Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC) |
Old stuff to resolve eventually
Cueless billiards
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Sad...How well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Look at the main page
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
Look at the main page --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Some more notes on Crystalate
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.[1]; info about making records:[2]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:[3]; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991[4]; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:[5]. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
|
WP:SAL
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
Your Credo Reference account is approved
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Circa
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
This edit explains how to write "ca.", which is still discouraged at MOS:#Abbreviations, WP:YEAR, WP:SMOS#Abbreviations, and maybe MOS:DOB, and after you must have read my complaint and ordeal at WT:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Circa. Either allow "ca." or don't allow "ca.", I don't care which, but do it consistently. Art LaPella (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
|
You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/Copyright
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Hee Haw
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Redundant sentence?
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Red_question_mark.svg/20px-Red_question_mark.svg.png)
Extended content |
---|
The sentence at MOS:LIFE "General names for groups or types of organisms are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, Bryde's whales, rove beetle, Van cat)" is a bit odd, since the capitalization would (now) be exactly the same if they were the names of individual species. Can it simply be removed? There is an issue, covered at Wikipedia:PLANTS#The use of botanical names as common names for plants, which may or may not be worth putting in the main MOS, namely cases where the same word is used as the scientific genus name and as the English name, when it should be de-capitalized. I think this is rare for animals, but more common for plants and fungi (although I have seen "tyrannosauruses" and similar uses of dinosaur names). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Current threads
3RR report
Moot, and the subtopic started by a third party is not a matter for my talk page. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can you remove your report? It is giving me a headache. The disputed text was reverted. The report won't solve anything. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
wtf?@QuackGuru: - Why are you on here pestering some editor into removing a 3RR report that has nothing to do with you? And why are you complaining about me and the ANI that I didn't file? Do you ever wonder why you are this → ← close to being banned from this project? It's because of nonsense like this. Just focus on building the encyclopaedia, without disrupting it. Do you think you can do that? - theWOLFchild 22:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Adjusting approach
There is something else that happened later that involves all of us. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- ? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Editors are suggesting I should be banned and there are socks following me. I cannot tell you about it at the moment on Wikipedia. I can discuss this in private or in a few months. QuackGuru (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Might be time to walk away for a while and edit totally different stuff, not even vaguely related, like
sportscooking or animals or language articles. I've found various topics much easier to edit, after letting a tagteam have their way for a while, get bored, and move on, allowing me to return to what I was working on without all the heat and interference. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Might be time to walk away for a while and edit totally different stuff, not even vaguely related, like
- Editors are suggesting I should be banned and there are socks following me. I cannot tell you about it at the moment on Wikipedia. I can discuss this in private or in a few months. QuackGuru (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: Fringe topics like Chopra tend to lead to results like that. I'm not sure what was "controversial" about the sports figure article that people are trying to ban you over. I note that at both recent noticeboard disputes there were a lot of demands that you be "mentored". That seems both condescending and like it would be a lot of work for someone (it's not like any of them volunteered).
I don't have the time for it, but I can offer some advice, for what it's worth. It's based on 10+ years experience at this, as an editor in high-conflict areas (not solely, but often) in and out of mainspace. Like you, I do not shy away from arguments, and I do not concede that someone has policy correct when they clearly do not (though frankly I'm much more accurate in that assessment than you are yet. >:-) The caveat that comes with this advice (other that it's long; I write stuff like this as draft WP:ESSAY pages and may reuse it later) is that I am not one of WP's best-loved editors. For many people here, I'm one of the locks on the cookie jar they're trying to get into in the middle of the night. And I'm quite content with this. I treat this is as a form of work, in the public interest, not a social-networking pastime; not having a long "friends list" here is of no concern to me (though I have more than my detractors think I do).
Pursue important goals intelligently, not trivial ones randomly |
---|
(There are game-playing and warfare metaphors about this, like "be strategic not tactical", "choose your battles wisely", "don't win the battle to lose the war", "take the high ground", etc., but per WP:GAMING and WP:BATTLEGROUND that can send the wrong message.) My honest impression is that you have a bad case of WP:WINNING. I you're a competitive person like I am, this can be a hard instinct to suppress, but it needs to be done. You might try taking "no" for an answer more often; if there's more than token resistance, just drop it and move on, because time is precious. Start judging consensus on your own as if you were a neutral admin with no view on the topic (i.e., figure out what the probable outcome will be, not just what you want to see happen). If multiple editors on any page are against you, and you don't already have more backup from others agreeing with you, it is probably a lost cause no matter what it is. Just let it go, or add it to a to-do list and come back in a month or three months and see if whoever is paying attention then is more receptive. WP will not fall apart if one article has some nonsense in it for a while. If it's clearly a WP:TAGTEAM of editors pushing an unambiguous fringe, politicized, promotional/attack or otherwise bogus PoV and the matter is important, then build a case about it, and take it to the appropriate content-policy noticeboard (NORN, NPOVN, etc.). But never about trivial things. WP doesn't need noticeboard disputes or RfCs launched about whether to include the word "some" or "sometimes". There's a balance between just being a reverter on the hand, and, on the other, launching trivial RfCs and other "process" to "win" petty disputes. Because people get irritated by petty RfCs (which are advertised site-wide by WP:FRS), they tend to vote against whatever the proponent of a trivial one wants, even if it made sense. I know I suggested earlier that you need to use RfC more and revert less; I did not mean RfCs like the ones you opened at that sportsperson talk page (I was thinking more about the disputes that led to WP:ARBEC). Every time you launch an RfC that is trivial and/or which flops, it adds to a mental list of black marks in minds of other editors. "Oh, no, not another one those QG RfCs" is a reaction you don't want people to have. As a practical matter, RfCs should be opened because consensus is unclear and the community needs to form one; or because consensus is clear and some people will not accept it until the community tells them so; or policy or the real-world facts have changed and a local consensus or false consensus needs to be overridden by the community to conform better to reality. There is no sensible fourth reason, and the third requires a great deal of evidence preparation. This also applies to proposals, noticeboard actions, and other things that may arouse controversy. A regular talk page discussion: open that for whatever reason, including questioning current consensus and the rationales for it. I usually do not open one without doing the "homework" necessary to make my case and I often front-load it with that evidence. This puts the onus on people who habitually just resist change for the sake of resisting change to actually have to come up with a rationale for once, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Use can use talk page discussions of this sort to gauge the reasoning level of who you're dealing with and what evidence they have (and it might even be enough to change your own mind, or shift you stance a little; always be open to that idea). |
Remind yourself you're dealing with real people, and try to work with them |
---|
It also helps to try to picture yourself sitting at a table having a conversation with these people, instead of fighting against faceless names who are full of nonsense. They're not all idiots, and have real reasons for taking the positions they do. Sometimes they're poor reasons, and it can take a lot of patient and non-aggressive work to get them to change their minds or at least yield because they've painted themselves into a reasoning corner (I take the logician approach to this, and it works fairly well, though it doesn't make me a lot of friends). But sometimes their reasons are better than yours. You can make friends quickly by conceding "I hadn't thought of if that way, good point", and can build on common ground: "OK, if if we take your point, and my idea, how about this compromise that would address most of what I'm concerned about, without undoing the part you care about?" Never fixate on exact wording. Something the answer to a problem in one sentence is to rewrite two entire paragraphs; sometime the problem with two who paragraphs is one wording in one sentence. Simply moving material around, and rewriting a sentence from scratch works. Don't feel proprietary about your wording. If someone reverts or makes major changes to something you wrote, forget that it was your wording, and look at the current wording as if you'd never seen it before. Does it still need work? If their objection was to your wording, try a different version, and make a point in the edit summary that you're trying to resolve their concern. |
Summarization and description of our sourcing isn't OR |
---|
Be mindful that not every word has to be sourced, every fact asserted about the topic (and topics intersecting it) has to be sourced. We are instructed for plagiarism and copyright reasons to summarize the sources in our own words. Sources are their own sources for what they say and, in the aggregate, for their interaction with other sources we use. The source review and summarization we do is necessarily an slight "OR-like" process in a sense – it involves analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis, but only about how to configure the information input (sources and what they say) to produce accurate and concise output (encyclopedia text), and how to characterize the nature of the input and how we're using it so we don't mislead readers about our content's level of source support (i.e. how much we're attenuating the signal, if you like). It's absolutely not OR to say that so-and-so is sometimes referred to as X, when we have a bunch of sources that use the term "X" for the topic, and some that do not. So, your RfC about "sometimes" at the sport article was off-base. The OR policy is about using OR to come to novel conclusions about the world, not conclusions about what our sources are saying; otherwise we would not be able to do anything but quote every single source verbatim, with no integration, just a collection of quotations. So, try to avoid wikilawyering over words like "some" or "many" and statements that X, Y, and Z sources agree on point A; we do not need a statement in source X "we agree with source Y and Z", we only need consensus that the statements in the three sources are in agreement. Also avoid lawyering over hair-splitting distinctions that are not meaningful to the reader (especially in leads). Your second RfC at the same page was also pointless and it was OR – you were arguing to include something from one source and attribute it to all of them. To me it looked like a WP:POINT exercise: "Well, if you think it's OK to include 'sometimes' even if the sources don't converge on using that word themselves, I'll show you how stupid that is by proposing we include a clarification only found in one source that the others don't agree with, so when you vote that down, you'll be proving me right on the first proposal! Gotcha!". That's game-playing. We definitely should stick to a strict approach to OR if people are trying to make the sources say something they clearly don't. Observing that only some sources sometimes use a term doesn't qualify; that's meta-observation about sources. |
A case study in OR | ||
---|---|---|
This all reminds me strongly of something resolved recently (by the pursuer of the OR getting topic-banned and eventually indeffed). You can gloss over some of the examples of what the OR was (I'm writing this all out as a reminder of what to cover at the affected article). An editor was advancing the view that one punctuation style is uniquely American, that another is intrinsically British, and that using the second style in the context of the first audience or vice versa is "wrong" or "incorrect", and proceeded to push this view at multiple articles here and in MoS (we're still cleaning up after this). Their basis for this was that some stye guides and grammar manuals would say things like "The traditional US practice is to ...", "Many British publishers use ...", "In American style ...", "Another style, common in the UK", etc., etc. On its face, this seems almost like a reasonable conclusion. But the editor, having seized upon this idea, ignored all evidence to the contrary, and there was a shipload of it:
You'll probably note how familiar all this is: It looks exactly like the tortured paths taken by OR/PoV pushers in MEDRS topics who mischaracterize and mis-extrapolate from what sources actually say, fail to distinguish one source type from another, mix-and-match statements that use the same words but have different meanings for those terms in different fields or contexts; draw connections that aren't there; assume that superficially similar statements in different sources are the same statement; etc., etc. I know you have the skills to detect such b.s. when others are doing it in your fields of interest. The trick is to not become one of them in other topics. |
Hopefully that's helpful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- See "I believe that by working together and encouraging cooperative behaviors on Wikipedia -- that all of this bitterness online can grow a little more productive. Wikipedia, let's work it out together. See you on the page!"[9] COI and/or advocates were topic banned and/or indeffed. Chopra said see you at the talk page and now there is a new account who knows a lot about policy. It appears Chopra admitted to recruiting people to Wikipedia. I just finished improving the lede. I could gather the diffs if the counterproductive edits continue, but I do not have faith in ArbCom. The Current RfC is irrelevant because the question about the specific text was rewritten and improved. If the source does not make the claim and editors ignore my request for V and editors claim I was beating a horse then they are creating a distraction and violating a core policy.
- Maybe you could summarize some of what you wrote and add it to the user essay. I will ping you over on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you that there are multiple serious problems going on at that Deepak Chopra page, and that seems like a good place for you to do what you do. But the sports figure disputation, all of it, was totally counterproductive and silly. If you target your tenacity at actual problems – like externally-controlled campaigns to push COI PoV stuff with a WP:FACTION – not at winning pointless micro-battles over words like "sometimes", then a lot of the objections to you will go away. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, editors on both sides have caused problems with the Chopra page. But the COI/advocate problem is the main problem. I have moved on from the dispute at the Manning page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. I'm just urging you not to repeat it. The kinds of objections you were raising and demands you were making are sensible when applied to something that actually has to be sourced (alleged facts about the real world which are challenged or potentially controversial – remember that WP:V requires that non-controversial, non-challenged material needs only to be verifiable not already verified). When you apply this technique to something that does not have to be sourced – common knowledge (the sky is blue), the obvious (someone stopped writing novels after they died), internal consensus (this source is reliable, or primary, or agrees with this other source, or is one of several that make this point while some others do not) – then it will be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:LAWYER, WP:GAMING, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:COMPETENCE problem all at the same time, and this will (as you have seen and felt) produced a large amount of negativity in your direction. Editors like me who appreciate the tenacity you bring to real and serious WP:CCPOL problems at various articles cannot keep defending you if you misuse the same tactics to pester people with bullshit. That's the clearest way I can put it, and I'm confident you can handle this truth without taking it the wrong way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Editors were not saying that the words failed V and it is okay to include text that is unverifiable. They were saying it is sourced. There is a difference. If editors said it is unsourced and we want to IAR then that would of been a different story. I thought it would of been better to simply follow the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Even if you're right on that nit-pick, being right on a nit-pick when people are pissed off at you for nit-picking will not stop them from taking action against you. Cf. above about "Pursue important goals intelligently, not trivial ones randomly". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- At the top of the article it says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." when you click to edit. Many editors think V is not relevant. If editors were trying to add an unsourced non-controversial sentence that would be different. When there is a reliable source at the end of the sentence then there is a problem when editors think they can put words in the author's mouth. From the very beginning editors constantly rewrote neutral text and then blame me the text was misleading. It is like they programmed me to make sure the text accurately reflects the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Repeat: "remember that WP:V requires that non-controversial, non-challenged material needs only to be verifiable not already verified)". "If editors were trying to add an unsourced non-controversial sentence that would be different." Except the "sometimes" RfC you launched was editors trying to add an unsourced non-controversial statement, and you went after it anyway. Saying that some sources say X or that sources sometimes say X is not putting words in the mouths of the source authors, it's meta-analysis by Wikipedia consensus about what the sources as a whole are indicating to us. We've already been over this three times now. I feel like what I'm trying to convey to you is not sinking in. You seem to be trying to defend your actions no matter what, to perpetuate your dispute with those people or the high you got off it, and to win an argument with me, when I'm trying to advise you how to still have an account her next month. I give up. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- They were not trying to add an "unsourced non-controversial statement". They are trying to add an "unverifiable statement" when the source at the end of the sentence failed to verify part of the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've explained 4 times why your interpretation is very obviously incorrect. This appears to be a WP:NOTGETTINGIT problem, so I'm done. Good luck. You're going to need it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- They were not trying to add an "unsourced non-controversial statement". They are trying to add an "unverifiable statement" when the source at the end of the sentence failed to verify part of the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Repeat: "remember that WP:V requires that non-controversial, non-challenged material needs only to be verifiable not already verified)". "If editors were trying to add an unsourced non-controversial sentence that would be different." Except the "sometimes" RfC you launched was editors trying to add an unsourced non-controversial statement, and you went after it anyway. Saying that some sources say X or that sources sometimes say X is not putting words in the mouths of the source authors, it's meta-analysis by Wikipedia consensus about what the sources as a whole are indicating to us. We've already been over this three times now. I feel like what I'm trying to convey to you is not sinking in. You seem to be trying to defend your actions no matter what, to perpetuate your dispute with those people or the high you got off it, and to win an argument with me, when I'm trying to advise you how to still have an account her next month. I give up. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- At the top of the article it says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." when you click to edit. Many editors think V is not relevant. If editors were trying to add an unsourced non-controversial sentence that would be different. When there is a reliable source at the end of the sentence then there is a problem when editors think they can put words in the author's mouth. From the very beginning editors constantly rewrote neutral text and then blame me the text was misleading. It is like they programmed me to make sure the text accurately reflects the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Even if you're right on that nit-pick, being right on a nit-pick when people are pissed off at you for nit-picking will not stop them from taking action against you. Cf. above about "Pursue important goals intelligently, not trivial ones randomly". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Editors were not saying that the words failed V and it is okay to include text that is unverifiable. They were saying it is sourced. There is a difference. If editors said it is unsourced and we want to IAR then that would of been a different story. I thought it would of been better to simply follow the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. I'm just urging you not to repeat it. The kinds of objections you were raising and demands you were making are sensible when applied to something that actually has to be sourced (alleged facts about the real world which are challenged or potentially controversial – remember that WP:V requires that non-controversial, non-challenged material needs only to be verifiable not already verified). When you apply this technique to something that does not have to be sourced – common knowledge (the sky is blue), the obvious (someone stopped writing novels after they died), internal consensus (this source is reliable, or primary, or agrees with this other source, or is one of several that make this point while some others do not) – then it will be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:LAWYER, WP:GAMING, WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:COMPETENCE problem all at the same time, and this will (as you have seen and felt) produced a large amount of negativity in your direction. Editors like me who appreciate the tenacity you bring to real and serious WP:CCPOL problems at various articles cannot keep defending you if you misuse the same tactics to pester people with bullshit. That's the clearest way I can put it, and I'm confident you can handle this truth without taking it the wrong way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, editors on both sides have caused problems with the Chopra page. But the COI/advocate problem is the main problem. I have moved on from the dispute at the Manning page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you that there are multiple serious problems going on at that Deepak Chopra page, and that seems like a good place for you to do what you do. But the sports figure disputation, all of it, was totally counterproductive and silly. If you target your tenacity at actual problems – like externally-controlled campaigns to push COI PoV stuff with a WP:FACTION – not at winning pointless micro-battles over words like "sometimes", then a lot of the objections to you will go away. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
ogg file display
Sorry to trouble you, but you've always struck me as a knowledgeable and helpful chap.
Do you have any idea if this is a widespread problem and, if so, how to fix it? BushelCandle (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not right off hand. Chipmunkdavis have to provide basic configuration information for us to know what he's on about. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a peep. I've tried to reproduce his complaint using Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Edge and IE versions without success. If I wasn't trying to relentlessly assume good faith I would begin to assume that this was a spasm revert without checking whether the additional line spacing I introduced solved the mild obscuration of the descending part of characters where there is only one line break present... BushelCandle (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable assumption if details are not forthcoming. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a peep. I've tried to reproduce his complaint using Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Edge and IE versions without success. If I wasn't trying to relentlessly assume good faith I would begin to assume that this was a spasm revert without checking whether the additional line spacing I introduced solved the mild obscuration of the descending part of characters where there is only one line break present... BushelCandle (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Orange_x.svg/20px-Orange_x.svg.png)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
List of cat breeds
Hi. Just a quick apology for my edit on List of cat breeds. This was a direct transfer of content from the Cat article and I did not realise it contained an unreliable source. I hate creating work for other editors, so I'm sorry for doing that, but thankful that you picked it up. Oh, and I agree with your idea about "standardising" lists of domestic animal breeds. DrChrissy (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: No worries; I didn't assume any nefarious faith or anything! It's better probably that we have a poor source that needs to be replaced but which doesn't seem to have an agenda, than no source.
What do you think about the broader WikiProject Breeds idea? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think it sounds like a good idea. I am generally in favour of some standardisation of "list" articles because we are almost certainly looking them up as reference articles. So, knowing where to look on a page can be very useful in navigation. I've just looked at List of sheep breeds for the first time, and that seems quite a useful arrangement. Of course, a project would be more than just list articles, but I think it would definitely benefit the encyclopaedia. DrChrissy (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: I'll probably start the project. I've done it before, so I know how to do it (the proposal process, the templates, the categorization, etc., etc. It's a lot of work to fire one up properly). I have WikiProject English Language half-drafted now (can you believe that project was missing?!), so I'll do this one next. I had originally thought to do this about two years ago, but there was a lot of WP:DRAMA between various parties about nomenclature, and it was short on the heels of a huge amount of drama about common names of species (not a domesticants thing, but still just a lot of "fighting about animals"), so I just dropped the idea for a long time until tempers cooled sufficiently. I think it's really important to organize on this, because frankly our treatment of breeds mostly is at about the level of a fancier blog site, not an encyclopedia. There are of course some stellar individual articles, and some categories of them are in better shape than others, like the horse articles are mostly better and with more support materials than the goat ones, and the dog ones mostly better than the cat ones, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds great! I'm already aware that sometimes in discussions about breeds, things can get heated. Quite a while ago over at Mustang, I innocently raised the subject of whether the mustang horse should be upper-case "M" or lower-case "m". This quickly erupted into a volcano of polarised debate about whether the mustang is a breed or not. Let me know if I can be of any help. DrChrissy (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I remember that one. Much of the problem is that the article at Breed is a big FAIL. It needs to be a WP:CONCEPTDAB since the word has more than one meaning. I can think of at least 7. When people argue for capitalization of breed names they're doing so usually on one of two theories: 1) A standardized breed is theoretically a proper name, being "official" and in a published standard. This is not a ridiculous view, but it has plenty of opposition. 2) All things anyone thinks of as a breed in any sense should be capitalized just because this is "traditional" or "a convention" among a certain set (who also capitalize all sorts of non-breeds, like hair color variants, groupings of breeds to what they're used for [Milk Goats vs. Milk Goats], etc., etc.). This is a specialized style fallacy and will never fly here in a million years. I myself remain strictly neutral on #1. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds great! I'm already aware that sometimes in discussions about breeds, things can get heated. Quite a while ago over at Mustang, I innocently raised the subject of whether the mustang horse should be upper-case "M" or lower-case "m". This quickly erupted into a volcano of polarised debate about whether the mustang is a breed or not. Let me know if I can be of any help. DrChrissy (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: I'll probably start the project. I've done it before, so I know how to do it (the proposal process, the templates, the categorization, etc., etc. It's a lot of work to fire one up properly). I have WikiProject English Language half-drafted now (can you believe that project was missing?!), so I'll do this one next. I had originally thought to do this about two years ago, but there was a lot of WP:DRAMA between various parties about nomenclature, and it was short on the heels of a huge amount of drama about common names of species (not a domesticants thing, but still just a lot of "fighting about animals"), so I just dropped the idea for a long time until tempers cooled sufficiently. I think it's really important to organize on this, because frankly our treatment of breeds mostly is at about the level of a fancier blog site, not an encyclopedia. There are of course some stellar individual articles, and some categories of them are in better shape than others, like the horse articles are mostly better and with more support materials than the goat ones, and the dog ones mostly better than the cat ones, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think it sounds like a good idea. I am generally in favour of some standardisation of "list" articles because we are almost certainly looking them up as reference articles. So, knowing where to look on a page can be very useful in navigation. I've just looked at List of sheep breeds for the first time, and that seems quite a useful arrangement. Of course, a project would be more than just list articles, but I think it would definitely benefit the encyclopaedia. DrChrissy (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 18 March
![0x0px](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Blank.png)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Pictogram_voting_keep.svg/18px-Pictogram_voting_keep.svg.png)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the List of cat breeds page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Felis silvestris catus
Found this, thought of you - doi:10.1073/pnas.1410083111 The genetic analysis is very tedious, bypass it and go straight to "Results and Discussion", below Figure 2, the putative genes that differ in a domestic cat from a wild one. (They only did this for dogs last month, so cats have had a 1 year advantage - no more complaints from you about why dogs receive favourable treatment!) My take: the genes that differ affect the same "processes" as those that differ the dog from a wolf, as we would have expected but now it has been indicated through research. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @William Harris: Woo, hoo! I'm almost surprised by the verisimilitude of the results, given that the prevailing theory has been that we essentially forced the domestication of the wolf into the dog, but that the cat essentially domesticated itself because we, by way of our grain and thus our rodent infestations, were a bounty for it. Thanks for this, I had no idea; I had not been looking for over a year due to having nose buried in other stuff. Did you integrate the equivalent dog news into an article yet? I should probably follow your lead on how to do that (feline biology and natural history is an interest of mine, not a professional specialization; my degree's in anthro, and even that's not may actual career). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Crickey Mac, now that I see that you can talk Australian at an intermediate level - stone the flaming crows! - I should reveal that I am an accountant; this is just a hobby of mine, nothing professional, so you should go for it for the ankle-nippers. Yes, I have put a para from Cagan in the Origin article but it is very heavy going and so I have given it only the lightest of treatment. And now for some more feline horror: DOI: 10.1126/science.1139518 If you cannot access it let me know and I will "arrange something". Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS - I don't think we forced the wolf to become domesticated. Our take: "For too long we have huddled in our huts with our fires in fear of the Cave Lion, Cave Hyena and the Scimitar Cat. Now we have found more teeth and now we fear them not!" Wolf take: "Every time one of these other big predators sneaks around after dark we howl, and this lot comes out of their huts with torches, spears and bows in response. Lets set up around their huts, rebadge ourselves as dogs, and let them do the hunting which they will do for free anyway. These people are idiots, so let's just outsource all the work to them!" What the cat thought? - I don't even want to go there! William Harris • talk • 08:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Of interest, have a look at the expanded Gray wolf#Domestic dog, in particular the last paragraph. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS - I don't think we forced the wolf to become domesticated. Our take: "For too long we have huddled in our huts with our fires in fear of the Cave Lion, Cave Hyena and the Scimitar Cat. Now we have found more teeth and now we fear them not!" Wolf take: "Every time one of these other big predators sneaks around after dark we howl, and this lot comes out of their huts with torches, spears and bows in response. Lets set up around their huts, rebadge ourselves as dogs, and let them do the hunting which they will do for free anyway. These people are idiots, so let's just outsource all the work to them!" What the cat thought? - I don't even want to go there! William Harris • talk • 08:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Crickey Mac, now that I see that you can talk Australian at an intermediate level - stone the flaming crows! - I should reveal that I am an accountant; this is just a hobby of mine, nothing professional, so you should go for it for the ankle-nippers. Yes, I have put a para from Cagan in the Origin article but it is very heavy going and so I have given it only the lightest of treatment. And now for some more feline horror: DOI: 10.1126/science.1139518 If you cannot access it let me know and I will "arrange something". Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- (edit conflict) I'm kind of slap-happy from such a long day, but too much coffee to sleep yet, and I have rambled and rambled below, sorry. Hopefully it's interesting, and I close with WP balance issue that you might have some insight on, since you've had to deal with a lot of similar balance and supposition problems in the dogs area.
-
-
Extended content |
---|
I can buy the wolf self-domestication story, but only to an extent. There is a major difference canine/feline difference: If you take a real wolf pup and raise it like a dog, it will behave to a remarkable extent like a dog, though it may pose some dangers, at least to inexperienced handlers/trainers. It can make a good companion animal under the right circumstances, though usually not an indoor one from what I've read and seen. If you raise a Felis silverstris wildcat from a kitten, by the time it reaches sexual maturity, it's prime interest may be in escaping from you, and while it may tolerate limited amounts of cautious human handling, done just the right way and for short stretches, it will probably frequently do notable violence to you at virtually any provocation, and will shred your house if you try to keep it indoors. Even F1 feline hybrids don't make good/safe pets except for very experienced (with wild & hybrid, not domestic) handlers, though they can be kept indoors. Meanwhile, F1 wolf-dogs often make great indoor/outdoor pets for experienced (dog, not wolf) handlers and are in high demand (too often by people who don't know what they're in for and can't handle it >;-).
So, with dogs I think there's likely to have been a broad two-way street in domestication. "We have killed this wolf, and found that she had cubs. We'll take them and raise them as guard-wolves, and kill any that attack our children." (But the mother wolf was probably close by for exactly the reason you gave.) That process of keeping a few and weeding out the ones who acted too wild would by itself easily produce docile dogs in a reasonable number of generations. Closely mirrors plant domestication (carry the ones that taste less bitter back to camp, their seeds grow in the nearby middens, and form a genetic bottleneck).But there's little evidence I've seen to date that humans ever did much of anything to selectively breed cats until well into written historical times (Egyptian temple cats, then a big gap, then the Persian/Angora among the sultans and sheikhs in the Ottoman Empire, then a big gap, then a few isolated cases in early modernity, then all hell breaks loose in the 1880s not long after the first cat show, at the Crystal Palace in London. Throughout most of history cats were barely tolerated (in the West, anyway), and sometimes subject to programmatic persecution (really awful stuff, like slowly burning alive in suspended baskets high above a fire to make the death as drawn-out and agonizing as possible, or crucified on trees and left to hang there until they died of thirst. Meanwhile, the dogs were often curled up inside by the fireplace. The indoor cat (that didn't temporarily sneak in) seems to have been a post-medieval invention, except among the nobility in Egypt and thereabout during certain periods, and in a few places in the Far East, though I can imagine that they might have been kept sometimes as pets not just tolerated as feral vermin hunters in Greece and a few other places. We just don't have a lot of historical source and artifact material on this, and what we do find often has wishful thinking projected onto it. E.g. the 7500 BCE burial of a wildcat with a human in Neolithic Cyprus keeps being billed as evidence of early keeping of pet cats, but it's nothing of the sort. Humans got buried with animals of all sorts, for widely different reasons. It may well have been a sacrifice to some grain god, or it may have been the personal totem animal of the person, or he may have just been a menagerie keeper and they sent him off with the only specimen that would fit in the grave, or maybe his name had a phoneme for "cat" in it, so they though it would be appropriate to include one, or ... There's no evidence of pet status whatsoever, though it's possible. And in Egypt, while some noble families kept cats indoors and even put jewelry on them, they had multiple cat goddesses, so this is probably religious behavior not "I love my cute kitties so much!" behavior. Where are the depictions of pharaohs petting cats in their laps? [10] They've found thousands and thousands of ritually sacrificed cats at one of the cat goddess temples, so it's not like they were loved and there was concern for their welfare; they were used for ritual purposes (and temple profit – cat mummies were sold as blessed charms) with no apparent regard for the cats' lives, just as we still use pigs and cattle as food. |
-
-
-
- The WP problem for cat history is that there are so many "reliable" sources that make the "a wildcat in 9500 bp neolithic grave = ancient pets" leap (National Geographic is top search result for "cat burial ancient cyprus", for example, and does so for the most part), that it's going to be difficult to keep a balanced and scientific instead of "interpretive archaeology" (i.e. imaginative) view in our key cat articles. And I'm now done yakkin'; I think the caffeine's worn off. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there are many proposals that should be stated that way and not as fact. I always ask the same question - "what does the data tell us, and what is conjecture?" Sleep well William Harris • talk • 10:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- The central problem is that, per WP:OR, we're not allowed to analyze the underlying data ourselves and conclude what it says, only what the sources, balanced in the aggregate, say about their analysis of it (or of other sources' prior analysis of it). As a result, if some questionable sources that have good public reputations say the wrong thing, a large percentage of editors will fight to include it, citing WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:TRUTH. When a whole bunch of semi-RS jump incorrectly or dubiously onto one side of the scale the balance in the aggregate sources is canted badly off-kilter, and this leads to bad encyclopedia writing that people here will defend half to death. As I'm sure you've noticed. If you haven't, wander for five minutes in any contentious medical/health topic like electronic cigarettes or GMOs. It's pretty unbelievable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have seen this type of thing before, but nothing on the scale of e-cigarettes! Plus, it has 144kb devoted to a First World problem - amazing. Perhaps I should saturation bomb the page with my favourite:[unreliable source?] William Harris • talk • 09:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I regret having gotten involved. It's a gladiatorial arena of drama and will continue to be one until several more topic-bans happen. But I was also participating on the talk page (I got drawn there in the first place by an RfC). If you just tag some unreliable sources (especially primary ones being used as if secondary, for WP:AEIS), you might not get sucked into the dramasphere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have seen this type of thing before, but nothing on the scale of e-cigarettes! Plus, it has 144kb devoted to a First World problem - amazing. Perhaps I should saturation bomb the page with my favourite:[unreliable source?] William Harris • talk • 09:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The central problem is that, per WP:OR, we're not allowed to analyze the underlying data ourselves and conclude what it says, only what the sources, balanced in the aggregate, say about their analysis of it (or of other sources' prior analysis of it). As a result, if some questionable sources that have good public reputations say the wrong thing, a large percentage of editors will fight to include it, citing WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:TRUTH. When a whole bunch of semi-RS jump incorrectly or dubiously onto one side of the scale the balance in the aggregate sources is canted badly off-kilter, and this leads to bad encyclopedia writing that people here will defend half to death. As I'm sure you've noticed. If you haven't, wander for five minutes in any contentious medical/health topic like electronic cigarettes or GMOs. It's pretty unbelievable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there are many proposals that should be stated that way and not as fact. I always ask the same question - "what does the data tell us, and what is conjecture?" Sleep well William Harris • talk • 10:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- The WP problem for cat history is that there are so many "reliable" sources that make the "a wildcat in 9500 bp neolithic grave = ancient pets" leap (National Geographic is top search result for "cat burial ancient cyprus", for example, and does so for the most part), that it's going to be difficult to keep a balanced and scientific instead of "interpretive archaeology" (i.e. imaginative) view in our key cat articles. And I'm now done yakkin'; I think the caffeine's worn off. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Synchronized swimming categories for Brazil, China
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Moved these to a full discussion. Hugo999 (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2016)
![]() Critic by Lajos Tihanyi. Oil on canvas, c.1916. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Lunch • People Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Please comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monarchy of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Invitation
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Purple_arrow_right.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_right.svg.png)
Hi, SMcCandlish - I'm here to extend an invitation to you to review [11], and consider participating as one of the project coordinators. I've been getting guidance from Wikicology regarding presentation of the proposal to WMF, but need more quality editors working with me to build our team. I have received some positive input from two of our most active admins but before I begin an intense promotional effort, I want to perfect the presentation and iron-out as many of the kinks as possible. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Oh, and if you prefer to correspond via email, that's ok, too. I have contacted one other editor, Smallbones, who I believe will be an asset in helping to launch this project. Atsme📞📧 20:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Atsme: I might as well answer here, since it probably would involve both of you. I just need a lot more details. An Editorial Review Board sounds like a very interesting idea and could be fun. But actually I think it could easily violate Wikipedia rules, such as forming some sort of exclusive club that others couldn't join without an invitation. If it's just another rating scheme (that anybody can participate in whenever they want) - well this could be done better than it is now, but I think I'd rather not - rating something properly takes a huge amount of time. Working up a consistent rating scheme and the organization to implement it would take a huge amount of time. Right now you're probably saying something like "I didn't mean that at all" so I'll go back to the beginning - I need a lot more detail. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Potentially interesting (modulo what Smallbones said), but I'll have to look into it when I have some time to devote to it, which isn't right this moment. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, SMcCandlish. I realize Project Accuracy will be extremely time consuming, and probably a full-time job which is why I decided to go with a grant proposal. I certainly understand time constraints, so when you get some free time, don't hesitate to ping. Smallbones, I will respond to you on my TP. Atsme📞📧 00:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito
![0x0px](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Blank.png)
![Yes check.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/18px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2016)
The Gates of Hell sculpture by Auguste Rodin, an example depicting the concept of the gates of hell The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Critic • Lunch Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Please comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games
![0x0px](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Blank.png)
![Yes check.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/18px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you let us know what you mean by "weird style that doesn't mean anything to anyone". Also why, "use a footnote" for the 2000 line, given that, as explained, none is needed? [12] Qexigator (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Note from Cebr1979
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Orange_x.svg/20px-Orange_x.svg.png)
I left a message for you on my talk page but, it got nuked off (by someone else this time, not me). Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cebr1979&diff=prev&oldid=712549884
Knock yourself out. Love, Cebr1979 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I was watchlisting that page. Nice to see that your anon edits in mainspace remain constructive so far, though your IP is liable to get blocked, for block evasion. Oh well. You brought this on yourself, and it's not my problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't go around chasing editors who make constructive edits--at least I don't go around reverting them automatically. If editors start calling other editors names, however, that's a different thing. It's bad manners and we simply cannot have that (*wag of finger*). Drmies (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Drmies: Yeah, I hadn't seen that. LOL. Well, he'll probably tire of the whack-a-mole game eventually. It's hard to imagine anyone with nothing better to do but drive around town to different cafés looking for WiFi to post again another IP address. That would be far too sad. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 29 March
![0x0px](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Blank.png)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Pictogram_voting_keep.svg/18px-Pictogram_voting_keep.svg.png)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Steve Mizerak page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
He!
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Purple_arrow_right.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_right.svg.png)
Before you break the template a third time, will you read Template_talk:Contradict-inline#Article_parameter? Debresser (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: It was obviously just a typo, using the old magicword instead of the intended variable. Long since fixed, and I've gone way beyond that. Talk page of template has the details on the new features. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I reverted all of that. Maintenance templates don't need al those features, and if necessary, they can be added easily with features of {{Fix}}. Compare other maintenance templates, please, before you add 742 characters to a maintenance template. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: Then do it the way you want it done, as long as it gets done. I don't recall having any noteworthy disputes with you before, so I'm wondering why this is looking more and more like a personal "stonewall and editwar against that SMcCandlish guy at all costs" mission. This is the third time in a row you've used blanket reverting to undo my work, instead of re-implementing it in ways you like better. And yes, maintenance templates do need features that a) make their default behavior non-senseless, b) reduce the profusion of redundant templates, and c) help actually pinpoint what the flagged problem is. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)- Never mind here; I see you've reversed yourself on this in the time it took me to reply. I'll raise the remaining issues at the template talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- You added too much code and features, IMHO. The discussion was only about a redirect. You made the "Contradict-inline" template about the most complicated template of all maintenance templates, and that is overkill. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nah. There are considerably more complex templates. If you don't want to use the features, don't use them. Simple. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- You added too much code and features, IMHO. The discussion was only about a redirect. You made the "Contradict-inline" template about the most complicated template of all maintenance templates, and that is overkill. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind here; I see you've reversed yourself on this in the time it took me to reply. I'll raise the remaining issues at the template talk page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I reverted all of that. Maintenance templates don't need al those features, and if necessary, they can be added easily with features of {{Fix}}. Compare other maintenance templates, please, before you add 742 characters to a maintenance template. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2016)
Hello, SMcCandlish.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Gates of hell • Critic Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
April 2016
![0x0px](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Blank.png)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Pictogram_voting_keep.svg/18px-Pictogram_voting_keep.svg.png)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Siamese cat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- of Marriages MAR 1887 1a 19 PADDINGTON Courtney Bouchier Vyvyan = Eva Catherine F. Walker</ref>) and her sister, Ada. Compared to the [[British Shorthair]] and [[Persian (cat)|Persian]] cats that
- it fails to work at normal [[Thermoregulation|body temperatures]], but becomes active in cooler (< 33 °C) areas of the skin.<ref>{{cite journal
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Three card brag may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- in [[Trinidad]], [[India]], [[Bangladesh]] and [[Nepal]], where it is known both as "flush" and ''{{lang|hi|[[teen patti]]'' (literally 'three cards' in Hindi), played with numerous local variations.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
![0x0px](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Blank.png)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Pictogram_voting_keep.svg/18px-Pictogram_voting_keep.svg.png)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bengal cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:History of South America
![0x0px](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Blank.png)
![Yes check.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/18px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Some dim sum for you!
![]() |
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 09:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
- @Northamerica1000: Why thank ya very much! I was wiki-hungry. ;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I like the way the dumplings kind of droop down, like gravity in action, so using it around town ... North America1000 10:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's because they're trying to git in mah belleh!. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I like the way the dumplings kind of droop down, like gravity in action, so using it around town ... North America1000 10:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:British colonial campaigns
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:British colonial campaigns. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
wtf?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- My talk page does exist for people, who nuke everyone's posts of their own talk pages, to use as their surrogate ranting ground. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems you posted this on the wrong user's talk page. - theWOLFchild 07:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I just covered this at your talk page, but whatever. You're correct that I misidentified who wrote and reverted what; but a) Dicklyon has already receieved that WP:ACDS notice for WP:ARBATC, so I need not give him another (indeed, we're instructed to not leave duplicate ones), but b) you had not, and clearly needed one, since multiple editors complain you are casting uncivil and unsupportable WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors, at pages covered by WP:ARBATC. So, all is actually well. You're aware of the discretionary sanctions in the topic area, so is Dicklyon, so am I (obviously), and I think everyone else active in the area is, too. I expect, therefore, that the civility level will increase. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
DDG-121
That's quite a mess you've made of the talk page over there, while writing your novel (are you up to extended discussion #12 yet?). Don't alter the layout the discussion and especially do not move other user's comments out of place and context. Just say what you have to say and move you. You and your friends are becoming entirely to presumptuous with your actions of late. You need to remember that Wikipedia is massive consensus-based community, not a little clique that can change whatever they like, including the hard work of others and even guidelines, just to suit your personal tastes. You need and friends need to stop what you're doing and seek the approval of the community at large. - theWOLFchild 08:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you nuke everyone's comments off your talk page and respond to them in WP:JERK fashion, you have no right to comment on anyone else's talk page. Now, go read WP:REFACTOR and WP:BLUDGEON. It's standard operating procedure to take back-and-forth blather like yours, especially when the formatting of it interferes with the ability to tell how many individuals have commented, and move it out of the main comments section into lower, extended discussion section(s). If you have no figured this out yet, try reading more and posting less until you absorb WP community practices better. "You and your friends", i.e. the four people who will not accept a site-wide RfC that ran for a month, was closed not just by an admin but one of the sitting Arbs, and the implementation of which has resulting in WP:SNOWBALLs in favor of it in RM after RM are the ones who are "differently clued" when it comes to consensus. Now, you stay off my talk page. Bye. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2016)
![]() Various foods in a delicatessen in Rome, Italy The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Pecan pie • Gates of hell Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
---|
Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Letter case (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to House style
- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Trade paperback
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:MOS/BIos
This edit was more snarky then necessary. I have already warned WC to tone down his rhetoric and it would be helpful to lowering the overall temperaturw if you could ease up the sharpness of your own comments. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 10:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Spartaz: Right-o. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Let's clear this up and move on
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Purple_arrow_down.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_down.svg.png)
@Thewolfchild: This is kind of a moot point now, but let's just air it out. Since you covered a lot of things in more than one place, I'll break this up topically for easier digestion and reply, if I dare hope you'll bother. (And yes, this is an invitation to discuss it here instead of your page, or Spartaz's, etc.; you seem to have an issue with me in particular, almost as much as with Dicklyon, so let's air it out.)
Source alteration
Dicklyon pointed out the source gaming [13], and the article edits confirm it. You even stated explicitly on that talk page that you'd used the consistent-within-the-article wording as an excuse to delete sources.[14] No one else in WP history, as far as I know, has ever advanced the idea that being consistent in the article text means altering source titles to show the styles you want to say they use, or deleting sources that don't have titles styled in a way that agrees with the style of the text. Indeed, both MOS and WP:CITE are explicit that citation style is not determined by style in the article prose. Since the MOS:JR loophole wording has been closed, we needn't go over this any further. Water under the bridge.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Taking it to ArbCom
You would not like the outcome. I have diffs for every one of the following unsupported accusations by you: conspiracy, gaming, editwarring, "disingenuous comments" (lying), hypocrisy, disruption, editwarring again to remove sources (that was you), changing MOS "to suit personal preferences", text-walling (also you - I tried to refactor your RM bludgeoning into an extended comments section and you reverted, and the entire article talk page is a forest of pink "Wolf" markers; you totally dominate the conversation), playing dumb, gaming, and many others. You have no evidence to back up any of those claims. I seriously think you'll get at least topic-banned if not indeffed (given your block log and the fact that you're subject to escalating blocks, the short ones you've already burned through, and many of the blocks are recent) if you keep pursuing any of this. If you really think you have a case for AE or ARBCOM, I can't stop you, but I'm very well prepared for it. Wouldn't it be better to just WP:DGAF and go do something less stressy, like work on a ship stub?
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Everyone is supposedly on your side
You make claims at Spartaz's page about landslide support for your viewpoint and a whole army of people up in arms about this, but it's just not there. The entire scenario is not cogent at all. You claim (I have not checked) that Dicklyon (and/or someone else? It's unclear what you mean sometimes) have moved hundreds or thousands of articles since the MOS:JR RfC. Yet there are a total of about one dozen Jr./Sr.-related RMs open, and they're all snowballing in favor of no commas. Editors in favor of the commas are the same four guys, recycling the same arguments no matter how many times they're refuted and fall on deaf ears. If what you said was true, there'd be hundreds of RMs or at least requests to revert undiscussed moves, and by now there'd be a centralized discussion, probably a mass RM. to deal with them in sets. None of this happening, because no one cares.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The validity of the RfC
The RfC was based on a huge pile of sources, and concluded MOS should prefer the no-comma style. It was a followup to a weak and no-consensus RfC last year, with few sources and lots of OR and opinion. When sources were provided this time, the opinion-mongering stopped dead (except for 4 editors, maybe 5 (Randy Kryn was vacillating and still is), and they just don't have the sources to back them. MOS was updated to implement the consensus in the RM. Parts of the close are not reflected in the MOS wording because they are not MOS matters. "Grandfathering" is something that GAN and FAC do, and MOS can't make up some "grandfathering" policy out of thin air. People would shit flaming spiked bricks if such a thing were attempted, since it would lead to everyone making guideline-immunity claims for all sorts of things based on age of the article, with the insane result that the older an article was, the less we would improve it to comply with modern WP expectations. Articles written in 2005 could be reverted back to 2005 standards, and look like total crap.
RMs follow MOS recommendations absent a compelling case not to in a particular instance. You assail MOS:JR as a "crock of shit", claiming that the RfC is somehow invalid, and that the close (by an Arb, not just an admin) is somehow invalid. Well, good luck selling that story. I have no need of further strife with you, and have nothing against your work here. When I'm working on non-mainspace stuff, my primary interest here is project-wide stability. Stability is not "don't move comma-Jr articles to just-Jr". Stability is "do not try to foment weird, pointy insurrections against WP guidelines and RfC processes and their closers". I don't agree with Drmies's close either, but I didn't challenge it formally; we can just work around the supervoting and confused aspects of it. There is nothing disruptive about moving comma-Jr articles to drop the comma. The disruption is the campaigning, page by page, to prevent the guideline and the RfC (prefer no-comma except when current sources consistently use a comma for a particular subject) from applying anywhere at all. The point of MOS, and AT, and multi-RMs, is to avoid, not perpetuate, page-after-page rehash of the same nit-picking.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- <snigger> Shitting flaming piked bricks</snigger>. That's the funniest thing I read so far this week. Spartaz Humbug! 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I try to inject a little humo[u]r into tense situations when I can. Heh. (though that was supposed to be "spiked"; I fixed it above.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Arby
Hey SMcCandlish, my arbness is really irrelevant--it doesn't make my close better or worse. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Technically, I agree. I raised it (and needn't again), because Thewolfchild and someone else was chanting "take it to ARBCOM!", but it's highly unlikely that ArbCom would overturn one of the closes of a sitting ArbCom member, even aside from the fact that ArbCom doesn't settle content disputes, even internal ones.
- Anyway, I rewrote the material to better reflect your close despite my misgivings about it (the text now notes the BLP thing as a statistical likelihood, not a prerequisite), and this should actually resolve the issue, but I'm extremely skeptical – tempers being the way they are – that it will not be subject to a bunch more revertwarring and tendentious denial that your close is valid, that the RfCis valid, that MoS is valid, than any consensus other than "give me that damned comma" is valid.
- I suspect a fourth RfC will ensue, all because four individuals will not stop beating the dead horse. I don't even really care about this comma (it's Dicklyon and RGloucester's show, perhaps the thing that will mend the very strained fence between them); I just sourced it because it's an interesting language question. I have even more style guides now, so if it comes to that and if I'm bored enough on a rainy weekend, I'll be able to probably double the sourcing level. (Would rather not; have other fish to fry.)
- My interest in this "Jr." thing is just the bogus attempts to pretend VPPOL RfCs can be ignored if one doesn't get the answer one wants. (Someone probably thinks I'm behaving that way about the "grandfathering" thing, but I've laid out a policy-based rationale at WT:MOSBIO, reiterated here, above, showing it's a GAN/FAC matter, not an MOS one, and no one's refuted this).
- I also suggested to Dicklyon to lay off the moves for a bit. Everyone needs to just calm down.
- PS: Now you have me thinking of Arby's Sauce. I need a sangwidge! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Don't go there--it'll kill you. Look, that I'm an Arb has little to do with what ArbCom may decide, and I encourage that one forget I have a few different hats. I closed that one as an uninvolved admin. What might go before ArbCom, I don't know. If someone wants to challenge a close it's probably going to be kicked right back. But I have no doubt that there will be more misgivings about the MOS, esp., maybe, as we're getting more newer editors and the older ones--dinosaurs like you and me--die off. Take care, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: More rambling musings.... I'm sure you're right. One of my goals is to get our own articles on English usage better sourced; people (like someone recently indeffed) keep using the shite ones and the OR in them to push MoS-alteration agendas. Most of them really are in appalling shape.
But there's always a fire to fight at MoS, more so than any other guideline. It's because many native speakers (and quite a few non-) are convinced that the usage they were taught early on is the correct one, in an objective sense. (Or at most that there's one correct English, down to every possible detail, over here, and some weird foreign one over there which also has one exact set of correct rules.) It's a religious-like conviction.
Protecting the balance and stability is the important part. Which includes respect for the guideline as a guideline like the rest of them. If we have that, it doesn't really matter what the particulars are in most cases. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
DRN help needed and volunteer roll call
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll think about it. Still have a sour taste in my mouth. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
While you've been sleeping............
Bad news from the Lol-cat! Keep up the splendid work. William Harris • talk • 10:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Thanks. "Always blame the cat." — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:State of Palestine
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:State of Palestine. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Request
![0x0px](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Blank.png)
![Yes check.svg](https://web.archive.org/web/20160415230446im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/18px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I noticed that you were one of the more recent editors at WP:SPA. There is an important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about possibly finding a way to salvage Single-purpose editors and transforming them into positive WP collaborators in the general mainspace. I'm sure you run in to many of them as you wander around WP. I'm also sure that every now and then one of the SPA editors rises above the crowd and seems worthy of more of your time and effort. Your personal insight and experience would be appreciated. WP:WER has become a relative ghost town (and I may be one of the few ghosts left in town) and User:Robert's idea may be just the boost the Project needs to revitalize. It's an opportunity for the Project to actually do something beyond handing out awards. I think Dennis Brown would like it. Buster Seven Talk 14:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 16
Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
- New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
- Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
- A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
- Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months