Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:14, 8 October 2016

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome! If you post here, I'll reply here; no point in scattering a conversation across two pages. I may ping you when I reply, or not, depending on how much I want to be sure you see my reply. If you want to be sure you see a reply, please add this page to your watchlist or just remember to check back later. I don't use Talkback.(Dontcha wish we could agree on one way to do this, and eliminate all the unnecessary confusion? I do.)

There is one place at Misplaced Pages where I get to dictate a mature and respectful tone of conversation. This is it. Off limits to people who won't or can't converse like adults.

Donald Trump run-off

There are two people that voiced their support for a photo in the wrong thread after we started the run-off voting and before I closed the thread. I tried contacting them to move it, but otherwise what can we do about this? Chase (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: If you posted on their user talk pages, I don't know what else we could do. Doesn't seem proper to cast votes on their behalf. They still have three days to respond. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Just making sure, I did all I could think of, thanks! Chase (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: Just FYI - Complicating matters, discussion at VPP suggests that we may have to request a closer if the vote is close. So far admins have declined to say how close is close. If we request a closer, it could be a few days before one arrives, and I assume the voting would remain open during that time. So those people may end having more than three days to respond. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The way I was reading the discussion was that it was at our discretion on whether to close and accept the decision or not? Chase (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: Ok I re-read it. If the minority concedes, no closer is necessary. What, are we going to have voting among the minority to determine whether they concede? Even admins are capable of overcomplicating things, imo. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that does make things complicated. I personally support whatever outcome of our voting results in. I am sure other people would respect that as well. Mostly the people that are really against Gage Skidmore photos, which I would say I am one of those people (Just the naming aspect), would oppose to the results heavily. Chase (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: - If E ends up with even a tiny majority, that's easy. No change. If C ends up with 50.1% or more, I think I'll just install it. Then, if someone reverts because it was too close, we'll request a closer. And I'll explain this in my editsum. How dat be? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

unequivocally agree. Chase (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Mandruss, I suggest requesting a close either on AN, or simply pick an uninvolved admin or experienced user to close the runoff vote. The post at WP:ANRFC may not be looked at for days or weeks, meanwhile the discussion about this relatively unimportant matter will continue to fill the talk page.- MrX 14:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Sigh. I'll move it to AN and update the link to it in the voting. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• • @MrX: - I suggest requesting a close either on AN, or simply pick an uninvolved admin or experienced user to close the runoff vote. - It would appear I made the wrong choice, thinking it would be easier and/or faster. Live and learn. While you're here, can you interpret this comment I saw elsewhere? The system is rigged, believe me folks. You've never ever ever seen anything like this before in history. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I gave you bad advice, not expecting that so many bureaucrats and uninformed editors would show up. The "rigged" comment is a Trump allusion (illusion?).- MrX 12:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: - Maybe you could explain this cultural thing where admins give informed opinions and then aren't prepared to defend them much (Nyttend) or at all (NeilN). Non-admins challenge their peers routinely, that's part of the process, and the process wouldn't work without it. Somehow things are different at admin level. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's riot and take over wikipedia. Chase (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss that by email. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chase: Rabble rouser. You will be dealt with accordingly!!!!!- MrX 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: For the answer to that, I refer you the talk page of some of the more visible admins. They are often inundated with requests, complaints, trolling, badgering, and all variety of questions. I'm sure that their patience runs out eventually. Also, no one is obligated to satisfy you. Although WP:ADMINACCT requires admins to explain their admin actions, as far as I know, they don't have to explain their inaction nor their opinions. In some cases, some admins probably feel that their position of authority comes with the privilege of not having to explain themselves.- MrX 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems I have some reading to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Village pump & Donald Trump

Just to offer an alternative thought for what consolation it may be -- while there's no support for such, some of the effect occurs anyway by natural processes, of his nature and volunteer editors tendencies.

e.g. At Donald Trump, I was in recent debate whether the header wording about his statements "controversial" becoming "controversial or false". (personally I was at "controversial" is the predominant phrase, though I think "controversial or offensive" also common and reasonable ... and I thought leave it rather than edits in election cycle just sniffs like advocacy. But ....

e.g. See Donald Grump within the list at Grouches

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

So show me where the sources says he makes false claims? It is not just applicable to him and is a smear statement.  — Calvin999 08:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999: The problem is that you are missing all the context around that sentence. There recently has been a very large amount of discussion among editors about it on the article's talk page, and the current sentence represents the current consensus. In controversial articles like this one, it's best not to jump in and make controversial edits without first understanding the context. Many editors make the same kind of mistake by removing the words "black" and "white" from the leads of articles that have racial components established by reliable sources. One of the discussions about his statements is at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Donald_Trump.27s_false_campaign_statements, and there are probably more. You're free to open a new discussion challenging the existing consensus, but I think it would be a waste of your time and probably somewhat painful for you. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I read the whole sentence, I understand the context and I agree that everything up until "and false" should be included. It's an ambiguous term that is baseless, and by the same rule of thumb should be included in all political article, but I doubt it would be.  — Calvin999 09:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I don't have an opinion on that question, and I have stayed out of the discussions related to it. I do know that we don't make consensus-free edits of content that has recently been hotly debated and is therefore known to be very controversial among editors. Actually the latest discussion about it was started just yesterday and is in progress, why not join it? That's at Talk:Donald_Trump#Quick_straw_poll_.28false_statements.29. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I might do. Thanks.  — Calvin999 09:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"dummy edit"

Thanks, smartass. I'm well aware that in American English a roommate can mean someone sharing a living area other than a room, but could we possibly come up with a more specific term? --81.151.133.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Why would we need a more specific term than one that accurately describes the reality per the American dictionary definition? But (1) I have given it a good-faith attempt to no avail, and (2) I think the sources say roommate but you could look into that. I could agree to anything that has some meaningful degree of source support. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, "dummy edit" is not a reference to a person, as in "you dummy". See dummy edit. Not sure you understood that, given the title of this section. If you did, never mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The side conversation feature I was thinking of...

In I started on about how we could have a way to invite people into asides that are beside but not entirely dominating a main conversation. I've done a bit of work toward that idea at Template:Aside. See the talk page for a stupid example of what it looks like, at least, and a list of the parameters so far. It's still not "stable" at this time, so I'm not encouraging you to use it for anything important. I should admit though that I still don't really know where and how this would best be applied, so I thought I'd ask if you have any thoughts after seeing what I have. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: - IIRC our little discussion was about ways to increase signal-to-noise ratio in high-level discussions, see . I don't see how this does that. Those disrupting the main discussion would simply jump in and disrupt the aside, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of ways this could be used, but one example would be that a user sets this up on one of his talk subpages. That basically makes the user the "admin" of the side thread, and he can get rid of stuff he doesn't want, effectively limiting who can join in. I'm not really that fond of doing it, but I think the customs might go in the direction that this rarely needs to be done explicitly; i.e. you could have an aside that is basically invite-only and people might respect that. But that's only one of many possiblities... and I don't think I will be accurate in predicting what people would really do with the feature. Still... it seems interesting to test the idea. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: I think I can already set the parameters of a discussion on my talk page, and ask anybody to leave with no requirement to justify or defend my request. I could do it simply because I don't like the person and that wouldn't violate any policy I'm aware of. If they didn't respect that request, they wouldn't respect the conditions of an Aside either. I think failure to respect the request to stay off a user talk page would be grounds for an ANI complaint for disruption or something. Maybe we already have the answer, then, in the form of user talk pages? We would just learn not to start that kind of discussion in a "public" space, or to take it to user talk as soon as the disruption started. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, user talk pages are way out of sight. This allows the conversation to be reported back to the main forum while remaining a user talk page conversation. That allows people to sort of see something is being discussed without being overwhelmed by it. I'm looking to bridge this gap with some kind of hybrid phenomenon, I guess. Wnt (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: Then a separate page in user space that is transcluded onto the main page? Or a simple template to point from the main page to the user talk? "See related user-moderated discussion here." I don't see anything gaiined by conducting the side discussion inside a template. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to extract the conversation and make it smaller, so that instead of being a giant section, you just see who was talking about what recently. Wnt (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: - Still not seeing how this would work in practice. For starters, useful discussions generally consist of comments of more than 100 words, often as high as 800 or even more. Fit that into your little box. It seems "useful" and "smaller" are in conflict. I don't think we're on the same page here (so to speak). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the little box could grow, but I wanted to at least shoot for small. It's not supposed to be a straight transclusion of the whole thing (that is easy to do anyway); just enough to help you decide, while browsing the base forum, do you want to read this? Wnt (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: - Ok I was missing that piece, that this provides a small window into the actual discussion occurring in user space. Thus saving a user one click of a link that would show them the whole thing, which they would have to click anyway if they chose to participate. I'm not sure that's worth it. My main goal was to exclude disrupters, and it seems we already have that without the Aside template. Which is not to say that I would oppose trialing it. It rarely hurts to try something. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ref Desk Talk Closure

Mandruss, you have been around long enough to know that this sort of thread is not productive. It started out hostile, it is a hostile title, and currently ends with the subject being mocked. Please take a second look at this thread, and leave it open if you seriously think that anything productive will result in this discussion. 72.21.225.66 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's probably not productive. That doesn't necessarily make it a proper close, especially after it has been dispuuted by at least one very experienced editor. These closes should be done by uninvolved editors and the fact that the IP has all of one edit in their history does not serve to convince me they are uninvolved. To my mind, little harm is done by allowing unproductive nonsense to continue on that particular page. On an article talk page, I might feel differently. My suggestion is to just relax and let things play out, rather than going around trying to control what others talk about. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)