This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

→

Archive 105

April 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

Done

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

Done

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

Declined

– No opinion.

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

Stale

– I didn't see this in time to respond, but would certainly have argued redirect to February 30.

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

Done

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

Done

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)

Done

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

Done

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

Done

Hi there,

I just noticed that you added this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles a while back:

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.

Sound advice (I thought this was the case anyway) but then you rearranged the wording which has now become:

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA for Italian

Done

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of style § Using and not using quotation marks

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 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: [1]. 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: It's been reverted. I opened at thread about it at WT:MOS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

Done

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

Done

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

Stale

– Discussion trailed off over a month ago.

Please can you undo this edit. In this case you are a very involved editor. Greg Kaye 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 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. Greg Kaye 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 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.

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 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?

Greg Kaye 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 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. Greg Kaye 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 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. Greg Kaye 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to respond?

Done

In a WT:AT thread that you started I added later comment here, mentioned in case you would like to respond. Greg Kaye 06:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That page is on my watchlist. I already responded there before I even saw this note. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)