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 130 | ← | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | → | Archive 140 |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trace Adkins. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Lee Vilenski(
talk)
10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Hope you had a wonderful new year. :)
Hi, I'd like to pick your brains on an issue concerning category titles. I'm working on the flora distribution categories that follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Some more categories need to be created. The titling practice that seems to have been followed, mostly but not entirely consistently, is that in "Category:Flora of X", other than an extra "the", "X" is chosen so that it is the title of the article that best matches the WGSRPD unit. This means that if "X" needs to be disambiguated, then a disambiguating term is used in "Category:Flora of X", even though it wouldn't be needed for the category alone. Thus Category:Flora of New York (state) even though there isn't a flora distribution category for the city; Category:Flora of Chihuahua (state) to match Chihuahua (state); etc. There will need to be a category for the Brazilian state of Amazonas, whose article is at Amazonas (Brazilian state). To me "Category:Flora of Amazonas (Brazilian state)" seems clumsy (the WGSRPD just calls it "Amazonas"). On the other hand, I can see the logic of this approach. You think about titles more than I do, so I'd value your opinion on how it fits with usual title and disambiguation practices. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
PS: An exception to article-title-matching is that if the category could not imaginably pertain to anything but one topic, then it need not be disambiguated.
Amazonas is a bunch of places, so organisms being in them could obviously apply. If there were only one place called Amazonas, but the big company were Amazonas.com instead of Amazon.com, and we had
Amazonas (Brazilian state) and
Amazonas (company) (only), then
Category:Flora of Amazonas would be likely fine, because the concept "Flora of" couldn't logically pertain to the company. I can't think of any actual place names, right off hand, where this would come up. Even the ones I'm straining to think of (e.g.
Clovis, California versus
King Clovis, are already disambiguated for other reasons, or the place is actually the primary topic anyway and not disambiguated. It's more likely to come up in a case like "Category:Songs by Foo", where the article is at "Foo (singer)" and none of the other Foos have anything to do with music. And this exception isn't even consistently applied; lots of categories have disambiguation even when one might not think it strictly necessary, probably because it's easier to just copy the article name than to analyze whether the disambiguation is really needed on a cat.-by-cat. basis.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
02:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah! I would definitely run two parallel categories. We need categories for these "official" designations that stick to exactly how the source defines them, using their "northern America" and "southern America" terms of art no one else uses; and we also need categories that match actual reader expectations. I've done a lot of [but insufficient] work on the latter set of categories, and it was the Caribbean problem that inspired it. I've been cross-linking categories as needed and putting inclusion criteria at the top of them, and so on.
I started with Category:Mammals of North America, Category:Felids of South America, and Category:Felids of Central America, and worked up to Category:Mammals of South America, Category:Mammals of Central America, Category:Mammals of North America, but did not complete the inclusion hatnotes, and didn't finish the cross-categorized Category:Mammals of the Caribbean (it should include any Caribbean place sometimes classified as S. or C. Am., but I don't think it has them all yet). I got side-tracked by other stuff and never did finish all that, and I did not drill upward to non-mammals much less to plants, nor sideways into canids or simians or whatever – huge job, better done with AWB or something). The goal was to match our life-forms in the Americas categories to how we're categorizing actual countries (and adjust even that as necessary to be inclusive of conflicting definitions). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Mostly I don't think there'll be a problem. As an example, a plant might get put into Category:Flora of Trinidad at Tobago when that exists at some point. I assume this would be WGSRPDed as a subcat of Category:Flora of southern America. But "southern America" isn't a thing to anyone but WGSRPD. Other Category:Foo of Trinidad and Tobago categories are in Category:Foo of the Caribbean and Category:Foo of South America (because how to geographically define T&T varies by context). So, it's pretty much inevitable that Category:Flora of Trinidad and Tobago will be a child cat. of all three of Category:Flora of southern America, Category:Flora of South America, and Category:Flora of the Caribbean, and these categories will serve different purposes for different reader communities; the latter two will just be based on how T&T is categories from (respectively) a geophysical landmass perspective versus a socio-politico-cultural one, and it won't have a thing to do with the plants. Meanwhile, the WGSRPD cat. will be entirely based on botanical sources, and we wouldn't even have "southern America" categories for any other reason (similarly, we have "Latin America" categories for certain internationally cross-cultural things, but we don't use them outside that sphere (there'll never be a Category:Flora of Latin America, nor a Category:Volcanoes of Latin America, because it just doesn't compute; flowers and lava aren't Latino).
So, it's not an either-or choice. People who want to know what plants live in Mexico as a geographical-range matter may be thinking either "Central America" or "North America" (we won't know), those from an environmental regulation perspective probably from a "Central American" perspective (.mx law has more in common with that of the rest of "northern Latin America", as it were, than of the US and Canada), while botanists will be thinking strictly in terms of WGSRPD's "northern America" (now – I note that .mx used to be cut in half in the WGSRPD scheme).Everyone will get to be happy, at least in theory. Or from a different angle: Look at how Turkey is categorized. Someone could consider it confusing, but the purpose of the categories isn't a hierarchical and exclusive labeling system, but a navigation tool to related articles, and Turkey is Balkan, SE European, E Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Near Eastern, etc., all at once depending on perspective.
Hope that helps. I'm sure you and the rest of the botanists will get the WGSRPD stuff done right (even if it takes some policing – you might find someone insisting that Flora of Delaware has to be in Flora of the Northeastern United States because so-and-so sources (economic, geological, etc.) catalogue DE as part of the US Northeast, not understanding that it's a WGSRPD label, not a general geographical one. A potential solution to that if it ever became a real problem would be using category names like "WGSRPD flora of the Northeastern United States" or something, if having category inclusion criteria doesn't cut it. But it should be enough.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
17:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this sort of thing is good precedent for what's under discussion here. As long as there's some category thicket for "Flora of [geographical name]" that suits the general-interest approach to that, there is no rationale to blockade or merge parallel specialized trees, like one for WGSRPD, that do something similar along different lines, even if there's conceptual overlap or a name similarity. It would even be possible to skip the "call the WGSRPD category by the 'common name' when the 'common name' has the same meaning or a meaning so close that it doesn't matter" part in theory, though it might be necessary to have WGSRPD in the names. Something like this is alrady used for conservation status; I see that Category:Biota by conservation status system exists, but it doesn't seem very fleshed out yet for anything but IUCN. But we do have Category:IUCN Red List critically endangered species (and, I note with relief it's not "Critically Endangered", LOL). If this sort of thing is defensible for IUCN, then it's defensible for WGSRPD. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 07:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Diacritics: Basically, it's because there are a lot of jingoistic asshats, and they sometimes form a big enough WP:FACTION to wear down everyone in a war of attrition until they get the censorship they want. They actually keep getting shut down, e.g. in an ArbCom case, and getting their "wikiproject" (read: canvassing farm) deleted, and so on, but they never really go away. They used to be hard-core centralized in a few other projects like WikiProject Tennis and WikiProject Ice Hockey, but RM has largely undone their attempts to WP:OWN those categories as no-diacritics zones. I expect that Québec will gets its proper spelling eventually, especially given MOS:ENGVAR (whether 'Mercans (or Brits or Strines for that matter) like to include the diacritic is irrelevant, it's frequently retained in Canadian English, so no defensible argument can be made that it's "not English"). PS: I fixed the missing King Clovis redirect. How was that a redlink? Sheesh.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect William, Prince of Wales. Since you had some involvement with the William, Prince of Wales redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Nevé – selbert 18:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
What's your opinion on the close at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC: Telenovela disambiguation? A pretty poor close in my book. I'm already having problems with it - see Talk:Victoria (TV series)#Requested move 5 January 2018 (withdrawn), [1], and [2]. Have tried taking it up with the closing editor here: User talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Half finished RFC close. Would be interested in your take on all this. -- wooden superman 15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, this RfC is pretty conclusive. Do you think it's premature to close it? I guess we should add something to
WP:NCTV - something along the lines of "Do not disambiguate by genre or format, i.e. "sitcom", "telenovela", "soap opera", etc., unless multiple articles for TV series from the same year and region exist and further disambiguation is required."
Any thoughts? --
wooden
superman
12:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the change to the guideline, using elements of my wording and the other suggestion. It may still need a tweak - feel free to improve if you have any thoughts... -- wooden superman 11:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm converting a glossary to templates and was wondering if you knew a way to suppress the anchor links made by {{ term}}? The glossary has 370 terms but about 50 of them are alternate names. I'd like those alternate names to have anchor links at the main term where the definition is, so the reader won't have to jump up and down in the glossary. Do you know if this is possible or if there's a workaround to achieve this? Would appreciate any advice. Thanks. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
term|foo|noid=yes}}
{{
defn|1={{
crossref|selfref=no|See {{
gli|phu}}.}}}}
{{
term|phu|content={{
anchor|foo}}phu}}
{{
defn|1={{
ghat|Also ''foo''.}} Definition here.}}
noid
is a presently non-existent parameter for anchor ID suppression? I.e., such that the anchor for foo goes to the phu entry? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
18:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Test block of existing code options:
Pure templates | Templates and HTML | Templates and wikimarkup |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
FAIL: duplicate IDs. | WORKS: IDs both only in phu entry. |
FAIL: indented term (the ; causesgeneration of <dl> even though one's already there). |
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
<dt>...</dt>
instead of {{
Term}}
, for the foo entry. I could also hack the {{Term}}
template to have an option for suppressing the ID. However, I don't really see the point of this. Why not just link directly to the phu entry? I don't know what {{
Glossary link}}
custom template you are or will be using (i.e., your equivalent of {{
Cuegloss}}
). Supposing it were {{Quuxgloss}}
, you could just do: {{quuxgloss|phu|foo}}
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
18:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)PS: Not doing it the {{quuxgloss|phu|foo}}
way will also produce incorrect hover text; when you mouse over it, the tooltip will say "See entry at Glossary of quux terms § foo" but will actually take you to the phu entry which may be confusing to readers even with {{
ghat|Also ''foo''.}}
as a hatnote in the phu entry. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
19:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You and I (you more than I) have put a lot of effort in to several discussions at T:MOS which have stalled. I'd hate to see that all go to waste. I suggest we try to resolve them one at a time. May I suggest we start with refs inside vs. outside parens? That one seems easiest least hard.
E
Eng
20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. -- MONGO 13:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Stanton- Saw your contributions to Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects and thought you might be able to help me with what I thought would be a simple thing: At the top of Nave, I went to change the target of the Distinguish template from a wikilink on Rogue (vagrant) to a Wiktionary link on knave, with nothing but knave displayed. (The wiki article Knave is a disambig page). Nothing I do will work. {{Distinguish|[[wikt:knave]]}}}}, {{Distinguish|[[:wikt:knave]]}}, {{Distinguish|{{Wiktionary|knave}}}} all generate various messes. Can you tell me what I'm missing, besides perhaps a functioning intellect? Thanks in advance. Eric talk 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
distinguish|knave}}
→ We should use that because we do have a disambiguation page; this is why the default output of so many hatnotes is to link to disambiguation pages with the same base pagename. In another context: I don't think what you want to do can be done with that template; its code is too "tied down". If we had no DAB page, and the term on WP redirected to an article with a radically different title, you could do something like {{
distinguish2|knave; see [[Rogue (vagrant)]]}}
→ If we had no appropriate WP article at all, the thing to do would probably be {{
Distinguish2|
knave}}
→ —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
distinguish|wikt:knave}}
-> will provide you a link also (and might be preferable), though I generally support SMC's "link to our article/disambiguation first". --
Izno (
talk)
16:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
distinguish|wikt:knave}}
, because "wikt:knave" doesn't mean anything to our readers, only to editors. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to pester you again. I've just spotted that the user that closed the discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017 actually !voted in the discussion. That isn't right, is it? Not sure where to take this, although not sure there's a lot of point, as sadly I don't think the consensus is in favour of the move (even though the current title goes against WP:INCDAB). -- wooden superman 15:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you do a lot of work in this area and you have always been kind enough to offer thoughtful analysis at the snooker project so I was wondering what your views were on the interpretation of WP:EGG in the context of aliases at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Query between myself and Erik. I was pretty sure I was right, but after reading the guideline again I am doubting my own interpretation. The guideline itself invokes the "principle of least astonishment" (which implies we should avoid linking through aliases), but if somebody has an obscure alias or a film has an obscure alternative title where should it link to, if anywhere? I am not particularly bothered about the "crediting" issue which triggered the discussion, but rather the deployment of aliases as redirects. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James D. Zirin. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Please could you have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Guideline change proposal. The discussion seems to me to be so muddled that I can't tell what is being proposed. Your understanding of these issues will be helpful. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding these changes, please also note the existence of the nearly identical m:Help:User style. - dcljr ( talk) 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that you posted messages at
User talk:Pzoxicuvybtnrm and
User talk:Nimbus227 asking these users to update their signatures to avoid obsolete HTML tags. Great! Please be aware, however, that
User:Nihlus prepared 3 lists of users with signature issues (with <tt>
tags, images, and <font>
tags) and I am systematically working through
User:Nihlus/linter_sigs, tracking compliance and reminding users who continue to edit and ignore my messages. I am more than 80% done and hope to finish soon. Thank you for your support for ending the propagation of lint in Wikipedia! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
03:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I completed Nihlus' first set, except for about 16 that increase the size of their signature, and I'm waiting for consensus at WT:Signatures#Signature size guidelines before I communicate with those; meanwhile Nihlus generated another set around 2018-01-18 and I'm about half done with those. Of the first set, over 60% have complied; most of the rest haven't edited anything that left a new user signature since I requested, and of the two sets combined, there are 6 refusals so far. In case you are interested in communicating with users who refused to cooperate, I've prepared a list. I've intentionally linked to Talk not User pages. I encourage you not to follow up with any you don't feel comfortable with, and if you're not comfortable with any of them — or if you just don't want to do this at all, or right now — I sympathize.
User | Edits | Request | Refuse | Narrative |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ched | 22628 | 2017-12-07 | 2018-01-28 | User didn't reply; 2017-12-30 user del/archived; 2018-01-28 I re-rq and user replaced my request with "I saw your note the first time - now go away and leave me alone. If my sig. is such a problem - then go get an admin. to block this account - because I'm not changing my signature just to satisfy you." |
Cs-wolves | 182211 | 2017-11-28 | 2017-11-28 | User undid rq with summary "wipe"; 2018-01-24 re-rq and user undid with summary "Low priority error per linked page, so will await it becoming mandatory (although it appears to have grown from 8m to 15m from last time)..."; 2017-11-28 re-rq with more explanation and user undid rq with summary "Regardless, it's still low priority and until it becomes otherwise, it will be treated as low priority. Archiving, and not 'deleting' (so the code will be there for me to go back to, to not require any further contact)." |
Lugnuts | 703631 | 2017-11-26 | 2017-11-27 | 2017-11-27 user said "Seeing as there are more than 8 million of these on WP, I wont bother changing mine." 2018-01-01 archived; 2018-01-28 re-rq and user undid. |
Maxim | 33925 | 2017-12-6 | 2018-01-28 | 2018-01-13 archived; 2018-01-28 re-rq and user undid with summary "I'm not interested, please leave me alone on this matter" |
MjolnirPants | 6177 | 2017-11-26 | 2017-11-27 | User's talk page has a "warning"; 2017-11-27 user undid with summary "I guess the giant red edit notice with a big, bold 'Fuck right off' wasn't clear enough" |
Xiong | 3484 | 2018-01-15 | 2018-01-24 | 2018-01-21 user replied "No problem exists ... Do not fool with my signature, ever...." 2018-01-22 I replied explaining that the problem is real and that WP:Linter says 'It is OK to edit other people's User and User talk pages ..."; 2018-01-24 user replied (unsigned/undated) "I disagree. And if you purport to have a care for form, stay in your lane." |
Please ping and reply before taking any action. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 08:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
<img>...</img>
and various other markup that MW doesn't support in wikicode. The worst that would happen is their cutesy sigs will be less cutesy until they use valid markup. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=821149614&oldid=821148429 - looks like the same titles. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. Changes to it must reflect the wishes of the Supreme Cabal. When in doubt, please ignore the talk page and just keep reverting. |
I have given up on my years of resistance against emoji, and am hereby replacing my
Unicode-art cat face in my sig; using the graphical one is a space saver.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Stanton! I've read that you struggle to find barnstars. My suggestion is to check here in Commons, where there's lots of specific subcategories. Have fun! -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
more citations needed}}
happen.It will never happen. @ Timrollpickering: KMF ( talk) 05:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Confused about a seeming advice notice you posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Languages#Bot for WP:WPENGLISH talking about a bot request you made somewhere. You seem to be pointing to a very long section name at WT:Bot requests that I suspected was actually two links (the with not being part of either one) and I was just going to add some brackets to fix it up for you, but then looking at WT:Bot requests, I couldn't find anything by you; in fact, the most recent change to that page is from November, so I just left everything as is. You might want to untangle it all. Best, Mathglot ( talk) 11:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Manual of Style shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Cassianto Talk 21:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! An old dispute that you were involved in has been brought up again. Your opinion is greatly valued. Thank you! KevinNinja ( talk) 00:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Re just-started Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC_Should_the_usage_of_the_terms_"Arab"_and_"Arabic"_be_guided_by_the_Manual_of_Style? - the discussion might well benefit from any background info you may be aware of regarding the cultural sensitivity argument for Arab/Arabic MoS guidance. Batternut ( talk) 10:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, SMcCandlish. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.
Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Clearly Cassianto needs to be topic-banned from infoboxes, and ArbCom should consider whether further sanctions are needed. But a SchroCat is a metaphysical problem, because they might or might not be in the (info)box depending on the phase of the moon. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not continue your lies here. The diffs you have posted at ArbCom do not show what you claim, and nearly every line you have written about me is either a lie or a half truth. I suggest that should you not wish me to comment on your talk page, you do not discuss me on your talk page, particularly when veering so far from the truth. - SchroCat ( talk) 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
If you don't wish to comment on my talk page then don't comment on it. I understand the defensive urge to profess one's innocence (don't we all?), but you surely realize venting at me isn't going to change my mind or anyone else's. Apoplexy wins no hearts and minds, and just makes you look all the more intemperate. PS: those who nuke everything they don't like off their own talk pages aren't in a position to dictate what others talk about on theirs, certainly not just to escape critical scrutiny.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
11:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Moving on: Pretty much everyone deletes a talk post that's unconstructive now and again; you do it so frequently with anything you see as critical, it causes communication problems.
Finally, "gaslighting" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, in any of the three commonly accepted usages (the Trump sense of trying to convince the world that one didn't say what one definitely did say, the vague sense of playing individual perception mind-games with people to trip them up, or the original but disused sense of psychological torture by convincing someone they're losing their mind). The word doesn't pertain to anything here. In fairness, I'll warn you that I learned the hard way that ArbCom (the last one, which shares key members with the current one) reacts quite negatively to that exact word, because the original sense is not quite extinct; I'd used it in the first and second senses, and got a stern admonition about it. That said, if one were to employ either of those two senses to this discussion, it's not me they'd apply to, and the intimidation tactics you try (e.g. this "I tattled to ArbCom with BIG SEKRITS and you're in so much trouble" game you're bringing to me now, as if we're in elementary school) share many elements with the original meaning of the word, though these antics don't work on me.
Now, please go away; you can't make your displeasure with me any more clear by continuing, and you're distracting me from real work, fixing up a quartet of interrelated articles in bad need of repair.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
14:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Harvard Crimson. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Geoff | Who, me? 15:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explanation on dictionary definitions re:
Who (pronoun).
Self-trout —
AnAwesomeArticleEditor (
talk
contribs)
14:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
Cuegloss}}
is used). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Precious six years |
---|
... for improving article quality in January 2018! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (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 130 | ← | Archive 132 | Archive 133 | Archive 134 | Archive 135 | Archive 136 | → | Archive 140 |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trace Adkins. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Lee Vilenski(
talk)
10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Hope you had a wonderful new year. :)
Hi, I'd like to pick your brains on an issue concerning category titles. I'm working on the flora distribution categories that follow the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Some more categories need to be created. The titling practice that seems to have been followed, mostly but not entirely consistently, is that in "Category:Flora of X", other than an extra "the", "X" is chosen so that it is the title of the article that best matches the WGSRPD unit. This means that if "X" needs to be disambiguated, then a disambiguating term is used in "Category:Flora of X", even though it wouldn't be needed for the category alone. Thus Category:Flora of New York (state) even though there isn't a flora distribution category for the city; Category:Flora of Chihuahua (state) to match Chihuahua (state); etc. There will need to be a category for the Brazilian state of Amazonas, whose article is at Amazonas (Brazilian state). To me "Category:Flora of Amazonas (Brazilian state)" seems clumsy (the WGSRPD just calls it "Amazonas"). On the other hand, I can see the logic of this approach. You think about titles more than I do, so I'd value your opinion on how it fits with usual title and disambiguation practices. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
PS: An exception to article-title-matching is that if the category could not imaginably pertain to anything but one topic, then it need not be disambiguated.
Amazonas is a bunch of places, so organisms being in them could obviously apply. If there were only one place called Amazonas, but the big company were Amazonas.com instead of Amazon.com, and we had
Amazonas (Brazilian state) and
Amazonas (company) (only), then
Category:Flora of Amazonas would be likely fine, because the concept "Flora of" couldn't logically pertain to the company. I can't think of any actual place names, right off hand, where this would come up. Even the ones I'm straining to think of (e.g.
Clovis, California versus
King Clovis, are already disambiguated for other reasons, or the place is actually the primary topic anyway and not disambiguated. It's more likely to come up in a case like "Category:Songs by Foo", where the article is at "Foo (singer)" and none of the other Foos have anything to do with music. And this exception isn't even consistently applied; lots of categories have disambiguation even when one might not think it strictly necessary, probably because it's easier to just copy the article name than to analyze whether the disambiguation is really needed on a cat.-by-cat. basis.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
02:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah! I would definitely run two parallel categories. We need categories for these "official" designations that stick to exactly how the source defines them, using their "northern America" and "southern America" terms of art no one else uses; and we also need categories that match actual reader expectations. I've done a lot of [but insufficient] work on the latter set of categories, and it was the Caribbean problem that inspired it. I've been cross-linking categories as needed and putting inclusion criteria at the top of them, and so on.
I started with Category:Mammals of North America, Category:Felids of South America, and Category:Felids of Central America, and worked up to Category:Mammals of South America, Category:Mammals of Central America, Category:Mammals of North America, but did not complete the inclusion hatnotes, and didn't finish the cross-categorized Category:Mammals of the Caribbean (it should include any Caribbean place sometimes classified as S. or C. Am., but I don't think it has them all yet). I got side-tracked by other stuff and never did finish all that, and I did not drill upward to non-mammals much less to plants, nor sideways into canids or simians or whatever – huge job, better done with AWB or something). The goal was to match our life-forms in the Americas categories to how we're categorizing actual countries (and adjust even that as necessary to be inclusive of conflicting definitions). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 16:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Mostly I don't think there'll be a problem. As an example, a plant might get put into Category:Flora of Trinidad at Tobago when that exists at some point. I assume this would be WGSRPDed as a subcat of Category:Flora of southern America. But "southern America" isn't a thing to anyone but WGSRPD. Other Category:Foo of Trinidad and Tobago categories are in Category:Foo of the Caribbean and Category:Foo of South America (because how to geographically define T&T varies by context). So, it's pretty much inevitable that Category:Flora of Trinidad and Tobago will be a child cat. of all three of Category:Flora of southern America, Category:Flora of South America, and Category:Flora of the Caribbean, and these categories will serve different purposes for different reader communities; the latter two will just be based on how T&T is categories from (respectively) a geophysical landmass perspective versus a socio-politico-cultural one, and it won't have a thing to do with the plants. Meanwhile, the WGSRPD cat. will be entirely based on botanical sources, and we wouldn't even have "southern America" categories for any other reason (similarly, we have "Latin America" categories for certain internationally cross-cultural things, but we don't use them outside that sphere (there'll never be a Category:Flora of Latin America, nor a Category:Volcanoes of Latin America, because it just doesn't compute; flowers and lava aren't Latino).
So, it's not an either-or choice. People who want to know what plants live in Mexico as a geographical-range matter may be thinking either "Central America" or "North America" (we won't know), those from an environmental regulation perspective probably from a "Central American" perspective (.mx law has more in common with that of the rest of "northern Latin America", as it were, than of the US and Canada), while botanists will be thinking strictly in terms of WGSRPD's "northern America" (now – I note that .mx used to be cut in half in the WGSRPD scheme).Everyone will get to be happy, at least in theory. Or from a different angle: Look at how Turkey is categorized. Someone could consider it confusing, but the purpose of the categories isn't a hierarchical and exclusive labeling system, but a navigation tool to related articles, and Turkey is Balkan, SE European, E Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Near Eastern, etc., all at once depending on perspective.
Hope that helps. I'm sure you and the rest of the botanists will get the WGSRPD stuff done right (even if it takes some policing – you might find someone insisting that Flora of Delaware has to be in Flora of the Northeastern United States because so-and-so sources (economic, geological, etc.) catalogue DE as part of the US Northeast, not understanding that it's a WGSRPD label, not a general geographical one. A potential solution to that if it ever became a real problem would be using category names like "WGSRPD flora of the Northeastern United States" or something, if having category inclusion criteria doesn't cut it. But it should be enough.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
17:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this sort of thing is good precedent for what's under discussion here. As long as there's some category thicket for "Flora of [geographical name]" that suits the general-interest approach to that, there is no rationale to blockade or merge parallel specialized trees, like one for WGSRPD, that do something similar along different lines, even if there's conceptual overlap or a name similarity. It would even be possible to skip the "call the WGSRPD category by the 'common name' when the 'common name' has the same meaning or a meaning so close that it doesn't matter" part in theory, though it might be necessary to have WGSRPD in the names. Something like this is alrady used for conservation status; I see that Category:Biota by conservation status system exists, but it doesn't seem very fleshed out yet for anything but IUCN. But we do have Category:IUCN Red List critically endangered species (and, I note with relief it's not "Critically Endangered", LOL). If this sort of thing is defensible for IUCN, then it's defensible for WGSRPD. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 07:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Diacritics: Basically, it's because there are a lot of jingoistic asshats, and they sometimes form a big enough WP:FACTION to wear down everyone in a war of attrition until they get the censorship they want. They actually keep getting shut down, e.g. in an ArbCom case, and getting their "wikiproject" (read: canvassing farm) deleted, and so on, but they never really go away. They used to be hard-core centralized in a few other projects like WikiProject Tennis and WikiProject Ice Hockey, but RM has largely undone their attempts to WP:OWN those categories as no-diacritics zones. I expect that Québec will gets its proper spelling eventually, especially given MOS:ENGVAR (whether 'Mercans (or Brits or Strines for that matter) like to include the diacritic is irrelevant, it's frequently retained in Canadian English, so no defensible argument can be made that it's "not English"). PS: I fixed the missing King Clovis redirect. How was that a redlink? Sheesh.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect William, Prince of Wales. Since you had some involvement with the William, Prince of Wales redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Nevé – selbert 18:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
What's your opinion on the close at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC: Telenovela disambiguation? A pretty poor close in my book. I'm already having problems with it - see Talk:Victoria (TV series)#Requested move 5 January 2018 (withdrawn), [1], and [2]. Have tried taking it up with the closing editor here: User talk:Winged Blades of Godric#Half finished RFC close. Would be interested in your take on all this. -- wooden superman 15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, this RfC is pretty conclusive. Do you think it's premature to close it? I guess we should add something to
WP:NCTV - something along the lines of "Do not disambiguate by genre or format, i.e. "sitcom", "telenovela", "soap opera", etc., unless multiple articles for TV series from the same year and region exist and further disambiguation is required."
Any thoughts? --
wooden
superman
12:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the change to the guideline, using elements of my wording and the other suggestion. It may still need a tweak - feel free to improve if you have any thoughts... -- wooden superman 11:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm converting a glossary to templates and was wondering if you knew a way to suppress the anchor links made by {{ term}}? The glossary has 370 terms but about 50 of them are alternate names. I'd like those alternate names to have anchor links at the main term where the definition is, so the reader won't have to jump up and down in the glossary. Do you know if this is possible or if there's a workaround to achieve this? Would appreciate any advice. Thanks. – Reidgreg ( talk) 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
term|foo|noid=yes}}
{{
defn|1={{
crossref|selfref=no|See {{
gli|phu}}.}}}}
{{
term|phu|content={{
anchor|foo}}phu}}
{{
defn|1={{
ghat|Also ''foo''.}} Definition here.}}
noid
is a presently non-existent parameter for anchor ID suppression? I.e., such that the anchor for foo goes to the phu entry? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
18:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Test block of existing code options:
Pure templates | Templates and HTML | Templates and wikimarkup |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
FAIL: duplicate IDs. | WORKS: IDs both only in phu entry. |
FAIL: indented term (the ; causesgeneration of <dl> even though one's already there). |
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
<dt>...</dt>
instead of {{
Term}}
, for the foo entry. I could also hack the {{Term}}
template to have an option for suppressing the ID. However, I don't really see the point of this. Why not just link directly to the phu entry? I don't know what {{
Glossary link}}
custom template you are or will be using (i.e., your equivalent of {{
Cuegloss}}
). Supposing it were {{Quuxgloss}}
, you could just do: {{quuxgloss|phu|foo}}
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
18:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)PS: Not doing it the {{quuxgloss|phu|foo}}
way will also produce incorrect hover text; when you mouse over it, the tooltip will say "See entry at Glossary of quux terms § foo" but will actually take you to the phu entry which may be confusing to readers even with {{
ghat|Also ''foo''.}}
as a hatnote in the phu entry. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
19:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You and I (you more than I) have put a lot of effort in to several discussions at T:MOS which have stalled. I'd hate to see that all go to waste. I suggest we try to resolve them one at a time. May I suggest we start with refs inside vs. outside parens? That one seems easiest least hard.
E
Eng
20:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. -- MONGO 13:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Stanton- Saw your contributions to Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects and thought you might be able to help me with what I thought would be a simple thing: At the top of Nave, I went to change the target of the Distinguish template from a wikilink on Rogue (vagrant) to a Wiktionary link on knave, with nothing but knave displayed. (The wiki article Knave is a disambig page). Nothing I do will work. {{Distinguish|[[wikt:knave]]}}}}, {{Distinguish|[[:wikt:knave]]}}, {{Distinguish|{{Wiktionary|knave}}}} all generate various messes. Can you tell me what I'm missing, besides perhaps a functioning intellect? Thanks in advance. Eric talk 14:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
distinguish|knave}}
→ We should use that because we do have a disambiguation page; this is why the default output of so many hatnotes is to link to disambiguation pages with the same base pagename. In another context: I don't think what you want to do can be done with that template; its code is too "tied down". If we had no DAB page, and the term on WP redirected to an article with a radically different title, you could do something like {{
distinguish2|knave; see [[Rogue (vagrant)]]}}
→ If we had no appropriate WP article at all, the thing to do would probably be {{
Distinguish2|
knave}}
→ —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
distinguish|wikt:knave}}
-> will provide you a link also (and might be preferable), though I generally support SMC's "link to our article/disambiguation first". --
Izno (
talk)
16:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
distinguish|wikt:knave}}
, because "wikt:knave" doesn't mean anything to our readers, only to editors. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to pester you again. I've just spotted that the user that closed the discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017 actually !voted in the discussion. That isn't right, is it? Not sure where to take this, although not sure there's a lot of point, as sadly I don't think the consensus is in favour of the move (even though the current title goes against WP:INCDAB). -- wooden superman 15:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you do a lot of work in this area and you have always been kind enough to offer thoughtful analysis at the snooker project so I was wondering what your views were on the interpretation of WP:EGG in the context of aliases at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Query between myself and Erik. I was pretty sure I was right, but after reading the guideline again I am doubting my own interpretation. The guideline itself invokes the "principle of least astonishment" (which implies we should avoid linking through aliases), but if somebody has an obscure alias or a film has an obscure alternative title where should it link to, if anywhere? I am not particularly bothered about the "crediting" issue which triggered the discussion, but rather the deployment of aliases as redirects. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James D. Zirin. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Please could you have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Guideline change proposal. The discussion seems to me to be so muddled that I can't tell what is being proposed. Your understanding of these issues will be helpful. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding these changes, please also note the existence of the nearly identical m:Help:User style. - dcljr ( talk) 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that you posted messages at
User talk:Pzoxicuvybtnrm and
User talk:Nimbus227 asking these users to update their signatures to avoid obsolete HTML tags. Great! Please be aware, however, that
User:Nihlus prepared 3 lists of users with signature issues (with <tt>
tags, images, and <font>
tags) and I am systematically working through
User:Nihlus/linter_sigs, tracking compliance and reminding users who continue to edit and ignore my messages. I am more than 80% done and hope to finish soon. Thank you for your support for ending the propagation of lint in Wikipedia! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
03:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I completed Nihlus' first set, except for about 16 that increase the size of their signature, and I'm waiting for consensus at WT:Signatures#Signature size guidelines before I communicate with those; meanwhile Nihlus generated another set around 2018-01-18 and I'm about half done with those. Of the first set, over 60% have complied; most of the rest haven't edited anything that left a new user signature since I requested, and of the two sets combined, there are 6 refusals so far. In case you are interested in communicating with users who refused to cooperate, I've prepared a list. I've intentionally linked to Talk not User pages. I encourage you not to follow up with any you don't feel comfortable with, and if you're not comfortable with any of them — or if you just don't want to do this at all, or right now — I sympathize.
User | Edits | Request | Refuse | Narrative |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ched | 22628 | 2017-12-07 | 2018-01-28 | User didn't reply; 2017-12-30 user del/archived; 2018-01-28 I re-rq and user replaced my request with "I saw your note the first time - now go away and leave me alone. If my sig. is such a problem - then go get an admin. to block this account - because I'm not changing my signature just to satisfy you." |
Cs-wolves | 182211 | 2017-11-28 | 2017-11-28 | User undid rq with summary "wipe"; 2018-01-24 re-rq and user undid with summary "Low priority error per linked page, so will await it becoming mandatory (although it appears to have grown from 8m to 15m from last time)..."; 2017-11-28 re-rq with more explanation and user undid rq with summary "Regardless, it's still low priority and until it becomes otherwise, it will be treated as low priority. Archiving, and not 'deleting' (so the code will be there for me to go back to, to not require any further contact)." |
Lugnuts | 703631 | 2017-11-26 | 2017-11-27 | 2017-11-27 user said "Seeing as there are more than 8 million of these on WP, I wont bother changing mine." 2018-01-01 archived; 2018-01-28 re-rq and user undid. |
Maxim | 33925 | 2017-12-6 | 2018-01-28 | 2018-01-13 archived; 2018-01-28 re-rq and user undid with summary "I'm not interested, please leave me alone on this matter" |
MjolnirPants | 6177 | 2017-11-26 | 2017-11-27 | User's talk page has a "warning"; 2017-11-27 user undid with summary "I guess the giant red edit notice with a big, bold 'Fuck right off' wasn't clear enough" |
Xiong | 3484 | 2018-01-15 | 2018-01-24 | 2018-01-21 user replied "No problem exists ... Do not fool with my signature, ever...." 2018-01-22 I replied explaining that the problem is real and that WP:Linter says 'It is OK to edit other people's User and User talk pages ..."; 2018-01-24 user replied (unsigned/undated) "I disagree. And if you purport to have a care for form, stay in your lane." |
Please ping and reply before taking any action. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 08:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
<img>...</img>
and various other markup that MW doesn't support in wikicode. The worst that would happen is their cutesy sigs will be less cutesy until they use valid markup. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
03:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=821149614&oldid=821148429 - looks like the same titles. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. Changes to it must reflect the wishes of the Supreme Cabal. When in doubt, please ignore the talk page and just keep reverting. |
I have given up on my years of resistance against emoji, and am hereby replacing my
Unicode-art cat face in my sig; using the graphical one is a space saver.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Stanton! I've read that you struggle to find barnstars. My suggestion is to check here in Commons, where there's lots of specific subcategories. Have fun! -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
more citations needed}}
happen.It will never happen. @ Timrollpickering: KMF ( talk) 05:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Confused about a seeming advice notice you posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Languages#Bot for WP:WPENGLISH talking about a bot request you made somewhere. You seem to be pointing to a very long section name at WT:Bot requests that I suspected was actually two links (the with not being part of either one) and I was just going to add some brackets to fix it up for you, but then looking at WT:Bot requests, I couldn't find anything by you; in fact, the most recent change to that page is from November, so I just left everything as is. You might want to untangle it all. Best, Mathglot ( talk) 11:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Manual of Style shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Cassianto Talk 21:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! An old dispute that you were involved in has been brought up again. Your opinion is greatly valued. Thank you! KevinNinja ( talk) 00:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Re just-started Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC_Should_the_usage_of_the_terms_"Arab"_and_"Arabic"_be_guided_by_the_Manual_of_Style? - the discussion might well benefit from any background info you may be aware of regarding the cultural sensitivity argument for Arab/Arabic MoS guidance. Batternut ( talk) 10:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, SMcCandlish. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.
Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Clearly Cassianto needs to be topic-banned from infoboxes, and ArbCom should consider whether further sanctions are needed. But a SchroCat is a metaphysical problem, because they might or might not be in the (info)box depending on the phase of the moon. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not continue your lies here. The diffs you have posted at ArbCom do not show what you claim, and nearly every line you have written about me is either a lie or a half truth. I suggest that should you not wish me to comment on your talk page, you do not discuss me on your talk page, particularly when veering so far from the truth. - SchroCat ( talk) 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
If you don't wish to comment on my talk page then don't comment on it. I understand the defensive urge to profess one's innocence (don't we all?), but you surely realize venting at me isn't going to change my mind or anyone else's. Apoplexy wins no hearts and minds, and just makes you look all the more intemperate. PS: those who nuke everything they don't like off their own talk pages aren't in a position to dictate what others talk about on theirs, certainly not just to escape critical scrutiny.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
11:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Moving on: Pretty much everyone deletes a talk post that's unconstructive now and again; you do it so frequently with anything you see as critical, it causes communication problems.
Finally, "gaslighting" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, in any of the three commonly accepted usages (the Trump sense of trying to convince the world that one didn't say what one definitely did say, the vague sense of playing individual perception mind-games with people to trip them up, or the original but disused sense of psychological torture by convincing someone they're losing their mind). The word doesn't pertain to anything here. In fairness, I'll warn you that I learned the hard way that ArbCom (the last one, which shares key members with the current one) reacts quite negatively to that exact word, because the original sense is not quite extinct; I'd used it in the first and second senses, and got a stern admonition about it. That said, if one were to employ either of those two senses to this discussion, it's not me they'd apply to, and the intimidation tactics you try (e.g. this "I tattled to ArbCom with BIG SEKRITS and you're in so much trouble" game you're bringing to me now, as if we're in elementary school) share many elements with the original meaning of the word, though these antics don't work on me.
Now, please go away; you can't make your displeasure with me any more clear by continuing, and you're distracting me from real work, fixing up a quartet of interrelated articles in bad need of repair.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
14:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Harvard Crimson. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Geoff | Who, me? 15:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for explanation on dictionary definitions re:
Who (pronoun).
Self-trout —
AnAwesomeArticleEditor (
talk
contribs)
14:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
Cuegloss}}
is used). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Precious six years |
---|
... for improving article quality in January 2018! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018
Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)