User talk:Drcrazy102/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Please comment on Talk:Veganism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Veganism. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

REFORMWIKIPEDIA

Resolved

The shortcut REFORMWIKI is too vague. The word wiki has different meanings. I am working to fix some issues in my sandbox. No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a (Redacted) shortcut, it should be short per the name "shortcut". Hence I shortened it to "Wiki"; and since we are only on the English Wikipedia, and can only effect change on the English Wikipedia, the shortened version makes as much sense. There are going to be very few individuals who think "oh, they want to reform the wiki-markup coding language, and/or other Wiki-based sites" when the lead of the essay makes direct mention to reforming the English Wikipedia and it's practices. Also, "too vague" is too vague an argument, I'm gonna need something a bit more concrete. I kept the original redirect linked to the article but made a shorter version of the name, so I'm failing to see any actual problem except the colour of the bikeshed.

It's also good to hear that you have started userfying the essay considering the growing consensus at the MfD. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We can keep both shortcuts. I fixed it in my sandbox. I added a new 'page in a nutshell' sentence. The essay is better than I ever hoped for. QuackGuru (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Okay then QuackGuru (also, are those pinging you? Just curious), [derustles the rustled jimmies] but I have a question; could we change the structure a bit and have a "pro vs. con" area in each section? You say this is essay is to promote discussion, but at the moment, there isn't any discussion because the essay appears to lean very heavily to a particular POV without any actual area of organised discussion, nor anything to really discuss (in terms of a proposal). That could be cited to many comments, but I don't want to waste the time of day and will point to the talkpage and MfD. The sooner this becomes a "discussion" focus, rather than an immediate "proposal" focus, the better for the essay and your apparent aim. I'm happy to help with that and setting up a WikiProject, I just wanted to ask. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposals and WikiProject will work only after the experts set up a new organization. It is way too early. The essay is specifically for reform. I don't want the essay to turn into a debate about "pro vs. con". It was getting a bit long. I had to clean it up a bit. The community is not ready for experts. The essay is to promote discussion when experts are welcome. If you want to make a bold edit I suggest you could edit my sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm QuackGuru, you do actually realise that there is going to be a snowfall of "opposed consensus" to the proposal of introducing a "groups of experts" to subject areas? Especially as the proposal for them stands at the current moment. Ergo, the WikiProject is never going to work because it's never going to have any "experts set-up a new organisation" that won't be regarded as COI editors (at best) or off-site canvassers (at worst).

I'm not meaning to turn the essay into the discussion area, that would be for the WikiProject on separate sub-pages for each proposal – actual proposals, not sentiments – though it could act to create and incubate such proposals as well. The essay would be to list the main arguments for each side as a kind of "summary listing" along with the sentiments and current (& future) ideas in the essay. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

An argument that experts is a bad idea is a non-argument. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

An argument that sentences is a bad sentence is a non-sentence. EEng 03:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

When did you start watching me? I'm kinda honoured. Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Then you really must be crazy. EEng 04:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Weren't you already aware EEng from my userpage? See down near the appropriate section (not that you are attacking "per se", though you might need the FBDB shield put up). Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that experts and volunteers cannot work together to create a credible Wikipedia is nonsense. The RfC confirms people do not like experts or expert review. That is not the problem. The board can decide what happens in the future. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - @QuackGuru: please point to where I just said "experts [are] a bad idea" and "experts and volunteers cannot work together"? I said that the proposal, as it stands, would fail (as documented at the WP:Village pump (policy). I said that your vision of the WikiProject would not exist because the proposal would fail, ergo the Project would never start, hence vision would never become reality. I did not say having experts would be a bad idea, I did not say that experts and volunteers couldn't work together. i said that the current model/proposal that was put forward would be a bad idea – a very bad idea – since it would be endorsing a cabal outside of the bounds of a normal editor to intervene in, without severe backlash. The proposal would effectively create a social strata of;

1. "Open-cabal of Experts" →
2. "Admins" →
3. "Editors" →
4. "Banned Editors because they spoke out against the Experts"

That is going to be blocked by the vast majority of the Wikipedia community, though they may wish for experts to edit Wikipedia. If you would be flexible (and wise) enough to adopt a model closer to WP:GLAM with their "Wikipedians-in-Residence" model, the proposal might stand half-a-chance, instead of having this "off-site cabal of experts editing Wikipedia article content" proposal that is in direct and clear violation of key Wikipedia policies, guides and core values. To list some; WP:CANVAS, WP:COI, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NPOV's WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE, WP:RS's WP:SELFPUBlished sources section, "Wikipedia is the free-to-edit, free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit", etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Bearing this in mind, a major change to the proposal needs to be made or it is crazier than my moniker since "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" was defined as insanity by Albert Einstein. This change should be discussed, to gain new views that may help other areas of the proposal as well, and this should occur on the WikiProject so that there is a centralised location to the discussion that is relevant and won't disrupt the Village Pumps, other WikiProjects or Policy/Guide/Essay talkpages. So if you'd actually listen to some of the more moderate users (such as myself) you might make some headway.

Sincerely, 04:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

PS - The Board won't decide anything without gaining broad community support or it risks a mutiny after the recent scandals that it's pulled out. Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about the RfC which people stated they did not like expert review.

I caught editors intentionally adding OR over and over again. The only way to fix the problems is with expert review. The experts will only edit a limited number of topics.

The experts will only edit a small group of articles in the beginning. It is going to happen later this year or the beginning of next year. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's my response to this. This is what editors do not like about the proposed model of "expert review". You just don't seem to be listening to any feedback that myself or others are giving you. I'll look into starting the Reform project to start discussion about the proposals, ways to improve them and when to present them to the community. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There are no other proposals on the table to remove OR and address the other problems. A Reform project won't work until there is support from the board members. The community likes total chaos. The word "expert" will be met with a big backlash. The first step is support from the board to create a new organization. Then the experts will create a new Reform project. QuackGuru (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

First; Just because your's is currently the only proposal, doesn't mean it will work or be accepted. If I proposed to the US Congress that we should nuke North Korea and it was the only proposal they had, doesn't mean it would work or that it should be approved. Same scenario here. Just because Wikipedia has a proposal to reform some of it's areas, doesn't mean the proposals will work nor that they should be accepted and that is the Wikipedia Editing community's prerogative, not the WMF Board's. The Board deals in legalities, after the Community has decided to pursue something - often the community will approach the Board with an idea and say "hey, is this legally possible for us to do?" and then the Board will respond with a considered answer to the Community and it's proposal. You are mixing up the order here.

Second; WikiProjects doesn't need jack-shit from the WMF Board. It just needs active members and people committed to maintaining the WikiProject. So, NO, a Project will work without WMF Board "approval" (like they even GAF)

Third; The community like total chaos. = Largest example of WP:ABF that I have yet seen, simply because of the scale of what you assume bad faith of. So, no comment.

Fourth; it's about how you present something - you actually said in the proposal to the community (paraphrased) "it's going to be a cabal of editors that normal editors can't do anything to contradict/etc." - so of course editors are going to say "Oppose" to that proposal. It's against everything Wikipedia is about.

Fifth; the Experts can do whatever they want once they join Wikipedia, within community consensus - they can go edit all the pornography articles, they can go spam ANI or RSN or ArbCom with OR complaints, whatever. You know why? Because of the core ethos of "Wikipedia is for everyone to edit and to contribute to", so it's their choice. That's not chaos, that's freedom to edit as you damn well please. So they can make their own "Experts-only WikiProject" for all I care; doesn't mean anything until they get allowed to join Wikipedia as an organised "thing".

Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The community likes anarchy. Without firm rules and without the rules being enforced there will be chaos. I am interested in improving the essay. I am not interested in making any formal proposals until things change at the WMF. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page so that editors don't get confused the purpose of the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

First two sentences are clear POV, since who created the policies and guidelines that the community follows? The community created them, and for the most part follows them almost religiously. Third sentence, no worries, that is what I've been trying to do with you but as it stood it was not ready for Wikispace. For the fourth sentence of yours — If you want to change WMF, go get hired and work from the inside. Wikipedia Editors don't get to change anything about WMF except the contribute and edit the content that they so graciously host. If you want to propose something to the WMF, by all means go for it, but you might want to actually notify some of the relevant WMF staff that have accounts on EnWikipedia. Perhaps some of the legal team would be a good starting point since you are proposing a change that affects the legal protection enjoyed by Wikipedia in the US of A and hence the remainder of the EnWikipedia. This will be my last comment and I will do a CONTENTFORK of the essay to improve on and present for comments and discussion. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

On the articles I edit people often do not follow the rules. QuackGuru (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

On the articles I edit, the Pope could be put out of a job (along with Jesus, Muhammad, and Moses) by the Editors there following – and arguing over – the exact wording of the policies. So like I said above, it is POV-based to say "Wikipedians don't want to follow rules, they want anarchy". At any rate, they may be following what they believe to be "The Rule" and you may be following what you believe to be "The Rule" and so you all clash over what "The Rule" actually is and which should be applied. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You are assuming blind faith if you really think they are thinking they are following the rules. QuackGuru (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

An argument of faith is a non-argument. Also, you are assuming blind bad-faith if you think that "they" aren't following the rules. You could report them and have then sanctioned if they weren't following the rules. So your argument comes down to one of "but I think they are doing bad things". At any rate, this is neither the place to discuss this, nor do I wish to discuss this. Have a good one, good luck with your essay, bah-bye now. Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's 'cos you're an Aussie, mate. Everyone knows that we're super chill and only whack the bad-editors and can be trusted to not do anything massively disastrous. It was fun watching the discussion about the objection votes of "but he said he don't want the role only last year" turn into "oh wait, that means he's thought about this a lot → support".

In all chillness, good luck with the tools/mop/elevation and may the bad editors never vandalise your talkpage. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

PS, could you have a look – in a day or two after the congrats party has finished – at Mukti Bahini for me please? I'm doing a GOCE-requested c/e and just wanted to have a pair of eyes go over the article that is familiar with the Military MOS guides and to point out any that I've missed; you can let me know above section, #Mukti Bahini, or by throwing a rancid trout at me with a tag.

In all seriousness...

...if you really do help out at WP:DRN then my hats off to you. That's a thankless job. EEng 05:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't remind me while I've got a case open, EEng! It gets me all annoyed at them without them even doing anything. Though there are always the perks of going "nope, go and talk it out now kids, go on, shoo" ... good closes. At any rate, thank you for the sight of your crown. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the John Connally page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Rare

There is a minor consensus growing for ... Czar ... to stop overrunning the discussion
— 23:44, 8 February 2016

I don't think this invocation is fair—I had stepped away from the discussion for a week and only responded then to answer a single question directly related to the stats I had pulled. Despite being prodded otherwise, I had stopped responding specifically to avoid "overrunning the discussion" and I don't think I have been immoderate in that. I would appreciate if you would please reconsider and edit your comment. czar 01:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

• From the editors: Help wanted

• Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost

• In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board

• Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?

• News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge engine background

• Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration

• Traffic report: Bowled

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on This RFC

Hi, I see you've added yourself to the feedback request service. I'd be really glad if I could receive your valuable comments on the RFC linked above. Thank you! Rollingcontributor (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has now been closed. You may now remove this section. Thank you! Rollingcontributor (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please close This RfC

Hi, Doctor Crazy. A clear majority of six (including yourself) versus two would like to see this RfC closed once and for all. There is also a clear majority for the retention of the status quo, and hence zero consensus for any changes to be made. As you have stated that you are still rather uninvolved in the dispute itself, I would urge you to consider closing this RFC. Many thanks. Neve – selbert 22:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)