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 140 | ← | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | → | Archive 150 |
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia
Did you know?
Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.
— Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
You've been AWOL for some time now. Any reason you can't resume your duties here? E Eng 05:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ron Stallworth. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear SMcCandlish,
Things are moving forward very fast.
Due to your particular interest in the progress being made by the portals project, I have a special request for you...
I need to know if there are any major factors or tasks, or opportunities, that I have missed concerning the long-term viability of this project.
Please survey or scan as much of the project as you have time for, at your leisure, and give me your assessment.
Any and all ideas, observations, or questions are welcome.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 00:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome AmericanAir88
Give a hearty welcome to AmericanAir88, who has adopted working on portals as one of his main purposes on Wikipedia. So far, he has created the following portals:
Way to go!
Where's Evad?
Evad disappeared from Wikipedia on October 18.
He has been, and will continue to be, sorely missed.
Hopefully, he is okay, on a Caribbean cruise or something.
The conversion continues
Portals of the old design, are slowly but surely being converted to the new single-page design.
One factor that has slowed things down is that for many sections, the section header call and section contents call are integrated into a template and buried in a lua module, locking them in on each portal. They have been that way for years.
This means that these sections can't be directly edited like the other sections on the same portal. So, search/replaces affect all the sections except those. So, upgrading headers on these portals, for example, misses the integrated sections and inadvertently results in 2 different header colors.
Before we can continue with the upgrade of these portals, the headers and section contents calls need to be restored to each portal, so that those can be edited in concert with the other sections on the portal, and worked on independently of each other.
This is underway, with a solution implemented on about 1/4 of the affected portals so far. Around 300 of them. The remaining 900 should be done within a couple weeks or so.
Going wide...
We now have banner-shaped pictures included in the introduction sections of 180 portals. The rarity of such pictures has made it difficult to find suitably narrow images for display across the tops of portals.
We have a solution for this, courtesy of FR30799386...
Most pictures are not banner-shaped. But, you can still use them as banners. Here's how:
{{Portal image banner|File:Blueberries .jpg |maxheight=120px |overflow=Hidden }}
Using both maxheight=120px
and overflow=Hidden
produces this:
Project's status
There are now 4,140 portals, with more being created almost daily. Prior to this project's reboot, portals were created at about the rate of 80 per year. Since April of this year, we've created about 2,600 new portals, or 32.5 years' worth at the old rate.
Of those new portals, about 3/4 of them need links leading to them. Almost all of them are linked to from the category system, but they still need links in article see also sections, at the bottom of navigation templates, and on the main portals list at Portal:Contents/Portals.
Of the 1500 portals created before the reboot, about 300 have been completely converted to the new design so far. About 1100 more have been partially converted, with intros, image slideshows, and associated wikimedia sections getting the most attention.
Discussion has resumed on the portal guidelines.
Until next issue...
See ya round the portal system! — The Transhumanist 11:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
hi there! just came across your great user page. I have a few things of my own that I hope to work on. hope to be in touch, occasionally. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 18:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Mac - see Irish Bull Terrier - there’s a merge proposal you may be interested in. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 13:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello SMcCandlish,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your email earlier, that was much appreciated. I'll reply tomorrow as it's getting late here and I've been busy all evening. Cheers! — Amakuru ( talk) 23:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doria Ragland. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.
Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
) from me, exactly the kind you say you don't mind receiving (ArbCom requires this template to be delivered under particular conditions, which you met, and ArbCom is empowered by policy to issue such requirements). PS: There is no policy or guideline under which you can "ban" people from using the ping function, nor truly ban people from using your talk page. It's customary for people involved in a protracted dispute to honor each other's demands in that latter regard (it helps avoid things like an interaction ban) but we are not involved in such a dispute. You are one of a zillion editors I interact with and a few days from now I will not even remember your username. Just a fact. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI (no action required): WP:ANI#Beyond My Ken Kendall-K1 ( talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, your Arbcom nomination may have been a "joke" but I lost a lot of money when I had to buy pizzas for the 593 folks who voted for me, and you got more supporters than four of those Arbs who were elected. Funny old election system! The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I would still like to see one serious problem resolved, namely WP:ARBATC. It's not ArbCom's job as our judiciary to set limits on how our extremely distributed legislative branch (i.e, everyone) hashes out policy discussions; that's a separation-of-powers problem. I do not believe that if that case had gone to the current ArbCom that it would have imposed discretionary sanctions on AT and MOS discussions (and they limited it last year to a narrower scope than the original). But they're not willing to just shut those DS down. (I filed an ARCA asking them to.) I'll use those DS in the interim if I have to, but they really should just go away. DS were created for things like "your ethnicity/religion/political party/country versus mine" content disputes, not debate about WP:P&G writing and interpretation.
And they've been useless as applied to the MOS/AT scope. It took eight fucking years and something like 6 noticeboard drama festivals to eject the most disruptive MoS editor of all time, and even then it actually happened on the basis of the editor's overreaction to and pestering of admins (i.e., pissing off particular individuals with a Block Now button), not based on the substance of other editors' complaints about their behavior at policy pages. The ARBATC DS have principally been employed for nothing but hassling MoS regulars, by people who regularly verbally attack them without any repercussions at all. Virtually no admin will do anything about it, unless it's MoS regulars being accused; there's a thick knot of anti-MoS admins. (Who shouldn't be admins, since accepting that WP has policies and guidelines, and following them, and protecting them from disruption is part of the admin "job" description.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, SMcCandlish. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=S%C3%A9rgio_Moro&action=history
The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so could you please give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.144.250 ( talk) 02:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
😂 ("though "Bifid dog" doesn't make sense; that would mean a dog split in two"). Ooops - I forgot to put "nose" in that last sentence. I researched sources to see if we have enough to write a good article about that topic. So far, I've found this, this one which also verifies the Pachón Navarro as a breed, possibly this news article cited by UC Davis pg 19, this one of a collie pup, one about a Retriever and so it goes. I'm thinking we have the RS needed to create either Double-nosed dogs (common name) and in the lead or infobox use the scientific reference "bifid nose". The article can explain the anomaly, provide info about the sourced cases, debunk the myth of the "Andean tiger hound" and so on. (sidebar note: not to get too far off track, but I found this study which may be worth asking one of our med editors about adding to Cleft lip and cleft palate - just a thought.) Atsme ✍🏻 📧 21:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish,
Here are some very recent links on portals perspectives I thought you might be interested in reading...
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Are portals being made automatically with an automated system?
Cheers.
— The Transhumanist 00:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Starting at Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 33#Nice image of global genetic variation or above it, something has made it so that the entire archive is struck through. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
<font>
in a sig without a corresponding </font>
; b) mis-nested tags, e.g. an order like <strong><em>...</strong></em>
; or c) attempting to wrap block elements in an inline element (like putting a span, or an inline-only "effect" tag like <s>...</s>
, around something like multiple paragraphs, a block quotation, or a list. Each block element (each list item, etc.) has to individually have such markup inside it, to strike an entire complicated posted by a sockpuppet. Feel free to report more of these if you find them and can't work out what the fix is. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I had no idea that there was an RfC to remove the succession boxes. Had I of known about it, I would have voted to keep them. Succession boxes make Wikipedia easier to navigate. I have no idea who in their right mind would think that removing them is a good idea. Succession boxes need to be added back and I will not rest until I get exactly what I want. RugratsFan2003 ( talk) 03:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There are now 4,180 portals.
Will we break 5,000 by the end of the year?
I know we can. But, that is up to you!
( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}}
or
{{subst:bpsp}}
)
Happy Holidays
Hello everyone! Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice (if it's occurring in your area of the world), and thanks for your work in maintaining, improving, and expanding portals. Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Jingling along
The following portals have been created since the last issue:
Keep 'em coming!
By the way, the above list was generated using this Petscan query. It can be easily modified by changing the date. The data page (under the Output tab) also has options for receiving the data in CSV or tabbed format, which some operating systems automatically load into a spreadsheet program for ease of use, such as copying and pasting the desired column (like page names).
We'll keep it short this issue.
Expect a flood next time. Or the one after that.
Cheerio, — The Transhumanist 08:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish. It appears that someone is trying to impersonate you at Talk:Social Liberal Party (Brazil). There's been a lot of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE going on at that article, and it seems as this was a deliberate attempt to try and avoid detection. If I'm mistaken, then my apologies. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi SMcC, I have an odd MOS question and no idea where to go for the answers. I've run across a user who appears to be using emoticons as ref names, as per this diff. They show up in several other articles the user has edited, including Sadid-1. Is this a quirk of my browser (Amazon Silk, based on Android Chrome), or possibly the user's computer? I don't want to raise a stink with the user without knowing if it's actually an issue or not. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 03:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
name=
attribute, I suppose (at the software parsing level, I mean), but this obviously is not helpful for editors, or for readers who see it should they look in the page code. Even at the editorial level it makes it harder to cite the source (who actually knows how to generate such characters except on a cell phone or in an IM client?).
MOS:ICONS also applies to emoji, dingbats, etc.: don't use cutesy pictures for no encyclopedic reason. Also, the user's markup (at least in that diff) is wrong anyway; <ref name="whatever>
requires a closing quotation mark. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)I recently reported a user for breaking the 3RR. You took it upon yourself to attack me for reporting this rule violation, and to enthusiastically defend the rule breaker, even going so far as to invent some reasons why they might have broken the rules. My report was closed with not a single word of any kind having been directed at the rule breaker, but multiple insults and attacks launched against me. And then you added a final insult, by saying after the discussion had closed that "it's worth clarifying that I imply no actual wrongdoing on Bil's part". They broke the 3RR. There was unmistakable wrongdoing on their part.
So either you don't understand the 3RR, or you believe certain users are exempt from it. Which is it? 46.208.152.45 ( talk) 23:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, the gist of your complaint appears to be that Bil clearly violated 3RR and should have been punished for it. But we routinely grant an exemption to 3RR for reverting edits that clearly transgress our WP:P&G. I'm not sure how far the community en toto is willing to go to make such a concession when the P&G in question are MoS matters, since people can subjectively disagree over them, but my inclination is toward clemency, especially when the editwarring has already stopped. Per WP:BLOCK policy, blocks are issued as preventative measures, not punitive ones. Ergo, a 3RR report need not, and often does not, result in a block if the dispute has already become stale. Not also that hostile editwarring, while ignoring others' rationales for reverting you, is also editwarring and also sanctionable, even if you don't reach the 3RR point. You actually were lucky to not have received a boomerang block instead of or in addition to BilCat getting a 3RR block. Only one editor in that silly dustup over style trivia was being a WP:JERK, and it wasn't BilCat
Moving on, I don't agree with your hyperbolic characterization of what I posted there in the first place. "You took it upon yourself" is a nonsensical bit of argument to emotion. Every single thing that editors ever do on Wikipedia is something they took upon themselves, since none of us are here as our job, our patriotic duty, or our court-ordered sentence. We're all volunteers. Second, nothing I posted is an attack on you, in any way. I didn't mention you at all other than disagreeing with your MoS interpretation, and suggesting ways to stay out of trouble, such as not falsely calling people trolls. I forgot to mention not making false claims that they are attacking you, so I make that recommendation here and now: don't do it, or it will be treated as incivility that people can use as evidence against you. I'll repeat my advice to absorb the material at WP:HOTHEADS; it's very helpful. Next, I did not "enthusiastically defend" BilCat. I was initially (though incorrectly) critical, then corrected myself and noted that his MoS interpretation wasn't the wrong one I thought it was after. That's a self-correction not a defense, and I offered no defense of his editwarring at all.
In closing, I'm not going to re-read the entire thread to see whether there really were "multiple insults and attacks launched against [you]" but I recall none when I originally read it, and your entire tone strongly suggests that you interpret all disagreement with you as "insults and attacks", while you clearly actually engage in actual ones yourself
[3] (and see your own section heading here; exaggeratory and combative histrionics seem to be your continual modus operandi. I didn't have that impression when your 3RR report was first opened, but the more I look the more I see this impression confirmed. Continuing this vein is a
WP:CIR failure that will definitely eventually get you indefinitely blocked or community banned, as temperamentally unsuited to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. Which is why I keep pointing you to WP:HOTHEADS. See especially the section "You cannot argue Wikipedia into capitulation", which quite directly addresses this: Any time you get the feeling that you did not get "justice" because people turned against you simply due to your tone and attitude and stopped listening to the facts you're presenting, you are probably correct, and it's your own fault. It took me several years to really learn that, and it's why I wrote that essay – to save others, including you, the difficulty.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 140 | ← | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | → | Archive 150 |
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscription list on the English Wikipedia
Did you know?
Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.
— Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
You've been AWOL for some time now. Any reason you can't resume your duties here? E Eng 05:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ron Stallworth. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear SMcCandlish,
Things are moving forward very fast.
Due to your particular interest in the progress being made by the portals project, I have a special request for you...
I need to know if there are any major factors or tasks, or opportunities, that I have missed concerning the long-term viability of this project.
Please survey or scan as much of the project as you have time for, at your leisure, and give me your assessment.
Any and all ideas, observations, or questions are welcome.
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 00:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome AmericanAir88
Give a hearty welcome to AmericanAir88, who has adopted working on portals as one of his main purposes on Wikipedia. So far, he has created the following portals:
Way to go!
Where's Evad?
Evad disappeared from Wikipedia on October 18.
He has been, and will continue to be, sorely missed.
Hopefully, he is okay, on a Caribbean cruise or something.
The conversion continues
Portals of the old design, are slowly but surely being converted to the new single-page design.
One factor that has slowed things down is that for many sections, the section header call and section contents call are integrated into a template and buried in a lua module, locking them in on each portal. They have been that way for years.
This means that these sections can't be directly edited like the other sections on the same portal. So, search/replaces affect all the sections except those. So, upgrading headers on these portals, for example, misses the integrated sections and inadvertently results in 2 different header colors.
Before we can continue with the upgrade of these portals, the headers and section contents calls need to be restored to each portal, so that those can be edited in concert with the other sections on the portal, and worked on independently of each other.
This is underway, with a solution implemented on about 1/4 of the affected portals so far. Around 300 of them. The remaining 900 should be done within a couple weeks or so.
Going wide...
We now have banner-shaped pictures included in the introduction sections of 180 portals. The rarity of such pictures has made it difficult to find suitably narrow images for display across the tops of portals.
We have a solution for this, courtesy of FR30799386...
Most pictures are not banner-shaped. But, you can still use them as banners. Here's how:
{{Portal image banner|File:Blueberries .jpg |maxheight=120px |overflow=Hidden }}
Using both maxheight=120px
and overflow=Hidden
produces this:
Project's status
There are now 4,140 portals, with more being created almost daily. Prior to this project's reboot, portals were created at about the rate of 80 per year. Since April of this year, we've created about 2,600 new portals, or 32.5 years' worth at the old rate.
Of those new portals, about 3/4 of them need links leading to them. Almost all of them are linked to from the category system, but they still need links in article see also sections, at the bottom of navigation templates, and on the main portals list at Portal:Contents/Portals.
Of the 1500 portals created before the reboot, about 300 have been completely converted to the new design so far. About 1100 more have been partially converted, with intros, image slideshows, and associated wikimedia sections getting the most attention.
Discussion has resumed on the portal guidelines.
Until next issue...
See ya round the portal system! — The Transhumanist 11:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
hi there! just came across your great user page. I have a few things of my own that I hope to work on. hope to be in touch, occasionally. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 18:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Mac - see Irish Bull Terrier - there’s a merge proposal you may be interested in. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 13:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello SMcCandlish,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your email earlier, that was much appreciated. I'll reply tomorrow as it's getting late here and I've been busy all evening. Cheers! — Amakuru ( talk) 23:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doria Ragland. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.
Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
) from me, exactly the kind you say you don't mind receiving (ArbCom requires this template to be delivered under particular conditions, which you met, and ArbCom is empowered by policy to issue such requirements). PS: There is no policy or guideline under which you can "ban" people from using the ping function, nor truly ban people from using your talk page. It's customary for people involved in a protracted dispute to honor each other's demands in that latter regard (it helps avoid things like an interaction ban) but we are not involved in such a dispute. You are one of a zillion editors I interact with and a few days from now I will not even remember your username. Just a fact. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI (no action required): WP:ANI#Beyond My Ken Kendall-K1 ( talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, your Arbcom nomination may have been a "joke" but I lost a lot of money when I had to buy pizzas for the 593 folks who voted for me, and you got more supporters than four of those Arbs who were elected. Funny old election system! The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I would still like to see one serious problem resolved, namely WP:ARBATC. It's not ArbCom's job as our judiciary to set limits on how our extremely distributed legislative branch (i.e, everyone) hashes out policy discussions; that's a separation-of-powers problem. I do not believe that if that case had gone to the current ArbCom that it would have imposed discretionary sanctions on AT and MOS discussions (and they limited it last year to a narrower scope than the original). But they're not willing to just shut those DS down. (I filed an ARCA asking them to.) I'll use those DS in the interim if I have to, but they really should just go away. DS were created for things like "your ethnicity/religion/political party/country versus mine" content disputes, not debate about WP:P&G writing and interpretation.
And they've been useless as applied to the MOS/AT scope. It took eight fucking years and something like 6 noticeboard drama festivals to eject the most disruptive MoS editor of all time, and even then it actually happened on the basis of the editor's overreaction to and pestering of admins (i.e., pissing off particular individuals with a Block Now button), not based on the substance of other editors' complaints about their behavior at policy pages. The ARBATC DS have principally been employed for nothing but hassling MoS regulars, by people who regularly verbally attack them without any repercussions at all. Virtually no admin will do anything about it, unless it's MoS regulars being accused; there's a thick knot of anti-MoS admins. (Who shouldn't be admins, since accepting that WP has policies and guidelines, and following them, and protecting them from disruption is part of the admin "job" description.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, SMcCandlish. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=S%C3%A9rgio_Moro&action=history
The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so could you please give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.144.250 ( talk) 02:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
😂 ("though "Bifid dog" doesn't make sense; that would mean a dog split in two"). Ooops - I forgot to put "nose" in that last sentence. I researched sources to see if we have enough to write a good article about that topic. So far, I've found this, this one which also verifies the Pachón Navarro as a breed, possibly this news article cited by UC Davis pg 19, this one of a collie pup, one about a Retriever and so it goes. I'm thinking we have the RS needed to create either Double-nosed dogs (common name) and in the lead or infobox use the scientific reference "bifid nose". The article can explain the anomaly, provide info about the sourced cases, debunk the myth of the "Andean tiger hound" and so on. (sidebar note: not to get too far off track, but I found this study which may be worth asking one of our med editors about adding to Cleft lip and cleft palate - just a thought.) Atsme ✍🏻 📧 21:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish,
Here are some very recent links on portals perspectives I thought you might be interested in reading...
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Are portals being made automatically with an automated system?
Cheers.
— The Transhumanist 00:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Starting at Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 33#Nice image of global genetic variation or above it, something has made it so that the entire archive is struck through. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
<font>
in a sig without a corresponding </font>
; b) mis-nested tags, e.g. an order like <strong><em>...</strong></em>
; or c) attempting to wrap block elements in an inline element (like putting a span, or an inline-only "effect" tag like <s>...</s>
, around something like multiple paragraphs, a block quotation, or a list. Each block element (each list item, etc.) has to individually have such markup inside it, to strike an entire complicated posted by a sockpuppet. Feel free to report more of these if you find them and can't work out what the fix is. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I had no idea that there was an RfC to remove the succession boxes. Had I of known about it, I would have voted to keep them. Succession boxes make Wikipedia easier to navigate. I have no idea who in their right mind would think that removing them is a good idea. Succession boxes need to be added back and I will not rest until I get exactly what I want. RugratsFan2003 ( talk) 03:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There are now 4,180 portals.
Will we break 5,000 by the end of the year?
I know we can. But, that is up to you!
( New portals are created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}}
or
{{subst:bpsp}}
)
Happy Holidays
Hello everyone! Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice (if it's occurring in your area of the world), and thanks for your work in maintaining, improving, and expanding portals. Cheers, — The Transhumanist 06:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Jingling along
The following portals have been created since the last issue:
Keep 'em coming!
By the way, the above list was generated using this Petscan query. It can be easily modified by changing the date. The data page (under the Output tab) also has options for receiving the data in CSV or tabbed format, which some operating systems automatically load into a spreadsheet program for ease of use, such as copying and pasting the desired column (like page names).
We'll keep it short this issue.
Expect a flood next time. Or the one after that.
Cheerio, — The Transhumanist 08:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish. It appears that someone is trying to impersonate you at Talk:Social Liberal Party (Brazil). There's been a lot of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE going on at that article, and it seems as this was a deliberate attempt to try and avoid detection. If I'm mistaken, then my apologies. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi SMcC, I have an odd MOS question and no idea where to go for the answers. I've run across a user who appears to be using emoticons as ref names, as per this diff. They show up in several other articles the user has edited, including Sadid-1. Is this a quirk of my browser (Amazon Silk, based on Android Chrome), or possibly the user's computer? I don't want to raise a stink with the user without knowing if it's actually an issue or not. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 03:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
name=
attribute, I suppose (at the software parsing level, I mean), but this obviously is not helpful for editors, or for readers who see it should they look in the page code. Even at the editorial level it makes it harder to cite the source (who actually knows how to generate such characters except on a cell phone or in an IM client?).
MOS:ICONS also applies to emoji, dingbats, etc.: don't use cutesy pictures for no encyclopedic reason. Also, the user's markup (at least in that diff) is wrong anyway; <ref name="whatever>
requires a closing quotation mark. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 04:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)I recently reported a user for breaking the 3RR. You took it upon yourself to attack me for reporting this rule violation, and to enthusiastically defend the rule breaker, even going so far as to invent some reasons why they might have broken the rules. My report was closed with not a single word of any kind having been directed at the rule breaker, but multiple insults and attacks launched against me. And then you added a final insult, by saying after the discussion had closed that "it's worth clarifying that I imply no actual wrongdoing on Bil's part". They broke the 3RR. There was unmistakable wrongdoing on their part.
So either you don't understand the 3RR, or you believe certain users are exempt from it. Which is it? 46.208.152.45 ( talk) 23:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, the gist of your complaint appears to be that Bil clearly violated 3RR and should have been punished for it. But we routinely grant an exemption to 3RR for reverting edits that clearly transgress our WP:P&G. I'm not sure how far the community en toto is willing to go to make such a concession when the P&G in question are MoS matters, since people can subjectively disagree over them, but my inclination is toward clemency, especially when the editwarring has already stopped. Per WP:BLOCK policy, blocks are issued as preventative measures, not punitive ones. Ergo, a 3RR report need not, and often does not, result in a block if the dispute has already become stale. Not also that hostile editwarring, while ignoring others' rationales for reverting you, is also editwarring and also sanctionable, even if you don't reach the 3RR point. You actually were lucky to not have received a boomerang block instead of or in addition to BilCat getting a 3RR block. Only one editor in that silly dustup over style trivia was being a WP:JERK, and it wasn't BilCat
Moving on, I don't agree with your hyperbolic characterization of what I posted there in the first place. "You took it upon yourself" is a nonsensical bit of argument to emotion. Every single thing that editors ever do on Wikipedia is something they took upon themselves, since none of us are here as our job, our patriotic duty, or our court-ordered sentence. We're all volunteers. Second, nothing I posted is an attack on you, in any way. I didn't mention you at all other than disagreeing with your MoS interpretation, and suggesting ways to stay out of trouble, such as not falsely calling people trolls. I forgot to mention not making false claims that they are attacking you, so I make that recommendation here and now: don't do it, or it will be treated as incivility that people can use as evidence against you. I'll repeat my advice to absorb the material at WP:HOTHEADS; it's very helpful. Next, I did not "enthusiastically defend" BilCat. I was initially (though incorrectly) critical, then corrected myself and noted that his MoS interpretation wasn't the wrong one I thought it was after. That's a self-correction not a defense, and I offered no defense of his editwarring at all.
In closing, I'm not going to re-read the entire thread to see whether there really were "multiple insults and attacks launched against [you]" but I recall none when I originally read it, and your entire tone strongly suggests that you interpret all disagreement with you as "insults and attacks", while you clearly actually engage in actual ones yourself
[3] (and see your own section heading here; exaggeratory and combative histrionics seem to be your continual modus operandi. I didn't have that impression when your 3RR report was first opened, but the more I look the more I see this impression confirmed. Continuing this vein is a
WP:CIR failure that will definitely eventually get you indefinitely blocked or community banned, as temperamentally unsuited to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. Which is why I keep pointing you to WP:HOTHEADS. See especially the section "You cannot argue Wikipedia into capitulation", which quite directly addresses this: Any time you get the feeling that you did not get "justice" because people turned against you simply due to your tone and attitude and stopped listening to the facts you're presenting, you are probably correct, and it's your own fault. It took me several years to really learn that, and it's why I wrote that essay – to save others, including you, the difficulty.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)