Misplaced Pages

User talk:SMcCandlish: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:03, 4 August 2007 editCalton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users78,494 edits Mike Godwin← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:30, 22 January 2025 edit undoYapperbot (talk | contribs)Bots85,881 edits Feedback Request Service notification on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment (1/8 this month). You can unsubscribe at WP:FRS. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- Short URL: https://w.wiki/4Qq and for main user page: https://w.wiki/4Qp -->{{User:SMcCandlish/Topicons}}
{{Usertalksuper}}
{{NoAutosign}}
{{Notice|small=yes|header=My IP addresses|Occasionally I get logged out and don't immediately notice. Any edits from the following IP addresses, ''during the timeframes specified'', are by me. Please note that any edits that ''seem'' to be from me (]) but which are not from one of these known IP addresses ''are not'' me, as '''I do not edit from any other IP addresses, ever.''' My IP address very infrequently changes, and mine is a single-user machine.
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Tahoma, Verdana">
*'''Current IP address:''' 68.35.40.113 (beginning early July 2007, last updated 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
{{UserTalkReplyhere}}
*'''Former IP addresses:''' 68.35.72.239 (ca. late 2006 &ndash; January 2007), 69.241.164.230 (January &ndash; early July 2007)}}
{{Usertalkconcise}}
{{User:SMcCandlish/Status}}
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{Archive box|
]
* ]
<!-- Page-top "utilities" go here: -->
* ]
{{#ifexpr:{{PAGESIZE:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report|R}} > 1000|{{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report|align=left|duplicate=hide|time format=G:i n/j/Y}}|No ]s or ]s reported by ] since {{#time:G:i n/j/Y|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}}}} (UTC)}}
* ]
{{divhide|width=70%|Template-edit requests, etc.}}
* ]
{{User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable}}
* ]
{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotalign=left}}
* ]
{{User talk:SMcCandlish/AdminNews}}<!-- "Administrators' newsletter" stuff is transcluded from here. -->
}}
{{divhide|end}}
<!--{{VC lessons}} Move to my to-do box, I think-->
{{Cent|width=66%|compact=very|float=left}}
<!--


--><div style="float: left; padding: 1em;">
==]==
Most recent poster here: ] (])


'''{{vanchor|Mini-toolbox}}:'''
Hi there. I see you've done some work on the Logorrhoea article and was wondering whether or not you had read my comments on the discussion page there. IMHO the section on rhetoric is sub-par in many ways and actually I was considering expanding the mental health part and significantly trimming the rhetoric part, which mostly appears to be the opinion of people who don't like high-falutin' sentence structures.
* (journal access, etc.; to get your own, see ])
* ] <small>(req. ] access and ] or is just a normal redlink)</small>
* ]
* Hunt down abuse of {{tlnull|em}} for non-emphasis italics — and {{tag|em|o}}
* Move and redirect ] when feasible (i.e. when not proper names that require them)
*
* ]
* Ref consistency checker (use in preview or sandbox): {{tlx|ref info|Manx cat|style{{=}}float:right}}
* Reliably ]-match a single linebreak in wikicode (or elsewhere): <code>(\r\n|\r|\n)</code>
* Helpful links related to ], ], and code cleanup: ] (a.k.a. ]), ] (a.k.a. ]), ]
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cue sports/Article alerts}}
'''Other:'''
* MW ], (Tuesdays, noon–12:30pm&nbsp;PDT = 20:00&nbsp;UTC during DST, 19:00 otherwise, but often half an hour earlier).
* MW ], via IRC at {{Channel|wikimedia-tech}} (Wednesdays, 1–2pm&nbsp;PDT = <!--This time is fixed; when PDT changes, the Pacific time changes. Opposite of the one above.-->).
* ] – global blacklist requests
</div><!--


-->
Are you suggesting we split Logorrhoea into (use in rhetoric) and (use in medicine)?
{{clear}}
--] 12:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
{|style="width: 99%;"
|style="vertical-align: top; width:50%;"| __TOC__
|style="vertical-align: top;"|{{User talk:SMcCandlish/Status}}
|style="vertical-align: top;"|{{User Signpost-subscription}}].]]
|style="vertical-align: top;"|{{User talk:SMcCandlish/Archivebox}}
|}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive index|mask=User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive <#>|leading zeros=0|indexhere=yes|template=User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive index template}}
{{clear}}


=Old stuff to resolve eventually=
:Dicussion moved to direct e-mail (short version: YES. Better to split than to remove material.) --] 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
== Cueless billiards ==
{{Unresolved|1=Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.}}
{{collapse top}}
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?--] (]) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:] fits for sure. And if the variant in it is sourceable, I'm sure some military editor will fork it into a separate article eventually. I think at least some variants of ] are played with hands and some ] split-offs probably were, too (Shamos goes into loads of them, but I get them all mixed up, mostly because they have foreign names). And there's ], article I've not written yet. Very fun game. Kept my sister and I busy for 3 hours once. Her husband (Air Force doctor) actually plays crud on a regular basis; maybe there's a connection. She beat me several times, so it must be from crud-playing. ] might be its own article eventually. Anyway, I guess it depends upon your "categorization politics". Mine are pretty liberal - I like to put stuff into a logical category as long as there are multiple items for it (there'll be two as soon as you're done with f.b., since we have ]), and especially if there are multiple parent categories (that will be the case here), and especially especially if the split parallels the category structure of another related category branch (I can't think of a parallel here, so this criterion of mine is not a check mark in this case), and so on. A bunch of factors really. I kind of wallow in that stuff. Not sure why I dig the category space so much. Less psychodrama, I guess. >;-) In my entire time here, I can only think of maybe one categorization decision I've made that got nuked at ]. And I'm a pretty aggressive categorizer, too; I totally overhauled ] just for the heck of it and will probably do the same to ] soon.
:PS: I'm not wedded to the "cueless billiards" name idea; it just seemed more concise than "cueless developments from cue sports" or whatever.— <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''<big>]</big>''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::I have no "categorization politics". It's not an area that I think about a lot or has ever interested me so it's good there are people like you. If there is to be a category on this, "cueless billiards" seems fine to me. By the way, just posted ] as an adjunct to the finger billiards article I started.--] (]) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Cool; I'd never even heard of him. This one looks like a good DYK; just the fact that there was Finger Billiards World Championship contention is funky enough, probably. You still citing that old version of Shamos? You really oughta get the 1999 version; it can be had from Amazon for cheap and has a ''bunch'' of updates. I actually put my old version in the recycle bin as not worth saving. Heh. PS: You seen Stein & Rubino 3rd ed.? I got one for the xmas before the one that just passed, from what was then a really good girlfriend. >;-) It's a-verra, verra nahce. Over 100 new pages, I think (mostly illustrations). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''<big>]</big>''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::::If I happen to come across it in a used book store I might pick it up. There's nothing wrong with citing the older edition (as I've said to you before). I had not heard of Adams before yesterday either. Yank is apparently not his real name, though I'm not sure what it is yet. Not sure there will be enough on him to make a DYK (though don't count it out). Of course, since I didn't userspace it, I have 4½ days to see. Unfortunately, I don't have access to ancestry.com and have never found any free database nearly as useful for finding newspaper articles (and census, birth certificates, and reams of primary source material). I tried to sign up for a free trial again which worked once before, but they got smart and are logging those who signed up previously. I just looked; the new Stein and Rubino is about $280. I'll work from the 2nd edition:-)--] (]) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Hmm... I haven't tried Ancestry in a while. They're probably logging IP addresses. That would definitely affect me, since mine doesn't change except once every few years. I guess that's what libraries and stuff are for. S&R: Should be available cheaper. Mine came with the ''Blue Book of Pool Cues'' too for under $200 total. Here it is , plus I think the shipping was $25. Stein gives his e-mail address as that page. If you ask him he might give you the 2-book deal too, or direct you to where ever that is. Shamos: Not saying its an unreliable source (although the newer version actually corrected some entries), it's just cool because it has more stuff in it. :-) DYK: Hey, you could speedily delete your own article, sandbox it and come back. Heh. Seriously, I'll see if I can get into Ancestry again and look for stuff on him. I want to look for William Hoskins stuff anyway so I can finish that half of the Spinks/Hoskins story, which has sat in draft form for over a year. I get sidetracked... — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''<big>]</big>''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::It's not IPs they're logging, it's your credit card. You have to give them one in order to get the trial so that they can automatically charge you if you miss the cancellation deadline. Regarding the Blue Book, of all these books, that's the one that get's stale, that is, if you use it for actual quotes, which I do all the time, both for answer to questions and for selling, buying, etc. Yeah I start procrastinating too. I did all that work on Mingaud and now I can't get myself to go back. I also did reams of research on Hurricane Tony Ellin (thugh I found so little; I really felt bad when he died; I met him a few times, seemed like a really great guy), Masako Katsura and others but still haven't moved on them.--] (]) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, the credit card. I'll have to see if the PayPal plugin has been updated to work with the new Firefox. If so, that's our solution - it generates a new valid card number every time you use it (they always feed from your single PayPal account). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''<big>]</big>''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::{{Anchor|doh}}PayPal Plugin ''ist kaput''. Some banks now issue credit card accounts that make use of virtual card numbers, but mine's not one of them. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for trying. It was worth a shot. I signed up for a three month trial. As far as newspaper results go it seems quite good so far, and the search interface is many orders of magnitude better than ancestry's, but it has none of the genealogical records that ancestry provides. With ancestry I could probably find census info on Yank as well as death information (as well as for Masako Katsura, which I've been working on it for a few days; she could actually be alive, though she'd be 96).--] (]) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


=== Sad... ===
::Note to self: ] should just be merged into ] anyway. &mdash; ] ]] ]] - 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


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.--] (]) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:::You managed to work the word "Logorrhoea" into an edit summary of some work I did on ]. Nice. --] 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:::: Was vocabulary practice. I'd just been at the L. page, and thought I'd try making myself use it (and even use the UK spelling); I usually use "prolixity"; it sounds less insulting! Heh. ;-) &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :Reading stuff from that era, it's also amazing how important billiards (in the three-ball sense) was back then, with sometimes multiple-page stories in newspapers about each turn in a long match, and so on. It's like snooker is today in the UK. PS: I saw that you found evidence of a billiards stage comedy there. I'd never heard of it! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''<big>]</big>''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
::. Portrait, diagrams, sample shot descriptions and more (that will also lend itself to the finger billiards article).--] (]) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Nice find! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


==Some more notes on ]==
'''Unresolved:''' Article still not split. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 08:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Unresolved|1=New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.}}
{{collapse top}}
Some more notes: they bought ] in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.; info about making records:; the chair in 1989 was ]:; "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; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks! I'll have to have a look at this stuff in more detail. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
::I've worked most of it in. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Cool! From what I can tell, entirely different parties held the trademark in different markets. I can't find a link between Crystalate Mfg. Co. Ltd. (mostly records, though billiard balls early on) and the main billiard ball mfr. in the UK, who later came up with "Super Crystalate". I'm not sure the term was even used in the U.S. at all, despite the formulation having been originally patented there. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Active guideline == == ] ==
{{Unresolved|1=Not done yet, last I looked.}}
{{Resolved|1=I don't archive this one, as it serves as a good cautionary tale against abuse of user-warning templates.}}
{{collapse top}}
The consensus on the ] guideline *including notes on notability* was prior to ] being started. There is no consensus on that new proposal. Until there is, ] is the *active* guideline on book notability. --] 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No one has actually {{em|objected}} to the idea that it's really pointless for ] to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing ], which is where all of ]'s style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to ] 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. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<span style="color:red;">¤</span>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></span> 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
:I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. ''']''' ''']''' 23:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== You post at Misplaced Pages talk:FAQ/Copyright ==
: Out of plain curiosity, I'd like to see evidence of that, specifically that the passage in question was present and substantively identical to its current wording at the pont of transition from a draft Guideline on book naming conventions to a non-draft one. But it's a moot point. It is almost ''ludicrously'' inappropriate for a non-controversial guideline on naming conventions to have a ''totally off-topic'' rider in it that attempts to set a guideline in one of the most hotly-debate spheres of Misplaced Pages, namely "notability". If this rider was present in the original draft naming convention for books, it is entirely possible that the only reason it survived is precisely because it was a hidden rider - few who would have any reason to object would ever notice it and weigh in. If it ever represented any form of consensus at all it was only a consensus among people who a) care about book naming conventions, and (not or) b) either support the vague notability rider, didn't notice it or didn't care either way. Ergo it it not a real Misplaced Pages consensus at all. But even this is moot. The existence of an active push to develop ] demonstrates that there is in fact no consensus at all, period, that the notability rider in the naming article is valid. If it remains, I'm taking this to arbitration, because I believe the presence of the rider to be deceptive and an abuse of the Policy/Guideline formulation process and consensus mechanism. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 16:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Unresolved|1=Need to fix ], etc., with proper balkline stats, now that we know how to interpret them.}}
{{Collapse top}}
That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with ]? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?--] (]) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


:Yeah, I did a bunch of archiving yesterday. This page was HUGE. It'll get there again. I'd forgotten MCQ existed. Can you please add it to the DAB hatnote at top of and "See also" at bottom of ]? Its conspicuous absence is precisely why I ened up at ]! Haven't seen your balkline response yet; will go look. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></span> 21:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
::* &mdash; no changes to the "Note on notability criteria" section.
{{collapse bottom}}
::* &mdash; no changes to the "Note on notability criteria" section.
::--] 16:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


== Hee Haw ==
::: Thanks. But as I said, I think this is a moot point. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Unresolved|1=Still need to propose some standards on animal breed article naming and disambiguation. In the intervening years, we've settled on natural not parenthetic disambiguation, and that standardized breeds get capitalized, but that's about it.}}
{{collapse top}}
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? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:Truce, certainly. I'm not here to pick fights, just improve the consistency for readers {{em|and}} editors. I don't think there will be any scholarly articles on differences between landrace and breed, because there's nothing really to write about. ] has clear definitions in zoology and botany, and ] not only doesn't qualify, it is only established as true in any given case by reliable sources. Basically, no one anywhere is claiming "This is the Foobabaz horse, and it is a new landrace!" That wouldn't make sense. What {{em|is}} happening is people naming and declaring new alleged breeds on an entirely self-interested, profit-motive basis, with no evidence anyone other than the proponent and a few other experimental breeders consider it a breed. WP is full of should-be-AfD'd articles of this sort, like the cat one I successfully prod'ed last week. Asking for a reliable source that something is a landrace rather than a breed is backwards; landrace status is the default, not a special condition. It's a bit like asking for a scholarly piece on whether ] is a real language or not; no one's going to write a journal paper about that because "language" (and related terms like "dialect", "language family", "creole" in the linguistic sense, etc.) have clear definitions in linguistics, while pig Latin, an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally-managed form of communication (like an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally managed form of domesticated animal) does not qualify. :-) The "what is a breed" question, which is also not about horses any more than cats or cavies or ferrets, is going to be a separate issue to resolve from the naming issue. Looking over what we collaboratively did with donkeys &ndash; and the naming form that took, i.e. ] not ], I think I'm going to end up on your side of that one. It needs to be discussed more broadly in an RFC, because most projects use the parenthetical form, because this is what WT:AT is most readily interpretable as requiring. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></span> 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


::I hate the drama of an RfC, particularly when we can just look at how much can be naturally disambiguated, but if you think it's an actual issue, I guess ping me when it goes up. As for landcraces, it may be true ("clear definitions") but you would be doing God's (or someone's) own good work if you were to improve ] which has few references, fewer good ones, and is generally not a lot of help to those of us trying to sort out WTF a "landrace" is... (smiles). As for breed, that is were we disagree: At what point do we really have a "breed" as opposed to a "landrace?" Fixed traits, human-selected? At what degree, at which point? How many generations? I don't even know if there IS such a thing as a universal definition of what a "breed" is: seriously: or ] or . I think you and I agree that the ] horse can never be a "breed" because it is impossible for the color to breed true (per an earlier discussion) so we have one limit. But while I happen agree to a significant extent with your underlying premise that when Randy from Boise breeds two animals and says he has created a new breed and this is a problem, (I think it's a BIG problem in the worst cases) but if we want to get really fussy, I suppose that the aficionados of the ] who claim the breed is ] are actually arguing it is a landrace, wouldn't you say? And what DO we do with the multi-generational stuff that's in limbo land? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
=== Warning ===
:::I'm not really certain what the answers are to any of those questions, another reason (besides your "STOP!" demands :-) that I backed away rapidly from moving any more horse articles around. But it's something that is going to have to be looked into. I agree that the ] article here is poor. For one thing, it needs to split ] out into its own article (a natural breed is a selectively-bred formal breed the purpose of which is to refine and "lock-in" the most definitive qualities of a local landrace). This in turn isn't actually the same thing as a ''traditional breed'', though the concepts are related. Basically, three breeding concepts are squished into one article. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></span> 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
{{details|Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (books)#Notability criteria}}
:::::::::Side comment: I tend to support one good overview article over three poor content forks, just thinking aloud... ]<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Sure; the point is that the concepts have to be separately, clearly treated, because they are not synonymous at all. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></span> 02:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Given that the article isn't well-sourced yet, I think that you might want to add something about that to ] now, just to give whomever does article improvement on it later (maybe you, I think this is up your alley!) has the "ping" to do so. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Aye, it's on my to-do list. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></span> 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Although I have been an evolutionary biologist for decades, I only noticed the term "landrace" within the past year or two (in reference to corn), because I work with wildland plants. But I immediately knew what it was, from context. I'm much less certain about breeds, beyond that I am emphatic that they are human constructs. Montanabw and I have discussed my horse off-wiki, and from what I can tell, breeders are selecting for specific attributes (many people claim to have seen a horse "just like him"), but afaik there is no breed "Idaho stock horse". Artificially-selected lineages can exist without anyone calling them "breeds"; I'm not sure they would even be "natural breeds", and such things are common even within established breeds (Montanabw could probably explain to us the difference between Polish and Egyptian Arabians).


::::The good thing about breeds wrt Misplaced Pages is that we can use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE to decide what to cover. Landraces are a different issue: if no one has ever called a specific, distinctive, isolated mustang herd a landrace, is it OR for Misplaced Pages to do so?--] (]) 16:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing content from Misplaced Pages, as you did to ]. It is considered ]. If you want to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Test2a-n (Second level warning) -->


:::::::I have been reluctant to use ] much out of a concern that the concept is a bit OR, as I hadn't heard of it before[REDACTED] either (but I'm more a historian than an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know?): Curtis, any idea where this did come from? It's a useful concept, but I am kind of wondering where the lines are between ] and a "natural" breed -- of anything. And speaking of isolated Mustang herds, we have things like ], which is kind of interesting. I think that at least some of SMc's passion comes from the nuttiness seen in a lot of the dog and cat breeders these days, am I right? I mean, ]s? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
You reverted the *consensus* version of ] to the version you had proposed earlier today. That version of yours is not consensus, and you knew that when you reverted. For guidelines one needs a new consensus for major changes. Yours was a major change. It had no consensus. So I'm posting this warning on your user page, and will then proceed to revert the ] section to the version that had consensus when that became a guideline about half a year ago.


::::::::The first use of the word that I saw referred to different landraces of ] growing in different elevations and exposures in indigenous Maya areas of modern Mexico. I haven't tracked down the references for the use of the word, but the concept seems extremely useful. My sense is that landraces form as much through natural selective processes of cultivation or captivity as through human selection, so that if the "garbage wolf" hypothesis for dog domestication is true, garbage wolves would have been a landrace (or more likely several, in different areas). One could even push the definition and say that ] is a landrace. But I don't have enough knowledge of the reliable sources to know how all this would fit into Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to discuss other versions of that section (whether that be a temporary version until
:::::::::Landraces form, primarily and quickly, through {{em|mostly}} natural selection, long after domestication. E.g. the ] and ] are both North American landraces that postdate European arrival on the continent. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></span> 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
] becomes guideline or a more permanent solution) on the ] talk page. But consensus is needed before it can be moved to the guideline page. --] 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


:::::::::I see some potential for some great research on this and a real improvement to the articles in question. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
: Cute, but a total misdirection (as to at least three claims, of consensus, my tacit agreement that consensus existed, and new edit not reflecting consensus, and possibly a forth, as to edit scope. I do in fact dispute, in more than one way, that the section in question represents any meaningful consensus, for reasons already stated and evidenced. I contend that it is someone's ] and removable as such; that it is an off-topic insertion and thus subject to removal on other grounds; and that even if it had some merit at one point it has been superceded by the ''current Wikipedian editors' consensus'' on this topic (which is that the topic needs a Guideline, period, so one has been started as a Proposal; notably it is ''not'' a consensus that the rider needs editing and improvement; rather it is being replaced, to the extent its existence has even been acknowledged. To continue, I further assert that removing the rider would in fact be a consensus move. ] would not be well on the way to becoming a Guideline if there were any consensus that the off-topic notability rider in the naming guideline already had any consensus support whatsoever. It is very notable that no one has proposed a section merger or in any other way addressed the rider as valid or worth even thinking about. It is simply being ignored. And I assert further that it is at least questionable whether it is a "major edit" to remove a small section that is more adequately covered by another article (whether that article is considered "finished" or not) that has a lot more editorial activity and interest, and replace the redundant section it with a cross-reference to the latter, as I did.
::::::::::Yep. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></span> 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Redundant sentence? ==
: The fact that no one has even touched the rider at all since Jan. strongly supports my points that a) virtually no one who cares about notability of books is aware of it, got to debate its inclusion, or even considers it worth working on or authoritative in any way, because the topic of how to define book notability is generating quite a bit of activity on the other article; and therefore b) it reflects no consensus on the topic of book notability, period. Which is what one would expect, given that it's buried at the bottom of an article about spelling! I also dispute the notion that an approved Guideline on is also an approved Guideline on ''unrelated'' just because it happens to mention some ideas relating to how to deal with . If you are aware of another example, I'd love to see it.
{{Unresolved|1=Work to integrate ] and ] stuff into ] not completed yet? Seems to be mostly done, other than fixing up the breeds section, after that capitalization RfC a while back.}}
{{collapse top}}
The sentence at ] "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 ] 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). ] (]) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:PS: I'm posting most of this, with further (case-closing, in my opinion) facts, references and evidence, on ], since otherwise the debate won't affect anyone's views other than yours and/or mine in User talk.


:#I would leave it a alone for now; let people get used to the changes. I think it's reasonable to include the "general names" thing, because it's a catch-all that includes several different kinds of examples, that various largely {{em|different}} groups of people are apt to capitalize. Various know-nothings want to capitalize things like "the Cats", the "Great Apes", etc., because they think "it's a Bigger Group and I like to Capitalize Big Important Stuff". There are millions more people who just like to capitalize nouns and stuff. "Orange's, $1 a Pound". Next we have people who insist on capitalizing general "types" and landraces of domestic animals ("Mountain Dogs", "Van Cat") because they're used to formal breed names being capitalized (whether to do that with breeds here is an open question, but it should not be done with types/classes of domestics, nor with landraces. Maybe the examples can be sculpted better: "the roses", "herpesviruses", "great apes", "Bryde's whale", "mountain dogs", "Van cat", "passerine birds". I'm not sure that "rove beetle" and "oak" are good examples of anything. Anyway, it's more that the species no-capitalization is a special case of the more general rule, not that the general rule is a redundant or vague version of the former. If they're merged, it should keep the general examples, and maybe specifically spell out and illustrate that it also means species and subspecies, landraces and domestic "types", as well as larger and more general groupings.
: &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:# I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to ], which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at ] or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With ], I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization there, and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:::#Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
:::#I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "''Canna''" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. ] (]) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
::::#Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
::::#Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Note to self on ]==
===Update===
{{Unresolved|I think I did MOST of this already ...}}
Months later, the points I raised were never refuted ''or even questioned'' at the ], and ] is well on the way to becoming a Guideline, meanwhile ] was nominated ''two'' more times for removal, with the ''unanimous'' support of those who commented, and was replaced with a wordy wikilink to ]. I rest my case. One may wish to actually look into establishing what consensus really is on whatever matter is at hand before presuming to lecture others about it. PS: The abuse of {{]}} on my Talk page (it is intended, and instructed, to be used in series with {{]}} or a variant thereof) was very heavy-handed. I'm leaving it up instead of archiving it, because I think it says far more about abuse of the label "vandal" than it does about me. &gt;;-)
{{collapse top}}
&mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 10:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Finish patching up ] with the stuff from ], and otherwise get the ball rolling. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Excellent mini-tutorial ==
==Eight ball==
{{Unresolved|Still need to do that essay page. Work in material, too.}}
Gad what a mess ] is. I'm gearing up to rewrite it if I can figure out a logical way of doing so. Regarding you query on the section about the Mexican ruleset (where you wrote "Is there a name for this?"), I don't know of a name but I know the origin, and if I can get off my ass and do the cleanup I can take care of it. In short, after B.B.C. Co. Pool was invented, eight ball went through a number of distinct ruleset periods. One of them, which lasted for a number of years, ''had these exact rules''. Once that is defined, it can be added that these rules are ''still'' used in Mexico.--] 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
{{collapse top}}
: Sounds good to me. The blackball section could probably use expansion. My take on it is that it should dispense with the "possible" ruleset language, describe the intl. std. rules, and if/where they differ mention that the APA or VNEA or BCA or whatever rules differ on this little point, and continue. Amat. variations like bank-the-eight and last-pocket should remain in a "rules variations" section. Yes? &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Somehow, I forget quite how, I came across ] - that is an excellent summary of the distinctions. I often get confused over those, and your examples were very clear. Is something like that in the general MoS/citation documentation? Oh, and while I am here, what is the best way to format a citation to a page of a document where the pages are not numbered? All the guidance I have found says not to invent your own numbering by counting the pages (which makes sense), but I am wondering if I can use the 'numbering' used by the digitised form of the book. I'll point you to an example of what I mean: the 'book' in question is catalogued (note that is volume 2) and the digitised version is accessed through a viewer, with an example of a 'page' being , which the viewer calls page 116, but there are no numbers on the actual book pages (to confuse things further, if you switch between single-page and double-page view, funny things happen to the URLs, and if you create and click on a single-page URL the viewer seems to relocate you one page back for some reason). ] (]) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
::I'm really not sure exactly how to do it, and I agree that "possible variations" is clunky as hell, but here's what has been percolating 1) continue the history section I started, going into the variations up to the modern era. Then define the world standardized rules. Then the standard bar/recreational rules and how they differ from the BCA (with some explication of that there is no ''standard'' because no formal ruleset, but widely followed and explain that they vary). Then we can go into game variations such as last pocket, etc.. Last pocket, by the way, is apparently very, very widely played variation in South America.--]
:{{ping|Carcharoth}} Thanks. I need to copy that into an essay page. As far as I know, the concepts are not clearly covered in any of those places, nor clearly enough even at ] (which is dense and overlong as it is). The e-book matters bear some researching. I'm very curious whether particular formats (Nook, etc.) paginate consistently between viewers. For Web-accessible ones, I would think that the page numbering that appears in the Web app is good enough if it's consistent (e.g., between a PC and a smart phone) when the reader clicks the URL in the citation. I suppose one could also use {{para|at}} to provide details if the "page" has to be explained in some way. I try to rely on better-than-page-number locations when possible, e.g. specific entries in dictionaries and other works with multiple entries per page (numbered sections in manuals, etc.), but for some e-books this isn't possible – some are just continuous texts. One could probably use something like {{para|at|in the paragraph beginning "The supersegemental chalcolithic metastasis is ..." about 40% into the document}}, in a pinch. I guess we do need to figure this stuff out since such sources are increasingly common. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
::: I'd suggest doing the WS rules, and interspersing them with Big League differences as needed (BCA/VNEA/Blackball/APA/IPT), just to keep it shorter - might be a bit frustrating to have follow-on sections like "BCA exceptions", "VNEA exceptions", etc.; then close with a section on amat./"bar rules" variations (which will need somehow to discourage additions of "in my neighborhood..." variants; I think the present HTML comment language is probably a good start). Agreed that last-pocket is huge in Latin America; was why I added it. EVERY native Mexican, El Salvadorean, Nicaraguan, etc., that I've met plays that way (and not the "magic side pockets" way detailed earlier in the article; I'd demote that to a minor variation), and without any differences (e.g. as to 2 free scratches, etc.) It seems quite uniform. There's a bar called City Club in the Mission district of San Francisco with really great players none of whom seem to speak a word of English where what I described are the house rules. The players are from all over Latin America, quite friendly to Gringos if we can figure out the rules, and they never internally argue about the rules - these seem to be the rules they've all played with their whole lives. It's a called ball-in-pocket (not called shot) game, e.g. "cinco en está lado" however way the five gets into the designated side pocket, which I forgot to mention, so it has a bit in common with the older (pre WS) BCA rules, I think. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 15:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
::Yes (about figuring out how to reference e-books), though I suspect existing (non-WP) citation styles have addressed this already (no need to re-invent the wheel). This is a slightly different case, though. It is a digitisation of an existing (physical) book that has no page numbers. If I had the book in front of me (actually, it was only published as a single copy, so it is not a 'publication' in that traditional sense of many copies being produced), the problem with page numbers would still exist. I wonder if the 'digital viewer' should be thought of as a 'via' thingy? In the same way that (technically) Google Books and archive.org digital copies of old books are just re-transmitting, and re-distributing the material (is wikisource also a 'via' sort of thing?). ] (]) 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
::::Well maybe it's my POV, but the way I see it the article should start with WSR as the "official rules" and then in subsequent sections instead of defining the whole rulesets, siimply state how they depart from the official rules. For instance for bar'recretaional rules (which I do think need to be prominent as they are so widely played--probably the most wide ruleset for the most common game in the U.S.) all that needs to be done, is state that (in contradistinction to official rules): wins (or not) if eight ball made on break, choice of group is decided on the break, if both groups pocketed then it's choice, no foul rules but for scratches, scratch penalty is from the kitchen (and can move object ball to foot spot if none available), most but not all venues make you call every nuance of every shot (rather than "ball and pocket"), the Player loses sometimes if he doesn't contact the eight ball when it's his object ball, eight ball has to go in "clean", and the alternating racking crap. That's may not be exhaustive but there's not much more. If those distinctions follow a treatise on the correct rules, little defining should be necessary, so the section would not need to be very long.
:::{{ping|Carcharoth}} Ah, I see. I guess I would treat it as a {{para|via}}, and same with WikiSource, which in this respect is essentially like Google Books or Project Gutenberg. I think your conundrum has come up various times with arXiv papers, that have not been paginated visibly except in later publication (behind a journal paywall and not examined). Back to the broader matter: Some want to treat WikiSource and even Gutenberg as re{{em|publishers}}, but I think that's giving them undue editorial credit and splitting too fine a hair. Was thinking on the general unpaginated and mis-paginated e-sources matter while on the train, and came to the conclusion that for a short, unpaginated work with no subsections, one might give something like {{para|at|in paragraph 23}}, and for a much longer one use the {{para|at|in the paragraph beginning "..."}} trick. A straight up {{para|pages|82–83}} would work for an e-book with hard-coded meta-data pagination that is consistent between apps/platforms and no visual pagination. On the other hand, use the visual pagination in an e-book that has it, even if it doesn't match the e-book format's digital pagination, since the pagination in the visual content would match that of a paper copy; one might include a note that the pagination is that visible in the content if it conflicts with what the e-book reader says (this comes up a lot with PDFs, for one thing - I have many that include cover scans, and the PDF viewers treat that as p. 1, then other front matter as p. 2, etc., with the content's p. 1 being something like PDF p. 7). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 08:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== ] ==
::::Doing it by defining each separate ruleset's variation for each official rule would be confusing I think, and an invitation for endless parenthetical notes. Plus, the way articles evolve, people add a one-off difference from some game to one section and then go their merry way. So then we have each official rule followed by variations from some other groups of indistinct rules, with each official rule being treated separately, some getting variations some not from the same league rules. It seems to me it would lead to an organizational mess.--] 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
{{Unresolved|1=Go fix the WP:{{var|FOO}} shortcuts to MOS:{{var|FOO}} ones, to match practice at other MoS pages. This only applies to the MoS section there; like ], part of that page is also a content guideline that should not have MOS: shortcuts.}}
{{collapse top}}
You had previously asked that protection be lowered on ] which was not done at that time. I have just unprotected the page and so if you have routine update edits to make you should now be able to do so. Best, ] (]) 06:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
:Thanks. I don't remember what it was, but maybe it'll come back to me. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 12:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
::Now I remember. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


{{collapse bottom}}
::::: Sounds reasonable to me. Just wanted to make sure that the VNEA, etc., variations get in there, and are differenced from the mess of "bar pool" variations; many of them predate the WSR by a ''long'' way. :-) NB: "Rules variations" or "variants" seems like a good section heading, perhaps with a three-"=" subsection header for each set discussed? I'm thinking in terms of the promised but presently vaporware article "templates" at WP:CUE. I guess ] is as good a place as any to start developing that. NB: Also thinking that the "rack" article could really be folded entirely or almost entirely into the articles about the various games it covers. I think this sort of opens the more general question of what to do about equipment articles. My present take is that I'm not sure we actually need articles about cues, chalk, racking, tables, etc., rather than general mentions at ] (side point: Should we move it to ] now?) and more specific details under particular games (nine-ball, etc.) or game-type (carom billiards, snooker, etc.) articles. This is probably a better pack o' questions for ] but I don't see any reason to not come to a two-person initial mini-consensus on the direction here. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
:I wholeheartedly agree that subtopic articles should only be taken ''so far'', but I don't think articles on specific items of equipment or specific things such as racking are ''too far''. Let's look at ] for example (and of course the elephant in the room is that I wrote the majority of that article, but I'm not just being protective): First and foremost, I can see someone coming to Misplaced Pages interested in how racking is done across many billiard games. Second, I can see someone coming to Misplaced Pages seeking clarity because of the confusing multi-use of the word (physical object; various types; used to describe the balls in starting position; the verb for placing the balls, etc.). Third, there is a quite limited number of specific objects and things in billiards of which racking is one. We don't and never will need an article on the foot spot--how much history can be found on that topic? How much room for expansion? It's a blackhole of content, but when it comes to racking, breaking, english, I think they can all have subarticles if someone is willing to take the time to write them (citing ulitmately to reliable sources:-). There is much room for ''expansion'' of racking, from other games, to the history of it, to primary manufacturers, to the Sardo tight rack (and the controversy that has arisen in professional play over its use), etc. Or take cuetips, they have a fascinating history and there has been much written about them. Did you known leather cue tips were invented in debtor's prison by Captain Francois Mingaud around 1823 who was later accused of sorcery for the amazing things he was able to do on a billiards table using them? Regarding cue sports, I have not really been following the debate. I'm not too concerned since if it's done or not done, the information will be retained and having been following the debate too much. If you have consensus, go for it.--] 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
:: I guess the info will just have to be a little duplicative (in that the details on how to rack for eight-ball specifically need to be in the eight-ball article as well, etc. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


== Ooh...potential ] activity... ==
'''Unresolved:''' Actually making the eight-ball article cover everything described, and as-described, above. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 06:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Unresolved|1=Do some of this when I'm bored?}}
{{collapse top}}
{{yo|SMcCandlish}}


I stumbled upon {{cat|Editnotices whose targets are redirects}} and there are ~100 pages whose pages have been moved, but the editnotices are still targeted to the redirect page. Seems like a great, and sort of fun, ] activity for a template editor such as yourself. I'd do it, but I'm not a template editor. Not sure if that's really your thing, though. ;-)
== Polish interwiki ==
OK, sorry. I thought that Irish standard pool and english 8-ball are the same, looking at the pictures. Aren't they? Can you explain me the difference between these two billiard games? Thanks for information, ] 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Cheers,
:They are very, very similar, which is why ] has been slated for merging into ] just before ] forks off into the ]. ] is ''not'' quite the same as UK-rules eight-ball - different enough that the interwiki is misinformation - but similar enough that the articles can be merged, and handled with simply an "Irish variation" section, if you see what I mean. Dealing with all of that is, I think, the 2nd-highest priority on my WP to-do list, so it will be taken care of very soon. :-) &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
<br />--]''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;"> ]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 22:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
:Argh. I would've hoped some bot fixed that kind of stuff. I'll consider it, but it's a lot of work for low benefit (the page names may be wrong, but the redirs still get there), and it's been my experience that a lot of editnotices (especially in mainspace) are PoV-pushing crap that needs to be deleted anyway. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 07:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
::I'm going to pass for the nonce, {{U|Dmehus}}. Working on some other project (more fun than WP is sometimes). I'll let it sit here with {{tlx|Unresolved}} on it, in case I get inspired to work on it some, but it might be a long time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Note to self ==
'''Unresolved:''': ] &rArr; ] split has taken place, but the ] merge into the latter remains to be done. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
{{Unresolved|Cquote stuff ...}}
{{collapse top}}
Don't forget to deal with: ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


=={{tl|Resolved}}== == Now this ==
{{Unresolved|Breed disambiguation again ...}}
Thanks for the reply. I think when I clicked on the template it only brought me to the image, and not the description and talk pages. The link is back now. The template's been around for 10 months or so, and I'm surprised I'm only seeing it for the first time. I was a bit doubtful about it, because I can see some users pasting it in to guillotine an argument - but it's only an indicator with nothing final about it.--] 11:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
{{collapse top}}
:Guillotine usage should be reverted and criticized. I think the template itself should be udpated with a note that such use would be ''ab''use. I think it does already say that if anyone thinks a tagged topic is not resolved they should just remove the tag. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 17:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure the ping went through, so noting here. Just spotted where a now-blocked user moved a bunch of animal breed articles back to parenthetical disambiguation from natural disambiguation. As they did it in October and I'm only catching it now, I only moved back two just in case there was some kind of consensus change. The equine ones are definitely against project consensus, the rest are not my wheelhouse but I'm glad to comment. ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|Montanabw}} Argh. Well, this is easy to fix with a request to mass-revert undiscussed moves, at the subsection for that at ]. Some admin will just fix it all in one swoop. While I have the PageMover bit, and could do it myself as a technical possibility, I would run afoul of ] in doing so. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 02:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Montanabw}} Did this get fixed yet? If not, I can look into it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 08:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== PGP ==
'''Unresolved''': Better template documentation. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 08:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Unresolved|Gotta put my geek hat on and fix this.}}
FYI, it looks like your key has expired. ]]] 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
:Aiee! Thanks, I'll have to generate a new one when I have time to mess around with it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


== German article on houndstooth, Border tartan, and related patterns ==
== Welcome to ] ==
{{Unresolved|Considering ...}}
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SMcCandlish! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply ]. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other ], or you can post a message on ]. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
] is an interesting approach, and we don't seem to have a corresponding sort of article. Something I might approach at some point. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


== Post-holidays note to self ==
'''Unresolved''': I still need to actually install this.
{{Unresolved|I need to come up with a better to-do list kind of thing on here, and actually use it instead of letting it turn moribund.}}
{{collapse top}}
Something to deal with quickly:
* ]
Need to stop putting this off; will probably only take 10 minutes.


Ongoing:
== Strickland pics==
* ]
Hi :)
* ]
* ] – removed incorrect stuff about tooltips, and ] may also need an update
* ]


Several things appear to have stalled out over the holidays:
AZ Billiards replied to my request to use their photo of Strickland. Here's what they said:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
** See also 2022: ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
** ]
Some of these may need to be restarted as RfCs.


See also:
>Use any of the ones that are credited to Diana Hoppe. Just make sure that you credit her as 'Diana Hoppe - Pool Pics by Hoppe'.
* ] – ]'s "rule" calling for long-ass page titles like ] got discarded like chaff; this may be significant in addressing ]'s and ]'s other attempts to use ] to impose "their own rules" (] failure).


Forgot about this one for a long time (need to merge the NC material out of ] into ]):
>Thanks,
* ]
>Mike


An article still using deprecated ] referencing of the {{tlx|harv}} style to use as a cleanup testbed:
Does that make it sound like we can source their photo? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
* ]


<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC); updated: 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
:Probably. Do you have a last name and contact info for "Mike"? If you get me the details I can take care of this at the image page (use e-mail - see e-mail link at top of my ]; other people's e-mail addresses shouldn't ever be put into WP pages, even talk pages, since spammers can harvest them, even from article histories!) If you want to do the license tagging and stuff yourself, a good trick is do something like 'Mike Smith, contactable at the site "AZBilliards.com", with a username of "MSmith"', so e-mail address harvesters won't recognize it as an e-mail address but any human could figure it out. But anyway, I know how to source pics with the right licensing templates, so it might be easier for me to deal with it. You could just forward me a copy of the e-mail. Might be good for more than one of us to have a copy of it anyway, just in case!
{{collapse bottom}}
:Oh! Can you write back and ask him if this means we can use other photos (of other players and stuff) by same photographer? Their "any of the ones" language suggests this, but I think we should know for certain. That could come in ''very, very'' handy. Or I can do it; either way. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::'''Unresolved:''' Followup: I wrote to that Mike guy, but did not hear back. Will try again. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


<!--End old, unresolved stuff.--><br /><br />
----
<!--Begin new stuff.--><br /><br />


=Current threads=


==Notice of a discussion I think you'd be interested in knowing about==
== DEFAULTSORT: Replied ==
{{Resolved|] figured it out.}}
Hey Mac, I thought you might want to be aware of ] (which includes not just the linked to thread, but a much larger one further above on VP/WMF). In summary, it appears that the WMF is prepared to imminently disclose personally identifying information about volunteers in a controversial Indian court case, where a news agency is attempting to suppress Misplaced Pages's tertiary coverage of the content of secondary sources (which it considers unflattering) by going after a number of individual editors as defendants. In order to comply with court orders in the case, it seems the WMF is prepared to share this information in what a number of us consider a pretty seismically bad idea and a betrayal of community priorities and values (the WMF has also already used an office action to remove an article reporting on the case, at the direction of the court for what said court regards as legitimate ] reasons).
at ]. Summary:
*I don't like listas= either, if you want to argue for it's deprecation we're likely on the same side.
While the deletion of the article has been framed by the WMF as temporary step to preserve appeal on the overall case, and there are mixed feelings in the community response as to that so far, there is a much more uniform opposition to throwing the individual editors (at least one of whom is located in India and has profound apprehension about what this could mean for his life with regard to litigation and beyond) under the bus. And yet the WMF appears to be prepared to share the information in question, as soon as Nov. 8. Can I impose upon you to take a look at the matter and share your perspective? '']]'' 00:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*If I can placate you by having my plugin recognise DEFAULTSORT, consider it done. If there's more to it than that you'll need to let me know.
:Yeesh. That sounds really dreadful. This seems really problematic on multiple levels. I hope the disappeared article is available through some archival service (what with Wayback being under concerted attack for so long now). But the privacy matter seems more important here. I've been quietly arguing for some time that WMF has to stop blockading VPNs, for reasons like this. If you don't have PII to divulge, then governments don't try to twist your arm in the first place. I have the US election shitshow in my face at the moment, but maybe can look into this tomorrow. I don't have a lot of reach any longer, but my FB and LinkedIn pages probably hit the eyes of some who do on such matters. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 02:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Cheers. --] 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::I've been coming to similar conclusions about the VPN issue of late, although I confess that the potential for abuse by vandals is a difficult concern to ignore at the same time. In any event, I agree that the PII issues is the much more serious and pressing of the issues, even if neither is exactly a trivial matter. And yes, I appreciate the timing could not be worse, but do consider looking into the matter further if time allows--few people here are more articulate than you, once you've made your mind up on how you feel about an issue. '']]'' 04:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks, I think that would do the trick. And I just went and proposed said deprecation. &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Life got away from me, and I'll try to look into this shortly, though maybe some deadline has been passed already. PS: On VPNs, I don't mean we should permit them across-the-board, but just for logged-in users with accounts past some threshold (of the sort we impose for various other things; maybe autoconfirmed, though something more stringent could also be used). It just makes zero sense that I can be logged in as me, a user with 19 years experience here, and cannot edit beyond my userspace if using a VPN (which is more and more an automatic thing one has to affirmatively turn off in various browsers these days). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


== ] at the AT discussion ==
Start with randomly placed talkheader, skiptotoctalk, and DEFAULTSORT ''template''; insert WPBio, move aforementioned 3 to top, use DEFAULTSORT magic word keyword. --] 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Except, that page doesn't seem to be properly sorted... so what's gone wrong? Hmm... Can you help? See anything amiss? --] 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:Hmm. Nothing is coming immediately to mind. I know the DEFAULTSORT-at-top order is important (even the docs of it say that order is important), and that this works fine with {{tl|Cue sports project}}; the WP:CUE categories it puts articles (well, their talk pages) in are sorted by family name, as intended. Oh! One thing I noticed while testing this stuff myself a month or so ago, and just about pulling my hair out, is that it can take up to a couple of hours for the DEFAULTSORT to work! I think the DB has to "catch up". &mdash; <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93;</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I can assure you I have no emotional attachment to the AT policy and I'd ask that you strike your comments suggesting that I'm engaging in {{tq|bent-out-of-shape ranting}}, etc. Clearly I misunderstood what you were saying regarding the "over-ride" issue; you could have just clarified your point instead of calling me hysterical. ] (]/]) 15:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
<s>Unresolved:</s> DEFAULTSORT is still not working properly on talk pages, and {{tl|WPBiography}} is still using <code>listas=</code>. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
:{{ping|Voorts}} Done, in the interests of peace. Though I just did a direct revision instead of a strike-through.<!--
::Again, for the sake of the thread, I left a reply dealing with the DEFAULTSORT matter on my talk page, although if you would like to maintain a similar thread, please feel free to transport anything there to your own page. ] <small>]</small> 05:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
--><p>It would be nice if, for your part, you actually addressed the substance of the argument I made instead of repeatedly just criticizing perceived tone and imaginary implications (of my wording or Cinderella's), since the actually operable implications in the context are quite limited, as has been explained in some detail.</p><!--
:::Noted. Good sleuthing!
--><p>That said, the discussion/proposal is a dead stick. Cinderella's wording choices set off so many people that the snowball is probably irreversible. This should be re-addressed some other time (perhaps after a customary 6-18 months) with more careful wording and a more clearly articulated argument, because the problem identified is a real one and it is not going to magically go away. My sectional merge proposal would obviate it, but no one's going to notice and support it because they're running around alarmed by "supersede" and "override". It might not be "hysterical" but it's not responsive to the issue in any way. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 15:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)</p>
::Your revision is hardly better. You've still left in the stuff about argument to emotion and called me blustery. And, now you're assuming that I'm angry at you as well. I can once again assure you that I'm not angry. Stop speculating on my emotional state or my motivations. It's not productive. ] (]/]) 15:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I revised for tone because the tone was not constructive. As for the rest: no one likes being criticized, but something that basically boils down to "stop criticizing" isn't a request I'm going to obey. I stand by my criticisms. Your and other "no" !votes in that proceeding are not in any way responsive to the substance of the proposal but only emotively over-reacting to wording used by the proponent and to imaginary not plausible repercussions. As my old friend John Perry Barlow put it in regard to such "]" (to paraphrase here; I don't have the article he wrote about this right in front of me): Objecting to something on the basis of the possible outcomes instead of the probable one is fallacious. In the imagination, there are no limits to the {{em|possible}}, but the outcome is extremely unlikely to be in the extreme range of it. As for "angry", your tone toward me there and here is clearly angry (displeased, antagonistic, combative, complaining, unhappy, dwelling on your hurt feelings instead of on the substance, however one wants to put it). It requires no mind-reading to observe this. You don't get to duck and dodge the implications of what you write by disclaiming that they convey what they clearly convey, any more than I do. I've gone the extra mile to edit my tone in response to you, but you have not met me half way. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


== Admin coaching == == Your user scripts ==


might benefit more users if they were also listed at ]. That's the go-to place where I get all my scripts from... <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]|])</sup></span> 05:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Are you interested in joining the Virtual Classroom for admin coaching? --] 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, though I think they still need a bit more tweaking (even aside from one lacking the vertical formatting feature entirely). It's stuff I worked on obsessively for about a month straight, but have been doing other stuff since then. Takes a while to get back into such things. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: History and geography request for comment ==
:Sounds like a good idea! — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 19:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Resbox|Done}}
<!--]-->Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 00:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==
::Great. I've just created a section for you at ]. Pop along, say hello and get accustomed to the way the page works (it's a transclusion-fest) and the kind of tasks that get handed out. You can kick off by responding to some of The Transhumanist's general comments. --] 10:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Resbox|Done}}
<!--]-->Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment ==
== Name of WCBS ==
{{Resbox|Done}}
You maoved the page of WCBS form "World Confederation of Billiards Sports" to "]". I wonder what the true name is. As what I find at the official homepage, the haeding is "World Confederation of Billiards Sports".
]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: History and geography request for comment ==
However, in , it states that in article 1.1 "The name of this controlling sports organization shall be the WORLD CONFEDERATION OF BILLIARDS SPORTS (WCBS), which was inaugurated on January 25, 1992 at Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland". So, which name is true?
{{Resbox|Done}}
]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 10:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines request for comment ==
As the constitution shall be the founding document of an organization, I would say "WORLD CONFEDERATION OF BILLIARDS SPORTS" should be the true name. Do you agree with me? ] 11:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
{{Resbox|Done}}
]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


==Io Saturnalia!==
:It's an odd case. I got the singular from their website (and I think you meant the singular in your first example). They aren't even consistent on their own site, though. Next, the ] (pretty much the only reason the WCBS exists) actually refers to them as both, in the same IOC document! I don't really know what to make of that. I guess the organizational constitution is the best countervailing evidence there is, and could plausibly be said to outweigh their cheesy website. But on the other hand, their site is by far their most public face, and the name change may both be intentional and not be reflected in documents available at the site (organizational founding documents get modified by board quorum all the time with addenda and so forth, that the webmaster may not have thought to post copies of in this case; in the US at any rate, the original documents never change, just have appendices added to them showing changes made by board resolution; the resolutions are separate documents.) The only way to resolve the matter may be to actually call them up and ask. GHits for the singular form are around 1500, and for the plural form over 2000, but that doesn't really mean much. If the name change is for real and was semi-recent, we'd expect the numbers to be skewed in precisely this way. &lt;ponder&gt; For the interim, no harm is being done - both names work here. I think I consistent-ized all WP mentions to the same spelling (or at least linked ones; I forget if I used "Search" or "What links here"; it's been a busy day...) I tend to lean toward changing it back to the plural form, but there are plenty of organizations that do things like this on purpose. For silly example, the Jehosephat Foundation might consistently use that name, in every way, with the sole exception of their foundation documents, tax records and other government paperwork saying that the legal name of the entity is the Ebenezer and Gertrude Jehosephat Memorial Endowment Foundation and Trust of New York, Incorporated. Best for us to find out for sure what the real name is. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 11:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
::Update: I have sent WCBS an inquiry about this matter. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
==] backlog elimination drive==
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with ] and/or your inclusion on the ]. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at ] to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{tl|GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the ] may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --] 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}


== New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive ==
==Nick Baker RFC summary==
{{Resolved|1=Done.}}
I wonder if you could have a look at this and give me your comments... ] 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
:And I would look forward to your opinion about Sparkzilla's use of your comment ""I lean slightly toward saying that, as long as the "inconsistent story" theory is identified in the prose as to the nature of its sources, it is probably okay to include it", but he edited out the end of the sentence where you concluded "BUT I REMAIN ON THE FENCE ABOUT THAT" and then used his edit to claim that you were ''for'' inclusion of the contentious material. Many thanks.] 15:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
::Done. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 15:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
:::I am in agreement with you that that David Lyons, myself and Heatedissuepuppet (a disruptive sock/meatpuppet that did David Lyon's COI complaint for him) should completely back off from this article and let other editors get on with it. I would prefer just to leave the artcile as-is, but I don't know if Lyons will agree. Could you try to help us mediate this process, if necessary? ] 16:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | ] | <span style="font-size: 85%">''']''' </span>
::::As I said, I'm not available for informal mediation right now; ] is there for a reason. :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 16:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
| rowspan=3 | ]
|-
|
* On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
* Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
* Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
* ] will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
* Barnstars will also be granted for ] previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
* Interested in taking part? ''']'''.
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ]
|}
] (]) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1263150419 -->


== December thanks ==
== Kudos re: ] ==
{{User QAIbox
| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
| bold = ] · ] · ]
}}
Thank you today for improving article quality in December! - Today is ]. -- ] (]) 16:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


==Merry Christmas!==
It's my turn to give kudos---and they're definitely called for. What a monumental task---standardizing all thirteen existing "'''Year'''/'''Date'''/'''Place''' missing/unknown" Categories and, to top it off, recreating the unfairly-singled-out-for-deletion ] ''and'' creating the previously-never-existing, but also needed, analogous ]. While it's a somewhat controversial Category, I can certainly argue that well-known actors, newscasters, sports stars, top business executives and other indisputably public personalities whose dates have not been provided, may be listed. I will, undoubtedly, be challenged on this point, but the basic idea stands, and each matter can be resolved one individual at a time. As to the four-day-old "outsider" ], it theoretically overlaps the other three "Year of birth" Categories, "'''missing'''", "'''missing (living people)'''" and "'''unknown'''" but, if it survives, it might have a specialized use in biographies of individuals whose age is stated in a newspaper article, but the year of birth is unavailable, so that it can be either, for example, 1948 or 1949 (in the case of ]) or 1975-76 (in the case of ]). But to return to your solo achievement, it is an act which cried out for completion since the "missing/unknown" Categories were first created. No one, myself included, fully stepped up to the plate and brought to pass an overarching consistency to the project. It was all being done piecemeal with varying introductions and elucidations. In addition, you properly brought ], ], ] and ] into the mix and annotated the discussion pages for all those Categories (another herculean task) to examine every point raised and suggestion made over the past (nearly) two years. All in all, a living (people) example of creativity and an illustration of ] philosophy. ] <small>]</small> 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
{| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}}; padding: 5px;"
|rowspan="2" valign="center" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: center; height: 1.1em;" | '''A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!'''
|rowspan="2" valign="centre" padding: 5px;" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|-
|style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray"|
<br />
<big>Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!</big>
<br />
<br />
<big>Cheers</big>
<br />
<br />
<big>] (]) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</big>
|}


== Feedback request: Biographies request for comment ==
:Just getting started really! The actual ''text'' of all those things needs lots more consistentizing. Will take some time...
{{Disregard|Non-neutral pseudo-RfC; advice given to poster of it on how to do it properly}}
:C:Dobm(lp) &mdash; I think that the cited policies are pretty clear on what is and isn't permissible, and abuse should be handled on an article-by-article basis. Getting rid of the category won't do anything at all to stop people from adding too-personal info the articles of non-public figures. '''Please let me know''' if anyone attacks either of these categories in a substantial way (I have them watchlisted, but my WL is over 1200 pages...), or any of the others. I see them all as necessary (though only a tiny handful as necessary on the article page rather than talk page).
<!--]-->Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 03:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:C:Yobuncertain &mdash; Didn't even notice it! Will have to have a look at it and think on it. At first blush, I don't see that C:Yobunknown doesn't entirely cover it (even if more commonly used for "we have no idea at all and never will"; the difference appears to only be a matter of degree. If people are using it for "there is an editor dispute about the YoB" or "I wrote this and I'm not sure", that's probably not good enough to justify the category. It should either be removed and discussed on the talk page, or tagged with {{tl|fact}}, {{tl|dubious}}, or {{tl|disputable}}, as closest fits the issue. For any case where the sources aren't specific enough, or two sources disagree, or a source and a statement by the person disagree or whatever, there is an appropriate inline template (see ]).
:Thanks for the kind words and encouragement; I will continue (at some point; working on something that will ease a lot of U.S. major topic (states, congress, etc.) WikiProject consistency headaches right now, and have other stuff in the pipe. I do go on a "tear" of activity in areas like the year/date/place of birth/death stuff where I see the need from time to time, but often take a break of a few days. I half feared someone from WP:BIO would get upset with me and revert it all. Heh.
:— <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


== Redirect listed at ] ==
::Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... I noticed a bot putting ] on Discussion pages (although apparently not removing it from the articles, at least not yet) and tracked you down from your comment on ] ... I was trying to locate ] so I could find out exactly ''what'' the current consensus view is, but thought that asking you would be easier than trying to manually search the archives, and ''then'' I discovered that it was already linked to the edit summaries. (''''']''''' :-)
{{Resbox|Endorsed+}}
<!--]
-->A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink| Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 27#"Musican" Redirects }}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:Rfd mass notice --> ] (I ], ]) 12:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== You're my MOS maven... ==
::My interest has to do with my draft ] in which I recommend adding "Year/Place of birth missing" to stubby biographical articles that lack ] to satisfy ] ... I use it as a benchmark for ] on the assumption that there ''should'' be enough ] available to provide that information in the opening sentence of an article, otherwise there has not been enough "ink" about the subject to ] the assertions of satisfying ] ... please see ] where I use {{la|Don Fernando}} as an example that may not satisfy ]. (FYI, I didn't know about ] and ] until reading this thread, or else I would have been using them instead of C:Yobm and C:Pobm ... I'll go back and modify my draft protocols and essays to use them instead.)


I cannot believe that we seriously intend for this style of number separation to be used - ]. Am I utterly off base? ] (]) 00:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::Anywho, I would appreciate any comments you may have on my draft protocols like ] (note particlularly ]) and the boilerplate templates I have created for the first two steps ... BTW, I have not yet pinged the admins listed in my ], so you would be the first to respond.
:{{ping|Ealdgyth}} . <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Gram capitalisation (eponym exceptionalism) ==
::Happy Editing! &mdash;{{User|72.75.70.147}} 08:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


You've probably had your fill of this, so forgive me if so.
== Virtual Classroom ==


<small>
Hi. Are you still interested in joining this project? If not, I'll take down your section for you. --] 10:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
My background<br />
:Oh, yes! I just got swamped with other stuff. Tomorrow, ironically, I'm re-enrolling in the Univ. of New Mexico (finishing my degree is 14 years overdue). I'll guess I'll be getting educated on both sides. >;-) Sorry for the delay; I didn't realize it was interactive or time-limited in anyway. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 10:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a long-time IP editor of WP with an interest in style, grammar & punctuation, who has regularly been unfairly thwacked with actions from admins or logged in editors — usually as collateral damage in an IP-range block, but occasionally through some other tiresome thing, such as edit reversion.... Some of those admins have seemed pretty trigger-happy to implement blocks, without feeling any compunction when I've occasionally pointed out that some of those specific instances were contrary to the official WP guidelines (and, furthermore, no penalty to such admins...). Anyway, enough of my ranting... Just that the contrast in treatment is 'interesting'.
::Oh, it's certainly interactive, but not at all time-limited. I just wondered if your lack of interaction <grins> was due to changing your mind! --] 10:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
</small>
:::No, no; there's all sorts stuff I still need to learn about the inner workings. In my year-and-a-half+ I've picked up a lot, but sometimes still put my foot in my mouth or trip over myself; see my last archive page and look for the "f.u."-image ''anti''-barnstar I got from someone. While the message attached to it isn't entirely accurate (the MfD itself wasn't the problem, my extensive over-argumentation in it was), I did get the point. On the technical side, I've spent literally hundreds of hours DEFAULTSORTing biography articles' talk pages so that the embedded categories in the WikiProject tags on them would sort the names by family name, only to learn two days ago that (due to an apparent MediaWiki bug; this only happens on talk pages) the DEFAULTSORT magicword must come ''after'' any such project tags (and will then work as intended, despite the docs at meta suggesting that it would not; go figure). Neither of these are particularly adminnish of course. I don't right off-hand recall any serious misapprehensions of policy or procedures any time since last year. I guess that's a good sign. I just need to learn to let irrational arguments have their 15 minutes instead of trying to stomp on them, and actually research the effectiveness of what I'm doing before blowing incredible amounts of time on it. &lt;sigh&gt;. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


I was wondering why the styling at ] and ] never got resolved. If indeed (as I think ]) one or a handful of editors were standing against the MOS, then why was there no admin action against those editors for blocking/reverting changes consistent with the MOS to retain a version at odds with the MOS?
::::Heh, it's a learning experience round here all right. The VC will mostly help by grilling you on your understanding and application of policy relating to the most adminnish stuff, like deciding on notability, POV issues, AfD arguments etc --] 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::I look fwd. to it. I suspect I'll be a "star pupil" on that stuff since I've already aborbed much of those areas (though I never pretend I have nothing to learn.) Perhaps an Advanced Course would be in order at some point, on things like the exactitudes of closing XfDs, and how exactly "consensus" is determined, especially if a plain "vote" count would appear to countermand it ''overwhelmingly''; how to challenge a seemingly incautious or inattentive and clearly wrong closure of "keep" (by head count, 8 of 10 said "keep", but it was all "I like it" and "me too!" b.s.), and the ''rational'' consensus was clearly "delete", without getting into an adminfight; whether or not and how to respond to plaintive demands for userspacing of a deleted-with-overhwhelming-prejudice-I-mean-consensus >;-) article when it is at least ''somewhat'' likely that the user will just repost it under a diffent name, ''but'' could just as plausibly sit on it for a year working on it until it is properly sourced; what to do about a previously deleted article or category or whatever that has been restored in roughly its same form, but ] as to the nature of that particular beast or its overarching classification; what to do with a repeat "eat my (expletive)" and "cripples are stuppid (expletive)s" vandal IP which may not be the same person but 2-8 dorks from the same school, and there is plenty of evidence of constructive edits from the same IP address in the same time frame (I confess now that I lean toward Zero Tolerance; this is not the WP of 2003 any longer...); how to archive, and set up for the next day, CfD or some other XfD page; what to do with quasi-vandals who never ''quite'' cross the line such that they can definitively be declared at least ] - just RIGHT on the edge, perhaps for weeks, backing off seemingly at the last moment and being real nice, but then jackassing again 6 days later; what to do about a fellow admin who keeps calling others "disruptive" or otherwise trasgressive simpl for disagreeing with or challenging him, and then dominating a discussion or revert wa&lt;cough> I mean editing session (in a non-admin space, like ] or ] or ] or whatever, rather than somewhere like ] where other admins would notice (I mean, I'm not a party to the dispute, I just see it happening); how to avoid falling for a very plausibly presented (i.e. studiously engineered) "I've been wronged" story, where someone has "clearly" been blocked for insufficient reasons... until 5 admins ream you for so-and-so diff you didn't see, where "poor little" blocked kid made 15 death threats; how to deal with a ''blatantly obvious'' sockpuppet (even a metapuppet of another sockpuppet of another, ultimately of a real user who was community-banned 18 months ago), who is @#$%ing up RfAs, and seems to live for it, but you don't ''quite'' have enough proof, perhaps in part because checkuser was declined, as it sometimes is; or...
:::::Those are the kinds of questions that come to me the most. The weird stuff, in a sense, but all of those are based at least in part on Real Stuff; they're not entirely hypothetical, though some are conflated with each other or sillified to get to the point faster.
:::::Anyway, nap-time for me. I hasta' goto skool tumorrogh. Wish me luck. I haven't been to college since 1993! Or was it '92? Gah... Time flies when you move all over the continent, I guess... &lt;ping-pong!>
— <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


I notice that the ] has stood for the past several years, but those two articles remain as inconsistent as ever.
== Regarding the article "billiard balls" ==


I don't think this necessarily has to be your burden to carry, but why are some admins not resolving this?
Hi,


—DIV (] (]) 13:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC))
I work with the company Saluc, and we test all kind of balls that are in the market. We know for sure that the Aramith balls are the only one produced in phenolic resin. There is no other pool balls made in phenolic or phenolic-based resin. Beside Aramith balls made in Belgium, virtually all pool balls are produced in China and in polyester ("virtually" because there are very few quantities produced in accrylic. these balls are transparent and they don't even reach the weight specifications). The distributors of such polyester balls try to hide the material by choosing a trade name.
:As a sometimes McCandlish lurker, per your concerns about IP editing, may I point out that ] is open if you want it. ] (]) 14:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
FYI, Saluc produces the Centennial balls for Brunswick.
::Would be a pretty cool username, too. Not many three-letter ones available that are pronounceable. As an HTML-element reference, it would imply that you're full of content. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you.
:It never got resolved because most of us have lives and run out of time and patience to deal with it when there is a camp of editors who will fight ceaselessly to keep some ]-based weird stylistic divergence from our style manual, because the variant suits their off-site writing habits that pertain to some other domain. One of these cases is the preference on the part of the American Medical Association's style guide to lowercase a proper-name-bearing term any time it is used as (or as part of) a modifier instead of as a noun phrase. This is weird, intentionally inconsistent, and downright confusing. It doesn't match the writing style of any other group of English-language users in the entire world. But if editors who are fans of this practice are a thick majority of the editors who will respond to any attempt to normalize the style to reader expectations at a particular subject, then progress will tend to stonewall. Often the only way to break through such a deadlock is an RfC at some venue like ] or even ]. Personally, I have little patience for this stuff any longer, because there are more important things to do. They always turn into ] festivals.<p>That said, fixing "gram-negative" to "Gram-negative" throughout all of our material would be good to do, because almost everyone who encounters this term and is not already a medicine or biology professional is going believe that it has something to do with the ] unit, when it is really an eponym based on the surname Gram. Other terms lowercased for the same dubious reason, e.g. "parkinsonian", are less problematic than this case because they lack such obvious and confusing ambiguity. To put it another way, if the AMA's next style book edition demands to start spelling "CAT scan" and "PET scan" as "cat scan" and "pet scan", WP would ignore them as ridiculous and "reader-hateful". We should already have come to that same conclusion with regard to "gram-positive/negative" (and having come to that conclusion, then step-wise also concluded to avoid "parkinsonian" and the like as a consistency matter).</p><p>On your admins side question: it's virtually unheard of for admins to get involved in MoS-related disputes in a block-wielding manner, because they are guidelines not policies, and they have a lot of "real work" to do, e.g. against vandalism and spam and so on. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)</p>


== Feedback request: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines request for comment ==
''&#91;The previous unsigned commented was added by {{User|Aramith}}, 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC).&#93;''
{{Resbox|Done}}
<!--]-->Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==
:The article as it stands now is correct as far as the third-party sources to date have been able to provide facts that we can cite. I've added the fact that Saluc also makes the Brunswick balls (I knew that already, but for some reason the article didn't say so.) Saluc's own marketing materials are not a ], and using them as references would be a ]. I was also aware of the acrylic balls (and their problems), but again the article hadn't mentioned that yet, so I also added that. We cannot add anything to the effect "only Saluc uses a phenolic compound, and everyone else is lying and are really using polyester". We simply have no reliable source for such a claim, much less that ''all'' of them are produced in China. I'm sure that reps from Elephant, Vigma and others would take issue with some of your statements. :-) That Saluc does its own testing is interesting, but not of any use to Misplaced Pages (conflict of interest again; the testing is not independent). That some companies make polyester balls but use tradenames instead was already covered in the article. Anyway, the article already states that only Saluc uses phenolic resin, ''per se''. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 02:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the answer. I am not saying that the others lie. I say they use specific tradenames to avoid letting know the material is the basic polyester resin. If they used phenolic or phenolic-based resins, they would obviously say so. Instead they use a tradename and don't mention what material it is. I understand the conflict of interest, but to state in the article that "proprietary phenolic compounds are used by some companies such as Elephant Balls Ltd. and Frenzy Sports" is untrue (and not documented). Thank you. ''&#91;The previous unsigned commented was added by {{User|Aramith}},14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC).&#93;''


== Feedback request: Biographies request for comment ==
:::There's generally too much unsourced material there, overall. I will pare it down, since no one else has bothered. PS: I have definitely seen other companies claim to be using phenolic compounds, but I can't use such claims as a reliable source for them any more than using Saluc's "we're the only" claim as a source either. Elephant is not presently making any such claims (that I can find) on their website, but I've seen them elsewhere, I think in ''Billiards Digest'' ca. 2003. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Feedback request: History and geography request for comment ==
Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Here you go. Just poke me back when you are done with it, to delete it again. ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:Or I'll just slap a db-userreq on it. No biggie. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 06:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 12:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
== "No one says apt" ==


== Style ==
I say apt. ] 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
:I am known to exaggerate. At least a thousand times a day. ;-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


@SMcCandlish, hello … this is Augnablik, a Misplaced Pages editor for the past 2.5 years. I'm writing because you were recommended as someone I might turn to for answers to questions about the more convoluted elements of MOS. Example: right now I'm in somewhat of a fog trying to decide the best way to disambiguate the subject of an article.
Dear SMcCandlish: ''Apt'' implies fitting or appropriate, and is therefore more specific than ''valid'', in my opinion. Neither of the 2 dictionaries that I consulted after seeing your edit comment considers ''apt'', which derives from Latin, to be informal. Fowler's does not disapprove of ''apt'', although it only discusses its use before an infinitive. Also, why do you prefer the past perfect tense where the past tense is correct and sufficient? Is this a difference in usage between British and American English? And which is the present tense verb to which you object? I'm not going to revert war over this, but please reconsider or explain (you may reply here to maintain continuity). Thanks. ] ] 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


I wish Misplaced Pages still offered a similar one-on-one feature called Editor Assistance that used to be available, as I recently discovered, only to find it was discontinued. In its absence, would you be willing to pick up on this and occasional other such questions for me?
:Not a big deal really; "apt" sounds informal and slightly archaic to my ears. Something my Southern grandmother would say, along with "ornery" and "reckon". I don't find apt to be more, but less, specific. "Apt" is a highly subjective feeling, like whether a woman's dress is too short to be appropriate at the symphony, or whether a male can possibly fittingly be a teaching assistant in a women's studies course at a university. Valid is an objective (or at least less subjective) criterion, like whether the ] fallacy has been invoked in an argument, or a scientific claim is actually backed up by the data that its proponents claim supports it. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for replying about ''apt''. Perhaps there is a word that is better than either ''apt'' or ''valid''. What about your replacement of past tense with past perfect? Which was the present tense verb to which you objected (that your edit corrected)? ] ] 07:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Don't recall at this point; I have over 1200 pages on my watchlist. Sorry. It isn't anything personal, I just run through with a broom and move on. It's possible I swept up something that should have been left lying (if so I know the feeling; I defended a subjunctive at ] for over a year from people "fixing" it, and finally just replaced the entire phrase with something else so the issue would stop coming up, because the bogus "corrections" from people used to nothing but 2006-2007 informal American English were incessant.) Anyway, what objection do you have against "valid"? I peferred it because it is rooted in logic, and is an analytical term with boundaries that bar (at least most) subjective nonsense interpretations (unlike "apt", which is well within the ]). — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 02:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Whether a particular comparison to Hitler or Nazis is rhetorically persuasive or is excessive (and thus weakens the impact of appropriate comparisons) is not a matter of hard, objective fact (validity, or truthfulness) but, at least in instances where reasonable minds might differ, a matter of subjective appropriateness and degree.
:{{ping|Augnablik}} Sure, happy to help. I probably have one of the better mental-map understandings of most of MoS and how it interrelates in various sections, and interacts with other guidelines and policies. If I don't get back to you speedily, it's not because I'm ignoring you, just off doing something else for a while. Anyway, keep in mind that I'm just one editor; while I've been one of MoS's shepherds for 15+ years, there can be interpretational disagreements about it. If something I say seems wrongheaded, it might actually be wrongheaded, with the question better asked at ] or on the talk-page of one of the more specific MoS sub-guidelines (e.g. ] for case questions, ] for number and date ones, ] for disambiguation ones, etc.). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for such a quick reply, @]. I look forward to discussions with not just a highly recommended MOS expert but also someone whose User page indicates a shared love and ownership of cats (but don't they own us?) as well as ability in versions of the English language for which I didn't even know User boxes were available. And since you're "one of MOS's shepherds"— forgive me for this — I won't need to be sheepish about asking you some of the intricate questions I may come up with.
::Here is my most immediate need. I'm working on the existing article for Ramendra Kumar, a noted Indian children's author — that is, what's left of it after having been pretty much blown to bits. I recently discovered another Indian by the same name, who also turned out to have a Wiki article: Ramendra Kumar (politician). Today I found two more Indian politicians by the name of Ramendra Kumar but an additional surname, all with at least something in a Wiki article (Ramendra Kumar Yadav and Ramendra Kumar Podder).
::— I know that disambiguation should be created for not just the Ramendra Kumar whose article I'm working on but also the other three.
::— I think it would also might be helpful to point out that the first name "Ramendra" should not be confused with ''Rajendra'' or ''Ravendra'', as there are other notable Indians who also have those first names along with Kumar as a surname.
::When I thought there was only one other person by the same name, I was going to attempt a disambiguation and ask the yet-unidentified MOS expert if what I'd come up with seemed okay. But now that I know there are so many others with the same or similar names, I think I'd better just throw up my hands and turn to the expert. ] (]) 10:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We would not involve either Ramendra Kumar Yadav and Ramendra Kumar Podder as disambiguation page entries for the name "Ramendra Kumar" (much less put disambiguation hatnotes on them) except for one who is also referred to in reliable sources as "Ramendra Kumar" alone. The unfamiliarity of these names to the average English speaker (outside the Indian subcontinent) doesn't make any difference. If we have ], we would not add someone named "Michael Jackson MacTavish" or "Michael Jackson Chen-Garcia" to it, unless RS indicated they were referred to often enough without "MacTavish" or "Chen-Garcia". It's reasonable at a disambiguation page's "See also" section to but something like "All pages with titles containing ''Ramendra Kumar''" (see the Jackson page for example). That section would also be a good place for "* ]" and "* ]" (or apparently not the last one yet, since it's still a red link, so would serve no navigational purpose on a disambig. page). There's no need to "point out" to readers, in a reader-addressing manner, that such names also exit and might be what they're looking for; a diambig. page's see-also section exists for not having to do that in a pedantic way, but just by providing links. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay. And now a few more related disambiguation questions ...
::::* I'm thinking to remove the sentence currently serving as the lead in the Ramendra Kumar author article and instead place it within parentheses, like what the article does for the Indian politician of the same name: ('''author).'''
::::* When the above is done, then: — Underneath the article title for RK the author, I write ''For Ramendra Kumar the Indian politician, see ].'' But how do I indent that line, as it appears on disambiguated pages? — Underneath the article title for RK the Indian politician, I write ''For Ramendra Kumar the Indian author, see ].''
::::* As for the "See also" section idea you gave, citing the Michael Jackson article, when I went there I saw what seemed a completely unrelated list of dancers of all time! In any event, your comment that we don't have to point out to readers that similar names to the one in the title also exist made me decide not to include a See also section for RK the author. I guess I'd been assuming that sort of thing was an editor's duty.
::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Neither should be using parenthetical descriptions in their ]; that's a style for article title disambiguation. If the author isn't markedly more ] than the politician, he should move to ] (and that should exist as a ] anyway, otherwise). For a two-person disambiguation, ]s are sufficient as a minimum, but it doesn't hurt for there to be a ] disambiguation page (with ] also redirecting to that), since we have at least two "See also" ideas (maybe three, if the presently red-linked ] also ends up with an article), in addition to two proper entries. The navigation hatnotes at the top of the articles would be done with ], something like <code><nowiki>{{for|the member of Indian Parliament|Ramendra Kumar (politian)}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{for|the children's book writer|Ramendra Kumar (author)}}</nowiki></code>, here written to avoid annoyingly repeating the words "politician" and "author", though some editors wouldn't care and would do that anyway. This will put the indented navigational hatnotes at the point the template is used in the article's source code, which should be immediately under any {{tlx|Short description}} template (the first on the page) and before other templates like cleanup notices, or {{tlx|Use Indian English|date{{=}}January 2025}} and {{tlx|Use dmy dates|cs1-dates{{=}}ll|date{{=}}January 2025}}, which would also be appropriate for this article, and infoboxes, which probably would also be appropriate. You can learn a lot about how to use (and order) such templates by looking at the code of existing articles, some of which use more complicated hatnotes for cases of multiple disambiguations. The politician article should probably have {{tlx|Infobox politician}}. The author article is already using {{tlx|Infobox author}}, but has an {{tlx|EngvarB}} template that should be replaced with {{tlx|Use Indian English}}; the politician article lacks such an English-dialect template entirely. I improved the author's lead sentence a little, but left the rest for you to do as practice, though I could also just do it since it's easy for me.<p>Regarding ] – it's fairly likely that a disambig. page for a name both common and prominent will attract some entries that should be removed as inappropriate; I didn't mean to suggest it as a perfect model, but simply as an example of not adding cases to (disambiguation) pages. I.e., if it were normal to do that, then any page of that sort would already have numerous such entries, but they do not. Human-name disambiguation pages that treat a name in isolation might do that, if the name is uncommon enough that the list is not excessively long. E.g. ] has an an entry for someone using it as a given name. But we might not do this at a very popular name, for length reasons. ] is doing it, in sections, but in other cases we have a separate given-name disambiguation or list page, e.g. ] (I'm not sure by what criteria this would be at "List of people with given name {{var|Foo}}" instead of "{{var|Foo}} (given name)", and the one will usually redirect to the other regardless. The editors at ] probably have an answer for this question (or perhaps what to do with such quasi-articles is in some kind of disputed state; I would not be surprised). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
::::::🙄 @], oh yikes, what have I gotten myself into? This is even deeper yogurt than I thought. ] (]) 00:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{anchor|11:30, 7 Jan}} The simple approach to any case like this is to just copy what has been done already for a parallel case. "Michael Jackson" isn't even a bad example. This is name with an obvious ] that will be at that name without disambiguation; 99% of readers will be expecting the singer. A disambiguation page lists as <code>*</code> list items all the articles that match the name as their title (aside from disambiguation parentheticals tacked on), as well as anyone with an alternative (e.g. former) name that also matches the name. Any partial matches (e.g. as given/middle names, or as references e.g. "List of studio albums by Michael Jackson") or easily confused similar names, go in "See also" one way or another (using a search function if there might be a lot of them, but probably just as individual entries in that section is one or only a few). For the cases that do directly match, disambiguation hatnotes go atop the article. {{tlx|For}} is useful when there are very few, but other ] might be used to produce different output in other cases, e.g. {{tlx|About|the|technologist}} will generate: {{About|the technologist}} It automatically picks up the base name of the page unless told to do otherwise. (That it automatically appends " (disambiguation)" is why a redirect like ] should exist and point to ] after it becomes the disambiguation page (which likely should happen because neither the writer nor the parliamentarian seem like PRIMARYTOPIC candidates to be at the base name without any disambiguating parenthetical).<p>Learning to edit Misplaced Pages source code is a lot like learning a programming/scripting language: there are lots of technical nit-picks, but they make sense as a whole after they're absorbed; they quickly become second nature. PS: I fixed the broken link in my previous response to ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
::::::::I can empathize with you, @SMcCandlish, in your role of senior Wiki style expert at hearing an editor squawk under the onslaught of so many directives (even though they were requested!). As a teacher and trainer in real life — what's left of it l, that is,after Misplaced Pages has eaten up more and more hours of my day — I understand the value of living through a bit of pain at the prospect of all the overwhelming new stuff finally getting absorbed.
::::::::I'll stay with it, but it's definitely more of a learning curve than I expected. ] (]) 12:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::My general advice for everyone is to just write content (in a dry, encyclopedic tone, and sticking to reliably sourced facts not supposition), follow the ] policy with regard to living people, and obey ] (i.e., don't plagiarize material from other sources). As long as you do that then your contributions should be a net positive; others will point out any formatting or other mistakes and probably clean up after them. You'll gradually absorb the norms and details as you go along. Trying to learn a complex system like this without immersion in it is like trying to learn a foreign language from a book and a video. And if, for any question, you do what a preponderance of well-written conceptually similar articles are already doing, you'll rarely go wrong. E.g., if you wonder something like "Would it be appropriate for the author article to inline some audiovisual material, like him giving a speech at a book signing?", look at other other author articles and you'll see quickly that the answer is "no". A more prosaic example would be "Should award names be in italics or some other special markup?" If you look at the biographies of major figures with numerous awards, like a celebrated actor, a highly decorated soldier, and a champion athlete, you'll see immediately that the answer is "no italics or other special markup, beyond capitalizing the proper name of the award". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 15:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Following the guidelines in the 1st sentence of your above message, and in the Visual editor, no problem. Working on curly bracketed code in the Source editor rather than the Visual editor, I'd prefer 2 root canals at the same time just to avoid. ] (]) 16:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Should work out fine. Lots of editors use the VE, and get more comfortable with tweaking things in the source editor over time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cot|bg=darkseagreen|indent=5.6em|A note about a misplaced copy-paste, and the comedy of misunderstanding and banter that ensued}}
], you wrote the following (nowikified here, to illustrate the point):
: <code><nowiki>{{tlx|About|the|singer}} wil generate: {{About|the technologist}}</nowiki></code>
Pretty sure that was some kind of copy-paste glitch; just thought I'd mention it so as not to lead Augnablik astray. If it was intended, please enlighten! ] (]) 02:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, it was and error (of editing only 1 of 2 copies after pasting). Fixed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:@Mathglot, I couldn't help noticing that in your request to @SMcCandlish to look into a possible copy-paste error you'd somehow come across in a message he'd sent me, you'd contacted him with concern "so as not to lead Augnablik astray."
:Well, I just couldn't help commenting in turn that aside from what he agreed had been a copy-paste error, he seems pretty harmless to me and indeed quite friendly. ☺️ ] (]) 04:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:: A typo/glitch/copy-buffer issue can happen to anyone, right? ''Leading someone astray'' does not <s>apply</s> <u>imply</u> malice, only an act of unintended obfuscation that he may not have been aware of, and was happy to fix so as not to confuse you; so the comment served its purpose. ] (]) 04:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Errrkk … my little attempt at humor backfired. I thought the ☺️ emoji would be a giveaway about the intention.
:::As SMcC's ancestry is from the UK, wellspring of dry humor that it is, perhaps at least ''he'' "got it." Hope so, but apologies and remorse for any distress caused to either of you. It was totally unintentional. ] (]) 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: No worries. Just fyi, I did misread you, and even the emoji, also, which I read as a complicity-emoji, meaning roughly: "This is really only a minor gaffe on your part and not a big deal, so I'm not mad at you and don't worry but I didn't want SMcC to feel stung." No distress (didn't even realize that was a possibility) so all is well. Carry on! ] (]) 07:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::FWIW, I got both Mathglot's intended version of "lead astray", and Augnablik's playfulness in return banter. It also funny that the "wil" typo remained throughout all of this, as if invisible. (Since fixed in the original, because I obsess like that.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::: Not to be outdone in typos-slash-gaffes, or obssessiveness: just noticed my howler of ''apply'' instead of ''imply'' above—what was I smoking? Now ]. ] (]) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: That wikentanyl will be the death of us all! <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cob}}
:@] IIRC, Editor Assistance was closed since there was no difference in how it worked in practice compared to Help desk/Teahouse. But, it was where I had one of my funniest WP-discussions ever, ]. ] (]) 09:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::Editor Assistance might not have worked differently in practice compared to the Help Desk or the Teahouse, but the value I see in an EA-focused place is that it would have been extremely helpful to focus just on MOS-related issues rather than a whole smorgasbord. And the archives for those issues could, over time, have become of special interest to editors wanting to pore over past MOS advice.
::As for your interchange with Monsieur Léonard, ooh-la-la! ] (]) 10:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't recall EA being MoS-focused. To the extent an individual "advisor" like me isn't helpful to you or responsive quickly enough, MoS's own talk pages are generally helpful (except the more obscure drill-down ones, which may have few watcherlisters). So anyway, what's this burning disambiguation-related style question? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 10:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Just posted, SMcC.
::::I thought I'd reply to GGS first, a much easier message ... and I also miscalculated your California time, thinking you'd be asleep and wouldn't see what I'd write for quite a few more hours. ] (]) 10:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Follow-up to Style message thread (above) ===
::::Several years ago the ''New York Times'' published a letter of mine, but edited out my correct use of the subjunctive case. When I questioned the editor (''very'' politely and deferentially), he explained the subjunctive is no longer used in modern English except for an assertion contrary to fact (e.g., "If the Earth were flat, then ...")—which my subjunctive usage in the letter happened to be, although I continue to use the subjunctive wherever it is grammatically correct. Was I asleep when the subjunctive case was ripped from my language? Did the Anglos and Saxons posthumously defeat the Romans and seize linguistic dominance while I was away?


Hi, SMcC ...
::::When I was in 4th grade, the teacher taught the class said that it was incorrect to begin a sentence with ''because''. I asked why, and gave her a grammatically correct example of the usage. She acknowledged that my example was correct, but said one should not begin a sentence with ''because'' because that often leads to error (she was probably concerned about sentence fragments, e.g., "Because it rained."). To this day, probably because of my resentment of the teacher dumbing down the language, I begin a disproportionate proportion of my sentences with ''because''.


* Is it impossible to modify an article title? I can’t seem to change '''Ramendra Kumar''' to '''''Ramendra Kumar (author)''''', though I tried. (I’m assuming this was what you wanted done, even though I wasn’t quite sure from your comment: “If the author isn't markedly more ] than the politician, he should move to ].” (Your reply to me of January 6)
::::Peace. ] ] 10:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
* Following your above comment, you added: “(and that should exist as a WP:Redirect anyway, otherwise).” As I’ve never been involved with redirects, do I understand the procedure correctly, to mean that this entails creating a separate page on which ''both'' Ramendra Kumars are mentioned by using the ]? I understand the concept of redirects but I find the “how-to’s” very confusing. One difficulty I see for editors trying to “learn about how to use (and order) such templates by looking at the code of existing articles” is that we have little idea where to begin, other than (as we see when we go to WP:REDIRECT), Pelé. Or, if we’re lucky enough to have an expert like you to ask, and we get a suggestion to look at what was done for someone such as Michael Jackson. But ideally, I see need for a tutorial providing a bunch of examples to work on, each representing a different editorial situation, with feedback for our answers.
* I succeeded in changing the infobox language from '''EngvarB''' to '''use Indian English''', as you suggested. But frankly I think if it really required changing, it would have been fine with the British English language, as Indian and British are much the same. At any rate, this exercise was very helpful because it was my first time using an infobox, and it was fairly painless although I did have to re-read the information a number of times to really absorb it.


] (]) 14:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I hear ya. Had similar experiences. Imagine having an English teacher who believed that "spatial" was pronounced "spattial", not "spacial". Anyway, I suspect that most cases of Hitler/Nazi comparison that some random person could feel were "rhetorically persuasive" without an objectively definable reason for it, would probably be fallacious in one way or another, most commonly argument to emotion. E.g., no matter how terrible you think your boss is, and no matter how much you can convince an emotive person you are right by sharing horror stories, a comparison of you boss to Hitler is unlikely to have any logical validity, except on a very absurd level (or one not relevant here; e.g. perhaps your boss only has one testicle.) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


:I've moved the article to ]. It's possible you lack the ability to do page moves until after a certain amount of time as an editor. The rules about which permissions are available when isn't something I've been keeping track of. Also created the disambiguation page over the redirect at ], and redirected ] to that. And put hatnotes atop each of the articles (just pointing to each other; these would change to pointers to the disambiguation page if a third notable Ramendra Kumar comes up). If you click ] it will redirect you to the real disambiguation page at ]. There, you'll see a small "Redirected from Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation)" note at the top; if you click that, you go to a version of "Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation)" that doesn't auto-redirect you right back to "Ramendra Kumar". If you edit that view of "Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation)", you can see how a redirect is built. This is covered more documentarily at ] and ]. PS: As for "Indian and British are much the same": That's especially true in an encyclopedic ] (without colloquialisms), and is true of all Commonwealth English dialects aside from Canadian, which is why I've advocated merging them all so we have nothing left but "Use Commonwealth English", "Use American English", and "Use Canadian English" (the last of these being a hybrid of the first two). But there's too much nationalistic sentiment for this to happen. Everyone wants their silly "Use Jamaican English", etc., templates, even for dialects that do not exist at all in a formal register (speakers of Jamaican, Tanzanian, etc. English use British English at an encyclopedic formality level). Win some, lose some. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
==DAB laziness==
::A thousand thank-you's for doing all you mentioned above, SMcCandlish. What a wonderful difference it makes to the articles for both Ramendra Kumars. Seeing what you did definitely makes a big difference in my ability to understand redirects and disambiguation and such. If Misplaced Pages ever gets to the point I'm hoping some day, with great tutorials for everything editors need to understand along the road that offer not just information but also examples and guided practice for editors, your work on the Kumar kerfuffle would be a terrific entry.
{{Resolved|1=Everyone's apologized. Shiny.}}
::To be honest, I think if I'd had to spend much more time trying to sort it out much further, I'd be a good candidate for a long Wiki vacation right about now.
Please do not without fixing all of the links to the orginal page so that they go to the new one you moved the content to. That's a dreadful disservice to our readers, and to other editors who are now left with little choice but to fix the mess you made. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
::Interesting to find out that making a change to a title is a page move. I hadn't realized. By the way, just as clarification about editor level, I'm an extended confirmed user with 1,100+ editing points. So apparently we can't yet be trusted doing page moves. Probably for good reason. At this point in my Wiki career, I feel like a new driver who's getting ever more comfortable on the road, but not when it goes up a steep hill with lots of bends and the road begins to narrow and rain begins to fall and ... ] (]) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I do wish there were better tutorial materials. I've thought of making some, but it's time consuming, and I'm not very photogenic or a good speaker for doing video presentations; someone else would be better for that. I might do some "crash course" write-ups though. I have had several in mind. Most of ] has been about nitty-gritty subjects of policy and guideline interpretation, and written for old hands. It would be an interesting change of pace to do some "So, you're new around here? Let me help you out" material. Page moves: Yes, a move and rename are the same thing. As for ability to do moves, if you are EC then you probably can already do it, it just might be buried in some menu or other. I use the crusty old "Vector Legacy (2010)" theme, and have customized it to hell and back with user CSS and JS scripts, so I couldn't tell you where the move/rename option is by default these days. ] and/or ] may have the info about that. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Almost forgot to suggest that instead of calling Ramendra Kumar the author a writer of children's and '''YA''' books, you spell out that acronym. Not everyone will know what it refers to. ] (]) 10:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Judging by your Talk page photo, I think you're "selling yourself short."
::::As for being an engaging speaker — on which you may also be selling yourself short — one way you could do it would be to be interviewed by ''another'' editor about the decisions and steps to take in procedures that you feel most comfortable talking about. The other editor could be (1) someone who might serve as the narrator of a whole series of "how-to's" or (2) someone acting in the role of a bewildered newish editor asking the seasoned editor for guidance. (No, I'm not volunteering! 😅)
] (]) 04:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:PS: {{U|Augnablik}} I've merged these two Kumar threads. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::You mean you repositioned the later one so it directly follows the earlier one, I assume ... I think I do recall the later one had been further down.
::To do that, did you just go to the Source code and move the later one up? ] (]) 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yep, edited the entire page, to get at all the sections at once, moved this one up, and changed it from <code>==</code> level-2 heading to <code>===</code> level-3 subheading. I would think in VisualEditor, you'd copy-paste the section, then select its heading and change it from H2 to H3 level. But I haven't used VE in years, so I'm not sure. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Its time for you to put on your MOS hat again... ==
:Get over yourself SMcCandish. Learn to talk respectfully to people. The page was a mess (there were several Fred Davis' and the "snooker" one was hardly world famous) so I did A SERVICE (not a disservice) to make disammbiguation. The reason you correct pages all day and don't have friends is because you need to learn social manners. I have two fists that could teach them to you---mehudson1


I know that we don't do ] (putting categories in the middle of article text), but I have no idea where we have a proscription against it, any clue where it might be? ] (]) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::There was nothing disrepectful about my message to you (unlike your reply). I think you are missing the point. Making DAB pages is not a bad idea. Making DAB pages and doing nothing to clean up afterwards is a very, very bad idea. Hundreds of links that used to go to the correct place now go to a DAB page for no reason other that you simply couldn't be bothered. PS: Threats of violence do not go over well here. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
:When is that hat ever off? Heh. We don't seem to have a rule against using links this way. If we did, I would expect to find it at ] or in ] somewhere. In this case, the custom hatnote is falsely claiming these are articles, so is inappropriate (at least in the present form) for that reason alone. It's not uncommon for category links to appear in "See also", and they are also used as direct links in this way in many navigation templates, so they are not {{lang|la|per se}} forbidden. But they do seem to be more appropriate as "See also" entries. If kept as a mid-article hatnote, it should at least be clarified to stop claiming it is providing links to main articles on Henry I's children and mistresses, and it also should not be piping these links to disguise the fact that they are categories and hide what the names of the categories actually are. The MOS:LINK section above doesn't suggest doing anything like this with with category links, and ] says more directly not to make links confusing in a "reader-hateful" manner. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I think we can't have such a rule,{{citation needed|date=January 2025}} or else we will have to have a carve-out for templates which put articles into categories. (Hopefully that template is clever enough not to categorize this page in ] due to the namespace; we shall soon see.) ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== RfC notice ==
:::apology given, however saying I "simply could not be bothered" is picking a further fight. Please watch your words as well. &#91;The previous unsigned comment was posted by {{User|Mehudson1}}, 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)&#93;
{{Resbox|Done}}
Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the ]. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not|RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations}}. ] (]) 00:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== A couple more style questions about an article subject ==
::::Accepted, and good point, so I apologize as well. To completely rephrase: If you are going to create a DAB page at the former location of an article, which is often a ''good idea'', please police the links to that page so that they go to the proper new article location. Better I hope! — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


@SMcCandlish, another interesting new question for you:
== ] ==
{{Resolved|Self-resolving notice.}}
Hi. <span class="plainlinks">, was “bad”, because after it, </span> were showing a bad interwiki to ]. This was fixed a few minutes ago. ] ] | ] 15:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm doing some editing on the article for Joseph Bharat Cornell, recognized as one of the world's 100 leading nature educators. He has written many books. For many years he published under just his birth name, "Joseph Cornell." ''Bharat'' is a spiritual name given to him in the spiritual community to which he belongs, and he began publishing books with all three names only in later years.
:Good catch; sorry about that! — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Thinking the question of how to handle this duality in Cornell's publication names might be somewhat similar to what the MOS had to say about handling names of women authors if they marry and change the name under which they publish, I went to the MOS and looked up name information but didn't find exactly what I think I need to know about handling this situation.
== Refactoring others comments ==


Advice? ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I must say, I am a bit surprised with how you here "upgraded" my warning to ] on Tuesday.
:What is it that you think you need to know about handling this situation? This isn't like a marriage-related name change, or the MoS material about that would also include cases like this. If this person is most commonly known in present-day sources as "Joseph Bharat Cornell", then that's what our article title should be at (]). If it's not (and the one semi-independent source cited thus far isn't using it) then we'd go with the shorter "Joseph Cornell", as the actual COMMONNAME and per ]; we only use additional names (middle, nick, adoptive, etc.) when leaving it out will confuse people as to who the subject is because the subject usually has that additional name (e.g. ] is nearly never referred to as just "Sarah Parker", so readers will not be looking for her under that name or nor expect her to be at any article by that title). Misplaced Pages article titles are not about making self-marketers happy but about helping readers find and be certain they have found the right article. At any rate, it appears very likely to me that this article will be soon deleted for failing ]. There is no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, only an interview (which does not count) and ] (which don't count; Crystal Clarity Publishers and Dawn Publications are clearly his own labels, not independent and reputable publishers). If Cornell really has been awarded some kind of "world's 100 leading nature educators" label by some independent organization, then that would be worth including, with a source citations, as evidence of notability to help save the article (though that one item by itself may not be enough). PS: His yoga teacher should not be referred to as "Swami" anything; that's an ] (non-] title that should not be used in Misplaced Pages's own voice. Note that his article is at ] not "Swami Kriyananda". And he is at that title, instead of something like ], because most sources refer to him by (or primarily by) the name Kriyananda, not his birth name. "Kriyanada gets an Indian name" does not automatically equate to "Cornell also gets an Indian name", since they are not parallel cases. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for all the tips here. I can see why the article might be a candidate for deletion without notability buttressing. There is quite a bit available beyond Dawn Publications and Crystal Clarity (which do also publish several other authors, especially Crystal Clarity) and I'm surprised it wasn't used by the editor(s) who worked on the article.
::Although I have a COI with the article, I'll add a few such citations as soon as possible to deter deletion. Meanwhile, I hope other editors will take over the article, as Cornell is definitely notable in his field. It would be a particularly interesting one for new editors with an interest in nature and nature education.
::As for the addition of the spiritual name, I think it would probably be best — all things considered in what you point out here — to simply say that he got "Bharat" as a spiritual name without pointing to any one person who gave it to him.
] (]) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:] already is the title of someone else's article, so ] works pretty well as a disambiguation. If his article is kept but "Joseph Bharat Cornell" doesn't turn out to be the common name, then it would be disambiguated as something like ], which should exist as a redirect anyway, especially since he didn't start adding the "Bharat" until later, as you say. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Oh, that's a great catch (the existence of the other Joseph Cornell) — thanks. I hadn't noticed the other fellow's existence till fairly recently, let alone thought to check on whether there might be others with the same name.
::Joseph Bharat Cornell is such a recent name change for the nature educator that I wonder if he did himself any favors by publishing under it. Perhaps he too found the other one. But I'm sure it will confuse a number of people who know him under his original name. ] (]) 17:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The hatnote at the top of ] should resolve any such confusion. If there turn out to be three+ notable Joseph Cornells, then we should have ] as use that as that hatnote target instead. With regard to the educator, I'd be more concerned about establishing that he passes ] and doesn't get deleted. Adding a source about his "top 100" award would be a good start, as well as any non-interview source material about him in works he didn't publish himself. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)<p>PS: I have not created ] yet, because the survivability of the Joseph Bharat Cornell article is in doubt, and if it's deleted, then the disambig. page would have only one entry and thus also have to be deleted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</p>
::::I've added some information to the ] article that I think will help end any concerns about his notability and keep him in Misplaced Pages. Much more will be added over time, hopefully more references beyond his organizational website and the interview I found in what appears a good strong educational journal.
::::Now, to follow up on your last message above ...
::::— I don't see the hatnote to which you refer in your 1st paragraph.
::::— I can't find a third Joseph Cornell, which in your message you seemed to believe necessary for a disambiguation page. Is there some reason that disambiguation can't be done with only two Joseph Cornells (even though you kindly did create such a page for the two Ramendra Kumars? And because the article for the Joseph Cornell the nature educator is entitled '''Joseph Bharat Cornell''', he still needs to be differentiated from the Joseph Cornell who was an artist and sculptor because the nature educator is so widely known as only ''Joseph Cornell''. ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Since I wrote you yesterday:
::::— I've added several pieces of information along with citations to support Cornell's notability.
::::— Believing that after my work today and over the past few days I could legitimately remove the template about the need for citations in the article, I did so today.
::::— Suddenly aware that I hadn't declared COI with Cornell (I know him a little), I did so in the edit summary when I removed the template. ] (]) 11:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment ==
In my opinion, this is not the way to do it. Not that I disagree with the actual content- I am not here to discuss that user- the user seems bad, and I was probably far to nice - but the fact you are this comfortabel with changing anything inside another users message. It would probably have been far more appropriate to also replace my signature with yours, since you replaced a level 2 warning with a blatant vandal warning. Is it really the right thing to do to sign with others name? ] 13:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
{{Resbox|Done}}
<!--]-->Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 05:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Books & Bytes – Issue 66 ==
:Good question. I've done this before with no complaints, but I understand the complaint being made. I wasn't sure whether it would be more appropriate to refactor the template and leave the sig alone, replace the entire thing and sign it myself, or simply add a different-level warning with my sig, leave the original, and let people be potentially confused. Entirely open to opinions on the best course of action there. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC) PS: ] is quite permissive. I think it is also questionable whether its present wording actually reflects present consensus, however. I am perfectly comfortable doing some forms of refactoring, and have never had a complaint about it; the most common being fixing broken links, e.g. ]. I never fix anyone else's others forms of typos, of course, only ones that actually ''break the functionality intended''. This of course isn't particularly analogous to swapping a template to change a warning level to something that more closely matches the vandalism. PPS: No subterfuge was intended in the edit in question. I figured, article history makes it impossible to literally falsify anything, meanwhile leaving your sig on preserves your 'credit' for tagging the vandal first, as it were. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
== Ananthabhadram needs copy edit ==
<div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
{{Resolved|1=There's a whole project for such requests. Querent directed there. Twice.}}
]</div>
Please, could you take a look at the article '']''? It needs quite some copy editing job. In case you are interested, do not begin before 10 June. I am making some improvements to the article. I hope to get the article to a GA status and eventually to an FA status. ] 08:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
<div style="line-height: 1.2;">
:Just put {{tlx|Copyedit|date&#61;June 2007}} at the top of the page when it is ready for copyediting, and someone from ] will get around to it. If there's some urgency about it, you can ask more directly at the project. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
::''"...If there's some urgency about it, you can ask more directly at the project."'' - How do I do that? ] 19:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Issue 66, November – December 2024
::Oh! I forgot to mention that I am a bit impatient with the article, and can't wait to get it to GA. Too bad. Well, you haven't told me how do address the project directly yet. Cheers. ] 06:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
</div>
:::Um, I'm not sitting at the computer waiting 24 hours a day seeking messages from you. I have a life. Have patience, eh? In answer to your question, go to ] and follow their instructions. If they have no particular instructions, post a request at ] (their talk page). Seek patience. If your article needs copyedting that badly, then it is not near GA status yet. All in due course. If it is well-sourced, the first hurdle is long since jumped. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 07:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
<div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;">
* Les Jours and East View Press join the library
* Tech tip: Newspapers.com
<big>''']'''</big>
</div>
</div>
<small>Sent by ] on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=28051347 -->


== Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment ==
== Sources; the meaning of "Wiki" ==
{{Resbox|Done|That one was actually already closed, but another was opened, so I responded in that one.}}
{{Resolved|Discussion moved back to other user's page, ].}}
<!--]-->Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what the acronym "Wiki" stands for?


== A barnstar for you ==
I believe, it's "WHAT "I" KNOW IS".


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
What >>> '''I''' <<< KNOW IS.
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]

Not "What "PUBLISHED SOURCES" know is".

This is "WIKIpedia", not "WPSKpedia".

&#91;The previous unsigned comment was posted by {{User|Jtorey}}, 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) &#93;

:What?!? Where are you getting this silliness? Wiki is not an acronym at all (it's a Hawaiian word for "fast"), and doesn't "stand for" anything. See ].

:See also ]. Whatever you think Misplaced Pages should be but isn't, isn't for a reason, covered by Misplaced Pages policies. In particular, adding material that is not ] is not an option here. The MediaWiki software Misplaced Pages runs on is free; you can set up your own Wiki with your own rules somewhere else if you like. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

== en dashes ==

WRT to your recent edit of the Dashes pages, will you please take a look at the ] against retaining the preference for hyphens in titles, and provide a rejoinder? ] 08:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

:Can you please centralize this discussion? You have it being discussed at ], again at ], and yet again at ]. The simplest way to do this would be to put {{tlx|Resolved|1&#61;Discussion centralized &#91;&#91;LINK|here&#93;&#93;.}} at the top of two of them, linking to the remaining active one. I would suggest that the second and third above should be merged into the first, especially in the case of the third (it isn't really appropriate to discuss sweeping changes to a guideline somewhere other than on that guideline's talk page; discussion elsewhere generally would not be evidentiary of consensus to change that guideline, since the editors most concered with that guideline are unlikely to notice the "extraterritorial" discussion.) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 21:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:Alternatively, take the entire third discussion and refactor it out of Talk:MOS and into Talk:MOSDASH, then {{tl|resolved}} the other threads there, referring to the larger discussion now in MOSDASH's talk page. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 21:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

==WikiProject banners==
{{Resolved|1=Self-resolving chat.}}
Thanks for all the conversion work; you beat me to the snooker ones. :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:Hey, no problem, it's actually a calming, near-mindless task that also satisfies my borderline ] tendencies that have arisen from continued exposure to Misplaced Pages, LOL. Plus, the bad attitude of certain Anti-WikiProjectBannerShell editors has urged me to make as many templates compliant as possible and thus eliminate their ability to use that in an argument.
:Sorry about the snookers. ;) ] 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

== Admin coaching ==
{{Resolved|1=Question answered.}}
Greetings. Are you still interested in having a coach? ''']''' ('']'') 10:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:I am, but I don't presently have the real-world time to devote to the endeavor. Perhaps in the fall. I'll return to the admin coaching pages and sign up again when the time comes. :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 22:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

==] (eom)==
{{Resolved|1=Self-resolving FYI.}}
Noted. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

== DEFAULTSORT and PAGENAME ==

I noticed ] and thought of ]. Possibly a PAGENAME thing in the WPBiography template (and similar talk page templates) is over-riding the DEFAULTSORT function? ] 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:I have noticed this, and will look into it further; sorry for the delay. I've been taking summer university courses (i.e. 2pm to 9pm every weekday! Aiieee!) so my time here has been very limited and I've been working on fixing articles. I'm sure I'll get back into metapedian mode eventually and look into this. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{Resolved|Issue responded to}}
Hi, ] has tagged the February 31 article you started, I am assuming that the article is useful, and that it was an oversight on the part of the tagger that they did not advise you as suggested by the template. (Don't shoot the messenger) --] 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks. I removed the prod, and more recently provided some sources (not enough to make this a good article - I don't mean Good Article, but "article that doesn't suck" - but enough that it will probably survive AfD. Appreciate the heads-up. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

==] ]==
{{Resolved|1=Decline due to extenuating circumstances.}}
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the ] article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. ] 08:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:In this case I have to decline, because my WP time is very limited for the nonce, and just repairing the recent-ish damage to my watchlisted articles is absorbing all of the available time. When my status (see page top) changes back to "active" I'll be quite happy to honor requests of this sort, as I think copyediting is important. Summer university courses are a killer... — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

== too little... ==

...too late. Thanks for your polite words of warning, but I was already blocked for 12 hours for those reversions from a report by ]. He did not also report the IP. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry to hear that. Any action taken on that issue should have been 100% mutual. I'm actually rather shocked that it wasn't; admins who deal with 3RRs almost always investigate the incident and hand them out evenly when, eh, "earned". Oh well, at least it was just a half-day. The good news is that the editor is question seems to be a stable IP address and has enough warnings than any more shenanigans of that sort will almost certainly involve a block, of probably considerably longer duration. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

== MOSDASH ==
{{Resolved|1=To the extent any issue remains open, it's at ].}}
You OK about Carl’s recent moves to delete this? I know that Noetica will favour this, and I do too. Need to know of any problems you see. ] 02:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:Oh, nothing much, other than I radically disagree with much of what the new "integrated" version says. &lt;grumble&gt; I don't have any particular problem with trimming the material down and integrating it, but I think a lot of the assertions made in the variant presently installed into the main MOS are highly questionable. Especially, I think that the claim that space-endash-space is a good substitute for nospace-emdash-nospace is rubbish. The issue behind that, in the now apparently mooted-by-move-and-integrate debate, was whether to "permit" spaced emdashes (which I favor strongly for readability and accessibility reasons), not whether to ''fake'' spaced emdashes by abusing endashes as substitutes. I do not believe the claim in the new text that several major publishers do this; I have seen, rather, the use of spaced emdashes. The non-spaced emdash is nothing but a typographical convention, like enforced use of curly quotes or the illogical use of "internal quotation punctuation," like that, versus "external", like that, both of which WP has dispensed with for good reason. Paper typesetting conventions rarely have any relevance for online materials. ''Anyway'', I have other issues with the new text besides that one (I'm not happy that the preference for using &-entities instead of the Unicode characters has been lopped off - it's important because to most people's eyes and fonts and monitors, about the only way to tell, in many cases, what dash-type character has been used is to see the entity code), but I grow increasingly weary of WP "politics" about such things, so I'm not entirely certain I want to get reinvolved in the MOSDASH fray. Maybe, maybe not. Have been busy (summer university courses are pretty time-sucking)... — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::Well, if it's any comfort, I don't like spaced en dashes either as a substitute for em dashes. But the facts that (1) this has strong—almost passionate—support among some WPians (including my collaborator, Noetica), and (2) the substitute is already widely used in WP, made me back down. I've since become used to the idea. However, I really draw the line at spaced ems. Your protestations have resulted in a dilution of what would have been a ban.
::Did you insert the tag at the top of MOSNUM as some kind of protest? If so, I'm disappointed, because I'd like to have your expert input during the process of revamping both the main MOS and MOSNUM. Will that be possible? MOSNUM looks as though it needs a thorough massage.
::Can you reply on my talk page, otherwise I'll have to put a watch on yours. ] 09:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Wasn't any form of protest; just a stilly mistake on my part. I brainfarted, and thought I was "Historical"ing MOSDASH (which I now note redirs to MOS anyway). I think I was just too tired to be editing! Will copy this to your page as well. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Thanks, S. All fixed, anyway. ] 00:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

==July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive==
A new elimination drive of the backlog at ] will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit ] and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{tl|GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the ] may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

''You have received this message either due to your membership with ] and/or your inclusion on the ].'' --] 23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== 18th century vs eighteenth century ==
I want them to bit the bullet about this by slanting it more towards the numerical: "two-digit centuries are normally expressed as numerals", or something like that. ] 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not feeling warrior-strongly about this one. "Centuries are spelled out and lower-cased." (''Chicago Manual of Style'' 15th ed., at 9.36). ''Fowler's Modern English Usage (Burchfield's revised Oxford ver.; there are several modern editions) uses both. Strunk and White's ''Elements of Style'' (4th ed.) does no address centuries in pariticular, but prefers using numerals generally unless in dialogue; as with much else in S&W, no rationale is provided, and their dialogue recommendation is actually against common practice. This conflict of "reliable sources" on style is why I edited MOS to expressly permit both styles; there is no consensus, even off of WP. More complicated yet, it was formerly the standard practice to use Roman numerals ("the XVII century")! Ick. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 05:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

== AfD ==

I caught your edit regarding civility before you went and reverted it. You've not brought the issue up again since but since I saw it I figured I would address that real quick. Please not that while I used the word "wikilawyering" I did not cite ] in any way because I do not particularly agree with the essay itself. I do not mean to insinuate that your edits were disruptive in any way. For what it's worth when I use the term "wikilawyering" I am referring to what I percieve is an overly strict interpretation of policy and that's all - just a methodology that I personally do not agree with. The comment was not meant to disparage in any way and if it seemed that way then I offer my sincere apologies. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
:No worries. I would encourage you to come up with a new term; because "wikilawyering" is only covered by one document here, ], it pretty much automatically means that to most editors. Maybe use "wikinitpicking" or something. I fully admit that I am persnicketty about this sort of stuff; I am a staunch supporter of ], so I'm not insulted by the criticism that my interpretations may be overly picky or literal. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 23:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

== Categories Date, Place and Year missing (living people) up for merge/deletion ==

All three categories (''see'' ]) were today singled out for deletion, i.e., merging with their parent categories. I added my votes and arguments to keep them and, after all the effort you put into creating and elucidating them, you're in a position to present your own view on the matter. Afterwards, I suppose it'll depend on the vote count. ] <small>]</small> 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:It should depend on the logic, not the vote count, but oh well. Anyway, I'm not sure I feel that strongly about the issue. I just want it to be consistent. Either we do or we don't use "(living people)" variants, but we don't use them sometimes and not other times. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::It should, indeed, depend on the logic. Your comments in each of the three nominations were precisely as needed &mdash; succinct and to the point. Judging by the previous voting patterns regarding deletions of these types of categories, I suspect that, other than you, hardly anyone will even bother to read my overly-detailed recapitulations of the matter, preferring already-held preconceived notions. In the final analysis, however, while it's desirable to have specific, detailed categories, it's the articles that are emblematic of Misplaced Pages and, whatever the outcome here, the creation of those is the prime goal. ] <small>]</small> 09:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah... I am (barely) beginning to learn that verbosity in XfD backfires. It has bitten me in the backside almost every time I've tried it, including quite recently. Anyway, did what I could, but as you say the articles are the important part. If ] more collectively in a year demands these categories they will return and survive. PS: A few of them appear to be missing already, apparently due to CfDs we didn't notice. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 11:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The soul of wit notwithstanding, I would have felt that my efforts were inadequate had I not fully laid out the background details and merits of the case. Few (if any) editors, including myself, will take the time to research each matter under discussion, especially since most of those may seem, on the surface, to be obvious. As we know all too well, with the potentially hundreds of articles and categories discussed for deletion, merge or what-have-you, there is a comparatively tiny number within the potential population of editors who know, care, take the time to scan each entry, and quickly vote, most frequently with a brief sentence or phrase (we also know that many (or most) of those user names are already familiar). The exceptions, of course, are the special interest topics (politics, religion, geography, etc.), which attract single-issue voters. If there's an editor whose vote may be swayed by some of my words, then it wouldn't in vain. In order to have any hope of affecting the debate, one needs, apparently, to be among the first voters and, it appears, at this early stage, there is at least one ally, who referred (apparently to us) as "The Men Who Know". This particular editor, however, didn't need to be convinced by our arguments, having cast the first "keep" vote in the opening hours of voting on ]. Finally, regarding seemingly-missing categories, that impression was created by an early comment among those in the ] nomination. The editor listed 14 of the 16 entries in the comprehensive alphabetically- and thematically-sorted list in ]. Missing from the list (but still extant) was one of the 15 which you sorted, ] plus the "orphan" ]. ] <small>]</small> 21:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

== Virtual classroom, admin coaching, etc. ==

A link to your coaching page has been added to the Virtual Classroom box above. There are assignments waiting for you there. ''''']''''' 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
: There's also a quiz for ya. Hope to see ya soon. ''''']''''' 22:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry for the delays; I am swamped with summer university courses and "real work". I will try to get to this as time permits, and I have in fact been reviewing the material. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 09:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
::: Cool. We've got a classroom collaboration going. It's developing the article ] to featured article status. Keep tabs on us, and jump in and help when you find yourself with some free time. ] 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

== Erm... difficult issue ==

Hi. Hope you've seen my "quiz" at the VC. Meanwhile, hope you don't mind if I raise a delicate issue with you. Presumably, you're considering a run at RfA at some point in the near future. I gently suggest that if you tone down your user page it might remove one reason for opposing. I've seen many oppose !votes based on peoples' user pages and I've always felt it's a shame. Anyway, forewarned is forearmed, although sadly not four-armed (that'd be useful) and at least now that I've mentioned it, you have a heads-up. --] 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks. Something I'll consider and keep in mind. I'm unlikely to try an RfA again until some time next year; my ] stickling in the ] debate made me too many unfriends in the pro-ATT camp. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
::OK, fair enough. Though I might try changing your mind in a couple of months, lol. --] 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Someone else just offerred to nominate me, too. I suspect I can count on 5 admins to oppose as a bloc, so when I have 5 admins proposing to nominate me, I'll probably try RfA again. I'm at 3 now (perhaps 4, if the nominator in my original RfA would re-nominate). — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:::With multi-party support, I might try it again, but the "unfriends" (along with a proven sockpuppet) buried me last attempt, and it was a frustrating waste of time for everyone involved. I think I'd make a very good admin, actually, but there are some entrenched types who do not like boat-rockers, or conversely and often more significantly do not like boat-stabilizers when they are the ones trying to rock the boat, and these individuals have more wikifriends than I do, so it's been a losing proposition. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
:::PS: In what way do you mean "tone down" my user page; I can think of at least three implications: 1) userboxiness; 2) self-revelation; 3) wikipolitical mini-essaying. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 09:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

== Trick shot ==
So do you have any ideas on ]? I noticed you cleaned it up alittle and I want to say thanks for that, but what do you mean by "outright b.s. statements? lol, anyway so do you have any major ideas on how to improve the article?] 08:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
:There were several nonsensical things said in it, four that I recall (the two I recall in detail right this minute after several beers at the Bob Dylan concert tonight <burp>) were that no one but Massey has ever made the boot shot - I've seen one of his competitors do it on TV over a year ago - and that trick shots evolved from artistic billiards, which is actually a comparatively new discipline (if anything the inverse is true; people have been doing trick shots for hundreds of years). No offense intended; sometimes my edit summaries are more grumpy than intended. Anyway, the two main avenues of improvement I see are using Shamos's ''New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards'' as a quotable source for a number of things (I was actually working on that, but my browser crashed and I lost a good 20min. worth of well-sourced edits. D'oh! I did managed to save {{tl|Shamos1999}} to make citing it easier), and finding documentation for the Trick Shot World Championship and adding an entire section about that, with a (sourced) list of the events and the winners and runners up (both men and women for years in which two divisions exist); and there might have been more than one such event run by different sanctioners/sponsors over the decades (I'm not really sure). Also needs coverage of the Snooker Trick Shot Championship (may or may not be the actual name of the event; I misremember). And some discussion of who the most legendary players are. Later on, expanding the notable shots section would be in order, with actual illustrations of the shots (I think that CueTable.com's webware billiard table diagramming software may be useful for this). Further down the line some home-made (i.e. copyright-unencumbered) videos illustrating a few trick shots would be cool. If I can master a few of them and figure out how the video-recording function of my new digital camera (mostly intended for still pictures) works, I might be able to pull that part off myself. Anyway, within a day or two I should have (re-!)contributed some sourced facts to the article, without my machine crashing in mid-edit. PS: Are you in ] yet? — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ok im gonna organize this so I dont miss anything.

# ok my mistake about the boot shot.
# When I say that trick shot evolved from artistic pool I say that because while people have actually been doing trick shots for a long time, artistic pool was the basis of actually competeing.
#Snooker trick shot championship should be covered I agree, but we should have a separate section for that.
# having a section on the most legendary players would be a good idea but might cause some people to think that the article is expressing POV.
# I definetly agree with what you said about us having illistrations of trick shots and also vid recordings.
# yes I am in the oarticipant section.
] 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
:Your sig seems to be busted, unless that was intentional. (I've broken mine plenty of times in experimenting with it!). Looking at it more closely, I think the problem is that it says "fontcolor" instead of "font color". Anyway:
:#No worries; stuff happens.
:#That would need to be sourced; I remain skeptical. Artistic billiards is almost totally unknown in the US except among the most hard-core billiards nuts, and the US fields hardly any professional competitors in it (most of them are European, Asian and South American); meanwhile trick shot exhibitions in the US date to at least the late 1800s, and by the 1920s were one of the main sources of additional income for US pool pros, between championships (and remain so today; many pros do trick shot exhibitions for special events all the time, aside from the championships). The relationship between pool/snooker-style trick shots, ] and finger billiards (which has no article yet) is a complex one. The evidence I've come across to date seems to suggest that finger billiards (practitioners of which can achieve ''amazing'' english) was the main inspiration for artistic, while pool/snooker trick shots were their own animal, but in the last 2 generations there has been a lot of crossover. Documenting any of that reliably, however, will be a real challenge.
:#Agreed; the US/pool and UK/snooker world championships should have their own subsections under "Competition" or whatever that section is called right now.
:#POV: I see what you mean; the way around that would be to profile world champions (and really in brief; if it's more than 2 sentences we're really talking about a stub player article instead).
:#Keen. I'm sure that will take a while. It would probably be more productive in the short term to document (televised competitions can be cited as sources with {{tl|Cite episode}}) some of the more frequently used shots. I don't think we should go nuts here; probably ten very-well-described shots is more than enough. Per ] (Misplaced Pages is not a game guide, Misplaced Pages is not an instructional manual, etc.) we can't get too far into the detailia of how to set up these shots, just describe the basic layout, the desired result, and what makes it challenging).
:#Welcome aboard! Please check out ] if you have spare time; a lot of really basic work remains to be done, much less pushing things to Good and Featured Article status.
:— <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 09:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:PS: I wasn't aware of APTSA and Rossman's ArtisticPool.org, and their use of the term "artistic pool" in a sense distinct from "artistic billiards" (which is played on pocketless carom tables). I created a thoroughly-sourced overview at ] of this "movement" based on those two sources. It definitely post-dates and was obviously inspired by artistic billiards, which is a couple of generations older. Because a.p. involves more than trick shots ''per se'', I suspect that it will eventually need to be split into its own article. For now, I will ensure that ] redirects to it, and will also go update the ] article to mention it. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

== Disambiguation page formatting ==
{{Resolved|Fixed as requested.}}
Please read and follow the ] when changing disambiguation pages. In particular these pages should ''not'' use "piped links" such as <nowiki>]</nowiki>. Would you like to return ] and ] to the correct format? Thanks, ] 10:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
:Done. ] has changed a whole lot since I last actually read the thing, over a year ago. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

was a lot closer to being deleted, only the fact that the first three random terms I chose to check werent on Wiktionary, it took two more before I found one that was clearly defined in relation to the subject. The opinion gave me the impression that transwiki had occurred, even the talk page of the article siad it had already happened in Jan/Feb.]] 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:The problem here is that just because something has been transwikied does not mean it ''must'' be deleted from Misplaced Pages. ] is often mis-read on this matter. In order for CSD to apply, there has to be a pre-existing consensus at AFD that the glossary should be transwikied ''and'' that it is not of any encyclopedic value (i.e., it is just a list of dicdefs) and should be deleted after transwiki; ''and'' that the transwikiing actually took place and was done properly; ''and'' that this happened recently and the WP version of the article has not grown and become more encyclopedic in the interim. The deeper, gaming-the-system problem here is that certain people who simply don't like glossaries (including the nominator of the WP article in question, and a prominent Wiktionarian who transwikis WP glossary-ish list articles and has strongly pushed a WP-deletionist stance in the transwiki templates, which I note has been resisted by other Wiktionarians/Wikipedians such that the templates no longer push this PoV) can pre-emptively, even maliciously (I make no such accusation, I only observe that such abuse would be easy) transwiki WP material to WK, whether it would actually be appropriate at WK or not, and then take action against the WP article. It is basically a nasty loophole in WP deletion process, and one that is clearly being exploited from time to time. Another related loophole is that transwiki to WK is sometimes performed by people who believe that WK would be interested in having a copy of the material for its own purposes (and which will generally result the two copies diverging sharply in content and tone and format over time), without any sense that the material is not ''also'' appropriate for WP. The act of transwikiing does not imply any position, pro or con, on the question of whether material is WP-appropriate or not, but most Wikipedians engaged in AfD and related processes do not seem to understand this very clearly. And to return to the point you raise (and which I mentioned also in passing), the fact that something was transwikied months ago often has no relevance to the current state of the content. For example, if you compare the WK copy of ] with the version here you'll find them to differ quite markedly, as our copy is expanding more and more in encyclopedic vs. dicdef content, and in the number and reliability of the sources. I'll be keeping an eye on this issue henceforth and if it really comes down to it, I'll push for clarification of the issue at ], ], ] and elsewhere. In the interim, I just hope that reason prevails. I'm watchlisting ] again for the first time since Nov. 2006... — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
::there also another point in that ] is referring to a ] versus encyclopedic ] it is not about a ] where the subject matter is focused on its singular usage of various words not the various usage of a singular word. ]]
:::Indeedy. Maybe we need either a new draft guideline, or a wikiproject on this topic (or the latter with the partial goal of creating of the former). — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

==Template:Who?/Who==
Hey - just to let you know I was the creator of Template:Who? - and I just saw your merge proposal and wanted to say a few things and get feedback on one thing if you have the time. First of all, I support the merge - I didn't know about Template:Who when I created Who?, and once I did discover the former I assume the latter would probably be deleted, however I'm glad that instead it is merely being merged. But I could use some feedback on one thing: I think the wording instead of <sup></sup> or <sup></sup> should be <sup></sup>. I was thinking about it - and I realized that when I used the Who? template I would use it in statements like this: "Critics point out ..." - however it's not really clear to other readers now that I think about it. The answer to the who? question would simply be "Critics", so the average-joe[REDACTED] editor would not be able to realize what was needed without clicking on who?, finding out what weasel words are and so on. But "such as" is obviously asking for specifics. I brought this up on the merger talk page- but should you disagree with me (preferably on my talk page) then I would gladly withdraw my notion. Thanks in advance!--<small>]]</span></span></small> 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
:I'm going to be neutral on that until I ponder it more. I think a good experiment would be to use "What links here" from {{tl|who}} and see if you could swap in the word "such as?" at every occurrence on a whole bunch of pages. I suspect that there are more subtle weasel-words usages, such that this wouldn't work. Then again, it may mean that we need two such templates a "such as" one for clear cases, like "many critics say", vs. something else for more subtle instances, like "it has been claimed" ("such as" doesn't work here but "who?" seems a bit awkward as well), and there are surely even more subtle ones. My take for now is to merge who? and who, and then look at this new question later. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree that it might not work in every situation - however I also agree that it would work in most. I think the best solution to these weasel-inline templates would be this: Have two templates - {{t1|who}} and {{t1|weasel-inline}}. Weasel inline is to be kept the same, but template who would have the "Such as?" remark. In situations where who cannot be used, weasel-inline can be. Then delete the following templates: {{t1|Who?}}, {{t1|weasel word}}, redirecting {{t1|Who?}} to {{t1|who}} and {{t1|weasel word}} to {{t1|weasel-inline}}. What would you think of this?--<small>]]</span></span></small> 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm leaning in something like this direction myself. Since you care about the issue, I suggest that you join ], and add the gist of what you've just said here to the ] debate (in particular the subtopic under it which is addressing precisely this question). However, please do note what I added to the ] discussion last night, with regard to there being an unsettled consensus issue - should or should not these inline templates every directly exhort the reader, or only make dry observations? The jury is still out on that, and if it settles on the latter, then "such as?" won't fly. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Haha, I wouldn't say I REALLY CARE about the issue, I probably care as much as you, but I have added my comments in the WPILT talk page- I'd really appreciate some feedback / suggestions on improving anything (wording or plan) if you have the time--<small>]]</span></span></small> 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Right. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== Your edit of MOSNUM ==
{{Resolved|Found it; engaged in discussions there.}}
Instead of ], could you comment on the proposal at talk for replacing these sections with a new, short one? ] 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:Which one is it? That talk page is ''huge''... — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:PS: I don't feel strongly about the passage as a whole, I just clean up redundant examples with extreme prejudice. :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== Requested move comments ==

] is not the correct place to offer your opinions about possible moves. Please limit your comments to the talk pages of those pages suggested for moves. ] 04:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:Darn. Noted. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== Re: Disruptive use of prod ==
:''&#91;This was originally posted on the other editor's talk page.&#93;''
Please refrain from ]'ing articles simply because they are of a particular format. This is blatantly ]. See ] for further guidance, and please note that it provides several examples of robotically destructive behavior, closely akin to your beginning at the top of the alphabet and working your way down, prod'ing every glossary-style article you can find. Your third attempt to push your overbroadly anti-glossary personal agenda (after failing at ] and again with ]) constitutes blatant ]. <!--This message is a custom Level-1 ] warning for violations of ], ] and ].--> — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think you have misunderstood the situation. I brought the issue up at the village pump because I could not find definitive policy either way. I was advised that the glossaries should be deleted, so I PROD'd a few of them. These PROD tags were removed by other editors who disputed the deletion. The first two times this happened, I opened AfDs so that we could reach a consensus on the issue.

:I do not have a personal agenda against glossaries, and in ] I stated:
{| align="center" style="border-collapse:collapse; border-style:none; background-color:transparent;" class="cquote"
| width="20" valign="top" style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:{{#switch:{{{size|}}}
|10px=20px
|30px=60px
|40px=80px
|50px=100px
|60px=120px
|#default=35px}};font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:left;padding:10px 10px;" | “
| valign="top" style="padding:4px 10px;" | If the consensus is to keep glossaries in Misplaced Pages, that would be OK, but it looks to me like they're better suited for Wiktionary.
| width="20" valign="bottom" style="color:#B2B7F2;font-size:{{#switch:{{{size|}}}
|10px=20px
|30px=60px
|40px=80px
|50px=100px
|60px=120px
|#default=36px}};font-family:'Times New Roman',serif;font-weight:bold;text-align:right;padding:10px 10px;" | ”
|-
{{#if:] <sup>(])</sup> 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)]|
{{!}} colspan="3" style="padding-top: 10px" {{!}} {{#if:] <sup>(])</sup> 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)|<p style="font-size:smaller;line-height:1em;text-align: right"><cite style="font-style:normal;">—] <sup>(])</sup> 03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC){{#if:]|, ]}}</cite></p>}}
}}
|}<!-- User talk:SMcCandlish -->

:No one other than ] commented at at ] until you left your comments there on the 23rd, so this discussion didn't exactly "fail". I placed the PROD tags and opened the AfDs on the 18th, five days before you (or anyone for that matter) commented there. —] <sup>(])</sup> 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::Radiant commented on your VPP post on the 17th, so I'm not sure what you mean by "five days before you (or anyone...) commented there." Besides that point, I think I follow what you are saying overall. The problem I have is with your basic premise: "If the consensus is to keep glossaries in Misplaced Pages, that would be OK, but it looks to me like they're better suited for Wiktionary." There already ''is'' a consensus to keep glossaries in Misplaced Pages: See ]. There is also a consensus, at ] that glossary lists ''that have been determined at AfD to be unencyclopedic'' should be transwikied and deleted. The issue is more complex than you (among many others; I'm leaning toward believing this to be a documentation problem) appear to ] just yet, and I cover this in more detail ]. I apologize if I've misunderstood and mischaracterized what you've been doing, but it did ''appear'' the way I understood and characterized it. It had an alarming (i.e. disruptive) effect, especially due to the "let's start with 'Aa' and work down to 'Zz'" methodology you chose, the VPP+prod+AfD forum-shopping-like approach, the reliance on a single "go for it" !vote at VPP, and the seemingly willful misinterpretation of ], which does not address glossaries at all. Another way of looking at this is that Misplaced Pages does not need Wiki Warrior R.t.d. to swoop in and save the day. If the community thought that glossaries in general were a problem, it would have already dealt with them long ago, and they certainly would not be listed as one of the main types of valid list article in the Manual of Style at ]. :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

:::"or anyone for that matter" was a poor choice of words. I meant "or anyone other than Radiant! for that matter". My approach to this was:
:::# Ask for clarification at ].
:::# As suggested at ], PROD the articles.
:::# Open AfDs for a more thorough discussion.
:::I do not view this as forum shopping, nor was I trying to "save the day". I did not take the fact that the glossaries exist as evidence of consensus to keep them. At the time, it seemed to me entirely possible that the community simply hadn't thought about it. —] <sup>(])</sup> 17:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. I think we just have widely divergent views on the entire issue. :-/ — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

==Template:Dubious==
Just FYI, I have a quick question about one of your proposals before I fully vote on it, and if you have the time I'd really appreciate the clarification (again, assuming you have the time) - ] --<small>]]</span></span></small> 14:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:I'll go have a look at it. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

== (Long delayed) reply ==

I really only cared that there was a consensus for delete; whether the ] rationale is indeed valid can only be determined by consensus. Your argument does have merit: glossaries are not dictionaries (though they may be synonyms), and glossaries are permitted under ]. —''']''' 06:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:Good enough for me; thanks for the reply. If the nom'r tries to claim that the article was deleted (as even I agree it should have been, for ''other'' reasons) ''because it was a glossary'', your comment here is history-citable as evidence that the AfD wasn't actually closed on that basis, ergo it is not precendent for a glossary deletion spree. That's all I wanted, really. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 06:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

== My edits to Template:WW ==
{{Resolved|1=Non-issue.}}
Sorry about that. This was more a case of an apparently simple fix being not-so-simple, then digging myself out of the hole I dug, than it was a case of experimenting. (But yes, I would have been much more conservative about my edits if the template as I found it weren't already leaving brokenness out there; also, I had checked in advance and seen that the template is currently being used on a grand total of three article pages.)--] 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:Works for me. :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 00:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

== My RfA ==
{{Resolved|1=Self-resolving FYI.}}
Hey there. I've answered ]. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:Keen. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 01:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

==Thank you==
{{Resolved|1=Self-resolving note.}}
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|white}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" | |rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Thank you''' |style="font-size: large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Redirect Barnstar'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you for your opposition of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. <br>&mdash;] (]) 05:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To SMcCandlish with much gratitude for redirecting a complex editing situation involving redirects. Happy to add this to your amazing collection of barnstars. It's not only the most fitting choice for your help with this situation but also one I don't think I saw on the wall at your User page. Careful, though ... you're running out of space!
|}
:]: "Consider not posting "thanks for voting" messages to the voters' talk pages. This is unneeded and probably not a good use of your time. Consider posting a thanks message instead on your own talk page and/or the talk page of your RFA page instead." Not a huge deal, but if it looks like you didn't pay attention to ] some editors may remember that next time you are up at RfA. :-/ — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 05:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Oops, this version of the barnstar doesn't look like the updated one, but I copied and pasted what was there for the 2nd version. Perhaps the code itself needs redirecting. ] (]) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Q5 to my RFA ==
|}<!-- This is Template:The Redirect Barnstar. -->
{{Resolved|1=Self-resolving FYI.}}
:Thank you. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I've chosen to answer #5 of your two questions that you put to me as that involves the least amount of surfing - I'm currently visiting my Dad for the weekend. You can read it ]. Question #6 will have to wait until I get back home. ] 14:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:One will probably do. They're very similar excercises. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


== Next up ... BLPSPSs ==
==RfA questions==
Q11 at ] seems useful but a little convoluted - any chance you could simplify it a little, and / or suggest a suitable discussion for Elonka to evaluate? <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


— What I read at WP:BLPSPS sounds a little circular. It starts off by saying we should never use self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the article. I know personal websites are okay to cite, but the above guidance came as a surprise. So, then, anything else self-published is okay, like a web site about the work of the subject of an article (example: Sharing Nature, a foundation set up by Joseph Cornell about his programs, which I view as a very well-done and informative website)?
:User:Coren ''&#91;among '''5''' others now! 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Versus one more detractor, now 2-5 odds... 17:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)&#93;'' today had no real trouble with two questions of this sort. They were intended to be challenging. If an admin hopeful can't handle them, they are not going to be able to handle real-life XfD closures. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 09:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


— Then WP:BLPSPS goes on to say, "it does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example." So, then, employee information like a list of professors and their years of service or professional contributions plus awards they've received is okay?
:''&#91;Next post copied from ]; discussion moved here because off-topic at that RfA page. Any references to things like "this RfA" or "the present nominee", etc., refer to Tabercil's RfA.&#93;''
'''Support''' I've been watching this RFA for a few days now but never quite found the time to review the candidate - until now, that is. And, not that it matters, on the issue of Q5 and Q6, I'm very much with Ryan and I think it's missing the point. This isn't a pop quiz - it's a non-scientific way to gauge community trust and consensus. I don't think that making candidates jump through an arbitrary number of hoops is really helping in that regard and I think it certainly doesn't make the RFA process more accurate or, if you prefer, less broken. If you ask me, it's way too arbitrary to accurately judge someone's ability to make sound administrative decisions anyway. You're obviously entitled to ask any questions you see fit, SMcCandlish - I just don't think it's all that helpful. No offense. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


— Continuing, WP:BLPSPS says that blogs "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." This would presumably cover book companies that provide information about authors they publish, of which there are quite a few with useful information about Ramendra Kumar (example: ''Learning And Creativity Desk. “ParentEdge Magazine Lauds Effective Parenting: A New Paradigm.” Learning & Creativity, Sept. 28, 2016. https://learningandcreativity.com/parentedge-magazine-reviews-effective-parenting/'') So, then, I can use it for the RK article (and other similar sources)?


— Assuming that sources like the above count as acceptable, might I still be questioned by other editors if I use them?
:I'm sorry ''you'' don't find it all that helpful, but it's not your set of questions; and it's disappointing that you are misinterpreting the nature of the questions. That latter is almost certainly ''my'' fault (and the former no one's; just a preference/mode that works for some and not others). I will try to revise the questions substantially before I do another round of RfA. Their purpose is much like the ''Kobayashi Maru'' test in ''Wrath of Khan'': a test of character, and there is no right or wrong answer, per se, there is a human result of grace (or lack thereof) under pressure that mirrors what someone in the position of the (maybe) upcoming responsibility will actually face for real on a regular basis (though you don't have to cheat to escape death at the end an XfD. Heh.)


— And if I have any doubts that an editor would question any of my BLPSPS type of sources, is there a way I can write an explanation of the reliability of such sources that the editor would see but would be hidden from public view? (in other words, to head off a deletion or revert before it happens) ] (]) 12:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:In particular, I use questions like this (along with registering what others report, after digging through edit summaries, or raising old dirty laundry for airing) to gauge ''quite a number'' of things (and I'll probably give away too much here, but oh well), among them: a) whether the candidate understands the XfD processes at all, really b) whether they actually know the relevant policies and guidelines well enough to handle XfD without making a DRV mess; c) whether they understand that when closing an XfD they need to be dispassionate and guage consensus objectively rather than make themselves a silent party to the debate; d) how resourceful they are in figuring this stuff out; e) how flexible or dogmatic they are on scales with two known extremes (balance being desirable), on several levels: e1) subjective perception of article/topic "importance" or "triviality" being defining vs. irrelevant to their approach, e2) nitpickiness to sloppiness in range of linguistic interpretation, e3) ] vs. ] balance, e4) "consensus" utter unanimity vs. majority tyranny balance, e5) whether they display a strongly inclusionist or deletionist bent, instead of an even keel on the matter, e6) and similarly, immediatism vs eventualism, eN) I'll keep to myself for now; f) ability to detect nonsense in XfDs ''quickly and decisively'' (more on that in a sec); g) very firm grasp of logic, including abilty to recognize fallacies and willingness to dis-count fallacious arguments (pro or con) even if they are heated and popular; e N)... I'll keep those to myself too. Trust me, there ''is'' method to this "madness". I'll just try to make it clearer next time. It's not ''intended'' to sound like some kind of scavenger hunt, I assure you, and do so further that I am registring that it can be interpreted that way. Revise, revise...


== Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment ==
:Ability to rapidly ''nail'' a logical, policy-cognizant assessment of an XfD (or ''any'' other consensus/debate issue; XfD is just the "basic training" proving ground; dispute resolution with genuinely agry parties, and settling of disputes over what policy says &#91;], April-May 2007, anyone?&#93; rather than how it applies here or there, are both far more touchy), with a ''high'' (not "perfect") accuracy rate (everyone blows that every now and then; I did just yesterday at an AfD, in fact; so it goes) is important. Admins who cannot do this do more harm than good on one level (their XfD mis-activities, aside from whiners who simply don't like the outcome, and I was once, ''only'' once, is a large part of why ] is so busy). This is the part that "gets" me about the "SMcCandlish's awful questions" complaints; on two RfAs now I've had random commentators (not the candidate or their nominators; many of the candidates totally went for it and came back with great stuff) get upset about these questions I'm asking, and they don't seem to realize that it ''should'' take less that 5 minutes, barring really bad luck, to arrive at a likely test case, and under 20 minutes to report back here with a solution ''if you know your policy''. In my first RfA when I got asked a version of the first of these 2 questions, I was much more sketchy on CSD than I thought I was, and it took me 2 hours to produce a result to report. Very good learning experience, and I don't mean in the "ouch" way, I mean in the "geez, I know CSD matters 10x better now than I did 2 hours ago!" way, because I had no choice but to internalize it all better. These excercises are beneficial for more than just the RfA !voter, I assure you.


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 00:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:NB: I say that the ability to assess the rationality of an XfD needs to be able to be excercised ''quickly'' for two reasons: 1) There's simply too much to do, as well all know, and 2) it's been observed by many before me that more often than not if you are not within the first 3 to 5 commentors on an XfD (or similar process) your comments, however cogent, are unlikely to have any effect on the debate. A sharp admin can neutrally ask for policy-aware clarifications of faulty arguments before they inappropriately ] into an excremental cascade of "me too!" blather. And XfD closings aside, a large proportion of XfD commentators are admins, and when intending to get into the thick of a debate rather than stand back and close it later, are in a better position to help steer the result toward a valid consensus instead of a mess destined for DRV. Ability to just ''see'' the issue immediately is a talent/skill that is a boon to the process, regardless what role and admin will be playing in that particular XfD.


== Feedback request: History and geography request for comment ==
:I apologize for the length of this, but I've been challenged by multiple parties on two different RfAs, and now they've made this a curiously inter-RfA debate ("Ryan" never commented at Tabercil's RfA at all, Sup) to address this. I'm a little mystified that I'm being put in a position to effectively have to "justify" having "dared" to ask a challenging question, which any RfA nominee is free to ignore. The worst that would happen if I got no answer is that the nominee would get a "Neutral, pending answer".<sup>‡</sup> I am not a punitive !voter; any WP debate for me is dealt with on the core merits ''of the issue'', not of the personalities or anyone's pride, or other emotive nonsense. I ''strenously request'' that any further discussion of any/all of this remains on my talk page, rather than soak up more bits'n'bytes on Tabercil's RfA.
::''<sup>‡</sup> In Elonka's case, I went with an oppose, on numerous grounds. Unusual case.'' 02:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:— <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think the idea of these questions are great, and that most of the candidates have no trouble with them. But perhaps you could simply the wording: Can you find a recently decided at AfD that might perhaps be sent to DRV--either direction--but hasn't been, at least not yet, and discuss the policy issues involved? Personally, I think it's a fair supplement to looking for dubious policy arguments in the edit summaries, that may have been made a lot earler. ''']''' (]) 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


== 2025 ==
:::Yeah, I am definitely going to trim it! I'm not sure your (DGG)version quite gets me what ''I'' want, though I think it is a great question in and of itself (and if I saw you ask it I wouldn't add mine to the same RfA since they'd be pretty redundant). My version of the AfD question (admittedly in bad need of cleanup) is intended to get the candidate looking at something ''live'' and contentious, which they might well be doing tomorrow as an admin, suss out the situation on the fly and come to a conclusion (not necessarily about how to close the XfD - it might change radically in an hour - but about the arguments being presented. I guess maybe the distinction is subtle, or maybe even only important to me. I arrived at both of these questions when I got asked one of them (in more brevity!) in my own RfA back when, and it was a good challenge, and actually ''fun''. It wasn't another "explain how the licensing tags work" kind of "recitation" question, but a little project requiring analysis and deduction. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox

| image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg
'''Support''' As a relatively recent successful RfA candidate I would have been happy to answer these questions. For a good faith candidate who will act responsibly as an admin, they should be, and would be, a breeze to answer and give yet another opportunity for people to see they are worthy. You wouldn't give someone a driving licence without a practical test. Agree that the wording might need simplifying but that is tinkering at the edges, not a problem with the concept being espoused. ] 02:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
| image_upright = 0.8

| bold = ] · ] · ]
:Sankyubeddymush! &lt;bow&gt; That's what I thought too - I have a total of three people get on my case about the questions being dreadfully hard (not RfA candidates, mind you). Makes me think that people who think these questions are hard should perhaps not be hanging out in RfA. ;-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
}}

2025 opened with ] that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). Today I had ] (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with ] who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) - How are you? -- ] (]) 10:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
As the person who had the questions, I didn't mind them in general and would cheerfully answer them again. My primary issue with the Speedy Deletion one was that the category ''by nature'' has a high degree of churn so I wasn't sure others would be able to fully see the basis for my reasoning. As for the AfD topic, the problem was that question needed time to properly research which I didn't have over the weekend (visiting my dad who does not have unlimited broadband) and I still don't (my own personal system is currently in the shop awaiting repairs after a motherboard BIOS update went sour; I'm currently stealing a copy of minutes at work to answer this). I will say this - I think the concept of trying to get inside a given person's head on how they would handle a given AFD is nice... you might need to feed them a specific case or two for them to look at (e.g., take a look at the AFD for article FOO or XDRIVEL). ] 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:No worries, and yeah, I'd been thinking fo the provide-an-example tactic, but I think it might be too leading. The goal isn't to see "will this candidate do what I would have done about this dreadful AfD", it's "will this candidate demonstrate knowledge of policy, ability to think fast, and an adminly, neutral demeanor". :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


<br />
Hi SMcCandlish,
I feel I owe you an apology. First of all though, please let me thank you for taking this to your talk page. It's something I should have done to begin with and, thinking back on it now, I realize that commenting in the RFA wasn't particularly helpful and somewhat rude. For that, I would like to apologize. You were also correct in assuming that I got a little sidetracked. I'm also sorry for my tardiness: I had been out of town rather unexpectedly and, frankly, I'd been so busy that Misplaced Pages was the last thing on my mind. Since I'm the one who started this, I'm afraid that's hardly a valid excuse though and I'm sorry.

In any case, it looks like missed all the fun while I was away (always nice to be gone for a few days and have a gazillion articles greet you as you open your watchlist ;)). I feel that I did misread your questions to some extent and, like I said at the time, you're obviously entitled to ask any reasonable question as you see fit. This point is somewhat moot now and since I'm late to the party, I'll avoid beating a dead horse, but my beef, essentially, was not that the questions were too hard - my problem was that the results would at best be arbitrary. Just to make that perfectly clear: I have no problem with asking a candidate who has stated that he or she wants to work with XfDs to evaluate one. It's just that a smart candidate times it just right to pick a no-brainer and, that aside, I still feel (although less strongly) that the test has a somewhat limited usefulness for weeding out the bad apples as those who seek adminship for the wrong reasons(tm) can easily just copy a (seemingly) thoughtful answer from a successful RfA, wait for an obvious mistagging case and be done with it. That's why, in my opinion, it's not very useful as a litmus test. Since you were asking several candidates the same set of questions, my reply was more of a general comment (and, as you probably noticed, I was to some extent echoing what Ryan had remarked in ] which, I have to admit, took a very interesting turn).

Well, anyway, I mainly wanted to apologize for my previous error in judgement and for the lack of a reply on my part and I hope you'll accept my apology. :) Cheers ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:No worries. I'm not mad at anyone, or whatever. In response to your concern about the questions being too gameable, that's actually already worked into the logic. It's not like I don't go examine the example case that the admin candidate chose. If I see that they've picked a no-brainer, or otherwise "cheated" (e.g. plagiarizing comments already extant at the XfD), which will generally be self-evident, then I can discount their answer, and look at other evidence instead. It's not intended as a be-all-end-all litmus test, but rather one more question among many. The bulk of RfA commenters are digging around in edit history for bad behavior, and sometimes asking questions about that behavior, but few ask "test" questions of this sort. It's just another data point. I generally give a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" remark after the answer provided, so lame but not ''obviously'' lame answers aren't likely to spur inappropriate "support" votes. I really have thought this through pretty well. Per all the discussion above, I will be refining the questions to be less blathery and less open to interpretation. More focused. Thanks for the response, of course, and I wasn't expecting anyone to ''apologize''; reasonable people can reasonably disagree on all sorts of things. :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== Help with parser functions ==
{{Resolved|1=Replied in e-mail as requested.}}
I'm just taking a random shot to see if you might be able to help me out with "parser functions" since you're on the list of Wikipedians_who_understand_ParserFunctions @ http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedians_who_understand_ParserFunctions.

If I'm a bother, I apologize in advance. If not, I'd love some advice. I installed my wiki 2+ weeks ago & have been having problems with the templates because I think I lack parser functions. I'm not sure. Thanks,

Brandon
username cdibrandon at the sitename @gmail.com -- if you wouldn't mind emailing me here, I'd sincerely appreciate it. I do like 2000 things a day & might not remember to come back here. I hope I remember, but an email would be very appreciated.
p.s. I went through this page, http://meta.wikimedia.org/ParserFunctions, added the 3 .php files & added the line of code to the localsettings.php file & got lots of errors -- tried both lines of code.

:Just e-mailed you (short version: I just use this stuff; no idea how to ''install'' it in a personal wiki). — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==]==
{{Resolved|1=Self-resolving FYI.}}
Did you get distracted? Hint: One vote to a customer! I took care of it for you. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White">&nbsp;]|]|]&nbsp;</span>''' 08:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:I must have! — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 08:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==Template==
{{Resolved|1=Replied at proposal as requested; discussion should probably remain at ].}}
Hey, do you have any feedback on the specify tag proposal - I thought you might like that one since it's a combination of the two styles of templates.--<small>]]</span></span></small> 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:Where is this? I check my watchlist pretty closely, but I don't recall seeing this. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::It's here (at the bottom): ] --<small>]]</span></span></small> 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh, that one. Consensus on direct address is still needed before we "go there". — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Well Excuse Me ==
{{Resolved|1=Just a misunderstanding.}}
Sorry, I was fiddling with the automatic spell checker in Firefox. Your edit summary was not really appreciated. At least my mistake wasn't intended to antagonize another editor. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about your edit summary. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry if you felt that way, but altering others' !votes is a pretty major transgression when it is done intentionally (I've seen people blocked for it), and almost certain to get you a "cut it out" comment from someone, whether it was intentional or not. I'm not sure why you are taking umbrage at this. It's not like I left an angry note on your talk page. You should have self-reverted that change yourself, so there is no reason to be upset when someone does it for you. The edit summary wasn't intended to be "angry" or anything, more ironic, really. (There are people who go around changing "judgement" to "judgment", and so forth, on purpose, and often with certainty that they are fixing typos. Such people are pretty amusing in their own way, even when annoying.) My purpose in the edit summary was not to "antagonize another editor" it was to point out that another editor is doing something that there is an overwhelming and very long-standing consensus that they should not, and why they should not, and parenthetically to point out that one of the "corrections" was bogus. I'm curious what objection you would have to any of those. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


: Upon re-reading, I need you to retract this accusation. "Jehochman, do no modify the content of other's votes." I didn't modify the content (meaning) of anyone's votes, and these aren't really votes. You've made a serious, false accusation. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::I'll have to decline that request (and it wasn't an accusation, it was an observation). Your understanding of the word "content" appears to be much more narrow than general usage. Content and meaning are not synonymous except in rather unusual constructions with narrow applications. Also, votes at RfA ''are'' votes, as they are in RfB and a few other situations on WP, in contradistinction to XfD !votes, which are discussions toward forming a consensus. Please stop being upset over spilled milk and move on. This is not a personal matter for me, so why make it one for you? PS: Testing potentially destructive editing features of your software ''in a live RfA'' strikes me as not the safest of ideas. :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 18:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::: Thank you for clearing that up. Your responses make sense. Yeah, I meant to spell check my own, and kind of went overboard. Sorry again. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::: No problem, and sorry myself for upsetting you, which was not the intent. If I'd thought it were a big matter, would have raised an objection on your talk page. PS: It may also be a simple style thing; I tend to use clipped language in edit summaries because they're short (e.g. "Use en-dashes in date ranges, not hyphens", instead of "Please remember to use en-dashes in date ranges instead of hyphens, as their purposes differ (see ] for more info", if you see what I mean.) I have no interest in irritating fellow editors. :-) — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: So you want to be an admin. Your understanding of Misplaced Pages is quite good. What are you waiting for? I think you are ready. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Thanks. It's a timing thing. I have a lot of projects on the plate (on-wiki and off). I'll do an RfA when I get a lot of that stuff done and find myself thinking, "hmm, what could I be doing that's useful around here instead of twiddling my thumbs?" Heh. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== See your coaching page ==

''''']''''' 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Template:WQA in progress ==

Hi

Thanks for your help with the moving of Template:Work in progress to Template:WQA in progress. I see that it's now listed at ].

I've modified the instructions on the WQA page to refer to the new template title. As far as I can tell, there's nothing else to be done on this, pending the administrative move, is that correct? Thanks --] ] 05:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:Far as I know. I was surprised that the closer didn't do the move. Anyway, this should resolve the abuse of the template (which was worse than I thought; I found at least 5 articles using it ''on the article page''. Ick. Sorry for the TfD alarm, too; I had no idea it'd been created for ] issue tracking purposes. I've removed mention of it from the "See also" sections of the documentation of {{tl|Resolved}}, etc., so this doesn't happen again. The general talk page uses people were putting it to are now dealt with by {{tl|Unresolved}}, which I think is well documented enough that confuseable types won't do something boneheaded like put it on 47 topics on the same page, etc. Heh. — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">]</span></b> &#91;]&#93; &#91;]&#93; <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 07:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

::No problem on the TfD. You informed me about it on my talk page, so I had a chance to explain the situation and it worked out fine. I hadn't thought about ways it could have been misused when I made it. What a surprise that people would put it on article pages! --] ] 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== My Talk Page ==

Since the last comment you contributed on My Talk page, I cannot create a new topic. Also, when I sign my name with the four thingies, it does not work either. Please help. {{helpme}}. Thanks in advance.
] 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:Hi, in order for some of us to help you better, perhaps you can be a little bit more specific about when the problems occur. When you try and create a new topic on your Talkpage, what happens? Does it go to a new screen where you start the topic, or does it give you an error? When you sign with the Tildes(~), what happens? You can also try 3 tildes (<nowiki>~~~</nowiki>) which gives less information. ] 11:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
==Mike Godwin==
''There isn't anything broken. Calton, instead of insisting on flagging a problem without explaining what problem you think you see, try gaining consensus on the talk page.''


== Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment ==
Let's see:


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 10:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
*""fictionalized" =/= "important". This isn't important, it's trivia, and a single piece at that. Incorporate it if you like, but the tag stays until you do."


== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==
Clearly, you must have read this since you seem to have figured out how to leave edit summaries, so it must be a question of understanding the words. Now, were any of them difficult to understand? If so, let me know and I can supply definitions.


]Your feedback is requested &#32;at ]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of ] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by ].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by ] :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact ]. &#124; Sent at 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, take a glance at ] -- although I should think common sense would suffice, maybe this will help you out. --] | ] 12:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:30, 22 January 2025

Status: Busy

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
Welcome to SMcCandlish's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other.

No RfAs or RfBs reported by Cyberbot I since 17:38 12/25/2024 (UTC)

Template-edit requests, etc.

12 template-protected edit requests v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Template:Infobox Chinese (request) 2024-12-29 20:23 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 4000+ transclusions"
Template:Rail-interchange (request) 2025-01-06 03:20 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 4000+ transclusions"
Module:IPA/data (request) 2025-01-12 14:40 Template-protected (log) Protected by Favonian on 2023-09-16: "High-risk template or module: requested at WP:RFPP"
Module:Infobox military conflict (request) 2025-01-12 21:19 Template-protected (log) Protected by HJ Mitchell on 2014-10-08: "High-risk Lua module"
Module:Infobox military conflict/styles.css (request) 2025-01-12 21:19 Template-protected (log) Protected by MusikBot II on 2019-07-02: "High-risk template or module (more info)"
Template:Db-meta (request) 2025-01-15 03:05 Template-protected (log) Modified by NeilN on 2015-11-18: "per request"
User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist (request) 2025-01-15 19:22 Template-protected (log) From User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Blacklist: Modified by AmandaNP on 2016-02-12: "we are going to try letting template editors edit"
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject/Popular pages config.json (request) 2025-01-17 19:02 Template-protected (log) Protected by Izno on 2024-09-28: "protect at TE level"
Template:Doi (request) 2025-01-18 19:29 Template-protected (log) Modified by Jo-Jo Eumerus on 2016-08-18: "Highly visible template: Protecting admin inactive, no need for high protection given the only moderately high usage"
Template:Authority control (request) 2025-01-19 15:54 Template-protected (log) Modified by WOSlinker on 2013-10-19: "allow template editors to modify"
Template:WikiProject Yugoslavia (request) 2025-01-23 15:46 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 4000+ transclusions"
Template:Infobox song contest national year (request) 2025-01-23 18:55 Template-protected (log) Modified by CT Cooper on 2015-03-01: "Merging has increased use, so upping protection to template editors only."
Updated as needed. Last updated: 19:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 23 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

[REDACTED] Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Centralized discussion

Most recent poster here: Yapperbot (talk)

Mini-toolbox:

Articles for deletion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Other:

As of 2025-01-22 , SMcCandlish is Active.
I'll reply to your message within 24 hours if possible.

WikiStress level
Wikimood
The Signpost
The Signpost

The Signpost
2025-01-15
Volume 21, Issue 1

About · Subscribe · Newsroom
Please stay in the top 3 segments of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.
Archiving icon
Archives
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Search   Index of topics

Old stuff to resolve eventually

Cueless billiards

Unresolved – Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.
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)

Crud fits for sure. And if the variant in it is sourceable, I'm sure some military editor will fork it into a separate article eventually. I think at least some variants of bar billiards are played with hands and some bagatelle split-offs probably were, too (Shamos goes into loads of them, but I get them all mixed up, mostly because they have foreign names). And there's bocce billiards, article I've not written yet. Very fun game. Kept my sister and I busy for 3 hours once. Her husband (Air Force doctor) actually plays crud on a regular basis; maybe there's a connection. She beat me several times, so it must be from crud-playing. Hand pool might be its own article eventually. Anyway, I guess it depends upon your "categorization politics". Mine are pretty liberal - I like to put stuff into a logical category as long as there are multiple items for it (there'll be two as soon as you're done with f.b., since we have crud), and especially if there are multiple parent categories (that will be the case here), and especially especially if the split parallels the category structure of another related category branch (I can't think of a parallel here, so this criterion of mine is not a check mark in this case), and so on. A bunch of factors really. I kind of wallow in that stuff. Not sure why I dig the category space so much. Less psychodrama, I guess. >;-) In my entire time here, I can only think of maybe one categorization decision I've made that got nuked at CfD. And I'm a pretty aggressive categorizer, too; I totally overhauled Category:Pinball just for the heck of it and will probably do the same to Category:Darts soon.
PS: I'm not wedded to the "cueless billiards" name idea; it just seemed more concise than "cueless developments from cue sports" or whatever.— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no "categorization politics". It's not an area that I think about a lot or has ever interested me so it's good there are people like you. If there is to be a category on this, "cueless billiards" seems fine to me. By the way, just posted Yank Adams as an adjunct to the finger billiards article I started.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool; I'd never even heard of him. This one looks like a good DYK; just the fact that there was Finger Billiards World Championship contention is funky enough, probably. You still citing that old version of Shamos? You really oughta get the 1999 version; it can be had from Amazon for cheap and has a bunch of updates. I actually put my old version in the recycle bin as not worth saving. Heh. PS: You seen Stein & Rubino 3rd ed.? I got one for the xmas before the one that just passed, from what was then a really good girlfriend. >;-) It's a-verra, verra nahce. Over 100 new pages, I think (mostly illustrations). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If I happen to come across it in a used book store I might pick it up. There's nothing wrong with citing the older edition (as I've said to you before). I had not heard of Adams before yesterday either. Yank is apparently not his real name, though I'm not sure what it is yet. Not sure there will be enough on him to make a DYK (though don't count it out). Of course, since I didn't userspace it, I have 4½ days to see. Unfortunately, I don't have access to ancestry.com and have never found any free database nearly as useful for finding newspaper articles (and census, birth certificates, and reams of primary source material). I tried to sign up for a free trial again which worked once before, but they got smart and are logging those who signed up previously. I just looked; the new Stein and Rubino is about $280. I'll work from the 2nd edition:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I haven't tried Ancestry in a while. They're probably logging IP addresses. That would definitely affect me, since mine doesn't change except once every few years. I guess that's what libraries and stuff are for. S&R: Should be available cheaper. Mine came with the Blue Book of Pool Cues too for under $200 total. Here it is for $160, plus I think the shipping was $25. Stein gives his e-mail address as that page. If you ask him he might give you the 2-book deal too, or direct you to where ever that is. Shamos: Not saying its an unreliable source (although the newer version actually corrected some entries), it's just cool because it has more stuff in it. :-) DYK: Hey, you could speedily delete your own article, sandbox it and come back. Heh. Seriously, I'll see if I can get into Ancestry again and look for stuff on him. I want to look for William Hoskins stuff anyway so I can finish that half of the Spinks/Hoskins story, which has sat in draft form for over a year. I get sidetracked... — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not IPs they're logging, it's your credit card. You have to give them one in order to get the trial so that they can automatically charge you if you miss the cancellation deadline. Regarding the Blue Book, of all these books, that's the one that get's stale, that is, if you use it for actual quotes, which I do all the time, both for answer to questions and for selling, buying, etc. Yeah I start procrastinating too. I did all that work on Mingaud and now I can't get myself to go back. I also did reams of research on Hurricane Tony Ellin (thugh I found so little; I really felt bad when he died; I met him a few times, seemed like a really great guy), Masako Katsura and others but still haven't moved on them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, the credit card. I'll have to see if the PayPal plugin has been updated to work with the new Firefox. If so, that's our solution - it generates a new valid card number every time you use it (they always feed from your single PayPal account). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
PayPal Plugin ist kaput. Some banks now issue credit card accounts that make use of virtual card numbers, but mine's not one of them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. It was worth a shot. I signed up for a newspaperarchive.com three month trial. As far as newspaper results go it seems quite good so far, and the search interface is many orders of magnitude better than ancestry's, but it has none of the genealogical records that ancestry provides. With ancestry I could probably find census info on Yank as well as death information (as well as for Masako Katsura, which I've been working on it for a few days; she could actually be alive, though she'd be 96).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:52, 9 February 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)

Reading stuff from that era, it's also amazing how important billiards (in the three-ball sense) was back then, with sometimes multiple-page stories in newspapers about each turn in a long match, and so on. It's like snooker is today in the UK. PS: I saw that you found evidence of a billiards stage comedy there. I'd never heard of it! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 15:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Jackpot. Portrait, diagrams, sample shot descriptions and more (that will also lend itself to the finger billiards article).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice find! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 06:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some more notes on Crystalate

Unresolved – New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.
Extended content

Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.; info about making records:; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:; "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 - 1991wGtDHsgbtltnpBg&ct=result&id=v0m-h4YgKVYC&dq=%2BCrystalate; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:No5 Balls.html. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to have a look at this stuff in more detail. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I've worked most of it in. Fences&Windows 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool! From what I can tell, entirely different parties held the trademark in different markets. I can't find a link between Crystalate Mfg. Co. Ltd. (mostly records, though billiard balls early on) and the main billiard ball mfr. in the UK, who later came up with "Super Crystalate". I'm not sure the term was even used in the U.S. at all, despite the formulation having been originally patented there. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAL

Unresolved – Not done yet, last I looked.
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)

I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork 23:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You post at Misplaced Pages talk:FAQ/Copyright

Unresolved – Need to fix William A. Spinks, etc., with proper balkline stats, now that we know how to interpret them.
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)

Yeah, I did a bunch of archiving yesterday. This page was HUGE. It'll get there again. I'd forgotten MCQ existed. Can you please add it to the DAB hatnote at top of and "See also" at bottom of WP:COPYRIGHT? Its conspicuous absence is precisely why I ened up at Misplaced Pages talk:FAQ/Copyright! Haven't seen your balkline response yet; will go look. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hee Haw

Unresolved – Still need to propose some standards on animal breed article naming and disambiguation. In the intervening years, we've settled on natural not parenthetic disambiguation, and that standardized breeds get capitalized, but that's about it.
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 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Truce, certainly. I'm not here to pick fights, just improve the consistency for readers and editors. I don't think there will be any scholarly articles on differences between landrace and breed, because there's nothing really to write about. Landrace has clear definitions in zoology and botany, and breed not only doesn't qualify, it is only established as true in any given case by reliable sources. Basically, no one anywhere is claiming "This is the Foobabaz horse, and it is a new landrace!" That wouldn't make sense. What is happening is people naming and declaring new alleged breeds on an entirely self-interested, profit-motive basis, with no evidence anyone other than the proponent and a few other experimental breeders consider it a breed. WP is full of should-be-AfD'd articles of this sort, like the cat one I successfully prod'ed last week. Asking for a reliable source that something is a landrace rather than a breed is backwards; landrace status is the default, not a special condition. It's a bit like asking for a scholarly piece on whether pig Latin is a real language or not; no one's going to write a journal paper about that because "language" (and related terms like "dialect", "language family", "creole" in the linguistic sense, etc.) have clear definitions in linguistics, while pig Latin, an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally-managed form of communication (like an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally managed form of domesticated animal) does not qualify. :-) The "what is a breed" question, which is also not about horses any more than cats or cavies or ferrets, is going to be a separate issue to resolve from the naming issue. Looking over what we collaboratively did with donkeys – and the naming form that took, i.e. Poitou donkey not Poitou (donkey), I think I'm going to end up on your side of that one. It needs to be discussed more broadly in an RFC, because most projects use the parenthetical form, because this is what WT:AT is most readily interpretable as requiring. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I hate the drama of an RfC, particularly when we can just look at how much can be naturally disambiguated, but if you think it's an actual issue, I guess ping me when it goes up. As for landcraces, it may be true ("clear definitions") but you would be doing God's (or someone's) own good work if you were to improve landrace which has few references, fewer good ones, and is generally not a lot of help to those of us trying to sort out WTF a "landrace" is... (smiles). As for breed, that is were we disagree: At what point do we really have a "breed" as opposed to a "landrace?" Fixed traits, human-selected? At what degree, at which point? How many generations? I don't even know if there IS such a thing as a universal definition of what a "breed" is: seriously: or breed or . I think you and I agree that the Palomino horse can never be a "breed" because it is impossible for the color to breed true (per an earlier discussion) so we have one limit. But while I happen agree to a significant extent with your underlying premise that when Randy from Boise breeds two animals and says he has created a new breed and this is a problem, (I think it's a BIG problem in the worst cases) but if we want to get really fussy, I suppose that the aficionados of the Arabian horse who claim the breed is pure from the dawn of time are actually arguing it is a landrace, wouldn't you say? And what DO we do with the multi-generational stuff that's in limbo land? Montanabw 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really certain what the answers are to any of those questions, another reason (besides your "STOP!" demands :-) that I backed away rapidly from moving any more horse articles around. But it's something that is going to have to be looked into. I agree that the Landrace article here is poor. For one thing, it needs to split Natural breed out into its own article (a natural breed is a selectively-bred formal breed the purpose of which is to refine and "lock-in" the most definitive qualities of a local landrace). This in turn isn't actually the same thing as a traditional breed, though the concepts are related. Basically, three breeding concepts are squished into one article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Side comment: I tend to support one good overview article over three poor content forks, just thinking aloud... Montanabw 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure; the point is that the concepts have to be separately, clearly treated, because they are not synonymous at all. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 02:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Given that the article isn't well-sourced yet, I think that you might want to add something about that to landrace now, just to give whomever does article improvement on it later (maybe you, I think this is up your alley!) has the "ping" to do so. Montanabw 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Aye, it's on my to-do list. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Although I have been an evolutionary biologist for decades, I only noticed the term "landrace" within the past year or two (in reference to corn), because I work with wildland plants. But I immediately knew what it was, from context. I'm much less certain about breeds, beyond that I am emphatic that they are human constructs. Montanabw and I have discussed my horse off-wiki, and from what I can tell, breeders are selecting for specific attributes (many people claim to have seen a horse "just like him"), but afaik there is no breed "Idaho stock horse". Artificially-selected lineages can exist without anyone calling them "breeds"; I'm not sure they would even be "natural breeds", and such things are common even within established breeds (Montanabw could probably explain to us the difference between Polish and Egyptian Arabians).
The good thing about breeds wrt Misplaced Pages is that we can use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE to decide what to cover. Landraces are a different issue: if no one has ever called a specific, distinctive, isolated mustang herd a landrace, is it OR for Misplaced Pages to do so?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been reluctant to use landrace much out of a concern that the concept is a bit OR, as I hadn't heard of it before[REDACTED] either (but I'm more a historian than an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know?): Curtis, any idea where this did come from? It's a useful concept, but I am kind of wondering where the lines are between selective breeding and a "natural" breed -- of anything. And speaking of isolated Mustang herds, we have things like Kiger Mustang, which is kind of interesting. I think that at least some of SMc's passion comes from the nuttiness seen in a lot of the dog and cat breeders these days, am I right? I mean, Chiweenies? Montanabw 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The first use of the word that I saw referred to different landraces of corn growing in different elevations and exposures in indigenous Maya areas of modern Mexico. I haven't tracked down the references for the use of the word, but the concept seems extremely useful. My sense is that landraces form as much through natural selective processes of cultivation or captivity as through human selection, so that if the "garbage wolf" hypothesis for dog domestication is true, garbage wolves would have been a landrace (or more likely several, in different areas). One could even push the definition and say that MRSA is a landrace. But I don't have enough knowledge of the reliable sources to know how all this would fit into Misplaced Pages.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Landraces form, primarily and quickly, through mostly natural selection, long after domestication. E.g. the St Johns water dog and Maine Coon cat are both North American landraces that postdate European arrival on the continent. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I see some potential for some great research on this and a real improvement to the articles in question. Montanabw 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Redundant sentence?

Unresolved – Work to integrate WP:NCFLORA and WP:NCFAUNA stuff into MOS:ORGANISMS not completed yet? Seems to be mostly done, other than fixing up the breeds section, after that capitalization RfC a while back.
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 Misplaced Pages: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)

  1. I would leave it a alone for now; let people get used to the changes. I think it's reasonable to include the "general names" thing, because it's a catch-all that includes several different kinds of examples, that various largely different groups of people are apt to capitalize. Various know-nothings want to capitalize things like "the Cats", the "Great Apes", etc., because they think "it's a Bigger Group and I like to Capitalize Big Important Stuff". There are millions more people who just like to capitalize nouns and stuff. "Orange's, $1 a Pound". Next we have people who insist on capitalizing general "types" and landraces of domestic animals ("Mountain Dogs", "Van Cat") because they're used to formal breed names being capitalized (whether to do that with breeds here is an open question, but it should not be done with types/classes of domestics, nor with landraces. Maybe the examples can be sculpted better: "the roses", "herpesviruses", "great apes", "Bryde's whale", "mountain dogs", "Van cat", "passerine birds". I'm not sure that "rove beetle" and "oak" are good examples of anything. Anyway, it's more that the species no-capitalization is a special case of the more general rule, not that the general rule is a redundant or vague version of the former. If they're merged, it should keep the general examples, and maybe specifically spell out and illustrate that it also means species and subspecies, landraces and domestic "types", as well as larger and more general groupings.
  2. I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to MOS:ORGANISMS, which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at Lynx or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With Lynx, I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization there, and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
  2. I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "Canna" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
  2. Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Note to self on WP:WikiProject English language

Unresolved – I think I did MOST of this already ...
Extended content

Finish patching up WP:WikiProject English language with the stuff from User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and otherwise get the ball rolling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Excellent mini-tutorial

Unresolved
Extended content

Somehow, I forget quite how, I came across this - that is an excellent summary of the distinctions. I often get confused over those, and your examples were very clear. Is something like that in the general MoS/citation documentation? Oh, and while I am here, what is the best way to format a citation to a page of a document where the pages are not numbered? All the guidance I have found says not to invent your own numbering by counting the pages (which makes sense), but I am wondering if I can use the 'numbering' used by the digitised form of the book. I'll point you to an example of what I mean: the 'book' in question is catalogued here (note that is volume 2) and the digitised version is accessed through a viewer, with an example of a 'page' being here, which the viewer calls page 116, but there are no numbers on the actual book pages (to confuse things further, if you switch between single-page and double-page view, funny things happen to the URLs, and if you create and click on a single-page URL the viewer seems to relocate you one page back for some reason). Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Thanks. I need to copy that into an essay page. As far as I know, the concepts are not clearly covered in any of those places, nor clearly enough even at Help:CS1 (which is dense and overlong as it is). The e-book matters bear some researching. I'm very curious whether particular formats (Nook, etc.) paginate consistently between viewers. For Web-accessible ones, I would think that the page numbering that appears in the Web app is good enough if it's consistent (e.g., between a PC and a smart phone) when the reader clicks the URL in the citation. I suppose one could also use |at= to provide details if the "page" has to be explained in some way. I try to rely on better-than-page-number locations when possible, e.g. specific entries in dictionaries and other works with multiple entries per page (numbered sections in manuals, etc.), but for some e-books this isn't possible – some are just continuous texts. One could probably use something like |at=in the paragraph beginning "The supersegemental chalcolithic metastasis is ..." about 40% into the document, in a pinch. I guess we do need to figure this stuff out since such sources are increasingly common.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes (about figuring out how to reference e-books), though I suspect existing (non-WP) citation styles have addressed this already (no need to re-invent the wheel). This is a slightly different case, though. It is a digitisation of an existing (physical) book that has no page numbers. If I had the book in front of me (actually, it was only published as a single copy, so it is not a 'publication' in that traditional sense of many copies being produced), the problem with page numbers would still exist. I wonder if the 'digital viewer' should be thought of as a 'via' thingy? In the same way that (technically) Google Books and archive.org digital copies of old books are just re-transmitting, and re-distributing the material (is wikisource also a 'via' sort of thing?). Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: Ah, I see. I guess I would treat it as a |via=, and same with WikiSource, which in this respect is essentially like Google Books or Project Gutenberg. I think your conundrum has come up various times with arXiv papers, that have not been paginated visibly except in later publication (behind a journal paywall and not examined). Back to the broader matter: Some want to treat WikiSource and even Gutenberg as republishers, but I think that's giving them undue editorial credit and splitting too fine a hair. Was thinking on the general unpaginated and mis-paginated e-sources matter while on the train, and came to the conclusion that for a short, unpaginated work with no subsections, one might give something like |at=in paragraph 23, and for a much longer one use the |at=in the paragraph beginning "..." trick. A straight up |pages=82–83 would work for an e-book with hard-coded meta-data pagination that is consistent between apps/platforms and no visual pagination. On the other hand, use the visual pagination in an e-book that has it, even if it doesn't match the e-book format's digital pagination, since the pagination in the visual content would match that of a paper copy; one might include a note that the pagination is that visible in the content if it conflicts with what the e-book reader says (this comes up a lot with PDFs, for one thing - I have many that include cover scans, and the PDF viewers treat that as p. 1, then other front matter as p. 2, etc., with the content's p. 1 being something like PDF p. 7).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  08:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS

Unresolved – Go fix the WP:FOO shortcuts to MOS:FOO ones, to match practice at other MoS pages. This only applies to the MoS section there; like WP:SAL, part of that page is also a content guideline that should not have MOS: shortcuts.
Extended content

You had previously asked that protection be lowered on WP:MEDMOS which was not done at that time. I have just unprotected the page and so if you have routine update edits to make you should now be able to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't remember what it was, but maybe it'll come back to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Now I remember.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ooh...potential WikiGnoming activity...

Unresolved – Do some of this when I'm bored?
Extended content

@SMcCandlish:

I stumbled upon Category:Editnotices whose targets are redirects and there are ~100 pages whose pages have been moved, but the editnotices are still targeted to the redirect page. Seems like a great, and sort of fun, WikiGnoming activity for a template editor such as yourself. I'd do it, but I'm not a template editor. Not sure if that's really your thing, though. ;-)

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 22:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Argh. I would've hoped some bot fixed that kind of stuff. I'll consider it, but it's a lot of work for low benefit (the page names may be wrong, but the redirs still get there), and it's been my experience that a lot of editnotices (especially in mainspace) are PoV-pushing crap that needs to be deleted anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to pass for the nonce, Dmehus. Working on some other project (more fun than WP is sometimes). I'll let it sit here with {{Unresolved}} on it, in case I get inspired to work on it some, but it might be a long time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Note to self

Unresolved – Cquote stuff ...
Extended content

Don't forget to deal with: Template talk:Cquote#Template-protected edit request on 19 April 2020.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Now this

Unresolved – Breed disambiguation again ...
Extended content

Not sure the ping went through, so noting here. Just spotted where a now-blocked user moved a bunch of animal breed articles back to parenthetical disambiguation from natural disambiguation. As they did it in October and I'm only catching it now, I only moved back two just in case there was some kind of consensus change. The equine ones are definitely against project consensus, the rest are not my wheelhouse but I'm glad to comment. Talk:Campine_chicken#Here_we_go_again. Montanabw 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Argh. Well, this is easy to fix with a request to mass-revert undiscussed moves, at the subsection for that at WP:RMTR. Some admin will just fix it all in one swoop. While I have the PageMover bit, and could do it myself as a technical possibility, I would run afoul of WP:INVOLVED in doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Did this get fixed yet? If not, I can look into it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

PGP

Unresolved – Gotta put my geek hat on and fix this.

FYI, it looks like your key has expired. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Aiee! Thanks, I'll have to generate a new one when I have time to mess around with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

German article on houndstooth, Border tartan, and related patterns

Unresolved – Considering ...

de:Rapport (Textil) is an interesting approach, and we don't seem to have a corresponding sort of article. Something I might approach at some point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Post-holidays note to self

Unresolved – I need to come up with a better to-do list kind of thing on here, and actually use it instead of letting it turn moribund.
Extended content

Something to deal with quickly:

Need to stop putting this off; will probably only take 10 minutes.

Ongoing:

Several things appear to have stalled out over the holidays:

Some of these may need to be restarted as RfCs.

See also:

Forgot about this one for a long time (need to merge the NC material out of MOS:COMICS into WP:NCCOMICS):

An article still using deprecated WP:PARENTHETICAL referencing of the {{harv}} style to use as a cleanup testbed:

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC); updated: 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)





Current threads

Notice of a discussion I think you'd be interested in knowing about

Hey Mac, I thought you might want to be aware of this discussion (which includes not just the linked to thread, but a much larger one further above on VP/WMF). In summary, it appears that the WMF is prepared to imminently disclose personally identifying information about volunteers in a controversial Indian court case, where a news agency is attempting to suppress Misplaced Pages's tertiary coverage of the content of secondary sources (which it considers unflattering) by going after a number of individual editors as defendants. In order to comply with court orders in the case, it seems the WMF is prepared to share this information in what a number of us consider a pretty seismically bad idea and a betrayal of community priorities and values (the WMF has also already used an office action to remove an article reporting on the case, at the direction of the court for what said court regards as legitimate sub judice reasons).

While the deletion of the article has been framed by the WMF as temporary step to preserve appeal on the overall case, and there are mixed feelings in the community response as to that so far, there is a much more uniform opposition to throwing the individual editors (at least one of whom is located in India and has profound apprehension about what this could mean for his life with regard to litigation and beyond) under the bus. And yet the WMF appears to be prepared to share the information in question, as soon as Nov. 8. Can I impose upon you to take a look at the matter and share your perspective? SnowRise 00:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeesh. That sounds really dreadful. This seems really problematic on multiple levels. I hope the disappeared article is available through some archival service (what with Wayback being under concerted attack for so long now). But the privacy matter seems more important here. I've been quietly arguing for some time that WMF has to stop blockading VPNs, for reasons like this. If you don't have PII to divulge, then governments don't try to twist your arm in the first place. I have the US election shitshow in my face at the moment, but maybe can look into this tomorrow. I don't have a lot of reach any longer, but my FB and LinkedIn pages probably hit the eyes of some who do on such matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I've been coming to similar conclusions about the VPN issue of late, although I confess that the potential for abuse by vandals is a difficult concern to ignore at the same time. In any event, I agree that the PII issues is the much more serious and pressing of the issues, even if neither is exactly a trivial matter. And yes, I appreciate the timing could not be worse, but do consider looking into the matter further if time allows--few people here are more articulate than you, once you've made your mind up on how you feel about an issue. SnowRise 04:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Life got away from me, and I'll try to look into this shortly, though maybe some deadline has been passed already. PS: On VPNs, I don't mean we should permit them across-the-board, but just for logged-in users with accounts past some threshold (of the sort we impose for various other things; maybe autoconfirmed, though something more stringent could also be used). It just makes zero sense that I can be logged in as me, a user with 19 years experience here, and cannot edit beyond my userspace if using a VPN (which is more and more an automatic thing one has to affirmatively turn off in various browsers these days).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your comments at the AT discussion

I can assure you I have no emotional attachment to the AT policy and I'd ask that you strike your comments suggesting that I'm engaging in bent-out-of-shape ranting, etc. Clearly I misunderstood what you were saying regarding the "over-ride" issue; you could have just clarified your point instead of calling me hysterical. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Done, in the interests of peace. Though I just did a direct revision instead of a strike-through.

It would be nice if, for your part, you actually addressed the substance of the argument I made instead of repeatedly just criticizing perceived tone and imaginary implications (of my wording or Cinderella's), since the actually operable implications in the context are quite limited, as has been explained in some detail.

That said, the discussion/proposal is a dead stick. Cinderella's wording choices set off so many people that the snowball is probably irreversible. This should be re-addressed some other time (perhaps after a customary 6-18 months) with more careful wording and a more clearly articulated argument, because the problem identified is a real one and it is not going to magically go away. My sectional merge proposal would obviate it, but no one's going to notice and support it because they're running around alarmed by "supersede" and "override". It might not be "hysterical" but it's not responsive to the issue in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Your revision is hardly better. You've still left in the stuff about argument to emotion and called me blustery. And, now you're assuming that I'm angry at you as well. I can once again assure you that I'm not angry. Stop speculating on my emotional state or my motivations. It's not productive. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I revised for tone because the tone was not constructive. As for the rest: no one likes being criticized, but something that basically boils down to "stop criticizing" isn't a request I'm going to obey. I stand by my criticisms. Your and other "no" !votes in that proceeding are not in any way responsive to the substance of the proposal but only emotively over-reacting to wording used by the proponent and to imaginary not plausible repercussions. As my old friend John Perry Barlow put it in regard to such "terriblizing" (to paraphrase here; I don't have the article he wrote about this right in front of me): Objecting to something on the basis of the possible outcomes instead of the probable one is fallacious. In the imagination, there are no limits to the possible, but the outcome is extremely unlikely to be in the extreme range of it. As for "angry", your tone toward me there and here is clearly angry (displeased, antagonistic, combative, complaining, unhappy, dwelling on your hurt feelings instead of on the substance, however one wants to put it). It requires no mind-reading to observe this. You don't get to duck and dodge the implications of what you write by disclaiming that they convey what they clearly convey, any more than I do. I've gone the extra mile to edit my tone in response to you, but you have not met me half way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Your user scripts

might benefit more users if they were also listed at Misplaced Pages:User scripts/List. That's the go-to place where I get all my scripts from... Huggums 05:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, though I think they still need a bit more tweaking (even aside from one lacking the vertical formatting feature entirely). It's stuff I worked on obsessively for about a month straight, but have been doing other stuff since then. Takes a while to get back into such things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

 Done Your feedback is requested at Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal) on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

 Done Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza genocide on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

 Done
Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

 Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sabiha Gökçen on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines request for comment

 Done
Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC on a "Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

December thanks

story · music · places

Thank you today for improving article quality in December! - Today is a woman poet's centenary. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Disregard – Non-neutral pseudo-RfC; advice given to poster of it on how to do it properly Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tina Turner on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

 Endorsed

A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 27 § "Musican" Redirects until a consensus is reached. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You're my MOS maven...

I cannot believe that we seriously intend for this style of number separation to be used - here. Am I utterly off base? Ealdgyth (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Gram capitalisation (eponym exceptionalism)

You've probably had your fill of this, so forgive me if so.

My background
I'm a long-time IP editor of WP with an interest in style, grammar & punctuation, who has regularly been unfairly thwacked with actions from admins or logged in editors — usually as collateral damage in an IP-range block, but occasionally through some other tiresome thing, such as edit reversion.... Some of those admins have seemed pretty trigger-happy to implement blocks, without feeling any compunction when I've occasionally pointed out that some of those specific instances were contrary to the official WP guidelines (and, furthermore, no penalty to such admins...). Anyway, enough of my ranting... Just that the contrast in treatment is 'interesting'.

I was wondering why the styling at Gram-positive bacteria and Gram-negative bacteria never got resolved. If indeed (as I think you made a fair case) one or a handful of editors were standing against the MOS, then why was there no admin action against those editors for blocking/reverting changes consistent with the MOS to retain a version at odds with the MOS?

I notice that the explicit guidance on eponyms in the MOS has stood for the past several years, but those two articles remain as inconsistent as ever.

I don't think this necessarily has to be your burden to carry, but why are some admins not resolving this?

—DIV (202.7.208.27 (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC))

As a sometimes McCandlish lurker, per your concerns about IP editing, may I point out that User:DIV is open if you want it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Would be a pretty cool username, too. Not many three-letter ones available that are pronounceable. As an HTML-element reference, it would imply that you're full of content. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It never got resolved because most of us have lives and run out of time and patience to deal with it when there is a camp of editors who will fight ceaselessly to keep some WP:SSF-based weird stylistic divergence from our style manual, because the variant suits their off-site writing habits that pertain to some other domain. One of these cases is the preference on the part of the American Medical Association's style guide to lowercase a proper-name-bearing term any time it is used as (or as part of) a modifier instead of as a noun phrase. This is weird, intentionally inconsistent, and downright confusing. It doesn't match the writing style of any other group of English-language users in the entire world. But if editors who are fans of this practice are a thick majority of the editors who will respond to any attempt to normalize the style to reader expectations at a particular subject, then progress will tend to stonewall. Often the only way to break through such a deadlock is an RfC at some venue like WT:MOS or even WP:VPPOL. Personally, I have little patience for this stuff any longer, because there are more important things to do. They always turn into WP:DRAMA festivals.

That said, fixing "gram-negative" to "Gram-negative" throughout all of our material would be good to do, because almost everyone who encounters this term and is not already a medicine or biology professional is going believe that it has something to do with the gram unit, when it is really an eponym based on the surname Gram. Other terms lowercased for the same dubious reason, e.g. "parkinsonian", are less problematic than this case because they lack such obvious and confusing ambiguity. To put it another way, if the AMA's next style book edition demands to start spelling "CAT scan" and "PET scan" as "cat scan" and "pet scan", WP would ignore them as ridiculous and "reader-hateful". We should already have come to that same conclusion with regard to "gram-positive/negative" (and having come to that conclusion, then step-wise also concluded to avoid "parkinsonian" and the like as a consistency matter).

On your admins side question: it's virtually unheard of for admins to get involved in MoS-related disputes in a block-wielding manner, because they are guidelines not policies, and they have a lot of "real work" to do, e.g. against vandalism and spam and so on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines request for comment

 Done Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity on a "Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ronald Reagan on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Style

@SMcCandlish, hello … this is Augnablik, a Misplaced Pages editor for the past 2.5 years. I'm writing because you were recommended as someone I might turn to for answers to questions about the more convoluted elements of MOS. Example: right now I'm in somewhat of a fog trying to decide the best way to disambiguate the subject of an article.

I wish Misplaced Pages still offered a similar one-on-one feature called Editor Assistance that used to be available, as I recently discovered, only to find it was discontinued. In its absence, would you be willing to pick up on this and occasional other such questions for me?

Augnablik (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Augnablik: Sure, happy to help. I probably have one of the better mental-map understandings of most of MoS and how it interrelates in various sections, and interacts with other guidelines and policies. If I don't get back to you speedily, it's not because I'm ignoring you, just off doing something else for a while. Anyway, keep in mind that I'm just one editor; while I've been one of MoS's shepherds for 15+ years, there can be interpretational disagreements about it. If something I say seems wrongheaded, it might actually be wrongheaded, with the question better asked at WT:MOS or on the talk-page of one of the more specific MoS sub-guidelines (e.g. WT:MOSCAPS for case questions, WT:MOSNUM for number and date ones, WT:DAB for disambiguation ones, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for such a quick reply, @SMcCandlish. I look forward to discussions with not just a highly recommended MOS expert but also someone whose User page indicates a shared love and ownership of cats (but don't they own us?) as well as ability in versions of the English language for which I didn't even know User boxes were available. And since you're "one of MOS's shepherds"— forgive me for this — I won't need to be sheepish about asking you some of the intricate questions I may come up with.
Here is my most immediate need. I'm working on the existing article for Ramendra Kumar, a noted Indian children's author — that is, what's left of it after having been pretty much blown to bits. I recently discovered another Indian by the same name, who also turned out to have a Wiki article: Ramendra Kumar (politician). Today I found two more Indian politicians by the name of Ramendra Kumar but an additional surname, all with at least something in a Wiki article (Ramendra Kumar Yadav and Ramendra Kumar Podder).
— I know that disambiguation should be created for not just the Ramendra Kumar whose article I'm working on but also the other three.
— I think it would also might be helpful to point out that the first name "Ramendra" should not be confused with Rajendra or Ravendra, as there are other notable Indians who also have those first names along with Kumar as a surname.
When I thought there was only one other person by the same name, I was going to attempt a disambiguation and ask the yet-unidentified MOS expert if what I'd come up with seemed okay. But now that I know there are so many others with the same or similar names, I think I'd better just throw up my hands and turn to the expert. Augnablik (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
We would not involve either Ramendra Kumar Yadav and Ramendra Kumar Podder as disambiguation page entries for the name "Ramendra Kumar" (much less put disambiguation hatnotes on them) except for one who is also referred to in reliable sources as "Ramendra Kumar" alone. The unfamiliarity of these names to the average English speaker (outside the Indian subcontinent) doesn't make any difference. If we have Michael Jackson (disambiguation), we would not add someone named "Michael Jackson MacTavish" or "Michael Jackson Chen-Garcia" to it, unless RS indicated they were referred to often enough without "MacTavish" or "Chen-Garcia". It's reasonable at a disambiguation page's "See also" section to but something like "All pages with titles containing Ramendra Kumar" (see the Jackson page for example). That section would also be a good place for "* Rajendra Kumar" and "* Ravendra Kumar" (or apparently not the last one yet, since it's still a red link, so would serve no navigational purpose on a disambig. page). There's no need to "point out" to readers, in a reader-addressing manner, that such names also exit and might be what they're looking for; a diambig. page's see-also section exists for not having to do that in a pedantic way, but just by providing links. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay. And now a few more related disambiguation questions ...
  • I'm thinking to remove the sentence currently serving as the lead in the Ramendra Kumar author article and instead place it within parentheses, like what the article does for the Indian politician of the same name: (author).
  • When the above is done, then: — Underneath the article title for RK the author, I write For Ramendra Kumar the Indian politician, see Ramendra Kumar (politician). But how do I indent that line, as it appears on disambiguated pages? — Underneath the article title for RK the Indian politician, I write For Ramendra Kumar the Indian author, see Ramendra Kumar (author).
  • As for the "See also" section idea you gave, citing the Michael Jackson article, when I went there I saw what seemed a completely unrelated list of dancers of all time! In any event, your comment that we don't have to point out to readers that similar names to the one in the title also exist made me decide not to include a See also section for RK the author. I guess I'd been assuming that sort of thing was an editor's duty.
Augnablik (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Neither should be using parenthetical descriptions in their lead sentences; that's a style for article title disambiguation. If the author isn't markedly more notable than the politician, he should move to Ramendra Kumar (author) (and that should exist as a WP:Redirect anyway, otherwise). For a two-person disambiguation, WP:Hatnotes are sufficient as a minimum, but it doesn't hurt for there to be a Ramendra Kumar disambiguation page (with Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation) also redirecting to that), since we have at least two "See also" ideas (maybe three, if the presently red-linked Ravendra Kumar also ends up with an article), in addition to two proper entries. The navigation hatnotes at the top of the articles would be done with Template:For, something like {{for|the member of Indian Parliament|Ramendra Kumar (politian)}} and {{for|the children's book writer|Ramendra Kumar (author)}}, here written to avoid annoyingly repeating the words "politician" and "author", though some editors wouldn't care and would do that anyway. This will put the indented navigational hatnotes at the point the template is used in the article's source code, which should be immediately under any {{Short description}} template (the first on the page) and before other templates like cleanup notices, or {{Use Indian English|date=January 2025}} and {{Use dmy dates|cs1-dates=ll|date=January 2025}}, which would also be appropriate for this article, and infoboxes, which probably would also be appropriate. You can learn a lot about how to use (and order) such templates by looking at the code of existing articles, some of which use more complicated hatnotes for cases of multiple disambiguations. The politician article should probably have {{Infobox politician}}. The author article is already using {{Infobox author}}, but has an {{EngvarB}} template that should be replaced with {{Use Indian English}}; the politician article lacks such an English-dialect template entirely. I improved the author's lead sentence a little, but left the rest for you to do as practice, though I could also just do it since it's easy for me.

Regarding Michael Jackson (disambiguation) – it's fairly likely that a disambig. page for a name both common and prominent will attract some entries that should be removed as inappropriate; I didn't mean to suggest it as a perfect model, but simply as an example of not adding cases to (disambiguation) pages. I.e., if it were normal to do that, then any page of that sort would already have numerous such entries, but they do not. Human-name disambiguation pages that treat a name in isolation might do that, if the name is uncommon enough that the list is not excessively long. E.g. McCandlish has an an entry for someone using it as a given name. But we might not do this at a very popular name, for length reasons. Jackson is doing it, in sections, but in other cases we have a separate given-name disambiguation or list page, e.g. List of people with given name Wilson (I'm not sure by what criteria this would be at "List of people with given name Foo" instead of "Foo (given name)", and the one will usually redirect to the other regardless. The editors at WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy probably have an answer for this question (or perhaps what to do with such quasi-articles is in some kind of disputed state; I would not be surprised).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

🙄 @SMcCandlish, oh yikes, what have I gotten myself into? This is even deeper yogurt than I thought. Augnablik (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The simple approach to any case like this is to just copy what has been done already for a parallel case. "Michael Jackson" isn't even a bad example. This is name with an obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that will be at that name without disambiguation; 99% of readers will be expecting the singer. A disambiguation page lists as * list items all the articles that match the name as their title (aside from disambiguation parentheticals tacked on), as well as anyone with an alternative (e.g. former) name that also matches the name. Any partial matches (e.g. as given/middle names, or as references e.g. "List of studio albums by Michael Jackson") or easily confused similar names, go in "See also" one way or another (using a search function if there might be a lot of them, but probably just as individual entries in that section is one or only a few). For the cases that do directly match, disambiguation hatnotes go atop the article. {{For}} is useful when there are very few, but other Category:Disambiguation templates might be used to produce different output in other cases, e.g. {{About|the|technologist}} will generate: This page is about the technologist. For other uses, see SMcCandlish (disambiguation). It automatically picks up the base name of the page unless told to do otherwise. (That it automatically appends " (disambiguation)" is why a redirect like Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation) should exist and point to Ramendra Kumar after it becomes the disambiguation page (which likely should happen because neither the writer nor the parliamentarian seem like PRIMARYTOPIC candidates to be at the base name without any disambiguating parenthetical).

Learning to edit Misplaced Pages source code is a lot like learning a programming/scripting language: there are lots of technical nit-picks, but they make sense as a whole after they're absorbed; they quickly become second nature. PS: I fixed the broken link in my previous response to WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I can empathize with you, @SMcCandlish, in your role of senior Wiki style expert at hearing an editor squawk under the onslaught of so many directives (even though they were requested!). As a teacher and trainer in real life — what's left of it l, that is,after Misplaced Pages has eaten up more and more hours of my day — I understand the value of living through a bit of pain at the prospect of all the overwhelming new stuff finally getting absorbed.
I'll stay with it, but it's definitely more of a learning curve than I expected. Augnablik (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
My general advice for everyone is to just write content (in a dry, encyclopedic tone, and sticking to reliably sourced facts not supposition), follow the WP:BLP policy with regard to living people, and obey WP:COPYRIGHT (i.e., don't plagiarize material from other sources). As long as you do that then your contributions should be a net positive; others will point out any formatting or other mistakes and probably clean up after them. You'll gradually absorb the norms and details as you go along. Trying to learn a complex system like this without immersion in it is like trying to learn a foreign language from a book and a video. And if, for any question, you do what a preponderance of well-written conceptually similar articles are already doing, you'll rarely go wrong. E.g., if you wonder something like "Would it be appropriate for the author article to inline some audiovisual material, like him giving a speech at a book signing?", look at other other author articles and you'll see quickly that the answer is "no". A more prosaic example would be "Should award names be in italics or some other special markup?" If you look at the biographies of major figures with numerous awards, like a celebrated actor, a highly decorated soldier, and a champion athlete, you'll see immediately that the answer is "no italics or other special markup, beyond capitalizing the proper name of the award".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Following the guidelines in the 1st sentence of your above message, and in the Visual editor, no problem. Working on curly bracketed code in the Source editor rather than the Visual editor, I'd prefer 2 root canals at the same time just to avoid. Augnablik (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Should work out fine. Lots of editors use the VE, and get more comfortable with tweaking things in the source editor over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
A note about a misplaced copy-paste, and the comedy of misunderstanding and banter that ensued

Above, you wrote the following (nowikified here, to illustrate the point):

{{tlx|About|the|singer}} wil generate: {{About|the technologist}}

Pretty sure that was some kind of copy-paste glitch; just thought I'd mention it so as not to lead Augnablik astray. If it was intended, please enlighten! Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it was and error (of editing only 1 of 2 copies after pasting). Fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Mathglot, I couldn't help noticing that in your request to @SMcCandlish to look into a possible copy-paste error you'd somehow come across in a message he'd sent me, you'd contacted him with concern "so as not to lead Augnablik astray."
Well, I just couldn't help commenting in turn that aside from what he agreed had been a copy-paste error, he seems pretty harmless to me and indeed quite friendly. ☺️ Augnablik (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
A typo/glitch/copy-buffer issue can happen to anyone, right? Leading someone astray does not apply imply malice, only an act of unintended obfuscation that he may not have been aware of, and was happy to fix so as not to confuse you; so the comment served its purpose. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Errrkk … my little attempt at humor backfired. I thought the ☺️ emoji would be a giveaway about the intention.
As SMcC's ancestry is from the UK, wellspring of dry humor that it is, perhaps at least he "got it." Hope so, but apologies and remorse for any distress caused to either of you. It was totally unintentional. Augnablik (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
No worries. Just fyi, I did misread you, and even the emoji, also, which I read as a complicity-emoji, meaning roughly: "This is really only a minor gaffe on your part and not a big deal, so I'm not mad at you and don't worry but I didn't want SMcC to feel stung." No distress (didn't even realize that was a possibility) so all is well. Carry on! Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I got both Mathglot's intended version of "lead astray", and Augnablik's playfulness in return banter. It also funny that the "wil" typo remained throughout all of this, as if invisible. (Since fixed in the original, because I obsess like that.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Not to be outdone in typos-slash-gaffes, or obssessiveness: just noticed my howler of apply instead of imply above—what was I smoking? Now redacted. Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
That wikentanyl will be the death of us all!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Augnablik IIRC, Editor Assistance was closed since there was no difference in how it worked in practice compared to Help desk/Teahouse. But, it was where I had one of my funniest WP-discussions ever, Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_129#Saint_Jean-Baptiste_(Léonard_de_Vinci)_--wikipédia_française. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Editor Assistance might not have worked differently in practice compared to the Help Desk or the Teahouse, but the value I see in an EA-focused place is that it would have been extremely helpful to focus just on MOS-related issues rather than a whole smorgasbord. And the archives for those issues could, over time, have become of special interest to editors wanting to pore over past MOS advice.
As for your interchange with Monsieur Léonard, ooh-la-la! Augnablik (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't recall EA being MoS-focused. To the extent an individual "advisor" like me isn't helpful to you or responsive quickly enough, MoS's own talk pages are generally helpful (except the more obscure drill-down ones, which may have few watcherlisters). So anyway, what's this burning disambiguation-related style question?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Just posted, SMcC.
I thought I'd reply to GGS first, a much easier message ... and I also miscalculated your California time, thinking you'd be asleep and wouldn't see what I'd write for quite a few more hours. Augnablik (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up to Style message thread (above)

Hi, SMcC ...

  • Is it impossible to modify an article title? I can’t seem to change Ramendra Kumar to Ramendra Kumar (author), though I tried. (I’m assuming this was what you wanted done, even though I wasn’t quite sure from your comment: “If the author isn't markedly more notable than the politician, he should move to Ramendra Kumar (author).” (Your reply to me of January 6)
  • Following your above comment, you added: “(and that should exist as a WP:Redirect anyway, otherwise).” As I’ve never been involved with redirects, do I understand the procedure correctly, to mean that this entails creating a separate page on which both Ramendra Kumars are mentioned by using the Template:For? I understand the concept of redirects but I find the “how-to’s” very confusing. One difficulty I see for editors trying to “learn about how to use (and order) such templates by looking at the code of existing articles” is that we have little idea where to begin, other than (as we see when we go to WP:REDIRECT), Pelé. Or, if we’re lucky enough to have an expert like you to ask, and we get a suggestion to look at what was done for someone such as Michael Jackson. But ideally, I see need for a tutorial providing a bunch of examples to work on, each representing a different editorial situation, with feedback for our answers.
  • I succeeded in changing the infobox language from EngvarB to use Indian English, as you suggested. But frankly I think if it really required changing, it would have been fine with the British English language, as Indian and British are much the same. At any rate, this exercise was very helpful because it was my first time using an infobox, and it was fairly painless although I did have to re-read the information a number of times to really absorb it.

Augnablik (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Ramendra Kumar (author). It's possible you lack the ability to do page moves until after a certain amount of time as an editor. The rules about which permissions are available when isn't something I've been keeping track of. Also created the disambiguation page over the redirect at Ramendra Kumar, and redirected Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation) to that. And put hatnotes atop each of the articles (just pointing to each other; these would change to pointers to the disambiguation page if a third notable Ramendra Kumar comes up). If you click Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation) it will redirect you to the real disambiguation page at Ramendra Kumar. There, you'll see a small "Redirected from Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation)" note at the top; if you click that, you go to a version of "Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation)" that doesn't auto-redirect you right back to "Ramendra Kumar". If you edit that view of "Ramendra Kumar (disambiguation)", you can see how a redirect is built. This is covered more documentarily at WP:Redirect and Help:Redirect. PS: As for "Indian and British are much the same": That's especially true in an encyclopedic register (without colloquialisms), and is true of all Commonwealth English dialects aside from Canadian, which is why I've advocated merging them all so we have nothing left but "Use Commonwealth English", "Use American English", and "Use Canadian English" (the last of these being a hybrid of the first two). But there's too much nationalistic sentiment for this to happen. Everyone wants their silly "Use Jamaican English", etc., templates, even for dialects that do not exist at all in a formal register (speakers of Jamaican, Tanzanian, etc. English use British English at an encyclopedic formality level). Win some, lose some.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
A thousand thank-you's for doing all you mentioned above, SMcCandlish. What a wonderful difference it makes to the articles for both Ramendra Kumars. Seeing what you did definitely makes a big difference in my ability to understand redirects and disambiguation and such. If Misplaced Pages ever gets to the point I'm hoping some day, with great tutorials for everything editors need to understand along the road that offer not just information but also examples and guided practice for editors, your work on the Kumar kerfuffle would be a terrific entry.
To be honest, I think if I'd had to spend much more time trying to sort it out much further, I'd be a good candidate for a long Wiki vacation right about now.
Interesting to find out that making a change to a title is a page move. I hadn't realized. By the way, just as clarification about editor level, I'm an extended confirmed user with 1,100+ editing points. So apparently we can't yet be trusted doing page moves. Probably for good reason. At this point in my Wiki career, I feel like a new driver who's getting ever more comfortable on the road, but not when it goes up a steep hill with lots of bends and the road begins to narrow and rain begins to fall and ... Augnablik (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I do wish there were better tutorial materials. I've thought of making some, but it's time consuming, and I'm not very photogenic or a good speaker for doing video presentations; someone else would be better for that. I might do some "crash course" write-ups though. I have had several in mind. Most of my WP essay work has been about nitty-gritty subjects of policy and guideline interpretation, and written for old hands. It would be an interesting change of pace to do some "So, you're new around here? Let me help you out" material. Page moves: Yes, a move and rename are the same thing. As for ability to do moves, if you are EC then you probably can already do it, it just might be buried in some menu or other. I use the crusty old "Vector Legacy (2010)" theme, and have customized it to hell and back with user CSS and JS scripts, so I couldn't tell you where the move/rename option is by default these days. Help:How to move a page and/or Misplaced Pages:Moving a page may have the info about that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Almost forgot to suggest that instead of calling Ramendra Kumar the author a writer of children's and YA books, you spell out that acronym. Not everyone will know what it refers to. Augnablik (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Judging by your Talk page photo, I think you're "selling yourself short."
As for being an engaging speaker — on which you may also be selling yourself short — one way you could do it would be to be interviewed by another editor about the decisions and steps to take in procedures that you feel most comfortable talking about. The other editor could be (1) someone who might serve as the narrator of a whole series of "how-to's" or (2) someone acting in the role of a bewildered newish editor asking the seasoned editor for guidance. (No, I'm not volunteering! 😅)
Augnablik (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
PS: Augnablik I've merged these two Kumar threads.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
You mean you repositioned the later one so it directly follows the earlier one, I assume ... I think I do recall the later one had been further down.
To do that, did you just go to the Source code and move the later one up? Augnablik (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Yep, edited the entire page, to get at all the sections at once, moved this one up, and changed it from == level-2 heading to === level-3 subheading. I would think in VisualEditor, you'd copy-paste the section, then select its heading and change it from H2 to H3 level. But I haven't used VE in years, so I'm not sure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Its time for you to put on your MOS hat again...

I know that we don't do this (putting categories in the middle of article text), but I have no idea where we have a proscription against it, any clue where it might be? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

When is that hat ever off? Heh. We don't seem to have a rule against using links this way. If we did, I would expect to find it at MOS:LINK#Links to Misplaced Pages's categories or in MOS:LAYOUT somewhere. In this case, the custom hatnote is falsely claiming these are articles, so is inappropriate (at least in the present form) for that reason alone. It's not uncommon for category links to appear in "See also", and they are also used as direct links in this way in many navigation templates, so they are not per se forbidden. But they do seem to be more appropriate as "See also" entries. If kept as a mid-article hatnote, it should at least be clarified to stop claiming it is providing links to main articles on Henry I's children and mistresses, and it also should not be piping these links to disguise the fact that they are categories and hide what the names of the categories actually are. The MOS:LINK section above doesn't suggest doing anything like this with with category links, and MOS:SUBMARINE says more directly not to make links confusing in a "reader-hateful" manner.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I think we can't have such a rule, or else we will have to have a carve-out for templates which put articles into categories. (Hopefully that template is clever enough not to categorize this page in Category:All articles with unsourced statements due to the namespace; we shall soon see.) Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC notice

 Done

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2018 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

A couple more style questions about an article subject

@SMcCandlish, another interesting new question for you:

I'm doing some editing on the article for Joseph Bharat Cornell, recognized as one of the world's 100 leading nature educators. He has written many books. For many years he published under just his birth name, "Joseph Cornell." Bharat is a spiritual name given to him in the spiritual community to which he belongs, and he began publishing books with all three names only in later years.

Thinking the question of how to handle this duality in Cornell's publication names might be somewhat similar to what the MOS had to say about handling names of women authors if they marry and change the name under which they publish, I went to the MOS and looked up name information but didn't find exactly what I think I need to know about handling this situation.

Advice? Augnablik (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

What is it that you think you need to know about handling this situation? This isn't like a marriage-related name change, or the MoS material about that would also include cases like this. If this person is most commonly known in present-day sources as "Joseph Bharat Cornell", then that's what our article title should be at (WP:COMMONNAME). If it's not (and the one semi-independent source cited thus far isn't using it) then we'd go with the shorter "Joseph Cornell", as the actual COMMONNAME and per WP:CONCISE; we only use additional names (middle, nick, adoptive, etc.) when leaving it out will confuse people as to who the subject is because the subject usually has that additional name (e.g. Sarah Jessica Parker is nearly never referred to as just "Sarah Parker", so readers will not be looking for her under that name or nor expect her to be at any article by that title). Misplaced Pages article titles are not about making self-marketers happy but about helping readers find and be certain they have found the right article. At any rate, it appears very likely to me that this article will be soon deleted for failing WP:Notability. There is no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, only an interview (which does not count) and self-published materials (which don't count; Crystal Clarity Publishers and Dawn Publications are clearly his own labels, not independent and reputable publishers). If Cornell really has been awarded some kind of "world's 100 leading nature educators" label by some independent organization, then that would be worth including, with a source citations, as evidence of notability to help save the article (though that one item by itself may not be enough). PS: His yoga teacher should not be referred to as "Swami" anything; that's an honorific (non-neutral title that should not be used in Misplaced Pages's own voice. Note that his article is at Kriyananda not "Swami Kriyananda". And he is at that title, instead of something like James D. Walters, because most sources refer to him by (or primarily by) the name Kriyananda, not his birth name. "Kriyanada gets an Indian name" does not automatically equate to "Cornell also gets an Indian name", since they are not parallel cases.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for all the tips here. I can see why the article might be a candidate for deletion without notability buttressing. There is quite a bit available beyond Dawn Publications and Crystal Clarity (which do also publish several other authors, especially Crystal Clarity) and I'm surprised it wasn't used by the editor(s) who worked on the article.
Although I have a COI with the article, I'll add a few such citations as soon as possible to deter deletion. Meanwhile, I hope other editors will take over the article, as Cornell is definitely notable in his field. It would be a particularly interesting one for new editors with an interest in nature and nature education.
As for the addition of the spiritual name, I think it would probably be best — all things considered in what you point out here — to simply say that he got "Bharat" as a spiritual name without pointing to any one person who gave it to him.

Augnablik (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Joseph Cornell already is the title of someone else's article, so Joseph Bharat Cornell works pretty well as a disambiguation. If his article is kept but "Joseph Bharat Cornell" doesn't turn out to be the common name, then it would be disambiguated as something like Joseph Cornell (educator), which should exist as a redirect anyway, especially since he didn't start adding the "Bharat" until later, as you say.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh, that's a great catch (the existence of the other Joseph Cornell) — thanks. I hadn't noticed the other fellow's existence till fairly recently, let alone thought to check on whether there might be others with the same name.
Joseph Bharat Cornell is such a recent name change for the nature educator that I wonder if he did himself any favors by publishing under it. Perhaps he too found the other one. But I'm sure it will confuse a number of people who know him under his original name. Augnablik (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The hatnote at the top of Joseph Cornell should resolve any such confusion. If there turn out to be three+ notable Joseph Cornells, then we should have Joseph Cornell (disambiguation) as use that as that hatnote target instead. With regard to the educator, I'd be more concerned about establishing that he passes WP:Notability and doesn't get deleted. Adding a source about his "top 100" award would be a good start, as well as any non-interview source material about him in works he didn't publish himself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

PS: I have not created Joseph Cornell (disambiguation) yet, because the survivability of the Joseph Bharat Cornell article is in doubt, and if it's deleted, then the disambig. page would have only one entry and thus also have to be deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added some information to the Joseph Bharat Cornell article that I think will help end any concerns about his notability and keep him in Misplaced Pages. Much more will be added over time, hopefully more references beyond his organizational website and the interview I found in what appears a good strong educational journal.
Now, to follow up on your last message above ...
— I don't see the hatnote to which you refer in your 1st paragraph.
— I can't find a third Joseph Cornell, which in your message you seemed to believe necessary for a disambiguation page. Is there some reason that disambiguation can't be done with only two Joseph Cornells (even though you kindly did create such a page for the two Ramendra Kumars? And because the article for the Joseph Cornell the nature educator is entitled Joseph Bharat Cornell, he still needs to be differentiated from the Joseph Cornell who was an artist and sculptor because the nature educator is so widely known as only Joseph Cornell. Augnablik (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Since I wrote you yesterday:
— I've added several pieces of information along with citations to support Cornell's notability.
— Believing that after my work today and over the past few days I could legitimately remove the template about the need for citations in the article, I did so today.
— Suddenly aware that I hadn't declared COI with Cornell (I know him a little), I did so in the edit summary when I removed the template. Augnablik (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment

 Done Your feedback is requested at Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Level/3 on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

The Misplaced Pages Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

  • Les Jours and East View Press join the library
  • Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

 Done – That one was actually already closed, but another was opened, so I responded in that one. Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of health insurance chief executive officers in the United States on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Redirect Barnstar
To SMcCandlish with much gratitude for redirecting a complex editing situation involving redirects. Happy to add this to your amazing collection of barnstars. It's not only the most fitting choice for your help with this situation but also one I don't think I saw on the wall at your User page. Careful, though ... you're running out of space!

Oops, this version of the barnstar doesn't look like the updated one, but I copied and pasted what was there for the 2nd version. Perhaps the code itself needs redirecting. Augnablik (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Augnablik (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Next up ... BLPSPSs

— What I read at WP:BLPSPS sounds a little circular. It starts off by saying we should never use self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the article. I know personal websites are okay to cite, but the above guidance came as a surprise. So, then, anything else self-published is okay, like a web site about the work of the subject of an article (example: Sharing Nature, a foundation set up by Joseph Cornell about his programs, which I view as a very well-done and informative website)?

— Then WP:BLPSPS goes on to say, "it does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example." So, then, employee information like a list of professors and their years of service or professional contributions plus awards they've received is okay?

— Continuing, WP:BLPSPS says that blogs "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." This would presumably cover book companies that provide information about authors they publish, of which there are quite a few with useful information about Ramendra Kumar (example: Learning And Creativity Desk. “ParentEdge Magazine Lauds Effective Parenting: A New Paradigm.” Learning & Creativity, Sept. 28, 2016. https://learningandcreativity.com/parentedge-magazine-reviews-effective-parenting/) So, then, I can use it for the RK article (and other similar sources)?

— Assuming that sources like the above count as acceptable, might I still be questioned by other editors if I use them?

— And if I have any doubts that an editor would question any of my BLPSPS type of sources, is there a way I can write an explanation of the reliability of such sources that the editor would see but would be hidden from public view? (in other words, to head off a deletion or revert before it happens) Augnablik (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of Love Island (2015 TV series) contestants on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Constantine XI Palaiologos on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

2025

story · music · places

2025 opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) - How are you? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alan Turing on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nazi salute on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Categories:
User talk:SMcCandlish: Difference between revisions Add topic