![]() | This page 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. |
In anticipation of the RfC closing without action, I've started an essay page in my userspace (though intended for mainspace at some point). Thought you may want to see/edit: User:Rhododendrites/Don't use a billboard signature. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I had left the 'Signature' box empty and the checkbox checked. Hopefully unchecking that fixed this. Thx, Humanengr ( talk) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi there Mandruss, would you be interested in adopting me? I would like some of your help in editing and policies, and I believe that you are the person I am looking for through our conversation of signatures. If you choose to decline, it would be okay. Thank you and please reply me soon! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Mandruss, I've never typed a message to a person on wikipedia in this fashion. So i'm not sure if this is the correct way. Anyway, thank you for setting the time to the beginning of the video. My question is, to me, this seems like the best source. It is literally Jesse Jackson thanking Trump at a Rainbow Push meeting on C-SPAN. Does this suffice for Wikipedia;s standards? Is there something else I should add? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disciple4lif ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
In the Donald Trump article, you reverted my work, stating "OVERLINK and DUPLINK do not apply to citations and for very good reasons" ( diff). Are you just making up your own rules? Nowhere on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking page does it state that WP:DUPLINK or WP:OVERLINK do not reply to references. So, why does the article need to be overlinked in such a manner? Does the reader really need dozens of duplicate internal links to news organization articles? I don't think so. Did I miss something, or is this your own idea, rather than stated on the MOS page? It seems like the former. North America 1000 20:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
My edits weren't disruptive, they were the consensus reached on the Elizabeth Warren talk page as can be seen here. User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Gandydancer are trying to push a POV that contradicts the criticism of the Cherokee Nation's response to Warren's DNA test. ScienceApe ( talk) 07:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks so much for your diligence in keeping the refs in order. It's valuable work.
You may wonder how I arrive at my ref format. I don't know how Soibangla formats refs, but I use the Yadkard citation tool, which automatically renders them like this, spaces and all (which allows lines to wrap at line breaks):
I then have to tweak it:
The part I have to do manually is double check the dates. Sometimes it gets that wrong. Also to ensure that all authors are named. Sometimes it doesn't catch that, but when there are multiple authors, it usually does, just like any scientific reference. I also have to check for curly quotes. It doesn't catch that. I also wikilink the source.
It always uses "website=", which fortunately always renders the source in italics, so the final ref is nearly always right. I'm not sure changing that is really necessary, or just a waste of time.
Then I have to create the ref name, because it doesn't create a completely unique ref name. It just uses the last name(s) and the year. That's too generic, so I also add the month and day, thus creating a unique ref name. That minimizes the risk of ending up with duplicate refs.
My final result looks like this:
References
It's up to you whether you want to keep cleaning up the blank spaces and changing the "website=". That may be wasted time. Otherwise, keep up the good work. It's nice to have a complete and well-functioning reflist. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
|last=Kessler |first=Glenn
format is more widely accepted than | last=Kessler | first=Glenn
—for good reasons, in my opinion. It's also the format used by the {{
para}}
template – e.g. {{para|last|Kessler}}
gives |last=Kessler
, not | last=Kessler
– and in citation template documentation examples. Online news sources should use {{
cite news}}
, not {{
cite web}}
, as clearly conveyed in the very first sentence at
Template:Cite news. I used to use |work=
or |website=
for everything. Then I ran across a person who pointed out that the titles of our articles for some sources like
ABC News are not italicized (because Wikipedia does not view them as "works"). Now I use |work=
or |publisher=
depending on whether the target article title is italicized. I've also stopped using |website=
, although I don't bother changing it when I see it—it, and others including |newspaper=
, are simply aliases of |work=
—so it's a worthwhile simplification to just use |work=
in those cases.Howdy. An Rfc at Monarchy of Australia has opened concerning the head of state issue. GoodDay ( talk) 20:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm really sorry I messed up that Talk page. Please forgive me. I've printed out the two sets of instructions you gave me the links to for study and future reference. I promise this won't happen again. Grammarian3.14159265359 ( talk) 06:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Grammarian3.14159265359
Hi there. If you're looking for an article to work on, perhaps you'd consider Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust? It's hot in the political news and could benefit from your considerable carpentry skills. R2 ( bleep) 16:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Recently you changed mentions of Vox on its article to appear in italics, bearing a guideline. Could check whether that guideline also applies to other Vox Media-owned sites, and apply the formatting there, as well as on Vox Media's page? This would add some consistency to the Vox Media article and related pages. Regards. Lordtobi ( ✉) 12:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Mandruss. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think you got it spot on here. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Oshawott 12 ==()==
Talk to me! 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/Dec18a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.
Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the Elizabeth Warren edit, a little below MOS:QUOTE is MOS:QWQ. When we cite an article using {{ cite web}} or {{ cite news}}, the source's title is put into quotation marks, so if the title of the source also has quotation marks inside of it, this becomes a quotation within a quotation, so I believe it should use single quote marks. — BarrelProof ( talk) 03:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, where's the money? Not really, but... It's past Christmas, and he's still not back. Semi Hyper cube 03:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A request: please would you mark them as minor edits so they don't appear in watchlists of those who have filtered out minor edits to focus on content edits? Cheers. soibangla ( talk) 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Your profile made me laugh my goats off
Year1888 (
talk)
21:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind undoing this close? This wasn't a formal proposal, but an informal discussion to gather broader feedback: The OP has made it clear they aren't interested in renaming the articles as of yet. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I had a question. I'm not sure what it is? ~ R. T. G 10:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What legitimate basis is there to delete a documented major trending national news story? A major controversy in Warren’s career has been her alleged misuse of race. She has denied this. The Bar registration is a smoking gun. Why is it being censored? BigJake54 ( talk) 03:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, could you have a look at Aurora, Illinois shooting? Another editor persists in adding victim names, even though I have pointed out that it requires consensus. I am getting close to 3RR. Thanks, WWGB ( talk) 05:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea for those who watch the various MOS pages and are active on their talkpages to stop answering general style questions and instead refer them to the language refdesk. My reasoning is that a lot of the negativity directed towards the MOS and its "regulars" comes from seeing the talkpage of a style guideline being used for answering style questions that are not covered by said guideline. This gives the answers the appearance of consensus-based legitimacy and any critisism of that is, I think, totally valid. The talkpages should be for improvement-based suggestions and clarification of existing guidance. No?
I'm sending this to several people so please respond on my talkpage. Thanks. Primergrey ( talk) 14:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You understand exactly what I'm trying to say and the spirit in which I'm trying to say it. I appreciate your coming over to say so. Primergrey ( talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You mentioned in your notes after undoing my edit, to check the talk page as there was a consensus there not to mention the SRO's name. First of all I checked the talk page, there are 4 sections there, and not one of them talks about omitting the SRO's name.
Second, the SRO deputy is a major pivotal player in this shooting, and subsequent investigation, and should be identified by name, as is Scott Israel, Robert Runcie, school principals, etc. I can't think of any legitimate reason why other contributors would even come to such a conclusion as you used for your justification of undoing my edit, but either way, the discussion was not there like you claimed. I could not find ti in the 4 sections of the talk page.
CarIndustryFan ( talk) 22:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Just fair warning, I will be starting a discussion at WP:AN/I later today as I believe you and WWGB ( talk · contribs) are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND mentalities on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting ( | article | history | links | watch | logs), and the article currently is violating WP:NPOV. While I sympathize with your argument that you've "had these discussions before" (paraphrasing), I am entirely new to these discussions, and there are no archives on the article we're currently discussing for me to reflect on. I've made my rebuttals to your comments, and days later, you are still refusing to answer them. Meanwhile you threaten me with a visit to AN/I (which I honestly think would turn out worse for you than it would for me). If you have the time and the gumption to make threats, you should have the time to actually discuss the topic at hand, rather than simply sideline yourself and wax philosophical on how you shouldn't have to justify yourself every time this comes up. As I said on the article talk page, it's "Bold, Revert, DISCUSS", not "Bold, Revert, VOTE". I will link you here once I've started the discussion at AN/I. — Locke Cole • t • c 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c
00:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Per MOS:SMALLFONT, please don't add "smalls" to infoboxes. This is an accessibility issue. Thanks. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologise for reverting one of your edits at Thomas Jefferson: [6]. I made a mistake. Attic Salt ( talk) 17:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a word "no-one" but practically no one uses it any-more.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Locke Cole • t • c 08:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I want to thank you for taking an interest in Christchurch mosque shootings and for being one of the sane editors there. I understand you're an American and want to say I'm grateful to have oversight from afar, together with respect for New Zealanders and our culture, particularly when time zones mean we're asleep here and not able to watch the page. Akld guy ( talk) 11:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Dear sir,
I am very new on wikipedia but I really appreciate and admire your work. Thank you for inspiring me. Abhinath Maurya ( talk) 21:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | |
mature and respectful tone of conversation | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1908 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
Hi. You might have missed it, but the anonymous ranter on User talk:Rusf10 is an admitted block evader. Best to deny recognition. R2 ( bleep) 00:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I have limited patience for what I perceive to be disingenuous misrepresentation, and I've taken a recent comment as breaking the camel's back. You said yourself that you'd struggle to moderate your tone with them, so I'm wondering what you think about my comment here (the whole thing, not just the copy-edit). Am I being too critical, or has AGF run its course? Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I participate in debates mostly for the mental stimulation- Predominantly the same, although I place strong value in accuracy. I've struck the bit about dishonesty, albeit I'm not entirely convinced. Thanks for your input. Mr rnddude ( talk) 19:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Not gonna dwell on it, but you have breached the 1-RR ruling, for post-1932 American political articles. GoodDay ( talk) 16:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
That was brutal :D cheers! —— SerialNumber 54129 11:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, in reference to your comment here
[7], a reminder that while the awareness criteria are considered by some to be too bureaucratic,
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts is quite clear that "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement
". While it may be understandable that people will accidentally issue notifications when they aren't aware that this happened, if someone is aware that the person just appealed their topic ban for the area of conflict
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive247#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme less than 3 months ago, it is unnecessary, in fact I would go so far as to say inappropriate to issue a notification.
Nil Einne (
talk)
14:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the criteria also specify that editors are aware if they themselves have issued a notification. Again, it is possible someone will accidentally issue a notification since it's much harder to search such things, and so you may wish to ward off such a thing by issuing yourself a notification. And I'm not saying you should go around issuing notifications to others just so there is no doubt you are "aware". But it's also unnecessary if you have done so in the last 12 months and you just want to ensure you are "aware". (Or of course if you have participated in any AE related to the area of the notification.)
Nil Einne (
talk) 14:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh and if you disagree that appealing a sanction to AE counts as "participate in any process", remember there is also either "In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
" or "They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)
" as may be appropriate.
Nil Einne (
talk)
14:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Whoops I misread the discussion apologies especially to Ahrtoodeetoo|. It seems they only became aware of the appeal after they issued the notification. In that case the notification may have been okay. However if you wanted to defend it, you should have defended it as an unnecessary notification but an understandable mistake, rather than something that was required by for DS, since it wasn't. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I do agree with you that the best way to ward of others issuing alerts when they are not necessary is simply to give yourself a standard alert which can be properly searched. I also a agree a notice on someone's page that they are aware is of unclear utility, it's possible it will be accepted as awareness, it's possible it will not. Especially if the notice was added to the page more than 12 months ago and it hasn't been updated since then. Frankly your comment isn't that bad now that I realise my mistake. (The first time I read, I thought I read R2 saying "I was aware".) Still I do feel what you said wasn't clear enough that while the alert may have been an understandable mistake in the end it's clear it wasn't necessary since the editor was clearly aware even according to the strict arbcom awareness criteria and the only reason to issue a alert to someone else is to ensure they are "aware". IMO people do seem to concentrate too much on the annual alert thing. I've even seen some do what almost seem like "revenge" alert after they were just alerted by that editor despite this being clearly precluded by the criteria. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2019 UNCC shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please view
this Thanks,
EDG 543
(talk)
19:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you reopen it? El_C 21:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, there are 11 archives so I’m sure you can understand. What was the consensus because it seems strange not to include the suspected perpetrator in the lead or infobox. IWI ( chat) 00:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mandruss—in reference to this let me ask you—is it your claim that there is no distinction between "victim lists" and prose-form inclusion of victim names? I was under the impression that distinction had been well established in these many discussions. Bus stop ( talk) 14:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mandruss, I think I said if Trump's best economy claim needed an RfC I would do it, but now I believe I have too much off-wiki stuff to do it. So, just thought I would inform you. starship .paint ( talk) 05:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I won't block someone whose cat is dying, but as was demonstrated, you did violate 3RR (which I was not aware at the time). Please don't let it happen again. El_C 07:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Since the 23rd I've been dealing with the impending loss of a cat that has been my good friend since 2002. Comfort me.
If I behave strangely in the next week or two (or already have), blame that with my apologies.
― Mandruss ☎ 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder-- y'all might want to discuss more and revert less. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Hillary Clinton. Please pardon me—I was unaware of MOS:JR, and was following The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Ed., section 6.43 (pp. 384–385; online citation), which does require the use of commas in these particular cases—in direct contravention of the Wikipedia MOS. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 12:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I disagree with
this. Please don't take offense to this, but I think your view here is reflective of your own misunderstanding of
WP:NPV. If you look closely at
WP:WEIGHT, it says: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, ...
When editors refer to WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE, etc., or say that something should be excluded because it's undue weight, that's a shorthand for saying that including that particular content would be adding too much detail or too much text to a particular viewpoint, or more often, an unbalanced amount of detail or text to a particular aspect of the article subject (
WP:BALASPS). It's fully supported by the policy.
Of course, many editors do misunderstand WP:NPV, and some lazy editors do point shout neutrality as a catchall when they simply don't like certain content, but those are separate problems. R2 ( bleep) 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Trump supporters | Trump opponents | |
---|---|---|
Trump-favorable content | More significant | Less significant |
Trump-unfavorable content | Less significant | More significant |
Hi User:BullRangifer! ― Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Can I ask why you referred to your acknowledgement of a warning written on user WWGB's talk page, while deleting that warning, that was directed to them? This seems like the sort of behaviour that would only make sense coming from the user who was being warned. Are you also user WWGB?-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 01:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Your claim; "Editors are allowed to remove anything they want from their own talk pages. Learn the rules please." at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:WWGB&oldid=903494302 is incorrect. The rule states that "The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." see here; /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_talk_pages - stop edit warring, and stop making false claims about Wikipedia rules to justify your behaviour.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 01:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss is correct on this issue. I advise Senor Freebie to drop the matter. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I clicked on your userpage for probably the first time (nothing against you, I just only normally look at userpages when I'm trying to figure out if someone is a sock, but I made an exception for some reason this time.) No obscure corner of Wikipedia is safe from this user's rabid agenda-driven crusade to censor spelling errors. makes me very happy, as someone who is the king of typos and spelling errors. Just thought I should pass that along. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
the king of typos and spelling errorsmeans you make a lot of them, or correct a lot of them? If the former, I certainly haven't noticed that, and being somewhere on the accursed spectrum I can't help noticing such things.My user page is there to be read, even by editors who don't think I'm a sock. ;) ― Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It was just the right thing to do. The RfC had been held and closed and I couldn't really find fault with the closer's reading of the result, even if I was on the losing side. So, I implemented the result.
The closer actually missed an even stronger point in your side's favor: BLP is usually held to apply for some time after death; it does not automatically stop applying when someone dies (that has been cited to keep me from adding more details of Kate Spade's death to her article, or rather her sister's discussion, in an RS, of how she had probably been bipolar all her life and how she had attempted suicide before. I think there are people there who would still keep that out of the article per BLP, even if it's been more than a year (I see that WP:BDP says "two years at the outside"—it did not used to, and perhaps that explains why someone in a recent GAR I was involved with could argue that a death six years ago was "recent".
I suppose I could restore the beginning and ending sentences; it might just be seen as inviting people to re-add the names, though. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Mgasparin has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy!
Thanks for explaining the rules around the wiki to me in a helpful, civil way. Your help is always much appreciated! Mgasparin ( talk) 20:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Given your interest in the subject matter, you may want to comment on this: Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Requested move 27 July 2019. — JFG talk 11:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that this discussion about Trump's golfing was archived without a conclusion. Would you kindly assess consensus or lack thereof? (I'm super-involved, so won't touch it.) — JFG talk 09:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
But see [9]. General Ization Talk 00:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi -- I think that's a good idea, to suggest a "Avoid focus on the perp" guideline. This would mostly apply to types of crimes which can inspire copycat shootings. The media (and Wikipedia) has a social role here, and many media are deliberately avoiding naming killers, and there are many people much more expert on this than I. What do you think? This particular piece I edited last night was a practically a love-fest about the killer, with endless details which were totally off-point from the actual killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
suggest a "Avoid focus on the perp" guideline. I said there is no basis for that in policy.
The media (and Wikipedia) has a social role here- Most disagree, saying that the encyclopedia should be dispassionate and follow rather than lead on social issues. We follow the body of our reliable sources, all of them, not just the ones that do what we approve of based our personal worldviews.
many media are deliberately avoiding naming killers- Not many. Can you find a source used in that article that mentions him without naming him? How many sources can you find anywhere that mention him without naming him and meet our reliable source criteria? Unless and until they have the majority among reliable sources, we wouldn't be "following" to avoid naming him.I support any content about Cruz that helps explain the shooting and its impact. I don't support anything else about Cruz, but I lack the motivation to do anything about it. I'm old and tired. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please undo this edit. The discussion is about how to code Citation Style 1 (and presumably Citation) citations, not whether to put first names first in general in all citations, including those that do not use templates. If you want, you could add a pointer to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
moved discussion from}}
and {{
moved discussion to}}
templates. ―
Mandruss
☎
17:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks |
~ Nice to see you again and thanks for the education~ I had that cleaned up here I guess someone didn't like the AP ~ go figure ` LOL ` ~mitch~ ( talk) 14:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
F & A ~ thanks ~mitch~ ( talk) 01:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
|url=
parameter should never specify an archive version, even if the original is a deadlink.In the case of a deadlink, you omit the |deadurl=
parameter. The effect of that is that the citation |title=
is a link to the |archiveurl=
and the word "original" is a link to the |url=
. A deadlink sometimes comes alive again (or wasn't actually dead in the first place but an editor had trouble accessing it for other reasons), and doing this makes it easy for other editors to verify that it's still/actually dead.When the original is alive but you want to add archive for link rot reasons, as in your cases above, you code |deadurl=no
. Then the |title=
is a link to |url=
and the word "Archived" is a link to |archiveurl=
. If an editor comes along later and finds that the original is now dead, they can simply remove the |deadurl=no
.I hope this is useful to you, and apologies if you already knew it. ―
Mandruss
☎
15:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)I don't know what you're referring to 'an editor who repeatedly claimed no consensus..." That doesn't relate to anything I said or that Markbassett did. Your comment seems off-topic for that thread. The key point is that the new "24 hour BRD" is intended to encourage small improvements en route to a stable resolution. There's ample consensus for the word "published" that I inserted and it is the case that Markbassett has reiterated his OR, whataboutism, and primary-sourced rationales even after other editors informed him they don't hold water. BTW Hi, haven't seen you for a while. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
please don't change longstanding lead w/o consensus.
blocking constructive improvement by claiming "no consensus".
After a discussion with Awilley on their talk page, I realized this modified proposal is too much at this time - for me. I mean, for me, the intent is to control the editing, not essentially create a site-wide ban for this user. So, I am changing it back to the original, with the possibility of making the new proposal 3, "Proposal 4" instead. I didn't see clearly what I was doing - and this doesn't seem to happen to me a lot on Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm chalking it up to experience. Now I will have to notify everyone of this change - and then I am going to run away and hide! --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Here we go again! WWGB ( talk) 07:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss, slowly I’m getting more info out of you... So at Donald Trump talk, how is asking a question a process violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Mandruss sigh, well thanks for reply though you seem to feel extremely strong that it is something I feel strongly it’s not, and that it’s urgent to halt talk for some reason. Is your premise seriously that filing a challenge will tell me what Gamingforfun thinks about things there, if anything? And Bus stop, Jack Upland, Tataral, etcetera? Yes, you’ve been unforthcoming with explanatory dialogue, made a premise about no one supported my reasoning in the few dozen minutes before you blocked input, stated you did not even read my post, not accepted what I tell you, deleted TALK... I’m doubtful this approach has been efficient at getting either of us anywhere. Well, I will take your approval re JFG start another separate thread, asking more narrowly. It might get part of the answers, will see. Markbassett ( talk) 04:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Please feel free to visit me and spell out what your concerns are. I will listen and try to help. Jehochman Talk 18:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Dont want to meet half way, that is clear from your last post. Harcore for you, pity for the rest of us :( I'm willing to exit anyway. Better to jump than be pushed. Ceoil ( talk) 21:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I haven't been following the Don Trump talk page, so I just dropped the article link in for info. I like the fact that it is beautifully sourced. I appreciate there has been mucho discussion, but given the increasingly bizarre statements coming out of the White House, just how many articles in reputable sources do we need before we mention the guy's mental state? Does he have to be hauled off in a straitjacket before we mention it? A quick search shows that source after source, going back years, has diagnosed Trump with narcissistic personality disorder. Now, fair enough if consensus is that we don't mention it, but the way things are going, people will be asking just how crazy is Wikipedia to omit the bleeding obvious. -- Pete ( talk) 21:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey. I wanted to ask about https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=prev&diff=922290929&diffmode=source - I realize that it wasn't officially closed, but there weren't any comments for over 24 hours, like you mentioned in your summary -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey there! Just cause you feel there needs to be an RfC doesn't mean you get to cut off discussion. I happen to think that what @ MrX: proposed is not the same as what's in consensus 39, which I support. At any rate, nobody is forcing you or anyone else to participate in a thread, but we don't cut them off out of pique or pride. You're better than that. Please undo and let it ride. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I have self-reverted, for the record. Perhaps a bit too hasty, and there's that personality-conflict thing. Lesson learned, maybe. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Dashes: en or em, spaced or not (that's four), HTML or just "inserted" (that's eight) ... Is there anything [else] we can do with this mess? Please advise. -- Brogo13 ( talk) 05:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
snd}}
(with a space following, not preceding). Citations use the actual endash character for the parameters listed at
Template:Cite news#COinS metadata is created for these parameters (notably |title=
) and {{
snd}}
for other parameters (notably |quote=
). Emdash is not used anywhere in that article AFAIK. What's the problem? ―
Mandruss
☎
05:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Lincoln wasn't as heroic as you think. His own published material confirms it. Like the myth that "Wilson gave women the right to vote", it was actually Congress, with the then-presidents in both cases having essentially no choice but to go along, because their vetos would have been embarrassingly overturned. Forced Into Glory covers it in detail with a great deal of directly quoted material from Lincoln and his contemporaries. It is well-researched, though of course attacked by the Lincoln lionizers who dominate the subject, and our own article on the book is biased toward that camp. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
...you should not be surprised that you have just been banned from my talk page. If you ever edit it again, I'll skip straight to AN/I where I will link to the diff for this notice. I would also prefer to never interact with you again on this project, so if you could just leave me alone I'd greatly appreciate it. Good luck in your future interactions with editors who aren't me! — Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
To be clear for once, the madness is over and mass shootings have gone the way of childish material things (up to and including the dodo). I went to God just to see, and I was looking at me. Saw Greaser and Soc were lies. When I'm gone, everything's fine. Sort of was inspired by Marilyn Manson there, but don't worry, I'm not going to "freak out", not gonna "bowl for Columbine", ain't fittin' to "pop no cap in yallz fool ass" (collectively or otherwise). Yeah, I swear that I don't have a gun. I don't even have a truck or spare cred to rent one. Plus, I love all of you, hurt by the cold. (Kiedis et Cobain, 1990s)
I'm not even going to overdose or hang myself, like rock gods even you must know by name. I'm just going to fade away like Jan King and maybe come back someday like Pet Sematary 2. Better wait until then to understand everything. May the light be always over you and Sister Rose. Fire girl, queen of heat, dynamite on mercy street. Find your song, Red, or at least "feel the water flowing"!
And sorry for tainting Whimsey Belle's good name with alcohol and questionable pre-match stipulations. I genuinely do hope you dance your cares away together, and truly believe the shark cage is the best place a cute female valet can turn the tide in favour of the heels. The history of professional wrestling will vindicate me on that, mark my words. The rest, as they say, is all yours.
Goodbye, Tony...hello again, Mandruss! (High, Mitch?) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, November 19, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation...not sure if I understand it though! Hope that you are fit and well. Le dea-ghuí ( https://www.google.com/search?q=googletranslate&oq=googletranslate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3755j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) Éamonn Ériugena ( talk) 20:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Although I am not commenting on Trump or political talk pages, or at least try mightily not to. I still have Donald Trump on my watchlist. So when I encountered this diff. I checked help for OP and best I can find is Open Proxy,butI don't know what an Open proxy is. Who is this OP that has been blocked? Is it an Open Proxy?If so then who is the Open Proxy? I would assume that an open proxy would be an IP address,but that collapse did not contain an Open Proxy. Hope you don't mind educating me. Oldperson ( talk) 16:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
![]() | This page 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. |
In anticipation of the RfC closing without action, I've started an essay page in my userspace (though intended for mainspace at some point). Thought you may want to see/edit: User:Rhododendrites/Don't use a billboard signature. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I had left the 'Signature' box empty and the checkbox checked. Hopefully unchecking that fixed this. Thx, Humanengr ( talk) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi there Mandruss, would you be interested in adopting me? I would like some of your help in editing and policies, and I believe that you are the person I am looking for through our conversation of signatures. If you choose to decline, it would be okay. Thank you and please reply me soon! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Mandruss, I've never typed a message to a person on wikipedia in this fashion. So i'm not sure if this is the correct way. Anyway, thank you for setting the time to the beginning of the video. My question is, to me, this seems like the best source. It is literally Jesse Jackson thanking Trump at a Rainbow Push meeting on C-SPAN. Does this suffice for Wikipedia;s standards? Is there something else I should add? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disciple4lif ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
In the Donald Trump article, you reverted my work, stating "OVERLINK and DUPLINK do not apply to citations and for very good reasons" ( diff). Are you just making up your own rules? Nowhere on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking page does it state that WP:DUPLINK or WP:OVERLINK do not reply to references. So, why does the article need to be overlinked in such a manner? Does the reader really need dozens of duplicate internal links to news organization articles? I don't think so. Did I miss something, or is this your own idea, rather than stated on the MOS page? It seems like the former. North America 1000 20:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
My edits weren't disruptive, they were the consensus reached on the Elizabeth Warren talk page as can be seen here. User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Gandydancer are trying to push a POV that contradicts the criticism of the Cherokee Nation's response to Warren's DNA test. ScienceApe ( talk) 07:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks so much for your diligence in keeping the refs in order. It's valuable work.
You may wonder how I arrive at my ref format. I don't know how Soibangla formats refs, but I use the Yadkard citation tool, which automatically renders them like this, spaces and all (which allows lines to wrap at line breaks):
I then have to tweak it:
The part I have to do manually is double check the dates. Sometimes it gets that wrong. Also to ensure that all authors are named. Sometimes it doesn't catch that, but when there are multiple authors, it usually does, just like any scientific reference. I also have to check for curly quotes. It doesn't catch that. I also wikilink the source.
It always uses "website=", which fortunately always renders the source in italics, so the final ref is nearly always right. I'm not sure changing that is really necessary, or just a waste of time.
Then I have to create the ref name, because it doesn't create a completely unique ref name. It just uses the last name(s) and the year. That's too generic, so I also add the month and day, thus creating a unique ref name. That minimizes the risk of ending up with duplicate refs.
My final result looks like this:
References
It's up to you whether you want to keep cleaning up the blank spaces and changing the "website=". That may be wasted time. Otherwise, keep up the good work. It's nice to have a complete and well-functioning reflist. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
|last=Kessler |first=Glenn
format is more widely accepted than | last=Kessler | first=Glenn
—for good reasons, in my opinion. It's also the format used by the {{
para}}
template – e.g. {{para|last|Kessler}}
gives |last=Kessler
, not | last=Kessler
– and in citation template documentation examples. Online news sources should use {{
cite news}}
, not {{
cite web}}
, as clearly conveyed in the very first sentence at
Template:Cite news. I used to use |work=
or |website=
for everything. Then I ran across a person who pointed out that the titles of our articles for some sources like
ABC News are not italicized (because Wikipedia does not view them as "works"). Now I use |work=
or |publisher=
depending on whether the target article title is italicized. I've also stopped using |website=
, although I don't bother changing it when I see it—it, and others including |newspaper=
, are simply aliases of |work=
—so it's a worthwhile simplification to just use |work=
in those cases.Howdy. An Rfc at Monarchy of Australia has opened concerning the head of state issue. GoodDay ( talk) 20:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm really sorry I messed up that Talk page. Please forgive me. I've printed out the two sets of instructions you gave me the links to for study and future reference. I promise this won't happen again. Grammarian3.14159265359 ( talk) 06:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Grammarian3.14159265359
Hi there. If you're looking for an article to work on, perhaps you'd consider Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust? It's hot in the political news and could benefit from your considerable carpentry skills. R2 ( bleep) 16:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Recently you changed mentions of Vox on its article to appear in italics, bearing a guideline. Could check whether that guideline also applies to other Vox Media-owned sites, and apply the formatting there, as well as on Vox Media's page? This would add some consistency to the Vox Media article and related pages. Regards. Lordtobi ( ✉) 12:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Mandruss. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think you got it spot on here. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 09:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Oshawott 12 ==()==
Talk to me! 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/Dec18a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.
Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the Elizabeth Warren edit, a little below MOS:QUOTE is MOS:QWQ. When we cite an article using {{ cite web}} or {{ cite news}}, the source's title is put into quotation marks, so if the title of the source also has quotation marks inside of it, this becomes a quotation within a quotation, so I believe it should use single quote marks. — BarrelProof ( talk) 03:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, where's the money? Not really, but... It's past Christmas, and he's still not back. Semi Hyper cube 03:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A request: please would you mark them as minor edits so they don't appear in watchlists of those who have filtered out minor edits to focus on content edits? Cheers. soibangla ( talk) 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Your profile made me laugh my goats off
Year1888 (
talk)
21:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind undoing this close? This wasn't a formal proposal, but an informal discussion to gather broader feedback: The OP has made it clear they aren't interested in renaming the articles as of yet. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I had a question. I'm not sure what it is? ~ R. T. G 10:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What legitimate basis is there to delete a documented major trending national news story? A major controversy in Warren’s career has been her alleged misuse of race. She has denied this. The Bar registration is a smoking gun. Why is it being censored? BigJake54 ( talk) 03:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, could you have a look at Aurora, Illinois shooting? Another editor persists in adding victim names, even though I have pointed out that it requires consensus. I am getting close to 3RR. Thanks, WWGB ( talk) 05:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea for those who watch the various MOS pages and are active on their talkpages to stop answering general style questions and instead refer them to the language refdesk. My reasoning is that a lot of the negativity directed towards the MOS and its "regulars" comes from seeing the talkpage of a style guideline being used for answering style questions that are not covered by said guideline. This gives the answers the appearance of consensus-based legitimacy and any critisism of that is, I think, totally valid. The talkpages should be for improvement-based suggestions and clarification of existing guidance. No?
I'm sending this to several people so please respond on my talkpage. Thanks. Primergrey ( talk) 14:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You understand exactly what I'm trying to say and the spirit in which I'm trying to say it. I appreciate your coming over to say so. Primergrey ( talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You mentioned in your notes after undoing my edit, to check the talk page as there was a consensus there not to mention the SRO's name. First of all I checked the talk page, there are 4 sections there, and not one of them talks about omitting the SRO's name.
Second, the SRO deputy is a major pivotal player in this shooting, and subsequent investigation, and should be identified by name, as is Scott Israel, Robert Runcie, school principals, etc. I can't think of any legitimate reason why other contributors would even come to such a conclusion as you used for your justification of undoing my edit, but either way, the discussion was not there like you claimed. I could not find ti in the 4 sections of the talk page.
CarIndustryFan ( talk) 22:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Just fair warning, I will be starting a discussion at WP:AN/I later today as I believe you and WWGB ( talk · contribs) are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND mentalities on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting ( | article | history | links | watch | logs), and the article currently is violating WP:NPOV. While I sympathize with your argument that you've "had these discussions before" (paraphrasing), I am entirely new to these discussions, and there are no archives on the article we're currently discussing for me to reflect on. I've made my rebuttals to your comments, and days later, you are still refusing to answer them. Meanwhile you threaten me with a visit to AN/I (which I honestly think would turn out worse for you than it would for me). If you have the time and the gumption to make threats, you should have the time to actually discuss the topic at hand, rather than simply sideline yourself and wax philosophical on how you shouldn't have to justify yourself every time this comes up. As I said on the article talk page, it's "Bold, Revert, DISCUSS", not "Bold, Revert, VOTE". I will link you here once I've started the discussion at AN/I. — Locke Cole • t • c 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c
00:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Per MOS:SMALLFONT, please don't add "smalls" to infoboxes. This is an accessibility issue. Thanks. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologise for reverting one of your edits at Thomas Jefferson: [6]. I made a mistake. Attic Salt ( talk) 17:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a word "no-one" but practically no one uses it any-more.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Locke Cole • t • c 08:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I want to thank you for taking an interest in Christchurch mosque shootings and for being one of the sane editors there. I understand you're an American and want to say I'm grateful to have oversight from afar, together with respect for New Zealanders and our culture, particularly when time zones mean we're asleep here and not able to watch the page. Akld guy ( talk) 11:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Dear sir,
I am very new on wikipedia but I really appreciate and admire your work. Thank you for inspiring me. Abhinath Maurya ( talk) 21:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
![]() | |
mature and respectful tone of conversation | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 1908 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
Hi. You might have missed it, but the anonymous ranter on User talk:Rusf10 is an admitted block evader. Best to deny recognition. R2 ( bleep) 00:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I have limited patience for what I perceive to be disingenuous misrepresentation, and I've taken a recent comment as breaking the camel's back. You said yourself that you'd struggle to moderate your tone with them, so I'm wondering what you think about my comment here (the whole thing, not just the copy-edit). Am I being too critical, or has AGF run its course? Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I participate in debates mostly for the mental stimulation- Predominantly the same, although I place strong value in accuracy. I've struck the bit about dishonesty, albeit I'm not entirely convinced. Thanks for your input. Mr rnddude ( talk) 19:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Not gonna dwell on it, but you have breached the 1-RR ruling, for post-1932 American political articles. GoodDay ( talk) 16:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
That was brutal :D cheers! —— SerialNumber 54129 11:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC) |
Hi, in reference to your comment here
[7], a reminder that while the awareness criteria are considered by some to be too bureaucratic,
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts is quite clear that "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement
". While it may be understandable that people will accidentally issue notifications when they aren't aware that this happened, if someone is aware that the person just appealed their topic ban for the area of conflict
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive247#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme less than 3 months ago, it is unnecessary, in fact I would go so far as to say inappropriate to issue a notification.
Nil Einne (
talk)
14:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, the criteria also specify that editors are aware if they themselves have issued a notification. Again, it is possible someone will accidentally issue a notification since it's much harder to search such things, and so you may wish to ward off such a thing by issuing yourself a notification. And I'm not saying you should go around issuing notifications to others just so there is no doubt you are "aware". But it's also unnecessary if you have done so in the last 12 months and you just want to ensure you are "aware". (Or of course if you have participated in any AE related to the area of the notification.)
Nil Einne (
talk) 14:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh and if you disagree that appealing a sanction to AE counts as "participate in any process", remember there is also either "In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
" or "They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)
" as may be appropriate.
Nil Einne (
talk)
14:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Whoops I misread the discussion apologies especially to Ahrtoodeetoo|. It seems they only became aware of the appeal after they issued the notification. In that case the notification may have been okay. However if you wanted to defend it, you should have defended it as an unnecessary notification but an understandable mistake, rather than something that was required by for DS, since it wasn't. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I do agree with you that the best way to ward of others issuing alerts when they are not necessary is simply to give yourself a standard alert which can be properly searched. I also a agree a notice on someone's page that they are aware is of unclear utility, it's possible it will be accepted as awareness, it's possible it will not. Especially if the notice was added to the page more than 12 months ago and it hasn't been updated since then. Frankly your comment isn't that bad now that I realise my mistake. (The first time I read, I thought I read R2 saying "I was aware".) Still I do feel what you said wasn't clear enough that while the alert may have been an understandable mistake in the end it's clear it wasn't necessary since the editor was clearly aware even according to the strict arbcom awareness criteria and the only reason to issue a alert to someone else is to ensure they are "aware". IMO people do seem to concentrate too much on the annual alert thing. I've even seen some do what almost seem like "revenge" alert after they were just alerted by that editor despite this being clearly precluded by the criteria. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2019 UNCC shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please view
this Thanks,
EDG 543
(talk)
19:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you reopen it? El_C 21:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, there are 11 archives so I’m sure you can understand. What was the consensus because it seems strange not to include the suspected perpetrator in the lead or infobox. IWI ( chat) 00:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mandruss—in reference to this let me ask you—is it your claim that there is no distinction between "victim lists" and prose-form inclusion of victim names? I was under the impression that distinction had been well established in these many discussions. Bus stop ( talk) 14:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Mandruss, I think I said if Trump's best economy claim needed an RfC I would do it, but now I believe I have too much off-wiki stuff to do it. So, just thought I would inform you. starship .paint ( talk) 05:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I won't block someone whose cat is dying, but as was demonstrated, you did violate 3RR (which I was not aware at the time). Please don't let it happen again. El_C 07:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Since the 23rd I've been dealing with the impending loss of a cat that has been my good friend since 2002. Comfort me.
If I behave strangely in the next week or two (or already have), blame that with my apologies.
― Mandruss ☎ 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder-- y'all might want to discuss more and revert less. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Hillary Clinton. Please pardon me—I was unaware of MOS:JR, and was following The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Ed., section 6.43 (pp. 384–385; online citation), which does require the use of commas in these particular cases—in direct contravention of the Wikipedia MOS. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 12:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I disagree with
this. Please don't take offense to this, but I think your view here is reflective of your own misunderstanding of
WP:NPV. If you look closely at
WP:WEIGHT, it says: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, ...
When editors refer to WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE, etc., or say that something should be excluded because it's undue weight, that's a shorthand for saying that including that particular content would be adding too much detail or too much text to a particular viewpoint, or more often, an unbalanced amount of detail or text to a particular aspect of the article subject (
WP:BALASPS). It's fully supported by the policy.
Of course, many editors do misunderstand WP:NPV, and some lazy editors do point shout neutrality as a catchall when they simply don't like certain content, but those are separate problems. R2 ( bleep) 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Trump supporters | Trump opponents | |
---|---|---|
Trump-favorable content | More significant | Less significant |
Trump-unfavorable content | Less significant | More significant |
Hi User:BullRangifer! ― Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Can I ask why you referred to your acknowledgement of a warning written on user WWGB's talk page, while deleting that warning, that was directed to them? This seems like the sort of behaviour that would only make sense coming from the user who was being warned. Are you also user WWGB?-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 01:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Your claim; "Editors are allowed to remove anything they want from their own talk pages. Learn the rules please." at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:WWGB&oldid=903494302 is incorrect. The rule states that "The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." see here; /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_talk_pages - stop edit warring, and stop making false claims about Wikipedia rules to justify your behaviour.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 01:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss is correct on this issue. I advise Senor Freebie to drop the matter. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I clicked on your userpage for probably the first time (nothing against you, I just only normally look at userpages when I'm trying to figure out if someone is a sock, but I made an exception for some reason this time.) No obscure corner of Wikipedia is safe from this user's rabid agenda-driven crusade to censor spelling errors. makes me very happy, as someone who is the king of typos and spelling errors. Just thought I should pass that along. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
the king of typos and spelling errorsmeans you make a lot of them, or correct a lot of them? If the former, I certainly haven't noticed that, and being somewhere on the accursed spectrum I can't help noticing such things.My user page is there to be read, even by editors who don't think I'm a sock. ;) ― Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It was just the right thing to do. The RfC had been held and closed and I couldn't really find fault with the closer's reading of the result, even if I was on the losing side. So, I implemented the result.
The closer actually missed an even stronger point in your side's favor: BLP is usually held to apply for some time after death; it does not automatically stop applying when someone dies (that has been cited to keep me from adding more details of Kate Spade's death to her article, or rather her sister's discussion, in an RS, of how she had probably been bipolar all her life and how she had attempted suicide before. I think there are people there who would still keep that out of the article per BLP, even if it's been more than a year (I see that WP:BDP says "two years at the outside"—it did not used to, and perhaps that explains why someone in a recent GAR I was involved with could argue that a death six years ago was "recent".
I suppose I could restore the beginning and ending sentences; it might just be seen as inviting people to re-add the names, though. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Mgasparin has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy!
Thanks for explaining the rules around the wiki to me in a helpful, civil way. Your help is always much appreciated! Mgasparin ( talk) 20:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Given your interest in the subject matter, you may want to comment on this: Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Requested move 27 July 2019. — JFG talk 11:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that this discussion about Trump's golfing was archived without a conclusion. Would you kindly assess consensus or lack thereof? (I'm super-involved, so won't touch it.) — JFG talk 09:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
But see [9]. General Ization Talk 00:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi -- I think that's a good idea, to suggest a "Avoid focus on the perp" guideline. This would mostly apply to types of crimes which can inspire copycat shootings. The media (and Wikipedia) has a social role here, and many media are deliberately avoiding naming killers, and there are many people much more expert on this than I. What do you think? This particular piece I edited last night was a practically a love-fest about the killer, with endless details which were totally off-point from the actual killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
suggest a "Avoid focus on the perp" guideline. I said there is no basis for that in policy.
The media (and Wikipedia) has a social role here- Most disagree, saying that the encyclopedia should be dispassionate and follow rather than lead on social issues. We follow the body of our reliable sources, all of them, not just the ones that do what we approve of based our personal worldviews.
many media are deliberately avoiding naming killers- Not many. Can you find a source used in that article that mentions him without naming him? How many sources can you find anywhere that mention him without naming him and meet our reliable source criteria? Unless and until they have the majority among reliable sources, we wouldn't be "following" to avoid naming him.I support any content about Cruz that helps explain the shooting and its impact. I don't support anything else about Cruz, but I lack the motivation to do anything about it. I'm old and tired. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please undo this edit. The discussion is about how to code Citation Style 1 (and presumably Citation) citations, not whether to put first names first in general in all citations, including those that do not use templates. If you want, you could add a pointer to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
moved discussion from}}
and {{
moved discussion to}}
templates. ―
Mandruss
☎
17:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks |
~ Nice to see you again and thanks for the education~ I had that cleaned up here I guess someone didn't like the AP ~ go figure ` LOL ` ~mitch~ ( talk) 14:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
F & A ~ thanks ~mitch~ ( talk) 01:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
|url=
parameter should never specify an archive version, even if the original is a deadlink.In the case of a deadlink, you omit the |deadurl=
parameter. The effect of that is that the citation |title=
is a link to the |archiveurl=
and the word "original" is a link to the |url=
. A deadlink sometimes comes alive again (or wasn't actually dead in the first place but an editor had trouble accessing it for other reasons), and doing this makes it easy for other editors to verify that it's still/actually dead.When the original is alive but you want to add archive for link rot reasons, as in your cases above, you code |deadurl=no
. Then the |title=
is a link to |url=
and the word "Archived" is a link to |archiveurl=
. If an editor comes along later and finds that the original is now dead, they can simply remove the |deadurl=no
.I hope this is useful to you, and apologies if you already knew it. ―
Mandruss
☎
15:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)I don't know what you're referring to 'an editor who repeatedly claimed no consensus..." That doesn't relate to anything I said or that Markbassett did. Your comment seems off-topic for that thread. The key point is that the new "24 hour BRD" is intended to encourage small improvements en route to a stable resolution. There's ample consensus for the word "published" that I inserted and it is the case that Markbassett has reiterated his OR, whataboutism, and primary-sourced rationales even after other editors informed him they don't hold water. BTW Hi, haven't seen you for a while. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
please don't change longstanding lead w/o consensus.
blocking constructive improvement by claiming "no consensus".
After a discussion with Awilley on their talk page, I realized this modified proposal is too much at this time - for me. I mean, for me, the intent is to control the editing, not essentially create a site-wide ban for this user. So, I am changing it back to the original, with the possibility of making the new proposal 3, "Proposal 4" instead. I didn't see clearly what I was doing - and this doesn't seem to happen to me a lot on Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm chalking it up to experience. Now I will have to notify everyone of this change - and then I am going to run away and hide! --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Here we go again! WWGB ( talk) 07:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss, slowly I’m getting more info out of you... So at Donald Trump talk, how is asking a question a process violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Mandruss sigh, well thanks for reply though you seem to feel extremely strong that it is something I feel strongly it’s not, and that it’s urgent to halt talk for some reason. Is your premise seriously that filing a challenge will tell me what Gamingforfun thinks about things there, if anything? And Bus stop, Jack Upland, Tataral, etcetera? Yes, you’ve been unforthcoming with explanatory dialogue, made a premise about no one supported my reasoning in the few dozen minutes before you blocked input, stated you did not even read my post, not accepted what I tell you, deleted TALK... I’m doubtful this approach has been efficient at getting either of us anywhere. Well, I will take your approval re JFG start another separate thread, asking more narrowly. It might get part of the answers, will see. Markbassett ( talk) 04:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Please feel free to visit me and spell out what your concerns are. I will listen and try to help. Jehochman Talk 18:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Dont want to meet half way, that is clear from your last post. Harcore for you, pity for the rest of us :( I'm willing to exit anyway. Better to jump than be pushed. Ceoil ( talk) 21:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I haven't been following the Don Trump talk page, so I just dropped the article link in for info. I like the fact that it is beautifully sourced. I appreciate there has been mucho discussion, but given the increasingly bizarre statements coming out of the White House, just how many articles in reputable sources do we need before we mention the guy's mental state? Does he have to be hauled off in a straitjacket before we mention it? A quick search shows that source after source, going back years, has diagnosed Trump with narcissistic personality disorder. Now, fair enough if consensus is that we don't mention it, but the way things are going, people will be asking just how crazy is Wikipedia to omit the bleeding obvious. -- Pete ( talk) 21:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey. I wanted to ask about https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=prev&diff=922290929&diffmode=source - I realize that it wasn't officially closed, but there weren't any comments for over 24 hours, like you mentioned in your summary -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey there! Just cause you feel there needs to be an RfC doesn't mean you get to cut off discussion. I happen to think that what @ MrX: proposed is not the same as what's in consensus 39, which I support. At any rate, nobody is forcing you or anyone else to participate in a thread, but we don't cut them off out of pique or pride. You're better than that. Please undo and let it ride. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I have self-reverted, for the record. Perhaps a bit too hasty, and there's that personality-conflict thing. Lesson learned, maybe. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Dashes: en or em, spaced or not (that's four), HTML or just "inserted" (that's eight) ... Is there anything [else] we can do with this mess? Please advise. -- Brogo13 ( talk) 05:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
snd}}
(with a space following, not preceding). Citations use the actual endash character for the parameters listed at
Template:Cite news#COinS metadata is created for these parameters (notably |title=
) and {{
snd}}
for other parameters (notably |quote=
). Emdash is not used anywhere in that article AFAIK. What's the problem? ―
Mandruss
☎
05:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Lincoln wasn't as heroic as you think. His own published material confirms it. Like the myth that "Wilson gave women the right to vote", it was actually Congress, with the then-presidents in both cases having essentially no choice but to go along, because their vetos would have been embarrassingly overturned. Forced Into Glory covers it in detail with a great deal of directly quoted material from Lincoln and his contemporaries. It is well-researched, though of course attacked by the Lincoln lionizers who dominate the subject, and our own article on the book is biased toward that camp. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
...you should not be surprised that you have just been banned from my talk page. If you ever edit it again, I'll skip straight to AN/I where I will link to the diff for this notice. I would also prefer to never interact with you again on this project, so if you could just leave me alone I'd greatly appreciate it. Good luck in your future interactions with editors who aren't me! — Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
To be clear for once, the madness is over and mass shootings have gone the way of childish material things (up to and including the dodo). I went to God just to see, and I was looking at me. Saw Greaser and Soc were lies. When I'm gone, everything's fine. Sort of was inspired by Marilyn Manson there, but don't worry, I'm not going to "freak out", not gonna "bowl for Columbine", ain't fittin' to "pop no cap in yallz fool ass" (collectively or otherwise). Yeah, I swear that I don't have a gun. I don't even have a truck or spare cred to rent one. Plus, I love all of you, hurt by the cold. (Kiedis et Cobain, 1990s)
I'm not even going to overdose or hang myself, like rock gods even you must know by name. I'm just going to fade away like Jan King and maybe come back someday like Pet Sematary 2. Better wait until then to understand everything. May the light be always over you and Sister Rose. Fire girl, queen of heat, dynamite on mercy street. Find your song, Red, or at least "feel the water flowing"!
And sorry for tainting Whimsey Belle's good name with alcohol and questionable pre-match stipulations. I genuinely do hope you dance your cares away together, and truly believe the shark cage is the best place a cute female valet can turn the tide in favour of the heels. The history of professional wrestling will vindicate me on that, mark my words. The rest, as they say, is all yours.
Goodbye, Tony...hello again, Mandruss! (High, Mitch?) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, November 19, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation...not sure if I understand it though! Hope that you are fit and well. Le dea-ghuí ( https://www.google.com/search?q=googletranslate&oq=googletranslate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3755j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) Éamonn Ériugena ( talk) 20:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Although I am not commenting on Trump or political talk pages, or at least try mightily not to. I still have Donald Trump on my watchlist. So when I encountered this diff. I checked help for OP and best I can find is Open Proxy,butI don't know what an Open proxy is. Who is this OP that has been blocked? Is it an Open Proxy?If so then who is the Open Proxy? I would assume that an open proxy would be an IP address,but that collapse did not contain an Open Proxy. Hope you don't mind educating me. Oldperson ( talk) 16:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.