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 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | → | Archive 165 |
Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs) here. Posting this logged out for obvious reasons (but doing so "publicly" rather than by email so as to dispel any impression that there's any "funny business" going on).
Background: I came across the email address of the author of one of the sources that was being quoted out of context, for a point that was peripheral to their main argument and so apparently came from Wikipedia. I briefly considered emailing them myself to ask if they could recall where they actually got the information (since their cited source says nothing of the sort), but then decided that emailing a scholar in a field related to my own with a message asking/insinuating "did you get this from Wikipedia?" was not a good idea. I then figured maybe explicitly placing the burden of doing that on the four parties still advocating for the apparently-circular citation to be restored might be a good idea; then, right before clicking "Publish changes", I realized that that could potentially open the door to "Yeah, I emailed him and he replied -- he said he would never dream of getting information from Wikipedia, and his copy of McCullough has linguistic footnotes that do support his text", and the only ways for me to disprove such a lie would be to (a) contact Taylor myself to ask if he had written such an email, which would be borderline harassment far worse than just emailing him in the first place, or (b) |prove that no such edition of McCullough exists.
Long story short, I'm asking you for a second opinion on posting the following at the bottom of Talk:Mottainai#"Genpei Jōsuiki".
- I didn't notice until now, but Taylor's staff profile at the University of Memphis gives an email address for him. {{ping|Martinthewriter|Francis Schonken|IvoryTower123|Challenger.rebecca}} Since you are all apparently still advocating for our citation of Taylor for content that was in this Wikipedia article seven years before he wrote the "source" in question, would you like to contact him and ask him where he got the information? I've already checked his cited source, which doesn't say anything about mottainashi one way or the other, leading to the most reasonable conclusion being that, because it was a peripheral point to the one he was making in his essay, he checked Wikipedia and then located the corresponding passage in a translation of the Heike, without verifying that the Japanese text supported our assertion. ~~~~
Any advice you could offer on the matter (even unrelated to posting the above -- if you were in my shoes would you just bite the bullet and email Taylor yourself?) would be most appreciated.
Cheers, 211.135.108.100 ( talk) 06:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
IMHO, Welsh, Scottish & Irish nationalism is behind a lot of the push to use Welsh/Scottish/Irish-N.Irish/English in such UK-related articles. Anyway, just mentioning it here, as one gets blasted out there for bringing up the elephant in the room. PS: Feel free to delete this post. GoodDay ( talk) 16:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy
New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Happy Newt Year! →
I'll refrain from delivering these on a zillion talk pages. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just left a note at /info/en/?search=Talk:ZigBee#Capitalization:_Zigbee,_not_ZigBee about your Zigbee -> ZigBee modifications a month+ ago -- I think the changes should be the other way around. Maybe discuss this further on the Talk:ZigBee page? Vskytta ( talk) 20:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Stanton, long time! I hope you are well. I've been working my way through the nine-ball article, cutting some more of the in-depth parts, and expanding some more on the game as a whole. I'm looking to do up a history section (I know it's a 1920s America thing, but outside of that I'm lost), and expand the section on tournaments. I know you have an encylopedic knowledge of these things, so if you have any sources, or ideas where to look, I'd appreciate it. I currently have the following:
I know A Brief History of the Noble Game of Billiards by Shamos is a good reference, but I don't see a great deal on the origins and history of the sport (I'd assume that's why we don't already have one.)
Any ideas for this one? Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mac, hope you are well! There's a topic at WT:SNOOKER#Power Snooker that I would appreciate your comments on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In case youhaven't noticed, he seems to be back. Editors are of course free to come and go, but when they "leave the project" to avoid an imminent editing restriction then come back a year later, including making the kind of wikilawyerish edits that were one of the reasons they got in trouble in the first place, that's an issue. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
, since they expire after a year. Then, any disruptive behavior can be taken to
WP:AE, which is more expedient than ANI, though you have to present a tighter case (length limits, calm tone, an absolutely no accusations or other claims not proven by diffs, since AE is a very
WP:BOOMERANG-happy venue). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The really weird claim about being fearful for his personal safety is dangerously close to WP:NLT matters, and James500 would do well to review cases of previously topic-banned, interaction-banned, indefinitely blocked, and/or site-banned editors (e.g. Darkfrog24) who have also made outlandish claims of supposedly being real-world-threatened by other editors, without presenting any evidence to back up such outlandish character-assassination aspersions. If James500 simply means his mental health, blood pressure, or other health concerns cannot take any more arguing with or being criticized by other editors, then I just have to cite WP:CIR. A project like this involves a great deal of source, logic, and policy debate, plus frequent writing critique, and (depending on the editor) uncommon to frequent constructive criticism of behavior that affects smooth collaboration and content stability. James500 may simply be incompatible with this systemic operating constraint. In particular, his arm-waving about seeking a block of anyone critical of him simply because he feels bad would, if he acted upon it, probably result in a WP:BOOMERANG block/ban of himself on a CIR, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:BATTLEGROUND basis. No editor has a "right" to immunity from being challenged or criticized.
It's instructive that various editors less inclined to point fingers or to engage in
argument to emotion tactics, and who steer clear of hotbeds of content disputation and viewpoint conflict (and of particular editors with whom they have interaction difficulties), seem to have remarkably drama-free "careers" on Wikipedia. But if one simply does not exhibit a temperament suited to civil discourse, that is itself a CIR problem. (Notably, an "I demand justice!" attitude is usually symptomatic of the same ill-fated editors who make bogus claims of being threatened, and this also has much to do with why they get ejected.) Cf. also
WP:Wikipedia doesn't need you,
WP:Wikipedia is not therapy, and related pages; WP and its editors are not obligated to satisfy anyone in particular, and everyone owns their own emotions. Most of us are usually sad to see someone depart, but less so when a signal-to-noise-ratio examination suggests that the editor in question either hasn't been productive, or (much worse) has been interfering with others' productivity, or (worse still) is intermittently returning just to re-start tired, counterproductive conflicts when the heat is off them long enough they think they can get away with it. It's not building the encyclopedia; it's thwarting construction for out-of-band reasons (which also relate to
WP:NOT#FORUM and
WP:NOT#SOCIAL policy). All that said, James500 would not be the first editor to feel the need for a lengthy wikibreak (I've taken several myself, aside from occasional quick visits to respond to something someone e-mailed me directly about). Perhaps James500's simply hasn't been long enough for his own peace of mind and spirit of collegiality. In closing, my talk page is not a proper venue for some kind of "James500 versus whomever" personality conflict. It can either evaporate of its own accord and everyone can go back to their usual editing routines in peace, or James500 can get on with it at ANI and attempt to prove a case that he's been wronged. I think we all know what the better option is.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 13:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@ James500: I feel some further followup is [unfortunately] warranted, since you're now canvassing for some admin or another to come and take your side, outside of normal dispute-resolution channels [1]. You really need to take a look at this concurrent ANI, which has already resulted in a discretionary boomerang block before even being formally closed. If for some reason you doubt my assessment above of what will happen at ANI if you continue making farcical claims that simply being criticized or challenged by other editors is some kind of "threat" or "attack", just so you can pursue fight-perpetuation against editors you think "wronged" you a long time ago, all you have to do is go look for yourself and see what happens when others do the same thing and have their own editing history re-examined at ANI.
Against my better judgement, I did go review
the old ANI report your venting above relates to, and you are clearly in contravention of several of the remedies in it. To quote the salient parts from the very detailed close there: "James500 has acknowledged here that many of the concerns raised about his editing (in particular ... his prolixity, his tendentiousness, the dismissing of other's opinions ...) are warranted .... James500 has agreed to: • Not engage in excessive wordiness ...• Avoid using [insulting] words ... to dismiss other editors' comments. ... • Stop adopting a battleground approach and editing tendentiously. ... [T]his can be summarized as 'Keep it brief, don't badger, keep calm, don't get upset, speak moderately.' It goes without saying that should James500 fail to abide by these informal pledges then he runs the risk of exhausting the whole community's patience, and more formal restrictions may need to be imposed
" [emphasis added]. Heed the proverbial writing on the wall. Especially important in this context is that Hijiri88's concerns in opening this thread, that you appear to have returned to simply re-start the same behavior that got you in trouble in the first place, is exactly what much of your last ANI examination was about (as pointed out by multiple participants in that ANI, not in my original report; this particular concern practically took that ANI over). So, it's not some unwarranted suspicion on Hijiri88's part, but observation that a long-standing pattern seems to be resuming yet again, of agreeing to desist when forced to do so, biding time for a while, then going right back to the same disruptive antics seemingly in hope that everyone will have forgotten. I pretty much did forget, but your own melodramatics have forced me to re-familiarize myself with why you were almost blocked or topic-banned last time. It's very self-defeating on your part.
PS: Please see
WP:CAPITULATE (and the rest of that entire essay); your "getting me some justice" approach to such matters is doomed, because the community cares about protecting the stability and productivity of the project as a whole, not satisfying egos or smoothing ruffled feathers for individuals; the angrier you appear, the less likely other editors will care to listen.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
He wasn't kidding. E Eng 04:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish,
Per your reply to me at the DRV to review the AfD for List of REITs in Canada, where you wrote, "[s]ounds like a good talk-page discussion after closure of this brouhaha (which is really about whether there was a BADNAC, not what to do with the content, if anything)," I'm wondering, since the discussion has been relisted, should we invite MrOllie and DGG in to the discussion via pings? I thought I'd approach you first before randomly pinging them.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The best model is the one we use in the real world with police officers. The community elects commissioners; the commissioners set standards and they recruit, train, monitor and if necessary, discipline, the enforcers. Our existing body of bureaucrats consists of people who didn't volunteer for this commissioner role, and the community hasn't assessed their suitability for it, so we clearly can't ask them to do the job. We need the commissioners to be a separate, elected body that's subordinate to arbcom. But I can't build consensus for that big a change -- simply put, Wikipedia's consensus model means we can't get there from here.
On the matter of retaining people's contributions in the history, that's a terms of use issue. We don't pay our volunteers, but we do promise to give them credit for their contributions in the article history. Therefore wherever their contributions appear in the encyclopaedia, even if it's in very highly modified form, the article history needs to reflect their work. It's literally the only incentive we offer to build Wikipedia, so I feel quite passionate about not reneging on it.— S Marshall T/ C 00:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SMC. I think you've given me formatting/markup advice before, so maybe again? RE: display of verse in articles, I'm aware that indenting with colons produces bad markup, but my sense is that if they are used within {{ quote}} or simlar templates, they get transformed into harmless leading spaces, so they're OK. Or, to put it in terms that even I would understand:
:Indent with colon even once: :The markup gods will curse your bones.
(archaic rhyme intended)...but...
{{poemquote| My sense is that colons :in {{quote}} are legit-y; But maybe I'm wrong :and they're totally shitty!}}
I haven't found precise direction on this, though, and I can't recall how I formulated these ideas. Any insight? Thanks. Phil wink ( talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
:
to cause indentation in articles is a bad idea (even if it's a lost cause on talk pages); use some other method like {{
blockindent}}
or {{
in5}}
. (That's covered in MoS somewhere, maybe near the stuff on quotes, or at paragraphs, or layout, or accessibility.) Whether the <dd>...</dd>
(the :
) is inside a template or not is irrelevant; the templates aren't doing any kind of conversion on them. However, for this exact case, you can dispense with a lot of this, by just using <
poem>
, which preserves whitespace as-entered, or using {{
poemquote|<poem>...</poem>}}
if you need the template's additional features. (It's weird to me that the template doesn't use the <
poem>
markup internally.) Anyway, entering:
{{poemquote|<poem> My sense is that colons in {{tnull|quote}} are legit-y; But maybe I'm wrong and they're totally shitty!</poem>}}
will produce:
But unless you're using the attribution features of the template, you can just remove theMy sense is that colons
in{{quote}}
are legit-y;
But maybe I'm wrong
and they're totally shitty!
{{
poemquote|...}}
part and use only <
poem>...</poem>
. Hope that helps. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 10:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)<poem>...</poem>
within it, so I could have been using initial spaces all this time. The reason I preferred colons (given that I thought their markup got "cleansed" via the template) was that I found them much clearer in the wikitext: since monospaced spaces are so much fatter than display spaces, you never quite get what you thought once you hit Publish; moreover (especially for the sometimes-elaborate Jacobethan and Romantic stanzas) it's so much easier to count colons to make sure each line has been indented its own special amount. But I'll stop. In fact, I'll probably go back and start cleaning up all my junk. Sigh. Sometimes I fear Wikipedia won't get finished by the deadline! ;-)
Phil wink (
talk) 15:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)... with thanks from QAI |
... for improving articles in January! Today - 20 in 2020 - is a birthday, she is pictured on the lower choir pic, enjoy listening. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish, I'm writing to you because yuor nmae is in the list of the "WikiProject Dogs" and you're one of the last still active. There's a discussion you might be interested in, here. I'd be glad to know your opinion about this matter, so I hope that you'll read the thread I opened. Thank you in advance if you decide to join. 151.64.171.8 ( talk) 11:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I have to thank you for replying in the thread. I've read your long answer, and I must tell you that the opinions you've expressed there are based on wrong suppositions. I'm not contesting your "no", but the reasoning you followed to get there. Please, read my answer where it's explained why your arguments are wrong and, after having been provided with correct information by it, reply on the base of that. Thank you for your time. 151.64.168.204 ( talk) 08:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder why replying here instead of the discussion...
I won't force you to answer, I'm starting thinking that entering into Wikipedia community as registered users leads many good persons to the "Dark Side", I've hoped that you at least could be unbiased enough, but now I'm afraid you've chosen "your friends" in place of "truth" (i.e. an independent source linked in almost all pages about dog breeds who says exactly what I've always been saying and the opposite of what all the dog-friendly users are...). 151.64.189.26 ( talk) 08:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish, I didn't see any pushback to your suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLON entry. What is the standard for determining consensus in a project page? Does silence imply consensus here? I'm certainly comfortable with your suggestion, and feel that you should be the one to implement it, if consensus has been achieved. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.
Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.
All the best,
Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Project M (video game)#Requested move 23 January 2020. SMcC, I am neutrally notifying you to the above discussion as it is more suited to your area of interest and/or expertise. I will reserve sharing any personal thoughts on the matter until you either (a) participate or (b) decline to participate, in which case you and I can have a discussion on your talkpage. Doug Mehus T· C 01:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering if you had any thoughts on the recent email I sent you. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You speak wisdom. I have lost good friends because they have hitched their wagons to the TERF wars. This is a uniquely divisive issue. Guy ( help!) 00:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Doug Mehus T· C 03:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, thank you for this edit and edit summary where you note that <center></center> hasn't existed since the 1990s. I guess I'm still using outdated tags. lmao :P Doug Mehus T· C 01:12, 29 January 2020 (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 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 | → | Archive 165 |
Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs) here. Posting this logged out for obvious reasons (but doing so "publicly" rather than by email so as to dispel any impression that there's any "funny business" going on).
Background: I came across the email address of the author of one of the sources that was being quoted out of context, for a point that was peripheral to their main argument and so apparently came from Wikipedia. I briefly considered emailing them myself to ask if they could recall where they actually got the information (since their cited source says nothing of the sort), but then decided that emailing a scholar in a field related to my own with a message asking/insinuating "did you get this from Wikipedia?" was not a good idea. I then figured maybe explicitly placing the burden of doing that on the four parties still advocating for the apparently-circular citation to be restored might be a good idea; then, right before clicking "Publish changes", I realized that that could potentially open the door to "Yeah, I emailed him and he replied -- he said he would never dream of getting information from Wikipedia, and his copy of McCullough has linguistic footnotes that do support his text", and the only ways for me to disprove such a lie would be to (a) contact Taylor myself to ask if he had written such an email, which would be borderline harassment far worse than just emailing him in the first place, or (b) |prove that no such edition of McCullough exists.
Long story short, I'm asking you for a second opinion on posting the following at the bottom of Talk:Mottainai#"Genpei Jōsuiki".
- I didn't notice until now, but Taylor's staff profile at the University of Memphis gives an email address for him. {{ping|Martinthewriter|Francis Schonken|IvoryTower123|Challenger.rebecca}} Since you are all apparently still advocating for our citation of Taylor for content that was in this Wikipedia article seven years before he wrote the "source" in question, would you like to contact him and ask him where he got the information? I've already checked his cited source, which doesn't say anything about mottainashi one way or the other, leading to the most reasonable conclusion being that, because it was a peripheral point to the one he was making in his essay, he checked Wikipedia and then located the corresponding passage in a translation of the Heike, without verifying that the Japanese text supported our assertion. ~~~~
Any advice you could offer on the matter (even unrelated to posting the above -- if you were in my shoes would you just bite the bullet and email Taylor yourself?) would be most appreciated.
Cheers, 211.135.108.100 ( talk) 06:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
IMHO, Welsh, Scottish & Irish nationalism is behind a lot of the push to use Welsh/Scottish/Irish-N.Irish/English in such UK-related articles. Anyway, just mentioning it here, as one gets blasted out there for bringing up the elephant in the room. PS: Feel free to delete this post. GoodDay ( talk) 16:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy
New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Happy Newt Year! →
I'll refrain from delivering these on a zillion talk pages. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just left a note at /info/en/?search=Talk:ZigBee#Capitalization:_Zigbee,_not_ZigBee about your Zigbee -> ZigBee modifications a month+ ago -- I think the changes should be the other way around. Maybe discuss this further on the Talk:ZigBee page? Vskytta ( talk) 20:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Stanton, long time! I hope you are well. I've been working my way through the nine-ball article, cutting some more of the in-depth parts, and expanding some more on the game as a whole. I'm looking to do up a history section (I know it's a 1920s America thing, but outside of that I'm lost), and expand the section on tournaments. I know you have an encylopedic knowledge of these things, so if you have any sources, or ideas where to look, I'd appreciate it. I currently have the following:
I know A Brief History of the Noble Game of Billiards by Shamos is a good reference, but I don't see a great deal on the origins and history of the sport (I'd assume that's why we don't already have one.)
Any ideas for this one? Thanks for your help. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mac, hope you are well! There's a topic at WT:SNOOKER#Power Snooker that I would appreciate your comments on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In case youhaven't noticed, he seems to be back. Editors are of course free to come and go, but when they "leave the project" to avoid an imminent editing restriction then come back a year later, including making the kind of wikilawyerish edits that were one of the reasons they got in trouble in the first place, that's an issue. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
Ds/alert}}
, since they expire after a year. Then, any disruptive behavior can be taken to
WP:AE, which is more expedient than ANI, though you have to present a tighter case (length limits, calm tone, an absolutely no accusations or other claims not proven by diffs, since AE is a very
WP:BOOMERANG-happy venue). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The really weird claim about being fearful for his personal safety is dangerously close to WP:NLT matters, and James500 would do well to review cases of previously topic-banned, interaction-banned, indefinitely blocked, and/or site-banned editors (e.g. Darkfrog24) who have also made outlandish claims of supposedly being real-world-threatened by other editors, without presenting any evidence to back up such outlandish character-assassination aspersions. If James500 simply means his mental health, blood pressure, or other health concerns cannot take any more arguing with or being criticized by other editors, then I just have to cite WP:CIR. A project like this involves a great deal of source, logic, and policy debate, plus frequent writing critique, and (depending on the editor) uncommon to frequent constructive criticism of behavior that affects smooth collaboration and content stability. James500 may simply be incompatible with this systemic operating constraint. In particular, his arm-waving about seeking a block of anyone critical of him simply because he feels bad would, if he acted upon it, probably result in a WP:BOOMERANG block/ban of himself on a CIR, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:BATTLEGROUND basis. No editor has a "right" to immunity from being challenged or criticized.
It's instructive that various editors less inclined to point fingers or to engage in
argument to emotion tactics, and who steer clear of hotbeds of content disputation and viewpoint conflict (and of particular editors with whom they have interaction difficulties), seem to have remarkably drama-free "careers" on Wikipedia. But if one simply does not exhibit a temperament suited to civil discourse, that is itself a CIR problem. (Notably, an "I demand justice!" attitude is usually symptomatic of the same ill-fated editors who make bogus claims of being threatened, and this also has much to do with why they get ejected.) Cf. also
WP:Wikipedia doesn't need you,
WP:Wikipedia is not therapy, and related pages; WP and its editors are not obligated to satisfy anyone in particular, and everyone owns their own emotions. Most of us are usually sad to see someone depart, but less so when a signal-to-noise-ratio examination suggests that the editor in question either hasn't been productive, or (much worse) has been interfering with others' productivity, or (worse still) is intermittently returning just to re-start tired, counterproductive conflicts when the heat is off them long enough they think they can get away with it. It's not building the encyclopedia; it's thwarting construction for out-of-band reasons (which also relate to
WP:NOT#FORUM and
WP:NOT#SOCIAL policy). All that said, James500 would not be the first editor to feel the need for a lengthy wikibreak (I've taken several myself, aside from occasional quick visits to respond to something someone e-mailed me directly about). Perhaps James500's simply hasn't been long enough for his own peace of mind and spirit of collegiality. In closing, my talk page is not a proper venue for some kind of "James500 versus whomever" personality conflict. It can either evaporate of its own accord and everyone can go back to their usual editing routines in peace, or James500 can get on with it at ANI and attempt to prove a case that he's been wronged. I think we all know what the better option is.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 13:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@ James500: I feel some further followup is [unfortunately] warranted, since you're now canvassing for some admin or another to come and take your side, outside of normal dispute-resolution channels [1]. You really need to take a look at this concurrent ANI, which has already resulted in a discretionary boomerang block before even being formally closed. If for some reason you doubt my assessment above of what will happen at ANI if you continue making farcical claims that simply being criticized or challenged by other editors is some kind of "threat" or "attack", just so you can pursue fight-perpetuation against editors you think "wronged" you a long time ago, all you have to do is go look for yourself and see what happens when others do the same thing and have their own editing history re-examined at ANI.
Against my better judgement, I did go review
the old ANI report your venting above relates to, and you are clearly in contravention of several of the remedies in it. To quote the salient parts from the very detailed close there: "James500 has acknowledged here that many of the concerns raised about his editing (in particular ... his prolixity, his tendentiousness, the dismissing of other's opinions ...) are warranted .... James500 has agreed to: • Not engage in excessive wordiness ...• Avoid using [insulting] words ... to dismiss other editors' comments. ... • Stop adopting a battleground approach and editing tendentiously. ... [T]his can be summarized as 'Keep it brief, don't badger, keep calm, don't get upset, speak moderately.' It goes without saying that should James500 fail to abide by these informal pledges then he runs the risk of exhausting the whole community's patience, and more formal restrictions may need to be imposed
" [emphasis added]. Heed the proverbial writing on the wall. Especially important in this context is that Hijiri88's concerns in opening this thread, that you appear to have returned to simply re-start the same behavior that got you in trouble in the first place, is exactly what much of your last ANI examination was about (as pointed out by multiple participants in that ANI, not in my original report; this particular concern practically took that ANI over). So, it's not some unwarranted suspicion on Hijiri88's part, but observation that a long-standing pattern seems to be resuming yet again, of agreeing to desist when forced to do so, biding time for a while, then going right back to the same disruptive antics seemingly in hope that everyone will have forgotten. I pretty much did forget, but your own melodramatics have forced me to re-familiarize myself with why you were almost blocked or topic-banned last time. It's very self-defeating on your part.
PS: Please see
WP:CAPITULATE (and the rest of that entire essay); your "getting me some justice" approach to such matters is doomed, because the community cares about protecting the stability and productivity of the project as a whole, not satisfying egos or smoothing ruffled feathers for individuals; the angrier you appear, the less likely other editors will care to listen.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
He wasn't kidding. E Eng 04:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish,
Per your reply to me at the DRV to review the AfD for List of REITs in Canada, where you wrote, "[s]ounds like a good talk-page discussion after closure of this brouhaha (which is really about whether there was a BADNAC, not what to do with the content, if anything)," I'm wondering, since the discussion has been relisted, should we invite MrOllie and DGG in to the discussion via pings? I thought I'd approach you first before randomly pinging them.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The best model is the one we use in the real world with police officers. The community elects commissioners; the commissioners set standards and they recruit, train, monitor and if necessary, discipline, the enforcers. Our existing body of bureaucrats consists of people who didn't volunteer for this commissioner role, and the community hasn't assessed their suitability for it, so we clearly can't ask them to do the job. We need the commissioners to be a separate, elected body that's subordinate to arbcom. But I can't build consensus for that big a change -- simply put, Wikipedia's consensus model means we can't get there from here.
On the matter of retaining people's contributions in the history, that's a terms of use issue. We don't pay our volunteers, but we do promise to give them credit for their contributions in the article history. Therefore wherever their contributions appear in the encyclopaedia, even if it's in very highly modified form, the article history needs to reflect their work. It's literally the only incentive we offer to build Wikipedia, so I feel quite passionate about not reneging on it.— S Marshall T/ C 00:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, SMC. I think you've given me formatting/markup advice before, so maybe again? RE: display of verse in articles, I'm aware that indenting with colons produces bad markup, but my sense is that if they are used within {{ quote}} or simlar templates, they get transformed into harmless leading spaces, so they're OK. Or, to put it in terms that even I would understand:
:Indent with colon even once: :The markup gods will curse your bones.
(archaic rhyme intended)...but...
{{poemquote| My sense is that colons :in {{quote}} are legit-y; But maybe I'm wrong :and they're totally shitty!}}
I haven't found precise direction on this, though, and I can't recall how I formulated these ideas. Any insight? Thanks. Phil wink ( talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
:
to cause indentation in articles is a bad idea (even if it's a lost cause on talk pages); use some other method like {{
blockindent}}
or {{
in5}}
. (That's covered in MoS somewhere, maybe near the stuff on quotes, or at paragraphs, or layout, or accessibility.) Whether the <dd>...</dd>
(the :
) is inside a template or not is irrelevant; the templates aren't doing any kind of conversion on them. However, for this exact case, you can dispense with a lot of this, by just using <
poem>
, which preserves whitespace as-entered, or using {{
poemquote|<poem>...</poem>}}
if you need the template's additional features. (It's weird to me that the template doesn't use the <
poem>
markup internally.) Anyway, entering:
{{poemquote|<poem> My sense is that colons in {{tnull|quote}} are legit-y; But maybe I'm wrong and they're totally shitty!</poem>}}
will produce:
But unless you're using the attribution features of the template, you can just remove theMy sense is that colons
in{{quote}}
are legit-y;
But maybe I'm wrong
and they're totally shitty!
{{
poemquote|...}}
part and use only <
poem>...</poem>
. Hope that helps. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 10:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)<poem>...</poem>
within it, so I could have been using initial spaces all this time. The reason I preferred colons (given that I thought their markup got "cleansed" via the template) was that I found them much clearer in the wikitext: since monospaced spaces are so much fatter than display spaces, you never quite get what you thought once you hit Publish; moreover (especially for the sometimes-elaborate Jacobethan and Romantic stanzas) it's so much easier to count colons to make sure each line has been indented its own special amount. But I'll stop. In fact, I'll probably go back and start cleaning up all my junk. Sigh. Sometimes I fear Wikipedia won't get finished by the deadline! ;-)
Phil wink (
talk) 15:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)... with thanks from QAI |
... for improving articles in January! Today - 20 in 2020 - is a birthday, she is pictured on the lower choir pic, enjoy listening. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello SMcCandlish, I'm writing to you because yuor nmae is in the list of the "WikiProject Dogs" and you're one of the last still active. There's a discussion you might be interested in, here. I'd be glad to know your opinion about this matter, so I hope that you'll read the thread I opened. Thank you in advance if you decide to join. 151.64.171.8 ( talk) 11:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I have to thank you for replying in the thread. I've read your long answer, and I must tell you that the opinions you've expressed there are based on wrong suppositions. I'm not contesting your "no", but the reasoning you followed to get there. Please, read my answer where it's explained why your arguments are wrong and, after having been provided with correct information by it, reply on the base of that. Thank you for your time. 151.64.168.204 ( talk) 08:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder why replying here instead of the discussion...
I won't force you to answer, I'm starting thinking that entering into Wikipedia community as registered users leads many good persons to the "Dark Side", I've hoped that you at least could be unbiased enough, but now I'm afraid you've chosen "your friends" in place of "truth" (i.e. an independent source linked in almost all pages about dog breeds who says exactly what I've always been saying and the opposite of what all the dog-friendly users are...). 151.64.189.26 ( talk) 08:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi SMcCandlish, I didn't see any pushback to your suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:COLON entry. What is the standard for determining consensus in a project page? Does silence imply consensus here? I'm certainly comfortable with your suggestion, and feel that you should be the one to implement it, if consensus has been achieved. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.
Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.
All the best,
Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Project M (video game)#Requested move 23 January 2020. SMcC, I am neutrally notifying you to the above discussion as it is more suited to your area of interest and/or expertise. I will reserve sharing any personal thoughts on the matter until you either (a) participate or (b) decline to participate, in which case you and I can have a discussion on your talkpage. Doug Mehus T· C 01:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering if you had any thoughts on the recent email I sent you. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
You speak wisdom. I have lost good friends because they have hitched their wagons to the TERF wars. This is a uniquely divisive issue. Guy ( help!) 00:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Doug Mehus T· C 03:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, thank you for this edit and edit summary where you note that <center></center> hasn't existed since the 1990s. I guess I'm still using outdated tags. lmao :P Doug Mehus T· C 01:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC) |