User talk:Vanisaac/Archive9

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Care in copyediting

Please don't "correct" people's names to match words, as you did here. That person's name is Holliday, with a double-l (same as most people with this surname).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: My apologies. I had tried to check the rest of the article, but didn't realize the citation I was trying to match had gotten changed with the spellchecker preview as well. That reference is weirdly written - it's written like we should have been introduced to Holliday earlier in the article - so I probably got thrown off trying to figure out what was going on. Thanks for keeping tabs on things. VanIsaac_WS^cont 13:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

[1]

Any reason this can't be done by bot? This would make a good bot task, IMO. Something that could be run daily/weekly/monthly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: Since the documentation subpage pre-load now includes this code automatically, I would assume that they didn't want to go to the trouble of making a bot and getting it approved for a one-time maintenance task. It was posted on WP:AWBREQ and it sat there for five days without anyone commenting on it being better as a bot. I've also found that it's not an automatic find-and-replace task, although I've distinctly improved my AWB settings to reduce the number of manual changes I'm making since starting the run. I'm sure a bot programmer with some regexp skills could probably make a workable bot to do it, but I'm already about a fifth of the way through the category:Template documentation pages, so do you think it's worth trying to turn it over to a bot programmer? I'd gladly do so, but I'm also a bit stir-crazy being stuck at home, so it's not terrible on my end. VanIsaac_WS^cont 15:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm deferring to you. If your regexes are stable and don't run into weirdness, you could file a WP:BRFA and save yourself clicking "save" 32 billionty times manually. If there are issues with them, continue manually. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edit to Template:Ref/doc

Hi there. Just a note letting you know that I reverted this edit you made to Template:Ref/doc because it had broken syntax. Feel free to reinstate the edit if you can fix the syntax. I also saw that you made the edit with AWB. I do not have access to AWB, but what I do know is that there is an expectation that edits made with the tool should be reviewed before publishing. :) Aasim 18:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Gah! I missed the pre-existing conditional in there. The replacements I had programmed into AWB caught a good 90% of the updates, but I was bound to make a mistake somewhere along the line. Thanks for letting me know I had a screw up.

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uru (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Sandbox other" cleanup needed

This search shows a bunch of template pages where {{sandbox other}} is not closed. Some of them may be deliberately showing the name of the template, but many of them look like some sort of error in a script that you used. Can you please clean up your contributions? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finding these. It looks like there were 30 pages with legitimate issues with that new code, mostly my missing them already having {{basepage subpage}}. I'm going to give the updates time to propogate and then see what we are left with. Again, thanks for your help on this gargantuan project. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

And going through the list, it looks like there were a good dozen or so that had some other problem on the page - e.g. not closing a link with ]], trying to call a template with {{{, or some other bad code I was able to spot and fix. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. Overall, not a bad error rate, and as a bonus, you got to find and fix some problems that were already there. So you could maybe claim a negative error rate for your application of this template! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

As seductive as such Utilitarian thinking can be, I won't let myself off the hook for my mistakes because I happen to have fixed some others. That kind of zero-sum calculus can obfuscate a lot of sin when the ethic of every Wikipedia editor should be fundamentally Hippocratic: firstly, do no harm. VanIsaac_WS^cont 08:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Redwarn

How do I know it is working.Tbiw (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tbiw: I have no clue what you could be talking about. Could you please link to what you are referring so that I can get some sort of idea and respond from knowledge? VanIsaac_WS^cont 10:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

redwarn How do i know it is already working.

@Tbiw: Sorry, but I honestly don't know. I use WP:Lupin's Anti-vandal tool for those kinds of tasks. That utility adds five additional links in the tools section on the left side of my browser skin. I do know that if you added code to your common.js file, you might need to WP:purge the page before it takes effect. I'm sorry I don't have a greater insight for you. VanIsaac_WS^cont 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Teach me how to use WP:Lupin.Tbiw (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean there's not really anything to teach. You just follow the directions at WP:Lupin to add the code to your personal settings files, and start using the tools. It's all documented there, but the power of these kinds of tools lies in how you use them, and that's really only something you can figure out by just digging in and starting to use them. If you have a question about a specific feature, I'd be glad to try to add what I can, but I'm much more of a WP:WikiCyclops-style editor than new content patroller WP:WikiGnome. VanIsaac_WS^cont 11:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/2020 infobox redesign proposal on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-notable subjects

Subjects that clearly fail notability criteria do not require a redirect discussion to be redirected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles that have coverage from independent reliable sources are not clearly non-notable in any way. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just wanted to let you know that I really love your grapheme animations! I saw the work you did with Hiragana and Katakana Jwfelder (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jwfelder: Thanks for that. I mostly filled in some holes in the set - not sure if you also caught the other editor who started those as well. I do a lot of cataloguing and organizing in writing systems, and there's always that nagging question of whether people find your work useful, so it's gratifying to find you appreciated it. VanIsaac_WS^cont 07:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Graphic blocking menu

Hi Vanisaac. You have a graphic of a flag on your talk page which doesn't seem to be floating, but it is placed in a way that it's on top of the left-side menu, and although it's transparent it is the same colour as some of the links in that menu, obstructing them from view. Can you find another way to display it, perhaps inline at the top of the page instead, so that text wraps around it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Warning Block

Your obscene assumption of bad faith is totally unacceptable, Vanisaac. I have redacted your comment. Maybe it's best you do not engage that report any further. Have a heart. El_C 01:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I have blocked you for a week for that comment. There is a limit to what I, at least, am willing to tolerate when it comes to treatment of persons with disability. You may request a review of the block using the unblock template, but please make sure you read WP:GAB first. El_C 01:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling my serious concerns about this editor's behavior "callous" was an obscene assumption of bad faith. And deleting my response to that personal attack was incredibly wrong of you. If you can look through OP's record and not see what I am seeing, then I guess all we're left with is the implicit threat of your admin bit, but that doesn't make your behavior any more acceptable. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If you act callously, don't be surprised when you're taken to task about it. That you lack the minimal decorum for context is not on me. As for your followup suggestion that their disability is being used to game the system: I'm sorry, but I'm having none of it. El_C 02:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@EL C: I think if you take a look at my actual edit without your initial assumption of bad faith, that I made no suggestion that they were using their medical condition, but rather using the existence of the personal attack, regardless of their condition. And please don't use the term "disability", as that term is ableist in and of itself. If I inadvertantly made such an implication, I apologise. That was both not my intent, and diametrically opposed to my intention at expressing deep concerns about this editor's pattern of disruptive and ucollaborative editing. And you still haven't apologised for your now two personal attacks against me. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary that this feels like gaming by OP speaks for itself. Disability is perfectly fine term to use. I have not personally attacked you and I have nothing to apologize for here, unlike yourself. El_C 02:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes @El C:, that was the edit summary. Please tell me where you see any mention of his medical condition there. That is another bad faith assumption YOU choose to make, not something I said. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to play this game with you, Vanisaac. If you have an unblock request, another admin will attend to it. Otherwise, I don't really have that much to add at this time. El_C 02:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry @El C:, I was clearly mistaken to try to engage you to see this from my perspective. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your perspective needs ample introspection, Vanisaac. That you cannot see that is to your discredit, I challenge. El_C 02:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, I'm not sure what that means (seriously, it's about as cryptic as can be). I've already apologised for any implication my comments might have had towards your interpretation, and explained explicitly what my intention was in contrast to that interpretation. You've offered nothing to refute my explanation that I can respond to constructively, so what am I supposed to do? I hope you don't want me to apologise for bringing forth my serious concerns about disruptive and uncollaborative editing, so I'm left wanting here. I don't want some other admin to overturn you in a wheel war, I want you to look at me and my actions as the good faith efforts at building this project that I made them. I don't think that's too much to ask. If you have a specific action that was objectively out-of-line, please explain exactly what it was about that action so that I can apologise for it. But right now, all I have is I expressed concerns about the behavior of an editor who happens to have a developmental condition. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Vanisaac, I don't know how else to put it. I feel like I explained myself sufficiently and that you have been unresponsive to that — now projecting that notion on me is something I take exception to. You are free to make an unblock appeal. I don't wheel war, so that should not be a factor. El_C 03:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, if you can't point to anything objectively wrong that I've done and explain what it was that was wrong about it, what am I supposed to do? Is that not what an unblock request is supposed to be based on? VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to draft your unblock request as you see fit. Regardless of any distortions that I may consider it having, it will ultimately, be weighed on by another admin. If I feel the need, I will comment on it at a time of my choosing. Until then, please stop pinging me. El_C 04:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vanisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Procedural per WP:ADMINACCT, blocking admin refuses to engage in explanation of the block.

Decline reason:

I patrol unblock requests as my primary activity here. I really see so much engagement from the blocking admin, discussing the block. Yamla (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I reject this procedural request. I maintain that I engaged sufficiently. El_C 09:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

But @El C:, you refuse to do explain any objective reason for the blockor its continuation, as blocks are supposed to protect against something instead of being punitive. So again, your failure to engage deprives me of the ability to end this. VanIsaac_WS^cont 12:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me, especially with the same repetition. I have nothing further to add at this time. El_C 12:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Be warned, Vanisaac, your block will be extended indefinitely if you continue down this road. --Yamla (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Down what road? I still have no idea what this block is ostensibly for. I can't get an explanation from the blocking admin, so what road am I supposed to be on? VanIsaac_WS^cont 14:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Because in a very peripheral way I may have contributed to the original misunderstanding that got this all started, I'm going to extra effort here to pour oil on troubled waters. Vanisaac, whether you meant it or not, you ought to be able to see how people saw your post at ANI (the one now redacted) as apparently way off base, even if because they read into it something you didn't intend. If you can't see how it is that people thought that, then that's a problem. But if you can see it, and can enunciate that, I think you'll probably be unblocked. (No promises – I'm not an admin.) EEng 18:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng#s diff please. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

[2] (particularly the edit summary). EEng 01:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Because it was my edit that started all this, maybe I can give Vanisaac the insight that others think should be self evident (and they are not wrong to think so, TBH). First, the complaint at ANI was not about the dispute at template talk:char. Nor was it about my statement that I would no longer engage in debate with the complainant. It only about the fact that in my edit note I had made (entirely unknowingly) a catty remark that was seen as referring to the complainant's disability. I have apologised for that remark because it was deeply hurtful: my absence of 'criminal intent' might excuse me in a court of law but nevertheless it was there on the record and could not be allowed to stand. My apology was for that remark only: I did not and do not apologise for the statement itself, nor was one sought.

The big difference with your intervention was that that you did violate wp:NPA by suggesting that the complaint was not in good faith and what was particularly callous about it was to say that the complainant was leveraging their disability. Neither Psiĥedelisto nor I come out of that dispute smelling of roses, which we both recognise: we let it spiral nearly out of control. Fortunately before the red mist deacended entirely, I stopped to read Wikipedia:ANI advice. That advice is for people planning to raise an ANI: it ought to be compulsory reading for those who plan to challenge a reference made there too.

I appreciate your support and regret that your good intentions have led you to this pass. But until you recognise the seriousness of your NPA vio, I can't see the administrators even beginning to consider how long a suspension is appropriate for the fact of having done it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Break

You got railroaded. Here is the best I can figure of the situation, please correct me where I am wrong. There were a few pages and people involved so it took me awhile to sort it out. I believe a consensus was reached somewhere at Template:Char (not sure where though) in May. The template was nominated for deletion on July 6 by Psiĥedelisto, who as far as I can tell had not interacted with y’all before. That is where EEng and possibly you became involved. That discussion is -- well people were not biting their tongues. That led to Psiĥedelisto making some changes to the template that were BOLD, which were then Reverted, by you and another person. There was a talk page discussion in which Psiĥedelisto was less than professional: [3] Wow, two whole months? I had no idea that this was such an enduring consensus!, [4] Gee whiz, you have better things to do? I don't?, [5] Is no-opping a template as part of the BRD cycle according to you deliberate obstruction of Wikipedia's purpose? Seriously?. I believe that is where you disengaged [from the conversation] because of OP's disruptive and uncollaborative approach, as you said at ANI.

Let’s look at that ANI. Psiĥedelisto opened a thread because they felt slighted, rightly so, because another person (not you) inadvertently insulted them (this has already been resolved, so no diffs from me). In order to present their case at ANI, which was to ask for a revdel of the offending edit summary and acknowledgment of the smear, they went into detail about their disability. When I first read their post [6], I was confused about why they went into so much detail (were they trying to gain sympathy by playing the disabled card?). I was not sure, mainly because of the Wiktionary diffs where they admitted it could be a personal attack. Now I realize they were going into so much detail to explain WHY the edit summary was offensive, and WHY it should be revdel’d. I get that now and see it was necessary for an otherwise innocuous putdown. So that changed my mind from Boomerang to agreeing to the revdel. When you posted your first ANI comment, [7] you seem to be doing what every ANI does: looking at the other side of the story, I'd like to request at least a cursory look at whether there's a boomerang concerning this editor's consistent battleground mentality and disruptive editing at template:Char and its associated TFD…. Harmless enough, that’s ANI 101, you were clearly commenting on their behavior in the discussion, no PA. But you were dismissed off-hand with your concern ignored [8]. Even I was frustrated when I saw that. Now your second comment at ANI is what got you in trouble: I see no evidence that JMF engaged in a deliberate reference to this user's condition, which as far as I can see was not mentioned once in the buildup to the offending edit. And although it was clearly a violation of NPA, it's not like it just came out of nowhere. I disengaged because of OP's disruptive and uncollaborative approach, that part is perfectly reasonable and can be applied anywhere to anyone.

But the last phrase of your last sentence got you banhammered but bringing this matter here feels more like an attempt to game the system to retaliate against an editor that disagrees with him than anything else. I myself was already deemed "insensitive" at that ANI, but on a strictly generic basis of seeing disputes roll over to ANI, half the time this is exactly what is going on. But instead of receiving a chance to see your error (maybe a warning or better yet a personal note on your talk page) you were instantly and permanently labeled as a bad person. Your entire comment was redacted making it look like all you said at ANI was a personal attack so severe that no one would ever want to unblock you, and yet EEng's comment hoovers there [9]. Think of when the internet takes a clip of Big Bird and bleeps out a word; now Big Bird is an X-rated show. But EEng’s last post at that ANI is beyond the pale [10] a ham-handed kibbitzer who managed to make a bad situation much worse remains blocked. Unacceptable labeling, this is a PA. Let me tell you a bit about EEng: the last time I used the phrase “beyond the pale” this person posted [11] a picture of an albino African man standing in front of a dark-skinned African man with the caption “There is a darker man standing beyond the pale.” Their racist and insensitive post still remain in the archives. So don’t ever take any apparent moral superiority from EEng seriously; it’s all smoke and mirrors there.

This whole ANI was handled so poorly it should be used as a case study. Who got the shaft? You got the shaft. I don't know the way forward at this time, but I did this timeline because I don't believe you were ever given a chance to defend your comment. And the way you have been treated is beyond "beyond the pale." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, user:Bison X and thank you for caring enough to share it. Frankly, I'm waiting to hear from User:DePiep - a highly respected editor with whom I have a long record of sometimes contentious but always productive interaction to see whether he sees this situation as you and I do or not. VanIsaac_WS^cont 18:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bison X and VanIsaac: I never sought a block on any editor...see also [12], which I wrote before any reply happened at AN/I, and it was unclear what was going to happen. (I logged off for a little bit after writing that as the stress of all this was getting to me, unfortunately too late to follow EEng's advice to temporarily pull it, which I didn't realize I could do. I thought AN/I's, if withdrawn, can't be re-submitted. It's not like I'm constantly at AN/I—I've been there three times since I started editing in 2016. First to dox myself, second to report a BLP violation (was revdel'd), third, the instant case.) Am I offended by VanIsaac's dismissive, rude suggestion that I gamed the system? Of course, absolutely I am. Such statements, along with the notion of playing the victim, have been the domain of those who are "normal" and fit in since time immemorial, not only here on Wikipedia. Here's some more examples: "Half these welfare queens aren't really depressed! They're just gaming the Social Security System!"; "All these Blacks around here just got into this university by gaming the affirmative action system."; "It's just a joke guys, there's nothing wrong with Pepe the frog or the OK sign or it's okay to be white, we're all just trying to offend you, stop squawking about your hurt feelings and playing the victim."

But, I forgave JMF, and am ready to accept an apology from VanIsaac as well. Holding grudges isn't healthy. Best, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, we do have editors who play the victim. Just not you. EEng 21:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@EEng:, please remove the above comment. Your insinuations in this matter are neither helpful nor warranted.

Psiĥedelisto, I'm glad you were not seeking a block in your request. Unfortunately, when I saw your post at ANI, from my experience engaging at that board for many years in the past, such a result was an absolute certainty in my mind, and I reacted from that knowledge rather than understanding yours. To get a simple matter like a comment summary removed, an ANI report saying "Please revdel the edit summary at X, as it is offensive given my medical condition" should be more than sufficient. Comparing JMF to 4chan and other cesspools of the internet was not going to elicit a simple granting of your request, and neither was going in to extensive detail about your medical condition. But you are absolutely right about me in one way: I was dismissive about your condition. I felt, and continue to feel that it is irrelevant to the legitimacy of your request for the revdel: the fact that you were offended by it is the only criteria it should ever take to get such an action at Wikipedia, and I can only apologize for this community that you felt like you had to go into deep detail to justify your feelings. Your feelings are valid without any justification at all. I also apologize for reading your ANI report on the basis of what I knew the result would be, rather than appreciate the defensiveness you've been programmed by countless online interactions to have to display unjustly in these types of situations. These kinds of situations are why WP:AGF exists, and I see very few people involved, least of all myself, who couldn't use a healthy reflection on that guideline. I'm not asking for your forgiveness because it is not mine to have, but I hope you can find it for your own benefit. I can only hope that I can give you an understanding of my actions that validates your life and experience, because I cannot go back in time and erase them. VanIsaac_WS^cont 00:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you in my post in small just above. I'm glad to see, though, that you seem to be taking the advice I gave in my earlier post further up. You can thank me later. EEng 01:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Then your comment was not helpful, warranted, or relevant, and I ask you again to retract it. And just to be completely honest with you, none of your comments here have met that threshold. I have paid exactly zero attention to your ostensible advice - this is how I have always dealt with editors with whom I have misunderstandings over almost fifteen years as a member of this community. I would only thank you to let Psiĥedelisto and I come to our own understanding without your commentary, which has consistently come across as condescending and insulting, regardless of your intentions.

It is possible you are laboring under the flawed belief that I am engaging only in order to effect the sanctions imposed on me, but please know that is fundamentally irrelevant to me. I am engaging in order to both ameliorate the misunderstandings from this situation and to explain my actions to those effected since I was denied the ability to respond to the attacks leveled against me at ANI. Psiĥedelisto deserves to not just know but understand that my actions had nothing to do with his medical condition, and deserves to learn how he can approach this kind of situation in the future without accidentally invoking these kinds of misunderstandings. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe you have found the way forward now. Stay with it, and best wishes to you and Psiĥedelisto. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly hope you can help Psiĥedelisto learn what he can do in future to help you not get yourself blocked. EEng 04:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng#s, I have no idea what made you believe that remark to be either useful or helpful. It was neither You don't always have to have the last word. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Like I said above, it's all smoke and mirrors when it comes to their morality. They have been thoroughly discredited and their comments can be disregarded outright. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

And that wasn't obviously useful or helpful either. Neither remark moves us towards de-escalation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng has been blocked from editing this page for the duration of Vanisaac's block (as of several hours ago now). Please don't let their provocation obstruct your conversation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's try to settle this...

“

Psiĥedelisto, I'm glad you were not seeking a block in your request. Unfortunately, when I saw your post at ANI, from my experience engaging at that board for many years in the past, such a result was an absolute certainty in my mind, and I reacted from that knowledge rather than understanding yours. To get a simple matter like a comment summary removed, an ANI report saying "Please revdel the edit summary at X, as it is offensive given my medical condition" should be more than sufficient. Comparing JMF to 4chan and other cesspools of the internet was not going to elicit a simple granting of your request, and neither was going in to extensive detail about your medical condition. But you are absolutely right about me in one way: I was dismissive about your condition. I felt, and continue to feel that it is irrelevant to the legitimacy of your request for the revdel: the fact that you were offended by it is the only criteria it should ever take to get such an action at Wikipedia, and I can only apologize for this community that you felt like you had to go into deep detail to justify your feelings. Your feelings are valid without any justification at all. I also apologize for reading your ANI report on the basis of what I knew the result would be, rather than appreciate the defensiveness you've been programmed by countless online interactions to have to display unjustly in these types of situations. These kinds of situations are why WP:AGF exists, and I see very few people involved, least of all myself, who couldn't use a healthy reflection on that guideline. I'm not asking for your forgiveness because it is not mine to have, but I hope you can find it for your own benefit. I can only hope that I can give you an understanding of my actions that validates your life and experience, because I cannot go back in time and erase them.

” — VanIsaac_WS^cont, § Vanisaac 2020-07-11, 00:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, everything you say is right about why I went into such detail, I'm used to needing to. And let's be fair, even here I was expecting to get a reply like lol, are you freaking kidding me, 8chan's ex-admin wants a revdel over hurt feelings? Cry more!. But, even on a good day I'm longwinded. WP:TEXTWALLs serve me well in articlespace, not so much in talk or the WP:PRJ. I'm working on it.

I have one last concern. On WP:AN/I, you wrote, There seems to be a pretty consistent WP:NOT HERE and WP:DE pattern in this user's refusal to edit collaboratively. As I wrote at User talk:John Maynard Friedman § Query in reply to EEng, I appreciated your comment on my talk page and did what you said, stayed out of the thread after it was handled, rather than engage with VanIsaac, although I wanted to, and even had quite a long reply to them written.

I saved it as illadvised ANI comment.txt in case I ended up needing it. Here's the relevant portion:

“ @Vanisaac: To say that I'm WP:NOTHERE is itself IMO another personal attack, so that makes two from you, the first one being calling me a vandal over at Template talk:Char, even though through the normal WP:BRD cycle a consensus emerged that a no-op was too harsh because some of {{Char}}'s transclusions replaced {{Code}}'s, so a no-op therefore wasn't a complete WP:STATUSQUO restoration, but {{angbr}} was an acceptable middle ground for now. There's no way to say that my edit is vandalism, since without it, that BRD wouldn't have happened, and the temporary {{angbr}} alias truce wouldn't exist.

But anyway, I'm here to build an encyclopedia, and have been since 2016, what else can User:Psiĥedelisto § Best be called? What am I building there? Bold template edits and {{edit template protected}} (TE ER's) really are a minute part of my work here. And if you say that I never accept "losing", well, I wasted an hour writing Module:Ws. Turns out all the work I did can be replaced simply with the Help:Pipe trick, which I didn't know existed. I've worked out conduct disputes non-disruptively before as well and am now friends with the involved editor(s), see "Tangential disagreement" hat at Talk:People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Lee Zhou. And many other cases where I "lost". ”

I think it was unnecessary to say I'm not here; to be honest this hurt worse than you insinuating I was just complaining to game the system...I'm not admitting that my edits rose to the level of WP:DE, but WP:NOTHERENORMS clearly states that even if I did, Failure to adapt to a norm is not by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively. Admins frequently reject WP:NOTHERE blocks against editors who do contribute collaboratively and productively elsewhere, instead reaching for WP:CIR, WP:THERAPY, WP:DE or WP:BATTLEGROUND as rationales.

I'll grant you that my community experience is a lot less than most editors with my edit count divided by account age. (‹See Tfd› ≈5,800/4). I made my first RfC today (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RfC: Proper and improper use of monospace) and first technical move request yesterday (which I did wrong...Talk:Social Security System (Philippines)). Until 2019, I wrote obscure articles almost exclusively. Deseret alphabet, Hong Fook Tong Chinese Dramatic Company, et cetera. Even now, I prefer such. We have a similar interest in Unicode, I wonder what you think of a recent article of mine, Mojikyō? I think under different circumstances, we would have been fast friends. Perhaps such is still possible. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I did notice you had a pre-existing relationship with Andrew West - knowing someone like him certainly reduces the degrees of separation compared to an otherwise random editor. 'Phagspa was encoded quite a while before my time with Duployan, so I don't really know if I ever met Andrew in person or not, but it's a pretty small community. I can't say I've ever heard of mojikyou before, so I'll have to take a look at it. As for the crux of the matter, here's my take on the inciting leadup.

The TFD had two separate strands of discussion: 1) there was a highly productive conversation happening among a group of editors about usage of the template. They were identifying inappropriate instances of its use, not only removing it from inappropriate usage, but developing guidelines for its future usage as well. 2) there was a second strand that was trying to tell you that the matter wasn't about the template itself, but rather about complicated issues of MOS, and that the matter needed to be brought up there. Even though everyone was going against the TFD, it was fundamentally based on taking your concerns seriously. The issues you brought up needed the visibility of taking place where editors deal with the issues you brought up, and we were all trying to convince you to get your concerns where they'd get the perspective and attention it needed. Your reaction to that help was pointedly combative, and when you decided to functionally blank the template, you not only violated the consensus of that second conversation - namely that MOS needed to figure out how to balance the two sets of needs - you derailed the progress of the first, unambiguously productive strand. Most importantly, you also undermined the conversation that needed to happen at MOS by hiding the effects of the template from its context.

So I fully stand by my concern about a disruptive editing pattern, while freely admitting that using "vandalize" was hyperbole that was fundamentally unjustifiable. The thing is, a lot of that disruption was functionally undermining yourself. Style issues that are almost always resolved by exposure, and unless it is unambiguously hiding content, it is so much better to leave it for everyone to see. The concern is concrete, not theoretical. But in the end, I like you - your intensity and caring reminds me of a lot of really incredible editors from around ten years ago - and I want you to learn to recognize that on Wikipedia, people who oppose you are almost always trying to help you. We're on the same side here. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: I didn't try to get you to apologize for calling me disruptive, but rather WP:NOTHERE, which this comment doesn't address at all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry for not catching that. I'm on a mobile instead of my computer, so my normal method of opening in another tab to check I've got everything isn't available. I think the reason I mentioned NOTHERE was concern about the interest in "editing collaboratively", an editing pattern which I've had to nip in the bud myself a few times in the past. Of course as soon as you posted here, it was pretty obvious that wasn't what was going on. Those sorts of issues can oftentimes work out when we take a step back and start engaging outside the bone of contention, as we've done here. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: Thank you, I accept your apologies. Sorry for not replying sooner—you didn't ping, and I didn't notice it in my watchlist. I will also apologize to you and any other editor involved at the TfD/Template talk:Char for being disruptive by saving revision 966436652. While at the time I didn't intend to disrupt, and really thought I was accurately interpreting WP:BRD/WP:STATUSQUO in the template case, I can see why what I did was in fact disruptive. I won't in future use templates to try to restore a WP:STATUSQUO in the future if the template didn't exist at the time of the status quo I'm trying to restore.

This is no excuse, but in the outside world, especially in American culture, being "disruptive" is often portrayed as a virtue. People put "disruptor" as a reason to hire them on their curricula vitæ. Politicians and the media celebrate the disruptors, those intrepid entrepreneurs, "the best our nation has to offer" (if this appellation is true of Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, we are doomed), with scarcely a thought for the disrupted. After all, they had it coming, we can't blame the invisible hand of the market, now can we?

I should have just removed it from pilcrow/numero sign—as those uses bothered me the most—as I finally did a few days ago. I don't know what should happen now to the template, but if it's reverted back to revision 966400349 I won't fight that. I like you as well, thank you for saying I have old-fashioned Wikipedian values. So this is resolved. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you are reading far too much into WP:STATUSQUO. That guideline isn't about templates vs. mainspace, or anything like that. It is really only about reverting edits to a stable state prior to the disagreement. So in a case like this, where you have a template with a controversial effect, STATUSQUO really has three options: 1) revert the template to a previous complete version that was implemented. That means it wasn't in development at the time with a bunch of edits around it; it was actively being put into articles in that state for more than just testing purposes. 2) revert articles to no longer use the template. This might need hand editing if there were subsequent edits to the page, and you need to check that any subsequent edits weren't interacting in some way. 3) don't do anything, or discuss to find a temporary neutral state, because leaving the template implemented is the only workable STATUSQUO, given the development of the article content since the introduction of the template. And the fact is that #2 is exactly what was happening in the first discussion at the TFD with editors talking about removing the template from inappropriate articles.

But I think most importantly is that STATUSQUO isn't a rule to be implemented unilaterally, it is a guideline for starting discussions. It is based on the idea that you have disagreements about a single edit (or the functional equivalent of one) and that the edit can just be reverted. That's why #2 was so active in the TFD. STATUSQUO is an idealized starting point for participating editors to look at for implementing a temporary compromise until an actual consensus can be achieved. But the policy of WP:Consensus - literally included as part of one of the WP:Five pillars needs to be the lodestar in all cases, no matter what other guidelines you can find. Once a discussion starts on a conflict, policies are really only valid when you have editors agreeing to it. Policies aren't weapons, they are tools.

@Psiĥedelisto: Let me know if you ever need backup or input in the future. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:No true Scotsman on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Women on the Verge on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your work at WP:AWBREQ. Hundreds and thousands little automated edits save a lot of time for editors. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Uw-wrongsummary/doc

Hello. If you visit Template:Uw-wrongsummary, and look at the documentation as included on that page, you'll note the See Also formatting being broken - the bulleted list isn't rendered as such. I'm writing this to ask you if your 07:11, 29 April 2020‎ inclusion of this wiki markup into your sandbox template thing might be the cause of it. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp:, thanks for catching that. I'm not even sure technically why that actually happened, but I'll play around with it once I'm back to my computer and have my full toolset available. VanIsaac_WS^cont 16:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:年数 is nominated for deletion

Template:年数, which is transcluded on your user page without parameters has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 10#Template:年数. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Value

Template:Value has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UTF-8 and Template:UTF-16

Template:UTF-16 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 15:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Template:UTF-8 has been nominated for deletion too. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 15:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UTF-8toScalar

Template:UTF-8toScalar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 15:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)