![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | → | Archive 105 |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nazi Germany. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bengali people. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article February 31 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 31 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Proper noun. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Minority language. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec ( talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hapa. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
I just noticed that you added this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles a while back:
Do not italicize or quotation-mark (but do capitalize) the name of a media franchise (including a trilogy or other series of novels or films) or a fictional universe, except where it contains or consists of the name of an italicized individual work.
Sound advice (I thought this was the case anyway) but then you rearranged the wording which has now become:
There are a few cases in which the title should be in neither italics nor quotation marks (though many are capitalized): ...
- Descriptive titles also applies to media franchises and fictional universes (including trilogies and other series of novels or films), e.g. Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, the Marvel and DC universes in comics, but Les Rougon-Macquart (actual title of the cycle of novels) — also partially italicized when the description contains the name of an italicized individual work: The Star Wars franchise because Star Wars is the work for which the franchise is named
It's relevant to a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles seeking clarification of the MOS to avoid confusion in cases where a series is referred to by a name not derived from one of its subsidiary titles. Please feel free to comment there.
Cheers! — sroc 💬 21:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA for Italian. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stanton. I'm not sure if I'm on board with these edits from 6 days ago. (In their favor, they haven't been reverted. Looking quickly, I don't see a discussion.) If we're going to say that it's better not to use quote marks when we're quoting people, could we be more specific about when and why, since that's going to come as news to a lot of Wikipedians? Also, compare:
Isn't the second one a bit harder to read, and easier to misunderstand? Do you reword in some fashion when the listing is "least concern"? - Dank ( push to talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long to get back to this ... after poking around, not only do I not dislike the language I linked, I think it's very nuanced. I have only one small concern: one grammatically possible, though unlikely, reading of "Siskel and Ebert criticized the film as predictable" is "Siskel and Ebert criticized the film as was predictable", or "As was predictable, Siskel and Ebert criticized the film". More likely I think would be that someone reading quickly and sloppily might mistake "as predictable" for "as predicted". It's a small concern, and I won't push it. It's easily fixable (by using another adjective, or "for being predictable"). - Dank ( push to talk) 18:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The male gaze. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks!
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please can you undo this edit. In this case you are a very involved editor. Greg Kaye 03:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." and this has been previously applied in situations of collapsed content.
{{
collapse}}
/ {{
collapse top}}
/ {{
collapse bottom}}
templates; they are not "hatting" a discussion or part of it as "closed", the way {{
hat}}
/ {{
hab}}
do. They simply put it in a open/close-able box with a descriptive heading (and I gave it an entirely neutral one). Please point me to any "previously applied ... situations of collapsed content" involving these templates. Maybe I've missed something.I don't want to argue– There's a simple solution: Don't. :-)
if anything, have greatly held back– I'm glad of it. If we both get WP:DICKish, it probably won't be very productive. Heh. But if you need to get something off your chest, go ahead, and I'll take it a face value. I acknowledge that I offended you, and I knew I would, to some extent and temporarily, as a cost of using that technique to get through to you. I apologize for any genuine upset. I also only used that approach because I've observed your temperament long enough to believe that you could handle it. Your skin seems to be at least as thick as mine. Noetica and I have mutually done the same; so have Montanabw and I; it works with some people, and fosters more honest communication and less gamesmanship among them. I chose the wording carefully, too: "You are coming off as..."; i.e., I was describing the exasperated and incredulous interpretations/reactions of other editors, not something I believed to be innately factual about you or your motivations (or I would simply ignore you, the way I do with B2C to the extent I possibly can). Things that look like WP:NOTGETTINGIT erode other editors' ability to continue to assume good faith, even if they don't always say so openly on WP itself. Especially given the way some MOS regulars got railroaded by a certain admin after being publicly critical of Apteva on a noticeboard, and the ARBCOM not doing much of anything to rectify that admin's overstepping of authority in judge-jury-executioner style, for fear of losing said admin as probably the only editor willing to regularly take on the WP:AE duties he does. WP can get very political (in sadly typical, negative ways) sometimes, despite the fact that so much of it has been expressly engineered to short-circuit this aspect of human group behavior.
In this edit you commented:
Can I also remind you [of some RMs involving WP:NATURAL]?– To what end? You've taken up a large chunk of talk page space to "remind" us of what we a;; already know, and have seemingly done so purely as an ad hominem tactic.}}"
Fair enough maybe I could have rephrased the "Can I also remind you..
" phrasing and just presented your previous proposals which all, as far as I can see, have relevance.
Previous to these edits you
wrote on my talk page "You are coming off as an irrational fool with severe reading comprehension and reasoning difficulties in these discussions; either that, or a jackass pretending to be a fool just to create lengthy, stupid, time-wasting distractions in RM and at WT:AT.
" with several other PA and derogatory comments. I do not wish to have caused offence but I ask you to keep things in perspective.
I have long supported you in your moves and, without bias, continue to do so.
Given the context I think that the presentation of these moves and related argument was very fair. Are there items on the list that you think don't apply to the discussion? If so which? What wording would you prefer me to use?
Greg Kaye 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Minor tweak to end pointless confusion" can be interpreted to assert I'm a hero and he's an idiot. You probably think that you have been in your rights to do it but the simple fact is that you have been in full scale slap down mode and it is honestly not the way an editor should behave. There has been confusion surrounding the whole issue of naturalness and natural and I have cited numerous examples to demonstrate the point. Your text now, I think exacerbates the problems in relation to Sarah Brown, ISIL and who knows what else. All of your FOOBAR cattle/sheep/rabbits are generally totally searchable with just the foobar wording. At the other extreme, working through the listing of Wikipedia articles alphabetically from the first worded article with parenthesis ( ¡Alarma! (magazine)) there are problems. Search on ¡Alarma! and you get alarms. Search on ¡Alarma! magazine. Your "minor" but unnecessarily wordy tweak does more harm than good. Of course its nice and neat to say "the title is one..." but this text fudges the whole issue. Sure it maybe regarded to be good enough and maybe this is acceptable yet people at WP:RM are still regularly confused on these points.
In a WT:AT thread that you started I added later comment here, mentioned in case you would like to respond. Greg Kaye 06:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | → | Archive 105 |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nazi Germany. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bengali people. Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article February 31 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 31 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Proper noun. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Minority language. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Carbon (fiber). Because you participated in the move discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the move review. Srnec ( talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hapa. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
I just noticed that you added this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles a while back:
Do not italicize or quotation-mark (but do capitalize) the name of a media franchise (including a trilogy or other series of novels or films) or a fictional universe, except where it contains or consists of the name of an italicized individual work.
Sound advice (I thought this was the case anyway) but then you rearranged the wording which has now become:
There are a few cases in which the title should be in neither italics nor quotation marks (though many are capitalized): ...
- Descriptive titles also applies to media franchises and fictional universes (including trilogies and other series of novels or films), e.g. Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, the Marvel and DC universes in comics, but Les Rougon-Macquart (actual title of the cycle of novels) — also partially italicized when the description contains the name of an italicized individual work: The Star Wars franchise because Star Wars is the work for which the franchise is named
It's relevant to a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles seeking clarification of the MOS to avoid confusion in cases where a series is referred to by a name not derived from one of its subsidiary titles. Please feel free to comment there.
Cheers! — sroc 💬 21:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA for Italian. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stanton. I'm not sure if I'm on board with these edits from 6 days ago. (In their favor, they haven't been reverted. Looking quickly, I don't see a discussion.) If we're going to say that it's better not to use quote marks when we're quoting people, could we be more specific about when and why, since that's going to come as news to a lot of Wikipedians? Also, compare:
Isn't the second one a bit harder to read, and easier to misunderstand? Do you reword in some fashion when the listing is "least concern"? - Dank ( push to talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long to get back to this ... after poking around, not only do I not dislike the language I linked, I think it's very nuanced. I have only one small concern: one grammatically possible, though unlikely, reading of "Siskel and Ebert criticized the film as predictable" is "Siskel and Ebert criticized the film as was predictable", or "As was predictable, Siskel and Ebert criticized the film". More likely I think would be that someone reading quickly and sloppily might mistake "as predictable" for "as predicted". It's a small concern, and I won't push it. It's easily fixable (by using another adjective, or "for being predictable"). - Dank ( push to talk) 18:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The male gaze. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello!
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thanks!
Delivered by
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please can you undo this edit. In this case you are a very involved editor. Greg Kaye 03:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." and this has been previously applied in situations of collapsed content.
{{
collapse}}
/ {{
collapse top}}
/ {{
collapse bottom}}
templates; they are not "hatting" a discussion or part of it as "closed", the way {{
hat}}
/ {{
hab}}
do. They simply put it in a open/close-able box with a descriptive heading (and I gave it an entirely neutral one). Please point me to any "previously applied ... situations of collapsed content" involving these templates. Maybe I've missed something.I don't want to argue– There's a simple solution: Don't. :-)
if anything, have greatly held back– I'm glad of it. If we both get WP:DICKish, it probably won't be very productive. Heh. But if you need to get something off your chest, go ahead, and I'll take it a face value. I acknowledge that I offended you, and I knew I would, to some extent and temporarily, as a cost of using that technique to get through to you. I apologize for any genuine upset. I also only used that approach because I've observed your temperament long enough to believe that you could handle it. Your skin seems to be at least as thick as mine. Noetica and I have mutually done the same; so have Montanabw and I; it works with some people, and fosters more honest communication and less gamesmanship among them. I chose the wording carefully, too: "You are coming off as..."; i.e., I was describing the exasperated and incredulous interpretations/reactions of other editors, not something I believed to be innately factual about you or your motivations (or I would simply ignore you, the way I do with B2C to the extent I possibly can). Things that look like WP:NOTGETTINGIT erode other editors' ability to continue to assume good faith, even if they don't always say so openly on WP itself. Especially given the way some MOS regulars got railroaded by a certain admin after being publicly critical of Apteva on a noticeboard, and the ARBCOM not doing much of anything to rectify that admin's overstepping of authority in judge-jury-executioner style, for fear of losing said admin as probably the only editor willing to regularly take on the WP:AE duties he does. WP can get very political (in sadly typical, negative ways) sometimes, despite the fact that so much of it has been expressly engineered to short-circuit this aspect of human group behavior.
In this edit you commented:
Can I also remind you [of some RMs involving WP:NATURAL]?– To what end? You've taken up a large chunk of talk page space to "remind" us of what we a;; already know, and have seemingly done so purely as an ad hominem tactic.}}"
Fair enough maybe I could have rephrased the "Can I also remind you..
" phrasing and just presented your previous proposals which all, as far as I can see, have relevance.
Previous to these edits you
wrote on my talk page "You are coming off as an irrational fool with severe reading comprehension and reasoning difficulties in these discussions; either that, or a jackass pretending to be a fool just to create lengthy, stupid, time-wasting distractions in RM and at WT:AT.
" with several other PA and derogatory comments. I do not wish to have caused offence but I ask you to keep things in perspective.
I have long supported you in your moves and, without bias, continue to do so.
Given the context I think that the presentation of these moves and related argument was very fair. Are there items on the list that you think don't apply to the discussion? If so which? What wording would you prefer me to use?
Greg Kaye 06:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Minor tweak to end pointless confusion" can be interpreted to assert I'm a hero and he's an idiot. You probably think that you have been in your rights to do it but the simple fact is that you have been in full scale slap down mode and it is honestly not the way an editor should behave. There has been confusion surrounding the whole issue of naturalness and natural and I have cited numerous examples to demonstrate the point. Your text now, I think exacerbates the problems in relation to Sarah Brown, ISIL and who knows what else. All of your FOOBAR cattle/sheep/rabbits are generally totally searchable with just the foobar wording. At the other extreme, working through the listing of Wikipedia articles alphabetically from the first worded article with parenthesis ( ¡Alarma! (magazine)) there are problems. Search on ¡Alarma! and you get alarms. Search on ¡Alarma! magazine. Your "minor" but unnecessarily wordy tweak does more harm than good. Of course its nice and neat to say "the title is one..." but this text fudges the whole issue. Sure it maybe regarded to be good enough and maybe this is acceptable yet people at WP:RM are still regularly confused on these points.
In a WT:AT thread that you started I added later comment here, mentioned in case you would like to respond. Greg Kaye 06:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)