User talk:MrX/Archive/April-June 2020

"Sahasa Simha Comics Seies" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sahasa Simha Comics Seies. Since you had some involvement with the Sahasa Simha Comics Seies redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Advice request

Hi MrX, I respect your professionalism in the way you edit and treat people (not always kind, but always fair) from what I've seen. I wanted to ask your advice about a couple things.

The first is about the changes made at Talk:Joe_Biden by Snooganssnoogans. The first edit is followed 4 other similar edits and then another a few hours ago. This is looking to me more like a personal attack with deepening WP:ASPERSIONS and throw in some WP:BLUDGEON as well. WP:AGF and Civility also come to mind.

I pinged him and called him out gently in my 17:40 edit -- with no response.

Am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill or should I take the next steps in the dispute resolution?

The second question is in regard to reliability of Rising_(news_show) and Hill TV. It appears that this is produced/published by The Hill and presumably under its editorial oversight. The last 3 discussions about the Hill on WP:RS/N were after Rising existed as part of thehill.com (Rising was never mentioned). The argument made by Snoogansnoogans implied that it opinion or no consensus (by referring to the hosts as cranks and comparing to Fox programming). CBS527 argues there is no consensus. The piece in context seems reliable (as a direct video interview), but as it is mainly about Times Up and not Biden so is only useful as a supporting source. There are at least 54 articles with references cited from Rising.

To me, it seems like Rising is billed as a News show and is just part of TheHill.com. I assumed it was a RS after I reviewed WP:RS/P. I would think the next step for Snoogans or CBS would be to open a RfC to remove the implied consensus.

Does that match with your understanding of RS or am I off my rocker?

As a side note, I plan to review my thoughts in the Talk:Biden pages and see if I still feel the same way with only the other sources. I am planning on changing some of my vote text (with appropriate strikethrough) to remove The Hill source and replace it with Vox and maybe another better source.

Regards and thanks for your time and advice. --Davemoth (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: I can't address your first four paragraphs because you linked to entire pages. If you would like for me to comment on specific edits, WP:DIFFS would be needed. Let me me know if you want to do that and I will comment.

I don't know if Rising is a reliable source. Generally, a talk show would not be high quality source. Our Wikipedia article does not describe it as a news program. You didn't link to an interview or the material citing the interview, so I can't comment on it specifically. I think the case for considering it a reliable source for the accusation against Biden is best made in that context, on the article talk page. I don't see much value in seeking a general ruling on it, since it is not an oft-cited source. I hope that helps. - MrX 🖋 10:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

MrX Sorry to waste your time on the bad diffs, I was dumb. I updated the 3 links there.

For Rising, I guess it is less the specific article about reade (which is short and I've decided is not a good source for Biden's Bio on its own) and more the process in general. As for precedent, there are about 20 links to Rising from BLP articles and 56 total per [1] so editors have been using this (presumably as a RS).

Process wise, I've been Googling various terms (usually "Biden Reade"), seeing where the source stands per RS/P, reviewing content, deciding if I will use it. I don't know how I could have known the consensus was not clear on Hill.TV or Rising.

A single example I picked for the prominence and contentiousness of an article:

[This Example] that is referenced in the Mueller_Report article. I found the questions fair and not particularly biased.

Thanks Again --Davemoth (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think there is validity to Snooganssnoogans argument, but it is unnecessarily personal and lacking in WP:AGF. I suggest you discuss it with them on their talk page. Use of sources on Wikipedia is not a meaningful indicator of a source's reliability, although heavy use probably is. Source reliability is context dependent, and usually should be decided on an article talk page, or in some cases, at WP:RSN. In my opinion, shows like the one you linked to have very limited use for serious encyclopedia content. - MrX 🖋 16:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice job

Hi MrX, I was just perusing the photos you've taken and uploaded on your userpage. They're really quite excellent. Kudos to you. Just added one of the to this article. Ergo Sum 17:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ergo Sum. That's very kind of you to say. - MrX 🖋 17:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear MrX

I had not noticed it till well after I posted my diffs and comments (probably as I had my edit window open same time you were posting) but in the future, if you're going to bring up 5 year old diffs about me and editorialize them so publically[2], maybe ping me. Kind of odd really since I have been pretty much absent from your arena as of late. Thank you.--MONGO (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No, thank you, but I must decline. The information I posted was uniquely relevant to the the topic of civility as it relates to arbitration enforcement of WP:ARBAPDS. Not my fault that your incivility and hostility was called out by Arbcom. Yes, you have been absent, except when you haven't, which seems remarkably intended to annoy.[3][4] Cheers! - MrX 🖋 19:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh well. Oh, did you feel attacked by my edits you linked? If so, I assure you I was attacking no one. If I want to attack you I will do it right here and now. So here goes..I think you bringing up five year old diffs and not alerting me was nasty and rude. Also when you go and slap AMPol templates on newbies pages it serves no purpose than to intimidate them.--MONGO (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No I don't "feel attacked", but you following me to try to get a dig or two in is entirely on brand. As I explained above (and you evidently ignored), the diff I brought up was the relevant example of incivility pointed out by Arbcom in the relevant case invoked in Ergo Sum's enforcement request. Although it's ironic that you jumped into that very request with evidence that was far milder than that which resulted in the FoF against you, I had no reason to alert you, because you were not the topic of discussion. - MrX 🖋 20:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I am NOT following you! You must be a wee bit paranoid. I looked to see what had been posted at the newbies talk and saw Scjessey posted a benign welcome followed in rapid succession by less then welcoming chat and template. For no reason other than malice, you tried to redirect the topic to me based on now ancient diffs, so yea, you did attempt indirectly to make me the topic of discussion. All I asked is you have the courtesy to let me know when you're going to drag out old diffs like that as not doing so is simply rude. An embedded ping would have worked. We all have some skeletons in our closet [5] MrX.--MONGO (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course I can strike BLP violations from talk pages

You know this though I would imagine. --Malerooster (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Malerooster: First, it wasn't a WP:BLP violation.[6][7] Second, what policy are you quoting? - MrX 🖋 15:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Edit warring over an opinion and altering the comments of another editor?!! THAT is what's "unhinged." Someone needs to take a break. -- Valjean (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was not good form. - MrX 🖋 15:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Political endorsements

Hello, MrX. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Political endorsements".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

Here is all the reverts done by you just now, and I'm assuming this is a gross violation of WP:1RR. I'm basing this off of your interpretation of a "revert". Self-revert and learn to use the talk page. Is your editing the type that needs to be reported to WP:AE for review? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please explain how my edits are "a gross violation of WP:1RR" or an example of WP:DISRUPT. - MrX 🖋 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I've made 79 edits to the talk page, and I'm the sixth most active editor on the talk page, so "learn to use the talk page" seems a bit rancorous. - MrX 🖋 16:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Learn to take the talk page into consideration when violating 1RR, is that better? You have made multiple reverts of editor's additions. How can I make this any clearer to you? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

1 May 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

XavierItzm, did you not see this at the top of this page? - MrX 🖋 17:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a very long page. I must unwittingly have missed it! Anyway, it never hurts to double-check. Cheers! XavierItzm (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I can make it into an edit notice. - MrX 🖋 17:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:1RR

As discussed on the Joe Bide page, please self-revert. Please consult this with someone if you are still unsure about the policy. It obviously states one revert per user per 24 hours. It also states that multiple edits that revert a change count as one revert. It doesn't say that you can keep reverting all day long and everything counts as one revert. BeŻet (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--BeŻet (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Situation now apparently clarified. You can make several reverts of content that has appeared before you preformed your first revert. BeŻet (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

1RR (May 3)

I think you have passed 1RR on the Reade article today. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean because other editors jumped into the middle of a series of closely spaced edits that I had made? Are you aware that admins have repeatedly expressed at AE and elsewhere that a series of closely spaced edits that are interrupted by intervening edits are reasonably construed to be one edit? Did you happen to notice that I made 15 edits in the course of 25 minutes? In other words, an average of 1-1/2 minutes between edits. - MrX 🖋 19:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like MrX stopped once he became aware that someone reverted one of his edits. Looking at the last 24 hours in that article I'm wondering if a 24-hr protection might be best to reset the clock for everybody. I suspect MrX isn't the only one who may have passed 1RR if you get really technical about what counts as a revert. (I just came from warning somebody about a clear violation...restoring the same content twice 10 minutes apart.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

For the first few minutes of my editing, I had a window open with the page history that I was refreshing between edits. By about the 8th or 9th edit, it didn't look like anyone else was trying to jump in, so I didn't bother refreshing the history. It wasn't until after my 16th edit that I refreshed the history and realized that four other editors had crashed my party. I don't think we really need for the article to be locked down. Most editors seem to be trying to follow the spririt of the editing restrictions, and most have been responsive if they accidentally breach them. - MrX 🖋 20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "being technical" about it. Admins have differing interpretations and one can never be sure what some Admin may decide has been a violation. However, in the thread at @Brady:'s talk page yesterday, somebody said something that's consistent with the spirit of the rule and obviates these disputes about interpretation. The principle there was that if an editor makes a series of changes, whether consecutive or interrupted, it is not a 1RR violation unless one of the reverts is wording that was not in the article when the editor's sesquence began. I thought that was rather elegant and operationally straightforward and objective.

The problem at these Biden articles is nothing very subtle. It's outright revert warring, personal remarks on the talk pages, and misrepresentations of other editors. Admins would do a great service by letting everyone know they see that stuff when it happens, real time. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

^^ - @Bradv: SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Many of those mass reverts seem to at least go against the spirit of 1RR. We've also had a new editor to the page jump in a start making huge reversions of relatively stable content. I had hoped the thread at Bradv's talkpage could help us find some clarity in what 1RR is, or where we could go to get a clear consensus (perhaps ARCA), but it didn't really pan out that way. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Either I misunderstand where you're coming from or you're conflating removal of text with edit warring. Nothing about my edits resembled edit warring. I didn't just press the undo button, or act impulsively. In my 16 edits, I removed considerably less text than you did in these two edits:[8][9]. Using your standard, were you going against the spirit of 1RR also? - MrX 🖋 14:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No my concern is more about adding and removing so quickly. Some of the edits you made removed recently added content. I think we could debate the definition endlessly, but the bottom line is I don’t want to see experienced editors be sanctioned because of a “gotcha” report someone could file about technical definitions of reversions that a sympathetic admin sees first. I reverted text that had been in that article a long time - see my rationale on the talk page. Some of the comments at the Biden article and how that allegation is presented have given me some guidance for how we could improve Kavanaugh. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

“Official website” parameter in medical infoboxes

Hi, I noticed your revert of my edit to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. So far, I’ve had two editors agree with me. I didn’t realize at first that there was a template specifically for disease outbreaks, so now I’m discussing it on the template’s talk page. I’m mostly a medical contributor to Wikipedia, and I take issue with the term “Official website” being used to refer to an outbreak itself, rather than a government response. So, I’m inviting you to join the discussion. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 11:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Maybe the solution is to change the label "Official website" to something like "Official website for information about the pandemic from the the government's leading national public health institute." I'll certainly try to join the template discussion, but we should probably also discuss it on the article talk page. - MrX 🖋 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: That’s a long title! Another editor proposed simply changing it to “website” so we could include tracking websites, as well. There’s so many of these pages that I’d prefer to keep the discussion on the template’s page. I won’t revert your revert. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 12:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Website would be fine with me. I've commented in the RfC. - MrX 🖋 12:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Standard alert

I think you misplaced this on my page. In general I am not interested in your issues, but I communicate to authors, if I have the feeling something is fishy.

In any case, can you explain the meaning of this alert? Platonykiss (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

These topics attract a lot of behavior that is at odds with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The purpose of the alert is to alert you to the fact that these articles are subject to additional scrutiny, authorized by Arbcom. Comments like "Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a cabinet of Mr [sic] Fauci!" are inflammatory. - MrX 🖋 13:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently arranged by me [[10]], its hard to now not make some joke.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't remember arranging anything with you. Maybe I have the virus. - MrX 🖋 13:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Yreaa may beshst ma".Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I thank you to enlighten me about the true nature of this inflammation! Platonykiss (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That comment seems to reveal a severe language problem. It makes no sense in English. -- Valjean (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Once you really try it does, I think they are saying "I thank you for enlightening me about the true nature of what I thought was an inflammatory act!". But it does take way to much work for too little benefit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And I have now given up trying to figure out what they might mean over the words they are jumbling together. MAybe we need some FAQ that says being able to use google translate does not mean you can read or write the language.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Your communication to my talk page

I find that you are a biased editor just from your talk page. I am trying to get at least ONE article on wikipedia to be balanced. I am sure that confirmation bias will not allow you to read the article with a true editor's eye. PRETEND you are non partisan or even lean right and read GENERAL Michael Flynn's article knowing the information that is now available in the last 3 days in which people like Susan Rice, Sally Yates, and other frequent guests on CNN (a source wikipedia accepts) say UNDER OATH, from their public statements on CNN about Russia Collusion. Totally opposite. I want to be able to trust Wikipedia, but I cannot because I know that it is ran by those on the left who will not allow a balanced article on political figures. Just look through the talk page, any OPINION of bad is accepted, any showing that the article is inaccurate are not accepted even with each fact sourced. I went through the list of sources, many from years ago, that are now known to be false, and my comments were erased by someone. I did not know but now do about stealth editing. Bad for truth. I also note, no source that goes against the liberal bias is accepted. I do have an editor page but choose not to use it when I am editing on political pages because I do not want it banned because of a dispute of an editor with a power trip. 173.172.158.168 (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Again wp:ALLCAPS, see NotBattleground, 173.172.158.168. X1\ (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, single purpose users who charge in claiming that Wikipedia, its articles, and its editors are biased are not interested in presenting material neutrally or objectively, but simply want to force their own bias onto our pages. Flynn lied and broke the law. Those are established facts. - MrX 🖋 11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand this experience, but it does not disapprove the former criticism. A neutral form as requested for an encyclopedia, should include more than one side. It is not the decision which one is right. Why don't you try a brief presentation of the different interests and try to imagine, what could be interesting for a reader 5 years later, after one of these sides had been approved (hard to guess from now which one will be the right one...). Platonykiss (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that your IP above, then, Platonykiss? Bishonen | tålk 14:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC).

I mentioned you

It's at the bottom of Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and might sound vaguely "problematic", but that's just how I write. I assure you I bear no ill will, real or imagined. Just forgot to tag you and thought you should know "it" happened again. Also, I just noticed you said "Definifinitely" two springs back. Pretty funny word, intentional or not, in a good way! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I am familiar with you. - MrX 🖋 14:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

True enough, but most people are suddenly attacked by people they know, if they're suddenly attacked at all. It's not like in Carter's glory days, when kids were safe to skate the streets, easily fending off ninjas left and right with their trusty bats, slingshots and teamwork. When the hell are you people going to give that man his second term?!? He's not the devil you know anymore, he's hardened and leathery and grizzled now, he can handle whatever the outside world tosses your way, eh? But I digress, and you're a busy beaver with your own dam suggestions to plant, so I'll just leave you with one last piece of food for thought...🍄? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

In case your browser can't or won't render it, that last word is an amanita toadstool (or reasonable facsimile, only one way to find out!) InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I find Amanitas unappetizing but Lactarius are delicious sautéed in a bit a buttah. We have our best people working around the clock to decipher the rest of your comment. - MrX 🖋 21:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the magic of virtual mushrooms. They can assume any flavour and produce any effect you want. Bon appetit and tell your people to not waste mindpower on the beaver's role; it's chock full of red buttery herring! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia can highlight in colour?!?

"This" CHANGES everything. Thanks for emphasizing! I'll use this power responsibly, I swear. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I find it almost as handy as a clue-by-four. - MrX 🖋 23:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

About responses to semi-protected edit requests

Hi, MrX! I have a request, in particular for the George Floyd articles: instead of an immediate canned dismissal of all semi-protected edit requests that aren’t formatted with exact wording, or a claim that they need consensus before posting a request (their note is an attempt to gain that consensus), can you leave the messages alone for at least a little while, to allow editors to evaluate the request? In many cases the requests at those article are to add valid information. Remember that these are brand-newbies making the requests (that’s why they can’t add it themselves), so it is unreasonable to expect them to propose a properly formatted text. A lot of the time they are simply providing a lead for us experienced editors to evaluate. If you aren’t going to treat them as such, maybe you should just not answer them. What do you think about this suggestion? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Fair request, but I kind of think we need to find a way to redirect the users to simply open a discussion without using edit requests which tend to be distracting. How about we just delete the template portion of the malformed requests and treat them like any other discussion per WP:NOTBURO? That way, everyone wins. - MrX 🖋 21:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

ETA: Also, let's change the headings to something meaningful so that other editors can easily identify the topic. - MrX 🖋 22:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Those are both great suggestions. I think the reason they are coming through that way is that for non-autoconfirmed users there is a button on the page along the lines of "click here to make a suggestion on the talk page," and that is the heading that results when they do. I wonder if we can do anything about that? And who would we talk to about modifying the template? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN I'm not exactly sure how the edit request system works, but I think it's built into the MediaWiki software. I doubt that it's something that we could get changed for a few articles, unless there is a parameter that can be added when the page is protected. It might be easier to just do it manually as needed. - MrX 🖋 00:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When they click "View source", they get a page with, among other things, a big heading, "What can I do?". Bullet 1 under that is "Discuss this page with others." Light bulb right there, if it's read. Bullet 5 begins with "If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, you can submit an edit request, by clicking the button below and following instructions." (my emphasis) Then there's a big blue button with the label, "Submit an edit request". I have not seen a button with anything resembling "click here to make a suggestion on the talk page". The "instructions" then advise them to make the request in a specific X-to-Y format, provide reliable sources as appropriate, and so on.

To end up with the kind of "edit requests" that we see almost every day, the users have to skip or ignore pretty much ALL of the information put in front of them on the path to the talk page. It represents a clear absence of respect for the time editors have invested in trying to make things clearer and easier for them. Sorry but I don't have a lot of patience with that, and I oppose spending even more time trying to accommodate such people. If anything, we should create a boilerplate response to such abuses, and they may then very easily start over and open a discussion the right way, learning something useful about Wikipedia in the process. Or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a solidly valid criticism, and let me offer an addition one. The page that appears after you press the blue 'Submit and edit request button' has to be just about the most confusing collection of information that I've seen in my 40+ years of staring at computer screens. The entire page could be replaced with a single text entry box and the following instructions:

1. What are the exact words you want to add to the article.

2. Where in the article should the text be inserted.

3. List links to the reliable source that directly support the words you want to add.

The software should automatically create a heading and a signature. The end. I will never understand why Wikipedia is so deliberately arcane and unnecessarily complicated. - MrX 🖋 01:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I can help you with that. Wikipedia is arcane and unnecessarily complicated (not deliberately) because, far from too many cooks in the kitchen, everybody is a cook and only a small minority have much talent for cooking. It's inherent and unavoidable in our system. If we wanted and expected well-designed processes, we would have to restrict their design to editors who are good at designing human-based processes – ideally, editors who do that for a living – and that would be contrary to Wikipedia principles. Part of that skill set is the ability to put yourself in the place of a user who has far less knowledge than you have and design for them, not for people like you. That's a relatively rare skill. The rest of the world figured out centuries ago that quality cannot exceed a certain point without specialization, and Wikipedia is extremely poor at taking the lessons of history.

So perhaps we need a "Edit request redesign" initiative, but that's obviously not going to happen on this page and it's not something I feel like taking a lead on at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about the early development of MediaWiki, but I assume that it wasn't crowdsourced like Wikipedia content. - MrX 🖋 16:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If the "Discuss this page with others" link could be made to do the same thing as the talk page's "New section" link, that might help a little, to whatever extent users read that but can't figure out what to do after they get to the talk page. That's as far as I'd go in changing the existing support, and I don't know how that could be done with a wikilink. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, but why make it easy? - MrX 🖋 01:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information about what it really says to new or logged out users. (I hadn't checked because I didn't want to have to log out.) I can certainly understand why those instructions are ignored by newbies. And I can sympathize with someone who wants to have something added to the article but doesn't understand all the particulars they are supposed to supply. I can sympathize because I am also somewhat non-techie, and I sometimes get lost trying to follow complex instructions. (I confess: I am the admin who screwed up my own RFA transclusion. When I see an instruction like "substitute the time parser function" my response is "do what to the what?") You're right that we'll never reform that setup. Too many cooks may bake something inedible, but they'll never admit it; if they try again they'll probably make it worse. So my own approach to the question I raised here - how to respond to a legitimate request that didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's (which they virtually never do) - is to go ahead and do what they asked anyhow, if I can. And even to thank them for the tip. Isn't that better than biting a well-meaning newbie? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if we just treat malformed edit requests as new discussions that should make the talk page more productive. - MrX 🖋 16:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)