The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The para on TBAN says the person with TBAN isn't supposed to edit articles related to a particular topic. However, the decision involving me suggests that even sandbox edits related to the topic is considered a TBAN violation. Therefore, I request to specify clearly on the said para of Project Page that sandbox editing is also covered under TBAN. Dympies ( talk) 02:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@
Tryptofish: the HTML is
Semantic HTML. '''...'''
is the wikitext version of <b>...</b>
, which
is not meant for empahsis (even though countless editors use it for emphasis...). Likewise for italics: from
MOS:EMPH, The most
accessible way to indicate emphasis is with the HTML
There is recent discussion on this matter at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Strong tags. Best,
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 21:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
element or by enclosing the emphasized text within an {{
em|...}}
template. Italics markup (''...''
, or <i>...</i>
) is often used in practice for emphasis, but this use is not
semantically correct markup, so emphasis markup is preferred.
<em>...</em>
for emphasis over '''...'''
, and
MOS:BOLD says that in the rare cases bolding is used as emphasis we should use <strong>...</strong>
. With all due respect, I don't believe day-to-day experience trumps accessibility concerns.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Screen readers and other assistive tech need to distinguish between semantic emphasis and presentation. Best, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Whether screen readers right this second support this semantic markup very well is immaterial; it exists and is well-defined as serving this semantic purpose, and support will get better over time. What's never going to be helpful is using
''...''
(equals<i>...</i>
), or'''...'''
(equals<b>...</b>
) where semantic emphasis is intended, because that is purely visual formatting with no semantic implications (e.g. italics around foreign terms or book titles, or boldface to mimic the bold keyword in a directly quoted definition that was boldfaced that way in the original source). Screen readers will ignore that non-semantic markup on purpose and are never going to change in that regard.
If the wikitext is correct, then I have no plans to touch it. If I come across incorrect wikitext, I try to correct it (the same way one might correct a typo).
I think "campaign" is the wrong word to use: I am not going around and looking for changes to make. In this case, while reading the page for an unrelated reason, the underline of this exception <u>does not</u> allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards
caught my eye: <u>...</u>
is for things like seplling errors, not for emphasis. While I was making that edit, I also fixed other markup to semantically meaningful.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 22:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
(and not use ''...''
) for emphasis
since 2011. I opened that thread at the MOS talk page to make sure I understood the current guidelines, not to change them.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 04:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there any chance of a direct answer to the spirit of my question. Let's say there are six million articles and uncountable other pages. How many of them are likely to use apostrophes for wikitext and fit the above "incorrect wikitext, I try to correct"? What is the status of Help:Wikitext#Format? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
and <strong>...</strong>
are for emphasis, not formatting. At
MOS:TEXT, there are numerous reasons to use bold/italics; all of them except emphasis should use apostrophes. How many pages will be impacted? Not many in mainspace (when was the last time you saw emphasis used in mainspace? I can't recall the last time I encountered it...), none in the various talk spaces (except for possibly in banners), none in userspace. So, the direct answer: I don't know, but mostly in the project/help/template namespaces.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Using semantic markup has been part of the HTML standards from the beginning, so this isn't new guidance. Generally, though, most people don't think about the labelling their words semantically when writing. Instead they consider how they want their words to look. Some semantics are clear: text editors will have a list button, as users know what that will look like. They have italic and bold buttons instead of emphasis and strong emphasis, though, as it's not apparent what visual effect that might have. For that matter, the semantic difference between the two is fuzzy as well. This fuzziness contributes to the difficulty in implementing a standard handling mechanism by screen readers. Some people have suggested that the screen reader voice could provide additional emphasis on elements marked up as having emphasis or strong emphasis. A lot of use of bold text on the web, though, is more about creating guideposts in text passages to help readers navigate to what they are looking for, and it might not be suitable for these passages to be read with emphasis. Having editors provide easy options for italic and bold is probably a better choice in the overall scheme, to avoid imparting misleading semantics by default.
A side note on what screen readers do in practice: as I understand it, some provide an option to announce when an emphasis or strong emphasis tag is present (I believe it could be a verbal announcement, some kind of sound, or an alternate voice), more intended for proofreading when editing than regular reading. They don't provide support for a emphasis voice intonation (which to work well would probably need some type of AI-based program to take into account the surrounding context).
My personal advice would be two-fold: first, we should look for other ways beyond marking phrases in bold to help readers navigate through text. Perhaps more nutshell summaries should be provided at the start of sections. (This wouldn't be appropriate in articles, but as mentioned by HouseBlaster, this type of guidepost technique isn't used in articles.) Second, given that even on Wikipedia guidance pages, emphasis semantics is not really critical to communicating the ideas being presented, I would focus on very specific situations. Perhaps on a given page, just one phrase in the overall nutshell summary ought to be marked as having emphasis. isaacl ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Not many in mainspace(ironically, emphasis added). Emphasis in general is not used throughout mainspace, but on those rare occasions it is used it should be with
<em>...</em>
or (in extraordinary circumstances) <strong>...</strong>
. (In the example at the MOS page, semantic markup is correct.)Additionally, respectfully but strongly object to the idea that if most screen readers ignore these tags that means it is not an accessibility issue. Most people don't need a screen reader, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the needs of those who do. Again, I would welcome an RfC on the subject.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 22:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
<b>...</b>
(which is the HTML produced by '''...'''
) is not for emphasis. That is what <em>...</em>
and <strong>...</strong>
are meant to do. There are plenty of sources which explain why using semantically appropriate HTML is an accessibility concern (see, e.g.
[4]
[5]
[6]). I am not sure why a change for accessibility needs to be considered substantive enoughto be worthwhile. If you argument is that MOS:TEXT is incorrect, that is an argument you can make at a RfC. I am reminded of File:Diagram of IGNORE.svg: if the rules are wrong, the solution is to change the rules, not ignore them. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, this isn't a matter of some screen readers paying attention to the tags and others ignoring them. It's that readers who use them are unlikely to be using them on policy pages in proofreader mode, and so the only reason to change policy pages as you have done is to accommodate those few readers who do read the policy page in proofreader mode. And (I think) those few readers who do use proofreader mode will still know when there is italic or bold font, but they will just not be told by the software whether that font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. When sighted readers (like me) read policy pages, we see italic and bold fonts, but nothing tells us (unless we go into the edit window and are aware of the distinctions being made in this discussion), whether the font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. Of course, most of us easily infer what the purpose of the font was, assuming we even care. And I suspect that readers who use screen readers are just as able to infer purpose from the context. So what's the accessibility issue? What will confuse people who use screen readers?-- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
button
>. I'm not understanding how that refutes what I said. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 22:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
(and <strong>...</strong>
) when we want to emphasize things. If you wish to revert the change to this page, I think the most appropriate thing would be to propose a change to
MOS:TEXT. (C.f.
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 01:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
will not confuse anyone, put differently, it is not "broken", while at the same time you are saying that it is an accessibility issue
because semantic markup is more accessible.Please explain to me why non-semantic markup is less accessible, even though it will not confuse anyone. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
<b>...</b>
and <i>...</i>
are presentational markup—it is no more confusing than just not emphasizing anything at all. That being said, to communicate emphasis, semantic markup should be used. To quote SMcCandlish (part of which I included in my third post in this thread): Whether screen readers right this second support this semantic markup very well is immaterial; it [semantic markup] exists and is well-defined as serving this semantic purpose, and support will get better over time.House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
semantic markup should be usedor because another editor said that it's immaterial whether or not it affects readers. You keep acting like the burden is on me to open an RfC at MOS, but I could just as well demand that you get consensus to change Help:Wikitext#Format, as another editor pointed to earlier in this discussion. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
When the word "page" is used in a ban, it means any page on Wikipedia, including for example user, talk, discussion, file, category or template pages.Bold weight feels unnecessarily loud. I suggest re-writing it to "When a ban refers to a page, this includes any Wikipedia page, across all namespaces."
Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons.Strong emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing bold weight.
If someone is banned from the Wikipedia namespace, administrative boards, or is under a similar restriction, this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards.Underlining is not recommended by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § How not to apply emphasis, and again emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the underline.
Editors who are blocked from editing by the Arbitration Committee can appeal ...The styling is presentational, with the bold text indicating a type of inline heading. The italic setting for "by the Arbitration Committee" isn't really necessary, but could be considered to be additional presentational markup to help separate the text from the rest of the heading. I suggest leaving this as italic markup.
The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.This one is not presentational. Personally I would remove the italic markup as I wouldn't give it additional emphasis, but I can see the argument for using emphasis markup.
This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor...Emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the italic markup.
Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor...Italic markup seems unnecessary. I suggest removing it.
Editors who are banned from specific pages or topics must immediately cease editing these pages or topics. If they do not, then a block will be used to enforce the ban."Then" is extraneous and could be removed. However it might be better to recast with something like "Failing to do so can result in being blocked to enforce the ban."
Such a block will necessarily prevent their editing of the entire site, but they are not banned from the site and remain members of the community.Italic markup seems unnecessary. With the advent of partial blocks, I suggest recasting to "A full block will prevent banned editors from editing the entire site beyond their user talk page, but they are not banned from the site and remain members of the community."
It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors,...Though personally I wouldn't give this additional emphasis, I can see an argument for it and thus using strong markup.
'''...'''
because it is presentational.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 01:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to, where "does not" is underlined. The markup for underlining there seems to me to be particularly wonky, and I don't think there's a compelling reason for underlining instead of italics or bold. Maybe we could change that to either italics or bold? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
''seriously''
) confuse editors who edit the page and are accustomed to the multiple-apostrophe markup. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 23:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Can indeffed users ask other users to copy paste an XFD !vote? Can indeffed users ask other users to fix a typo? If not, can we reword WP:PROXYING in a way that this can't be wikilawyered? Thanks.
Context: User talk:Sennalen#MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Prefer truth, User talk:Sennalen#Typo – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
when a banned editor keeps making such requests, that should generally be stopped, but can't we codify this in some way (without WP:CREEP) to avoid wikilawyering? Either here or at WP:TPA. – Austronesier ( talk) 11:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Does the three time ban happen if the sockpuppeteer abused accounts for 3 years? I have seen it on revisions after a sockpuppeteer was tagged as banned 3 years after being tagged. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 18:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The para on TBAN says the person with TBAN isn't supposed to edit articles related to a particular topic. However, the decision involving me suggests that even sandbox edits related to the topic is considered a TBAN violation. Therefore, I request to specify clearly on the said para of Project Page that sandbox editing is also covered under TBAN. Dympies ( talk) 02:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@
Tryptofish: the HTML is
Semantic HTML. '''...'''
is the wikitext version of <b>...</b>
, which
is not meant for empahsis (even though countless editors use it for emphasis...). Likewise for italics: from
MOS:EMPH, The most
accessible way to indicate emphasis is with the HTML
There is recent discussion on this matter at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Strong tags. Best,
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 21:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
element or by enclosing the emphasized text within an {{
em|...}}
template. Italics markup (''...''
, or <i>...</i>
) is often used in practice for emphasis, but this use is not
semantically correct markup, so emphasis markup is preferred.
<em>...</em>
for emphasis over '''...'''
, and
MOS:BOLD says that in the rare cases bolding is used as emphasis we should use <strong>...</strong>
. With all due respect, I don't believe day-to-day experience trumps accessibility concerns.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Screen readers and other assistive tech need to distinguish between semantic emphasis and presentation. Best, House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Whether screen readers right this second support this semantic markup very well is immaterial; it exists and is well-defined as serving this semantic purpose, and support will get better over time. What's never going to be helpful is using
''...''
(equals<i>...</i>
), or'''...'''
(equals<b>...</b>
) where semantic emphasis is intended, because that is purely visual formatting with no semantic implications (e.g. italics around foreign terms or book titles, or boldface to mimic the bold keyword in a directly quoted definition that was boldfaced that way in the original source). Screen readers will ignore that non-semantic markup on purpose and are never going to change in that regard.
If the wikitext is correct, then I have no plans to touch it. If I come across incorrect wikitext, I try to correct it (the same way one might correct a typo).
I think "campaign" is the wrong word to use: I am not going around and looking for changes to make. In this case, while reading the page for an unrelated reason, the underline of this exception <u>does not</u> allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards
caught my eye: <u>...</u>
is for things like seplling errors, not for emphasis. While I was making that edit, I also fixed other markup to semantically meaningful.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 22:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
(and not use ''...''
) for emphasis
since 2011. I opened that thread at the MOS talk page to make sure I understood the current guidelines, not to change them.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 04:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there any chance of a direct answer to the spirit of my question. Let's say there are six million articles and uncountable other pages. How many of them are likely to use apostrophes for wikitext and fit the above "incorrect wikitext, I try to correct"? What is the status of Help:Wikitext#Format? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
and <strong>...</strong>
are for emphasis, not formatting. At
MOS:TEXT, there are numerous reasons to use bold/italics; all of them except emphasis should use apostrophes. How many pages will be impacted? Not many in mainspace (when was the last time you saw emphasis used in mainspace? I can't recall the last time I encountered it...), none in the various talk spaces (except for possibly in banners), none in userspace. So, the direct answer: I don't know, but mostly in the project/help/template namespaces.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Using semantic markup has been part of the HTML standards from the beginning, so this isn't new guidance. Generally, though, most people don't think about the labelling their words semantically when writing. Instead they consider how they want their words to look. Some semantics are clear: text editors will have a list button, as users know what that will look like. They have italic and bold buttons instead of emphasis and strong emphasis, though, as it's not apparent what visual effect that might have. For that matter, the semantic difference between the two is fuzzy as well. This fuzziness contributes to the difficulty in implementing a standard handling mechanism by screen readers. Some people have suggested that the screen reader voice could provide additional emphasis on elements marked up as having emphasis or strong emphasis. A lot of use of bold text on the web, though, is more about creating guideposts in text passages to help readers navigate to what they are looking for, and it might not be suitable for these passages to be read with emphasis. Having editors provide easy options for italic and bold is probably a better choice in the overall scheme, to avoid imparting misleading semantics by default.
A side note on what screen readers do in practice: as I understand it, some provide an option to announce when an emphasis or strong emphasis tag is present (I believe it could be a verbal announcement, some kind of sound, or an alternate voice), more intended for proofreading when editing than regular reading. They don't provide support for a emphasis voice intonation (which to work well would probably need some type of AI-based program to take into account the surrounding context).
My personal advice would be two-fold: first, we should look for other ways beyond marking phrases in bold to help readers navigate through text. Perhaps more nutshell summaries should be provided at the start of sections. (This wouldn't be appropriate in articles, but as mentioned by HouseBlaster, this type of guidepost technique isn't used in articles.) Second, given that even on Wikipedia guidance pages, emphasis semantics is not really critical to communicating the ideas being presented, I would focus on very specific situations. Perhaps on a given page, just one phrase in the overall nutshell summary ought to be marked as having emphasis. isaacl ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Not many in mainspace(ironically, emphasis added). Emphasis in general is not used throughout mainspace, but on those rare occasions it is used it should be with
<em>...</em>
or (in extraordinary circumstances) <strong>...</strong>
. (In the example at the MOS page, semantic markup is correct.)Additionally, respectfully but strongly object to the idea that if most screen readers ignore these tags that means it is not an accessibility issue. Most people don't need a screen reader, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the needs of those who do. Again, I would welcome an RfC on the subject.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 22:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
<b>...</b>
(which is the HTML produced by '''...'''
) is not for emphasis. That is what <em>...</em>
and <strong>...</strong>
are meant to do. There are plenty of sources which explain why using semantically appropriate HTML is an accessibility concern (see, e.g.
[4]
[5]
[6]). I am not sure why a change for accessibility needs to be considered substantive enoughto be worthwhile. If you argument is that MOS:TEXT is incorrect, that is an argument you can make at a RfC. I am reminded of File:Diagram of IGNORE.svg: if the rules are wrong, the solution is to change the rules, not ignore them. House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 22:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, this isn't a matter of some screen readers paying attention to the tags and others ignoring them. It's that readers who use them are unlikely to be using them on policy pages in proofreader mode, and so the only reason to change policy pages as you have done is to accommodate those few readers who do read the policy page in proofreader mode. And (I think) those few readers who do use proofreader mode will still know when there is italic or bold font, but they will just not be told by the software whether that font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. When sighted readers (like me) read policy pages, we see italic and bold fonts, but nothing tells us (unless we go into the edit window and are aware of the distinctions being made in this discussion), whether the font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. Of course, most of us easily infer what the purpose of the font was, assuming we even care. And I suspect that readers who use screen readers are just as able to infer purpose from the context. So what's the accessibility issue? What will confuse people who use screen readers?-- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
button
>. I'm not understanding how that refutes what I said. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 22:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
<em>...</em>
(and <strong>...</strong>
) when we want to emphasize things. If you wish to revert the change to this page, I think the most appropriate thing would be to propose a change to
MOS:TEXT. (C.f.
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.)
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 01:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
will not confuse anyone, put differently, it is not "broken", while at the same time you are saying that it is an accessibility issue
because semantic markup is more accessible.Please explain to me why non-semantic markup is less accessible, even though it will not confuse anyone. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
<b>...</b>
and <i>...</i>
are presentational markup—it is no more confusing than just not emphasizing anything at all. That being said, to communicate emphasis, semantic markup should be used. To quote SMcCandlish (part of which I included in my third post in this thread): Whether screen readers right this second support this semantic markup very well is immaterial; it [semantic markup] exists and is well-defined as serving this semantic purpose, and support will get better over time.House Blaster ( talk · he/him) 21:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
semantic markup should be usedor because another editor said that it's immaterial whether or not it affects readers. You keep acting like the burden is on me to open an RfC at MOS, but I could just as well demand that you get consensus to change Help:Wikitext#Format, as another editor pointed to earlier in this discussion. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
When the word "page" is used in a ban, it means any page on Wikipedia, including for example user, talk, discussion, file, category or template pages.Bold weight feels unnecessarily loud. I suggest re-writing it to "When a ban refers to a page, this includes any Wikipedia page, across all namespaces."
Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons.Strong emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing bold weight.
If someone is banned from the Wikipedia namespace, administrative boards, or is under a similar restriction, this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards.Underlining is not recommended by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § How not to apply emphasis, and again emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the underline.
Editors who are blocked from editing by the Arbitration Committee can appeal ...The styling is presentational, with the bold text indicating a type of inline heading. The italic setting for "by the Arbitration Committee" isn't really necessary, but could be considered to be additional presentational markup to help separate the text from the rest of the heading. I suggest leaving this as italic markup.
The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.This one is not presentational. Personally I would remove the italic markup as I wouldn't give it additional emphasis, but I can see the argument for using emphasis markup.
This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor...Emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the italic markup.
Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor...Italic markup seems unnecessary. I suggest removing it.
Editors who are banned from specific pages or topics must immediately cease editing these pages or topics. If they do not, then a block will be used to enforce the ban."Then" is extraneous and could be removed. However it might be better to recast with something like "Failing to do so can result in being blocked to enforce the ban."
Such a block will necessarily prevent their editing of the entire site, but they are not banned from the site and remain members of the community.Italic markup seems unnecessary. With the advent of partial blocks, I suggest recasting to "A full block will prevent banned editors from editing the entire site beyond their user talk page, but they are not banned from the site and remain members of the community."
It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors,...Though personally I wouldn't give this additional emphasis, I can see an argument for it and thus using strong markup.
'''...'''
because it is presentational.
House
Blaster (
talk · he/him) 01:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to, where "does not" is underlined. The markup for underlining there seems to me to be particularly wonky, and I don't think there's a compelling reason for underlining instead of italics or bold. Maybe we could change that to either italics or bold? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
''seriously''
) confuse editors who edit the page and are accustomed to the multiple-apostrophe markup. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 23:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Can indeffed users ask other users to copy paste an XFD !vote? Can indeffed users ask other users to fix a typo? If not, can we reword WP:PROXYING in a way that this can't be wikilawyered? Thanks.
Context: User talk:Sennalen#MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Prefer truth, User talk:Sennalen#Typo – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
when a banned editor keeps making such requests, that should generally be stopped, but can't we codify this in some way (without WP:CREEP) to avoid wikilawyering? Either here or at WP:TPA. – Austronesier ( talk) 11:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Does the three time ban happen if the sockpuppeteer abused accounts for 3 years? I have seen it on revisions after a sockpuppeteer was tagged as banned 3 years after being tagged. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( talk) 18:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)