Misplaced Pages

User talk:SMcCandlish: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 18:03, 15 March 2014 editNE Ent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors20,717 edits iar notification (see ANI thread)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:38, 12 January 2025 edit undoAugnablik (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,194 editsm Fixed a typo; deleted extraneous code. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- Short URL: https://w.wiki/4Qq and for main user page: https://w.wiki/4Qp -->{{User:SMcCandlish/Topicons}}
{{NoAutosign}} {{NoAutosign}}
<div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Tahoma, Verdana"> <div style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Tahoma, Verdana">
{{User:SMcCandlish/Topicons}}
{{UserTalkReplyhere}} {{UserTalkReplyhere}}
{{Usertalkconcise}} {{Usertalkconcise}}
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{User talk:SMcCandlish/Status}}
]
{{User talk:SMcCandlish/IP}}
<!-- Page-top "utilities" go here: -->
{{User talk:SMcCandlish/Archivebox}}
{{#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)}}
{{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}}
{{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}}
{{Cent|width=66%|compact=very|float=left}}
<!--


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

'''{{vanchor|Mini-toolbox}}:'''
* (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><!--

-->
{{clear}}
{|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=
== Cueless billiards == == Cueless billiards ==
{{Unresolved|1=Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.}} {{Unresolved|1=Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.}}
{{collapse top}} {{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) 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. :] 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) :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) ::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)
Line 31: Line 70:
::. Portrait, diagrams, sample shot descriptions and more (that will also lend itself to the finger billiards article).--] (]) 01:34, 22 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) :::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}}


== Look at the main page ==
{{Unresolved|1=Katsura News added (with new TFA section) to ]; need to see if I can add anything useful to Mingaud article.}}
{{collapse top}}
Look at the main page --] (]) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
:Since you don't appear to have seen this near to the time I left it, it might be a little cryptic without explanation. Masako Katsura was ].--] (]) 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
::Supah-dupah! That kicks. ]'s (and your?) first ], yes?! And yeah I have been away a lot lately. Long story. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Indeed, my first, though I have another in the works (not billiards related). I think ] could be a candidate in the near future. I really wanted to work it up to near FA level before posting it but another user created it recently, not realizing my draft existed, and once they did realize, copied some of my content without proper copyright attribution and posted to DYK. I have done a history merge though the newer, far less developed content is what's seen in the article now. I'm going to merge the old with the new soon. Glad to see your back.--] (]) 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
::::My front and sides are visible too. ;-) Anyway, glad you beat me to Mingaud. I'd been thinking of doing that one myself, but it seemed a bit daunting. I may have some tidbits for it. Lemme know when your merged version goes up, and I'll see what I have that might not already be in there. Probably not earthshaking, just a few things I found in 1800s-1910s books. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}


Line 47: Line 75:
{{Unresolved|1=New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.}} {{Unresolved|1=New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.}}
{{collapse top}} {{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) 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) :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) ::I've worked most of it in. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>] 16:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Line 56: Line 84:
{{Unresolved|1=Not done yet, last I looked.}} {{Unresolved|1=Not done yet, last I looked.}}
{{collapse top}} {{collapse top}}
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. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 13:13, 2 March 2012 (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) :I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. ''']''' ''']''' 23:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready ==
{{Unresolved|1=Needs to be renewed, if I come back.}}
{{Collapse top}}
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through ].
* Account activation codes have been emailed.
* To activate your account: 1) Go to
* The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
* If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to ], or ask ]. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
* A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at ].
* HighBeam would love to hear feedback at ]
* Show off your HighBeam access by placing <nowiki>{{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}}</nowiki> on your userpage
* When the 1-year period is up, check the ] to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, ]<sup> ]&#124;]</sup> 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0266 -->
{{collapse bottom}}

== Your Credo Reference account is approved ==
{{Unresolved|1=Needs to be renewed, if I come back.}}
{{Collapse top}}
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through ].
* Fill out the with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
* If you need assistance, ask ].
* A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at ].
* Credo would love to hear feedback at ]
* Show off your Credo access by placing <nowiki>{{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}}</nowiki> on your userpage
* If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name ]
Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, ] 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0328 -->
:Yay! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 10:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== Circa ==
{{Unresolved|1=Need to file the RfC.}}
{{collapse top}}
explains how to write "ca.", which is still discouraged at ], ], ], and maybe ], and after you must have read my complaint and ordeal at ]. Either allow "ca." or don't allow "ca.", I don't care which, but do it consistently. ] (]) 15:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:Sounds like a good ]. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::It's been hard to get opinions on circa in the past. Anyway, can I undo that edit, until when and if someone wants to edit the other guidelines to match? If we leave it there indefinitely, nobody will notice except me. ] (]) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't care; this will have to be dealt with in an RfC anyway. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Done (now I don't need to wonder if the RfC will ever be acted on :) ) ] (]) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}


Line 107: Line 93:
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) 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. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:34, 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)
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}


== Hee Haw == == Hee Haw ==
{{Unresolved|1=Still need to propose some standards on animal breed article naming and disambiguation.}} {{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}} {{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) 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. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:12, 7 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) ::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)
:::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. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:52, 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 ] 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)
:::::::::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) :::::::::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. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 02:07, 8 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) :::::::::::::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. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:25, 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). ::::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) ::::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)


:::::::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 wikipedia 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) :::::::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 wikipedia 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)


::::::::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) ::::::::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)
:::::::::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. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC) :::::::::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)


:::::::::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) :::::::::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)
::::::::::Yep. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::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}} {{collapse bottom}}


== Redundant sentence? ==
<!--End old, unresolved stuff.-->
{{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}}
<!--Begin kinda old stuff to sort through.--><br /><br />
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)
=Kinda old stuff to sort through (mostly barnstars I didn't move to my /Barnstars page yet)=


:#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.
== Chapeau ==
:# 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)
... for {{diff||474269640|473798472|this one!}} Cheers - ] (]) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
:::#Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
:Thanks! I actually like hats. :-) Your readability tweak was a good idea. I was a little concerned about it myself, but I'm not a cards editor, so I wasn't sure if there was a typical way of making hands more legible. (Also not sure if people conventionally use the card symbols that are available in Unicode, etc.). I do edit a lot of games articles, but almost exclusively in ] and related. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 12:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
:::#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 ]==
::I specially like hats when there's a set of dice under them :-)
{{Unresolved|I think I did MOST of this already ...}}
::Perhaps you don't know, but ] we use the name ''chapeau'' for the cup and, by extension, for the game itself. As you can —als je Nederlands een beetje in orde is—, we play an entirely different game with it, a game where one can practice the fine art of subtle bluffing, downright lying, assessing oponents' behaviour, and accurately estimating probabilities. We also play the "Mexican" variant, which is even subtler. Check it out and cheers! - ] (]) 18:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse top}}
:::I didn't know that, about the ''chapeau''. I thought you were awarding me a virtual hat. :-) . I am familiar with the bluff game (possibly the Mexican version, since I learned it in California), but have always played that one with regular dice. Anyway, if you like what I did in the English version, certainly feel free to "port" it to the Netherlands Misplaced Pages. I may be able to work through the Dutch enough to add something about the other variants to the English article here, since it is rather paltry. Heh. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 04:04, 2 February 2012 (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)
::::Actually, it was meant as a virtual hat award as well - I had seen a hat on your user page :-)<p>Porting from there to here could be a bit problematic, as there's not many sources around, alas. - ] (]) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:::::I'll have to dig through my game encyclopedias and stuff. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 17:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::Ok, if you find something, please let know. I'd be glad to work on it together. Cheers and happy digging. - ] (]) 20:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


== Barnstar comment == == Excellent mini-tutorial ==
{{Unresolved|Still need to do that essay page. Work in material, too.}}
{{wb|Djathinkimacowboy}}
{{collapse top}}
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)
:{{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)
::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)
:::{{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}}


== ] ==
Don't delete this! -
{{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.}}
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
{{collapse top}}
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
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}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For behaving in a genteel fashion, as if nothing were the matter, and for gallantry. --]] 03:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|}


== Ooh...potential ] activity... ==
:Sankyu beddy mush! Hardly necessary for me just behaving properly. Heh. But I appreciate it anyway. I left you a note at your page about that Guidance rename idea. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
{{Unresolved|1=Do some of this when I'm bored?}}
:: ''Shou ist werie velcum.'' I think the 'Guidance' name and the way you simplified it into a short statement is very good! And people should give out more barnstars. They are very merited and it isn't as if they cost us anything.--]] 10:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
{{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. ;-)
== Cheers! ==


Cheers,
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
<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)
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
: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)
|rowspan="2" |
::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)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''A beer on me!'''
{{collapse bottom}}
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | for all of the thoughtful posts through the extended discussion at MOSCAPS. I've appreciated it. ] (]) 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
|}
:Thank ya verra much! I was thirsty. >;-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]〈°⌊°〉</span> <small>].</small></font> 15:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


== Barnstar == == Note to self ==
{{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}}


== Now this ==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
{{Unresolved|Breed disambiguation again ...}}
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
{{collapse top}}
|rowspan="2" |
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)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar Creator's Barnstar'''
:{{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)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you for your submission of the Instructor's Barnstar. It's now on the main barnstar list. ]] 15:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
|}


== PGP ==
Keen beans! Thanks.
{{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 ==
== A barnstar for you! ==
{{Unresolved|Considering ...}}
] 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 ==
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
{{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.}}
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
{{collapse top}}
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar'''
Something to deal with quickly:
|-
* ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | This comes as a recognition of your kindness in developing the Firefox add-on. It has been helpful and a great resource. I was also happy to learn you contribute to Mozilla which I do as well :) <small>] ] ]</small> 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Need to stop putting this off; will probably only take 10 minutes.
|}


Ongoing:
:Thanks, though some others deserve more credit than I do, especially {{User|Jehochman}} for the original concept, and {{User|Unit 5}} for the bulk of the code still used in this version. I mostly just added the ability to customize the output for specific sites, and fixed some consistency issues, as well as set up the ] page for it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 21:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ] – removed incorrect stuff about tooltips, and ] may also need an update
* ]


Several things appear to have stalled out over the holidays:
== Thank you ==
* ]
{| style="border: 1px solid #999999; background-color: #FFFFFF}; width:100%;"
* ]
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
* ]
|rowspan="2" |
* ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#9D741A; font-family:Comic Sans MS, Arial, Helvetica;" | '''The Socratic Barnstar'''
* ]
|-
** See also 2022: ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | In recognition of your general fine work around the 'pedia, and the staunchness and standard of argumentation on style issues. And if for nothing else, I think you deserve it for <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small><sup>]</sup> 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
* ]
|}
* ]
:<bow> — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ∘¿<font color="red">¤</font>þ </span>&nbsp; <small>]</small></font> 07:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
* ]
** ]
Some of these may need to be restarted as RfCs.


See also:
== A barnstar for you! ==
* ] – ]'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 ]):
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
* ]
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | It's a bit delayed, but for your rather accurate edit summary . Keep up the good work on various breed articles! ''']''' ] 18:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
|}


An article still using deprecated ] referencing of the {{tlx|harv}} style to use as a cleanup testbed:
:Why, thank ya verra much! :-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
* ]


<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC); updated: 02:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
<!--End kinda-old stuff to sort through.-->
{{collapse bottom}}

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


=Current threads=
=Editorial resignation and some of what lead up to it=
== One of the reasons gardens are walled ==


==Notice of a discussion I think you'd be interested in knowing about==
Looking at Montanabw's reaction, I think sometimes you fail to look through the eyes of the editors in a narrow field, and end up with enemies instead of friends. I actually left off editing horse articles years ago because of the controversies, and the hammering out of consensus in that project has been decidedly non-trivial. It's important to remember that a local optimum is always optimal, locally, and that getting to a global optimum can involve considerable work, work that many editors thought they had already done. To me, the best way to start out is always "Here are some more general issues I perceive; I see that you do things differently. How can I help you deal with your problems in a way that will meet my goals?" In the case of the bird folks, this probably wouldn't have worked, but I think It's always a good place to start.--] (]) 18:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:I agree in the abstract, but I've never been good at that sort of politics. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
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).
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)
: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)
::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)
:::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 ==
:PS: This may sound like a "my logic is bigger than your logic" nit-pick, but I consider it a serious issue: A major and worsening problem on WP, especially as the generalist editorship continues to decline in numbers and activity levels, is that wikiprojects are becoming increasingly balkanized into stand-offish ''blocs''. Despite several ARBCOM decisions against projects bucking consensus and making up their own conflicting rules, and despite a comparatively recent but clear policy against it, at ], they continue to do it anyway, with increased feelings of righteousness. Per ], {{em|no topic or field on WP is a walled garden}}, but some projects do not appear to believe this. I don't know what the solution is, but I have serious misgivings about what WP is going to be like 5 years from now in this regard if something doesn't change. One idea I've had, inspired a bit by the undoing of ] and a CfD several years ago that move all the wikiproject "members" categories to read "participants", is to propose that we abandon the term "wikiproject" entirely, and use something more verbal, that doesn't sound like a club, or worse yet a militia, one can join. Maybe "wikiwork" or something like that: WikiWork Botany, WikiWork Cats, etc. PS: My Granny's garden wasn't walled, but sprawled all the way to the mailbox at the sidewalk. :-) — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 11:22, 4 January 2013 (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)
::Some are more interested in methods, others in results.
:{{ping|Voorts}} Done, in the interests of peace. Though I just did a direct revision instead of a strike-through.<!--
--><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><!--
--><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)


== Your user scripts ==
::Certainly, ] is a problem; otherwise it wouldn't have a shortcut. ] is also a problem, and editors' reactions to that often appear from the outside to be WP:OWN. And over time they can turn into WP:OWN, when an editor starts to believe that's the only way to counter the Randys.


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)
::One approach is to wade in with policies, guidelines, and sanctions, whip up support from editors who have an abstract interest, and make life so miserable for the Randys and the "owners" that they leave Misplaced Pages. In my experience, the most knowledgeable editors are the first to leave (I almost wrote "best editors", but one solution to expert retention is to not care, and only retain compliant editors).
: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 ==
::It seems that a lot of the pushback you are going to get at WP:EQUINE is over WP:COMMONNAME issues. You only meant to sweep the floor, but you knocked over a chess game. The word that immediately comes to mind is "inefficient".
{{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 ==
::My most memorable walled garden was the atrium in the house of ] in Norman, Oklahoma, filled with lush greenery. My first thought was that it provided a safe place for ], but as far as I could tell, they only let her into it under supervision.--] (]) 16:31, 4 January 2013 (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 ==
:::You're right that my cleanup efforts have not been efficient when it comes to horses. (They have been in other areas, including donkeys, with direct cooperation from Montanabw, curiously enough, and in domestic cats, among others.) It is difficult to predict what projects will find article naming and categorization cleanup controversial, and on what points.<p>I understand the ] problem, but I'm not part of it; ] could not have been written by a Randy. One problem to me is that too many alleged experts treat everyone who disagrees with them about anything as a Randy, often very insultingly so. And by no means is every editor who claims expertise actually an expert; many, especially in biology projects, are simply fanciers, and others may have studied zoology or botany as an undergraduate, but that's it. I have a degree in cultural anthropology, but would never call myself an expert in that field. Large numbers of, e.g., ] editors don't even have that level of qualification, but will fight to the death to get their way on capitalization (and on a faulty basis &ndash; they continually claim that the fact that bird field guides capitalize common names means that the mainstream publishing world is honoring the IOU's convention, when in reality all field guides on everything have always capitalized this way, as ease-of-rapid-scanning emphasis, since at least the 1800s, long before IOU even existed; it's a coincidence, and they know this but ].</p><p>Another related issue is that ] &ndash; not just competence in a particular field, but online community competence to work collaboratively toward consensus. Not all academics have this, and many are extremely competitive and debatory. Sometimes the only thing to do is not care if this sort leave the project (or even ]). The vast majority of expert editors are a boon to the project, but being such an expert is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card in Wiki-opoly. As one example, several years ago, one alleged (and probable) expert on albinism was extremely disruptive at the page that is now ]. He considered {{em|himself}} to be a reliable source, and basically refused to do the leg-work to provide source citations for the material he wanted to add, nor to show that material he wanted to remove was obsolete or otherwise wrong. I bent over backwards to try to get him to understand ], ] and ], but he just would not listen. Myself and others kept having to prevent him from making the well-source if imperfect article a mostly unsourced mess, and he eventually left the project is "disgust" at other editors' "stupidity", much to a lot of people's relief. The article today is very well sourced and stable (aside from frequent "ALBINOESES LOOK STOOPID" vandalism). The disruptive expert's absence was a boon. I feel the same way about ] expert editors who threaten wiki-retirement, WP boycotts, editing strikes, mass editorial walkouts and other ]y nonsense. We all know that in reality academics have zero problem adapting to in-house style guides of whatever venue they're writing for. Pretending that doing it on WP is onerous is a ]. We really need an "intro to Misplaced Pages for academic and professional experts" guide, to help prevent incoming specialists from falling into such pitfall patterns (not to mention the one identified at ]). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 20:45, 4 January 2013 (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 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: History and geography request for comment ==
::::Just wanted to let you know that I ''did'' read this, started an unproductive reply, and then decided I needed to think about it a while.--] (]) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (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 10:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines request for comment ==
== Apteva and friends ==
{{Resbox|Done}}
{{Resolved|1=Moot; Apteva has been topic banned, as I predicted.}}
]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)
Evidently, you are of the opinion that the point for any sort of compromise here has long been passed; I am not so sure that I disagree with you any longer. Still, would it be possible at all to give the four users who you've suggested be banned a chance to voluntarily abstain themselves from the dash dispute? I understand you're not sold on Apteva's willingness to do so; I actually think he's sincere. At the very least, could it be tried with Enric Naval and LittleBenW? ] &#124; ] 20:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:Sure, with regad to Enric Naval and Wikid77, but I would like to see the latter at least administratively warned. I already struck Enric Naval out because he publicly disavowed Apteva's position and behavior . As I said plainly, I think he stills suffers from some of the consensus confusions and attitudinal "I'm gonna prove you wrong!" ] viewpoints, but maybe that will wear off. Yes, there is no more room for compromise with Apteva. He's simply playing with us now, making sport of the whole situation and continuing to make his point, wiki-suicidally, while saying he's dropped the matter and won't raise it again out of the other side of his mouth. He is provably already not being genuine, and the AN hasn't even closed yet! It's downright pathological. Those of use who have been dealing with him for longer have already seen this act before. LittleBenW is in the same boat. He got topic banned for doing exactly the same thing but with regard to diacritics only a week or two ago. I'm if he gets topic banned on this, he'll probably just pick capital letters, or semicolons, or italics or whatever, to start more psychodrama about and continue doing this until he just gets banned. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::Well, I guess all I have left to say is that I sympathize to an extent with you and those others frustrated by Apteva's party. The fact that there is such a "party" in itself is problematic. But, as I've said before, I'm just not comfortable slapping him down with a topic ban when I still think voluntary, self-instigated change can happen. At any rate, I am finished with this discussion unless it boils over into some other forum; it's best now to let a consensus be determined ''sans'' any more long comments, proposals, and subsections. ] &#124; ] 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Unless he's lying, they'll amount to the same thing. If he's topic banned voluntarily or involuntarily it still amounts to "Apteva will stop beating this dead horse and go do something constructive". The only reason, really, to oppose the involuntary ban is if he intends to ditch the voluntary one (even stigma isn't a reason - the stigma is already there, from being RFC/U'd and WP:AN'd with landslides against him in both cases). Honestly, I kind of think you should not get involved in AN and AN/I discussions if you are that uncomfortable with topic-bans, since they are a standard sanction agreed upon there. It's a heat/kitchen thing, if you see what I mean, or "if you don't like beef, don't bite the burger". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 00:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Regarding topic bans/voluntary abstention, I really have no issue with topic bans or sanctions in general. In most cases that they're given out, they are the only reasonable alternative given the sanctioned editor's disruptive or unhelpful behavior. However, I think that even late into disputes, voluntary resolutions are better than topic bans, etc. In Apteva's case, I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the intensity of some of the opposition to his "party", which strikes me as the development of ]. Also, I don't share the skepticism that he's automatically going to go against the terms of a voluntary abstention. There's other reasons, of course, but that's the gist of my opposition to a topic ban when other solutions are possible. ] &#124; ] 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::The only way you could come to this conclusion about Apteva, I feel, is lack of direct experience of his nearly year-long campaign of canvassing and tendentious, verbal aggression, but I'm disinclined to try to convince you any further. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 06:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


==Io Saturnalia!==
==] Barnstar==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" | |rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your recent work at ]: A model of unflagging effort, precise analysis, institutionally broad and historically deep vision, clear articulation, and civil expression under great pressure. Unforgettable. ] (]) 06:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |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 ==
Thanks. I do my best. At this point I'm being attacked on multiple pages in a concerted effort of harassment, and suspect that their goal is to get me to simply quit the project. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]〈°⌊°〉</span> <small>].</small></font> 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | ] | <span style="font-size: 85%">''']''' </span>
| 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 ==
== Arbitration enforcement warning: Manual of Style and article titles policy ==
{{User QAIbox
{{hatnote|1={{strong|Update:}} For the record, since the details are collecting here, {{strong|1=] and ] have already resigned editing Misplaced Pages over ]'s false accusations}}; I regret having criticized Noetica for taking that stance, as I now find myself contemplating it seriously as well. The fourth recipient, ], has not indicated any plans to respond as of this writing, but also believes the warning to be a blatant mistake. I have notified all three other recipients and Sandstein of the discussion here in hopes of centralizing it. The "you can now be blocked without further notice by anyone with a hare up their butt" warning we received was based on misinterpretations and missing facts and background information, was unjust, and is invalid. I'm not going to stand for being treated like a wikicriminal this way. I've devoted unbelievable amounts of productive, intelligent and good-faith time and effort to this project, and I'll be damned if I'll be lynched for it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 12:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)}}
| image = Ehrenbach, snow on grass melting.jpg

| image_upright = 0.8
{{Ivmbox
| bold = ] · ] · ]
| image = yes
| The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the English Misplaced Pages ] and ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], satisfy any ], or follow any ]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "]" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and&nbsp;will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} -->
| valign = center
| ]
}} }}
Thank you today for improving article quality in December! - Today is ]. -- ] (]) 16:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
This warning is made as a result of the . Please take care, in future disputes concerning the issues mentioned above, not to misuse the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (or other fora) to cast aspersions against others or to otherwise continue personalizing stylistic disagreements, as directed by the ]. Regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


==Merry Christmas!==
:I dispute the applicability of your warning and the accuracy of your characterization of my edit at the cited discussion, and your interpretation of the discussion itself, as well as the ArbCom discretionary sanctions you are misapplying.<p>Here's the text of my comment at that <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing, in full:</p><blockquote><div style="background:#DDDDDD;">{{fake heading|Comment by SMcCandlish}}</p>
{| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}}; padding: 5px;"
:*I, too, find it disconcerting that SarekOfVulcan does not seem to understand that ] applies to admins in particular, not random editors, that he seems unclear that his statements and actions in this matter are not comparable to Noetica's, and that he's been so heavily involved administratively in something he's also been so heavily involved in as a stakeholding editor. Anyway, this request for enforcement by Apteva is a ]y farce. PS: I agree with the criticism that Noetica's "if you sanction me, I quit" smacks of ]. That said, of all the "wiki-sins" one could commit in this extended brouhaha, that seems to be the least of all. I take it as a simple expression of frustration, and of bewilderment that Apteva has been permitted to carry on so disruptively for so long. His (and Wikid77's & LittleBenW's ]) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense makes {{em|me}} want to quit, too, sometimes. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 09:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)</div></blockquote><!--
|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!'''
-->You mischaracterized these comments of mine at <del>WP:AN</del> <ins>WP:AE</ins> as "{{tq|serv no useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable, and...also mainly concerned with casting aspersions on others, further personalizing the underlying dispute(s).}}" There are several issues to address with regard to your warning and your expressed reasoning behind it. In summary, they are that you have clearly misinterpreted all of the following:<!--
|rowspan="2" valign="centre" padding: 5px;" | ]
--><ul><!--
--><li>My post (it {{em|did}} address the issue at hand, was not a misuse of WP:AN, and was not a personalization of any dispute)<!--
--><li>The nature of the <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing in question (it was Apteva lashing out to be vengeful, and had little-to-zero merit of any kind)</li><!--
--><li>The nature of the debate at <del>AN</del> <ins>AE and AN</ins> (it's about forumshopping, tendentious disruption, soapbox advocacy and refusal to get the point, not about style)</li><!--
--><li>] (]) itself (it's about pointless, angsty argumentation over style matters, not factual reportage of problem editors to WP:AN for action to restrain their abuses, {{em|successfully and on the merits}}), which you have here misapplied (I have not in fact violated the provisions of that arb sanction, broad and discretionary though they may be).</li><!--
--></ul><!--
-->In more detail, I have to note all of the following problems with your warning:<!--
--><ol><!--
--><li>{{strong|1=Misconstruing the nature of the <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing:}} You seem to be missing the fact, as noted by the majority of respondents to that bogus <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> report, that it was simply filed in retaliation as a ] against Noetica by Apteva, just for Noetica having dared to file an entirely legitimate AN report against Apteva (one which successfully resulted in a block against Apteva, I might remind you, with the overwhelming majority of respondents supporting a block, and a majority also supporting blocks of Wikid77 and LittleBenW, though those were not enacted). Apteva's <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> counter-filing was simply lashing out at Noetica. Very few respondents to it found any merit of any kind in it, and even those that did found them insufficient to take admin action.</li><!--
--><li>{{strong|1=Misunderstanding and mischaracterizing my statements:}} There is nothing disruptive, incivil, attacking or otherwise a "misuse" of <del>WP:AN</del> <ins>WP:AE</ins> about either of the following:<!--
--><ol type="A"><li>{{em|I observed a demonstrably inappropriate admin response to an <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing}}: I noted that an admin on <del>the admin noticeboard<del> <ins>WP:AE</ins> who has involved himself in that <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing had both a clear conflict of interest in the filing and its background issues, and also did not appear to understand the difference in applicability between admins and non-admins of an important guideline, but was attempting to hold the subject of the <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing accountable for not adhering to an admin-only rule. It was a salient and entirely appropriate comment about the process the <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing was undergoing, and had nothing to do with style disputes.<!--
--><li>{{em|I expressed a belief that an <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing was frivolous or vexatious, and on what basis}}: I reminded <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> watchers that Apteva is being AN-reported for disruption, of such a magnitude that many editors are frustrated to the point of leaving, and suggested that Apteva is just filing counter-reports at <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> to be vindictive. The consensus was in favor of sanctions against Apteva already (note also that I had already demonstrated in the original AN report, with piles of diffs and beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Apteva was tendentious, forum-shopping, tag-teaming, and disruptive on this issue). Labeling Apteva's constantly spewing firehose of noise on this topic "farcical" and "disruptive", when one can and already has {{em|proven}} it and consensus already agrees, is not "personalizing the debate", it's short-circuiting yet another Apteva attempt to ] by abusing <del>WP:AN</del> <ins>WP:AE</ins> as a point-making platform.</li><!--
--></ol><!--
--><li><!--
--><li>{{strong|1=Discounting my statements as irrelevant to the AN filing when they were clearly on-point:}} My comments did in fact serve a "useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable" (namely pointing out that they are not, and that the process being applied had COI and other problems). Noting which parties are doing what in a dispute is not "personalizing stylistic disagreements" at all. <ins>AE,</ins> AN and AN/I cannot function when parties are not identified.</li><!--
--><li>{{strong|1=Confusing the MOS/AT style debate with the <ins>AE &</ins> AN behavior debate:}} Neither of the related <del>AN</del> <ins>AN & AE</ins> filings (Noetica vs. Apteva and vice versa) have {{em|anything}} to do with style intrinsically, but only user behavior; the background debate could just as easily have been about whether the ] is a breed or a landrace, or what ]'s real name was. More to the point, Apteva could turn out to be {{em|correct}} about the style matters he editwars and forumshops over incessantly, but this would still not excuse his pattern of grossly abusive and disruptive behavior, which is what he was taken to WP:AN about; the ends do no justify the means. Apteva's counterclaim against Noetica, which consensus did not support, was also about alleged behavior, not style.</li><!--
--><li>{{strong|1=Misidentifying me as the source of the problem:}} It's ironic to be labeled (publicly on <del>WP:AN</del> <ins>WP:AE</ins>, not on my user talk page) as ] by you when myself, Noetica and various other parties successfully reined in Apteva's {{em|actual}} battlegrounding, in the related AN report immediately precding the <ins>AE</ins> one you're castigating me about for no reason. It's as if you did not even read the original AN case, but only the <ins>AE</ins> one against Noetica.</li><!--
--><li>{{strong|1=Misapplying the ArbCom style-debate sanctions simply to protect a fellow admin from criticism:}} I have to wonder how much the fact that I criticized an admin's judgement in my quoted post, above, weighed in your decision to issue this inappropriate warning to me. I have to think that it is the principal reason you did so, and will show why. My comments about Apteva's editing pattern were directly relevant to both of the AN <ins>& AE</ins> filings, and already proven with evidence. My comments about Noetica were that while I agreed that his response to the bogus <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> case wasn't helpful, it was easy to see that it was just the product of frustration and not serious; this isn't any kind of actual criticism, but a request for forgiveness. My mention of Wikid77 and LittleBenW is supported by already-cited proof of tag-teaming, which a consensus of respondents in the original AN subsection about it found compelling. That leaves {{em|only}} my comments about admin SarekOfVulcan for you to use as the basis for this warning! The problem here, though, is that nothing I said with regard to SofV's clear conflict of interest in the outcome of the <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing or his attempt to apply admin rules to the non-admin subject of the <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> filing have anything at all to do with style, the MoS, or the ArbCom case you are citing as justification for warning and thereby threatening me with a block. My comments with regard to SofV were 100% about, and about nothing but, <del>WP:AN</del> <ins>WP:AE</ins> process as it applied to that particular filing at <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins>!<!--
--><li>{{strong|1=Effectively censoring my legitimate participation by misapplying rules and process to make a threat under color of admin authority:}} This may not matter to you, and it might not have been your intent, but I now feel {{em|palpably and unmistakeably threatened}} by you with a punitive but illegitimate and undeserved block, should I ever participate in any <ins>WP:AE</ins>, WP:AN, WP:AN/I or similar noticeboard discussion, in which any MOS-related issue happens to be involved, and in which I necessarily identify any other editor; and similarly threatened should I ever criticize another admin's judgement in such a forum. Only one other party at <del>AN</del> <ins>AE</ins> suggested you make this sort of ArbCom-related warning, against me or anyone else who commented there, and did not provide reasons, just a "me too", so your action to do so is essentially unilateral and {{em|does not represent any kind of consensus}} at <del>WP:AN</del> <ins>WP:AE</ins> to do so. I.e., you are directly chilling my expression and participation in basic WP procedure, in an entirely out-of-process way, without consensus to do so, and based on nothing but a string of misinterpretations of everything from ArbCom sanctions to the messages and debate at issue, with the result if not the outright goal of hampering my ability to continue doing some of what I do best here, which is help prevent random pet peeves of fanatical editwarriors from getting enshrined in, and/or threatening the stability of, our Manual of Style.</li><!--
--></ol>Feel free to explain your rationale, clarify what your threat really means, or better yet just rescind it.<!--
--><br />— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 05:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

::Hi. I maintain the warning. While I can't reply to all of the above because of its length, here's my comment about the gist of your remarks:
::I am not sure why you talk at length about some ] filing. I have not participated in, or even read, any AN thread related to this matter. My warning relates to your comment at ] which you reproduced above.
::] is not a general purpose dispute resolution noticeboard. Its purpose is not to resolve any ongoing, underlying disputes. That is the province of the normal dispute resolution process. AE is there for one purpose only: to help admins decide whether the specific edits that have been reported warrant an enforcement response. This means that allegations about misconduct by people not party to the request at issue (as subject or, at most, as filer) are unhelpful to begin with. For instance, the AE request did not concern the conduct of SarekOfVulcan. Therefore, criticizing that editor's conduct in the AE thread serves no useful purpose at all. If you have a problem with it, you should discuss it directly with SarekOfVulcan, or in an appropriate discussion forum, or file a separate AE request if you believe that SarekOfVulcan's conduct is so problematic as to warrant enforcement action.
::Particularly, the Arbitration Committee's reminder I linked to above reads: "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus". In light of this, it is especially unhelpful, as you did, to make the following comments: "... Apteva has been permitted to carry on so disruptively for so long. His (and Wikid77's & LittleBenW's WP:TAGTEAM) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense ...". These are just broad allegations of severe personal misconduct on the part of several editors, two of which are in no way concerned by the AE request at issue. These allegations are unsupported by any useful evidence. They would have been inappropriate in any forum, not just AE. That's because you don't resolve disagreements by flinging broad accusations at one another in community fora. You resolve disagreements by working through the dispute resolution process in direct contact with the editors involved, focusing on the substantial disagreements (about hyphens and dashes, for instance) rather than on any personal conflicts emerging from them. That's what the Committee's reminder is about, and what I ask you to keep in mind in the future.
::I would like to emphasize that I have no opinion about, and frankly at this time no interest in, whether the various people you criticized have in fact engaged in any misconduct. They may well have, and if so, that should be addressed in proper form (i.e., with evidence, no broad allegations!) through the dispute resolution process. But as I said their conduct is not within the scope of an AE request that is not about them. Whether any of these people are administrators is of course immaterial with regard to the dispute resolution or AE process, except in that I personally expect administrators to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than other editors. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

:::{{strong|1=Re: AN vs. AE &ndash;}} You're correct; I had forgotten that Apteva vs. Noetica was at AE, ] (which will eventually be archived either ] or ] while the original Noetica vs. Apteva report was at AN ]. Either you already knew what filings I was really referring to, or you did not know of the Noetica vs. Apteva filing at AN, and that missing information badly affected your understanding of the Apteva vs. Noetica filing at AE. There is also the related SarekOfVulcan vs. Apteva AE filing ], but it isn't crucial to what's being discussed here, other than it further demonstrates that I am not making broad, unsubstantiated accusations against Apteva, but summarizing facts about Apteva's behavior that consensus has already arrived at, at {{em|both}} AE and AN.<p><!--
-->{{strong|1=Re: more substantive matters &ndash;}} The fact that you're refusing to even address most of what I wrote probably explains why your response misses the point in several crucial ways. It's also symptomatic of your involvement more generally. In particular, "{{tq|I have not participated in, or even read, any AN thread related to this matter}}", is the entire problem &ndash; {{em|1=you've actually missed the majority of the discussion, and have consequently misinterpreted just about everything about it.}}</p>
:::*{{strong|1=Discussion about process that relates to discussion about content is not itself discussion about content.}} Your warning fails to make this distinction and this is the main reason, among several, why the warning is inappropriate and invalid. You're confusing posting {{em|at ARBATC about user behaviors}} relating to WP process including ARBATC, which is what I did &ndash; it's a ] thread, and a ] &ndash; with {{em|posting about opinions on style and titling}} matters themselves in ways that trigger the sanctions contemplated by ARBATC, which I did not do, at either AE or AN. Frankly, trying to stretch ARBATC's sanctions to cover posts about ARBATC and how it should be enforced, not just the content & presentation disputes ARBATC is intended to moderate, both makes a mockery of what ] is for and how it works, and in my view constitutes a form of ] to warp the intent and meaning of ARBATC to simply shut up people you just don't want to listen to. If that was not your intent, then please consider, seriously, that this is precisely what it looks like.
:::*{{strong|1=] sanctions are simply not applicable to my post.}} (Nor to those of most if not all of the others you just issued the same warning to for what they said at ARBATC). It was not about any style or article titles matter, and thus is not subject to those sanctions, even when broadly construed. It was about the disruptive editing behavior patterns of Apteva a.k.a. Delph234 (the community agrees, at both ] and ], that this happened, and blocked both of this users accounts, for sockpuppetry in energy articles as well as his style-related editwarring), including his filing a ridiculous AE request just to get back at Noetica for criticizing him). I also mentioned the Wikid77 & LittleBenW tag-teaming for a specific reason, detailed below (the community also agrees that this abusive editing happened, after I and other presented lots of evidence, and there was a consensus to block both users for it ], though this got lost in the shuffle and those additional topic bans didn't actually get implemented). That the original disputations, weeks and month ago, involving these editors and landing them at AN in the first place had something to do with article titles and the manual of style is completely irrelevant; it could have been over biographical sources or cat breeds. Stylistic/titling disagreements have nothing whatsoever to do with the behavioral issues being addressed at AN and then at AE, by me and others. My post also raised concerns about inappropriate admin involvement against Noetica by SarekOfVulcan (conflict of interest, and misapplication of admin rules as restricting non-admins). Also not a style/titles matter. (''Cf.'' your own comment: "{{tq|I personally expect administrators to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than other editors.}}" So why bash me for doing the same thing?)
:::*{{strong|1=Naming names for the sake of accuracy and truth is often necessary, to avoid false blame, not "{{tq|inappropriate}}".}} Just for the record, I mentioned Wikid77 and LittleBenW by name simply for accuracy; to suggested that Apteva was acting alone and being solely responsible for the disruptiveness would be an unfair misstatement of fact (as well as an aggrandizement of disruptive behavior, as if Apteva is some kind of disruption badass, which ] strongly discourages for good reason). I do not feel I need to be threatened by you simply for {{em|not}} wrongly blaming Apteva for everything!
:::*{{strong|1=No one said AE is a general-purpose dispute resolution noticeboard, and none of us except Apteva were attempting to use it as one}}; you're advancing a ] argument. My post stated my position that Apteva was filing a nonsense, frivolous AE request, that SarekOfVulcan was out of line, and that Noetica could be forgiven for overreacting a bit because Apteva (with Wikid77 and LittleBenW) has been frustrating him and many other MOS/AT regulars, including me, to the point of breaking. This is not personal attack, it simply summarizes exactly what the community has said in its consensus findings at AN and the earlier Apteva AE, and is not an ARBATC matter, as it isn't raising any style or titling arguments of any kind.
:::*{{strong|1=I {{em|1=emphatically did not}} make "{{tq|broad allegations of severe personal misconduct}}"; I made summary reference at AE to {{em|1=very specific}} and well-proven facts}} of severe personal misconduct, supported by solid evidence and by community consensus at the AN ''loci'' already linked to. You are warning (and thereby block-threatening) me simply because you are unfamiliar with the overall debate and the {{em|evidence and remedies already arrived at in AN}}. You've reacted, without full knowledge and information, to what you saw at AE, as if it existed in a vacuum. At any rate, you say "{{tq|with evidence, no broad allegations!}}", and I had already provided it, in spades. But you hadn't see it, and more importantly made the ] that I was randomly and broadly casting aspersions, just to be an ass or something, instead of doing homework to find out if I was. I'm a very long-term, productive, rationalist editor here, and think I deserve enough credit and benefit of the doubt to not be assumed-by-default to be a rampaging nutter. I was in fact referring to proven, settled matters for which warnings, topic bans and now blocks had already been issued (I think the blocks may have come after my post; I misremember). Your statement that "{{tq|hese allegations are unsupported by any useful evidence}}" is factually incorrect; you simply were not aware of the evidence and didn't bother to look or ask for it, but obviously should have.
:::*{{strong|1=Your expectation of "{{tq|working through the dispute resolution process in direct contact with the editors involved}}" {{em|1=already happened}}}} (at AN, at RFC/U, and in many other fora), apparently without you knowing about any of it. NB: There actually {{em|is no}} substantive style question at issue (consensus ] on dashes and hyphens in response to Atpeva ''et al.'' forumshopping it to the ends of the earth); by the time this went to AN and thence to AE all that was at issue any longer was editing behavior pattern issues. ] and "{{tq|focusing on the substantial disagreements (about hyphens and dashes, for instance)}}", as you suggest, would have been a massive step backwards! It's as if you said "Argh, not these damned style people again; let's just issue ARBATC warnings and shut them all up!", but the Apteva-related issues moved past style matters into addressing abusive and disruptive behavior patterns, several weeks ago (arguably months ago, actually).
:::Again, I ask that you realize that you have misinterpreted my and some others' posts, the AE/AN filings themselves, the situation and its history more broadly, and the applicability of the ARBATC sanctions. {{strong|Please, just rescind this bogus, overreactive warning.}} It is based entirely on nothing but those misinterpretations and your clear assumption of bad faith on my part. I've already proven I was not acting in bad faith. As it stands, you've issued a "you can be blocked without further notice" warning against me for something I clearly {{em|did not actually do}}. The result is that basically anyone with admin bits can block me willy-nilly for engaging in virtually any MOS or AT thread (or RM, or AN/ANI/AE, or other discussion that mentions any style or title matter), if it even slightly irritates anyone for any reason, because "I've already been warned". It's an error, it's unjust, and it's having the direct effect of topic-banning me from both MOS and AT without there actually being a community consensus that I should be topic banned, since I'll hardly dare to discuss anything in such forums if I'm instantly subject to blocking by anyone with a hare up their butt about some style nitpick, or having some kind of personal bone to pick with me, which is actually a quite large stockpile of PoV-pushing editors (several of them admins who got the bits back when RfA was a cakewalk). You've handed every PoV-pusher on the system a gag to use on me, and you're directly censoring my participation (it's called the "]"), without good cause.
:::— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 12:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

::::I regret that you feel that way, and let me assure you that I do not assume that you are acting in bad faith or with deleterious intent - rather, the contrary. However, the length and intensity of your arguments in this thread alone indicate that the Arbitration Committee's reminder to step back from the personal side of the disputes surrounding ] does apply to the situation you find yourself in, and that the warning is therefore appropriate. My advice is to either withdraw from these personal conflicts and focus on the discussion about the substance of the dispute, to the extent such a discussion may still be ongoing, or alternatively to pursue the formal dispute resolution process (such as ], community topic ban requests, or arbitration enforcement requests) with respect to the editors you believe are severely misbehaving. What you should however not do – and this is what my warning was about – is just to vent your anger in whatever forum a related issue may be discussed in, no matter how justified that anger is (and I recognize that it may well be). Such venting has no chance of promoting the successful resolution of interpersonal conflicts; rather, it tends to inflame them further.
::::With this, I believe I have adequately explained the reasons for my warning. Of course, if you do believe the warning materially affects your ability to participate in topic-related discussions, which I do not think is the case, you are free to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee, although I do not consider it likely that they will act on such an appeal. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::You have not "adequately explained" anything other than that you feel righteous.
:::::For one thing, your assuming and asserting that I was making "broad allegations...with evidence", when a few minutes of looking would have shown that I was in fact referring to specific, proven facts of Apteva-and-crew's dirsuptive editing, for which consensus had already arrived at remedies at WP:AN, is, yes, a blatant assumption of my bad faith by you. Denying that violates basic logic. Your continuing to defend a warning/threat the {{em|entire basis}} of which is your {{em|now disproven}} claim of me making of broad allegations without evidence, simply defies all reason and is not tenable.
:::::In my view you are simply so ] &ndash; in a near vacuum of salient facts and information &ndash; that you'll happily see anywhere from one to four productive editors quit the project. I repeat that you simply do not properly understand the context of the posts in question, and here you are essentially refusing to contemplate even attempting to do so. There {{strong|is no content/style dispute at issue, at all}}. Apteva tried to make one, and failed to change consensus (again and again and again and again, for months, in every forum he could raise his pet peeve in) The AN case, which you evidently {{em|still}} have not bothered to read even though it is crucial to understanding what is happening, was {{em|not about style or titles}}, it was about disruptive user behavior patterns, as was the RFC/U about Apteva that preceded it (more homework you have not read). Apteva then ran to AE to try to disrupt it and "ask yet another parent", and me and a few others said "no, this is more noise &ndash; this user has a long history of making trouble like this and refusing to get the point; don't listen", and we have a consensus to topic ban and block him at WP:AN to prove it. Yet you've turned like a rabid wolf on those of us who have not just tried, but {{em|succeeded with community consensus}} in reining in a grossly disruptive editor (actually a three-editor tag-team). You're like a judge who would hang the cops who caught a murderer instead of punishing the killer, just because you don't like something they said. {{em|{{strong|Apteva was topic-banned and blocked}}}} for the very disruption you say I'm being a bad-actor for mentioning as a reason to disregard his attempt at ] AE! Do you not understand how off-kilter your position looks?
:::::How many editors have to quit before you'll actually do an hour of background reading and reconsider what you're doing? At this point, you appear to be willfully refusing to find out the facts and see whether your decision makes sense in light of them. You are not the Pope and there is no presumption, even among those who look up to you, that you are magically infallible. You need to learn this, quickly, before you do any more damage. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 13:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::PS: Whatever your strengths as an editor and an admin, your lack of knowledge of this extended RFCU/AN/AE case, which is only related to ARBATC in the very tenuous way in that that now-blocked disruptor at the center of it all liked to pick fights about hyphens, compounded by your abject refusal to get up to speed on it and reconsider, means that your are simply ], should undo it, and should recuse yourself from further involvement in this one unless and until you do get up to speed on it. I would say the same thing to you even if you were an Arbitrator. Even if you were Jimbo. You cannot make rational decisions that affect other people without possessing enough facts to understand what is actually going on. Refusing to obtain them means you are asserting an actual right to make irrational and bad decisions that harm other people. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 14:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

== Personalizing disputes ==
{{Resolved|1=Noted, and responded to at ], where SarekOfVulcan lost his harassing, frivolous case, shortly before being rebuked and nearly desysoped by ArbCom for similar abuses, then resigning adminship under a cloud.}}
{{diff|Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Dirtlawyer1|prev|537241101|This}} will be showing up on ] shortly.--] 16:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:Fine by me. All you're doing is demonstrating that you have some kind of personal vendetta against me and are engaging in a tag-team harassment effort. I have a right like any other editor in good standing to raise problems with a candidate's behavior patterns at RFA; the fact that those patterns &ndash; as evidenced by not one but {{em|two}} anti-MOS introductory rants by the candidate! &ndash; involve MOS in disturbing ways does not magically mean that ] can be used to censor RFA. Such an idea is illogical, since RfAs are named and are about reviewing the personal behavior of candidate, and thus are already personalized, by definition; raising issues about behavior of the candidate is not "personalizing". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 17:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure ==
{{Unesolved|1=Noted, and responded to at , but ARCA (i.e. Arbcom) dropped the ball and failed to resolve the matter. ] seems the only option.].}}
Hi. I would like to inform you that a clarification request to the Arbitration Committee that may affect you is open at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
::WP:ARCA did jack about this. Just dropped the ball entirely. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

== Some Wiki-love for you ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
|rowspan="2" | |rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Purple Barnstar'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray"|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | You've been putting up with a lot of crap from other quarters; just want to let you know that people out there do, in fact, manage to appreciate your work. illegitimi non carborundum! ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 04:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
<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 ==
:Thanks. That means a lot right now, actually. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
{{Disregard|Non-neutral pseudo-RfC; advice given to poster of it on how to do it properly}}
<!--]-->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)


== Redirect listed at ] ==
==Clarification request==
{{Resbox|Endorsed+}}
{{Resolved|1=Just a chat.}}
<!--]
I don't think you'll get the arbs engaging with if you don't give them diffs to look at. I agree that Sandstein should by no means have closed the AE. ] &#124; ] 13:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC).
-->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)
:Meh. The way this is going, I'll probably have to file a real RFARB. I've been avoiding it because it's a time-consumptive, stressy, excessively legalistic pain, but this back-and-forth-to-AE stuff is too, at this point. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 13:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


== You're my MOS maven... ==
You're not the only one. AE is these days. —] (]) 14:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


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)
== Re: proposed closure ==
:{{ping|Ealdgyth}} . <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Stale|1=Moot point now.}}
''Whether Sandstein's actions have been entirely righteous with regard to me is still an open question'' - perhaps so, but it's not my job to pass judgement on Sandstein, and unless and until he is censured by the community he is still an admin in good standing who is entitled to have his views taken into consideration at AE. ] (]) 11:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
:You're clearly taking them into consideration (too much consideration, according to more respondents to his participation than just me); there's no need to mention him in the closing statement, which would be kind of unusual anyway. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


== Gram capitalisation (eponym exceptionalism) ==
:Do you still feel this way after Sandstein just on two different levels, in a way that itself violates ARBATC (as I )? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


You've probably had your fill of this, so forgive me if so.
::It is difficult to know the wise course of action here. Ordinarily, I would say to take it to the person's talk page. But the who brought WP:NPA concerns to Sandstein's talk page got with sanctions. Looks like that talk page is now classified. —] (]) 02:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I've already tried discussing things with Sandstein on his talk page. If issues with him continue, I'll just take the matter to RFAR. I have zero remaining patience for this. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 09:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


<small>
== Result of AE request ==
My background<br />
{{Resolved|1=Gameability issue supposedly settled. I remain skeptical.}}
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'.
In accordance with at ], your editing is hereby subject to the following restrictions and recommendations with regard to pages or discussions related to ]:
</small>


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?
* You are prohibited from making ] about any editor or identifiable group of editors. Failure to abide by this restriction is likely to result in the imposition of further sanctions at ];
* You are strongly advised to avoid ''commenting on contributor'' and to confine your comments to ''content''; in particular, you should avoid making ] or engaging in ]. Failure to achieve a requisite standard of discourse may result in further sanctions being imposed at WP:AE;
* You are encouraged to keep your statements to a reasonable length. Excessively long responses on talk pages may discourage the participation of other users.


I notice that the ] has stood for the past several years, but those two articles remain as inconsistent as ever.
You may appeal this sanction using the process describedat ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ] (]) 06:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


I don't think this necessarily has to be your burden to carry, but why are some admins not resolving this?
:This version of the editing restrictions notice contradicts the "official" one at AE &ndash; it's missing the "With regard to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS..." scope limitation. As written over-broadly here, it appears to be wrongly implying that i have a general and wide-ranging CIVIL/AGF/NPA problem in all my editing here, regardless of topic or context, which was not even alleged in the AE request much less determined to be the case. As for the restriction details, it's against policy to make bad faith assumptions, personal attacks or incivil comments, anyway, so fine. I've already stated (I think three times) at that AE that I got the point. That said, it's unclear to me how this restriction is not going to be ridiculously gameable to prevent me from ever raising any dispute with anyone if a style matter is even tangentially involved, since if I need to take someone to AN/ANI/AE/whatever, for some kind of pattern of policy violation, be it tendentious editing or POV pushing or personal attacks, doing so will pretty much automatically be something that the other party can claim equates to me assuming bad faith about them. Please clarify. As a tertiary matter, I'm rather disappointed that you (nor anyone else) took notice of Sandstein's own AGF/NPA issue in his parting shots at that AE. There are various people who feel that ARBCOM/AE is increasingly being misused to do little but back up other admins and shield them from criticism and restraints while they do whatever they like and drive away productive editors they don't like or agree with. This doesn't exactly help dispel that concern. It's one I think is a bit exaggerated, but I can't even really count the number of times I've heard something like that expressed publicly and privately. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 10:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


—DIV (] (]) 13:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC))
:: Sorry, but I think you have misread the above remedy, it clearly states at the top ''with regard to pages or discussions related to ]''. ] (]) 10:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
: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)
:::Right! I misread it. I still seek clarification on how this is not supposed to be gameable to lock me out of dispute resolution. I'm about to test that, by taking LittleBenW back to ANI. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 10:55, 2 March 2013 (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. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 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 ]-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 ==
:::: Yes, sorry, I was about to get to that. The above restrictions/advisements are not intended to apply to dispute resolution venues or other venues dedicated to discussion of user conduct, for obvious reasons, although of course all the normal behavioural policies will apply. ] (]) 11:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Resbox|Done}}
::::: The problem with that is that the same is supposed to be true of the ARBATC restrictions and discretionary sanctions everyone is under, using very similar scope wording, yet Sandstein's accusation/threat/warning to me and 3 others under ARBATC was for comments {{em|made at AE}} in the Apteva vs. Noetica request, in trying to show that Apteva's request was vexatious and frivolous. If people think that AE posts are fair game when Sandstein issues such restrictions (and have aggressively pursued me twice over upon the basis of that assumption), by what eldritch magick will they not make such assumptions regarding the restrictions you've brought? The bogusness of applying such restrictions to dispute resolution forums is one of 2 main reasons I intend to appeal Sandstein's accusation (the other being that I've already proven it false and he simply refuses to retract it for reasons that seem patently obvious to me, but which I cannot now even express questions about except in the privacy of my own skull, thanks to your new restrictions). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 11:40, 2 March 2013 (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 22:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment ==
:::::: As I said, ''all the normal behavioural policies will apply''. That is presumably how you got a warning from Sandstein in the first place. Dispute resolution is a venue for the airing of legitimate issues, but you don't have carte blanche on such pages to say anything you please about other users; any accusations you make must always be proportionate, and supported by credible evidence. So long as you do that, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. ] (]) 12:18, 2 March 2013 (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)
===Followup discussion===
"That is presumably how you got a warning from Sandstein in the first place." Did you really miss ]? In that case, weren't my comments about Sandstein's atrocious behaviour inexplicable to you? Shouldn't that have caused some cognitive dissonance and prompted you to do further research or ask some questions? ] 12:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


== Feedback request: Biographies request for comment ==
: I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but if your point is that Sandstein's warning was illegitimate because it was only made in relation to conduct at an AE request, then I think you are mistaken, because there is plenty of precedent for taking action under discretionary sanctions for user conduct at AE and even at AN/I, indeed it's probably fair to say that a substantial number of discretionary sanctions have been laid at AE for problematic user conduct at such venues. ] (]) 12:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
::My point was that Sandstein gave a highly controversial warning. If you look at the clarification request, you will see that arbitrators are essentially divided between those who believe that sanctions warnings are no big deal and require no infractions, and those who believe they are a big deal and can only be given after someone has broken the sanction. Sandstein's template ''claimed'' that the sanction had been broken, though it had not, and it's clear from Sandstein's behaviour that he was perfectly happy with making that accusation even though in fact he admitted that he hadn't even checked whether it had been broken. As is always the case except in case of obvious error, he was responsible for what the template said. As always when Sandstein makes a mistake, he showed himself completely unreasonable, bossy and utterly vindictive. As usual in these situations, Sandstein is hiding behind the principle that uninvolved admins don't become involved through administrative action. This principle has a valid purpose, but that purpose is not to grant immunity for power trips by toxic admins so long as they start with an 'uninvolved' admin action.
::This disagreement among arbitrators about the meaning and function of sanctions warnings has been blocking the appeal of these warnings for weeks. The discussion simply petered out, or the warnings would long have been either successfully appealed or clarified as ultimately meaningless.
::In what must be explained by ], Sandstein even had the gall to accuse ''his victim'' of " being able to react positively to advice about his conduct" and of "behavioral problems have to do with reacting to disagreement and a sense of ownership generally", after Sandstein's own sense of ownership of his poor admin decisions and his inability to correct his behaviour has contributed significantly to the current escalation.
::There are several levels of hypocrisy here on Sandstein's side, and you are essentially enabling him. There is no chance that any intelligent editor will actually take a lesson on minor behavioural problems so long as they are tainted by the association with Sandstein's vindictiveness. ] 13:31, 2 March 2013 (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)
::: I didn't look closely at Sandstein's original warning, I still haven't done so, it's not my job to investigate every charge made by users against some administrator or another, we have an AE appeals process or RFC/U or ARBCOM for that. However, I note that Sandstein's warnings were endorsed by both Cailil and KillerChihuahua, are they both "toxic", "vindictive" administrators too?
::: I am a volunteer here and I help out when and where I'm inclined to do so. In this case, I saw a proposed ban I did not agree with at AE since I had already looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion, I argued for a more lenient response and got some support for it, I then proposed a remedy which attempted to accommodate the range of views expressed by the participating uninvolved admins, that remedy was given assent and I implemented it. Maybe I could have done a better job, but then maybe if I hadn't spoken up at all, SMcCandlish would be sitting out a year-long ban right now.
::: You are entitled to your view of Sandstein but you are not entitled to demand that I share it, or that I personally conduct an investigation of Sandstein's actions on your behalf. Again, if you think Sandstein is incompetent or "vindictive", it's up to you to persuade the community or ARBCOM of that view, if you are unable to do that, that is your problem not mine, so please take responsibility for it and don't try to shift the blame onto someone else. ] (]) 14:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
::::And not on my talk page. Heh. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 15:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Nothing like a little ]. —] (]) 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
::::(ec) I tend to reserve the words "toxic" and "vindictive" for Sandstein, who consistently exhibits this kind of behaviour. The problem is that not everybody is aware of it.
::::It's blatantly obvious that you didn't look closely at Sandstein's warning. In fact, you made a speculation on it that was obviously false. The main problem with Sandstein's warnings was that he sort of sanctioned four users based on ''his speculations'' that the accusations they made at AE were unfounded, when they were in fact based on diffs that had previously been presented at ANI. Now you are handing out another warning based on ''your speculations'' of the background.
::::If you haven't got the time to make the research that is required before admin actions of this nature, then that's perfectly fine. So long as you don't take these actions anyway, based on speculation. That's at least a borderline abuse of your admin privileges even when you are lucky. But it turns out Sandstein's speculation was wrong, and your speculation that Sandstein's speculation was right and that he has been acting impartially is also wrong. You have no business shifting admin consensus in a particular direction and then implementing it if you don't even understand what it's about. That's not helpful volunteer action, it's a selfish hobby.
::::"but then maybe if I hadn't spoken up at all, SMcCandlish would be sitting out a year-long ban right now" -- WTF? The only scenario under which this is even remotely plausible is if Sandstein had stayed completely unopposed in the admin section and felt he could get away with that. It would not have been the worst outcome. SMcCandlish would have something to appeal against that Arbcom would not have ignored due to their unrelated confusion, and reading between the lines of some arbitrator comments, I expect that the Sandstein problem would have been solved once and for all in the process.
:::::Re your last paragraph: It's not primarily about me and Sandstein. SMcCandlish is entitled that you know why you hand out a warning, and you have made it clear that you don't. Basically you acted as a moderated proxy of Sandstein. ''You'' must take responsibility of your admin actions and ''you'' must be able to defend them. Once you come up with obviously incorrect speculations in your defence, there is something wrong. And who said I am unable to convince Arbcom or the community that Sandstein is vindictive? Last time I tried, his victim was Ludwigs2, the prototypical mobbing victim. This time he has chosen his victims less wisely, but now Arbcom's confusion about the role of sanctions warnings took out the steam. We have yet to see what happens when the focus is on Sandstein, and Sandstein alone. I have not filed ] yet. ] 16:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
*@Hans Adler, I have to take exception to your statement that "There is no chance that any intelligent editor will actually take a lesson on minor behavioural problems so long as they are tainted by the association with Sandstein's vindictiveness." This implies that while I'm intelligent (thanks) that I can't or won't agree to abide by Gatoclass's restrictions (which are actually just rewordings of existing policy anyway, not really restrictions), just because he took Sandstein's side. That's certainly not my position! My stance has been that the AE request was vexatious, unclean-handed, frivolous crap, and in point of fact not one single claim that any particular statement of mine was an AGF, NPA or CIVIL policy violation was sustained, there was just a general, vague and over-broad sense that I'd been combative and wordy, which I conceded anyway as a show of good faith and to get the pillorying over with. I don't particularly mind a "restriction" to abide by the same policies everyone else has to.<p>That said, I have no particular disagreement with your characterization of Sandstein's actions, nor why they've been wrongheaded, nor with your underlying analysis of the problem of Gatoclass essentially rewarding Sandstein for bad action, though I ask again that you not use my talk page to "get into it" in such a combative way. I, too, would like Gatoclass to understand that he is unnecessarily and inappropriately encouraging and rewarding unhelpful, destructive behavior by Sandstein, but that's not going to come about by berating him. What I would suggest is that you begin preparing an RFARB case against Sandstein (and other relevant parties if necessary) and keep me and other obviously affected editors in the loop. The RFC/U route is a waste of time, since nothing in it is binding. I will be glad to participate in an RFARB, as a party with a relevant grievance (several, actually) if it's prepared properly, with a factual and policy basis, not a ranting one, but I just don't have the energy to write it up myself, only jump in. I've just been through almost an entire month of coordinated attacks against me and other MOS regulars. One of the numerous "projections" as you put it, or WP:BOOMERANG effects, here that applies far more to my detractors/accusers/prosecutors/hounds than to me is the "your editing behavior makes for a hostile environment that drives away productive editors and discourages participation" rap. I have about as much enthusiasm for WIkipedia right now as I have for beating myself in the head with a hammer, and Sandstein and a few others are personally responsible for that on one level (Gatoclass will be happy to know I of course recognize my own culpability as well, in being tumid and intemperate). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)</p>


== Feedback request: History and geography request for comment ==
*@Gatoclass: I'm not sure you want to ask a question like that about perceptions of Cailil and KillerChihuahua in particular, quite frankly. My talk page is not a DR forum except with regard to me personally, and I don't have an issue with either of them at present that rises to that level. I know of several who feel they do and who have been discussing doing something about it, however; it's almost oddly coincidental that they've come up here. But anyway, fishing for commentary about them on my talk page is kind of weird. For my part, I have concerns with several of Cailil's statements in both recent relevant AEs, but as they did not seem to have had any noted effect on the outcomes, I have no real issue to pursue. Hans Adler, through the heat, has some valid points, I feel. Your "I didn't look closely at Sandstein's original warning" admission very closely mirrors Sandstein's admission that he did not actually bother to read the Apteva AN case before he issued his accusations/"warnings" or even before refusing to retract them after I proved them false. It's extremely troubling that admins feel entitled, empowered to issue serious, restrictive remedies that supposedly represent proper and deemed-necessary "last resort" action, made only with full understanding of the relevant facts and context, when they explicitly state they they've simply neglected to do the homework at all. He's also right that the idea that I'd be sitting out a year-long ban is nonsense. Not even Cailil supported that idea. No one did, and Adler is correct that I would have an easy appeal if things had gone that ridiculous route. Countervailingly, you are correct that "if you think Sandstein is incompetent or 'vindictive', it's up to you to persuade the community or ARBCOM of that view", and I encourage Adler start that ball rolling since he's clearly got the energy to do it (the ball will grow rapidly, I assure you). PS: No one needs yet another "I"m a volunteer..." statement. {{em|We're all volunteers}}, and we all know that. It's like beginning a letter to your legislator/parliamentarian with "I'm a taxpayer...". The fact that you like to remind people of it doesn't somehow make your time or energy more valuable anyone else's, it just wastes more of it for everyone. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 20:22, 2 March 2013 (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)
:: I haven't got endless time to spend on this debate so hopefully I can make this post my last on this topic. I doubt I am going to change any minds here anyway. However, I feel obliged to at least try to set the record straight on one or two issues.


== Style ==
:: Firstly, with regard to Sandstein's previous warning: I did not look closely at it because it was virtually ''irrelevant'' to the case in hand. The question of whether or not Sandstein's previous warning was justified is entirely separate from the question of whether or not SMcCandlish's recent conduct on MOS-related pages has been problematic. Sandstein's warning was also irrelevant because SMcCandlish had already been notified that standard discretionary sanctions now applied in the topic area in the original case back in March last year, a case which specifically reminded editors to ''avoid personalizing disputes'' and to ''work collegially'' with others. In short, the requirement for a notification had already been fulfilled and there was no need for further warnings. Indeed, the recommended model at AE is not for applying repeated warnings but for ''escalating'' sanctions, while SMcCandlish has now in effect walked away with three ''warnings'' in a row (whether or not one considers the second to be justified).


@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.
:: Secondly, I did not take "Sandstein's side" in the case. "Sandstein's side" was to apply a year-long topic ban, a proposal which I ''opposed''. I took the lead in getting the remedy reduced to little more than an advisement, which is the mildest possible outcome short of outright dismissal of a request. And I must emphasize that ''dismissal'' was not an option in this case. Almost every contributor to the request, including not only all the uninvolved admins but also virtually all those who spoke up in support of your contributions, acknowledged a problem SMCCandlish with your approach to talk pages, namely your tendency to personalize disputes, or if you prefer, comment on contributor. So the only question was whether another warning/advisement would be justified or whether we should proceed to immediate sanctions. I argued for and succeeded in achieving consensus for the former, ''against'' the recommendation of Sandstein which was for a long topic ban.


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?
:: If I have any regrets regarding this case, it is the fact that my closing statement has apparently led to the misperception that I was somehow following Sandstein's lead or adopting his recommendations. As noted above, this is clearly not the case. I mentioned Sandstein in my closing remarks because I felt his last comment summarized the issues most succinctly. Let me be clear about this, the remedy I formulated was not based on what Sandstein alone thought appropriate, but on my own judgement about the matter, coupled with my interpretation of the consensus view emerging from the admins' discussion. I then proposed a remedy which received assent from the other admins. So yes, I do take responsibility for my administrative actions here. I'm sorry that those actions have not received the unqualified approval of every interested party, but unfortunately it's not always possible to please everyone. ] (]) 06:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


] (]) 02:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I know you were not following Sandstein's lead, and that's a good thing. I wasn't trying to imply you weren't using your own judgement. What furrowed my brow was your seeming to pat him on the back for a good job, when he was in fact clearly overreacting and overreaching. But, no big deal I guess. As for the rest: Mostly fair enough, but not everyone at all agreed on what the alleged problem(s) with my talk page edits were, and some explicitly recognized what I'd been saying the whole time, that I was going out of my way to no longer personalize, but address only anonymized patterns of disruption. Of those who were critical, they were all over the map, from "he's too wordy" to "he makes me feel unwelcome" to "he makes me feel like he's lumping me in with some kind of faceless group" to "he seems too sure he is right". Few of them were even vaguely related criticisms. Some, including admins, were mix-and-matching relevant criticism of my MOS edits with nit-picking about my AE responses being too long or too irritable or whatever (despite the fact that we know full well that AE's format itself is what leads to a "wall of text" problem there; there's a whole ArbCom talk page proposal about fixing this, and every single participant there agrees it's a problem). The fact that I'm a outspoken, debatory personality automatically means I'm going to rub some people the wrong way. Have all my life. I get more things done and get things done faster as a result of my approach, however. It also made me a fantastic political activist back when that was my profession. But some people don't like me and wish I were quieter or would go away completely, or only use my "debate voice" when I'm on their side. The fact that most of the respondents were debate opponents of mine and did not present a consistent, much less actually policy-based rationale for censuring me, but various vague dissatisfactions, was both predictable and important. The fact that the uninvolved admins (the only ones who really should have been commenting there, judging from the aforementioned ArtCom thread that Sandstein's perceptively started &ndash; see, I can praise him, too &ndash; about reforming AE posting rules) did not come to a conclusion to escalate was also predicable and important. The overall nature of the thing was "hmm, something's wrong, and we need to do/say something", but what either of those "somethings" were differed widely between respondents. The negative effect of not looking into Sandstein's original "warning" (accusation) is that you don't seem to be perceiving the pattern at play on the larger canvas. Anyway, the actual result of this AE request (yes, thanks to you being more reasonable and uninvolved than Sandstein was) is essentially an admonition to work more collegially with an inherent warning that failure to do so will surely lead to sanctions, and I can live with that, and repeatedly acknowledged that I need to do so myself. Peace? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 10:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:{{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) ===
:::: A little of that would not be unwelcome after the last few days. ] (]) 11:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, SMcC ...
:::::It shall be so! — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 02:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


* 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)
== Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure ==
* 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.
{{Unresolved|1=Gatoclass's promise to deal with this "very shortly" came to nothin, and is part of why I'm leaving.}}
* 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.
The request is ; however, an arbitrator is planning on offering an arbitrator motion "very shortly".


] (]) 14:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, <br>- ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 14:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for the note. I've been eager to resolve this for a month now. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 20:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
::"Very shortly" has turned into "apparently never". ArbCom's dismal failure to clean up its own stinking mess, which is causing editors to resign in disgust, is among the reasons I'm, well, resigning in disgust. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 16:40, 4 June 2013 (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)
== Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Manual of Style ==
::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.
{{Unresolved|1=I ran out of time to bother appealing Sandstein's abuses at AE, since I actually have a life. I will instead take it up at RFARB if anything like it ever happens again. Or just quit; I have better things to do than suffer childish harassment in exchange for the time I've devoted rather thanklessly to this project.}}
::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.
{{Ivmbox
::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)
|2=Ambox_warning_pn.svg
:::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)
|imagesize=40px
::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)
|1=The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at ]):
::::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... ==
<blockquote style="text-align: center;">'''You are topic-banned (per ]) for one month from everything related to the ] and its components, except for references to the MOS that may be necessary to explain any articlespace edits you make. For the avoidance of doubt, the ban also prohibits you from engaging in disputes with other editors, or requesting sanctions against them, for reasons related to disputes about the MOS, except as outlined in ].'''</blockquote>


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)
You have been sanctioned for continued battleground-like conduct in disputes about the manual of style, as manifested notably in the recent arbitration enforcement requests of ] and ], and in your frivolous and vexatious .
: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 ==
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at [[Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation{{#ifeq:|list|<!-- -->
{{Resbox|Done}}
:<small>''The following list is stored at ].''</small>
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)
Discretionary sanctions with the wording listed on this page are authorized for the following topic areas (the ''italicised'' link after each topic names the associated arbitration decision):<span class="plainlinks">
* Pages relating to ] ('']'')
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ], ], or related ethnic conflicts (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] and ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to ], (] and ], )
* Pages relating to ] and ] (])
**This includes pages relating to ] (]) and ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
**This includes restoring edits by banned editors in the ] topic area ()
* Pages relating to ] (], )
* Pages relating to the ] topic area (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to the ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
* Pages relating to ] (])
*Pages relating to ] (]
</span>


== A couple more style questions about an article subject ==
Discretionary sanctions with the wording listed on this page '''may''' be authorized by any uninvolved administrator, after a warning given a month prior, for pages relating to the following areas:
* Naming of disputed islands in East Asia (])|}}#Final decision]]. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.


@SMcCandlish, another interesting new question for you:
You may appeal this sanction using the process described at ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
}}
:Oh, I will be appealing that, though I may shoehorn it into a larger ArbCom case against you. In the interim, I refuse to edit Misplaced Pages for any other purpose until this is resolved, in protest of your grossly hypocritical ] against me, which borders on ]. Take a few minutes to see how many edits I've made on average per month over the last 7 years and ask yourself if your "find some way to personally stick it to SMcCandlish, no matter the cost" campaign, which has been ongoing for around two months now and already reduced my useful, non-process contributions to a trickle by sucking up all my volunteer time, is really worth it. You, personally, Sandstein, are costing this project my productive involvement, just as you have also driven off ] permanently<del>, and ], possibly permanently</del>. I hope you're proud of yourself. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC) <small>Neotarf seems to have returned, but with a much-reduced activity level. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)</small><small> No, Neotarf is no longer interested in WP, except for the matter that lead to that retirement. —] (]) 10:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)</small>


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.
:: Stanton, please don't start an ARBCOM case against Sandstein. Though I understand your sense of frustration, I have a lot more experience of dispute resolution processes than you do and I don't think it's a good idea. Assuming the case was even accepted, which is doubtful IMO, it would just chew up even more of your time and everybody else's and probably only leave you feeling more dissatisfied. I strongly suggest that you put this unfortunate sequence of events behind you and just go back to productive editing. You can appeal the above ruling at AE if you ''must'', but regardless of the outcome, I wouldn't take it any further. ] (]) 05:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I appreciate your concern (and that you'd express it; I know you're not a huge fan of my wikipersona), but I think its probably too late for a "let's not go there"; Sandstein's forced us there. He is engaging in outright abuse of administrative trust and power, as other admins are telling him and which he refuses to acknowledge, just as he refuses to accept any other criticism or to self-examine his own behavior, patterns and rationales. RFARB is probably inevitable at this point, and frankly the evidence that Sandstein has just run off the rails is mounting too fast to not take action. And I won't be the only one. This has little to do any longer with my own sense of frustration over being harassed by him. While, yes, it was frustrating having to waste my time defending myself against {{em|four}} ] and ] and possibly also ] processy attacks in two months, with Sandstein in the thick of all four of them and directly responsible for two, this is no longer about me much at all. That wasn't productive, just necessary. However, I consider dealing with unmistakeable admin abuse to be part of my productive editing, just as is dealing with ] and other problems endemic to Misplaced Pages that are less obvious than outright vandalism but actually more harmful to the project. PS: Sandstein is all about ensuring that everyone understands that there are ineluctable consequences for patterns of "personalized", disruptive battlegrounding, after all. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 01:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::"This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator"—I'm blinking. Is it a joke? ] ] 06:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, take a look at his talk page. He's actually ''still'' under the psychotic delusion that he's just another admin responding to the facts. How this piece of work managed to hoodwink so many on his RfA, I'll never know. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 09:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Looks like SMcCandlish needs still more time to "adjust to the ". —] (]) 09:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Yes, typical Sandstein behaviour, and I really like how he projects his own inability to change based on feedback on other editors. I described his modus operandi 2 1/2 year ago in a long comment . He doesn't seem to have improved since then. ] 18:48, 15 March 2013 (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.
I've had too much to do in real life, like dealing with tax season, to bother preparing an appeal of Sandstein's childish harassment or, any other distracting Misplaced Pages psychodrama. I may simply editorially retire, since I grow weary of devoting time and energy to a project that is increasingly under the control of improperly socialized teenagers, not to mention older but unwiser buffoons who treat the encyclopedia as a power-mongering roleplaying game. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Advice? ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Courtesy notification ==
: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)
{{Resolved|1=Dealt with at Gatoclass's talk page.}}
::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.
Your name has been mentioned here: , and not in a nice way. Perhaps it is an April Fool joke.
::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.
Too bad their rules will not allow you to respond to it.


—] (]) 13:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC) ] (]) 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)
:I've addressed this at ]. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:19, 3 April 2013 (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.
::Good, it disturbed my enjoyment of my own retirement as well. The remark was uncivil and unsupportable—and unprofessional. Sometimes even experienced editors can do with a reminder. —] (]) 04:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
::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>


== Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment ==
You quite reasonably objected ] to the unnecessary inclusion of remarks directed at you in a post by another editor. So in your response you make exactly the same kind of remarks about me, to which I, equally reasonably, strongly object. ] (]) 08:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
{{Resbox|Done}}
:I'm sorry if you were offended, Peter. What exactly is the issue, though? I said that you're a good, not disruptive editor. I observed that you're in a long-term, intractable disagreement with me (and not me alone, nor you alone) over a style issue that you feel as certain and unwavering about as I do. How is that inaccurate? It {{em|does}} take two to argue. And there is no actual doubt as to the fact that your position on that style matter would seem stronger and less opposed if I am increasingly censored, and other MOS regulars take that censorship as a warning to "STFU or else" (which quite a few of them certainly do, and have told me so personally). I was even careful to make it clear that I was not suggesting you were consciously using that fact to make trouble; I simply observed that it's true. Is there something in particular you wanted retracted? — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 11:38, 5 April 2013 (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 05:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I wouldn't describe myself as "offended"; certainly annoyed. The basic issue is that there was no more reason for you to have mentioned my name than there was for Gatoclass to have mentioned yours. I'm not going to get into a detailed dispute about the words you used but in context they were not neutral, factual descriptions (particularly "vested interest"). Just do what Gatoclass failed to do: discuss the issues, not the people involved. ] (]) 12:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Okay, I understand what you mean. To be clear, I mentioned you by name only because you posted, by name, at that AE thread against me which is at issue in Gatoclass's comments; you were thereby the most recent example of what I was talking about with regard to non-disruptive users having complaints. Gatoclass makes a ''generalized'' claim that Wikipedians broadly find me intolerable, when in fact I can demonstrate that to date the only complaints at all are mostly from habitual disruptors whom I and others deal with via ANI/AE, and (in a few specific cases like yourself) good-faith editors who simply have long-standing disagreements with me. I did not mean to imply any {{em|motive}} by "vested interest", simply that you are an example of someone invested in the issue, not a random by-stander. Normally I wouldn't bother, but I was, just before {{em|that}} AE case, subjected to further harassment at AE for {{em|not}} specifically naming parties. I'm sure you can see the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position this puts me in. I would certainly prefer to talk about issues, not editors, but Gatoclass, Sandstein, etc., are essentially forcing me to, by either threatening me with direct sanctions if I attempt to generalize, or making broad accusations against me that can only be responded to accurately with specifics. It's an entrapment game, and is a part of why I'm preparing a RFARB. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 16:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


== Books & Bytes – Issue 66 ==
:::By "consistently good editors like Peter coxhead" I took it to mean someone who engages in legitimate disagreement, rather than someone who is just stirring the pot. No one wants MOS or TITLE to get clogged with disruptive noise, that prevents the kind of discussion needed to air and resolve genuine issues. SMcCandlish has taken some strong leadership in this area, to the benefit of the Project, and has done so without the protection of being an admin. —] (]) 06:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
S, I am not familiar with the particulars of the long-running dispute with Peter, but I miss your contributions to style issues. I find myself agreeing with you more often than with him; I think of him as part of an anti-MOS camp, though that may be too broad a characterization. I hope you get through the current troubles and get back to helping WP have a consistent and professional style. I don't see what the "tends to alienate" comment was about. ] (]) 04:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
:Dicklyon: please don't take the following as specific to me. My shoulders are broad; I am not put off joining in debates by SMcCandlish's or anyone else's comments. I also miss his contributions. But it's very clear to me that other editors {{em|have}} been put off getting involved in discussing and editing the MOS (i.e. are alienated) by some regular MOS editors who have been all too ready to personalize discussions and attribute motives to those who disagree with them. Thus to describe editors as either "pro-MOS" or "anti-MOS" on the basis of disagreements over the content of the MOS is unhelpful (to say the least). SMcCandlish and I agree on many issues (e.g. we would both prefer the MOS to encourage more use of BCE/CE rather than BC/AD, for which sadly there's currently no consensus). We disagree on some issues (e.g. as to whether the MOS should support only a single approach to the case used for the common names of species or endorse more than one approach). This doesn't make either of us "pro" or "anti" the MOS itself.
]</div>
:What I do support is efforts to make discussions on the MOS talk pages more collegial in tone. The fact that some of these efforts seem to me to have been unnecessarily heavy-handed (and indeed uncollegial) doesn't negate the desirability of the original intent. ] (]) 11:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
<div style="line-height: 1.2;">

<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
::Peter, even if your feelings that various editors have been "put off" participating in certain debates by various other editors who are regulars in them (which is probably an accurate description of every single contentious article subject and internal Misplaced Pages process page on the entire system, actually, from ] to ]), I hope you understand that this is no justification for the bordering-on-conspiratorial multi-editor (and multi-admin) three-month long campaign of harassment against {{em|me in particular}}, and that you realize that this is precisely what has been happening. My pillorying is a trial balloon by the "camp" that Dicklyon alludes to. For the record, I've never considered you among them. I can't say anything further right now or some lurking stalker will surely accuse me of engaging in an MoS-related debate in violation of Sandstein's bogus topic ban. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Issue 66, November – December 2024

'''Update:''' I stand by what I said even more now, in light of . — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

== Courtesy notification ==
{{FYI|1=Just a note.}}
If anyone is still watching this talk page, I linked to it . —] (]) 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks, I did eventually see it. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

== The MOS needs you! ==
{{Resolved|1=Not sure I have anything further to say.}}
I went away on vacation for some months, came back and noticed a distinct absence from wt:mos, poked around here and saw you were dubiously blocked and not coming back until a month ago, and thought I'd drop you a line.

There's a an exciting discussion about logical quotation going on a wt:mos. Dicklyon even linked an essay of yours. I feel like you would surely have something insightful to say. Don't let the man get you down! If you do decide to stay away, I wish you the best. ] ] 18:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks, and I appreciate the sentiment, but remain skeptical.

:I'm seriously contemplating never editing here again. I don't feel like donating my time to a project where a couple of admins are permitted to incessantly hound me (and whomever else they target for e-assassination, like Noetica), abusing their admin status and abusing Misplaced Pages process in a months-long campaign of harassment, for clearly personally motivated reasons. One has resigned adminship under a cloud, after very, very narrowly escaping being desysopped, but Sandstein continues a rampage of terror at ], unabated. Even most other admins at AE are clearly afraid of him. After someone just resigned from ] because of its cronyism and refusal to take actions that might be unpopular in the authoritarian, control-freak atmosphere that has overwhelmed a once-open editing environment, I have little hope that my bothering with the stress and time-sink of an ArbCom case at ] would even go anywhere. I certainly don't feel like editing MOS without ArbCom on my side, since the entire point of the harassment is to falsely set up a long-term ban for anyone (but especially any MOS regular) who crosses a certain camp of admins. For example, Sandstein has already made it clear that this is his goal with regard to me in particular, having pushed for me being blocked for an entire year, despite my not having done anything to deserve that. He's not going to get a victim, but a martyr. Misplaced Pages's losing thousands of constructive edits per month by me, and you can lay that directly at Sandstein's feet, because I'm not about to let his false accusations and grossly involved abuses of adminship be forgotten and just go back to editing as if it didn't happen, so he can do it to me again. Meanwhile, I've been doing other things with my life. WP is hardly the only thing worth my time, and the more it's taken over by juvenile crypto-fascists and populated by their enablers, the less worthy it is. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
::(de-lurk)
::Well, your block record remains clean. :)
::I have to say I'm sympathetic, often feeling that I. too, should quit. In the space of the 7 years I've been on Misplaced Pages, I've seen it evolve from a fun collaborative place (not without some hot disagreements about content) to a bureaucracy rife with politics and drama. I tend to stay away from those areas, but occasionally get sucked in and regret the lost hours of my life that resulted. MOS-related stuff is something I try to stay away from, personally. Fortunately Misplaced Pages is so vast that I can usually find something interesting to do on it with my spare time. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

::All human endeavors necessarily involve politics to some extent, and politics automatically generate drama. The issue for WP is bureaucracy and its penchant for being abused by PoV-pushing parties with the patience to infiltrate and subvert the system. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

== Just for the record: Why I'm not editing any longer (a letter of resignation) ==

{{Anchor|resignation}}In response to mistaken assumptions or false characterizations of my reasoning (e.g. ), I'm going to explain more carefully why I've almost entirely ceased editing Misplaced Pages.

{{strong|I've stopped editing here because I no longer have much faith in Misplaced Pages as an open editing environment, populated by peers in rational discourse, with encyclopedic goals. Misplaced Pages is now effectively and increasingly under the thumb of agenda-pushing, tin-pot dictatorial politicians abusing adminship as a caste system, as a puerile, venal popularity contest, and even as a means to a censorious and propagandistic end, all to the detriment of Misplaced Pages's mission.}}

{{em|In broad terms}}, I've not been editing, for much of any reason, since April 2013, and may leave permanently except as a decreasingly trusting reader. I've put Misplaced Pages at arm's length because of "cult of personality"-based, systemic abuses by "entitled" admins, and associated issues of "good ol' boy" cronyism, me-too-ism, and diffuse but stifling fear of challenging these pushy, censorious, charismatic admin "personalities", who have usurped ]'s authority and purpose, and turned ], ] and related administrative noticeboards into an above-the-law regime of make-it-up-as-you-go-along, arbitrary (in the negative sense), selective, even abusive and vindictive enforcement, with no checks and balances. From this ''Lord of the Flies''-reminiscent kangaroo court, there is no appeal or recourse except to itself at WP:AE, or to a bureaucratic morass at ], where ArbCom generally declines to contradict admins, and not punish bad-acting ones even when the evidence can't be ignored, simply because they have a "badge".

This cancer of self-serving, aggressive, autocratic admins ] dispute resolution process and perverting it to some kind of Judge Dredd/Dirty Harry bad-wiki-cop fantasy game, is compounded by:
#failure of the WP:AE/WP:ANI sub-community of admins to fulfill its role properly, with the result that it is effectively sanctioning, even egging on, the pillorying of productive editors, while encouraging the frivolous, exploitative "career troublemaking" of inveterate PoV-pushers, trolls and nutcases;
#failure of arbitrators to fulfill promises to clarify and resolve serious problems in the wording and enforcement of discretionary sanctions;
#failure of ] to institute the adminship reforms that he promised (vaguely as to detail, concretely as to timeline) would be in place by the first quarter of this year;
#and failure of the community more broadly to do much of anything about the increasing usurpation of the system of agenda-driven ] who are seeking and uncritically gaining and keeping administrator authority, by which Misplaced Pages's coverage, tone and very nature are slowly being warped to reflect particular world-views, and increasingly limit the breadth and depth of the encyclopedia's base of contributors.
This is perhaps not surprising, given that (depending on whose stats and definitions you prefer) en.wikipedia.org is one of the top-3 to top-5 most used websites in the world. Misplaced Pages's latent power on the human stage has staggering potential, but is mostly unguarded, with very few barriers to concerted, planned abuse and subversion. That's the surprising part, and the underlying impetus of my effective resignation as an editor here.

{{em|The proximal "straw that broke the camel's back" for me}} is the fact that two admins (one, {{Userlinks|SarekOfVulcan}}, now resigned under a cloud after narrowly escaping forced-desysoping by ArbCom, the other still active) went on a two-months-long campaign of direct personal harassment of me and abuse of administrative power and processes to hound me, with virtually no response in check from the community &ndash; much less from its collective administration in particular, despite that being their "job". The other admin of the pair, {{userlinks|Sandstein}}, who has previously made proven-false accusations against me and refused to retract them, even {{em|un-recused}} himself &ndash; after admitting that many others had raised concerns that he was too involved, being party to a still-unresolved discretionary-sanctions dispute with me, and thus agreeing to recuse himself &ndash; just so he could get to be the one to personally close a ] case, in a manner that censored me with an unjustified and unjustifiable topic ban for a month, perhaps one of the clearest cases ever of ]. I've thought about pursuing a ] case about the matter, and many have encouraged me to do so, a few publicly but (fearing repercussions) most privately. While I think I would win such a case on its merits, and I know of at least 5 others who would join as additional "plaintiffs", I feel I have better things to do with my time. Life is short, and I would rather do something pleasant and meaningful than put up with being conspiratorially attacked by inimical, petty power-brokers in a project that seems to be running off the rails, with no recourse but to engage a witheringly time-consuming and nit-picky, pseudo-legalistic, pretentious and slow-moving bureaucracy that is clearly stacked against non-admins. I also observe that one Arb recently resigned their post for reasons that indicate ArbCom is acting in the interests of its own collective public image, not the interests of the editing community, so I am skeptical that such an RFARB case {{em|would be}} decided on its merits, rather than expediency and authoritarianism. Even a couple of admins who have seemed relatively neutral toward me appear to express similar doubts. All these temporal specifics said, {{em|this particular back-breaking straw really is just one problem among many that together indicate serious institutional malaise.}} Being raked over the coals by an admin ] just happened to piss me off too much to let it slide.

{{em|Conclusion}}: Until I see at least some marginal progress on these worsening problems, I remain unconvinced that this project is worth any more of my time, since it is being incrementally but inexorably co-opted, while neither its most valuable contributors nor even its founder and chairman seem to care enough to speak up and take action about it. I don't even bother fixing typos any more; ], right? I've been in the top few hundred most-active editors for {{em|years}}. I've even spent several {{em|thousands}} of dollars obtaining hard-to-find paper sources for articles that badly need work (not to mention donating money directly to the project), but at this point I may just write my own well-researched pieces about these topics, and publish them elsewhere. This project certainly has no natural right to my continued massive amount of consistently productive labor, nor any entitlement to it even on moral suasion grounds, if it will not defend itself from rotting from the inside out.

— <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 13:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: I reserve the right to pop back in from time to time when I'm notified by someone in e-mail of something that actually needs my attention (like frivolous or malicious attempts to undo my work here), or to file or join actions at WP:AE, WP:RFARB, etc. that may help resolve some of the problems that have led to my leaving. Please do not ask for my involvement otherwise. I will not donate any more time to this project until I see that steps are being taken to put it back on the rails. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

<!--End resignation stuff.-->
----
<!--Begin new stuff.--><br /><br />

:S, don't let them get you down. Whether you take a long break, a short break, or a permanent break, I hope you'll forget those small-minded ones who get you down, and know that many of us here greatly appreciate and value your long-term and thoughtful contributions. Many thanks, and I hope to see you around again eventually. ] (]) 04:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

:Want you back. ] ] 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

:For the record, I regret that you've stopped editing. (I stand by my description of your editing as "aggressive", but apologize for the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" error in describing your ceasing to edit as ''because of'' rather than ''consequent on'' the actions of an admin.) I have been asking repeatedly for an explanation of how to de-capitalize those English names of plants which are capitalized in sources without arbitrariness and without OR/SYNTH. And there it is: a clear explanation of the difference between "jack" in "jack-in-the-pulpit" and "Brewer" in "Brewer's pine", which is obvious when you see it written down, but which no-one else had ever provided. ] (]) 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
::Glad that was helpful, and I appreciate the apology/clarification re: ''ergo propter hoc''. My disagreement with "aggressive" is that it is synonymous with "attacking", yet there's no ArbCom case, no AE case, not AN case, no ANI case, no RFC/U, etc., ever showing me to be attacking anyone. I realize that my debate style irritates some people. Tough. People own their own emotions. Competency is required. Part of competency is being able to withstand vigorous debate, or one's ability is undermined to effectively work in a collaborative and often adversarial system with a world of differing and often directly conflicting viewpoints. Desire to be a Wikipedian is insufficient to be a good one. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:When an institution loses experienced users like you, it loses its "institutional memory". Sadly, I totally understand what has happened here; it has spurred the retirement banner on my own talk page, and on ]. Let us hope there is still a way forward. ] (]) 16:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

== Just to let you know ==
{{FYI|Got it.}}
You have been mentioned at ]. X] (]) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
:Noted. We're in touch; thanks. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

== A pie for you! ==
{{FYI|Got it.}}
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Wow, you've gotten way too much bureaucracy and not enough fun here lately. Here's a pie as a reminder that this can also be a friendly place where people appreciate each other. Clearly we need to have more recreational, in-person social gatherings. If you're anywhere near Washington, DC, stop by our ] tomorrow! ] (]) 14:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
|}
:Thanks. I appreciate it. I am in the San Francisco Bay Area,though I used to live in DC back in the day. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 23:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

== ] of ] ==
{{Resolved|1=Responded to this frivolous nomination at TfD.}}
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> —]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

== ] of ] ==
{{Resolved|1=Responded to this frivolous nomination at TfD.}}
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> —]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

== Problem at the glossary ==
{{Resolved|1=Just a tech problem due to malformed frivolous TfD.}}
Coming here I was sorry to see your retirement notice. Will read more fully on your reasons. Came here though to tell you the glossary is completely broken right now. Maybe something affecting {{tl|defn}}, not sure. Could sure use your input.--] (]) 02:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
:Well after saving I saw the two posts above and immediately figured the nominator forgot to enclose the TfD template in noinclude tags, and lo and behold... Fixed now.--] (]) 02:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages's problem ==

Only occasionally do I run across parts of your massive body of good works, almost always off Misplaced Pages, but I want to say that I hold you in the very highest regard. I agree with you that there is an unhealthy intensification of rivalries on Misplaced Pages that dooms the project. However, I should take a moment to point out that this is ''inevitable'' based on a design flaw of the project from the beginning. The problem is that the creation of content and the control of the ensuing bandwidth are entangled. The result is that Misplaced Pages suffers a ]: as more and more content has been developed, and more and more bandwidth comes to the content, there is more and more financial and political advantage to be had from controlling it. There is, therefore, no way that the organization could ever have experienced a different fate than to be infiltrated and taken over by external interests with their own agendas. At the moment, it is possible that most of the players are still amateurs - I don't have any way to know - but it is a game of Survivor and the grand prize is enormous.

I know you are highly experienced with political activism, and knowledgeable of the technology: what we need is a way to shatter the control over what content people see when they look it up, back into the hands of the Internet as a whole with nobody in charge. We need the Misplaced Pages content to genuinely be mirrored over hundreds, thousands of sites - ''not'' spammers looking for quick traffic to low-grade copies, but a community of editors, just like the community of Misplaced Pages editors, but independent, free from any effort anyone can ever make to become admin over them. There was a project along that line at The Federated Wiki by the originator of the Wiki format,<sup></sup> though it had struck me as crude and with too much structuring of the content by the software. There are other Wikis right now all over the Internet. The question is: does anyone have the savvy to marshall these forces into a persuasive alternative to Misplaced Pages that can start to take over for it as it descends into its final throes? ] (]) 01:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:I agree with your first paragraph, not sure that the second is how I would approach it (short version: just because certain parties will {{em|try}} to control a centralized resource doesn't mean that it must necessarily be decenralized). But, I decline to make this my problem. Too much important shit (both objectively, societally important, and important in my life for personal reasons) is going on in real life for me to concern myself with WP much longer. Not as it stands today. I don't have the energy to try to make a competing/replacement system, and don't see that as necessary or even helpful, compared to fixing the existing one. I've resisted the POV-pusher and authoritarian takeover for years, and it's just not my job any more. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

== Bye ==
I'm logging off again. I don't need e-mail notifying me of this party or that saying good or bad things in response to my leaving. If someone tries to destroy something useful I worked extensively on, I wouldn't mind a heads-up, though. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 03:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

== ] of ] ==
{{Resolved|1=Since I was logged in for a loose end, I responded to this waste of TfD's time.}}
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 06:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

== DYK RfC ==
{{Disregard|1=I'm not actively editing except to tie up loose ends, resolve the ongoing dispute I've resigned over, or prevent people from undoing my work.}}
* As a listed ], you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage ], or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click . Thank you in advance. <span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]&#124;]</span></span>03:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 587 -->

==Category:Snooker venues==
{{Resolved|1=I'm not actively editing except to tie up loose ends, resolve the ongoing dispute I've resigned over, or prevent people from undoing my work. This qualifies as both the first and third of those.}}
This was a category you created that has recently been deleted. I realize you have retired from active editing, but I have initiated a deletion review at ] if you would care to participate. ] (]) 22:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

==Category:Snooker venues==
{{Resolved|1=Responded at CfD.}}
''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 06:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
:I love how people are coming out of the woodwork to attack ] and ] as soon as they think I'm not looking any longer. Preventing people from throwing away my work is one of the few things I'll log back in for. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 08:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
= New posts I may not have seen =

== Bug 6200 ==

MediaWiki 1.22/wmf13 will fix {{bug|6200}}. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' &nbsp;]'''''<sup>]</sup></span> 05:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

== Billiard Congress of America ==

Hey, I know you're not really here anymore and probably won't see this message but I was wondering if you could shed some light on whether {{cl|Billiard Congress of America}} should be kept or not. There is a discussion going on over
''']'''
and I notice you created the category but were not notified it was being put up for deletion. I felt I might notify you since this might be important to you. Take care. ''']]]''' 19:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
:It's still good to post here, since other editors do watch this talk page in order to keep an eye on maintaining contributions in his areas of interest. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 02:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::Not enough, evidently. I really don't edit here any more. I'm not playing some kind of ] game, and just taking a break; I really have resigned other than I'll comment here and there if I think it necessary. I don't touch articles or policy/process/project pages at all any longer, and haven't logged in for a couple of months until now. ''Other people are going to have to keep an eye on this stuff''. I only heard about this latest XfD via e-mail a month after the fact, and I've withdrawn enough I'm not sure I'll bother logging back into to argue any more anti-pool XfDs, even if I'm notified. It's not my "job" these days.
::But the articles and categories and templates within the scope of ] really are, quite obviously, under a programmatic attack campaign of XfDs. This one was deleted on the basis of just a couple of a !votes, using faulty logic and (way more importantly for the immediate future) declaring an active intent to CfD the BCA Hall of Fame category, despite that honor being probably the ''single greatest North American achievement possible to any pool or billiards player''. Its prestige trumps an enormous number of awards in other sports that have categories here. It's simply that cue sports are not as popular as football, hockey and baseball, so categories relating to them are being systematically killed off by people who think that notability is a popularity contest, by people who just don't like pool, snooker and billiards (there's a large camp of people who want to denigrate them as silly games instead of serious sports), people who for personal reasons are undoing as much of my work as they they can get away with, people who do little on WP but engage in obsessively destructive deletion campaigns, and people who mean well but do not know enough about the topic to know why certain articles, categories, etc., exist and should exist. I really love the assertion in that stupid CfD that BCA just couldn't ever have more than one article, when the article is already sectioned and templated in a way that clearly indicates that at least three other articles need to fork off of it, and I was actually in the slow process of writing them when I was hounded off the system by Sandstein and his cronies.
::As a matter of policy, by the way, the BCAPL (pool league) section ''must'' split off, because there is no longer a legal tie between the Billiard Congress of America and the BCA Pool League (BCAPL), who cannot call themselves the Billiard Congress of America Pool League any more, only use the acronym. We're not allowed to have two unrelated topics covered by the same article. The BCAPL and USAPL (which never was BCA-related in any way) material needs to be in an article about Cue Sports International (CSI), the company that operates both of these leagues. (BCA hired CSI to operate BCA's league, and that didn't go so well, and came to an end, but due to a sneaky contract, CSI retains the right to use BCA's initials in a league, and it's a profitable one so they won't let the name go, and BCA can't really do anything about it. I've had high-level discussions with BCA and ex-BCA people about this. Sourcing an article on that would be challenging, because very little if any detail on this has been published anywhere.)
::Anyway, any "successful" XfD like this which wasn't advertised at ], ] and ] for input from people who actually care about it and understand the topic, should be challenged at ] immediately. I refuse to volunteer my time to work on this encyclopedia unless and until some serious things change for the better here, but I still care that it be accurate, broad and well-structured, as a frequent reader and research user, former donor, and former long-term, top-400 editing contributor. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp;<span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ɖ<sup><big>⊝</big></sup>כ<sup>⊙</sup>þ </span> <small>]</small></font> 12:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

== Books and Bytes: The Misplaced Pages Library Newsletter ==

<div style="border: 0px #ADC2E4; margin: 1px; padding: 1em 2% 1em">
<center><big><big><big>''''']'''''</big>
<p>Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
<p>]
<p>by {{user|The Interior}}, {{user|Ocaasi}}</center>
<big>'''Greetings ] members!'''</big> Welcome to the inaugural edition of ''Books and Bytes'', TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of ''Books and Bytes'', please add your name to ]. There's lots of news this month for the Misplaced Pages Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
<p>'''New positions:''' Sign up to be a Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Misplaced Pages Librarian
<p>'''Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries:''' Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
<p>'''New subscription donations:''' Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
<p>'''New ideas:''' OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
<p>'''News from the library world:''' Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
<p>'''Announcing WikiProject Open:''' WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
<p>'''New ways to get involved:''' Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration<br>
<p><big>]</big><br><br>
''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be '''opt-in''' only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the ]. --] 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''
</div> </div>
<div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;">
<!-- EdwardsBot 0651 -->
* 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 ==
==Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest==
{{Resbox|Done|That one was actually already closed, but another was opened, so I responded in that one.}}
<!--]-->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)


== A barnstar for you ==
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the ], on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely <i>nine</i> edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I <i>will</i> credit links fixed by turning a ] page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the ], we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! ] ] 02:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
== GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive ==
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]

|rowspan="2" |
{| {{WP:WikiProject Good articles/Shell|introduction=Hello! A ] will begin in less than 4 days!<br/>
|style="font-size: large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Redirect Barnstar'''

|-
In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate '''per review'''. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.<br/>
|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!

At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.</br>

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the ]. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--] (]) 03:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC) }}
|}
<!-- EdwardsBot 0669 -->

== GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive ==

{| {{WP:WikiProject Good articles/Shell|introduction=Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the ] has begun and will end on December 31, 2013!<br/>

If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive!</br>

If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them ]--] (]) 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
}}|}
<!-- EdwardsBot 0671 -->

== The Misplaced Pages Library Survey ==

As a subscriber to one of ]'s programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this Thanks and cheers, ]<sup> ]&#124;]</sup> 15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0678 -->

== Notification of change to templates ==

This is to notify you that the templates ], ], ] and ], which all seem to have been created and edited almost exclusively by you, have been modified. In accordance with the deprecation of {{para|month}} they now no longer accept the ''month'' and ''year'' parameters. Use {{para|date}} instead. Please note that all articles that transclude these templates have been updated accordingly and now use the date parameter exclusively. ] (]) 05:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

== Great work ==

The work you did on ] was outstanding. I really hope you come back sometime soon. ] (]) 15:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks, but fat chance. The more disruptive parties in that editing space, who are here as a gang to force everyone in the world to do what their specialist journals do, no matter what, at all costs, are half of why I left. MOS:ORGANISMS obviously should be tweaked and labeled a guideline at this point (more like a year ago!), but it's not my job. If someone runs with that, I'll be glad to log back into and voice support for it (and against efforts to derail it), but I can't seriously consider devoting any more real time or energy to this project. I no longer have much faith in its long-term viability except as something that's an unholy chimera of propaganda machine for crafty social-engineering e-politicians, and a juvenile multiplayer game. I don't mean to imply that you must be juvenile or a propagandist to continue here, you just have to have have way more faith and time to gamble with against the propagandists and juveniles than I do.
:PS: Someone is already doing violence to MOS:ORGANISMS, e.g. deleting all reference to the term supragenus, which is a real taxonomical term in some fields and was very much included on purpose (cf. journal results from https://www.google.com/#q=%22supragenus%22 ). It's a case probably of someone assuming that because it's not used in their field it doesn't exist or shouldn't exist. I.e., it's PoV-pushing "my specialization is more important than yours" crap, as usual for this crowd. Those edits need to be reverted. So should addition of the link to ] by the usual suspects; the "See also" section there is not for activistic promotion of one particular organization's specialist publications, it's for links to other Misplaced Pages-internal resources. If the BotW thing is important enough to Misplaced Pages to mention in the guideline at all, it should be in the main text of it, in the proper context. That's dubious, because the consensus for over 5 years at WT:MOS has been that WP really doesn't care that most-not-all bird publications prefer to capitalize bird name, it's just not a typographical practice we're all comfortable with forcing on all readers and editors of this general-purpose encyclopedia. The camp that just will not let this go is trying to push that capitalization convention by explicitly linking to it in the guideline draft's "See also" section, as if it had official guideline imprimatur, which it does not and certainly would not after this is a guideline. &ndash; SMcCandlish 22:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

==Your two cents requested==
Would love to hear your opinion on how your essay (]) has been wielded as a hammer or a ] to compel MOS title capitlisation compliance on composition titles (MOS:CT) despite all the reliable sources indicating otherwise and contributing to ] mentality in such debates, see: ]. Please ping me when you respond.--] (]) 19:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

:It's not in userspace; if there's something wrong with a point that it raises, anyone can work to resolve that and improve it. The essay does not magically control how other people write and think. If someone is applying the logic in it fallaciously, call them on that fallacy.
:Most opposition to that essay (other than to its perhaps long-winded and somewhat aggressive writing style, both of which are things that others might want to moderate with some cleanup editing) comes from people who are advancing a patently SSF argument and engaging in the fallacy of special pleading - somehow their particular little WP-external consistency bugbear must be exempt from the WP-internal reasoning in WP:SSF. But it's not special, and it's not exempt. WP:SSF is not a policy or guideline (though by this point a guideline in more neutral wording can certainly be derived from it and integrated into MOS). It simply a collection of logical arguments. If someone disagrees with them, or with any of them, they're welcome to try a refutation. Every attempt I've seen so far has dismally failed. The "thought-termination" and "I didn't hear that" is happening from the other direction - people have already stopped thinking and arrive with an agenda to force their preconceived way, no matter what, when they attempt to impose here some encyclopedia-irrelevant stylistic quirk from specialist publications that don't do what the rest of the English-writing world does. Here, it does not serve our readers' needs, and they push for it so doggedly just because it's what they're familiar with and they think their specialization trumps other concerns.
:Keep in mind I actually am a specialist, of more than one kind, and am intimately familiar with jargon. I also have a degree in anthropology and communication. I didn't arrive at SSF because I'm some uneducated schlub who doesn't understand how jargon works and what purposes it serves. I'm actually {{em|deeply steeped}} in all of that. Because my specializations cross boundaries I have the hardly unique but contextually important perspective of someone who has seen how frequently the stylistic demands of one specialization conflict with those of a different specialty, leading to the obvious conclusion that we cannot pander to specialist style demands here or we inevitably have to play this-speciality-is-more-important-than-that-one favorites, a blatant violation of policy (at ] and elsewhere).
:Very early in the specific debate you highlight, SchreiberBike got it right:
:<blockquote>"I think the question might be: Who do we want to look slightly stupid to? The article and its title could match hundreds of years of usage, or it could match all the other works in Misplaced Pages. No one will have trouble identifying it either way. The people who are familiar with the work in partial caps might see it capitalized in our style and think that must be the way it is done in Misplaced Pages. Alternatively, people seeing the work in Purcell's idiosyncratic style would think there must be something different about this work from all the others in Misplaced Pages. I don't have strong feelings, but generally I favor following Misplaced Pages's style in Misplaced Pages. Many songs, bands, companies, etc. capitalize in odd ways and usually we follow our standard style. SchreiberBike talk 20:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)"</blockquote>
:Furthermore, the number of musicians and musicologists familiar with that composition is a tiny, tiny droplet in a very huge bucket of WP readers. Of those, the number who remember how it was originally capitalized &ndash; {{em|before English had capitalization standards}}, mind you &ndash; is even smaller. How many actual readers of Misplaced Pages? A few dozen? Of {{em|those}}, how many are so dense they cannot understand that WP, like most major publications, has a style guide that it follows which sometimes conflicts with other style guides and conventions? Probably zero. Also of that same group, how many have never encountered the work capitalized the way WP and nearly everyone else familiar with the English language would capitalize it? Again zero. Basic reasoning, therefore, suggests that the people raising hell about this are doing it for {{strong|precisely the reasons outlined and skewered at WP:SSF}}, need to rethink what their priorities are here, and basically need to stop abusing WP as a place to get into geeky, we're-more-special-than-you fights simply for the "joy" of arguing and wasting other people's time. Some of these people are a curse to the entire encyclopedia, and directly inspired other highly critical essays, including ] and ] (I can even tell you the specific individual from one of the biology projects who inspired the former).
:As ScheiberBike hints at but didn't spell out, there are other WP reasons to not capitalize that title weirdly against standard English conventions, such as the ] for the largest number of people, and the fact that we do not engage in weird typographic shenanigans to satisfy anyone expectations about what the "official name" of something is, nor to emulate artists' preferred style (e.g. a large number of modern pop song and album titles have "TiTleS CaPiTaLiZeD WeIrD" like that just for kicks, and WP {{em|emphatically does not}} honor those style choices, no matter how many music magazines/sites and other {{em|topically}}-reliable specialist publications do so. Bottom line: If if conflicts with what you'd normally find in a newspaper, another (non-specialist) encyclopedia/dictionary, or other totally generalist work, don't do it here. To the specialist editor raising hell about some typographical quirk here: Get the hell over yourself and your specialty's tiresome "preciousness". It's really quite simple.
:The only actual {{em|mis}}applications I've ever seen of WP:SSF are attempting to apply it to cases where specialist style does not actually conflict with normal, everyday English usage, or where the style conflict has nothing to do with specialists. For example, I've seen someone wrongly make an SSF argument against spacing initials in human names (J. R. R. Tolkien vs. J.R.R. Tolkien), on the basis that the unspaced version is actually more common, by a wide margin, even, and wrongly cite this essay in their argument. That's not an SSF concern, both because the spaced-apart style doesn't lead to any sort of cognitive dissonance for typical readers, and because (more pointedly) no one is defending the run-together style on the basis that their oh-so-damned-important specialty demands it that way, against the expectations of the rest of the human race.
:At this point, I don't really give a damn other than to clarify my own reasoning in that essay. WP is going to hell in a rocket-powered hand basket. I post occasional requests for corrections on some article talk pages (not under this username), because I need them {{em|as a reader}}, not editor, but that's it. I don't work here any longer (I don't even edit articles to fix typos), and never will until the ArbCom or the community more broadly reigns in the rampant, authoritarian, PoV-pushing admin abuse that is driving Misplaced Pages down the drain.
: &ndash; SMcCandlish, 21:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

==]==

Because you have edited ], your input is requested in the discussion at ]. Cheers! ] ] 14:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

== March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive ==

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

*This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Misplaced Pages Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
*Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
*The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
*An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.


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)
Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.
|}<!-- This is Template:The Redirect Barnstar. -->
:Thank you. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Next up ... BLPSPSs ==
More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the ]. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.


— 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)?
I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!


— 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?
--Dom497


— 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)?
--] (]) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Dom497@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Dom497/sandbox_2&oldid=596569396 -->


— Assuming that sources like the above count as acceptable, might I still be questioned by other editors if I use them?
== GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive ==


— 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)
The ] has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! <small>Sent by Dom497 on behalf of ] (]) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Dom497@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Dom497/sandbox_2&oldid=596569396 -->
== ] of ] ==
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 10:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
== Discretionary sanction notification ==
This is to notify you that the arbitration committee authorized ] for article titles and capitalization. 18:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:38, 12 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.

16 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:Ice hockey stats (request) 2025-01-01 18:53 Template-protected (log) Modified by Djsasso on 2017-11-07: "Highly visible template: On enough at this point that we should probably totally restrict it."
Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence (request) 2025-01-02 08:58 Template-protected (log) Modified by Mark Arsten on 2013-10-18: "Allowing Protected Template editors"
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:Unicode data (request) 2025-01-07 11:48 Template-protected (log) Protected by MusikAnimal on 2019-01-24: "High-risk Lua module"
User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist (request) 2025-01-11 20:57 Template-protected (log) From User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Blacklist: Modified by AmandaNP on 2016-02-12: "we are going to try letting template editors edit"
Template:Template category (request) 2025-01-12 09:30 Template-protected (log) Modified by MSGJ on 2014-06-03: "template protection should be adaquate"
Template:Infobox song (request) 2025-01-12 12:26 Template-protected (log) Modified by WOSlinker on 2013-10-19: "allow template editors to modify"
Template:Player2 (request) 2025-01-12 14:17 Template-protected (log) Modified by Bagumba on 2017-09-04: "Highly visible template"
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"
Template:Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar cat (request) 2025-01-12 16:28 Template-protected (log) Protected by BrownHairedGirl on 2019-01-08: "Highly visible template: Used in over 5000 category pages, which are wholly dependant on this template"
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:Chembox image cell (request) 2025-01-12 22:41 Template-protected (log) Protected by HJ Mitchell on 2014-03-27: "Highly visible template: requested at RfPP"
Template:Infobox drug/styles.css (request) 2025-01-13 00:34 Template-protected (log) Protected by MusikBot II on 2025-01-10: "High-risk template or module: 9862 transclusions (more info)"
Template:Infobox software (request) 2025-01-13 02:30 Template-protected (log) Modified by Mark Arsten on 2013-10-18: "Allowing Protected Template editors"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 02:31, 13 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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 10 January 2025

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

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: Augnablik (talk)

Mini-toolbox:

Articles for deletion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Other:

As of 2025-01-12 , SMcCandlish is Active.
I'll reply to your message within 24 hours if possible.

WikiStress level
Wikimood
The Signpost
The Signpost

The Signpost
2024-12-24
Volume 20, Issue 18

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 wikipedia 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)

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)

Categories: