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.

→

April 2016

He!

Moved to Template talk:Contradict-inline

Before you break the template a third time, will you read Template_talk:Contradict-inline#Article_parameter? Debresser (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: It was obviously just a typo, using the old magicword instead of the intended variable. Long since fixed, and I've gone way beyond that. Talk page of template has the details on the new features. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted all of that. Maintenance templates don't need al those features, and if necessary, they can be added easily with features of {{Fix}}. Compare other maintenance templates, please, before you add 742 characters to a maintenance template. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Then do it the way you want it done, as long as it gets done. I don't recall having any noteworthy disputes with you before, so I'm wondering why this is looking more and more like a personal "stonewall and editwar against that SMcCandlish guy at all costs" mission. This is the third time in a row you've used blanket reverting to undo my work, instead of re-implementing it in ways you like better. And yes, maintenance templates do need features that a) make their default behavior non-senseless, b) reduce the profusion of redundant templates, and c) help actually pinpoint what the flagged problem is. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind here; I see you've reversed yourself on this in the time it took me to reply. I'll raise the remaining issues at the template talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You added too much code and features, IMHO. The discussion was only about a redirect. You made the "Contradict-inline" template about the most complicated template of all maintenance templates, and that is overkill. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nah. There are considerably more complex templates. If you don't want to use the features, don't use them. Simple. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2016)

Declined

– I'm not doing popular culture articles. Pick something more important.

I'll pass.

A pecan pie

Hello, SMcCandlish.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Pecan pie

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Gates of hell • Critic

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

April 2016

Fixed

– the one that was a valid error report.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Siamese cat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of Marriages MAR 1887 1a 19 PADDINGTON Courtney Bouchier Vyvyan = Eva Catherine F. Walker</ref>) and her sister, Ada. Compared to the [[British Shorthair]] and [[Persian (cat)|Persian]] cats that
it fails to work at normal [[Thermoregulation|body temperatures]], but becomes active in cooler (< 33 °C) areas of the skin.<ref>{{cite journal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Three card brag may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

in [[Trinidad]], [[India]], [[Bangladesh]] and [[Nepal]], where it is known both as "flush" and ''{{lang|hi|[[teen patti]]'' (literally 'three cards' in Hindi), played with numerous local variations.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Fixed

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bengal cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinian. 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) 11:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of South America

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Some dim sum for you!

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Why thank ya very much! I was wiki-hungry. ;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the way the dumplings kind of droop down, like gravity in action, so using it around town ... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's because they're trying to git in mah belleh!. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:British colonial campaigns

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:British colonial campaigns. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

wtf?

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.

My talk page does exist for people, who nuke everyone's posts of their own talk pages, to use as their surrogate ranting ground. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems you posted this on the wrong user's talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 07:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I just covered this at your talk page, but whatever. You're correct that I misidentified who wrote and reverted what; but a) Dicklyon has already receieved that WP:ACDS notice for WP:ARBATC, so I need not give him another (indeed, we're instructed to not leave duplicate ones), but b) you had not, and clearly needed one, since multiple editors complain you are casting uncivil and unsupportable WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors, at pages covered by WP:ARBATC. So, all is actually well. You're aware of the discretionary sanctions in the topic area, so is Dicklyon, so am I (obviously), and I think everyone else active in the area is, too. I expect, therefore, that the civility level will increase. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

DDG-121

That's quite a mess you've made of the talk page over there, while writing your novel (are you up to extended discussion #12 yet?). Don't alter the layout the discussion and especially do not move other user's comments out of place and context. Just say what you have to say and move you. You and your friends are becoming entirely to presumptuous with your actions of late. You need to remember that Wikipedia is massive consensus-based community, not a little clique that can change whatever they like, including the hard work of others and even guidelines, just to suit your personal tastes. You need and friends need to stop what you're doing and seek the approval of the community at large. - ^theWOLFchild 08:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If you nuke everyone's comments off your talk page and respond to them in WP:JERK fashion, you have no right to comment on anyone else's talk page. Now, go read WP:REFACTOR and WP:BLUDGEON. It's standard operating procedure to take back-and-forth blather like yours, especially when the formatting of it interferes with the ability to tell how many individuals have commented, and move it out of the main comments section into lower, extended discussion section(s). If you have no figured this out yet, try reading more and posting less until you absorb WP community practices better. "You and your friends", i.e. the four people who will not accept a site-wide RfC that ran for a month, was closed not just by an admin but one of the sitting Arbs, and the implementation of which has resulting in WP:SNOWBALLs in favor of it in RM after RM are the ones who are "differently clued" when it comes to consensus. Now, you stay off my talk page. Bye. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2016)

Declined

– I'm not doing popular culture articles. Pick something more important.

I'll pass.

Various foods in a delicatessen in Rome, Italy

Hello, SMcCandlish.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Delicatessen

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Pecan pie • Gates of hell

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Letter case

added a link pointing to House style

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

added a link pointing to Trade paperback

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:MOS/BIos

This edit was more snarky then necessary. I have already warned WC to tone down his rhetoric and it would be helpful to lowering the overall temperaturw if you could ease up the sharpness of your own comments. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Right-o. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's clear this up and move on

Moved from User talk:Spartaz

@Thewolfchild: This is kind of a moot point now, but let's just air it out. Since you covered a lot of things in more than one place, I'll break this up topically for easier digestion and reply, if I dare hope you'll bother. (And yes, this is an invitation to discuss it here instead of your page, or Spartaz's, etc.; you seem to have an issue with me in particular, almost as much as with Dicklyon, so let's air it out.)

Source alteration

Dicklyon pointed out the source gaming [1], and the article edits confirm it. You even stated explicitly on that talk page that you'd used the consistent-within-the-article wording as an excuse to delete sources.[2] No one else in WP history, as far as I know, has ever advanced the idea that being consistent in the article text means altering source titles to show the styles you want to say they use, or deleting sources that don't have titles styled in a way that agrees with the style of the text. Indeed, both MOS and WP:CITE are explicit that citation style is not determined by style in the article prose. Since the MOS:JR loophole wording has been closed, we needn't go over this any further. Water under the bridge.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Taking it to ArbCom

You would not like the outcome. I have diffs for every one of the following unsupported accusations by you: conspiracy, gaming, editwarring, "disingenuous comments" (lying), hypocrisy, disruption, editwarring again to remove sources (that was you), changing MOS "to suit personal preferences", text-walling (also you - I tried to refactor your RM bludgeoning into an extended comments section and you reverted, and the entire article talk page is a forest of pink "Wolf" markers; you totally dominate the conversation), playing dumb, gaming, and many others. You have no evidence to back up any of those claims. I seriously think you'll get at least topic-banned if not indeffed (given your block log and the fact that you're subject to escalating blocks, the short ones you've already burned through, and many of the blocks are recent) if you keep pursuing any of this. If you really think you have a case for AE or ARBCOM, I can't stop you, but I'm very well prepared for it. Wouldn't it be better to just WP:DGAF and go do something less stressy, like work on a ship stub?
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone is supposedly on your side

You make claims at Spartaz's page about landslide support for your viewpoint and a whole army of people up in arms about this, but it's just not there. The entire scenario is not cogent at all. You claim (I have not checked) that Dicklyon (and/or someone else? It's unclear what you mean sometimes) have moved hundreds or thousands of articles since the MOS:JR RfC. Yet there are a total of about one dozen Jr./Sr.-related RMs open, and they're all snowballing in favor of no commas. Editors in favor of the commas are the same four guys, recycling the same arguments no matter how many times they're refuted and fall on deaf ears. If what you said was true, there'd be hundreds of RMs or at least requests to revert undiscussed moves, and by now there'd be a centralized discussion, probably a mass RM. to deal with them in sets. None of this happening, because no one cares.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The validity of the RfC

The RfC was based on a huge pile of sources, and concluded MOS should prefer the no-comma style. It was a followup to a weak and no-consensus RfC last year, with few sources and lots of OR and opinion. When sources were provided this time, the opinion-mongering stopped dead (except for 4 editors, maybe 5 (Randy Kryn was vacillating and still is), and they just don't have the sources to back them. MOS was updated to implement the consensus in the RM. Parts of the close are not reflected in the MOS wording because they are not MOS matters. "Grandfathering" is something that GAN and FAC do, and MOS can't make up some "grandfathering" policy out of thin air. People would shit flaming spiked bricks if such a thing were attempted, since it would lead to everyone making guideline-immunity claims for all sorts of things based on age of the article, with the insane result that the older an article was, the less we would improve it to comply with modern WP expectations. Articles written in 2005 could be reverted back to 2005 standards, and look like total crap.

RMs follow MOS recommendations absent a compelling case not to in a particular instance. You assail MOS:JR as a "crock of shit", claiming that the RfC is somehow invalid, and that the close (by an Arb, not just an admin) is somehow invalid. Well, good luck selling that story. I have no need of further strife with you, and have nothing against your work here. When I'm working on non-mainspace stuff, my primary interest here is project-wide stability. Stability is not "don't move comma-Jr articles to just-Jr". Stability is "do not try to foment weird, pointy insurrections against WP guidelines and RfC processes and their closers". I don't agree with Drmies's close either, but I didn't challenge it formally; we can just work around the supervoting and confused aspects of it. There is nothing disruptive about moving comma-Jr articles to drop the comma. The disruption is the campaigning, page by page, to prevent the guideline and the RfC (prefer no-comma except when current sources consistently use a comma for a particular subject) from applying anywhere at all. The point of MOS, and AT, and multi-RMs, is to avoid, not perpetuate, page-after-page rehash of the same nit-picking.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

<snigger> Shitting flaming piked bricks</snigger>. That's the funniest thing I read so far this week. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I try to inject a little humo[u]r into tense situations when I can. Heh. (though that was supposed to be "spiked"; I fixed it above.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Arby

Hey SMcCandlish, my arbness is really irrelevant--it doesn't make my close better or worse. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Technically, I agree. I raised it (and needn't again), because Thewolfchild and someone else was chanting "take it to ARBCOM!", but it's highly unlikely that ArbCom would overturn one of the closes of a sitting ArbCom member, even aside from the fact that ArbCom doesn't settle content disputes, even internal ones.

Anyway, I rewrote the material to better reflect your close despite my misgivings about it (the text now notes the BLP thing as a statistical likelihood, not a prerequisite), and this should actually resolve the issue, but I'm extremely skeptical – tempers being the way they are – that it will not be subject to a bunch more revertwarring and tendentious denial that your close is valid, that the RfCis valid, that MoS is valid, than any consensus other than "give me that damned comma" is valid.

I suspect a fourth RfC will ensue, all because four individuals will not stop beating the dead horse. I don't even really care about this comma (it's Dicklyon and RGloucester's show, perhaps the thing that will mend the very strained fence between them); I just sourced it because it's an interesting language question. I have even more style guides now, so if it comes to that and if I'm bored enough on a rainy weekend, I'll be able to probably double the sourcing level. (Would rather not; have other fish to fry.)

My interest in this "Jr." thing is just the bogus attempts to pretend VPPOL RfCs can be ignored if one doesn't get the answer one wants. (Someone probably thinks I'm behaving that way about the "grandfathering" thing, but I've laid out a policy-based rationale at WT:MOSBIO, reiterated here, above, showing it's a GAN/FAC matter, not an MOS one, and no one's refuted this).

I also suggested to Dicklyon to lay off the moves for a bit. Everyone needs to just calm down.

PS: Now you have me thinking of Arby's Sauce. I need a sangwidge! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't go there--it'll kill you. Look, that I'm an Arb has little to do with what ArbCom may decide, and I encourage that one forget I have a few different hats. I closed that one as an uninvolved admin. What might go before ArbCom, I don't know. If someone wants to challenge a close it's probably going to be kicked right back. But I have no doubt that there will be more misgivings about the MOS, esp., maybe, as we're getting more newer editors and the older ones--dinosaurs like you and me--die off. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: More rambling musings.... I'm sure you're right. One of my goals is to get our own articles on English usage better sourced; people (like someone recently indeffed) keep using the shite ones and the OR in them to push MoS-alteration agendas. Most of them really are in appalling shape.

But there's always a fire to fight at MoS, more so than any other guideline. It's because many native speakers (and quite a few non-) are convinced that the usage they were taught early on is the correct one, in an objective sense. (Or at most that there's one correct English, down to every possible detail, over here, and some weird foreign one over there which also has one exact set of correct rules.) It's a religious-like conviction.

Protecting the balance and stability is the important part. Which includes respect for the guideline as a guideline like the rest of them. If we have that, it doesn't really matter what the particulars are in most cases. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Still have a sour taste in my mouth. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

While you've been sleeping............

Bad news from the Lol-cat! Keep up the splendid work. William Harris • talk • 10:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. "Always blame the cat." — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:State of Palestine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

Done

I noticed that you were one of the more recent editors at WP:SPA. There is an important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about possibly finding a way to salvage Single-purpose editors and transforming them into positive WP collaborators in the general mainspace. I'm sure you run in to many of them as you wander around WP. I'm also sure that every now and then one of the SPA editors rises above the crowd and seems worthy of more of your time and effort. Your personal insight and experience would be appreciated. WP:WER has become a relative ghost town (and I may be one of the few ghosts left in town) and User:Robert's idea may be just the boost the Project needs to revitalize. It's an opportunity for the Project to actually do something beyond handing out awards. I think Dennis Brown would like it. Buster Seven Talk 14:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Done

Hello, SMcCandlish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain where this edit was discussed, and if it wasn't, why you think it is uncontroversially a good idea. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:EDITING policy, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policy, and WP:BOLD, I don't need your permission before I can add features to temples. Certainty that an edit cannot potentially be controversial is not a prerequisite for making the edit, otherwise WP would have about 5,000 very short articles on boring things, and would have died the year it started. Tweaking templates to be flexible enough to actually comport with long-extant policies is hardly controversial anyway.

More to the point you came here about, check out WP:SPS policy, WP:USINGPRIMARY, etc. The reason for the parameter is that primary sources sometimes are both permissible and reliable (WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", though the word "may" in that should probably be emphasized); we prefer WP:SECONDARY ones, even when WP:AEIS isn't involved, but when it's not, WP:PRIMARY ones are often sufficient and their use does not auto-generate an actual dispute. A frequent case is an attributed or verbatim-quoted claim in the conclusions of primary research that, while not yet the subject of literature reviews and other high-quality sourcing, is encyclopedic, or even notable (e.g. because the findings have aroused controversy). Ergo, not every self-published source constitutes an accuracy dispute; while we do often want them replaced, we do not want them clogging up dispute categories, which exist for far more serious matters that we need to contend with, like citations of random-schmoe blogs written by people with no credentials. There are thousands upon thousands of such genuinely unacceptable citations on WP, and they all have to go. Citations to permissible primary sources generally only need to be replaced during WP:GAN or WP:FAC review (and even then many of them actually remain accepted for various things).

So, what about the parameter triggers some concern for you?

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked for an explanation, and you gave one. If I thought you needed my permission, I would have reverted first. When I saw your edit, I understood more or less what you wrote here, but I wanted to be sure that we have the same functionality in mind.

The first problem I see is that there is no category at all when the parameter is set to "yes". That is not so good, because as a rule it makes sense for a maintenance template to add a maintenance category, where all tagged articles can be found.

What bothered me about the edit, is that you add functionality that is not trivial without discussion, meaning, without making sure that editors feel that there is a need for the functionality and that they will use it. That seems a bit arrogant, like saying: "People, I am providing you with a nifty functionality. Oh, you don't need it, or don't know how to use it? You are such simple people." As a rule, functionality should be added only if it serves a function. In this case, it seems pretty academic to me.

Second problem. We already have {{Primary source inline}}, and the usage of {{Self-published source}} with the parameter set to "yes" come sdown to precisely that. That is redundant and confusing, and we should avoid that.

On a technical note, the "expert" parameter will function as a "yes" even if the text is "no". That is not good! Debresser (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

[Sorry this is long, but that was a long list of points in compact form.] Please do not project strange monologues like that as if they're in other people's heads; that's your imagination, not mine, and I don't think that way. When I create a template or add a parameter to one, it's because I'm going to use it, and I probably see that others might have a use for it. Same as almost all other template creations and parameter additions by other editors. Your expectations are seem unreasonable in this regard. You can't seriously be trying to tell me what my own motivations are and call me arrogant in the same breath. Seems kind of "unclear on the concept".

Lots of cleanup templates create no categories. Maint. categories are themselves a maintenance hassle, and we don't need more of them unless it's for something serious and urgent. Creating a new category for a parameter the entire point of which is to convert the template to a "fix it later, this is not urgent" usage, would defeat the purpose. Unless the template is flagging a large number of pages, and they need to be sorted by date so they can be prioritized, such a cat. would serve no purpose, since you can get the same list of pages by going to "What links here" at the template. The argument you present against adding template parameters without being very certain a bunch of people want it isn't exactly a strong one when it comes to template parameters, or we would have nearly no template parameters. It's a very strong argument against creating main. cats., though.

If you don't like the parameter, don't use it. If you really want to create a maint. cat. for it, I don't care any more than I've already indicated; I think it will be ignored, because we have so many already.

A primary source and a self-published one are not the same thing; I confused them in my earlier comment. The primary journal paper case would be primary, not SPS. The expert posts article on own blog case is SPS. Either way, it's a valid source in some context, for limited purposes. Sorry I did not keep them distinct; I was distracted by something off-wiki. Anyway, they're not redundant. Some SPS material is secondary or tertiary, and lots of primary (like new-research papers in journals) is not SPS.

All |foo=y parameters are really |foo=anything you put here, including "n", unless they're painstakingly coded to do positive/negative tests, which adds a great deal of processing overhead and is a waste of editorial time. If the documentation doesn't say you can reverse the parameter from neg. to pos. (or vice versa) there's about a 99% chance you can't – on any template. It's such a huge pain to implement that it's virtually always documented that this is possible when it is, and we all know it doesn't work if the /doc doesn't clearly say that it works.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am not convinced, but since nobody else is complaining, I'll leave it at this, for the time being. Which is, and I do feel I have to repeat this point, one of the reasons you should raise the proposal of adding new features on the talkpage before you make an edit. I strongly urge you to do so in the future. That would, as an additional benefit :), have spared you this post of mine. Debresser (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That didn't even actually parse in English; it's just a bunch of unconnected grammatical fragments. I think I get the gist, though. You're threatening to continue wasting my time with this gibberish if I don't do things your way, and you don't really have answer to anything I said. I don't know whether you intend that to be taken seriously, or are just trying to exit in a face-saving way and tripping over your own feet. It has kind of a Mr. Bean / Austin Power effect.

Repeat, in less uncertain terms: Neither I nor anyone else needs your or anyone else's prior approval to implement new things here. If you continue to pester me in this regard, you're just going to get the same answer. Most of what you wrote above in these posts indicates that, despite the amount of time you've been around, you've not absorbed a few key things:

WP is not some kind of damned committee or parliamentary/congressional process. It is a volunteer meritocracy. If you don't like the shed I'm building of bricks, you are free to build your chicken coop of cinderblocks, too, but you are not in a position to stop my construction, and you need to find something else to occupy your time besides looking over my shoulder and complaining about my bricklaying or whether or not I should build a shed, especially given that we have virtually infinite "land" and "materials". The one limited resource we do have is time, and you're wasting mine and yours.
You don't seem to fully understand how templates and their documentation work, and need to stop lecturing people about it. Either lead, follow, or get out of the way. Right now you are just lying in the road trying to blockade traffic for no clear reason. We all have better things to do than watch you flail around in the street, and are just going to drive around you.
Using the rhetoric of collaboration to be individually obstructionist, to make it about getting your way instead of doing useful things, is not going to work here. "I am not convinced [etc.]" = "You presented refutations to every point I made, and I can't rebut them so I'm just going to hand-wave and posture, and vaguely threaten to keep filibustering and stonewalling you, because I want to WP:WIN." Well, no. If you don't have something constructive to do, quit following me around raising poorly conceived pseudo-objections to things you don't understand, either as to their rationales or at the code and documentation level. You're correct that no one else is complaining, because I know what I'm doing, and everyone else knows what I'm doing. Probably 99.5% of the edits I make in the template namespace stick, and thousands of people use templates and parameters I created, every day. (That said, I do suck at Lua, so the work I've done with the original MediaWiki template language will be entirely surpassed some day by all-Lua solutions, and that's fine. Everything we have is built on the prior work of others, in all aspects of life.)

I have no idea why you decided to pick a slow-moving, weeks-long "nit-pick SMcCandlish's template editing to death" fight with me, out of the blue, but I don't come here for that kind of stuff, and I'm not playing that game. WP doesn't work the way you want it to. Not my problem.

I will continue coding as I see fit and building the encyclopedia content as I see fit. If you continue to demand that I get your or anyone else's approval first, I will continue to remind you that I don't have to, until that sinks in and the filibustering stops. If you raise a valid concern about something, I'm happy to entertain it and modify based on that, but this entire thread has been a total waste of time. You cannot articulate any actual problem to address, just your personal unease with the fact that things progress without your involvement or approval. I think you may be on the wrong project for your expectations. Try Sourceforge or GitHub; you're free to create a project of whatever sort you want there, and make it as hierarchical and bureaucratic as you like. WP is not that project. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I regret your hostility. Your claim that I don't know how things work is pretty insulting, being that I am active since 2007, with over 80,000 edits on my name, and that maintenance templates are sort of a favorite field for me. It seems to me, that you choose to do as you please, and don't care if your edits are actual improvements and if they have consensus. That is the reason we have ran into each other in the past, and that attitude of yours surely will cause more problems in the future. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not hostility, it's exhaustion of patience. You own your own emotions. It's not my problem if you feel insulted by the observation that you don't fully understand templating. That is an observation, not an accusation. Your own comments above demonstrating that you don't even know that about 99% of the time any |foo=yes cannot be reversed with a |foo=no, or vice versa, is a clear demonstration of this. So is the fact that you think that a huge discussion has to happen before people are allowed to add features they want to templates. It does genuinely surprise me that despite being around this long you have not figured this stuff out yet, and I commented as much already. The thing to do is to figure this stuff out, not to put on the "MY FEELINGS ARE HURT" T-shirt. My attitude is the WP:BOLD attitude. I'm not sure what yours can be characterized as, but it's definitely un-wiki from my point of view. And "sort of a favorite field for me" is probably the locus of the problem; its generating a proprietary sentiment, that things must be done a special way in things you feel are special, that this is a way you define, that failure to do it that Debresser way is some kind of actionable behavior problem, and that resistance to it is hostility. None of these things are actually true. That category of templates is not special, you don't get to impose your own rules, you trying to impose them is the problem, and people not going along with it isn't them being your enemy, it's them going about normal WP business the normal WP way. Your closing sentence is simply another threat to ramp up your stonewall/filibuster tactics. That's twice in a row you've waved your junk at me territorially. Please stop. Just go edit the way you like to edit, let others edit they way they like to edit. If I remove a template feature you depend on, then you have something legit to raise an issue about. Or if I implement a senseless feature like "|kitteh=y = inserts a random LOL-cat picture into the template". But you don't have any reason to fight against parameters that aren't insane simply because they're ones you don't want to use. Simply don't use them and move one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2016)

Moot

– Didn't have time for it, already expired.

Too late.

Debt is the amount of money that is owed or due.

Hello, SMcCandlish.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Debt

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Delicatessen • Pecan pie

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Please comment on Talk:Ooty

Declined

– Don't know enough about Indian history to be useful there.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ooty. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Fixed

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Chiribaya dog

added a link pointing to Dog show

Shiloh Shepherd dog

added a link pointing to Dog show

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Breaking changes on Template:collapse top

Moved to Template talk:Collapse top § RfC: Heading centered or left-aligned by default?

– Changes did not "break" anything. This is just a community stylistic preference one way or the other.

Your recent change (714883281) to {{collapse top}}, a template used on ~25k pages, caused lots of widespread breakage (my own user page included), as it was widely assumed that centering was the default behavior. As WP:TPE says, breaking changes that alter expected parameter behavior should be made ONLY after substantial discussion. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Just taking note of this incident. For the reason why, see above. Debresser (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Eggs, omelettes. This should not have been centered by default to begin with; it's a serious usability problem. @IagoQnsi: I just tested left alignment on your userpage, at User:IagoQnsi/sandbox_left, and it broke nothing at all. Please do not make false accusations. @Debresser: since you ignore my multiple requests to stop harassing me on my user talk page with your pointless antagonism, I am now demanding you stay off my user talk page unless you have something constructive to discuss, per Wikipedia:User pages#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request". So, be sensible. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's broken in the sense that I expected the text to be centered and line up with the navbox at the bottom, and it no longer is. If you think it's a serious usability problem, then start a discussion about it, but template editors should not be bold when it comes to changing the expected behavior of existing template parameters per WP:TPE. -IagoQnsi (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And, as was documented, |center=y would have restored that. This is crying over milk that isn't even spilled, just jostled slightly. I did not change the expected behavior of any template parameter. I changed the default behavior of the template, and added a parameter to re-enable the very poorly-thought-out former default behavior for unusual cases where someone is so insistent on centering that they want to force the matter. So, that's twice you've used hyperbolic, misleading accusations to mischaracterize my work here. Let's not make it three times. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Honshu - Japanese wolf

Hi Mac, the proposed WP:MOVE of the Honshu wolf to Japanese wolf after 7 days has unanimous approval. WP:MOVE, in its section titled How to move a page, tells me that "...the move will fail if a page already exists at the target name, unless it is simply a redirect to the present name that has never been modified, in which case you can move over the redirect....." The target page Japanese wolf is a disambiguation page that has been modified. It is unclear if I should list this as a technical move, a deletion of the Japanese wolf disimbag page altogether and a retitling of the current page, or some other process. Perhaps I could call upon the assistance of a tireless contributor who possesses File Mover rights for the next step? Else, some advice please? Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@William Harris: Normally, the extant DAB page would move to Japanese wolf (disambiguation), but since it only has two entries, then per WP:TWODAB it should just be deleted, after hatnotes pointing between the articles are added to each of them. (WP:DAB pages are supposed to have 3 or more entries.) I added {{Confused}} atop both articles for hatnoting purposes (if it had been a proper 3+ DAB page, they would have been {{Redirect|Japanese wolf}}at Honshu wolf and maybe something like

{{about|a wolf subspecies occasionally called "Japanese wolf"|other wolves also called that|Japanese wolf (disambiguation)}}

at Hokkaido wolf). Next you can either 1) ask the speedy RM admins to move Honshu wolf over the Japanese wolf DAB page, explaining the TWODAB and hatnote situation, or 2) change the DAB page into a redirect to Honshu wolf, then tag the redir with {{Db-move|Honshu wolf}}, but check periodically over the next few hours to make sure the move was actually performed; some admins perform the speedy deletion without performing the move, leaving a hole to fill. If I were to be online for a few hours, I'd probably do it the second way, as more expedient (the first way can sit around for a while, since there are more admins active in WP:CSD cleanup than in RM cleanup). And the first way might trigger someone who doesn't follow WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY closely enough to object and demand that the RM be re-run, because the RM didn't, technically, discuss the present Japanese wolf DAB page directly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mac. Clearly, North America never sleeps............. :-) Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I just have a very recalcitrant sleep cycle. It's virtually impossible for me to sleep more than 1-3 hours if I go to bed before midnight. I pop awake as if infused with 5 cups of coffee, and then crash again around dawn. If I stay up until around 1 am, I sleep normally. I got up at dark:30 yesterday morning and was dead tired by 10:30pm, so thought maybe tonight would be an exception, and went to bed. Nope. Snapped awake about 1am. Left to my own devices, my natural sleep cycle is to sleep from a bit after dawn through mid-afternoon, but this of course is not conducive to being employed except as an off-site Web developer or the like, which is work I'm getting out of, so I'm trying to force myself to change my circadian rhythm. In prehistoric times, I would have been the tribe member who guarded the camp at night from smilodons and dire wolves. Which is what I often feel like I'm doing on WP. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It is good that you can fit your work around your sleep/awake cycle; I have an engineer friend that does the same. There are still some smilodons and dire wolves predating on Wikipedia, but at least not all of wolfkind out here is unfriendly, even if they do get a little "bitey" sometimes. :-) William Harris • talk • 09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William A. Spinks

Resolved

– It passed.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William A. Spinks you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thanks! :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The article William A. Spinks you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William A. Spinks for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Wow, that was quick! I was expecting a week of pain, ha ha. Thanks for the quick turn-around. I guess FA will be a tougher nut to crack. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tamils

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tamils. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2016)

Declined

– I'm not doing popular culture articles. Pick something more important.

I'll pass.

Hello, SMcCandlish.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Fame (Irene Cara song)

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Debt • Delicatessen

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: MusikBot ^talk 00:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Wikipedia:PMC retargeted

Just a courtesy notice because I boldly retargeted a redirect you created: the target of Wikipedia:PMC was changed from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording to Wikipedia:Page mover. I've also set up anchors with it in the WP:PM/C section. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: I was compelled to WP:BRD that (without prejudice – I do bold stuff all the time, including occasional shortcut usurpations, but only when they don't make sense, are totally unused or have had all uses replaced, and are very unlikely to be used or expected by anyone at their original target). One should likely not usurp shortcuts from guidelines, especially for something important like the principle of minimal change, which directly affects article content site-wide, for some subsection at an internal information page that already has a shortcut, WP:PM/C. It's generally very undesirable for a MOS:FOO shortcut to not go to the exact same place as the WP:FOO one, since people do not consistently use only the MOS ones. The WP:PMC shortcut was not well-deployed yet because it's recent. If you think the community would prefer that WP:PMC by usurped from MoS in favor of the PM page, that should probably be proposed at WP:RFD. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably take it to RfD if the proposal passes (it looks like it will, but I don't want to presume). I'll drop a notice here in the event a discussion is started.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: I didn't even notice that was just a proposal. That usurpation was doubly inappropriate, then, I would say. We need no shortcuts of any kind to proposals, since about 95% of them fail. I would oppose the usurpation, BTW. The section probably doesn't need a shortcut at all, and if it does, it can simply use a variant of the page's main shortcut, e.g. WP:PMVR#C. You could also just rename the section "criteria for redirect suppression" to better match what it's actually about (it is not about criteria for doing page moves, nor is it about criteria for granting the PM right, which is the section below that, so the present name is just confusing). This would yield the shortcut WP:CRS. While that is already used, it is does not actually make sense for what it is used for (WP:Feedback request service, WP:FRS), so it could be usurped without any problems. Same goes for "Criteria for suppressing redirects", since WP:CSR is not actually needed for WP:CFD#Speedy a.k.a. WP:CFDS. The present PM/C shortcut doesn't actually make sense for that proposal page, since WP:PM doesn't go there (the "WP:FOO/BAR" shortcuts are for subpages of pages with shortcuts of "WP:FOO"; e.g. WP:AC/DS points to a subpage of the page that has the shortcut WP:AC. In short, you're using shortcuts in multiple confusing ways that aren't going to make sense to other editors. If PMC were usurped from MOS, the MOS wording itself would need to change to something else (probably principle of least change, the phrasing from several years ago. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pantomime

Pending

– the closure of the RM.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pantomime. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm am afraid to do the Merge, because I've been sharply criticized at the Pantomime article's Talk page. If you do it, I'd be happy to review and comment. Then, you'll need to watch American pantomime to see if its original creator (or either of the new users at pantomime) tries to undo the merge. All the best! - Ssilvers (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I can, but I'm dead tired right now, and it would be better to wait for the RM to close, since the merge is now being discussed in the RM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no rush. But I'd appreciate it if you would look into this at that time. All the best, and happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Others seem to be supporting the merge idea. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "as"

Done

I invite you to central discussion. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)