAR or WP:SCOPEWAR, and put it there. No one has objected to the idea that WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN is a lame shortcut name, right? Sounds like WP:BOLD time again. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- We also have a policy/guideline somewhere about being bold but if you're making major changes, it's a good thing to let other editors know why you're making the changes. I don't think your explanation on the talk page was specific enough. At any rate, I'm not going to revert your work, and I don't think I have ever indicated that I would. I only wanted to concentrate on the section not using the harshest language to start out with, through its shortcut or its title. I should be able to link to the section without the editor I'm referring to it thinking I'm accusing them of WP:OWN. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BOLD is the policy. It doesn't contradict my actions. Between my clear edit summaries and what I posted on the talk page (and now here), I'm unclear what the issue is, especially since you're indicating that, basically, there isn't one. :-) I've re-posted in support of your idea that the PROJGUIDE#OWN shortcut is poor. I move that we have nothing further to argue about. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- We also have a policy/guideline somewhere about being bold but if you're making major changes, it's a good thing to let other editors know why you're making the changes. I don't think your explanation on the talk page was specific enough. At any rate, I'm not going to revert your work, and I don't think I have ever indicated that I would. I only wanted to concentrate on the section not using the harshest language to start out with, through its shortcut or its title. I should be able to link to the section without the editor I'm referring to it thinking I'm accusing them of WP:OWN. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"Participants" vs "members"
Could you point me to where the decision to use "participant" rather than "member" for WikiProjects is documented? I note that although looking at a random selection of WikiProject pages suggests most use "participant" on the project page (with the interesting exception of WikiProject Birds), all the templates I looked at in Category:WikiProject user templates used "member". Apart from WP:OWN issues, "participant" seems to me to be more likely to encourage people to join in than "member", since to become a "member" of a group normally requires some qualification or approval process. I'd like to change the user project template for WP:PLANTS at least, but would like to know where this is supported, should there be objections. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was a mass action at WP:CFD. I'm in the middle of cleaning up Landrace again (the usual suspect has been blatantly misrepresenting sources, among other problem there). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll search the archives myself, but if you ever have the time, you're probably more likely to find the information than I am. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: I think this is the main one: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#More WikiProject participants, following on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#Category:WikiProject Chemistry participants. It's notable that in the first it's suggested that "we can't come to conclusion on members vs. participants", and the "More WikiProject participants" one immediately after it did just that. This may have come up at MFD, too, to move various non-category pages around. I usually do it as non-controversial WP:RM, and do not recall ever having such a move controverted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
PS: Going back even further, I found another one, in which I actually opposed preferring one over the other; changed my mind on that later after some of the WP:OWN problems surrounding wikiprojects became clearer. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. There's much more variability/confusion over this than I thought. It seems possible to find every combination of "participant" vs. "member" on WikiProject pages, their user templates, and the resulting category name. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: It was mostly all cleaned up at one point, but has obviously crept again. I changed all usage in WP:WikiProject Council/Guide to "partcipants", so that may help prevent more "members" creep. I guess we need to make a list of stuff to rename, and start RM, CfD, etc., processes for them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The main problem area is user templates. I checked Category:WikiProject user templates again; looking at about 20 randomly chosen entries found only one that used "participant". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: It was mostly all cleaned up at one point, but has obviously crept again. I changed all usage in WP:WikiProject Council/Guide to "partcipants", so that may help prevent more "members" creep. I guess we need to make a list of stuff to rename, and start RM, CfD, etc., processes for them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. There's much more variability/confusion over this than I thought. It seems possible to find every combination of "participant" vs. "member" on WikiProject pages, their user templates, and the resulting category name. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: I think this is the main one: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#More WikiProject participants, following on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#Category:WikiProject Chemistry participants. It's notable that in the first it's suggested that "we can't come to conclusion on members vs. participants", and the "More WikiProject participants" one immediately after it did just that. This may have come up at MFD, too, to move various non-category pages around. I usually do it as non-controversial WP:RM, and do not recall ever having such a move controverted. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll search the archives myself, but if you ever have the time, you're probably more likely to find the information than I am. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Landrace balance
Apropos Landrace, I have looked over the section on plants from time to time and sighed to myself – in my view it's far from NPOV (basically written as "landrace" = good, "cultivar" = bad), depends on too few sources (partly responsible for the NPOV) and ignores modern approaches to describing and naming cultivated plants, such as the ICNCP. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Yep, needs a lot of work. Part of the problem here is that it began as a very simple article on the term, but has turned into a polarized piece because a certain editor or two seem to feel outright threatened in some way by the idea that some horse "breeds" in the broadest possible sense are landraces (or "landrace breeds" in FAO's neologistic internal terminology) rather than formal, standardized breeds. It's turned into some kind of holy war against the concept of landrace. A consequence of this is reliance on sources that really, really clearly spell out the difference between landraces and other domestic animal and plant categorizations, and these are mostly "genetic resources" conservation articles, which pretty much automatically take a dim view of cultivars and formal animal breeds. Their only real concern is preservation of genetic diversity, while other major concerns, like productivity of agricultural output, or even simple aesthetics and breeding for them, aren't given much attention in such sources.
I'm not really sure what the solution is, other than simply biding enough time that anyone with an extreme point of view to push loses interest and goes away to work on other articles again, and someone like you in the interim improves the article with balancing sources like ICNCP. Their detailed nomenclature system doesn't seem incompatible with landrace classification, any more than it is with heirloom plant classification. The landrace question is fairly simple: Is this a regionally isolated, domesticated organism adapted to its local environment on its own through free-breeding selection in it area, or is it something mostly shaped by selective, pedigreed breeding for specific qualities (in particular, over the last century or so)?
This doesn't seem to me to interfere with ICNCP classification of something as varietas, forma, etc., since landrace vs. standardized breed is about a human management question. To me, ICNCP's system is, by way of analogy, like deciding if a pickup truck is a Ford, a Chevrolet, etc., then what model it is, then what year, then what "trim level" or options package; the landrace question is like asking whether it was designed for the commercial delivery vs. personal/family use markets. Or in personal computers, the landrace distinctions is analogous to off-the-shelf PCs (generally made from whatever parts the manufacturer has procured) vs. a custom-built machine built to exacting specs, e.g. for gaming, or A-V development, or whatever; in that metaphor, ICNCP's nomenclature is akin to the technical specs (CPU and bus architecture, etc.), which are independent of the build process and any specialized intent. I'm not trying to 'splain to you what ICNCP is doing – you know better than I do – but conceptualize how the approach differs, in simple terms, so that the article can be adjusted without it turning into another dispute from the usual quarters. Metaphors like this tend to be helpful in that regard, as long as they're apt. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- As with a number of topics, it seems clear what a sensible article would say, but finding reliable sources that say it isn't easy. To turn a landrace into a cultivar (plant) or a breed (animal) requires human management to impose uniform compliance with some describable standard, so that it's possible to judge that a single individual organism is, or is not, an example of that cultivar (a legal requirement for selling seed under a cultivar name in many countries) or breed (a requirement for showing breeds). A landrace, on the other hand, is much more variable – often deliberately so – hence there may well be organisms not clearly assignable to one landrace or another, particularly those developed in similar locations/environments, even though the landraces as a whole are distinguishable. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I concur, on every point. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- As with a number of topics, it seems clear what a sensible article would say, but finding reliable sources that say it isn't easy. To turn a landrace into a cultivar (plant) or a breed (animal) requires human management to impose uniform compliance with some describable standard, so that it's possible to judge that a single individual organism is, or is not, an example of that cultivar (a legal requirement for selling seed under a cultivar name in many countries) or breed (a requirement for showing breeds). A landrace, on the other hand, is much more variable – often deliberately so – hence there may well be organisms not clearly assignable to one landrace or another, particularly those developed in similar locations/environments, even though the landraces as a whole are distinguishable. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 24 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Landrace page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Nazi Party
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazi Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 26 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Landrace page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Asking here, not there
Not wanting to stir up yet one more controversy, but I thought I'd float a balloon over an idea. If you are opposed, I won't pursue it further, but I'm seriously wondering if there is at least a partial solution to the landrace dilemma with this: Make two articles, one on plants, one on animals. You know that I generally tend to disfavor splitting and forking, so you realize that I'm making a sincere proposal - this time I wonder if it would ratchet down some of the drama because I think part of the problem is comparing "apples and oranges" (or apples and cattle, oranges and sheep - to be more precise). The plant article will probably be longer and more complex, as the concept has been around longer, and there are way more peer-reviewed sources on plants. The animal one will probably still have disputed material, but at least we will know what we are fighting about. But I suspect the whole problem began with a lot of animal articles linking to "landrace", which when you clicked on the link, originally was mostly a plant article. I won't even debate titling, perhaps Landrace (plant) and Landrace (animal) or Plant landrace and Animal landrace - whatever. I can also still move articles if you want to set up sandboxes... if you like the idea, I'll slap on a "split" template and we can just state at talk that we agree on the split and if no one else cares, then when the two new articles are at least sketched out, even if we still disagree on content, the landrace one becomes a dab. Your friend above, Peter Coxhead, may be useful to work on the plant one. Montanabw(talk) 05:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: I don't necessarily see it as more controversy. My reactions to this are mixed, but hopeful. I'll format this in a "listy" way that hopefully doesn't trigger another of your "tl;dr" reactions, and will try to phrase my concerns in terms of my perceptions rather than make statements about your actions.
- Basically I could support this, with conditions, but I remain skeptical because of ongoing conflict. I agree it could be helpful, because it would keep the sourcing more separate. However, two obvious concerns on this are:
- Some sources in botany and zoology have published general, not botany- or zoology-specific, information about landraces and the concept thereof, but one may be apt to use inverse original research to try to limit them to one or the other. I base this observation on recent edit history at the article (i.e. the last two months, give or take).
- From my point of view, you're already evading WP:BRD in your efforts to advance the FAO and OED definitions, in the lead, as the broadest-applicable ones, when they're the exact opposite. It isn't raising my confidence level in this split proposal not being some kind of divide-and-conquer move. But who knows? We've both been critical of each other lately. You seem to be trying to show that "landrace is just a kind of breed", in a way that can mislead. I'm not implying any motive here, just observing a result that I perceive: It will confuse readers, it's not practical, and it doesn't accurately reflect the sources and their contexts. We can't use an odd, ambiguous, super-broad definition of "breed" in Wikipedia's voice, any more than we'd promote a definition of "automobile" that included aircraft and tanks and motorboats, just because some source somewhere was found using the term that broadly. It's a serious neutrality, and source reliability, and undue weight problem, and it would be even if I agreed with your distaste for the term "landrace" and it being applied to horses.
- Perhaps it would be helpful to stop playing edit-summary chess, and just have a simple discussion about what our goals and concerns with regard to this article are? We can do that in a section below. That might go a huge way toward resolving our disputes, especially if it's here in user talk and not "recorded live in front of an article-talk-page audience". Lower pressure and tension. You say I talk too much, so you go first.
- Non-negotiable: No more personalizing accusations or labeling or characterizations (that includes "bullying", "aggressive", "vicious", etc.), no ad hominem arguments, no attacks, no assumptions of bad faith. At all, not from me, not from you, not in a back-door way by you backing up one of the other usual suspects in making them against me at wikiproject or animal breed talk pages, etc. However, no spinning of legitimate editorial concerns as "attacks" (e.g. I can't say you're attacking me if you claim an edit of mine has a POV problem, or that an argument of mine is misconstruing NPOV, nor vice versa with our roles reversed).
- There are other points to consider, but this is a start. You told me the other day that you effectively have no faith in me at all; I don't think that's really true or you wouldn't be here. You know mine with regard to you is also seriously eroded, but not dead, or I wouldn't be talking to you either. How do we repair that? I'll have specific concessions I'll want to enumerate, and I'm sure you will, too. I also have practical matters to raise about the split should it be proposed, but let's build the bridge before we try to cross it.
- PS: Plants, and @Peter coxhead: Peter disagrees with me about as often as not, but we usually avoid this sort of tooth-gnashing, and have learned to collaborate, though we used to argue more angrily. I'm not sure why you and I are having so much difficulty in that regard. I try to avoid classifying people as "friends" or not (much less "enemies" >;-) on here because it can cause "choosing sides" problems, as you have experienced yourself at RM. I would hope that he takes an interest in directly clarifying the plant-related material. My own interest is primarily on the animal side, for now. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC) PS: Logging out for a bit to get some real-world project work completed, so if I don't get back to you rapidly it's not because I'm ignoring you. Take your time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Trust me, I'm so far beyond skeptical that you have no idea. But I think you are smart enough to see it's a partial way out of this morass. I see no need for preconditions, but you like responses, so here are mine:
- General sources could be used in both articles where appropriate. Many articles throughout wikipedia have minor sections that mirror other articles. No need to create segregated sources
- And from my viewpoint, it is you who violate BRD, etc., etc., so let's just stop casting aspersions or assuming motives and drop that whole stick
- If you don't like the FAO and OED, then provide direct quotations from better quality sources that you find. I view them as the best sources I have found that provide a "definition" that can be applied to animals. Doesn't mean there isn't something better, but I haven't found it yet.
- You misunderstand my views about landraces, but FWIW, maybe I have not comprehended your view accurately and some of our disputes are because we are arguing with an empty chair. See next point, a bit tl;dr, your call if you want to read it.
- A bit tl;dr, your call if you want to read this bit: I'm oversimplifying (for the sake of brevity) but my own views are that genetic diversity is a good thing, but so too is the creation of predictable, consistent traits. I believe that rare breeds of livestock generally are worth preserving for any number of good reasons. So to me, yes, landraces are a type of breed (as Sponenberg says, an early stage in breed development), but that's a GOOD thing. To say a landrace isn't a "real "breed" is an insult! To deny landraces the status of "breeds" just because there is no registry or written set of pedigrees implies they are poor quality mongrels of unpredictable genetics and no particular value. Just because people didn't write down pedigrees and supervise mating doesn't mean that an animal landrace isn't genetically consistent and possessed of positive traits.
- I find Sponenberg's work of interest and quite credible.
- Yes, massive multiple edits with long summaries are useless for collaboration. I kind of like putting minor comments in hidden text, to be removed when addressed, but you don't like that method, so that leaves talk page.
- "Not negotiable?" Well, if you can, look in the mirror and realize that you are criticizing others for doing the very things you are doing to them. However, you may not agree with my position on this, so we may be at an impasse. I will not unilaterally disarm as a precondition to collaboration nor agree not to call you on what I view as problem behavior; but if the content works, we have no reason to spat. If you make no assumptions, cast no aspersions, focus on content, and realize that you might actually be the one who is wrong, can we accomplish something? Yeah, I could work with that.
- I think you are intelligent and capable of creating good content. I think enlightened self-interest means we both would prefer to work on content than waste bandwidth fighting about creating content. That's enough.
- I will not make assumptions as to why we are in conflict, though some of it may be due to irreconcilable differences on issues that may not be of cosmic importance to thre rest of the world (like capitalization and naming of animal breeds) we may have to agree to disagree on some things
- Further steps: I will post a split tag at the landrace article with a statement that you and I are looking at this as a way to clarify the content and improve coverage of the topic. Montanabw(talk) 05:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- @Montanabw: I've taken the liberty of refactoring to number the points for easier reference later, if necessary.
- I'm not sure that gets at what I was getting at. I'm talking about general material in topically specific sources, not in general sources. I.e., a paper about botany can make a general point about biology, and misconstruing it as only applicable to botany because of the journal it's in would be a form of WP:OR.
- I'm talking principally about you re-re-re-installing FAO and OED into the lead at Landrace when there's an ongoing dispute, under WP:BRD, about the applicability of those definition at Talk:Landrace.
- We have a fundamental disagreement there, I do not agree with your position on that and we aren't going to resolve it here. It's one reason I favor splitting the article, though, as the plant side has some clear definitions used in peer-reviewed literature, while animals do not. --(Montanabw)
- Splitting the article will simply result in two places instead of one to pursue the same dispute, so no thanks. (SMcCandlish)
- We have a fundamental disagreement there, I do not agree with your position on that and we aren't going to resolve it here. It's one reason I favor splitting the article, though, as the plant side has some clear definitions used in peer-reviewed literature, while animals do not. --(Montanabw)
- Has nothing to do with "like". FAO's definition is an internal one, and OED's is vague and contradicted by other sources. There is no requirement anywhere to use direct quotations; we're generally encouraged not to do so, but to write new material based on sources, instead of parroting them. The fact that FAO has "a definition" is meaningless to us when that definition is explicitly vague on purpose to ensure equal legal treatment of landraces and standardized breeds, regardless of the factual differences between them, in genetic conservation legal contexts. That's a very, very special case, and it can't be generalized into an actual encyclopedic definition of "landrace". That's a textbook case of WP:UNDUE and well as presenting both WP:V and WP:NPOV problems (it fails actual verification as to the intended meaning and context, and it advances FAO's government bureaucracy as more reliable than peer-reviewed science).
- See above. I have found no better sources defining animal landraces and OED is a RS that augments FAO for animals - I still am asking for peer-reviewed definitions. Sponenberg may be one, but I want to see a direct quotation, as you and I clearly cannot even agree on what a source says. (Montanabw)
- I've already address why both of these sources are faulty. Ignoring these arguments doesn't make them go away. (SMcCandlish)
- See above. I have found no better sources defining animal landraces and OED is a RS that augments FAO for animals - I still am asking for peer-reviewed definitions. Sponenberg may be one, but I want to see a direct quotation, as you and I clearly cannot even agree on what a source says. (Montanabw)
- Thank you for clarifying! Two points, sorta: First, you're still misapplying Sponenberg, who says that landraces can be a stage in breed development. That means neither that they are always stages in breed development nor that they are, under most definition of the word, "breeds". Again, I'm okay with selectively using FAO's definitions, in a few rare spots were we think we need to in order to avoid disputes, but only if they're sourced and explained properly. Second, this gets at the "insult"/"status" problem, and I have long suspected that this was the root of our disagreement. Landraces are not breeds as that word is usually used, including on Wikipedia, i.e. "standardized, formal breed". If we occasionally mean to use a wider sense of "breed", e.g. in some horse articles, we have to be clear that it's a special definition and where it came from. So really, these are the same point. No one anywhere has suggested landraces are poor-quality mongrels; the main reason I care about the article at is because they're not.
I also agree with you about cultivars and formal breeds being vital, and do not want the article to push a POV that landraces are "better" than them; we have sources that say why they have advantages, and we need sources that cover the counter-advantages of formal breeding, like increased production, etc. So we really disagree about this far less than it has seemed.
- I would propose, and have elaborated in a section below, the idea that all of our breed articles need to be clarified to use "standardized breed", etc., not the ambiguous, bare word "breed".
- I can only agree that not all landraces become standardized with a breed registry. The word "breed" IS fuzzy, and as much as you hope to come up with a set definition, I don't think it is doable per WP:SYNTH. If you recall JLAN's post with the definition that notes that biologists don't address questions of breeds in the same way they do with species. Animal breeders - and a lot of people here on wiki - don't really understand that a breed and a species are totally different things! Horses are a particularly good example, as we have everything from landraces to closed stud book registries such as the Thoroughbred, to people who create a designer crossbred and call the second generation a "breed" and use "hybrid" language to justify their (IMHO) nonsense. I read Sponenberg to say that landraces ARE an early stage of breed development, (even if not all get standardized) hence, the word "breed" in a general form applies to landraces in the sense of distinguishing them from mongrels, which I think is a crucial distinction in protecting and preserving landraces, and probably one reason many landraces are labeled "rare breeds" in some contexts. (Montanabw)
- None of these points contradict my position in any way. (SMcCandlish)
- Agreed on Sponenberg, but he's just one source and we can't over-rely, as you understand.
- yes. (Montanabw)
- Yes, let's use the talk page, and individual edits for different kinds of changes. Peter coxhead and others are taking an interest in this article, and it's not fair to them for us to treat it like it's our own pet. :-) Transparency and participation are good.
- Re: "Not negotiable": I pointedly included myself in that. I'm skeptical that we'll have no reason for conflict ever just because of a mutual attitude shift, but I think the strife level should go way down. Your one-sided response is not encouraging, frankly.
- You may not realize that you presented a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposal. (Montanabw) You extensively discuss the mote in my eye while failing to see the log in your own - your comments that you are including yourself are tempered by other comments that indicate that you don't think you have done anything wrong. We won't resolve this here and it is actually irrelevant to the content discussion, again bringing personalities into the matter. (Montanabw)
- I don't see where you're getting that from. You seem to be playing some kind of power game here. Not interested. (SMcCandlish)
- You may not realize that you presented a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposal. (Montanabw) You extensively discuss the mote in my eye while failing to see the log in your own - your comments that you are including yourself are tempered by other comments that indicate that you don't think you have done anything wrong. We won't resolve this here and it is actually irrelevant to the content discussion, again bringing personalities into the matter. (Montanabw)
- Agreed.
- Agreed.
- The conditions I mentioned: I'd be inclined to support the split idea, given both of the following: a) agreement to stop inserting FAO and OED into the lead pending resolution of that dispute, and b) actually using the "landrace breed" FAO terminology on Kiger Mustang as a test, as I outlined already at Talk:Landrace. These will be sufficient demonstration to me that a split will be a step forward rather than multiplying an editwar into two editwars.
- See "heads I win, tails you lose" above. This isn't a horse trading issue, and I'm not reopening the Kiger Mustang issue. It's closed, it was a 5-1 consensus and that's a stick to drop. (Montanabw)
- That's not it at all. See below (interleaving comments like this is a pain; I numbered them for a reason). (SMcCandlish)
- See "heads I win, tails you lose" above. This isn't a horse trading issue, and I'm not reopening the Kiger Mustang issue. It's closed, it was a 5-1 consensus and that's a stick to drop. (Montanabw)
- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: I've taken the liberty of refactoring to number the points for easier reference later, if necessary.
-
-
-
- (Big, deep sigh) Now you are basically asking that the content issue that is creating all the problems be resolved in alignment with your POV (or viewpoint, to not shout with capitals) before we even start. Your point suggest that before we do anything, I have to admit that you are right and I am wrong. That's "heads I win, tails you lose". That's like Israel telling the Palestinians to unilaterally disarm before they can hold peace talks. Not going to happen. We still should split the articles, personalities and battles aside. Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's not it at all. See below — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- (Big, deep sigh) Now you are basically asking that the content issue that is creating all the problems be resolved in alignment with your POV (or viewpoint, to not shout with capitals) before we even start. Your point suggest that before we do anything, I have to admit that you are right and I am wrong. That's "heads I win, tails you lose". That's like Israel telling the Palestinians to unilaterally disarm before they can hold peace talks. Not going to happen. We still should split the articles, personalities and battles aside. Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
-
-
Terminology proposal
I would propose (informally; this is not a WP:PROPOSAL) that all of our breed articles need to be clarified to use "standardized breed" or some synonym ("formal breed", etc.) when we mean that, at least on first occurrence, and linked to Breed. If we use landrace link it to Landrace. If we use "landrace breed", link it to Landrace, and avoid "breed" by itself as ambiguous.
If you (Montanabw) and FAO have a very broad sense of the word "breed", so may some other readers. That makes the term ambiguous at least some of the time, so we have a duty to clarify in article text. If every case has "X is a standardized breed" or either "X is a landrace" or (when we really, really want to use FAO terms) "X is a landrace breed", then no more problem, ever. Just never say "X is a breed".
As a draft criterion, I would suggest that we use FAO's "landrace breed" only for livestock, not pet breeds/landraces. Secondly, it should only be for cases where a preponderance of sources actually use the term "breed" in a very broad way to also include what we know are landrace breeds, which is probably most if not all horse landraces, because horse encyclopedias and the like tend to call everything "breeds" and distinguish formal/standardized ones by saying "standardized breed" or whatever. But it probably does not apply to many others. In goats and pigs, the phrase "landrace breed" means "standardized breed with the word 'Landrace' in its name", and actual landraces seem mostly to be ignored, i.e. are non-notable. So, "landrace breed" itself can also be ambiguous if used inappropriately. In cats and dogs, what constitutes a breed is generally based on what national and international organization specify, not private-business studbooks, so the issue does not arise. I.e., there is no question at all that the Van cat is a landrace not a standardized breed, and the term "breed" should not be applied to it, nor "landrace breed" since it'll just be redundantly long.
This is obviously just an informal proposal on my talk page, for agreement between us. We'd have to see if it actually worked well in real articles, but I'd bet money that it will. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite, I think that is the very content issue we are debating and it is not resolved. I also think that a lot of the trouble you are having with other editors is because you are making these broad, universal proposals for things where there is not a broad, universal consensus, even in the real world, let alone on wikipedia. (Some "round pegs' are actually oval, and some are even square; they just don't all fit) To some extent, "landrace" as applied to animals is a neologism, and the definition, even in plants, still obviously in flux (unless Camacho Villa's 2005 definition has been universally accepted) I think the FAO is the most reliable source so far (of modern sources, at least) for what a "landrace" animal (at least livestock) is, though if you have found a better source, please provide it (I keep asking, I do not think one has been found?) I would partially agree that the word "landrace" as applied to cats and dogs is probably not within the scope of the FAO definition, but absent one applicable to dog and cat landraces, we have to be careful not to insert definitions where none exist (which is why the OED is helpful, it's a default where there are o better sources) While I do think (tentatively) that Sponenberg's structure of landrace breeds, standardized breeds, etc. is one of the best RS out there and contains the lingo we may ultimately agree upon, we cannot at this time make a blanket policy until we have both articles stabilized. I do not agree that a "breed" is only a "standardized breed", though I have no problem linking "standardized breed" to "breed" where it is appropriate to do so. Given that there are breeds with the name "landrace" in them, I kind of think right now I'd prefer to just link the word "landrace" by itself. There are also a number of articles that use Autochthonous also, and we have yet to even start on that one... Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
-
I do not agree that a "breed" is only a "standardized breed", though I have no problem linking "standardized breed" to "breed" where it is appropriate to do so. Then there is no disagreement, basically. What is it you think you're arguing with me about? How can you be telling me I'm wrong when I'm telling you you're right, that "breed" can be used more broadly in some sources than "standardized breed"; we have to write more carefully to disambiguate? I even also prefer "landrace" by itself, but you're the one, not me, insisting that the word "breed" be applied to all distinguishable horse populations, so the solution that presents tiself is "landrace breed", a term we can source to FAO. You know, the source you are so insistent is the most reliable? How are we even still having a disagreement about this?
- Minor points we maybe don't even need to discuss, given what I just asked:
-
Doodle doodle dee... |
---|
Landrace as applied to animals is not a neologism; it dates to no later than the early 1930s (when it entered English via pig landrace breeds, so the term was already in use in Dutch, etc., no later than the '20s). We have reliable sources for this in the article already. Exact parameters of definitions are always in flux about most all terms of art in science. The central ideas of the concept have remained constant: A landrace is a distinguishable population of a domesticated species, adapted to its local environment mostly without selective human breeding, with a greater degree of variability than a standardized breed/cultivar, but enough homogeneity to be distinguishable. There's really nothing more to it as a basic definitional matter. Various specific definitions emphasize or de-emphasize one thing or another, or add or subtract some constraint, such as connection to traditional agriculture, but the basic facts are pretty consistent. |
-
- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Conflating content, theory and other stuff
@Montanabw: I have made a move proposal as a step in resolving a content dispute. I don't think it works to say that we have to resolve the content dispute before there is a move; the point is that the move will split off the less contentious and confusing material (on plants) from the more contentious material where there is not as much agreement and much ambiguity on terms. Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can't support the split if we can't agree on a few basic things, like no to editwarring, yes to being civil, and yes to using unambiguous terms. We can even get past most of the content disputes rapidly if you'll just allow the agreement to happen. We're not actually in many of the disagreements you think we're in. However, it will be very divisive (no pun intended) to proceed with a split given the present state of conflict. Nothing you've said here actually addresses the heading you used, so I'm not sure what you were getting at; who is conflating any of these things, where, in what way? The material about animals is not confusing in any way. Who else do you see contending against it? There's very little ambiguity, except when one fails to clarify the word "breed" by indicating whether we mean standardized breeds or standardized+landrace breeds. It's really that simple. There's nothing to argue about when one realizes this. Seriously, nowhere, any time elsewhere on Wikipedia would people argue this much about whether to use clear wording. They'd simply say, "oh, yeah, that's ambiguous" and just clarify it and move on. So, ball's in your court. What on earth is the problem? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
-
- Not confusing? Excuse me, but you have citations in that article that go to dead links and you claim the FAO isn't an RS, you make up your own definition of breed and then say with a straight face that there is nothing to argue about? One huge problem is defining animal landraces, and by splitting the articles, we have a simpler situation, plant landraces have more peer0reviewed material - and frankly, I also don't really give a rip about plant stuff in this context (Other than a general attitude of support for genetic diversity and a dislike of factory farming monoculture) so I wouldn't be bothering to edit the plant article much at all, which would reduce the controversy. You also fail to understand that wiki isn't a source for wiki, so when I ask for sources, do not say "go to that article." Unsourced material can be removed. But I'm tired of beating my head against the wall here, Yes, here you ARE just wrong but haven't figured that out yet.Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm going to itemize this so you'll read it.
- There were no actual dead link citations in that article. It's possible that one or another of them will only work as http not https links, in which case I'll fix them. [It was, I fixed it. All you have to do is add "http:" back after
|url=
.] If there were a real dead link [i.e. resources deleted from original site, or site gone], the way to repair that is to go to the http://Archive.org site and look it up in the "Wayback Machine" form in the middle of that page, and get the|archiveurl=
and|archivedate=
for the citation from there. Virtually no actually reliable source is ever a truly dead link any more because Archive.org will have copies. No one can use a broken URL as an excuse to start a bogus dispute. Doing so would be WP:BATTLEGROUNDing and WP:Tendentious editing. - I've made up no definition of anything. The Talk:Landrace page is full of requests for you to prove the accusations you're making against me (numerous unexplained claims of text not agreeing with sources, of WP:SYNTH, etc.), and you've failed to do it, ever. Meanwhile, I've proven with more reliable sources than your bureaucratese document, quoted out of context, and dicdef, proven to conflict with peer-reviewed sources, that several of your arguments are demonstrable novel synthesis and redefinition to support a personal view. I seem to recall you accusing me of psychological projection twice. I suspect any independent reviewer would reverse that interpretation. [Update: I'm going through these, and at least one of them is sourced by the very reference cited already in the same sentence! Stop wasting both our time with this WP:DRIVEBY/WP:OVERTAGGING campaign. I consider it demonstrably disruptive at this point.
- Your split proposal doesn't make sense in these terms. It is 100% exactly as easy to source material about animal landraces on one page as on another. Sources don't magically appear, or say different things, when you move wikicode to another page here.
- Your split proposal would not reduce controversy, since no one is arguing about the plant-related material; X - 0 = X. I asked for three simple agreements in order to support this split as a good idea: Agreement to abide by WP:AGF/WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL, agreement to respect WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS at that article (or "those articles" if split), and agreement to using "landrace breed" and "standardized breed" instead of ambiguously referring to "breed" as if it had a single definition when we know it doesn't, because we both now agree that horse people and sources consider landraces to be "breeds" in the broad sense (i.e. landrace breeds). You pointedly refused all three proposed agreements. Now you're going to berate me for not supporting the split? Of course I can't support it; it's a recipe for additional conflict. You're declaring a triple refusal to avoid further conflict.
- No one is citing Wikipedia as a source for itself. I'm telling you where sources are already cited that you can just copy-paste. You and only you are making a claim that so-and-so breed being derived from a landrace is a controversial claim. When we already have a source for it, there's no controversy. Pretending there is just to litter an article with pointless dispute tags or delete material we know is already sourced would simply be disruption to make a point and wikilawyering. If it'll appease you (why I bother, I don't know), I can go deal with that rote material myself, but it's seriously a waste of time to devote any energy to that until the article is nearing GA review stage; non-controversial material does not need to have independent citations until then, when we already know we have sources for it one article over. You've done enough GA/FA improvement, you know this already. Honestly, I don't care much about this silly game. As long as no one's still advancing poor primary and tertiary sources, out of context, as if they trump peer-reviewed secondary sources, these minor nit-picks between us are just that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever. I'm tired of these circular arguments with you. I feel that the well's being poisoned here, the earth scorched, and I'll have no part of it. Keep it to Talk:Landrace. We're both under administrative orders to stop personalizing disputes there, so we'll stop, and stick to the sources and the policies. I've already been doing that, and as usual you've been ignoring it entirely or selectively, and failing to address the WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV concerns raised. There's only one road that leads down, and you've got the wheel. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- There were no actual dead link citations in that article. It's possible that one or another of them will only work as http not https links, in which case I'll fix them. [It was, I fixed it. All you have to do is add "http:" back after
- PS: You still haven't clarified what you mean by "Conflating content, theory and other stuff". Looks very much like an accusation of some kind, but unsupported by anything. Par for this course, I suppose. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- We are equally tired of circular arguments. And I'm tired of your endless bullying and tendentiousness. You need to look in the mirror and recognize that most of the accusations you level at me are equally applicable to yourself. Until that time, there is no sense arguing with you. As for poisoning the well, yup, you use that phrase AFTER I introduced you to it by pointing out that it's your own MO. All for now. Montanabw(talk) 02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence. The second is entirely mutual, and I'm aware neither of us accept the terms of that criticism from the other. Ditto the third. Wholeheartedly agree with the fourth. (Aside: I don't recall you using the phrase "poisoning the well" until after I used it several days ago (you much more recently used it at WP:RFPP, hours ago). It's a phrase I've used, along with "scorched earth", for over 20 years.) You seem to me to actually be reusing every complaint I make with regard to your edits, just proving the point that the third sentence is entirely mutual. Regardless, I'm going to take this as tacit mutual acceptance that we really are tired of these arguments, and mutually see the same problems in each others' approaches (without conceding the other is correct), and that the episode has not been productive. So, thanks for stating it clearly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- We are equally tired of circular arguments. And I'm tired of your endless bullying and tendentiousness. You need to look in the mirror and recognize that most of the accusations you level at me are equally applicable to yourself. Until that time, there is no sense arguing with you. As for poisoning the well, yup, you use that phrase AFTER I introduced you to it by pointing out that it's your own MO. All for now. Montanabw(talk) 02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to itemize this so you'll read it.
-
@Montanabw: Rather than "all for now", how about "all for quite a while"? Perhaps a mutual WP:SHUN is in order, I'd propose for at least 30 days, barring substantive disputes about content that have to be addressed, and even then only doing it in utterly de-personalized terms, e.g. "I believe this edit raises a POV problem, because...", "There seems to be a SYNTH issue with that argument, due to...", as if the editor who made the edits in question did not exist and the edits appeared out of nowhere. I've found this technique helpful in [two-way] disarming disputes of this sort, and I've ended up good collaborators with some people after 1-3 months of such mutual personal avoidance. What say you? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a new set of CAPS article to me. Interesting concept. I am quite reluctant to say anything—yes or no—because past history suggests you may interpret a "deal" differently than I do and thus use it against me later. That said, depersonalizing things is good and wise to try. Also wise is to avoid shouting so loud that one cannot be heard. I do hope that you realize that my views are as legitimate as yours and stated with more good will (at least at first) than you may think. Montanabw(talk) 05:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can certainly shake on that. (But I did not get what you mean by "That's a new set of CAPS article to me." Not sure which CAPS that refers to.) Maybe no two-way shunning for a while is really necessary, though we can keep it in mind if things get out of hand again. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Interview for The Signpost
- This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Agriculture
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Agriculture for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 09:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Sally Binford
I'm in an intro to archaeological theory class, and a friend pointed out that there's no article on Sally Binford. I don't have the sources to write anything more than a one-line stub... would you have anything? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not right at hand. Have archaeology text books in a box somewhere. I wonder if anyone's written a biography book about her? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not that I can find. Information on her seems to be extremely sparse.[9] There's all of one mention of her in the Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- [tps] So that would establish notability at least? Curiously, before I looked at that link closely, I did a similar search of gbooks but without the quotation marks [10] that turns up her date of death as 1993 by suicide [11] (and hmm, "an explicit movie about elderly sexuality in 1974 titled 'A ripple in time'".) In addition, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned Oxford Companion yields "in addition to his academic publications, a key role in the formation of New Archaeology group identity was the symposium organized in 1965 by Lewis and Sally Binford at the American Anthropological Association in Denver (Binford and Binford 1968...)[12]. (Also he had six marriages, which is at least 3 or 4 too many, but I don't suppose you can put that in.) And from the 1996 edition "Lewis Binford and Sally Binford also conducted an analysis of variability in Mousterian chipped-stone artifacts; their work touched off heated debates that rage to this day. Although further research has undermined the findings of some ..." [13]. Buckets of notability. And three sentences at least. [Tiptoeing out now....] —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's enough probably to establish notability. I find plenty of other stuff with Google "Sally+Binford"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, like a Northwest Archaeology article, an interview, etc., just on first page of results. She's co-notable for all the notable work she's credited as doing with Lewis. He's the more famous of the two, but they're often referred to as a pair, like Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy, or Marie & Pierre Curie. I don't know loads and loads about her, but I'd be surprised if she's not individually credited on various papers and such. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- My professor today, although I don't know his sources, says that she was far more influential than it appears, but a combination of old-fashioned sexism and the popularity of Lewis combined to keep her from many history books. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's enough probably to establish notability. I find plenty of other stuff with Google "Sally+Binford"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8, like a Northwest Archaeology article, an interview, etc., just on first page of results. She's co-notable for all the notable work she's credited as doing with Lewis. He's the more famous of the two, but they're often referred to as a pair, like Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy, or Marie & Pierre Curie. I don't know loads and loads about her, but I'd be surprised if she's not individually credited on various papers and such. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- [tps] So that would establish notability at least? Curiously, before I looked at that link closely, I did a similar search of gbooks but without the quotation marks [10] that turns up her date of death as 1993 by suicide [11] (and hmm, "an explicit movie about elderly sexuality in 1974 titled 'A ripple in time'".) In addition, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned Oxford Companion yields "in addition to his academic publications, a key role in the formation of New Archaeology group identity was the symposium organized in 1965 by Lewis and Sally Binford at the American Anthropological Association in Denver (Binford and Binford 1968...)[12]. (Also he had six marriages, which is at least 3 or 4 too many, but I don't suppose you can put that in.) And from the 1996 edition "Lewis Binford and Sally Binford also conducted an analysis of variability in Mousterian chipped-stone artifacts; their work touched off heated debates that rage to this day. Although further research has undermined the findings of some ..." [13]. Buckets of notability. And three sentences at least. [Tiptoeing out now....] —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not that I can find. Information on her seems to be extremely sparse.[9] There's all of one mention of her in the Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
RfC guidance requested
I have opened a Request for Comments at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Animal_breeds. I'm a moderately casual editor, and I've never opened an RfC before, so any guidance in the conduct and resolution of this event would be most appreciated. Thanks! Krychek (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Krychek: I moved it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as it's a top-level MOS issue, not just a WP:MOSCAPS issue. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conformation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Julian calendar
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Julian calendar. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Asturian Mountain may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- in the European Union|protected designation]] "Casin" after the Asturian town of [[Caso]]). The breed is also known as the '''Casina'''<ref name="ASEAMO raza" /><ref name="UNESCO Redes">{{
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Software solution?
Per the capitalization discussion (round 20,000) at the relevant MOS page, I did think of one thing that actually could be a way to deescalate this whole thing: As I stated there, the truth is that the real reason WP uses sentence case and not title case (like the rest of the world) is not due to it being consistent with any style manual that I know of, but because the software seems to insist that Capitals and lower-case letters are two different things - for Caps, at least. I remember this from when I first started editing wiki, and how weird it was. I've gotten used to it, but it really is a problem, and not just on breed articles. I've seen capitalization fights over the names of musical works and so on. If WMF could address this somehow, we'd not only deescalate dozens of capitalization disputes (not all, but some) but also save massive bandwidth taken up by redirects from alternative capitalization. I'm not even sure where to start on this, but given your ability to spend more time online that I can, it may be something you are well-suited to investigate. Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I wish it were that simple. The first problem is that the debate isn't really about article titles, but about usage generally, with article titles being one case, and using in running article prose being the other; the only differences between these are a) initial letter, and b) disambiguation. The second is that the MediaWiki developers are generally very, very slow to change anything. I'm "subscribed" to several bugs in the MW developent Bugzilla site, and many of them have been open for a decade, and simply never get fixed. The answer is typically "the next version of the parser should make this moot", but this rarely happens. Only a trivially small number of the bug fixes (much less additional feature requests) I've been tracking ever get resolved, other than being dismissed as not worth fixing, too hard to fix due to conflicts with other needs in the code, or some other excuse. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- Well, we disagree on a lot of things, but one thing no one can deny is that when you get your teeth into something, you presevere. Seems like poking WMF to fix a legitimate problem would be something you'd be good at. But is anyone actually incharge there? Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: Brion Vibber is WMF's lead developer. As for the solution in question, we'd have to get consensus at WP:AT (for starters) to pursue that, since it would upend WP:DIFFCAPS policy. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, because if the feature were added, WP couldn't install it without not only moving all articles that were differentiated only by capitalization to new titles (think 1,000 contentious RMs over which gets the undisambiguated name), but also somehow prevent creation of any new ones in the interim, then roll it out. Otherwise it would result in database collisions, with two or more articles trying to occupy the same titles, in numerous cases.
An approach Peter coxhead and I had talked about before was a template-based one. It came up with regard to species common names, but could just as well be done for breed names. As a pseudocode example, we could have a template,
{{breed}}
, that capitalized, or didn't, parameters based on input, such that{{breed|p1=American|o2=Quarter}}
would have all three words capitalized in default output, and{{breed|p1=St. John's|g2=water|s3=dog}}
would capitalized only the "S" in "St." and "J" in "Johns". But each field would have a CSS class, that could be operated on by custom user CSS and javascript. Parameters labeled "p" (proper names) would always be capitalized no matter what, but user scripts could be made to capitalize others by different rules, e.g. never or always capitalize those marked "o" ("official" breed name segments, capitalize by default) or "g" (generic segments, don't capitalize by default), and never capitalize "s" segements (species; if one needed to be capitalized, override it with "o"). This would be used as a meta-template, with a{{dog breed}}
template being used with#switch
to call the meta-template correctly for the supplied breed name in the list inside the{{dog breed}}
template, such that{{dog breed|St. John's water dog}}
would translate to{{breed|p1=St. John's|g2=water|s3=dog}}
. People who hate having the species name appear after the breed name could even use the class attached to such a parameter to suppress its display. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)- All of which would be over-complex. 1000 articles would be easier to fix than the alternative. Montanabw(talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not my problem. I didn't create the complexity; it's inherent in the problem. I've offered a solution, and it would be functional. I may well implement it myself, and whether you choose it make use of it or not isn't my concern. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- All of which would be over-complex. 1000 articles would be easier to fix than the alternative. Montanabw(talk) 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: Brion Vibber is WMF's lead developer. As for the solution in question, we'd have to get consensus at WP:AT (for starters) to pursue that, since it would upend WP:DIFFCAPS policy. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, because if the feature were added, WP couldn't install it without not only moving all articles that were differentiated only by capitalization to new titles (think 1,000 contentious RMs over which gets the undisambiguated name), but also somehow prevent creation of any new ones in the interim, then roll it out. Otherwise it would result in database collisions, with two or more articles trying to occupy the same titles, in numerous cases.
- Well, we disagree on a lot of things, but one thing no one can deny is that when you get your teeth into something, you presevere. Seems like poking WMF to fix a legitimate problem would be something you'd be good at. But is anyone actually incharge there? Montanabw(talk) 00:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Capitals and MOS guidance
Not wishing to take up yet more space on the MOS talk page, I thought I'd make a further point here. An example of guidance that just doesn't work is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Compass points. How is an editor supposed to know whether a phrase is an "informal conventional name"? This isn't an abstract issue; I encounter it all the time applied to the distribution of plants. Should I revert this edit or not? I simply don't know. So we end up with completely inconsistent capitalization of compass points all over the place. The MOS must be useable by the great majority of editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's the example you meant (the diff shows a "Defendent" -> "Defendant" change; "Defendent" is either a typo or a Briticism, and shouldn't be used in reference to a US legal case, where the term of art is "Defendant" (and we'd only capitalize it like that in titles of cases). There are lots of things in MOS I loathe, but #Compass_points isn't that troublesome to me. At worst it seems to generate unnecessary RM discussions sometimes, and some editwarring over "northeast" vs. "north-east" (I think it should explicitly cross-reference WP:ENGVAR there; edited it to do so). Regardless, compass points shouldn't be capitalized unless in a proper name. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Strange, when I hover over the "this edit" link above the "tool tip" shows what I meant, but clicking it goes to the wrong one; however, it was my error. This edit replaced "southern Texas" by "Southern Texas". How do I know if this is a "proper name" or what the MOS calls an "informal conventional name"? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- We will never eliminate capitalization/capitalisation and ENGVAR fights on wiki. It is important though, to respect their origins. Some disputes, such as ENGVAR, usually can be resolved in a logical way - by showing respect to the people doing the actual work and the actual practice of actual experts. Montanabw(talk) 19:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- Sure, but that's not the problem here. I've extensively edited articles in US English (like Cactus) and am quite happy to respect its styles – such as not hyphenating words like "south-east" – when I can understand them (I confess to being baffled by US rules about "which" versus "that"). My concern here is that the MOS currently gives guidance which simply can't be followed because "informal conventional name" is unclear. I have the same worry about capitalizing breed names. At least the enthusiasts for capitalizing the English names of birds could give clear guidance: follow one specific published list. There's no such simple source for breed names. "Capitalize only those words capitalized in normal running text" can be followed by virtually all editors. Guidance in the MOS should be clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- And where it is too "clear," some people will not accept a time for IAR - I dread the next round of "let's move American Quarter Horse" to "American quarter horse." At which point, I will no doubt spell out in full some variant of WTF! FFS! and start ripping my hair out! Frankly, I've had quite enough with just discussions about "Shetland Pony" versus "Shetland pony" (which seems a non issue, save in situations where we have a Hackney horse - called simply a "Hackney" in horse land (and not a "hackney", either... ) AND a Hackney Pony - all of which is why I favor letting the RS of experts determine the standard capitalization and not a bed of Procrustes approach where one size is forced to fit all, but few fit...! Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: Well, that's precisely what's going to happen if you and Jlan and a handful of others don't stop trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either agree on a convention that doesn't sharply conflict with sources and with policy, or enough people are going to get fed up with it to just impose the extant rules, which will be decapitalization across the board except for proper names like "American" and "Shetland". I'm basically personally responsible for derailing a motion at WT:MOS just recently to do this, and if y'all won't settle for my alternative proposal there, it's surely just a matter of time, especially because I'll stop trying to head off any further decapitalization moves. I've done all I can to try to help you lot broker a compromise, but yous would rather fight, fight, fight about ever single letter and character. I'm done. The writing is on the WP:BIRDCON wall. You keep saying you're trying to follow the sources, but you're going about it in a cherry-picking manner, preferring only those that support the capitalization system you personally prefer, then switching to support those that help out your "friend" Jlan when he wants to argue the opposite case, etc. Waste of time. There's nothing at all Procrustean about following extant policies and following the sources that are actually reliable about what the formal name of a breed is (the bodies that issued them). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- And where it is too "clear," some people will not accept a time for IAR - I dread the next round of "let's move American Quarter Horse" to "American quarter horse." At which point, I will no doubt spell out in full some variant of WTF! FFS! and start ripping my hair out! Frankly, I've had quite enough with just discussions about "Shetland Pony" versus "Shetland pony" (which seems a non issue, save in situations where we have a Hackney horse - called simply a "Hackney" in horse land (and not a "hackney", either... ) AND a Hackney Pony - all of which is why I favor letting the RS of experts determine the standard capitalization and not a bed of Procrustes approach where one size is forced to fit all, but few fit...! Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- This has drifted a bit off my point, which was not whether your alternative proposal is "right" but whether it is practical. Breed standards are issued by many organizations, which don't always agree on the name, let alone its style. (Thus as the title of a breed standard, the US Kennel Club has "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" [16], the UK and New Zealand Kennel Clubs both have "Welsh Corgi (Cardigan)" [17] [18].) Putting in the MOS capitalize only where published breed standards consistently capitalize the name doesn't provide editors with practical guidance, unless you can link to a list of the "published breed standards" to be consulted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- @Peter coxhead: I think such cases are easily resolved:
- Where 2+ breed standard bodies use the same name but capitalize it differently, use the less-capitalized version, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS (if in doubt, don't capitalize).
- Where they use essentially the same name but a different spelling, use the WP:COMMONNAME (with a nod to WP:ENGVAR - prefer British English for British breeds, etc.)
- Where they use basically the same name but handle an adjective differently, "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. Welsh Corgi (Cardigan), WP:NATURAL would have us prefer the non-parenthetical version.
- Where it's a matter of word order only, e.g. "Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. "Welsh Corgi Cardigan", WP:COMMONNAME.
- Where is a long vs. short name ("Cardigan Welsh Corgi" vs. "Cardigan Corgi"), WP:COMMONNAME, with perhaps a preference for the shorter version, per WP:CONCISE.
- Where is a separate breed with its own name vs. a subbreed in a division ("Cardian Corgi", vs "Welsh Corgi (Cardigan)" or "Welsh Corgi, Cardigan", use WP:SUMMARY style (main article at Welsh Corgi, and a section on the Cardigan variety) until there's reason to split, then treat it as a separate topic, noting in both cases that some registries differ on whether it's a full-status breed in it is own right, or a division of a breed, a subbreed.
- Where is a separate breed with both a unique and derived name (e.g. Cymric vs Longhair Manx, and Himalayan vs. Longhair Siamese, and Exotic vs. Shorthair Persian), prefer the unique name if it is not uncommon (per WP:PRECISE and usually also WP:CONCISE, though it's possible some unique names could be longer than derived ones).
- Where it just has two totally different names, "German Shepherd Dog" (yes, the dog people really insist on including "Dog") vs. "Alsatian", WP:COMMONNAME again, with perhaps a preference for WP:CONCISE.
- Where a registry wants to include the species name, capitalizes as part of the former breed name, but a competing one does not, then don't do it.
-
- For purposes of these tests, use only established national and international registries that cover more than one breed (i.e. notable organizations).
- Look at capitalization in running prose, not headings/titles.
- Do not rely upon capitalization in those written in foreign languages unless they have the same capitalization conventions as English (which many not be any at all).
- Do not rely on breed "encyclopedias" and other tertiary works, as they are prone to overcapitalization of all entries, as are all other forms of field guide, as a form as emphasis for easy visual scanning.
- I'm not sure that left any cases unaccounted for, and I just rattled that off, off the top of my head, so it's not that hard. That paragraph could be reworked into a checklist of bulleted rules in about 5 minutes. [I did it, it took 2.] Each article should, in its infobox, have links to published breed standards. This is very poorly implemented in most of the livestock categories vs. pet-animal categories, unfortunately. Name sourcing discussions may catalyze them to work on these articles to improve that. See Cymric cat's infobox for a good one, that's pretty complete and annotates where registries don't allow it or reclassify it.
PS: On which/that (from post above): Just write proper English as you like. Most highly literate North American and Commonwealth readers follow the same pattern, and if someone from more of a high school English level reverts you (I get reverted on subjunctive all the time), just move on; not worth fighting over. As anyone with a linguistics background knows, the which/that distinction is largely a fiction of Elizabethan through Victorian high society, and wasn't regularly reflected in lower-class writing, so the "wrong" usage has been around for a very long time, and been used by plenty of popular writers of "classics", like Charles Dickens. I prefer to make the distinctions, and to observe who/whom distinction, etc., but avoid getting into protracted arguments about it. You can often return a week later and fix it in the course of a more substantive edit, and no one will notice. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: I think such cases are easily resolved:
-
-
-
-
-
- Ok, so it can be done – if your "alternative proposal" is agreed, I hope you will write up the above at the appropriate MOS subpage. Is it worth the complexity? Not to me, but then I don't care about breed names, so now I'll leave it to those who do... Peter coxhead (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
Please comment on Talk:Arab Winter
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arab Winter. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Your behaviour
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No further antagonistic communication is invited from either Justlettersandnumbers or Montanabw. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Your behaviour in this wiki appears to be out of hand. Please, in your own interest, get a grip on yourself. You must be aware that remarks such as "So SMcCandlish 2, Jlan 0. Shall we go for round 2?", "Game over, please try again" or "my leaping reliable sources style wiki-fu beats their crouching WP:IDLI style. Osu!" will appear to others as indicative of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You must also be aware of the very considerable resentment against you in some areas. Please consider very carefully whether it is wise to provide ammunition to those who might at some point wish to express that resentment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's called a sense of fucking humor. You and two other guys who hate my guts isn't a "very considerable resentment against" me, it just you taking things too personally. Get off my talk page unless you have something constructive to discuss, such as why you're pushing POV and anti-RS positions at articles like Arapawa pig. See you back on the noticeboards, since you evidently won't stop. The only battleground mentality is yours. I have plenty of diffs demonstrating WP:TAGTEAM behavior by you both and Montanabw, and treating disputes as a form of sport/entertainment you collaborate to foster more of. I do at this point consider it unwise to "provide ammunition" – your words – to you, because of your battleground mentality, lack of a sense of humor, and proven trackrecord of gaming the system. See WP:SHUN. Unless you and I have no choice but to communicate about something, in which case it should be done impersonally as if the other party were a machine, we need to not contact each other for any reason for at least a month. Same goes for you, Montanabw; I've made every effort to find common ground with you, but you personally attacked me at Talk:Arapawa pig again. I'm tired of your WP:GANG bullshit. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Nomination for deletion of Template:Bxt
Template:Bxt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Bxtn
Template:Bxtn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Gbq
Template:Gbq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Category:Modified Volkswagen vehicles
Category:Modified Volkswagen vehicles, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Glossary
Template: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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Glossary end
Template:Glossary end has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Term
Template:Term has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Defn
Template:Defn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Ghat
Template:Ghat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Response requested
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Glossary templates
Thanks very much for the heads-up. I have weighed in. - PKM (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Chinese as a foreign language
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chinese as a foreign language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Gary Webb
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gary Webb. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Punjabi language
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Punjabi language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dumnonia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- '''Damnonia''' is sometimes encountered, but was also used for the land of the [[Damnonii]] (later the [[Kingdom of Strathclyde]], in what is today southern [[Scotland]].
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Edit-warring
Please avoid edit-warring, as you did at Apulo-Calabrese. If your addition to an article is reverted, do not make the sam edit again, but instead take the matter to the talk-page of the article. Persistent edit-warring can lead to being blocked from editing. The relevant part of the infobox documentation in this particular case is "use if more than one". Would you be kind enough to self-revert your incompetent edit? Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be confused. There is more than one. The only difference between my version and the previous version was addition of one (maybe two, I forget) altnames, and using what I thought was a more readable vertical layout, which I've since put back to the original horizontal. I also have to note that your accusation of incompetence is unnecessarily WP:BATTLEGROUNDing and arguably constitutes a personal attack. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, definite over-reaction on my part there, sorry about that. Doesn't excuse the edit-warring, of course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- False charge. Undoing a revert that was predicated on the other party's mistake, after I've explained why it was that party's mistake (not to mention self-reverting the stylistic, non-content aspects of the change I made in an effort to mollify said party, whose objection didn't actually make sense even after reviewing the documentation it was demanded that I review!) is not "edit-warring". If it were, every single good-faith edit on WP could be filibustered by reverting with a nonsensical "reason" that wasn't applicable (even without adding incivil accusations of incompetence that hoist the reverter with his own petard; those are optional). You're not one to lecture about not using reverts to get your way, since you do it often, and in this case you reverted me to begin with, and reactively, without getting your facts right or examining the content. It's not magically righteous when you revert for no defensible reason, but somehow edit-warring when someone half-reverts you, with a real rationale.
I think this is also a good opportunity to observe two other things. One is that if you're reacting to someone else's efforts with an instant urge to undo them for personal-dispute reasons (or to anyone at all's efforts because they affect something you feel proprietary about but which doesn't really belong to you), but cannot take the time to look more objectively at what they're doing, and ask if uncertain, it's time to walk away and stop interacting with that person (or trying to control that resource), whether that be on Wikipedia, at work, or whatever. It's a general life principle, regarding being too emotionally invested to engage rationally. Cf. your pointless procedural challenges at RM today in this light.
Secondly, pseudo-apologies that take the basic form "Sorry I did X, but you did Y" are passive-aggressive antagonism and backside-covering, do not go over well, and simply reveal an intent, conscious or otherwise, to escalate and play a blame-game. They are therefore best avoided. I don't accept hand-shakes or back-pats that also come with attempts to hit me in the gut. I was happy just quietly not engaging with you for a month or so. I imagine you were, too. Let's go back to that. That also means no longer using your talk page as an anti-SMcCandlish webboard with your buddies, which violates several policies, beginning with WP:NOT#SOCIAL and WP:NPA. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- False charge. Undoing a revert that was predicated on the other party's mistake, after I've explained why it was that party's mistake (not to mention self-reverting the stylistic, non-content aspects of the change I made in an effort to mollify said party, whose objection didn't actually make sense even after reviewing the documentation it was demanded that I review!) is not "edit-warring". If it were, every single good-faith edit on WP could be filibustered by reverting with a nonsensical "reason" that wasn't applicable (even without adding incivil accusations of incompetence that hoist the reverter with his own petard; those are optional). You're not one to lecture about not using reverts to get your way, since you do it often, and in this case you reverted me to begin with, and reactively, without getting your facts right or examining the content. It's not magically righteous when you revert for no defensible reason, but somehow edit-warring when someone half-reverts you, with a real rationale.
- Yes, definite over-reaction on my part there, sorry about that. Doesn't excuse the edit-warring, of course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Goats
- I have moved the goat move discussion back to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- You da boss. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Anthony Appleyard: Actually, the big one is still open at Talk:Aspromonte (goat)#Requested move 07 November 2014. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Your uncontroversial move requests at WP:RM
Hi,
I saw your uncontroversial goat breed move requests at WP:RM. Shouldn't you be able to do these yourself? I decided to see if I could move one, and I was able to move the article over the redirect. (I just moved one, as I'm not really in the mood to do all of them, but anyway...) --Biblioworm 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Biblioworm: In theory, yes. In reality, I have a couple of contributions-stalkers who, for personality-based reasons, contest moves I make myself, and who throw a huge, attacking/incivil fit about it, even going to ANI to try to get me move-banned (successfully once, for three months, and without success twice). See the contested section at RM today for some examples of the kind of heat and disruption generated, filing angry contestations against my moves, even though they are pretty much certain to proceed anyway, because the policies, RM precedents, sources, and other facts are all on my side. I have enough non-fans that it's more trouble than it's worth to attempt to move pages myself other than things like sandboxed templates and drafts of things no one else has edited, so I use RM to do it with real articles. I was move-banned at ANI for moves that eventually were upheld by consensus, because my rationales for making them were correct, only my moving them without discussion was an issue. I avoid taking the current antagonism matter to WP:ANI myself to "punish" those engaging in it, because I don't come here for WP:DRAMA. I'm trying to de-escalate with these people (I'd totally ignored and avoided them for a month, and two or so months before that, I quit Wikipedia for a month just to get away from them). Failing that, I guess I'll simply let them hang themselves in public with their constant, unjustifiable antagonism. In the mean time, I'll keep using RM procedures. If they want to contest RM-performed moves, it generates process, and I'm good at and patient with process. My theory is they'll eventually tire of their game and knock it off. The vast majority of moves I propose proceed precisely as I propose them, no matter how I propose or perform them (I have a >95% success rate at RM in its various forms), and even when they don't, it's usually a minor variation of what I proposed.
It's also an interesting open question to me what constitutes "controversial" or "potentially controversial" vs "noncontroversial" and "technical". My view is that moves that clearly comply with policy and recent consistent precedent, without raising any issues unique to the article/name in question, are by definition non-controversial. Someone being sore about having failed to carry the day in a previous RM doesn't make later moves predicated on the RM decision "controversial", no matter how loud and angry they are, or every possible move would always be potentially controversial, and every consensus would be dubious. It's also obvious to me that, absent a WP:ARBCOM ruling saying so, no particular general topic area is automatically controversial with regard to article titles, nor are moves by any particular editor. I also hold that one or two editors filing constestations of moves for personality-based reasons does not actually constitute "controversy", but WP:GAMING the system. Disputes afoot right now will help prove some of these hypotheses in short order, I think.
PS: As a consequence of all this drama, I generally do not bother to check whether a redirect can be moved-over without admin assistance, since I won't move it myself anyway. (I moved two yesterday myself just to see if I'd be jumped-on for it, and I was, despite there being at least 6 solid rationales for the clearly non-controversial moves.) I so frequently edit redirects to add the proper
{{R from ...}}
redir-categorization templates that many redirs I might have moved over have already been edited by me at some point, anyway, especially in animal breed articles. It was kind of a fluke that they weren't in the recent goats cases. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Blocked
You were recently topic-banned for several months from making page moves. Only days after this restriction expires, you are back to precisely the same pattern of behaviour that caused that ban half a year ago: initiating mass moves that you know will be contentious, in exactly the same kinds of cases that were the focus of criticism earlier; misuse of the "uncontroversial moves" section at RM for such proposals, including in at least one case the filing of a move request as "uncontroversial" when it had been rejected by an explicit RM on the article's talkpage just days earlier (an RM that you yourself initiated, so you were clearly aware of it); drowning follow-up discussion with aggressive and overly wordy postings; and the continued general display of battleground attitude that has been characteristic of your conduct in this field for long. This is unacceptable: if you get a community sanction, n matter whether it has run out or not, it means the community expects you to actually modify your behaviour. You clearly didn't.
I have therefore blocked you, for an initial period of 3 days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
SMcCandlish (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
Ironically, the only response I was going to make at that page, to the entire raft of commentary that's ensued there, is that the RM facts speak for themselves, and I don't even need to respond to any of Jlan's and Montanabw's personalized hostility, which also speaks for itself, indicating their issue with me is personal, not substantive. You've blocked me from explicitly declining their attempt to bait me. I also note that their demands to game around RM process and get admins to manually reinstate parenthetical disambiguation there have been rejected by at least two three more admins in that discussion.
This is an improper, one-sided block for "disruption" that proceeded from Jlan's behavior, not mine, and which both incorrectly reads current events and misinterprets my expired move ban to begin with. You're silencing just one party to a debate, and the one with most policy, source, and consensus legs to stand on, as well as the least hostile of the three major parties in the debate. I have studiously avoided both Jlan and Montanabw for over a month. They came out of the wordwork to manufacture bogus conflicts with me, not vice versa, and have been doing so in a WP:TAGTEAM manner. (See history of Montanabw's renewed conversations on Jlan's talk page about cooperating against me, including explicit rejection of my attempts at dispute resolution[19]; see also Montanabw's attempt to recruit me against Jlan when Montanabw decided I was her "friend" and Jlan was her "enemy".[20] And you say I'm battlegrounding?). A few months ago, I almost entirely quit editing for a whole month, to get away from Montanabw's hostility. Mine are not the actions of a disruptor, but of someone being harassed. See also their two additional but failed attempts to pillory me at ANI.
PS: Your block log summary includes another false accusation; I have never been found to have engaged in "disruption of move procedures", so I cannot be guilty of "renewed" bad-faith action of that sort, can I? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
PPS: And this is impeding my ability to do unrelated work, like fixing a citation template error at William A. Spinks, and uploading an article I've written on a Lucy Show episode (S6E13, "Lucy and the Pool Hustler"). Are you volunteering do this for me while your block lasts? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Accept reason:
- Ha ha. Very funny. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Concurrent discussion
That was a clean block log.
I am looking through SMcM's edit history for the controversial edit, and I'm just not seeing it. There must be hundreds, if not thousands of species titles being moved. Maybe whoever responds to this can clear that up with the blocking admin. —Neotarf (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- And they're being moved by standard RM processes, with the results following WP:NATURAL (when that's the relevant issue) and/or WP:NCCAPS/MOS:CAPS/MOS:LIFE (when that's the issue) in every single case, precisely as I proposed them, with RM after RM coming to a consensus against the positions taken by Jlan. There is no controversial edit by me here. (As I've shown above, the one the blocking admin thinks is some kind of smoking gun is a clear error on his part, of not checking the facts before leaping to conclusions). The blocking admin is treating my 3-month move restriction as if it had been permanent, interpreting personal antagonism and tendentiousness by Jlan against months of consensus building by legitimate RM discussions, as if Jlan's system-gaming were a legitimate controversy I've somehow "disrupted", treating any move by me and me alone as if it were automatically controversial, and falsely labeling as "battlegrounding" me simply showing that the opposing editor is forum-shopping. It's completely baseless. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Protonk Just so you know, the three-month move ban you imposed is now being abused as if it were a permanent ban. I'm being blocked for making two moves that were clearly justified after several months of multi-page RMs concluded in favor of precisely the same kind of move in the same topic area, and after strictly using RM processes even after the move ban expired, because they were having good results. I chose two not-possibly-controversial cases to move manually, as a trial balloon to see if JLan and Montanabw would accept that consensus has moved beyond the name styling they prefer or would start drama over it, and they went on the offensive. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anthony Appleyard I note at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves that you are not buying Jlan's forum-shopping, and recognize that the RMs have in fact being going against his wishes, both in cases where I've requested the moves and when where he's requested counter-moves. I'm skeptical that you'd see this punitive, one-sided block as justifiable, even if you're in the camp who find me irritating. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- This block fails WP:Blocking policy in multiple ways. Right off the bat, it fails the first two major criteria: "Blocks should not be punitive", and "Blocks should be preventative." Everything about this is punitive, and there's isn't anything legitimate it could be preventing, since all that was happening was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves in which I have little further to say anyway. I certainly was not mass-moving articles, and the only two articles I did move were done so with solid rationales, were easily challenged and have a discussion open about them, and I'll bet good money they'll go the way I proposed, since months of similar RMs have also. There's nothing disruptive about that, it's standard operating procedure. Under "Blocks should not be punitive", it fails points 1, 3 and 4, at least. Under the longer list of criteria below these two main points, it fails "Protection", as it doesn't qualify under any of the bullet points enumerated there (if anything, the first one, "persistent personal attacks" applies to the other side of the dispute, especially Montanabw, who engaged in more of them in that very discussion dispite administrative warnings to not do so, yet here I'm the one blocked). "Disruption" doesn't fit (except, again, points 2, 3 and [in relation to edits elsewhere] 5 describe the behavior of Montanabw and to a lesser extent Jlan toward me), and the others simply aren't applicable, though Future Perfect at Sunrise appears to be attempting "Enforcing bans" after a ban has expired. "When blocking may not be used" has three directives. "Conflicts and involvement": I don't see that Fut. Per. is "involved" (though clearly favors one side of the dispute against the other, so this section might as well apply). "Cool-down blocks" appears to cover precisely what this block was imposed for. "Recording in the block log" seems also likely; many have resented the fact that I have had a clean block log for 9 years or so despite being a stubborn curmudgeon. "The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating." That's a perfect description of this block. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is so, so sad to see your account destroyed like this, especially since you are using your real name. —Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not that worried about it. As I understand block-challenging procedures, I can seek to have the false accusation at least removed from the block log via WP:AN as soon as the block expires. My main concern was that the usual suspects would use my temporary absence to even further forum shop against the recent RMs' concensus, but all the admins at WT:RM pretty much shut them down on that effort, one right after another, because their actions in that regard that I was allegedly "disrupting" weren't legitimate. This block is serving no purpose other than a petty personal punishment. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you find out how to have a false block removed from a block log, let me know. My understanding is once there is anything at all in your block log, the abusive admins don't bother to read it, they just use it as an excuse to pile on more blocks. Plus they will take every opportunity use it against you in content disputes. And don't bother to run for admin, that's the first qualification you need there.
- At this point it would be better if the blocking admin realized there were no diffs to support the block and was willing to say so. —Neotarf (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not that worried about it. As I understand block-challenging procedures, I can seek to have the false accusation at least removed from the block log via WP:AN as soon as the block expires. My main concern was that the usual suspects would use my temporary absence to even further forum shop against the recent RMs' concensus, but all the admins at WT:RM pretty much shut them down on that effort, one right after another, because their actions in that regard that I was allegedly "disrupting" weren't legitimate. This block is serving no purpose other than a petty personal punishment. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is so, so sad to see your account destroyed like this, especially since you are using your real name. —Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- FYI; I just noticed this situation. Dekimasuよ! 05:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Dekimasu: Thanks. I agree with your comments there that the dispute per se is counterproductive, which is why I've twice taken month-long, self-imposed breaks from it, to get away from the other two major participants, one of whom, Montanabw, explicitly stated she was taking a position she didn't even believe in but against me for purely personal reasons [21], the very definition of battlegrounding. This is one of the most blatantly one-sided administrative interventions I've ever seen, especially given that Montanabw shamelessly personally attacked me (after repeated administrative warnings to stop) as being someone in need of psychiatric "meds" [22], in the very same discussion I was blocked for. That was simply a refutation (albeit not a very concise one) of Jlan's misrepresentations, and an observation that he was clearly forum shopping, which I think all the other admins in that discussion realized, which is why they turned his requests down three times in a row and directed him back to RM procedure and consensus. I made no allusions of any kind about anyone's character or motivations, only the observable editing patterns and the logic flaws in their rationale. The purpose of it was to short-circuit their tendentious disruption of RM processes, exactly what I've been blocked for. It's like filing a police report and getting shot in the face for it. The thing is, I have nearly zero faith this behavior isn't going to continue (if any thing, this bogus block with probably embolden more of the same and worse). It's not limited to this RM stuff, but a general pattern of trying to blockade me me from editing animal breed articles. Montanabw has voiced the opinion that whoever shouts longest and loudest wins, and I think that says a lot about this WP:FACTION strategy. I'm not really sure what to do about it. It's not right to concede that they simply WP:OWN the domestic animal article sphere for the next decade, but this is where we're being herded (pun intended), now by baseless administrative sanctions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dutch Landrace pig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conformation (animal breeding). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Template talk:Engvar
@DePiep: That sounds good, including overwriting the sandbox; I was just using it to demo the code I think would work, but if you have an overhaul in mind it will probably make those tweaks obsolete. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. Development may take some time. I'd like to see that template used more often. Keep an eye on it. -DePiep (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Right-o. I long for the day when tools can be used with user Javascript to auto-show articles in whatever English variety a user wants and we can stop forcing articles to be written in one Eng. var. or another on the dubious criterion of "first major contributor". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK. new version is in the {{Engvar/sandbox}} & {{Engvar/testcases}} page right now, the documentation is being overhauled. Please take a look (these are the right ISO codes, I hope?). -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Replying at template talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK. new version is in the {{Engvar/sandbox}} & {{Engvar/testcases}} page right now, the documentation is being overhauled. Please take a look (these are the right ISO codes, I hope?). -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Right-o. I long for the day when tools can be used with user Javascript to auto-show articles in whatever English variety a user wants and we can stop forcing articles to be written in one Eng. var. or another on the dubious criterion of "first major contributor". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Arius
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arius. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
-
- I'm not that familiar with the Wikipedia editing process. I put in the RFC, based on the info I read in the "Dispute Resolution" article, which says that, "Request for comment (RfC) is a process to request community-wide input on article content. RfCs can be used when there is a content-related dispute, or simply to get input from other editors before making a change." The dispute that I put in a RFC for is "content-related" (i guess). Under the article for RFC it says that, "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct..." I'm not sure where you get the idea that RFCs are for "editorial not content-factual matters." This seems to directly contradict the section on RFCs in the "Dispute Resolution" article and on the RFC article (unless there is a difference between "content-factual matters" (as you say) and a "content-related" dispute or a "content dispute" (as in the "dispute resolution" article and RFC articles, respectively). Anyhow, my problem is that I was unable to edit the page (without my edits being immediately reverted), despite my citations of peer reviewed sources. Any suggestions as to how/where I can address this issue if an RFC is not an appropriate means (with some reference as to WHY it is inappropriate given what the various articles I have quoted say with respect to RFCs) would be much appreciated. Thanks for any help or suggestions you can give.Ocyril (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Arius: I wrote imprecisely. RFCs are not for Wikipedians to engage in their own process of consensus about the facts; that's original research. When RFCs are about content they're about whether the content is relevant, whether it accurately reports what the reliable sources say, whether it is citing actually reliable sources, etc. What you have at that article is sources disagreeing, and the solution to that is to note in the article that sources disagree, and how, not try to come to some kind of wiki-tribunal decisions as to what the facts are. Only external sources can tell us what the facts are. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I understand and agree with what you are saying about the purpose of an RFC. I think the article should reflect what the sources say, and the relative value of those sources. How is the RFC "invalid"? The article currently does not reflect disagreement in the sources and I am citing sources that cannot be left out of the article. Please look at the edits and discussion if you have a chance, thanks.Ocyril (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Boletus edulis
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boletus edulis. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ukraine
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Light bulb (disambiguation)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Light bulb (disambiguation). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Your Recent Edits to Template:RMassist
Hi, I have reverted your recent edits to Template:RMassist because it broke the processing of |3=reason
. I can't produce a testcase right now as there are inclusion guards that limit the inclusion of the template on a certain article, but using {{RMassist|new|old|reason}}
(without the space between the first two braces) always produced "Please put your reason for moving here." Just wanted to let you know. Thanks, Timothy G. from CA (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Timothy Gu: I'll take your word for it. I'll try to look into what the problem was soon-ish. PS: you can give source code of a template with parameters with
{{tlx}}
. Code:{{tlx|RMassist|new|old|reason}}
. Result:{{RMassist|new|old|reason}}
. Your space trick is "unsafe", because the trailing}}
will prematurely close any container template (e.g.{{Collapse}}
) put around the content. Another way to do it, without a template link, is<code><nowiki>{{RMassist|new|old|reason}}</nowiki></code>
. Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)- It's been a while since I last needed to reference a MediaWiki template and I'm a little bit rusty now. Thanks for the
{{tlx}}
tip! Timothy G. from CA (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's been a while since I last needed to reference a MediaWiki template and I'm a little bit rusty now. Thanks for the
I found the reason message that was used for that edit (manually added by the next edit):
{{subst:RMassist/sandbox|Old|New|3=The official capitalization for RTMPDump is RTMPDump, as seen from the official website: [https://rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu/]. I cannot move this myself as there has been a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RTMPDump&diff=prev&oldid=573604124 bot edit] to the target page. Aside from that, there is a human edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RTMPDump&diff=next&oldid=573604124 by me] so I am not marking this request as controversial.}}
It works fine as long as the parameter is named (either 3= or reason= will do). If the parameter is unnamed or the parameter is misspelled, e.g. reasom= it doesn't work. And that's the case with either the old version or your enhanced version.
Your enhancement was up for 22 days, and in that time the template was used many times with no other reported problems. I've integrated your changes into the most recent version. Thanks for helping with that template! Wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Charles Fahy
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charles Fahy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cambodian genocide denial
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cambodian genocide denial. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Old sandbox
Hello SMcCandlish, An editor recently asked me about Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/naming sandbox and how that relates to the capitalization of bird common names. I explained that it was a sandbox and not a guideline, but since it might confuse others in the future, would you be OK with me blanking that page? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 05:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- @SchreiberBike: Yeah, that was old sandboxing of language eventually worked into their project "guideline" (the one that got rejected by the huge WP:BIRDCON RfC, at least as to capitalizing common names of species). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of ethnic slurs
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of ethnic slurs. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
RfC United States same-sex marriage map
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
Concerning this RfC Prcc27 (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:God the Son
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:God the Son. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of literary awards
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of literary awards. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
WT:AT
Is the "support" part of this comment intended to apply to what Dicklyon has said there, or to the proposed insertion of the sentence in WP:AT? I'm having trouble determining what is being supported by "support." Thanks, Dekimasuよ! 20:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Good catch. I've put it in the correct section now. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an alternate account
Considering the recent fun, I was wondering if you had considered setting up a public alternate account? PaleAqua (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how that would help in such situations, since I'd still be logging into it with a password that could be grabbed. My concern was one of security, not of identity. My concern with regard to the SPI case is the presumption by the filer that any anon commenting in a vaguely clueful manner must automatically be part of a sockpuppet conspiracy, a presumption that flies in the face of general WP policy and reality. I'm disappointed that the filer has not been administratively admonished with regard to that abuse of SPI. It's not just a waste of time at SPI, it's a nasty bit of assumption of bad faith, battlegrounding, and character assassination to "win" an argument. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Quotation marks RFC
Your input is desired at RFC: Quotation marks in displayed article titles. You seemed very much in favor when the idea was first brought up, but what about nesting quotes? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I weighed in, with a question and qualified support. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Enjoy!
Happy Holiday Cheer | ||
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine |
- You too, thanks. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:River Soar
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:River Soar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion regarding Template:Rating
Hi! I noticed from the template's talk page history that you seemed like an involved editor there who may have an opinion on a discussion going on at WP:ALBUMS about rendering ratings. Would you care to weigh in here? Dan56 (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! | |
Hello SMcCandlish, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list
- You too, thanks! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Goryeo
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Goryeo. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Newport Beach, California
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Newport Beach, California. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#Custom notices on user .js and .css pages
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 133#Custom notices on user .js and .css pages. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Hatnotes
Template:Hatnotes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mobile, Alabama
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mobile, Alabama. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Guy Fawkes mask
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Guy Fawkes mask. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Stylization of the "common name"
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mexicans of European descent
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexicans of European descent. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment
Thank you for being on the same general side of the issue at Mustang (disambiguation). We fight like cats and dogs (and horses and birds and goats and so on) about other issues, (and probably will continue to do so) but a tip of the hat that you can agree with someone where you have had disagreements. If you, me, and JLAN can all be on the same page occasionally, maybe Middle East peace isn't impossible after all. One suggestion, though: The vote is going "our" way over there, so do try to resist the urge to post walls of text - it can backfire. Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have anything further to say there, unless new bogus arguments need to be addressed, and I'm also relieved to at least be !voting in the same general direction for a change. That said, I don't need to be needled by you about how I write; please just accept the fact that your insistence on brevity will never mesh with my insistence on precision. There is no need for any fighting like cats and dogs, and never was. I cannot treat this like a game, with no stakes yet intense competition as if for its own sake, where making jokes about the Middle East somehow makes it all okay. I have no desire for further strife with you and Jlan (or anyone else). But I am not one of those people who likes to get in fistfights and then become buddies as we nurse our wounds and chuckle about what a good dust-up it was. I look forward to more productive collaboration. We don't have to be personally antagonistic when we disagree. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't view it as a game, either. However, I use humor to defuse tense situations. I would most sincerely hope personalized antagonism can be avoided, but I am going to note that brevity AND precision can go hand in hand. And, I also hope you understand that you may be wrong on some issues. Montanabw(talk) 10:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- My editnotice makes an observation in that regard (the very last sentence in it). Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't view it as a game, either. However, I use humor to defuse tense situations. I would most sincerely hope personalized antagonism can be avoided, but I am going to note that brevity AND precision can go hand in hand. And, I also hope you understand that you may be wrong on some issues. Montanabw(talk) 10:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Pinging you on this issue: Talk:Mustang_(disambiguation)#Alternative_proposal. Your memory is better than mine. Montanabw(talk) 02:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't see it in time. Kinda glad. :-/ — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:American socialism
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:American socialism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Move Review
There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. -- Calidum 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Arab Winter
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arab Winter. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Indigenous Aryans
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indigenous Aryans. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Israel
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Chris Kyle
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chris Kyle. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bhutanese passport
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bhutanese passport. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Lizabeth Scott
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lizabeth Scott. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Japonic languages
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Japonic languages. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
RfC re allowing use of all caps
You may want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC:_Proposed exceptions to general deprecation of Allcaps. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Korean language
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Korean language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Altaic languages
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Altaic languages. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:AZBilliards
Template:AZBilliards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:BCA 2011
Template:BCA 2011 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Misnomer
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Misnomer. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thoroughbred breeding theories
You are right that the article has tone problems, but sit tight and let me take a whack at it first. This is a major deal in the horse racing world, not to be dismissed as mere "fancier" stuff -- millions of dollars are at stake every year because people rely on these things. A major rewrite probably requires more research as well. Montanabw(talk) 05:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Follow up: Restructured, rearranged and toned down the odd phrasings. Probably would be good to review the source material and maybe pull some stuff on this from Blood-Horse, but consulting with WikiProject Horse racing for expert advice might be helpful too, there is one user who does not much else other than add the breeding families to every article on a racehorse that gets a pedigree added. But this is all I'm up for tonight, other fish to fry. I suppose more conversation can occur at that article's talk page, too. Montanabw(talk) 05:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. I haven't raised any objection to the topic's notability; it's just written in a gee-whiz tone, with a combination of an advocacy/advice voice and a "believe it or not" voice, as if it came from a fancier publication. I don't know enough about horse racing to comment on the topic's real-world importance. In working on the Foundation bloodstock stub, I integrated mention of Thoroughbred breeding theories in the only way it seemed to actually fit that context. Didn't make much sense as a see-also. I'm also not trying to pick on horse articles; I've been working a little on the cat ones (many of which are utter trash), and ended up working on Foundation bloodstock because I needed to link to it from a cat article, and it only addressed horses. That in turn led me to the theories one. I think that may be misnamed, as it does not appear to represent a theory or collection of theories, strictly speaking (more like a mishmash of hypotheses, guesses, superstitions, preferences, business plans, and some degree of experiment-driven work). But if "Thoroughbred breeding theories" is an established term of art there'll be sources to corroborate that as the WP:COMMONNAME. If not, then it should probably just be at Thoroughbred breeding. Either way, there seems to enough material for an article rather than just a section at Thoroughbred. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
-
- I agree with you about the "gee whiz" tone, hope it's better. Off to the articles, now. We did spin off that article from Thoroughbred when we took the TB article to FAC; it definitely was a tangential topic. Montanabw(talk) 08:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
-
- Oh and yes, it's technical language, though "Racehorse breeding theories" and "nicking" are pretty common too. Google it. Thoroughbred breeding isn't a good alt title, as the breeding part is so much more than just analyzing pedigree nicks. This "nicking" thing is, IMHO, kind of voodoo with a computer, but it's also why some horses have illogically high stud fees and others are ridiculously low. Tapit is at $300,000 a mare in spite of a crap race record, while Awesome Again, with a far more impressive race record and equally good babies, is at $75,000. Montanabw(talk) 08:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'll trust your judgement on this. My only real concern was the writing style. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oh and yes, it's technical language, though "Racehorse breeding theories" and "nicking" are pretty common too. Google it. Thoroughbred breeding isn't a good alt title, as the breeding part is so much more than just analyzing pedigree nicks. This "nicking" thing is, IMHO, kind of voodoo with a computer, but it's also why some horses have illogically high stud fees and others are ridiculously low. Tapit is at $300,000 a mare in spite of a crap race record, while Awesome Again, with a far more impressive race record and equally good babies, is at $75,000. Montanabw(talk) 08:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Japonic languages
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Japonic languages. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transylvanian Hound, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dog show and Big game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Winged unicorn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Winged unicorn. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)
Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).
One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.
Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Liberty
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liberty. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Littleton, Colorado
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Littleton, Colorado. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Amphibians and reptiles of Bulgaria
Greetings! I would like to ask you for assistance related to WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. I have recently expanded the List of amphibians of Bulgaria and the List of reptiles of Bulgaria and I hope you can spare some time for a copyedit. I consider nominating them for Feature lists and suggestions for further improvement would be very welcome. Best regards, --Gligan (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Gligan: I've done this, with an eye to WP:MOS matters. The short family summaries used in the amphibians list is a good idea, and I hope you'll do that with the reptiles list as well. It's interesting to the reader how widespread certain kinds of organisms are globally, versus their representation in Bulgaria. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Supersessionism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Supersessionism. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Triturus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Fremantle Prison
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fremantle Prison. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be among the vanguard in the quest to raise copy editing and style formatting to at least the level of writing barely literate articles. Primergrey (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's one of my more frequent points of focus here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Nazi Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nazi Germany. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bengali people
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bengali people. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of February 31 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article February 31 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 31 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Proper noun
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Proper noun. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Minority language
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Minority language. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Move review for Carbon (fiber)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Hapa
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hapa. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Italics
Hi there,
I just noticed that you added this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles a while back:Sound advice (I thought this was the case anyway) but then you rearranged the wording which has now become:Do not italicize or quotation-mark (but do capitalize) the name of a media franchise (including a trilogy or other series of novels or films) or a fictional universe, except where it contains or consists of the name of an italicized individual work.
There are a few cases in which the title should be in neither italics nor quotation marks (though many are capitalized): ...
- Descriptive titles also applies to media franchises and fictional universes (including trilogies and other series of novels or films), e.g. Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, the Marvel and DC universes in comics, but Les Rougon-Macquart (actual title of the cycle of novels) — also partially italicized when the description contains the name of an italicized individual work: The Star Wars franchise because Star Wars is the work for which the franchise is named
It's relevant to a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles seeking clarification of the MOS to avoid confusion in cases where a series is referred to by a name not derived from one of its subsidiary titles. Please feel free to comment there.
Cheers! —sroc 💬 21:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- I commented there. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Help talk:IPA for Italian
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA for Italian. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Your changes to WP:MOS 6 days ago
Hi Stanton. I'm not sure if I'm on board with these edits from 6 days ago. (In their favor, they haven't been reverted. Looking quickly, I don't see a discussion.) If we're going to say that it's better not to use quote marks when we're quoting people, could we be more specific about when and why, since that's going to come as news to a lot of Wikipedians? Also, compare:
- Listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as of "least concern"
- Listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as of least concern
Isn't the second one a bit harder to read, and easier to misunderstand? Do you reword in some fashion when the listing is "least concern"? - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds like a discussion for WT:MOS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long to get back to this ... after poking around, not only do I not dislike the language I linked, I think it's very nuanced. I have only one small concern: one grammatically possible, though unlikely, reading of "Siskel and Ebert criticized the film as predictable" is "Siskel and Ebert criticized the film as was predictable", or "As was predictable, Siskel and Ebert criticized the film". More likely I think would be that someone reading quickly and sloppily might mistake "as predictable" for "as predicted". It's a small concern, and I won't push it. It's easily fixable (by using another adjective, or "for being predictable"). - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Dank: You actually jogged my memory to go resolve what your original concern was: [23]. I agree on the Siskel and Ebert ambiguity. On looking over that whole set of examples, they all seem suboptimal for more reasons, too. Just rewrote them all, and added another case – don't use different styles when juxtaposed. (I'd originally just brain-dumped that whole set of additions in one write, followed by some tweaks. I'd expected to be reflexively reverted on it like usual, so I didn't spend much time on the examples, just whatever first came to mind.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Dank: It's been reverted. I opened at thread about it at WT:MOS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Tell me about it. I've got a T-shirt that says "I've been reverted". I've generally followed a path of neutral-ish-ness to make it easier to close contentious RfCs. Given the tenor of many MOS discussions, it's generally been safer for me not to jump in, although of course I'm available if the ship has sprung a leak and the steerage passengers are already drowning. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I need that shirt! heh. My only real concerns about the MOS noise going on right now is that someone who has been periodically trying to remove something they don't like is trying to use the cover of the current disputes to delete that part again. Hopefully it won't need to go to ANI. I hate invoking that sort of process, but slow editwarring is still editwarring, with tendentiousness on top, and it needs to stop. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Tell me about it. I've got a T-shirt that says "I've been reverted". I've generally followed a path of neutral-ish-ness to make it easier to close contentious RfCs. Given the tenor of many MOS discussions, it's generally been safer for me not to jump in, although of course I'm available if the ship has sprung a leak and the steerage passengers are already drowning. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Dank: It's been reverted. I opened at thread about it at WT:MOS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The male gaze
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The male gaze. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
TWL Questia check-in
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
- When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please uncollapse
Please can you undo this edit. In this case you are a very involved editor. GregKaye 03:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Uncluttering talk page space by collapsing lengthy, distracting lists no one needs to see, doesn't have anything to do with WP:INVOLVED, which is about admins closing (with a determination of consensus) an RfC, RM, and other entire discussion in which they have a stake. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have presented a list of article moves which is not of great length and that I am contesting are relevant to the topic of the thread that you raised.
- Please consider how your action fits in with: WP:TPOC
- Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.
- Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.
-
-
- Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by ~~~~]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
- Collapsing or adding sub headings above others contents as you have also done casts automatic judgement on the content. Looking at the content I can see that some of the RMs did not go through an perhaps they can be retracted but, in other cases, if you have reasons as to why you think the content is not relevant I would welcome explanation.
- WP:INVOLVED says "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." and this has been previously applied in situations of collapsed content.
- I was responding to things that you said.
- I don't want to argue and, if anything, have greatly held back in regard to substantiations that I could make. However I would like a level playing field in issues of debate. We are discussing the topic related to "... confusion between WP:NATURALNESS and WP:NATURALDIS". I have presented cases in which WP:NATURALDIS has been used a justification for natural presentations of title text to be applied. GregKaye 06:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Relative to the size of the rest of the post, the list is quite lengthy, and exists only to illustrate a side point. It's a distraction. It's also extremely selective, singling out moves I personally proposed. Whatever the intent, it looks exactly like an attempt to highlight me as some kind of "naming troublemaker", and to cast doubt upon my line of reasoning on WT:AT now by pointing to much earlier, tangential disputes (guilt by association). The moves in question (and you left out some that concluded in favor of what I proposed, focusing on those in which a trio of editors put up a united "anti-SMcCandlish front" in an attempt to manufacture controversy. Regardless, most of them already included pointers from one to another, so if mentioning some of them had really been necessary at all, a few mentioned inline would have sufficed, not a long list.
-
-
-
- I didn't edit, remove, or strike any of your talk page content anyway; I reformatted the long list into a collapse box to shorten its WP:WALLOFTEXT visual impact on readers, while doing nothing at all to alter what it said or hinder access to it for those who want to see it. Such WP:REFACTORing is routine. I do this sort of thing dozens of times per year, at least. You may be mistaking the purpose of the
{{collapse}}
/{{collapse top}}
/{{collapse bottom}}
templates; they are not "hatting" a discussion or part of it as "closed", the way{{hat}}
/{{hab}}
do. They simply put it in a open/close-able box with a descriptive heading (and I gave it an entirely neutral one). Please point me to any "previously applied ... situations of collapsed content" involving these templates. Maybe I've missed something.
- I didn't edit, remove, or strike any of your talk page content anyway; I reformatted the long list into a collapse box to shorten its WP:WALLOFTEXT visual impact on readers, while doing nothing at all to alter what it said or hinder access to it for those who want to see it. Such WP:REFACTORing is routine. I do this sort of thing dozens of times per year, at least. You may be mistaking the purpose of the
-
-
-
- I am not acting as [if] an administrator, and that isn't a "disputed case" in which I've been involved. You're drawing an analogy between unlike things.
-
-
-
- Sectioning lengthy discussions is not a POV problem, unless the section headings are worded judgementally. It's simply a reading and navigation aid, an especially helpful one on a page like that with a growing number of interrelated discussions mostly featuring the same parties. It's very hard to find where so-and-so wrote such-and-such without it. If one of the section headings seems biased to you in some way, then change it. But what on earth "automatic judgment on the content" can stem from "RM list" or "Proposal to restructure",
the only two headings I added?Oh, now I remember adding a subsection heading in there to separate our side debate from the main thread where we hope people will still comment, without having to read our two-party digression. I've tried a different one. If you still don't like it, you're of course free to refactor it back out again. I go out of my way to try to use neutral headings in such instances, regardless of my own opinion on the matter. I also refactor discussions into subsections in this manner probably 100 times per year here, almost always without objection or incident. In this case, it's also very important for proposals to be in identifiable subsections, so people know there are proposals there, and so that, if necessary, they can be made into RfCs easily, and/or administratively closed with consensus findings, without otherwise affecting the larger discussion they've appeared in. It's really better in most cases to start a new proposal thread, than insert a proposal in an ongoing thread, unless the proposal is very minor but needing resolution before discussion can continue, or follows naturally upon a discussion drawing to a close. Even then, it's usually best in a subsection under that thread's main section.
- Sectioning lengthy discussions is not a POV problem, unless the section headings are worded judgementally. It's simply a reading and navigation aid, an especially helpful one on a page like that with a growing number of interrelated discussions mostly featuring the same parties. It's very hard to find where so-and-so wrote such-and-such without it. If one of the section headings seems biased to you in some way, then change it. But what on earth "automatic judgment on the content" can stem from "RM list" or "Proposal to restructure",
-
-
-
- No one owns talk pages, and we're free to do this sort of thing. It also means you're free to remove the collapse box if you want. (No one will thank you for it, but whatever.)
-
-
-
- If you see me post a long list of things of this sort, feel free to collapse box it in the same manner (unless the list is required, e.g. the list of articles to be renamed, at the top of a WP:RM post). I often collapse-box them myself when initially posting (or after I realize how cluttering it is).
-
-
-
- It would be a poor use of time to go over that RM list and pick over it in detail. It's old news, and many of those RMs were mooted by later discussions. My "success rate" at RM is over 90%, in the sense of my proposals being carried (I actually did the math on this, using several years of RM discussions I initiated, as part of evidence in a dispute on one of the noticeboards, and the evidence was found compelling). If also including me !voting in for the option which turns out to be the consensus, in RMs proposed by others, my success rate is more like 95%+ (it would be around 98%, but I sometimes play devil's advocate to induce proponents to clarify weak proposals). Several of the RMs you've picked out were intentionally broad trial balloons, intended either to get a lot done at once, or to result in the closer narrowing the scope for later RMs, with either result being an acceptable outcome to me. If you track the approximately 6-month history of that whole series of domestic animal category cleanup RMs, you'll see that many of the early ones that did not close with consensus were followed up by later "re-RMs" with more narrowly tailored subsets of articles, successfully. A good case in point is (IIRC) the no-consensus RM at Talk:Anglo-Nubian which led to the successful one at Talk:Florida White, which excluded the more marginal cases (Peppin Merino, etc.) from the earlier RM. At any rate, they do not actually relate closely to anything under ongoing discussion at WT:AT. They were almost all of three types: changing parenthetic to natural disambiguation, because policy prefers the latter; disambiguating hopelessly misleading titles like Welsh Black and Flemish Giant; and moving oddly-named articles to names that were consistent with the title pattern used by the other articles in the category. So, it is correct that I don't see that list as relevant in the discussion at WT:AT, but instead a distracting hand wave, whether intended that way or not. Yes, they are RMs that mentioned WP:NATURALDIS (WP:NATURAL), but thousands of others do. There was no need to single out "mine" in a pointy or at least pointed manner, and to do so selectively by omitting many that were successful. Even though they relied on WP:NATURALDIS, none of them involve confusion between NATURALDIS and NATURALNESS; the opponents of the NATURALDIS arguments were making faulty, SSF-laden COMMONNAME counterarguments, which are not relevant to the current series of WT:AT threads. I've already said this at WT:AT. It's getting a bit frustrating to have to re-explain the same thing with you on two or three pages (I forget if this also came up on your talk page, too). Why ask me "if you have reasons as to why you think [the list of RMs] is not relevant I would welcome explanation", when I've already provided it?
-
-
-
- I don't want to argue – There's a simple solution: Don't. :-)
-
-
-
- if anything, have greatly held back – I'm glad of it. If we both get WP:DICKish, it probably won't be very productive. Heh. But if you need to get something off your chest, go ahead, and I'll take it a face value. I acknowledge that I offended you, and I knew I would, to some extent and temporarily, as a cost of using that technique to get through to you. I apologize for any genuine upset. I also only used that approach because I've observed your temperament long enough to believe that you could handle it. Your skin seems to be at least as thick as mine. Noetica and I have mutually done the same; so have Montanabw and I; it works with some people, and fosters more honest communication and less gamesmanship among them. I chose the wording carefully, too: "You are coming off as..."; i.e., I was describing the exasperated and incredulous interpretations/reactions of other editors, not something I believed to be innately factual about you or your motivations (or I would simply ignore you, the way I do with B2C to the extent I possibly can). Things that look like WP:NOTGETTINGIT erode other editors' ability to continue to assume good faith, even if they don't always say so openly on WP itself. Especially given the way some MOS regulars got railroaded by a certain admin after being publicly critical of Apteva on a noticeboard, and the ARBCOM not doing much of anything to rectify that admin's overstepping of authority in judge-jury-executioner style, for fear of losing said admin as probably the only editor willing to regularly take on the WP:AE duties he does. WP can get very political (in sadly typical, negative ways) sometimes, despite the fact that so much of it has been expressly engineered to short-circuit this aspect of human group behavior.
-
-
-
- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
-
Talk page comments
In this edit you commented:
- "Can I also remind you [of some RMs involving WP:NATURAL]? – To what end? You've taken up a large chunk of talk page space to "remind" us of what we a;; already know, and have seemingly done so purely as an ad hominem tactic.}}"
Fair enough maybe I could have rephrased the "Can I also remind you.." phrasing and just presented your previous proposals which all, as far as I can see, have relevance.
Previous to these edits you wrote on my talk page "You are coming off as an irrational fool with severe reading comprehension and reasoning difficulties in these discussions; either that, or a jackass pretending to be a fool just to create lengthy, stupid, time-wasting distractions in RM and at WT:AT." with several other PA and derogatory comments. I do not wish to have caused offence but I ask you to keep things in perspective.
I have long supported you in your moves and, without bias, continue to do so.
Given the context I think that the presentation of these moves and related argument was very fair. Are there items on the list that you think don't apply to the discussion? If so which? What wording would you prefer me to use?
GregKaye 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can we keep this stuff in one thread, please?
- Using the WT:AT talk page, which is about editing the Wikipedia article titles policy, to draw highly personalized attention to "my" previous proposals from last year, because they're mine, seems like a misuse of that page. You're trying to single me out in an ad hominem manner, in my view.
- My point in being dickishly blunt on your talk page (and note that it was there, not at WT:AT or some other WP-wide forum) was to snap you out of the time-wasting game some of us feel you've been playing, because it reflects very poorly on you, it isn't helpful, and (as you observe) we're more often than not able to collaborate well at RM, etc. (i.e., it impedes us working together). It reminds me of the "I'm just not getting it, Lou" scene in Fight Club. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- The way that I accessed the list of examples of natural titles was by going to the wp:natural redirects and worked through the what links here function. The were simply the best examples that were there. You have gone out of your way to be Dickish in dialogue with me in both forums. Even your "Minor tweak to end pointless confusion " can be interpreted to assert I'm a hero and he's an idiot. You probably think that you have been in your rights to do it but the simple fact is that you have been in full scale slap down mode and it is honestly not the way an editor should behave. There has been confusion surrounding the whole issue of naturalness and natural and I have cited numerous examples to demonstrate the point. Your text now, I think exacerbates the problems in relation to Sarah Brown, ISIL and who knows what else. All of your FOOBAR cattle/sheep/rabbits are generally totally searchable with just the foobar wording. At the other extreme, working through the listing of Wikipedia articles alphabetically from the first worded article with parenthesis (¡Alarma! (magazine)) there are problems. Search on ¡Alarma! and you get alarms. Search on ¡Alarma! magazine. Your "minor" but unnecessarily wordy tweak does more harm than good. Of course its nice and neat to say "the title is one..." but this text fudges the whole issue. Sure it maybe regarded to be good enough and maybe this is acceptable yet people at WP:RM are still regularly confused on these points.
- Like I said I don't want to argue but all that has happened is one much less than ideal situation has been replaced by another much less than ideal situation. Parenthesis content is needed to satisfy some aspects of naturalness with some titles while many other naturally presented titles, with yours being the best examples don't require the extra text. I really don't think you understand the topic sufficiently and hope that you can give it some renewed thought hopefully with some research and checking of examples. There is a lot currently happening at WT:AT and this is the only reason that I am not presenting this now
- All I have seen from your is a derogatory and belittling approach adding derogatory headings and then adding derogatory subheadings. When you run out of things to say to your advantage you dont bother to reply directly of helpfully to my interjections in a thread that you started and delivered abuse through on my talk page. Then when valid content to the debate gets placed that is presented you cry PA in Latin on English Wikipedia and edit my personal post without a care to broach the subject yourself. Just as a follow-up you then compound things further by adding another derogatory subheading.
- "Let me remind you" of some context here. I remember seeing that you were having trouble with editors like Pigeon et al their generally problematic approach and I made a special effort to look out for related incidents to see if I could helpfully intervene. You know me and know that I am very genuine in my approach to this work yet all you have done is act like a shit. You are busy showboating with content, in this case, that does not work. GregKaye 14:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I will chew on that, and absorb it, and let it change my approach. I think in some cases you are looking for insult where there is none ("Minor tweak to end pointless confusion" is not a reference to any editors; it's a description of the magnitude of the change, and description of the confusion that has been there before as unproductive), but that's probably understandable since I already put you on edge, and I'm sorry for doing that (though saying so is probably a day late and a dollar short). As for the AT policy content, perhaps the restructuring proposal (which was your idea, even if Francis and I are running with it so far in more detail) will obviate those concerns. If restructured that way, the clarification I inserted (with or without your modification of it) may not be needed at all. The restructuring would also make moot Blueboar's proposal further down that talk page. I have to note, however, that Peter coxhead is even more skeptical about your confusion concerns than I was; I find myself half-defending your position on it, because he seems to think that the confusion in point is simply irrational and not worth addressing (if I'm reading him correctly; I've asked for clarification). By contrast, I see it as rare/unlikely, but problematic enough when it comes up that it should be fixed; and you see it as logically inescapable, the necessary result of actually reading the relevant passages. We know why there's this disagreement, even. Peter thinks the two different usages of "natural", in two different sections, are starkly, obviously distinguishable; I think they're distinguishable by anyone paying much attention, but just blurred enough to be gameable; and you don't think they're reliably distinguishable at all, if I'm reading you right. I find myself in a centrist position on this, as I often do on many things. The twin facts that you find the wording confusing (or more likely find that it can be confusing - I don't think you personally cannot parse it), and that historically others have (often seemingly intentionally) confused them in a way that has led to a lot of noise and waste of time at RM, is proof that they can be confused. Yet these problems have not been overwhelming, just annoying, so it's not of extreme import that we act to resolve it. I think it's preferable that we do, but Peter clearly fears unintended consequences from changes there even more than I do, and I'm really, really watchful for that. I think you are being so as well, but you're watching for different problems than I am, and weighting things differently, and using different reasoning to provide a rationale for the conclusions you're coming to. I'm not agreeing with all your conclusions or vice versa. Blueboar is coming to a fourth set of conclusions. Obviously much still needs to get worked through to find consensus. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Consideration of approach may help. There are many abrasive editors here and an old friend of mine described it as a bear and a snake pit. Normally it is better just to leave things with clashes on editorial issues but, in the past I failed with this and got ibanned in my efforts in getting a legitimate issue across. Personality clashes don't help. In fighting, so to speak, over Pontius Pilate's wife in regard to another editor's approach to you, your reaction was, "I don't care that much." I think that you do have a care otherwise you would not have opened up for dialogue above. Given comment just mentioned am not convinced in regard to your motives in this but would counsel in other situations to care more. GregKaye 13:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Though, to clarify, I care enough about the article titling issue there to raise a discussion about it, and layout my reasoning; but I do not care to engage in lengthy sport debate there, especially with some editors who have a long-term pattern of personality conflict with me. It doesn't elucidate anything in the RM when the discussion devolves to silly insults, nor when arguments become circular. It's just not productive. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you like to respond?
In a WT:AT thread that you started I added later comment here, mentioned in case you would like to respond. GregKaye 06:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- That page is on my watchlist. I already responded there before I even saw this note. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Persondata RfC
Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Nazi Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nazi Germany. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Genocides in history
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genocides in history. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
TWL Questia check-in
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
- When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:History of Slovakia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of Slovakia. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian states
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian states. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Restart
@Montanabw: Upon some reflection, it occurs to me that our long if sporadic history of sometime-hostility appears to be making each of us tend to leap to the most negative conclusion we can about what the other posts. I'd like to propose a conscious moratorium on this, if we can manage it. For my part, I apologize for not simply taking your recent post at face value, as if I was looking to find something to be offended about, and for posting a flippant response that could be interpreted as a personal dig (though it was not intended that way; it was a somewhat hyperbolic observation about trying to change intrinsic things about other editors, like their writing style). Anyway, here's to more fruitful collaboration. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. I think we share the traits you list in your edit notice - about "fools, cranks, divas, trolls or soapboxers" - and we both probably have dealt with a few too many of the above. So deal. Clean start, focus on issues - and yeah, I think we basically are about 80% or more in agreement on what constitutes breed notability. Montanabw(talk) 05:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
-
- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Wise words
I just wanted to memorialise these wise words from your recent comment:
Well put!A large proportion of MOS's guidance is expected to not be followed by casual editors, and implemented in cleanup by MOS gnomes; that's true of everything from date formats to spaces between measurements and unit symbols (and non-breaking ones at that), insertion of non-breaking spaces in various other cases, using the
{{sic}}
template, and on and on. "Not everyone does it" isn't a valid rationale against MOS recommending any particular best practice.
— User:SMcCandlish 08:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW, do you realise your talk page still says: "I might check Wikipedia, but I won't be actively participating or editing until 1 April 2015"? —sroc 💬 17:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, and yeah, I frequently forget to update that status thing. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Despicable
How you first chastises me for using the word crusade and then embarks on your own paragraph long personal attack. May your anus itch and your arms be too short to reach.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I shouldn't make threats to conduct long term edit wars across thousands of pages. But it is ok when Giraffedata carries out long term editwars across thousands of pages. I shouldn't respond to his disrepectful and arrogasnt tone in kind. But it is OK for him to do it in the first place. I don't understand the 5 pillars because I think I have a right to decide what words goes into the articles I write. But Giraffedata does understand the 5 pillars because he insists on his right to decide what words goes into articles I write and which he otherwise hasn't edited. I see a weird pattern in your argumentation. It looks like good old one-eyed hypocrisy, based on one's personal likes and dislikes. I get it: you like giraffedata and dislike "comprised of" and me. But maybe you could read the actual essay and address the arguments in it instead of the immoral and incoherent argument you think I really want to make. The essay in fact suggests that carrying out long term editwars to prove a point or to enforce one's pet peeve is a bad thing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You need to refactor your recent comment to remove the quote that was not mine. And no I am not going to tell you which one of them that is.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus:That's a funny curse; I'll have to remember that one. If you really want to discuss this stuff, there's a surprising amount to cover here.
I'll number these for easier reference:
Collapsing this stuff because no one else could possibly care about this argument |
---|
|
,' ~ ', /;M, ;:;~,M;\ |;M;%~%`%~%;M;| `/%:':%;';%\` `%%:,:%:,:%%` /%%%`*`%`*`%%%\ ,_-~~--__,,_-~~~-_,,__--~~-_, -' ,, -, ,- ,, '- ~ ,'-_ ~-____-~ _-', ~ _-~ ~~-_,,,,,,,_-~~ ~-_ -_-~~_-~~-_, ,_-~~-_~~-_- ~,,, ~_ _~ `, ~-_, ` ` ~; ;~_, ; ; / ~-`, ; ; ; /`___; ~ : ; ; `-,,; ,_-%; ,-%%%% %%%, ~;%%%%: -~%%%%;% %%%%; ;%%%%;,:~%%%%%%;% %%%%; :%%%%%%%%%%%%;% %%%%; ;%%%%%%%%,%-;% %%%%; ;%%%,%-~ ;%% %%%%%; ~~ ;%% %%%%%; ;%% %%%%%; ;%% %%%%%; ;%% %%%%%; ;%% %%%%%; ;%% %%%%%; ;%% %%%%%; ;%% ,_-~ ~``; ;%% ~-_, : ;%%% ; ; ;%%%% ; ; ;; ;%%%%% %;,_-~ ;%%%%% %%%%%%; ;%%%%%% %%%%%%; ;%%%%%% %%%%%%; ;%%%%%%% %%%%%%%;~-_, ;%%%%%%%I%%%%%%%;%%%%%%~--___,,,_%%%%_,, ;%%%%%%%|%%%%%%%;%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%~ ; _-~~-__;%%%%%%%|%%%%%%%;,__-~~-%%%%%%-%_-~~~ -_,; ;,_ ~~~~|~~~~ _,; ; ,- __--~ ~--__ -, ; ~~__,,_-~~ ~~-_,,__~~
I think that covers everything, if you have the patience for it.
PS, re: 'You need to refactor your recent comment to remove the quote that was not mine.' – I have no idea what you're referring to. 'And no I am not going to tell you which one of them that is.' Then of course I can't and won't respond to this demand in any way but quizzically ignoring it and wondering why you're wasting both our time with passive-aggressive anti-collaborative gamesmanship. If I actually did misquote, and you indicate where, I'll certain fix it. I'm probably unavailable for a while, soon, so I'd need a response pretty quickly to act on it pretty quickly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian (disambiguation)
Hi. I think your creation of Serbo-Croatian (disambiguation) was a bad idea: the page does not disambiguate anything of substance. Per WP:MOSDAB, dab pages are supposed to list articles on similar-named topics, not list of dictionary definitions: we don't have an article on "Shared aspects of culture in Serbia and Croatia", and it's unlikely that it would be called "Serbo-Croatian something" anyway. The only half-plausible entry is Croatia–Serbia relations. The "See also" entries are subtopics of the main article.
Unless you'd propose expansion with some other plausibly ambiguous articles, I'd like to nominate the page for deletion. No such user (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- @No such user: Do what you like. The fact that we have an article Serbo-Croatian kinship, which is a socio-cultural matter at least as much as a linguistic one, also demonstrates substance. It's entirely plausible to have articles Serbo-Croatian literature and Serbo-Croatian music, covering these topics from a cross-cultural, shared language perspective instead of a nationalistic one, and some of them can redir to broader topics (it's weird that one of these is a redlink, with nowhere to go, actually), while Serbo-Croatian cuisine is a likely redirect name for an article that is an overview of the cuisine of the region generally, though not a great actual article title. Serbo-Croatian kinship is one example of shared aspects of culture that we already have an article on, so it really belongs in the main list. It's fine to WP:IAR a little with a rule like MOSDAB when robotic adherence to it does not best serve the readership. There are other reasons to have this DAB page, e.g. as a link target for redirects like Serbo-Croatia. Any readers (e.g. billions of school children) who are not subject-matter experts about that area are not likely to be certain whether that was, historically, ever a legitimate geographical name or not, and it's a disservice to readers to have that go nowhere (it was a redlink a few hours ago) or go to a language article that doesn't quite pertain to that phrase. Same goes for the en-dash version of Serbo–Croatian; it will not in most cases pertain to the language, but is a compound adjective referring to interrelation between Serbia and Croatia. My attempt to populate that DAB page was not exhaustive; I did not even know the article Croatia–Serbia relations existed. So, it's fairly likely that additional items can be found to put there. It's standard operating procedure to include some dicdefs if they are helpful to readers, and especially if it's likely that some articles are missing. Finally, it's routine for DAB pages' see-also sections to list articles (and redirects to article subtopics) that begin with the same phrase; I just forgot to pipe some of them or use their redirs. And to list other things that don't but which are directly relevant and may be what the reader is actually looking for. It is not necessary to do some kind of subjective analysis to determine whether something is a subtopic of another according to some conceptual hierarchy.
Anyway, I've edited the page to improve it, and it appears to satisfy WP:MULTIDABS.
PS: This took only a few minutes of work. I'm pretty sure that was a far more productive use of that time that launching a deletion process. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:H:IPA
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:H:IPA. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Please
I would really like you to consider the high level of support that I have given to a great many of your past proposals when you make, as far as I can see, fallacious accusation, "You appear to be willfully misinterpreting whatever I write, just to engage in time-wasting "sport debate"."[24] What did I misinterpret?? You have a history of requesting a great many moves in adding terms to titles in the way of American Sable → American Sable rabbit by way of increasing length that goes far beyond a difference between your quoted "(mythology)" → "(Aztec deity)".
Can I personally ask you please consider not making accusations such as "That's a nasty disservice to our readers" just for things like suggesting adding a qualification to a title in a way that you have done many times.
In general my suggestions do not go nearly as far as your additions of qualification and I had every right to fairly point this out. Then when I point out what I personally see to be a clear double standard on your part, I try in good faith to get clarity, in a way which was certainly not trying to make "something ... out of nothing" and I feel you go off in attacking "sport debate", my wanting "to bend over backwards to try to spin" out an observation on some rule of shortening titles that I had not in any way mentioned. I fully see that at times you get "past the point of caring" and again, as in my edit of 13:16 on the 2nd of this month, I would "would counsel in other situations to care more".
I wrote directly in regard to what I saw to be a double standard that from my understanding is clearly specified above. I am still bewildered by mention of Siamese cat. I cannot help it if you see a response to this as being "inflamatory".
Please, please understand that if you write on talk pages other people can reply. I really want to ask you to review the extent that you attack in your responses. I have always been straight forward with you. There is no bending over backward to spin. GregKaye 13:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @GregKaye: I'm not trying to be antagonistic; I feel I'm the one being antagonized. I also don't view WP as an allies vs. opponents enterprise. If you supported RMs I proposed, it was because you thought they made sense, not because you liked me. If you oppose some later, it should be because you disagree with them on their own merits, not because I've irritated you.
- I went back to the WT:RELIGION discussion, and the earlier WT:AT discussion, and wrote a detailed analysis, some of it clause by clause, to answer your question, 'What did I misinterpret?', and to address all this other stuff that keeps coming up cyclically. It cost me several hours of my time, and was extremely irritating. But it's huge, you wouldn't be at all happy with it, and I have little faith that it would be productive. I've done this sort of re-explaining with you before, to no avail. There's no question that there's a PEBKAC problem here. Only outside observers, I suppose, could determine whether the problem really exists between your keyboard and chair, or mine, or both. It may well be that you have trouble following my logic. It may well be that I have trouble expressing it understandably. Given how precisely I write, I obviously feel I'm very clear. I'm sure you feel similarly strongly about your reasoning skills. So, we should probably both just zip it and move on. The fact that you can be "bewildered" when I simply use an example to illustrate how the lengthening or shortening of the name had no effect on RM outcome, strongly indicates these kinds of discussions may not be your strong suit. There are a hundred zillion things to do on Wikipedia. Policy debate, or maybe naming policy debate in particular, may not be a productive one for you. It doesn't seem to be a pleasant one for you.
- I really want to ask you to review the extent to which you accuse others of attacking you when they offer any criticism of your logic or behavior, and the extent to which you try to read personal insult into every turn of phrase you don't like, even when it's about inanimate things like the productivity of discussions or the relevance of assertions. We've been over this before a couple of times, too. You very frequently accuse people of making personal attacks, when nothing in WP:NPA is actually applicable. (Though I did already admit I was WP:DICKish on your talk page; I thought we'd resolved that. If you need an explicit apology, yes, I apologize for that. I thought I did already.) I don't believe in trying to get people to apologize. I don't care if they're apologetic, I just want the how-can-I-needle-someone-today behavior to stop. I haven't even gotten into what was wrong with your posts and arguments in the WT:RELIGION thread, and why so much of what you've come to my talk page to complain about is blatant psychological projection. Like I say, I doubt it would be productive. That whole sprawling pile of threads at WT:RELIGION has been administratively closed, so just letting it be water under the bridge is probably best. IF you really want to go over it, I dumped it in User talk:SMcCandlish/GregKaye.
-
- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
May 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fancy rat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- [American Fancy Rat and Mouse Association]] (AFRMA) lists '''black''', '''pink''', '''ruby''', and [[Heterochromia iridum|'''odd-eyed'''] (two different-coloured eyes) as possible eye colours,
- jsp?cfile=htm/bc/171543.htm|title=Merck Veterinary Manual - Management|quote=Ambient temperatures >85°F (29.4°C), high humidity levels (>80%), poor ventilation, and overcrowding predispose rodents to heat exhaustion.|accessdate=7
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fancy rat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- basis for the films ''[[Willard (1971 film)|Willard]]'' (1971) and ''[[Ben (1972 film)|Ben]]'' 1972), and a 2003 [[Willard (2003 film)|remake of the first film]]. Here, the protagonist befriends the
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Redir to redlinked page.
Hey there. You just made Varieties of mice and Variety of mouse. I suspect you made a typo in the name of the page it should redirect to, though, as they currently (attempt and fail to) link to the non-existent page Mouse variety. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Look again. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, nice! Suppose the confusion came from you creating the redirects before creating the actual page—but then again, under normal circumstances what are the chances of someone happening across it in those few minutes, eh? By the way, have a big fat thank you! for your hard work today on a variety of things rodent, redir, dab or accompanying template. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Most welcome. Part of my overall incremental efforts on improving coverage of domestic animal breeding generally. We really need better coverage of that for both rats and mice. For mice, we have nearly nothing at all, list-wise, though there are several articles on individual lab mouse strains. for rats, we have an embedded list of noteworthy lab strains, and then a descriptive set of paragraphs about different fancy rat characteristics, but without any indication which ones are show categories according to what organizations. As for redirs, yeah, the ones I was making were already redlinks, so the order didn't matter. I just had them all open for editing and saved them one after another. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, makes sense. Hey, if you can point me at the relevant stuff, I'm happy to help you with it. Any chance you have a list of "red-linked but needed" articles, or a list of stubs you feel should have highest priority in expanding? Can't promise how much I'll be able to do, but I should be able to squeeze in some editing here and there between the vandal-reverting/warning/reporting and the typo-fixing. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Probably the most straightforward and easy first step would to be look at Category:Laboratory mouse breeds (which is misnamed), and create a list of them as a section in the lab mice article. That gives us something to redirect List of laboratory mouse strains to, which in turn can be added to Breed#Lists of animal breeds, as has been done for List of laboratory rat strains. Such an embedded lab mouse strain list also would give a place to put redlink entries that we should have articles on. Next, the Fancy mouse article needs a list of the various varieties of fancy mice are (e.g. as defined for show purposes), and what their distinguishing characteristics are, according to which clubs. This too could be added to the Breed article, as was done for the section redir List of fancy rat varieties. And finally, the fancy rat article's material could be better organized so that it's clearer on the differences between the varieties as defined as show categories by various groups, vs. what particular traits are. Right now it commingles traits and varieties that have them. PS: If any fancy rat and mouse varieties have a breed standard, with points of conformation, and maybe even a pedigree registration system, that's enough evidence to label them a standardized breed, like many cat, dog, horse, etc., breeds. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, makes sense. Hey, if you can point me at the relevant stuff, I'm happy to help you with it. Any chance you have a list of "red-linked but needed" articles, or a list of stubs you feel should have highest priority in expanding? Can't promise how much I'll be able to do, but I should be able to squeeze in some editing here and there between the vandal-reverting/warning/reporting and the typo-fixing. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Most welcome. Part of my overall incremental efforts on improving coverage of domestic animal breeding generally. We really need better coverage of that for both rats and mice. For mice, we have nearly nothing at all, list-wise, though there are several articles on individual lab mouse strains. for rats, we have an embedded list of noteworthy lab strains, and then a descriptive set of paragraphs about different fancy rat characteristics, but without any indication which ones are show categories according to what organizations. As for redirs, yeah, the ones I was making were already redlinks, so the order didn't matter. I just had them all open for editing and saved them one after another. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, nice! Suppose the confusion came from you creating the redirects before creating the actual page—but then again, under normal circumstances what are the chances of someone happening across it in those few minutes, eh? By the way, have a big fat thank you! for your hard work today on a variety of things rodent, redir, dab or accompanying template. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Might have to hop back here for advice if I'm uncertain on something, but it sounds like there are several things I can work on/with. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Schweet. I'm presently normalizing the categorization, and will CfR the lab mouse category to use "strain" not "breed". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Sounds like the better location/name for it, in any case. Seems like it's currently pretty busy on the vandal-fighting front, or I'd start working on some of it now. Oh well, there are plenty of times when it's a lot calmer and I can properly work on it. Since I'm talking to you right now anyway, what would you say are the foremost (preferably online-accessible) sources for rat/mouse breed standards and pedigrees? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- No idea, that's why I was deferring to you. >;-) At a guess, I'd see the organizations listed in Fancy rat and Fancy mouse, and maybe google for a few others (our articles on animal breeds often miss international and major national breeder/fancier groups). See if they have breed/show standards with conformation points listed. I just finished fleshing out Category:Laboratory rats with everything we seem to have, on those, and reorganized all the relevant stuff I can find so far into a new Category:Laboratory rodents. I'm sure there are strains of rabbits and guinea pigs for labs, as there are of mice and rats, but WP doesn't seem to have anything on it yet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. XD Well, that just means I ought to simply dive into things to figure out some sources. I do have the additional advantage of being fluent in Dutch and having a good enough knowledge of another few languages to translate them moderately well. Means I have a bigger pool of sources to dive into to fish up those that are both informative and reliable. Though of course it then means I'd have to cross-reference again to figure out what the English names are supposed to be, as literal translations often are humorous but altogether wrong (or not humorous, but still wrong). For example, the Dutch name for the Abyssinian guinea pig literally means "rough-haired guinea pig" or "bristle guinea pig". If I find useful sources, would you appreciate me dropping a link here as well? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I spoke too soon. Now Category:Laboratory_rat_strains has the entries it should. And, sure, I'm always up for know what good sources are on this stuff. If any are breed encyclopedias or something like that for rodent species, maybe add to the thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds)#Breed books. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't that always the case with Wikipedia? Just as soon as you think you're done, something pops up that you have missed. 'least seems to be that way for me. XD And I will let you know whatever good sources I may uncover. If they're pretty narrow in focus, I'll probably just alert you to them; if they're broad--like a rodent species breed encyclopedia or even just a mice breed encyclopedia or such--I'll add them to the thread you linked as well. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I spoke too soon. Now Category:Laboratory_rat_strains has the entries it should. And, sure, I'm always up for know what good sources are on this stuff. If any are breed encyclopedias or something like that for rodent species, maybe add to the thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (breeds)#Breed books. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. XD Well, that just means I ought to simply dive into things to figure out some sources. I do have the additional advantage of being fluent in Dutch and having a good enough knowledge of another few languages to translate them moderately well. Means I have a bigger pool of sources to dive into to fish up those that are both informative and reliable. Though of course it then means I'd have to cross-reference again to figure out what the English names are supposed to be, as literal translations often are humorous but altogether wrong (or not humorous, but still wrong). For example, the Dutch name for the Abyssinian guinea pig literally means "rough-haired guinea pig" or "bristle guinea pig". If I find useful sources, would you appreciate me dropping a link here as well? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:New Mexican English
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Mexican English. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
What you said
... about the section of Wikipedia which I try hard to avoid - not always successfully so: I support fully, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Upstate New York
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Upstate New York. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI
This discussion, Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#The inclusion of 'Commons', 'Wikiquote', and 'Wikisource' on appropriate templates, has now been converted into an RfC on the same page. Given that you took the time to comment on this issue previously, I thought you would want to know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I commented. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Small Adirondack Blue comment
In case you are not familiar, and I wasn't, they are potatoes but, perhaps, potatoes are not the best example to use as the they are not of a species that is known for being pointy.
I genuinely respect the work that you do with the animal breed articles and didn't consider that it would have been any way appropriate to have left my pointy (though I think justified) comments on the Russian black page.
Yes i guess I am perhaps happily "arguing that it's not disambiguation because we're not distinguishing one article from another" (at least that is in Wikipedia's terms. The policy states: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia." That, I believe, is the limit of the scope here.
In any case I think that Primary topic can be clearly seen in regard to various of the breeds that you have mentioned by simple reference to image searches as follows:
- "Russian Black Pied" clearly refers to cattle
- "German Red Pied" clearly refers to cattle
- "Chinese black pied" clearly refers to cattle
- "Belarus Black Pied" clearly refers to pigs
- "Bentheim Black Pied" clearly refers to pigs
In each case absolutely no form of disambiguation is necessary for the sake of Wikipedia's article disection purposes but because many readers may not know a pied animal from a pied piper. However, while disambiguation is not required, the clarification of topic subject (not relating to pipers etc.) is greatly appreciated. GregKaye 11:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't think you were being pointy, just pursuing an argument that doesn't need to be made there. WP:DAB's wording is poor. The word "disambiguation" existed before WP and has a meaning. WP:DAB applies that meaning broadly, "resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous". But it then adds an inaccurate "in other words"-style aside that inaccurately restates it in a far more narrow way: "when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia". WP:PRECISION policy exists, and we do in fact use natural and sometimes parenthetic disambiguation to comply with that policy, so this proves that the aside is incorrect. The obvious fix for it is one that I'll go make right now. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 18:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent edit there. That certainly helps clear things up for me. I am just wondering whether something similar can be written into WP:AT to make more sense with the Michigan highway and Leeds North West contents. Just a thought. It might also be interesting to see if FrancisS reverts you as he has been reverting me.
- I am quite humoured that we have presented disambiguation as having a more precise meaning than it actually has. GregKaye 16:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Especially since it relates to WP:PRECISE. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Palestine grid
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Palestine grid. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Using the "Online Slang Dictionary" As A Reliable Source
As noted in its "About" section:
- "The website is a wiki: logged-in users can submit terms, add definitions to terms, and
edit existing definitions. - "New content appears on the website immediately, without requiring editor or community permission."
It's therefore not a reliable source, and should not be used to reference anything here, ever. Cheers. Doc talk 08:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Doc9871: Essay pages aren't articles (nor portals or other encyclopedia content) subject to WP:V/WP:RS. It was a convenience link (not a citation) for anyone not familiar with the slang usage, to replace the incorrect link to the other meaning of "diva", The "WikiDivas" text change in place of that should suffice. I'd just chosen to replace one link with another instead of delete a link. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mexico City
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:UPC search link
Template:UPC search link has been nominated for merging with Template:UPC. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links withing the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Dirtlawyer1: I actually just noted over there that we already clearly have consensus for something along these lines (50% is enough; we don't need an additional "minimum of three" criterion, surely). I say let it close, and let the closer see if they agree we have consensus for at least that much. I don't think yet another proposal to vote on is going to be practical. If it turns out we do need one after all, I could support something along the lines of what I just posted, even if you insist on the "minimum of 3" point and the "stand-alone" point. My principal interest in this is stopping the abuse of navboxes as redlink farms, while not upsetting legit use for series and sets when we already have at least half of the series/set as blue links (whether to stand-alone articles or not). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Missing deletion argument
Hi SMcCandlish, the case for deleting Pardew Shuffle may speak for itself, but I thought I'd let you know your deletion argument didn't go through there. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Woops, fixed. Thanks for the note. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Miroslav Filipović
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miroslav Filipović. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Chinese language
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chinese language. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Chemicals in electronic cigarette aerosol
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chemicals in electronic cigarette aerosol. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)