User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 149
 | 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 145 | ← | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | → | Archive 155 |
April 2019
Please comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums
DisregardThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 __TOC__
 
|
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Post-nominals
DoneHaving already chided your interlocutor, let me now do you: this is an utterly unconstructive piece of last-word-ism. In the unlikely event that anyone ever looks at a hatted discussion inside an archive of a conversation about post-nominals, they will be able to see from the beginning of the discussion the relative merit of your position, and this is totally undermined by your unwillingness to let it go. You should self-revert and leave the last word to the other party, even though (maybe "because") it is obviously silly. --JBL (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- You're probably right. I have a difficult time not responding to people making "you disagreeing with me in ways that hurt my butt means you're WP:HARASSing me" pseudo-arguments. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- No pseudo-arguments here... returning after three weeks to add insult is not nothing. I didn't claim you were harassing me, I wrote: "you return to your self-made aside three weeks later ...merely to add insult to injury? Just to WP:HARASS?" (Only one of us seeks to twist the meaning. Exaggerate much?) I never had an issue with you disagreeing with me; I took issue with your presumptuousness about my motives (which you'd called "wishful thinking and a twisting of the intent of the guideline"), whereas my aim was ever to simply have "closely associated" be more specifically defined. Your friend, Joe, here, has since noted the issue as on-going elsewhere, whereas you had insulted further with "no one cares" but me, "because you're not getting what you want". (Again, presuming I have a particular agenda.) Apparently, your pal here cares, having revived the discussion himself, because it is needed. Also, I had read "a habitual failure to understand the difference would be a WP:CIR problem in a collaborative editing environment" as a veiled threat, because it's not the sort of comment one makes casually. Consider refraining from discussions of topics that you find old and tiresome, and have clearly lost patience for. PS: I think Joe may have linked the wrong comment and meant for you to revert your rather mean one from 12 March, the one that I had responded to today, not realizing that you had made a subsequent comment while he was defending you to me. Probably just grabbed the wrong one. On that note, please refrain from publicly referencing my posterior again, hurting or otherwise. AHampton (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've addressed all of this at User talk:AHampton#Constructive [1] (and actually wrote it before you wrote the above, though it didn't save the first time due to a network error). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- SMcCandlish: I appreciate the self-reversion; your comments here and elsewhere are sensible. AHampton: I don't have anything constructive to offer in response to your comments, all of which are well off the mark. If for some reason you need to address me in the future, and you choose to use my given name, please spell it correctly. Both: I am not watching any of the relevant pages any more, so if for some reason my input is needed, please ping. --JBL (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've addressed all of this at User talk:AHampton#Constructive [1] (and actually wrote it before you wrote the above, though it didn't save the first time due to a network error). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- No pseudo-arguments here... returning after three weeks to add insult is not nothing. I didn't claim you were harassing me, I wrote: "you return to your self-made aside three weeks later ...merely to add insult to injury? Just to WP:HARASS?" (Only one of us seeks to twist the meaning. Exaggerate much?) I never had an issue with you disagreeing with me; I took issue with your presumptuousness about my motives (which you'd called "wishful thinking and a twisting of the intent of the guideline"), whereas my aim was ever to simply have "closely associated" be more specifically defined. Your friend, Joe, here, has since noted the issue as on-going elsewhere, whereas you had insulted further with "no one cares" but me, "because you're not getting what you want". (Again, presuming I have a particular agenda.) Apparently, your pal here cares, having revived the discussion himself, because it is needed. Also, I had read "a habitual failure to understand the difference would be a WP:CIR problem in a collaborative editing environment" as a veiled threat, because it's not the sort of comment one makes casually. Consider refraining from discussions of topics that you find old and tiresome, and have clearly lost patience for. PS: I think Joe may have linked the wrong comment and meant for you to revert your rather mean one from 12 March, the one that I had responded to today, not realizing that you had made a subsequent comment while he was defending you to me. Probably just grabbed the wrong one. On that note, please refrain from publicly referencing my posterior again, hurting or otherwise. AHampton (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Dog food
Hi SMcCandish. I saw somewhere that you were working on dog food pages. I just tried to pick up on a conversation from 3.5 years ago here on a page where I have a disclosed COI but the editor I was collaborating with has since retired. I was wondering if you had a few minutes to take a look regarding renaming the Controversy section to something more descriptive and adding the judicial outcome of the case. No rush. CorporateM (Talk) 23:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it's no focus of mine, but I can take a look. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, dog. North America1000 02:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Someone barked up the right tree. I wasn't hounded into it, mind you. And I appreciate the pat on the head. Nice when someone throws you a bone on this site, amid all its howling drama and ankle-biting nitpicks. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. I hadn't noticed that the sentence about veterinarians was tagged as editorializing. It feels off to me to cover a medical topic without stating the position of the associated medical profession, but I defer to you.
- Most of the stuff I'm doing for them is copyediting, infoboxes, and better logo images, but I do have one other controversial one at Talk:Alpo_(pet_food) under the heading "Un-cited content" if you feel like it. No bother if you'd rather do something else. I think most editors prefer to contribute on topics of personal interest, rather than those items that catch a COI's concern. CorporateM (Talk) 12:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Veterinarians are neither human-psychology experts nor legal-research experts, so their opinions about what may motivate people aren't any more pertinent than anyone else's, and even if they were, there's no evidence presented in the sources that the rationale they surmise was the actual cause of the party filing the case. Veterinarians are experts in veterinary medicine. It's a causality/correlation confusion (of the same sort as "Some people are racists, ergo XYZ Corp must be racist because they fired a Hispanic woman last week. And this must be true, because this social-science systematic review proves that, in fact, some people are racists.").
- I'll try to look into the Alpo thing when I get a moment. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Someone barked up the right tree. I wasn't hounded into it, mind you. And I appreciate the pat on the head. Nice when someone throws you a bone on this site, amid all its howling drama and ankle-biting nitpicks. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, dog. North America1000 02:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal Issues RFArb
This is a courtesy notice that the portal issues RFArb has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ainu languages
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ainu languages. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mobile country code
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile country code. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
More flag farms
Hi SMC, the "foreign_suppliers" parameter in Template:Infobox national military has a tendency to become a flag farm, as seen in Armed Forces of the Dominican Republic and People's Liberation Army. Btw, I can't find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Flagicons in predecessor/successor. Is it somewhere else? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- It was; I got confused as to pages I was looking at, in which tab. Thread by this name how opened at WT:MOSICONS. I'll inject your point into it as well. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
See above / See below
ResolvedI'd like to make sure that the templates you created and deprecated {{See above}} and {{See below}} should be replaced per the documentation. If so, I'll be nominating them at TfD so this can be more properly handled. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: They should really be replaced with very simple wrappers of
{{crossref|printworthy=y}}, and I should've done that a long time ago. They don't need parameters unless people come up with actual-need use cases for them, instead of imagining use cases, which is where I went wrong. Anyway, I've swapped out the code and made new, simple documentation, so no TfD should be needed. Some people probably used this template in weird ways that aren't going to have the intended output now, but it shouldn't be many, and easy enough to track down. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)- Also a good solution. Thanks for the help. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I believed I've cleaned up every instance of both templates in mainspace and projectspace (didn't bother with talk archives, userpages, etc.). They were never very popular due to their bewildering, pointless complexity. Maybe I was drunk or something when I wrote those templates, ha ha. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- What's with all these obscure templates I've never seen before?
North America1000 03:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC) -
- Well, they're templates and obscure ones, thus your not having seen them. Heh. They were disused because they were way too complicated. I've replaced the code with very simple versions, so they may get used more. Or not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've always liked {{paragraph break}}. Then there's {{meh1}}; bet you've never seen that one, since it's new. North America1000 21:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I might have to use that para. one more often, especially in cites. I wasn't aware there was an accessibility problem in using para. breaks in cites. However, the documentation is partly incorrect. An
<li>is a block element that can contain any flow content, including<p>paragraphs. I would suggest proposing{{meh1}}for merger into{{meh}}}, and to use the emoji in{{meh1}}, since it's much clearer. I can't even tell what the face in{{meh}}is doing; it's too small, with details too faint. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I might have to use that para. one more often, especially in cites. I wasn't aware there was an accessibility problem in using para. breaks in cites. However, the documentation is partly incorrect. An
- I've always liked {{paragraph break}}. Then there's {{meh1}}; bet you've never seen that one, since it's new. North America1000 21:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, they're templates and obscure ones, thus your not having seen them. Heh. They were disused because they were way too complicated. I've replaced the code with very simple versions, so they may get used more. Or not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I believed I've cleaned up every instance of both templates in mainspace and projectspace (didn't bother with talk archives, userpages, etc.). They were never very popular due to their bewildering, pointless complexity. Maybe I was drunk or something when I wrote those templates, ha ha. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also a good solution. Thanks for the help. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Jacobo Arbenz
DoneHi. Please comment on the talk page of the article "Jacobo Arbenz", under the thread "Nicknames", as to whether "El Soldado del Pueblo" nickname is obscure or not and whether it should be added to the first sentence of the lead or not. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019)
DisregardThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
Done
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of flagcruft...
Check out List of diplomatic missions of the United States. I ... can't even find words. And what's with all the "Responses to <event>" articles with the flags going insane - see Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, International reactions to the Arab Spring, Reactions to the death of Bhumibol Adulyadej, Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings, etc... (We have an entire category tree for these reactions articles? REALLY? Category:Reactions to 2010s events) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would just raise this all in the thread at WT:MOSICONS. You and me wanting to do something about it has little weight compared to a month-long discussion with everyone agreeing something should be done about it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've added these into the discussion over there, to centralize. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you ...
 | |
| ... with thanks from QAI |
... for improving articles in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Only sometimes. Fortunately, my wave of evil vandalism has still gone undetected. %-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:English grammar
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:English grammar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Wayback Machine
DoneHi Mr. McCandlish, I wonder if you can help me? I'm having trouble with the Wayback Machine at the moment and another kindly editor has advised me that you might be the right person to turn to. Rather than reproduce my problem here, may I direct you to my Talk page, where you have already been pinged (so if it appears that I'm bugging you, I profusely apologise). This is really not urgent, but I am rather stumped, especially as I find the WM extremely useful and I feel like I've lost a limb!
Many thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to say
A *sigh* is all we have when we know we've been targeted by POV pushers who couldn't give a big rat's ass about NPOV. I'm beginning to believe a decade may be the cornerstone for make or break. Atsme Talk 📧 23:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Not sure if you mean a decade of your own participation, or a decade of an issue being unresolved, or whether WP will still be viable at the end of a decade. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Mac...the depth of your thought process is not only intriguing, it's stimulating. I was thinking "service" to the pedia...but now wondering if there's a way we can categorize pedians by time served? Atsme Talk 📧 01:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think we'd need WP:Parole board. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Mac...the depth of your thought process is not only intriguing, it's stimulating. I was thinking "service" to the pedia...but now wondering if there's a way we can categorize pedians by time served? Atsme Talk 📧 01:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines
DoneThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)