![]() | 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 200 | ← | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 |
Hello SMcCandlish, the arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
BTW, I didn't mean to trigger that regurgitating debate over at WT:VER. Sorry 'bout that.
On a brighter note...
I've started a revamp of Wikipedia:Tools/Optimum tool set.
Please take a look and let me know if there are any essential techniques or must have tools that you think should be included.
Thank you.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 06:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
While researching tools for the optimum set, I went looking at the contributions of the editors at the top of the
WP:NOE list. I've come to the conclusion, based on the average small delay time between so many of their edits, that they are likely running their user accounts as bots. It's so obvious it looks like an open secret. I can't imagine them sitting there hitting the enter key over and over, hour after hour, day after day, year after year. That would be absolutely mind-numbing, reducing them to zombies, if not meat-bots. It is almost as if they have been awarded the bot flag (though using a paper clamp on the return key hypothetically may have the same effect
). —
The Transhumanist
23:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
"Changes to policy pages are expect to get consensus first, and can be reverted at will when they don't."
"BRD has already been invoked."
"And edit summaries are not the place for detailed rationales, that's what the talk page is for."
- Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 22:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm going cover a lot of actually pretty crucial points, so this will be fairly detailed. The fact of the matter is, per WP:EDITING policy, every user is alrealdy empowered to revert something they don't believe is an improvement (or to make any other good-faith edit they want to, aside from a handful of rare exceptions, like reverting what ArbCom is doing in ArbCom's own pages, or changing the substantive meaning of a WP:OFFICE-action policy that was forced on the community by WMF, or injecting copyright infringements or libel, or adding potentially controversial claims to a BLP without a source – I think we all understand what the exceptions are). Reverting reflexively and without a clear rationale – which is demonstrably not what I did – is loosely discouraged (e.g. here and here) but is not against policy. So even if Butwhatdoiknow thought that's what was happening, it was not sensible grounds for a counter-revert; that was just the beginning of a pointless editwar.
Next, WP:BRD establishes a consensus-accepted procedure whereby if someone disagrees with someone's bold edit [1], they may revert it at will, and what was reverted [2] should not be restored [3] without a discussion concluding in favor of the change/addition. While the BRD page is categorized as an essay for some reason, it has overwhelming community buy-in and is treated in practice as if it had the force of policy; I've even seen people blocked or topic-banned for exhibiting a pattern of failing to abide by it (the underlying true policy reason for such restrictions is WP:DE: they were being disruptive by not participating in the process the community has established).
Next, from WP:P&G, which seems to be a policy Butwhatdoiknow only skimmed and did not read in detail: "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy status" Note that it does not say "Proposals for new guideline and policy stand-alone pages". Adding a rule at WP:NOT to prohibit an entire class of userspace content is absolutely a proposal for a new policy, and quite a sweeping one, whether that was the actual intent or not and desite that the change only injected one word; changes that small can often have sweeping policy effects (in real-world laws, too, not just on WP). And various policies and guidelines have been split and merged over time; whether an item of P&G material exists as a stand-alone page or as sectional content is completely irrelevant to its nature as policy material. So, anyone could and arguably should revert such a change until consensus is established that it is a good idea.
More narrowly pertinent to this new change at WP:NOT is probably this: "because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion. ... the purpose of policies and guidelines is to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject". The inserter of the "profiles" language clearly did not do any of this, and was attempting to address only the convenience of two wikiprojects; not only was no input sought to see whether such a change was reflecting the community's consensus view, at least two of us have pointed out how that change accidentally introduced a new source of error or confusion.
But there's more: "Talk first. Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to a policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections or if the discussion shows there is consensus for the change." Talking first did not happen, and there already are objections. "Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate." This didn't happen, either, yet a change that probably affects every detailed "User:Foo" page on the system is unmistakably a "major change".
Butwhatdoiknow is under the mistaken impression that all they have to do is skim edit summaries to figure out what is going on. This editor did not bother looking at the talk page, and objected to my revert on the false basis that it wasn't explained. Not only is there no actual requirement to explain it in the first place (just a recommendation: "you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page"), it was in fact explained in the edit summary, obviously referring to a talk page discussion that was already open, in which an even more detailed rationale was provided. The two editors who appear to be in favor of this "profile" change (who have so far not engaged in any way on the talk page or otherwise) also need to review this in the P&G policy: "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system". When they added a shortcut referring to the change they wanted to make [4], they were transgressing that, because discussion was already open about whether to make such a change at all, and it so far is not in favor, with zero concerns about it addressed by the proponents.
Butwhatdoiknow's edit-warry and kneejerk counter-revert's edit summary verged on senseless: "'multiple editors have concerns' - Are you one of them? If so, what is your concern? Or, if you are reverting for others, where have they expressed their concerns?" It is utterly immaterial who raised the concern; the fact that there is dispute about it in evidence on the talk page (or in edit summaries for that matter) is entirely sufficient for anyone to revert a change as something that is being disputed. Happens every single day. Once a change has been challenged, the burden of proof of consensus lies on the shoulders of the proponent(s) of the change; that applies to project pages just as much as in mainspace, and especially at policy pages. When someone says that concerns have already been raised, the utterly obvious thing to do is take a few seconds to look for them on the talk page. It's why we have talk pages in the first place ("The purpose of a [page]'s talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated [page]".
Finally, Butwhatdoiknow hasn't expressed any rationale or even just opinion in favor of the change in question, but is just going around counter-reverting people on the faulty basis of not being satisfied with their revert edit summaries and seeming to also cast vague aspersions about their motives. If there is any kind of revert that is not constructive and should never happen, this is that kind. It is not anyone's job to go around "policing" other people's reverts and edit summaries out of a subjective personal sense of whether they are adequate or not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Here's a thread (about a slightly disturbing essay) you might find interesting:
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 00:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
One of the most interesting (if not scary) phenomena that has occurred with the introduction of LLM chatbots, is that of emergent abilities.
Here's a link: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-unpredictable-abilities-emerging-from-large-ai-models-20230316/
The bigger the training data sets, the more abilities that seem to come out of the blue. The latest chatbots can do things that nobody expected, not even the developers.
And because of the huge surge in the popularity of chatbots, tech companies are scrambling to enhance them further, including combining them with other forms of AI, such as reasoning engines, to produce chatbot hybrids.
That opens the emergent ability issue into even more unknown territory. What will these things be able to do next that neither we nor the developers expected?
The class of generative AI that I find most interesting is iterative. They write their own prompts based on a project you've assigned them, and they keep going until the job is done. One of those is AutoGPT. But, something happened that should give us pause. Using a model based on AutoGPT called ChaosGPT, some idiot told it to destroy the human race, and it started working on it. Fortunately, it did not succeed. Perhaps that guy never heard the old adage "Be careful what you wish for".
Grasping at metaphors I'm thinking how gun control applies here. You wouldn't want to hand out machine guns to everybody. But future AIs may be more like the Big Red Button. If everybody had the ability to launch nukes, somebody probably would. Well, the same principle might apply to AIs which may be more capable than we assume they are, and somebody repeats the request of that guy mentioned above.
So, one thing the future is likely to be, is interesting.
—
The Transhumanist
00:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The weird thing about chatbots used in third-party apps, as that the third-parties can't reprogram them. Instead, they prep them with instructions (called preprompts or system prompts) that the chatbots receive before the users get a crack at it. However, from time to time, clever users somehow coax the chatbots into sharing what their system prompts are. So, the developers can influence their chatbots' behavior, but they don't have full control. I don't know whether to be relieved, or alarmed.
Here's an article that provides a look at the configuration instructions the major chatbats were running on last Spring. How much they have changed since then, I know a little about for perplexity, just by its behavior since then. It is no longer limited to 80-word responses, and I got around that most of the time, anyways. The tricky part is that ChatGPT uses its LLM to follow perplexity's system prompts, so the training data is engaged and can be accessed as an epiphenomenon (such as talking in the style of John Wayne - the chatbot doesn't get "Howdy, pardner" from the search results.). But, it is not easy to tap into the training data for answers, and specific methods are disabled as soon as the developers discover them. And, keep in mind that your discussions on the Web, such as this one, will probably be included in the next version's training data set.
It does provide some insight into how these things work.
I hope you find it interesting. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 23:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Found an article that explains tech bubbles pretty well:
Enjoy, — The Transhumanist 00:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
please explain to me why the image of Momo on the Turkish Van page isn't "encyclopedia quality" when there are several other images on there that are just as unprofessional 132.205.229.24 ( talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Western Sahara on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
(FYI: inaccessible news articles are often archived, and become accessible, on the Wayback Machine soon after they are published, sometimes even on the same day).
Here's an article I came across explaining Wikipedia's role and impact on AI, and the ongoing relationship between the two into the future:
Archived article, from the New York Times...
What the article is referring to is article-like formatted AI chatbot search engine responses. To see one for yourself, pick a general topic, and type this into perplexity.ai: "Please write at least 3000 words on *topic*, with multiple headings and bullet points." (Replace *topic* with the topic you chose).
What's going to happen regarding this is dependent in part on whether WP is more passive vs more active in this development space. — The Transhumanist 16:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
@ The Transhumanist: You might be in'erested in: Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#AI-generated images. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Well it's idiomatic if you start writing "In IPA" then change it to "In the
International Phonetic Alphabet" and then decide to generalise it by replacing International Phonetic Alphabet
with Phonetics
and fail to notice the residual the
. That's how language evolves
.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
IA = "Internet Archive"
I'm planning on including the IA in the WP:OTS.
And there's a pair of bookmarklets that make use of the IA easy.
But, before putting those in there, I need to make sure the instructions are clear and easy to follow, for users who have never placed bookmarklets on their browser's bookmark toolbar.
javascript:void(window.open('
https://web.archive.org/save/'+location.href));
javascript:location.href='
https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href
So, if you wouldn't mind, try dragging each of the above bookmarklets to your bookmarks toolbar. To keep things standardized, use the title "Archiv" for the first one, and "Wybck" for the second.
Now they should be available to click on from any webpage. Click on each one while on a news page, to test them. The first bookmark saves the current page you are on. The second bookmark jumps you to the IA's archived copies of the current page.
Were my instructions easy to follow, and did they work?
I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 22:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
<
nowiki>
so that MediaWiki doesn't interpret the URL strings in the javascript lines as URLs to parse and make clickable/draggable and show link icons for: javascript:location.href='https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href
I've just added a red link to Open letter#Problems. Do you know of an article that can be redirected to? I want something close to the subject (explained briefly, and full text in ProQuest if you need it), not just a "kids these days" like Snowflake (slang) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
So I stumble upon thy page, and I definitely see some sort of hybrid RDJ/Rachel Maddow/Colin Farrell genetic swirl.
But I was actually getting some Gary Oldman vibes too. Plus a tinge of Robert Carlyle. Do you just go around, plucking celebrity DNA samples, and refueling every now and then? Brilliant. I should go collect some Tom Hardy.... -- Cinemaniac86 Talk Stalk 20:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, please check the documentation at {{ Use dmy dates}}. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 01:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and fixed any found.Note "and" not "or". You didn't "fix any found", not then [8], and not in an earlier pass last month [9]. All you're doing is making a pointless change for no reason. If no date-fixing work has been done, the date in the template should be left as-is, since it indicates the last time that the page was changed to have a consistent date format. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
|date=
value, I don't see how that would be possible, since I don't think a bot could be smart enough to find and check all possible date formats in an article. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
07:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Invasion of Poland on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Otzma Yehudit on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
As you rightly said, "This and the other ones added into the discussion are Italians phrases, not English ones. They may appear in some English-language works about cheeses and products/commerce, but they are not widely-assimilated loan-phrases in English (like "cul-de-sac" from French is). Being Italian, they should be italicized (actually should be in {{
lang|it}}
, which takes care of the italicizing as well as the language markup), and should follow the case convention of Italian, which is not to capitalize adjectives derived from proper nouns. There's nothing unusual or special about this case; it is entirely routine." (precisely what I wrote, but you explained it much better, as well as summarised it very well), the page should be renamed without further discussion. Do you want to apply for renaming? They won't listen to me.
JackkBrown (
talk)
18:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, should the terms Epinetron, Megaron, Andron, Gynaeceum, Symposium, Antahpura, Pyxis, Epinetron, Harpastum, Episkyros, Trigon and Calcio storico fiorentino be put in italics? If I have made any mistakes or forgotten anything on these pages could you kindly correct or add? I am always at a loss when it comes to italics. JackkBrown ( talk) 03:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang}}
markup, not just bare italics), per
MOS:FOREIGN, because they are not everyday terms in English at all, with one exception.
Symposium is that case; while it's about the ancient Greek subject, a topic virtually unknown to English-language users, not what the word "symposium" means in English as an assimilated loanword (
academic conference), "symposium" even in this original sense is an anglicization, of συμπόσιον symposion, which should be italicized in {{
lang}}
, along with symposio and sympínein in that article. The "symposium" case is like "legion" even
in the ancient Roman context. We use this word in reference to the Roman military unit (and later things inspired by it), but it is also an anglicization, of Latin legio. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
04:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|grc-Latn}}
to italicize thrysus, thiasus, rhyton, psykter, pteron, peripteros, cella, peristasis, and kylix (unless any of them are significantly altered anglicizations like Greek "symposion" → English "symposium". Krater is a maybe; it's fairly commonly known to English-speakers (certainly much more so than kylix), but arguably is still a non-English term. Abacus in this particular sense is another maybe; in reference to the counting device, it has become an English word, but in reference to the architectural feature arguably not. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|grc-Latn}}
markup around "krater" would be more consistent with treatment of other ancient Greek terms, albeit ones with even less usage in English. But if someone reverted with a claim that it was used enough in English to not be italicized, I wouldn't get in an argument with them about it. (But I would be more inclined to argue if they wanted to de-italicize at
Pyxis (vessel), a term with nearly no use in English outside of specialist literature.) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
00:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
" Ragù" and " panettone" are common words in English? I would never have guessed that! Update: sorry to come back to the subject of "italics". JackkBrown ( talk) 22:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang}}
template to italicize it, unless it is one of the ultra-rare foreignisms that has been assimilated into English with a diacritic (the only ones I can think of right off-hand are façade and naïve, and even the latter is often spelled naive in English). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Hi, sorry to bother you again. Do the words " shtetl" " mitzvah", " tzedakah", "prost", " yeshiva", " qahal", "kahal", " miasteczko" and " Kehilla" go in italics? It takes me too long to work out which ones to put in italics and which ones not. Unfortunately, if I notice a page that should be italicised, I am left with the thought and have to sort it out, but I don't go looking for them. JackkBrown ( talk) 17:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
''...''
italics is not particularly useful; I've said several times (as does
MOS:FOREIGN itself) that this should be done with the {{
lang}}
template. I just overhauled
Shtetl in this regard. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
21:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I had already found " sunnah" (the first line) in italics. Why isn't " hadith" italicised, whereas I had already found "sunnah" (the First line) italicised before I arrived? Also, shouldn't "sunnah" be capitalised? JackkBrown ( talk) 22:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|ar-Latn}}
applied to a whole bunch of stuff in it, including bare-italicized instances of sunnah and non-italicized instances of "sunnah", and various other italicized and non-italicized Arabic terms. In an article like that, hadith should also be italicized for consistency with the rest of such terms, even if in some other articles it is not (on the very questionable assertion that it is English-assimilated). At any rate, your urge to de-italicize something in the lead because it is not italicized in the rest of the article is a mistake. If the term is not assimilated English, it should be italicized (actually in {{
lang}}
markup), from the lead on down. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|ar-Latn|sunnah}}
(and use {{
lang|ar}}
around any actual examples of Arabic script, though watch out for Farsi, Urdu, and other languages that use the same or related script; not every single term and name pertaining to Islam is in Arabic). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)I edited the passage "Muezza" in Islam and cats. You removed it and archived it in the page history. I think you should re-add it or remove it altogether.
The phrasing of the passage is misleading. It should be emphasized that the story has no relation to Muhammad. It is a source of misinformation and many people quote this passage online without providing the entire context, especially since what should be at the top of the passage is written shortly in the last two lines. I mean the fact that the story of Muezza has no mention in hadith, the second-most reliable source of stories regarding Muhammad, and where most stories of Muhammad are narrated.
I think that the reason many Muslims believe in it, is writing such as this one.
You said, "In particular, you cannot go around changing material cited to particular sources to say the opposite of what it did originally and thus contradict the sources cited for it." Yes, I am a beginner, but I felt that there was no need to cite anything other than what had already been cited. I did not add anything new. I just rephrased it. I did not write anything that contradicted the sources cited for the story. The last two references, reference 7 and 8, agree with my change in material. Reference 5 does not claim the story as fact but rather a "legend", which is in line with what I had written, and it can be used as a citation for the story itself. Reference 6 simply relates the story, mentioning "tales" and "stories" as the basis of the story, without mentioning where these stories were taken from. This citation should also only be used for the story itself. In my edit of the passage, I did not remove any citations.
Again, I feel that no additional citations need be made, but simply a rephrasing of the passage to add emphasis on parts that are factual, while still giving an account of the legend of Muezza. However, it is currently the other way around.
My request is for you to allow me to rephrase the passage or for you to remove it altogether. Aesaibn ( talk) 12:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, the link to the tool on your userpage is dead. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:A57D:3366:1B62:B12C ( talk) 22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Good evening. Since you are a mover there is not much point in me asking the help page to rename the pages; I would like to ask you, kindly, if you could rename the pages " Siana Cup" and " Lip Cup" to "Siana cup" and "Lip cup"; there is no discussion of this, as in "pecorino sardo", so there is no problem in changing these titles. Thank you very much in advance for your availability. JackkBrown ( talk) 22:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
when posting on the editor's own talk page. They are automatically notified that you post there and the ping just creates a duplicate notification. Ping is for when you are trying to draw someone's attention to a page outside their own user-space. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
What's your sense about the state of the ISBN RFC? WP:VPP is approaching a million bytes in size. There are 165 comments in that RFC, and while it's by no means the biggest discussion on the page, if you expect it to get much more attention, perhaps we should move it to a subpage. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Morning!! Wanted to see if you’d be able to assist with a possible issue on the following page - Balderdash.
The Review section provides a URL to an active Wiki page but no addtl info or context is provided. It directs to a live Wiki page but doesn't contain anything related to the original article. Also seemed odd the text/URL are formatted like a reference source.
However the corresponding reference directs to an archived page with an actual review of the product. The media source also match with the aforementioned Wiki page.
The user who added this this appears to be credible. Maybe the review section was just a paste mistake? In any case it still feels like a single review from an unfamiliar source doesn’t fit the standard for article reviews.
Given the sources legitimacy I wasn’t sure what the appropriate action was, figured I’d see if someone with more experience could clarify.
I was initially going to post in the articles talk page but haven’t had much luck getting feedback on pages with limited traffic. Herenow44 ( talk) 17:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
So first: I wanted to write you about my editing and share some additional thoughts with you and after at least an hour of intensive reading all of your page, I still not have a plan where to write you legitimate but what I, at least, thought that I understood is that it is ok to write you at all so I sincerely apologize if this the wrong place sorry🙂❤️
Second: I love reading wikipedia articles and sometimes I love editing, thats my main motivation so if some editing from me isn't good enough for wikipedia standarts it is absolutely ok for me, so don't worry my editing on the Axiom page is dead I won't consider further fighting for my edits my thoughts sharing with you on your talk page are the very last breath I do don't worry 🙂❤️ What I also want to say real quick is that I am german so Im not a native english speaker and, sure, in a grammatical/ortographical view I don't have a 100% native level but I see editing in english as an aditionall competition, so this, maybe viewed as this is not ok, as for english editing, you need a native level (what is for sure propably a basic claim and Im really arrogant breaking that), please believe me that I don't have vandalist intentions at all that is what I can say with all of my heart🙂 Regarding valid sources, I studied the wikipedia standarts a bit, but until know I feel to dumb to understand all of this😢 so sure, maybe cause of this I am simply to dumb for wikipedia, well, it is not the nicest thought but maybe its true but what I can at least say regarding this is that in the last time I try to make an edit for wikipedia maybe once all three months so it isn't that much Work for other users to delete my editings😁❤️ so this long message to you, I also just write because I read on your page that it is ok writing to you (if it is not ok writing to you or at the wrong place I apologize, sorry 🙂❤️ regardless of this, this edit really will be my very last breath regarding all of this after finished this message to you I am done with all of this). Regarding the talk page, Ive done this in past regarding a pharmalogical theme, meaning discussing a try for an edit with other users before posting and from this I got the notion that this is ok but, well, if it isn't I won't make this again.
Third: You see, I explained my lacking knowledge of detecting reliable sources, for sure, I should improve that real quick or not editing, in this regard I, again, want to say that I make maybe one edit in three months and keep quite when deleted. However, what I wanted to say at last is, like I said before, I love reading wikipedia articles. That is the major point for my love of Wikipedia😁✌️ Rarely, I want to edit for myself but really, at least in the last time, maybe once in three months, however, the last I want to say that when reading articles I sometimes get the notion that, for example, for scientific themes, the harder and more advanced they get, the more one individual sentence will extend, regarding its source, to provide logical, well, I think the right word is cohaerance or consistence. An other example is to make an explicit statement in a antifascist/ethical view to provide wikipedia standarts in this regard. Now see, I don't think Im the next Einstein, Im highly schizophrenic but Im not that level of insane 😁✌️❤️ but to come to an end with this message, regarding my edit, see, I really often think, as a german with an antifascist soul, about the third reich and after a long time of thinking I came to that theory that this is a theme where it is somehow, like I felt, relatively easy to generate a statement in ones mind which is true when generating with empathic context so for example:
"Hitler was god for the german economy and he was a good artist"- is complete bullshit
But: "If I had a time machine, I would encourage the young homeless hitler to stay with his feets in art, improve, making a stable income with that, as regarding this time before his dictatorship or first violent actions in this intend, you can really say he is really skilled in art with all this said in a time machine context to safe his pour soul" which both statements are a bit similar but just the second is OK, because performed with empathy.
So what I learned regarding this theme, that, even really extreme simplified arguments like "Every in the shoah killed jew should deserve heaven in any religion" are ok to say because its in an empathic context.
So with this in mind, I came to the axiom theme with: A first statement is easy to generate as If performed with proper empathy it is somehow nearly forced to be true, so you have a more inclusive opportunity creating a first statement. My second thought of more inclusivity was formed by the notion that further reasoning ending in new statements ultimately, are a core point of axioms, and, because this theme is not highly mathematical, it is much much more easier to generate a second sentence, based on the first statement, which if it also fits honest empathy is true and serves as a second statement.
The core point I wanted to make is for normal people like me it is nearly impossible to generate statements in mind which work with the needs of an axiomata properly and it is even more impossible to generate a second statement for further reasoning if you are not highly educated but with this aproach maybe it is.
So to come to an end, please note that Im left and a antifascist by all of my heart!!! So maybe all this stuff can contain extreme formal mistakes but the ABSOLUTE last thing I wanted to communicate are any populistic thoughts.
So now Im done and like I said this is my ultimately last edit/message regarding all of this, so, have a great day, bye🙂🙂❤️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Materie34 ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | |
my story today |
---|
Thank you for improving article quality in November! - Vacation pictures offered if you click on songs, and my story today is a DYK hook from 13 years ago OTD: about the great music at one of my churches. Mozart's Requiem to come on Sunday, coupled with Arvo Pärt's Da pacem Domine, - I guess you might come if it was a bit closer. Perhaps watch the video of our last production, our first on yt, ever. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
For teaching me something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
Btw, in your example, is there any reason not to do it |ref=Grant (2020) and <ref>[[#Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
(without piping)? Since at least atm there is only one Grant.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
09:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|ref=Grant 2022
and <ref>[[#Grant 2022|Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
if there were two grant sources to distinguish. Or |ref=Grant (2022)
and <ref>[[#Grant (2022)|Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
if you wanted to be longwinded about it. If you were confident that there would only ever be one Grant source then |ref=Grant
and <ref>[[#Grant|Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
would be more minimal. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Was I right to use the "Plainlist" template on this page? JackkBrown ( talk) 22:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
Unbulleted list}}
is an alternative with a different syntax. {{
Flatlist}}
or {{
Hlist}}
would also work, but {{
Plainlist}}
(or {{
Unbulleted list}}
) is arguably better here, because of the length of one of the names (both names would be unlikely to fit on one line in the infobox, and might wrap awkwardly). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)CSS for an unordered list supports arbitrary bullet symbols, but our modules don't propagate it (oops). But it seems like the ordered list can be given a non-counter character to get that effect. Similar result, but cleaner wiki source.
![]()
|
![]() |
Though to be honest, you look most like a guy I went to college with than any of those other people:) DMacks ( talk) 08:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
<ol>...</ol>
is arguably semantically wrong for this, but the corresponding <ul>...</ul>
template doesn't support |list_style_type=
for some reason (despite being an invocation of the same list module). I filed a bug report about it at
Template talk:Bulleted list#Style problem. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
09:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Bob Stewart (politician) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, in the "Controversies" paragraph of the " Songkran (Thailand)" page, within the quote the dash seems wrong to me. What do you think is wrong? Also I would like, to not send too many notifications, to ask you how I can trace back all the pages I have edited, for example I have made about 30,100 edits, but I will have edited no more than 15,000 pages; I would like to trace back the number of pages, not the number of edits. Thank you very much in advance. JackkBrown ( talk) 17:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
A help desk user said that bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah are common words in English and should not be written in italics, but since these terms have been in italics for a really long time, I would leave them that way. What do you think? JackkBrown ( talk) 12:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Re this edit, it is no longer necessary. See these instructions on the syntax highlighter page. They have changed my life for the better. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
<br />
in actual articles because it is properly parsed by more parsers. The trick at the doc you linked to will hide every instance of <br>
, regardless of namespace, and I don't know enough JS tricks to limit it to particular (talk) namespaces. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
05:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Hi SMcCandlish. You might already see it as it appears you have the talk page watchlisted, but I'd really appreciate your input at WT:ACCESS#Editor trying to mass-scale make captions screen reader-only. Not sure what to make of editors wanting to hide captions merely because they're redundant to sighted readers three years after they became a requirement for all tables so I really want other editors' input, and I value yours. Thanks. Ss 112 05:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
sronly}}
markup has no implications for accessibilty at all, by design). I have no reason to write a bunch of paragraphs in response to you in an RfC as long as you don't keep prevaricating about what is actually under discussion, which is hiding from non-screen-reader users the table captions that are redundant with table headers, not hiding every single table caption, which is an idea no one ever raised anywhere, much less enacted; it came directly out of your imagination, yet you keep insisting on trying to make everyone think that is the topic of discussion, an
appeal to fear tactic. It's one of the most inexplicable things I've seen on WP in months. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
aria-description
(I honestly don't know whether that can serve a nav-target function). I'm not an accessibility-for-the-blind expert, and my concerns in the matter have mostly been about the possibility of reducing redundant text for the majority of our readers, as long as it is without doing any accessibility harm. Oh, and I did not mean at all to imply that adding missing table captions would be MEATBOT; if it's required by the guideline and is a genuine accessibility help then it can't qualify as "cosmetic". Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I meant only that changing existing captions to have {{
sronly}}
, in a really mass-scale and robotic fashion, without doing anything more reader-experience-constructive, might raise MEATBOT concerns, even if it's technically not cosmetic because is produces a visual change in the output. That is to say, I'm not opposing such changes happening (if we come to a consensus that hiding the redundant ones is good); I'm just warning that there may be negative reactions to it if it's done a zillion times a day with something like
WP:AWB, especially if someone doing it is incautious and ends up hiding captions that are informative for everyone and are not redundant cases. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
08:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
{{sronly}}
'ing redundant table captions was "permissible" without it being an actual recommendation in MoS, then the reaction would be more likely to be along "WTF is all this MEATBOT stuff?" lines. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
08:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is the term " forum" not capitalised here and in the French language Wikipedia? I quote a sentence from the Italian language Wikipedia page: "Il Foro Romano (in latino Forum Romanum, sebbene i Romani si riferissero ad esso più spesso come Forum Magnum o semplicemente Forum) è..."; https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foro_Romano. JackkBrown ( talk) 21:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish. I noticed that I had a dispute some time ago with one of the candidates that is running for Arbitration. Could you check it and tell me your objective opinion about it? The context without the candidate is Talk:Discord#Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022. The dispute starts with Pending changes reviewer#Thinker78. It continues with User talk:ToBeFree#Regarding your accusations and concerns against me. It's a long read so I understand if you decline. But if you take it, I can take both the positive and the negative. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I put Innamorati and Vecchio in italics. I was thinking of putting it for il Capitano, il Dottore and la Signora as well, but they are non-secondary characters. What do you think? Did I do a good job? (I wasn't able to put the "it" lang inside the commedia dell'arte page, if you can pop in I thank you). JackkBrown ( talk) 17:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
''innamorati''
when what is needed is {{
lang|it|innamorati}}
, and I've told you that at least four times. What you are doing is not really helping, it is just creating more work for someone else to do later in cleaning up after you. The specific characters like Il Capitano should not be italicized, since they are proper names, like names of people and places, but they arguably should get {{
lang|it|italic=unset|Il Capitano}}
so they are properly pronounced by screen readers. The
commedia dell'arte article already has language markup (except around such proper names). I've done cleanup passes at both
Innamorati and
Vecchio, but I can't keep doing this. Please study the cleanup I do after you, so should already know what to do and just do it yourself the first time. :-) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang}}
template was created years after Wikipedia came into existence (with basic italics alreay built in), the template didn't auto-apply italics until several years later, and the Manual of Style didn't say to use the template until maybe two years ago; and b) editors are lazy, especially about applying markup templates to old articles that visually look okay to sighted readers. The average editor here is clueless about
accessibility and about metadata like language information. Innamorati and vecchio belong in {{
lang|it}}
markup, which applies the italics. Proper names like Il Dottore need {{
lang|it|italic=unset|Il Dottore}}
markup (or the new shorthand markup {{
langr|it|Il Dottore}}
(note langr for "lang roman") – I'd forgotten about that until a moment ago, but just applied it to proper names in the
Innamorati and
Vecchio articles) so they are not italicized but have the language information to be pronounced properly by
screen readers. We don't italicize proper names (of persons, of places, of companies, or of fictional characters in this case). But general classes of
stock characters like innamorati and vecchio are not proper names; they are common nouns by defintion, and should not be capitalized. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)How do I go back to all the changes where I have put the template "Portal"? I cannot manually check all my changes. JackkBrown ( talk) 14:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
What rules do you have? "Southern Italy" or "southern Italy"? If you want, you can take a look at the article Southern Italy. I capitalized "Southern Italy", but I didn't do it all over the art. Unfortunately I don't have any more time and yes, I should have not changed anything, but now there is no point in undoing my changes JackkBrown ( talk) 20:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.If most reliable sources (in English) treat "Southern Italy" as a proper name of a defined region with its own character, like Southern United States, and Northern England, and Eastern Region, Nigeria, and South China, then Wikipedia would also capitalize it. If it's simply a descriptive term of a vaguely defined geographical region like "southern Mexico" or "south-eastern Scotland" or "eastern Australia" (but contrast Western Australia), which are usually things we don't have an article about, then they would not be captalized since most sources in English don't capitalize them. We do have an article at Southern Italy. Whether that term should be capitalized is a question to pose at Talk:Southern Italy and will be a matter of source research; it's not something you should be unilaterally changing on your own. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:Essays about Wikipedian fallacies has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason ( talk) 20:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Should take this to AFD. Your reason is convincing enough. The creator is treating an encyclopedia as their personal blog. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 07:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For all your help (especially with regard to cursive) and patience. JackkBrown ( talk) 15:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Sommer Ray on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 30 November 2023 (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 200 | ← | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 |
Hello SMcCandlish, the arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
BTW, I didn't mean to trigger that regurgitating debate over at WT:VER. Sorry 'bout that.
On a brighter note...
I've started a revamp of Wikipedia:Tools/Optimum tool set.
Please take a look and let me know if there are any essential techniques or must have tools that you think should be included.
Thank you.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 06:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
While researching tools for the optimum set, I went looking at the contributions of the editors at the top of the
WP:NOE list. I've come to the conclusion, based on the average small delay time between so many of their edits, that they are likely running their user accounts as bots. It's so obvious it looks like an open secret. I can't imagine them sitting there hitting the enter key over and over, hour after hour, day after day, year after year. That would be absolutely mind-numbing, reducing them to zombies, if not meat-bots. It is almost as if they have been awarded the bot flag (though using a paper clamp on the return key hypothetically may have the same effect
). —
The Transhumanist
23:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
"Changes to policy pages are expect to get consensus first, and can be reverted at will when they don't."
"BRD has already been invoked."
"And edit summaries are not the place for detailed rationales, that's what the talk page is for."
- Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 22:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm going cover a lot of actually pretty crucial points, so this will be fairly detailed. The fact of the matter is, per WP:EDITING policy, every user is alrealdy empowered to revert something they don't believe is an improvement (or to make any other good-faith edit they want to, aside from a handful of rare exceptions, like reverting what ArbCom is doing in ArbCom's own pages, or changing the substantive meaning of a WP:OFFICE-action policy that was forced on the community by WMF, or injecting copyright infringements or libel, or adding potentially controversial claims to a BLP without a source – I think we all understand what the exceptions are). Reverting reflexively and without a clear rationale – which is demonstrably not what I did – is loosely discouraged (e.g. here and here) but is not against policy. So even if Butwhatdoiknow thought that's what was happening, it was not sensible grounds for a counter-revert; that was just the beginning of a pointless editwar.
Next, WP:BRD establishes a consensus-accepted procedure whereby if someone disagrees with someone's bold edit [1], they may revert it at will, and what was reverted [2] should not be restored [3] without a discussion concluding in favor of the change/addition. While the BRD page is categorized as an essay for some reason, it has overwhelming community buy-in and is treated in practice as if it had the force of policy; I've even seen people blocked or topic-banned for exhibiting a pattern of failing to abide by it (the underlying true policy reason for such restrictions is WP:DE: they were being disruptive by not participating in the process the community has established).
Next, from WP:P&G, which seems to be a policy Butwhatdoiknow only skimmed and did not read in detail: "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy status" Note that it does not say "Proposals for new guideline and policy stand-alone pages". Adding a rule at WP:NOT to prohibit an entire class of userspace content is absolutely a proposal for a new policy, and quite a sweeping one, whether that was the actual intent or not and desite that the change only injected one word; changes that small can often have sweeping policy effects (in real-world laws, too, not just on WP). And various policies and guidelines have been split and merged over time; whether an item of P&G material exists as a stand-alone page or as sectional content is completely irrelevant to its nature as policy material. So, anyone could and arguably should revert such a change until consensus is established that it is a good idea.
More narrowly pertinent to this new change at WP:NOT is probably this: "because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion. ... the purpose of policies and guidelines is to state what most Wikipedians agree upon, and should be phrased to reflect the present consensus on a subject". The inserter of the "profiles" language clearly did not do any of this, and was attempting to address only the convenience of two wikiprojects; not only was no input sought to see whether such a change was reflecting the community's consensus view, at least two of us have pointed out how that change accidentally introduced a new source of error or confusion.
But there's more: "Talk first. Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to a policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections or if the discussion shows there is consensus for the change." Talking first did not happen, and there already are objections. "Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate." This didn't happen, either, yet a change that probably affects every detailed "User:Foo" page on the system is unmistakably a "major change".
Butwhatdoiknow is under the mistaken impression that all they have to do is skim edit summaries to figure out what is going on. This editor did not bother looking at the talk page, and objected to my revert on the false basis that it wasn't explained. Not only is there no actual requirement to explain it in the first place (just a recommendation: "you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page"), it was in fact explained in the edit summary, obviously referring to a talk page discussion that was already open, in which an even more detailed rationale was provided. The two editors who appear to be in favor of this "profile" change (who have so far not engaged in any way on the talk page or otherwise) also need to review this in the P&G policy: "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system". When they added a shortcut referring to the change they wanted to make [4], they were transgressing that, because discussion was already open about whether to make such a change at all, and it so far is not in favor, with zero concerns about it addressed by the proponents.
Butwhatdoiknow's edit-warry and kneejerk counter-revert's edit summary verged on senseless: "'multiple editors have concerns' - Are you one of them? If so, what is your concern? Or, if you are reverting for others, where have they expressed their concerns?" It is utterly immaterial who raised the concern; the fact that there is dispute about it in evidence on the talk page (or in edit summaries for that matter) is entirely sufficient for anyone to revert a change as something that is being disputed. Happens every single day. Once a change has been challenged, the burden of proof of consensus lies on the shoulders of the proponent(s) of the change; that applies to project pages just as much as in mainspace, and especially at policy pages. When someone says that concerns have already been raised, the utterly obvious thing to do is take a few seconds to look for them on the talk page. It's why we have talk pages in the first place ("The purpose of a [page]'s talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated [page]".
Finally, Butwhatdoiknow hasn't expressed any rationale or even just opinion in favor of the change in question, but is just going around counter-reverting people on the faulty basis of not being satisfied with their revert edit summaries and seeming to also cast vague aspersions about their motives. If there is any kind of revert that is not constructive and should never happen, this is that kind. It is not anyone's job to go around "policing" other people's reverts and edit summaries out of a subjective personal sense of whether they are adequate or not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Here's a thread (about a slightly disturbing essay) you might find interesting:
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 00:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
One of the most interesting (if not scary) phenomena that has occurred with the introduction of LLM chatbots, is that of emergent abilities.
Here's a link: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-unpredictable-abilities-emerging-from-large-ai-models-20230316/
The bigger the training data sets, the more abilities that seem to come out of the blue. The latest chatbots can do things that nobody expected, not even the developers.
And because of the huge surge in the popularity of chatbots, tech companies are scrambling to enhance them further, including combining them with other forms of AI, such as reasoning engines, to produce chatbot hybrids.
That opens the emergent ability issue into even more unknown territory. What will these things be able to do next that neither we nor the developers expected?
The class of generative AI that I find most interesting is iterative. They write their own prompts based on a project you've assigned them, and they keep going until the job is done. One of those is AutoGPT. But, something happened that should give us pause. Using a model based on AutoGPT called ChaosGPT, some idiot told it to destroy the human race, and it started working on it. Fortunately, it did not succeed. Perhaps that guy never heard the old adage "Be careful what you wish for".
Grasping at metaphors I'm thinking how gun control applies here. You wouldn't want to hand out machine guns to everybody. But future AIs may be more like the Big Red Button. If everybody had the ability to launch nukes, somebody probably would. Well, the same principle might apply to AIs which may be more capable than we assume they are, and somebody repeats the request of that guy mentioned above.
So, one thing the future is likely to be, is interesting.
—
The Transhumanist
00:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The weird thing about chatbots used in third-party apps, as that the third-parties can't reprogram them. Instead, they prep them with instructions (called preprompts or system prompts) that the chatbots receive before the users get a crack at it. However, from time to time, clever users somehow coax the chatbots into sharing what their system prompts are. So, the developers can influence their chatbots' behavior, but they don't have full control. I don't know whether to be relieved, or alarmed.
Here's an article that provides a look at the configuration instructions the major chatbats were running on last Spring. How much they have changed since then, I know a little about for perplexity, just by its behavior since then. It is no longer limited to 80-word responses, and I got around that most of the time, anyways. The tricky part is that ChatGPT uses its LLM to follow perplexity's system prompts, so the training data is engaged and can be accessed as an epiphenomenon (such as talking in the style of John Wayne - the chatbot doesn't get "Howdy, pardner" from the search results.). But, it is not easy to tap into the training data for answers, and specific methods are disabled as soon as the developers discover them. And, keep in mind that your discussions on the Web, such as this one, will probably be included in the next version's training data set.
It does provide some insight into how these things work.
I hope you find it interesting. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 23:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Found an article that explains tech bubbles pretty well:
Enjoy, — The Transhumanist 00:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
please explain to me why the image of Momo on the Turkish Van page isn't "encyclopedia quality" when there are several other images on there that are just as unprofessional 132.205.229.24 ( talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Western Sahara on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
(FYI: inaccessible news articles are often archived, and become accessible, on the Wayback Machine soon after they are published, sometimes even on the same day).
Here's an article I came across explaining Wikipedia's role and impact on AI, and the ongoing relationship between the two into the future:
Archived article, from the New York Times...
What the article is referring to is article-like formatted AI chatbot search engine responses. To see one for yourself, pick a general topic, and type this into perplexity.ai: "Please write at least 3000 words on *topic*, with multiple headings and bullet points." (Replace *topic* with the topic you chose).
What's going to happen regarding this is dependent in part on whether WP is more passive vs more active in this development space. — The Transhumanist 16:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
@ The Transhumanist: You might be in'erested in: Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#AI-generated images. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Well it's idiomatic if you start writing "In IPA" then change it to "In the
International Phonetic Alphabet" and then decide to generalise it by replacing International Phonetic Alphabet
with Phonetics
and fail to notice the residual the
. That's how language evolves
.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
IA = "Internet Archive"
I'm planning on including the IA in the WP:OTS.
And there's a pair of bookmarklets that make use of the IA easy.
But, before putting those in there, I need to make sure the instructions are clear and easy to follow, for users who have never placed bookmarklets on their browser's bookmark toolbar.
javascript:void(window.open('
https://web.archive.org/save/'+location.href));
javascript:location.href='
https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href
So, if you wouldn't mind, try dragging each of the above bookmarklets to your bookmarks toolbar. To keep things standardized, use the title "Archiv" for the first one, and "Wybck" for the second.
Now they should be available to click on from any webpage. Click on each one while on a news page, to test them. The first bookmark saves the current page you are on. The second bookmark jumps you to the IA's archived copies of the current page.
Were my instructions easy to follow, and did they work?
I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 22:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
<
nowiki>
so that MediaWiki doesn't interpret the URL strings in the javascript lines as URLs to parse and make clickable/draggable and show link icons for: javascript:location.href='https://web.archive.org/web/*/'+location.href
I've just added a red link to Open letter#Problems. Do you know of an article that can be redirected to? I want something close to the subject (explained briefly, and full text in ProQuest if you need it), not just a "kids these days" like Snowflake (slang) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
So I stumble upon thy page, and I definitely see some sort of hybrid RDJ/Rachel Maddow/Colin Farrell genetic swirl.
But I was actually getting some Gary Oldman vibes too. Plus a tinge of Robert Carlyle. Do you just go around, plucking celebrity DNA samples, and refueling every now and then? Brilliant. I should go collect some Tom Hardy.... -- Cinemaniac86 Talk Stalk 20:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, please check the documentation at {{ Use dmy dates}}. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 01:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and fixed any found.Note "and" not "or". You didn't "fix any found", not then [8], and not in an earlier pass last month [9]. All you're doing is making a pointless change for no reason. If no date-fixing work has been done, the date in the template should be left as-is, since it indicates the last time that the page was changed to have a consistent date format. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
|date=
value, I don't see how that would be possible, since I don't think a bot could be smart enough to find and check all possible date formats in an article. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
07:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Invasion of Poland on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Otzma Yehudit on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
As you rightly said, "This and the other ones added into the discussion are Italians phrases, not English ones. They may appear in some English-language works about cheeses and products/commerce, but they are not widely-assimilated loan-phrases in English (like "cul-de-sac" from French is). Being Italian, they should be italicized (actually should be in {{
lang|it}}
, which takes care of the italicizing as well as the language markup), and should follow the case convention of Italian, which is not to capitalize adjectives derived from proper nouns. There's nothing unusual or special about this case; it is entirely routine." (precisely what I wrote, but you explained it much better, as well as summarised it very well), the page should be renamed without further discussion. Do you want to apply for renaming? They won't listen to me.
JackkBrown (
talk)
18:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, should the terms Epinetron, Megaron, Andron, Gynaeceum, Symposium, Antahpura, Pyxis, Epinetron, Harpastum, Episkyros, Trigon and Calcio storico fiorentino be put in italics? If I have made any mistakes or forgotten anything on these pages could you kindly correct or add? I am always at a loss when it comes to italics. JackkBrown ( talk) 03:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang}}
markup, not just bare italics), per
MOS:FOREIGN, because they are not everyday terms in English at all, with one exception.
Symposium is that case; while it's about the ancient Greek subject, a topic virtually unknown to English-language users, not what the word "symposium" means in English as an assimilated loanword (
academic conference), "symposium" even in this original sense is an anglicization, of συμπόσιον symposion, which should be italicized in {{
lang}}
, along with symposio and sympínein in that article. The "symposium" case is like "legion" even
in the ancient Roman context. We use this word in reference to the Roman military unit (and later things inspired by it), but it is also an anglicization, of Latin legio. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
04:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|grc-Latn}}
to italicize thrysus, thiasus, rhyton, psykter, pteron, peripteros, cella, peristasis, and kylix (unless any of them are significantly altered anglicizations like Greek "symposion" → English "symposium". Krater is a maybe; it's fairly commonly known to English-speakers (certainly much more so than kylix), but arguably is still a non-English term. Abacus in this particular sense is another maybe; in reference to the counting device, it has become an English word, but in reference to the architectural feature arguably not. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|grc-Latn}}
markup around "krater" would be more consistent with treatment of other ancient Greek terms, albeit ones with even less usage in English. But if someone reverted with a claim that it was used enough in English to not be italicized, I wouldn't get in an argument with them about it. (But I would be more inclined to argue if they wanted to de-italicize at
Pyxis (vessel), a term with nearly no use in English outside of specialist literature.) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
00:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
" Ragù" and " panettone" are common words in English? I would never have guessed that! Update: sorry to come back to the subject of "italics". JackkBrown ( talk) 22:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang}}
template to italicize it, unless it is one of the ultra-rare foreignisms that has been assimilated into English with a diacritic (the only ones I can think of right off-hand are façade and naïve, and even the latter is often spelled naive in English). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Hi, sorry to bother you again. Do the words " shtetl" " mitzvah", " tzedakah", "prost", " yeshiva", " qahal", "kahal", " miasteczko" and " Kehilla" go in italics? It takes me too long to work out which ones to put in italics and which ones not. Unfortunately, if I notice a page that should be italicised, I am left with the thought and have to sort it out, but I don't go looking for them. JackkBrown ( talk) 17:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
''...''
italics is not particularly useful; I've said several times (as does
MOS:FOREIGN itself) that this should be done with the {{
lang}}
template. I just overhauled
Shtetl in this regard. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
21:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I had already found " sunnah" (the first line) in italics. Why isn't " hadith" italicised, whereas I had already found "sunnah" (the First line) italicised before I arrived? Also, shouldn't "sunnah" be capitalised? JackkBrown ( talk) 22:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|ar-Latn}}
applied to a whole bunch of stuff in it, including bare-italicized instances of sunnah and non-italicized instances of "sunnah", and various other italicized and non-italicized Arabic terms. In an article like that, hadith should also be italicized for consistency with the rest of such terms, even if in some other articles it is not (on the very questionable assertion that it is English-assimilated). At any rate, your urge to de-italicize something in the lead because it is not italicized in the rest of the article is a mistake. If the term is not assimilated English, it should be italicized (actually in {{
lang}}
markup), from the lead on down. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang|ar-Latn|sunnah}}
(and use {{
lang|ar}}
around any actual examples of Arabic script, though watch out for Farsi, Urdu, and other languages that use the same or related script; not every single term and name pertaining to Islam is in Arabic). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
23:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)I edited the passage "Muezza" in Islam and cats. You removed it and archived it in the page history. I think you should re-add it or remove it altogether.
The phrasing of the passage is misleading. It should be emphasized that the story has no relation to Muhammad. It is a source of misinformation and many people quote this passage online without providing the entire context, especially since what should be at the top of the passage is written shortly in the last two lines. I mean the fact that the story of Muezza has no mention in hadith, the second-most reliable source of stories regarding Muhammad, and where most stories of Muhammad are narrated.
I think that the reason many Muslims believe in it, is writing such as this one.
You said, "In particular, you cannot go around changing material cited to particular sources to say the opposite of what it did originally and thus contradict the sources cited for it." Yes, I am a beginner, but I felt that there was no need to cite anything other than what had already been cited. I did not add anything new. I just rephrased it. I did not write anything that contradicted the sources cited for the story. The last two references, reference 7 and 8, agree with my change in material. Reference 5 does not claim the story as fact but rather a "legend", which is in line with what I had written, and it can be used as a citation for the story itself. Reference 6 simply relates the story, mentioning "tales" and "stories" as the basis of the story, without mentioning where these stories were taken from. This citation should also only be used for the story itself. In my edit of the passage, I did not remove any citations.
Again, I feel that no additional citations need be made, but simply a rephrasing of the passage to add emphasis on parts that are factual, while still giving an account of the legend of Muezza. However, it is currently the other way around.
My request is for you to allow me to rephrase the passage or for you to remove it altogether. Aesaibn ( talk) 12:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, the link to the tool on your userpage is dead. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:A57D:3366:1B62:B12C ( talk) 22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Good evening. Since you are a mover there is not much point in me asking the help page to rename the pages; I would like to ask you, kindly, if you could rename the pages " Siana Cup" and " Lip Cup" to "Siana cup" and "Lip cup"; there is no discussion of this, as in "pecorino sardo", so there is no problem in changing these titles. Thank you very much in advance for your availability. JackkBrown ( talk) 22:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
when posting on the editor's own talk page. They are automatically notified that you post there and the ping just creates a duplicate notification. Ping is for when you are trying to draw someone's attention to a page outside their own user-space. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
What's your sense about the state of the ISBN RFC? WP:VPP is approaching a million bytes in size. There are 165 comments in that RFC, and while it's by no means the biggest discussion on the page, if you expect it to get much more attention, perhaps we should move it to a subpage. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Morning!! Wanted to see if you’d be able to assist with a possible issue on the following page - Balderdash.
The Review section provides a URL to an active Wiki page but no addtl info or context is provided. It directs to a live Wiki page but doesn't contain anything related to the original article. Also seemed odd the text/URL are formatted like a reference source.
However the corresponding reference directs to an archived page with an actual review of the product. The media source also match with the aforementioned Wiki page.
The user who added this this appears to be credible. Maybe the review section was just a paste mistake? In any case it still feels like a single review from an unfamiliar source doesn’t fit the standard for article reviews.
Given the sources legitimacy I wasn’t sure what the appropriate action was, figured I’d see if someone with more experience could clarify.
I was initially going to post in the articles talk page but haven’t had much luck getting feedback on pages with limited traffic. Herenow44 ( talk) 17:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
So first: I wanted to write you about my editing and share some additional thoughts with you and after at least an hour of intensive reading all of your page, I still not have a plan where to write you legitimate but what I, at least, thought that I understood is that it is ok to write you at all so I sincerely apologize if this the wrong place sorry🙂❤️
Second: I love reading wikipedia articles and sometimes I love editing, thats my main motivation so if some editing from me isn't good enough for wikipedia standarts it is absolutely ok for me, so don't worry my editing on the Axiom page is dead I won't consider further fighting for my edits my thoughts sharing with you on your talk page are the very last breath I do don't worry 🙂❤️ What I also want to say real quick is that I am german so Im not a native english speaker and, sure, in a grammatical/ortographical view I don't have a 100% native level but I see editing in english as an aditionall competition, so this, maybe viewed as this is not ok, as for english editing, you need a native level (what is for sure propably a basic claim and Im really arrogant breaking that), please believe me that I don't have vandalist intentions at all that is what I can say with all of my heart🙂 Regarding valid sources, I studied the wikipedia standarts a bit, but until know I feel to dumb to understand all of this😢 so sure, maybe cause of this I am simply to dumb for wikipedia, well, it is not the nicest thought but maybe its true but what I can at least say regarding this is that in the last time I try to make an edit for wikipedia maybe once all three months so it isn't that much Work for other users to delete my editings😁❤️ so this long message to you, I also just write because I read on your page that it is ok writing to you (if it is not ok writing to you or at the wrong place I apologize, sorry 🙂❤️ regardless of this, this edit really will be my very last breath regarding all of this after finished this message to you I am done with all of this). Regarding the talk page, Ive done this in past regarding a pharmalogical theme, meaning discussing a try for an edit with other users before posting and from this I got the notion that this is ok but, well, if it isn't I won't make this again.
Third: You see, I explained my lacking knowledge of detecting reliable sources, for sure, I should improve that real quick or not editing, in this regard I, again, want to say that I make maybe one edit in three months and keep quite when deleted. However, what I wanted to say at last is, like I said before, I love reading wikipedia articles. That is the major point for my love of Wikipedia😁✌️ Rarely, I want to edit for myself but really, at least in the last time, maybe once in three months, however, the last I want to say that when reading articles I sometimes get the notion that, for example, for scientific themes, the harder and more advanced they get, the more one individual sentence will extend, regarding its source, to provide logical, well, I think the right word is cohaerance or consistence. An other example is to make an explicit statement in a antifascist/ethical view to provide wikipedia standarts in this regard. Now see, I don't think Im the next Einstein, Im highly schizophrenic but Im not that level of insane 😁✌️❤️ but to come to an end with this message, regarding my edit, see, I really often think, as a german with an antifascist soul, about the third reich and after a long time of thinking I came to that theory that this is a theme where it is somehow, like I felt, relatively easy to generate a statement in ones mind which is true when generating with empathic context so for example:
"Hitler was god for the german economy and he was a good artist"- is complete bullshit
But: "If I had a time machine, I would encourage the young homeless hitler to stay with his feets in art, improve, making a stable income with that, as regarding this time before his dictatorship or first violent actions in this intend, you can really say he is really skilled in art with all this said in a time machine context to safe his pour soul" which both statements are a bit similar but just the second is OK, because performed with empathy.
So what I learned regarding this theme, that, even really extreme simplified arguments like "Every in the shoah killed jew should deserve heaven in any religion" are ok to say because its in an empathic context.
So with this in mind, I came to the axiom theme with: A first statement is easy to generate as If performed with proper empathy it is somehow nearly forced to be true, so you have a more inclusive opportunity creating a first statement. My second thought of more inclusivity was formed by the notion that further reasoning ending in new statements ultimately, are a core point of axioms, and, because this theme is not highly mathematical, it is much much more easier to generate a second sentence, based on the first statement, which if it also fits honest empathy is true and serves as a second statement.
The core point I wanted to make is for normal people like me it is nearly impossible to generate statements in mind which work with the needs of an axiomata properly and it is even more impossible to generate a second statement for further reasoning if you are not highly educated but with this aproach maybe it is.
So to come to an end, please note that Im left and a antifascist by all of my heart!!! So maybe all this stuff can contain extreme formal mistakes but the ABSOLUTE last thing I wanted to communicate are any populistic thoughts.
So now Im done and like I said this is my ultimately last edit/message regarding all of this, so, have a great day, bye🙂🙂❤️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Materie34 ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | |
my story today |
---|
Thank you for improving article quality in November! - Vacation pictures offered if you click on songs, and my story today is a DYK hook from 13 years ago OTD: about the great music at one of my churches. Mozart's Requiem to come on Sunday, coupled with Arvo Pärt's Da pacem Domine, - I guess you might come if it was a bit closer. Perhaps watch the video of our last production, our first on yt, ever. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
For teaching me something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
Btw, in your example, is there any reason not to do it |ref=Grant (2020) and <ref>[[#Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
(without piping)? Since at least atm there is only one Grant.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
09:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|ref=Grant 2022
and <ref>[[#Grant 2022|Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
if there were two grant sources to distinguish. Or |ref=Grant (2022)
and <ref>[[#Grant (2022)|Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
if you wanted to be longwinded about it. If you were confident that there would only ever be one Grant source then |ref=Grant
and <ref>[[#Grant|Grant (2022)]], p. 234.</ref>
would be more minimal. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
20:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Was I right to use the "Plainlist" template on this page? JackkBrown ( talk) 22:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
Unbulleted list}}
is an alternative with a different syntax. {{
Flatlist}}
or {{
Hlist}}
would also work, but {{
Plainlist}}
(or {{
Unbulleted list}}
) is arguably better here, because of the length of one of the names (both names would be unlikely to fit on one line in the infobox, and might wrap awkwardly). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)CSS for an unordered list supports arbitrary bullet symbols, but our modules don't propagate it (oops). But it seems like the ordered list can be given a non-counter character to get that effect. Similar result, but cleaner wiki source.
![]()
|
![]() |
Though to be honest, you look most like a guy I went to college with than any of those other people:) DMacks ( talk) 08:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
<ol>...</ol>
is arguably semantically wrong for this, but the corresponding <ul>...</ul>
template doesn't support |list_style_type=
for some reason (despite being an invocation of the same list module). I filed a bug report about it at
Template talk:Bulleted list#Style problem. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
09:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Bob Stewart (politician) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, in the "Controversies" paragraph of the " Songkran (Thailand)" page, within the quote the dash seems wrong to me. What do you think is wrong? Also I would like, to not send too many notifications, to ask you how I can trace back all the pages I have edited, for example I have made about 30,100 edits, but I will have edited no more than 15,000 pages; I would like to trace back the number of pages, not the number of edits. Thank you very much in advance. JackkBrown ( talk) 17:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
A help desk user said that bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah are common words in English and should not be written in italics, but since these terms have been in italics for a really long time, I would leave them that way. What do you think? JackkBrown ( talk) 12:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Re this edit, it is no longer necessary. See these instructions on the syntax highlighter page. They have changed my life for the better. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
<br />
in actual articles because it is properly parsed by more parsers. The trick at the doc you linked to will hide every instance of <br>
, regardless of namespace, and I don't know enough JS tricks to limit it to particular (talk) namespaces. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
05:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Hi SMcCandlish. You might already see it as it appears you have the talk page watchlisted, but I'd really appreciate your input at WT:ACCESS#Editor trying to mass-scale make captions screen reader-only. Not sure what to make of editors wanting to hide captions merely because they're redundant to sighted readers three years after they became a requirement for all tables so I really want other editors' input, and I value yours. Thanks. Ss 112 05:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
sronly}}
markup has no implications for accessibilty at all, by design). I have no reason to write a bunch of paragraphs in response to you in an RfC as long as you don't keep prevaricating about what is actually under discussion, which is hiding from non-screen-reader users the table captions that are redundant with table headers, not hiding every single table caption, which is an idea no one ever raised anywhere, much less enacted; it came directly out of your imagination, yet you keep insisting on trying to make everyone think that is the topic of discussion, an
appeal to fear tactic. It's one of the most inexplicable things I've seen on WP in months. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
aria-description
(I honestly don't know whether that can serve a nav-target function). I'm not an accessibility-for-the-blind expert, and my concerns in the matter have mostly been about the possibility of reducing redundant text for the majority of our readers, as long as it is without doing any accessibility harm. Oh, and I did not mean at all to imply that adding missing table captions would be MEATBOT; if it's required by the guideline and is a genuine accessibility help then it can't qualify as "cosmetic". Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I meant only that changing existing captions to have {{
sronly}}
, in a really mass-scale and robotic fashion, without doing anything more reader-experience-constructive, might raise MEATBOT concerns, even if it's technically not cosmetic because is produces a visual change in the output. That is to say, I'm not opposing such changes happening (if we come to a consensus that hiding the redundant ones is good); I'm just warning that there may be negative reactions to it if it's done a zillion times a day with something like
WP:AWB, especially if someone doing it is incautious and ends up hiding captions that are informative for everyone and are not redundant cases. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
08:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
{{sronly}}
'ing redundant table captions was "permissible" without it being an actual recommendation in MoS, then the reaction would be more likely to be along "WTF is all this MEATBOT stuff?" lines. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
08:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is the term " forum" not capitalised here and in the French language Wikipedia? I quote a sentence from the Italian language Wikipedia page: "Il Foro Romano (in latino Forum Romanum, sebbene i Romani si riferissero ad esso più spesso come Forum Magnum o semplicemente Forum) è..."; https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foro_Romano. JackkBrown ( talk) 21:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish. I noticed that I had a dispute some time ago with one of the candidates that is running for Arbitration. Could you check it and tell me your objective opinion about it? The context without the candidate is Talk:Discord#Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022. The dispute starts with Pending changes reviewer#Thinker78. It continues with User talk:ToBeFree#Regarding your accusations and concerns against me. It's a long read so I understand if you decline. But if you take it, I can take both the positive and the negative. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I put Innamorati and Vecchio in italics. I was thinking of putting it for il Capitano, il Dottore and la Signora as well, but they are non-secondary characters. What do you think? Did I do a good job? (I wasn't able to put the "it" lang inside the commedia dell'arte page, if you can pop in I thank you). JackkBrown ( talk) 17:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
''innamorati''
when what is needed is {{
lang|it|innamorati}}
, and I've told you that at least four times. What you are doing is not really helping, it is just creating more work for someone else to do later in cleaning up after you. The specific characters like Il Capitano should not be italicized, since they are proper names, like names of people and places, but they arguably should get {{
lang|it|italic=unset|Il Capitano}}
so they are properly pronounced by screen readers. The
commedia dell'arte article already has language markup (except around such proper names). I've done cleanup passes at both
Innamorati and
Vecchio, but I can't keep doing this. Please study the cleanup I do after you, so should already know what to do and just do it yourself the first time. :-) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
lang}}
template was created years after Wikipedia came into existence (with basic italics alreay built in), the template didn't auto-apply italics until several years later, and the Manual of Style didn't say to use the template until maybe two years ago; and b) editors are lazy, especially about applying markup templates to old articles that visually look okay to sighted readers. The average editor here is clueless about
accessibility and about metadata like language information. Innamorati and vecchio belong in {{
lang|it}}
markup, which applies the italics. Proper names like Il Dottore need {{
lang|it|italic=unset|Il Dottore}}
markup (or the new shorthand markup {{
langr|it|Il Dottore}}
(note langr for "lang roman") – I'd forgotten about that until a moment ago, but just applied it to proper names in the
Innamorati and
Vecchio articles) so they are not italicized but have the language information to be pronounced properly by
screen readers. We don't italicize proper names (of persons, of places, of companies, or of fictional characters in this case). But general classes of
stock characters like innamorati and vecchio are not proper names; they are common nouns by defintion, and should not be capitalized. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
22:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)How do I go back to all the changes where I have put the template "Portal"? I cannot manually check all my changes. JackkBrown ( talk) 14:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
What rules do you have? "Southern Italy" or "southern Italy"? If you want, you can take a look at the article Southern Italy. I capitalized "Southern Italy", but I didn't do it all over the art. Unfortunately I don't have any more time and yes, I should have not changed anything, but now there is no point in undoing my changes JackkBrown ( talk) 20:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.If most reliable sources (in English) treat "Southern Italy" as a proper name of a defined region with its own character, like Southern United States, and Northern England, and Eastern Region, Nigeria, and South China, then Wikipedia would also capitalize it. If it's simply a descriptive term of a vaguely defined geographical region like "southern Mexico" or "south-eastern Scotland" or "eastern Australia" (but contrast Western Australia), which are usually things we don't have an article about, then they would not be captalized since most sources in English don't capitalize them. We do have an article at Southern Italy. Whether that term should be capitalized is a question to pose at Talk:Southern Italy and will be a matter of source research; it's not something you should be unilaterally changing on your own. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:Essays about Wikipedian fallacies has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason ( talk) 20:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Should take this to AFD. Your reason is convincing enough. The creator is treating an encyclopedia as their personal blog. The Doom Patrol ( talk) 07:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For all your help (especially with regard to cursive) and patience. JackkBrown ( talk) 15:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Sommer Ray on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)