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 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

→

Archive 125

December 2016

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_28#Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE

Done

I invite you to an ongoing RfD discussion about those redirect to WP:AADD#Just a vote. --George Ho (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter (November 2016)

Hello SMcCandlish,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 819 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Originally sent to all New Page Reviewers 26 November 2016. This message sent manually. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Fidel Castro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidel Castro. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Source listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Source. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Source redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. George Ho (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Done

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your service to rodents. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Sanka you very much. I do love to caffeinate some rats. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of predecessors and successors in officeholders' infoboxes

Done

Hi, I'm writing to inform you that I've opened a new general Request for Comment concerning whether predecessors and successors should be included in the Infobox Officeholder template, further to my RfC concerning Michael Portillo specifically. The new RfC can be found here: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Should_predecessors_and_successors_be_included_in_officeholders.27_infoboxes.3F. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI on WT:FAC thread

Hi -- FYI; based on what you've posted I'm pretty sure you'll think I shouldn't be doing this, so I wanted to make sure it was out in the open for discussion if you wish. Perhaps I should add, since you've said in the past that I've said unpleasant things about you, that I have not, and don't intend to. I believe you have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, as do I. We just appear to disagree about how to proceed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I'll get over it, and I think we were misunderstanding each other to an extent. Commented there already to clarify. I don't recall saying that you in particular had said unpleasant things about me. Rather, a certain faction at WT:FAC, with a lot of overlap with similar cliques at WT:CITE and various wikiprojects (and sometimes WT:AT), have said unpleasant things about all the MoS regulars as a group (and sometimes me in particular, and sometimes the AT regulars, when they're not part of the extended faction that happens to be venting). It's a bunch of political, territorial chest-beating. I trust that it won't really amount to much in the long run, because the overall stability and utility of the project is more important than the "don't touch muh article/topic" ownership behavior of any particular gaggle of editors, even if they feel themselves to be First Class Citizens because of their particular focus and who their wikifriends are. They make being here increasingly unpleasant, but WP doesn't really need anyone in particular, and I'll leave for a long stretch again if they get too irritating, and wikilife will go on without me. I could have written a dozen more books in the time I've spent on this project, and have a tech blog to get going, so it's not like I don't have other things I can be doing. Drama-mongering from that quarter has a lot to do with why my participation here has dropped recently to about 10% of normal. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

With regard to negative comments, I assumed that unabashed, perpetual character assassination by you and the rest of your FAC clique against me and the rest of the MoS regulars was meant for me, but perhaps you meant Herostratus? He's not active at FAC, and never has been as far as I know. I saw your follow up note at WT:FAC; I don't know how often something will come up, but I suspect it'll be more than twice a year; let's see how it goes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, geez. The "you and" part should just have been left off, as my issue with this stuff has actually been entirely about the group factional behavior of "FAC vs. MoS" and "FAC vs. CITE" and "FAC vs. infobox fans", etc. I took a bit of a wikibreak after that, anyway, as my blood pressure was obviously going up. I apologize for the ranty-pants tone and for pointing at you in particular (especially after complaining about being personally scapegoated at WT:FAC; everyone can be a hypocrite when they get emotional, I guess!). I hope my more recent post was more constructive. Anyway, my principal concern is that the same crusader at FAC who proposed an "anti-MoS" there and who is presently trying to undermine key wording in MoS's lead, has a bit of a fan club at FAC (when FAC isn't mad at her CITE clique; none of these "alliances" are 100%, 24/7, just overlapping most of the time). What I predict is that FAC "buddies" will be rounded up to bloc-vote by people like this on particular pet peeves, while the rest ofthe RfCs major discussions at MoS will go unmentioned at FAC, leading to precisely the canvassing pattern I warned of. I would bet money on it. Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting what you see. In many cases I don't think there will be anything like unanimity on MoS issues from editors likely to see a note at WT:FAC, but if it should turn out that most or all editors who come to a MoS discussion via a note posted at WT:FAC all agree on one side or another of an issue, why would that necessarily be a problem? If that does happen, the most natural explanation would be that the kind of editor that works at FAC is more likely to see things a certain way. When you say things like "FAC buddies" and "FAC clique" you're referring to something that I don't think exists. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

WT:FAC two months ago indicates otherwise, including FAC-wide defensiveness of two editors who had spent months doing little but sustained conflict generation against and verbal abuse of anyone who disagreed with them about much of anything – defense simply because they're FAC regulars – and a two-pronged anti-MoS proposal laced with constant scapegoating of all MoS regulars in general and me in particular, even though half the time they were talking about infoboxes which a) MoS has no position on and b) I have no firm position on. These are clear indicators of irrational, territorial group-think. Not a permanent or unfixable condition, but hardly imaginary when it happened. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Goa Opinion Poll

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Goa Opinion Poll. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Done

Hello SMcCandlish,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Improve the tools: Vote here.
Reduce your review load: Vote here

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Great word choice!

I just noticed your comment at meta in the wishlist survey: "Flow is bletcherous." I nominate that sentence for the Wikipedia sentence of the year (which alas does not exist)! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: It is a favorite hackish word, from The Jargon File. Right up there with "creeping featuritis" in perpetual utility. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Being rather unhackish myself, I had never heard it before, but it is now my new favorite word! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

JF is full of good laughs (and pre-dates "LOLs"). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Johor Bahru

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johor Bahru. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

Fixed

FYI. You posted on an RfC on this page, but your comment indicated you may have intended to instead post on the Requested Move on the same page. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Fixed, thanks. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Message

Thank you for your comment on my talk page, it is good to see you are also patrolling this page. Allow me to buy you a beer at the next Wikimeetup. I will be however be defending the integrity of wikipedia by commenting of page moves that are outside the remit of MOS on capitalisation. The issue is very simple- its a Proper Noun. But back to the Woodhead Line and other named rail-lines. Incidently it was the suggestion that I flagged as stupid- the sort of misjudgement I am likely to make when I have been editing too long, --ClemRutter (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Clem, what's this concept of "outside the remit of MOS on capitalisation"? You mean you intend to capitalize more than proper nouns, for some reason, in spite of what the MOS says? What's the reason? Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Dicklyon is correct in objecting to the idea of your favorite topic being somehow "outside the remit of MoS". No articles are outside the remit of site-wide guidelines, as a matter of WP:CONLEVEL policy. If you think that all railway segments should be treated as proper names, you're welcome to make a proposal to that effect at WT:MOSCAPS. MoS has many particular rules for particular contexts, and the way to get another added is to get consensus to add one, not to defy the general rules until exploding in a bout of name-calling.

Another approach, and arguably a much better one than seeking a micro-topical special rule (which will probably fail), would be for all the disparate projects on trains, roads, etc., to combine their wikiproject project pages on these matters, and pare it down to universal points they can agree on, to form a single guideline proposal on transit and travel systems, with a particular eye to agreement among not just that collective group of editors but also agreement with as many extant MoS rules as possible. Look for how to interpret and apply the existing rules, not how to defy them; even if they are not what you personally prefer. No one agrees with every single line-item in MoS or any other guideline, nor does any line-item have unanimous agreement. While some editors (like two of us right here, obviously) would oppose the inclusion of a "capitalize traintracks" rule as special pleading, if site-wide consensus favored it we would live with it. After a WP:PROPOSAL process for a round of input from MoS regulars, and general editors from outside either sphere, to make it more consistent with general-audience readership expectations instead of reflecting specialist quirks, we would probably end up with a new MoS subpage specifically about transit and travel systems for Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (transport), and a lot less "oh no, not this again" conflict at RM. The existing conflict level is not due just to specialist resistance against MoS rules but disagreement among different knots of specialists, because some of these would-be fiefdoms are very narrow (US highways, etc.).

These transit-related RMs and the amount of heat rather than light they generate are getting tedious. Fans of overcapitalization are not in a position to indefinitely resist tooth and nail against every single MoS-compliance move request, as if they're saving babies from cannibal barbarians, especially after a stack of RM precedent has already been established to follow MOSCAPS as usual on these matters. The goal is to have a consistent nomenclature system for our readers and editors, and whether it disfavors or favors capitalization of strips of track is ultimately arbitrary. It is better for them to be consistent one way or the other than different from article to article based on who yelled more.

PS: As a linguist by training (and one well aware of philosophy as well as linguistics approaches to proper names), I cannot agree with you that "Woodhead line" is a proper name. "Woodhead" is. "Woodhead line" is a descriptive appellation, the "line to/from Woodhead". Something like "Princess Diana Memorial Line" would be a proper name, having no descriptive function at all. Thus the distinction between "Van Ness station" ( "station at Van Ness [Avenue]") and "Grand Central Station", an evocative not descriptively locating name. But anyway .... — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussion review

Done

I created the page, Wikipedia:Discussion review, as a draft for an upcoming proposal of the process, and I tagged it as "Brainstorming". You can contribute there. Meanwhile, I'm planning to notify others at other venues. I did that at WT:closing discussions and WT:requests for comment. I'm saving WP:AN for last. Where else besides it? --George Ho (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I stopped by, but I see you've already abandoned the idea. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notices

Resolved

Regarding the templated messages that you sent to two users at 17:57, 17 December 2016 and at 18:00, 17 December 2016, please explain the paragraph

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

In particular, this shows "pages regarding , a topic which you have edited" which makes no sense to me - regarding what specifically? Also, the sentence "The Committee's decision is here." links to a disambiguation page which is of no discernable relevance. It appears to me that you served both of them with {{subst:ds/alert|AT}}, but "AT" is not recognised by this template.

I would therefore like to know which specific area of conflict these two users were potentially in breach of. I would also like to know why you thought such an alert notice was appropriate. I see that Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) has reverted your edit without comment, and I do not blame them; however, ClemRutter (talk · contribs) has not, so the message is still there for all to see. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64, ClemRutter, and Lamberhurst: There seems to be some issue with the {{Ds/alert}} template (there is - it doesn't do case conversion on the codes; and I think you know that |at= was obviously intended if the input was |AT=). It is supposed to link to the WP:ARBATC ArbCom case when given a parameter value referring to that case. I'll take a look at the source. Redrose64, I would like to know why you are taking an interest in this. You're surely aware that anyone is permitted to revert the addition of template notices at their own talk page, and that doing so is an indication of having read them. Lamberhurst having deleted one is not specially meaningful in any way, and nothing for you to get into Knight in Shining Armor mode about. These notices are simply FYIs that WP:AC/DS have been authorized for the topic, nothing more. Since their point is to deliver this message with regard to a particular topic, I have corrected the notices to do so. As to the specifics of the matter: Whether the template functioned properly or not, you surely are also aware that calling other editors idiots and vowing to battleground, especially in an area under discretionary sanctions, is not permissible. So I cannot see anything productive coming from an attempt at third-party defensiveness of these behaviors, especially just on the grounds that the template didn't initially produce the useful output that was expected. This is not a court and there is no case to dismiss on a technicality. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking an interest for three reasons: (i) because User talk:Lamberhurst has been on my watchlist continuously since 1 August 2009 (we often exchange ideas) and so any message sent to them is going to gain my attention; (ii) because it was me who move-protected Woodhead Line and so naturally Talk:Woodhead Line is on my watchlist; (iii) beacuse I want to see fair play: you templated these two and nobody else that was involved in that move discussion.

I am not criticising Lamberhurst for removing that notice - it is their right to do so. I am criticising you for delivering a misformed message, and when I attempted to fix it, you cancelled out my edit.

I have never called other editors idiots. Please find and post a diff demonstrating that I did so. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I said nothing about you calling others idiots, but rather that you're leaping in to defend someone else doing so but don't have any rationale for this other than "your template was broken". You not knowing what I was actually referring to suggests that you did not look into the background of the matter, either, but are just irritated that I templated one of your buddies, as your comment further implies. Read the actual discussion, please. One of them labelled another editor's views "idiocy", and the other strongly suggested he was going to canvass together a WP:FACTION to tendentiously "fight back" over style trivia in an entire topic. No one else did anything like that, so no one else needed a DS alert, and at least two of the others have received or left one in the last year anyway (we're told not to re-template people for DS in the same topic until 12 months have passed, remember?). The concerns were valid; they are in fact the kind of hostility that WP:ARBATC was enacted against. Castigating me for leaving the ArbCom-prescribed template (which many of us don't like the wording of but which ArbCom declines to improve), and doing so on the basis of nothing but me having a case typo in the template, is not useful. Nor is yelling at me over an edit conflict. They happen, and it's my job to fix my own template anyway, not yours, but no one cares – why are you getting angry about who fixed it? Maybe take a nice walk or something.

Anyway, see thread #Message above this one. It shows two things: A) One of the templated parties making it clear that they intend to pursue this overcapitalization indefinitely on the basis of personal belief – a WP:IDHT / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:TRUTH tactic – regardless what the guidelines say, because he's certain his topic is not subject to any stinking guidelines. B) Me suggesting the standard WP:PROPOSAL and WP:CONLEVEL approach, and even giving suggestions on how to be successful at it, despite the fact that his success would result in a style change I disagree with. I'm not being any kind of asshole here, you're just trying desperately to paint a picture of me being one. If you think that Template:Ds/alert itself is problematic (many of us do, in different ways), please take that up at WT:ARBCOM; DS is long overdue for a review and retooling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't come here to defend anybody. I came here to ask why you left a misformed message, and didn't fix it soon after it was posted. If leaving substituted messages, it's always good practice to read through what you posted, in order to ensure that it says what you wanted it to say. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No debate on that point! :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Posted potential template fix at Template talk:Ds. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello SMcCandlish: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

@Northamerica1000: You too! Those snowy pictures remind me of my time in Canada. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jollof rice

Moot

– Closed it as an invalid RfC.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jollof rice. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello SMcCandlish,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard | 16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: Thanks, and back at ya. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

Done

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:New York

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas SMcCandlish!!
	Hi SMcCandlish, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010:, and you and yours! :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
SMcCandlish!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw^(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: You too! Maybe you'll get a pony for Christmas. ;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Diacritics

As I said, I'm just trying to cover as much ground as possible (referring to both existing and potential anti-diacritic rules) by using both "any" and "all". Cédric ^{says: Cenvention №.2 is anything but good faith.} 07:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

@Doug Weller: Thanks, you too! This reminds me of a joke: "Have you read Dr. Seuss's pirate Christmas story?" "No." "It opens, 'Ho ho ho / And a bottle of rum / Bum-ditty-bum-ditty / Bum-bum-bum'." — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply

I appreciate the message. I agree that it would be nigh-impossible to get the genie back in the bottle, but I'm actually optimistic, based on the supporters of a comprehensive style guide. Most of the "cooler heads" seem to appreciate the MOS even if they have specific problems with this or that. I have a lot of respect for almost everyone in the discussion, but it's honestly difficult to see how articles being brought into line can be equated with being bossed around. Unless, of course, there's a hypersensitivity to one's edits being further edited, which might be in the neighbourhood of the heart of the matter. Anyhow, I've got more drinking to do. Merry Christmas Buddy! Primergrey (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Primergrey: Happy holidays to you as well! I avoided the booze but overate like a greedy piglet. >;-) I'm almost certain that resistance to WP:MERCILESS is in fact the heart of the above matter, due to the specific commentary and rationales that lead to these disputes. If it's not an attempt by a wikiproject to impose some geeky specialist style that confuses readers who aren't steeped in that specialty, it's almost invariably one-article territoriality by editors who describe themselves as "authors" of those articles. The latter was definitely the source of the outbreak of anti-MoS activity that begin at WT:FAC about three months ago, including two proposals to create an FAC-specific "counter-MoS" to have FAs be except from most MoS compliance (both launched by the same editor [1], [2], the latter generating some variant proposals, none of which carried or resulting in changes to the FA criteria [3]).

Similar "us vs. them" and "my content vs. the horde of barbarians" trench-digging at WP:CITE, with the PoV-forking of CITEVAR from ENGVAR/DATEVAR, has already been a serious problem, and also has a strong anti-MoS WP:FACTION component. (CITEVAR allows people to make up, out of their own heads, fake citation "styles" and defend them against attempts to normalize them to something anyone would recognize, and is also frequently interpreted as enabling editwarring against citation templates, and even against any code-level and non-content-visible changes to citations, a result I'm certain will not be sustained if anyone ever bothers to take the matter to ArbCom). Pretty much the last thing on earth that WP needs is further spread of this claim-staking behavior or weakening of guidelines that curtail it. I'm not really certain what to do about it, since ArbCom doesn't adjudicate content disputes, including content of non-mainspace pages, and the largely moribund WP:Mediation Committee will only address content disputes that are in mainspace. Guidelines are in a limbo state. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I followed that FAC thing and I couldn't believe how angry the one side seemed and, when faced with logical rebuttals, got even angrier. It's something I'd expect at, say, a pro wrestler's article, where the contributors might not be up on all the finer details, but these are people vetting main page content. I guess that could go to one's head. Primergrey (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit mystifying, unless viewed as not a substantive matter, but simply territorial, "wiki-political" control behavior. Very human, but very unconstructive. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:North Korea

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your post at my talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks for your post on my talk page.

But I have some problems with it, as described there. Andrewa (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You say If you want me to desist, then don't pointedly summon me back here [4].

I want you to desist only from making baseless allegations and using insulting language. Nothing more. I am surprised to have to have to spell that out, but I hope it is now clear. Andrewa (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've also spelled out that the words I use have clear meanings and are not "insults". I'm not responsible for your emotions or your penchant for searching for ways to find offense in everything. Yes, I have a critical opinion about some of your behaviors, and no one likes receiving criticism. It is sometimes necessary. Part of the social compact we make editing here is a willingness to listen to critical input and adjust what we do based on it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

PS: Given that you've only responded emotively not substantively, here or there, I consider the matter closed. I did notice a change in your approach at WT:MOS, the locus of the dispute, which appears to be in response to the issues I (among others) raised with what you posted there there other day, so taking the issue to your talk page appears to have been productive, even if the defensive back-and-forth there has dragged out unnecessarily. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A term can be clear and still be insulting, but pseudo-civil is both unclear and insulting. I have given other examples and can give more, but I think you should know what I mean.

Yes, I have modified my behaviour. The metaphor I used was misunderstood, and counterproductive to say the least. I am being more careful. How about you?

Given that you've only responded emotively not substantively... I'm not sure what you mean by that and suspect that I would object strongly if I did. But I don't want to prolong the discussion either... does the distinction you're making there really matter? Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want to prolong the discussion, stop asking questions, perhaps. Toward the goal of cessation, I will decline to answer it, or any further ones. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

And for your part, stop making vague and/or baseless allegations, and using insulting language. On that basis, pax. Andrewa (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Please just stop. You are distracting me from delicate template coding with this "last word" bickering. If you want to continue this conversation, which seems evident despite your protestations to the contrary, do so at your own talk page and don't ping me, please. I'll check it when I'm idle. (And hopefully find it hatted there, too.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:48, 29 December 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.

Natural disambiguation

Done

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs#Following naming conventions could do with some input on the subject of natural as opposed to parenthesized disambiguation, which I know you've discussed in the past. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Idol (season 11)

Declined

– per WP:DGAF.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Idol (season 11). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)