User talk:Mandruss/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Tech News: 2015-33

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• MediaWiki can now hide the signature button when you edit a content page. [1]
• The "Your preferences have been saved" message has changed. You can now see more easily what was saved when you change preferences several times. [2]
• You can now play Ogg video files in some browsers that don't support this format. This solution uses JavaScript and works on desktop browsers only for now. It will work on mobile later. [3]
• You can now use the same tools to edit style in VisualEditor on mobile as in desktop browsers. [4]
• It is now easier to see if there is a JavaScript error in a user or site script. [5]
• JavaScript authors:
  • You can no longer use the Sajax library. You can see a list of pages to fix. [6] [7]
  • You can no longer use document.write on Wikimedia wikis. You can see a list of pages to fix. [8] [9]
• The content translation tool now works better. It is easier to use math, and useless tags are no longer added. [10]

Problems

• More edits have been rejected due to loss of session data lately. This is now fixed. [11]
• Importing a Lua module sometimes didn't work. This is now fixed. [12]
• Text was sometimes lost in the content translation tool. One part of the problem is now fixed. [13]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 11. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from August 12. It will be on all Wikipedias from August 13 (calendar).
• UploadWizard is getting a new look. The look of buttons and checkboxes has already changed. This week, UploadWizard gets a new date picker. The other text fields will change soon. [14]
• You can now test VisualEditor on mobile devices of all sizes. [15]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on August 11 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Some things in the watchlist will get a new look. [16]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you here.

Hi Mandruss, just to let you know, I mentioned you here. Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Got your ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Our friend, Kim

Hi Mandruss. I'm curious about your perspective on the Kim Davis article. You have indicated opposition to including political comments, but you favor changing the article subject from a bio to an event. If the RM were to succeed and we end up with Kim Davis marriage license controversy, would you still want to keep political quotes and commentary out of that article? - MrX 14:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: Yes. I made that argument believing this was about the controversy, despite the current title. Either way, the statements are campaigning, entirely predictable and therefore not noteworthy, misleading to readers and a waste of their time. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification. - MrX 14:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article Christopher Wilder. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• You and I have been out of contact for ages. Why only me?
• Am I looking at anything in particular in that article? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User box

Once in a while, I just back off editing for a little and browse editor user pages. Tonight I arrived at yours, and found your custom user box. Now, I've long been in the habit of making use of what I find if it seems to fit. Something about your box told me I needed a copy (not quite the same something as for you, but something about keeping perspective), so consider your page officially raided. I just thought it might be polite to leave a notice, and a "thanks". Thanks! ;) Evensteven (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. —Charles Caleb Colton. You're welcome. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the sentiment. But still not caring much for flattery, I hope you'll see it as a sincere respect, and admiration for a nice little piece of ... whatever it is. However people see any particular things, I think how they see each other is a much higher value. Cheers. Evensteven (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it probably wasn't the aptest quote I could have cited, but it was the best I could do on short notice. ;) And I agree with your comments and appreciate them. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-38

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• You can now use the Wikidata query service. [17]
• Belarusian-Taraškievica Wikipedia was moved from be-x-old.wikipedia.org to be-tarask.wikipedia.org. This caused some issues, but most of them were resolved. [18]
• Language preferences might not be changed immediately when you adjust them. Language selection might work slower. Please report any problems. [19][20]

Problems

• There was a problem when editing International Standard Book Numbers in Visual Editor. This has now been fixed. [21]
• The Wikimedia mailing lists should have been upgraded on September 9. It didn't work as planned and will now happen later. [22]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 15. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 16. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 17 (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on September 15 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• ContentTranslation will show more data on the Special:ContentTranslationStats page. For example, it will show translation trends and information about deleted translations. [23]
• The first version of the translation suggestions feature will be deployed soon. [24]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nowrap

I noticed this edit and was wondering why. It's the first time I've seen it. What's the function? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Hi, it prevents a line break, in this case a line break between month and day. Same effect as nbsp, but I like this better because I think it's both easier to use and easier to read in edit mode. One might reasonably ask, why do we need to worry about a line break within the first few words of a paragraph, and the answer is that stuff gets moved around and it may not always be at the beginning of a paragraph. Easier to do it and be done with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah! Learned something new. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: citations

I saw a warning on Sandra opposed to terrorism's page advising against using bare URLs, so I took it as something that needed to be followed. My bad. Versus001 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-39

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• There is now an experimental Wikimedia maps service. You can give feedback here. [25][26]
• Last week a few issues with UploadWizard were fixed. Before this was done, UploadWizard would stop you from uploading your files if something went wrong. [27][28][29][30]
• More Wikipedias can now use information from any Wikidata item in any Wikipedia article. Previously they could only use the Wikidata item that matched the subject of the article. [31]
• The VisualEditor welcome dialogue has been changed. The intention is to make it more helpful for new users. [32]

Problems

• Wikimedia Labs' HTTPS certificate expired for most of Tuesday 15 September. To reach Wikimedia Labs and Tool Labs securely you had to ignore your browser's security error message. There was no risk to data security during this time. [33]
• Last week the notification system was split into two parts. This was temporarily undone because of a bug and performance concerns. It will return to two parts this week. [34][35]
• UploadWizard couldn't upload files larger than 5 MB when using chunked uploads. This has now been fixed. [36]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 22. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 23. It will be on all Wikipedias from September 24 (calendar).
• The page move tool has been switched over to the new standard look for forms. [37]
• You can now choose whether to extend a link or not when editing one in VisualEditor. This means it is easier to choose how much of what you type before and after the link is part of it. [38]
• Wikibooks can now use data from Wikidata. [39]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on 22 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join a meeting with the Wikidata team. It will be on September 23 at 17:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can register to the Wikimedia Developer Summit 2016 in San Francisco 4–6 January 2016. Gadget, template, bot, and tool developers are welcome as well. Call for participation and travel sponsorship requests are open until 2 October.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-40

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• In UploadWizard, the dialog to see an image preview has been removed. You already see the images in the thumbnails when you upload them. [40]
• UploadWizard dialogs look a bit different now. They have been updated to the new OOUI look. [41]
• You can now edit music scores in VisualEditor. You can add new sheet music scores and get live updates when you edit one. [42]
• When you send an e-mail to another editor using Special:EmailUser, that user will now get a notification on the wiki as well. [43]
• You can now see 500 images when you upload images from Flickr with UploadWizard. Before this change the limit was 50. [44]
• The Wikimedia mailing lists have been upgraded. [45]
• MediaWiki developers spent a day looking at proposed code changes in Gerrit. The goal was to clean up the backlog and give feedback to volunteer developers. [46]

Problems

• Some visitors had problems reaching the Wikimedia sites for an hour on September 24. [47][48]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from September 29. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from September 30. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 1 (calendar).
• There will be a new beta feature that allows editors to use Flow on their user talkpage if they want to. Each wiki can decide if they want to enable it. [49]
• The Content Translation tool can give translation suggestions. This feature will now be available in more languages: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, Japanese, Italian, and Catalan. [50]

Meetings

• You can join the strategy process of the Reading department of Wikimedia Engineering. [51]
• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on 29 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Foundation developers want the community to decide who can use OAuth in the future. You can discuss it on Meta.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Firefox for mobile

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Firefox for mobile. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

"the most deadly such shooting ..."

You do get what I was trying to do there, right? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: Apparently not! ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hehe trying to avoid potential COPYVIO issues by re-phrasing. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's neither close enough nor long enough to risk COPYVIO. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Would've been my guess, but I tend to err caution-side. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 06:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on article size

You previously commented at Talk:Washington_Redskins_name_controversy/Archive_1#Article_size.

Please see Talk:Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Article_is_way_way_way_too_big.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Edit-warring

I started a thread on the talk page this time, right before you messaged me. Don't worry, I got the message. But it doesn't appear the other user has noticed. Versus001 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that, thank you. Earlier next time and we're golden. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Versus001 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-41

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The link editor in the visual editor now shows results below the search box. This improves the usability on desktop and mobile. [52]
• The description at Special:ChangeEmail now clearly explains that the page can also be used to remove your email. [53]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 6. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 7. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 8 (calendar).
• UploadWizard will remind users to add a category. [54]
• UploadWizard's category selectors will be easier to use. [55]
• A new Cite error will be shown if a named reference is defined more than once in the same article. [56]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on 6 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Wikidata requests your input on how to improve the editing of Wikidata's data in other locations, such as Wikipedias.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ellipses

Rather than revert you, I refer you to Function and implementation point 3b, which specifically says to not do that ("to keep the ellipsis from wrapping to the next line ("France, Germany, ... and Belgium", not "France, Germany, ... and Belgium")" [emphasis mine]). Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: Sorry, I don't follow. Are we talking about the space on each side, or the use of nbsp for the first one? I'll assume the latter for now, and as I read it that's what the guideline says to do. Otherwise a line could begin with the ellipsis. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The former—and now I have to apologize for being an idiot, because I somehow saw what I was pointing out and, upon checking again, I see you did no such thing. If you have a trout handy, feel free. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hehe. I love it when the brain fart isn't mine! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Shooter photo

Why moving it out of the article? WP:NFCC#9 says it belongs to article namespace. By the way, I removed it from talk page without knowing that the image was moved. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: It's disputed content, disputed content stays out until consensus is reached to include it. If NFCC#9 precludes having it in the RfC, then so be it. But it should allow a link to it in the RfC, as File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I can't reinsert it again due to WP:3RR, I hope you can undo the removal. Disputed or not, since neither WP:IUP nor WP:NFC mentions removal during dispute, the image should be reinserted. George Ho (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That way, it'll prompt readers into discussing the image at talk page. George Ho (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: The principle applies to all edits, so of course there is no need to refer to it on those pages. It should apply doubly in a case like this, since the RfC is likely to run for quite awhile and the purported damage of having the image in the article would be occurring for that period. Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to do this, and, unless you can provide a better argument than you have so far, I would probably revert any later attempts by you to re-insert it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The dispute has affected editors' ability to omit or insert the photo. I would hope that people would leave the photo alone. Now that the photo is tagged as "orphaned", I was gonna ask Richard27182 to reinsert the image, but I guess I'll request your reconsiderations to see how harmless reinserting the image is. Edit warring is harmful, however. I would hope for truce, but your "truce" would different from mine. George Ho (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

oregon shooting

Why no mention that his mother was African American? The article mentions numerous times about his father being from england and that he was english. I don't understand that logic Crunkus (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Crunkus: Hi, I neglected to mention that we decided to mention the ethnicities of both parents in a footnote. It is footnote [b] following the words "mixed race", which you should be able to locate using your browser's Find function. The talk page discussion about this has been archived here. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back with me. Why does that have to be included in a footnote? Why not just mention it in the article itself? If relatives and friends have confirmed and said she was black, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. I won't add it unless you agree with it though. Thanks again for responding. Crunkus (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Crunkus: Race is one of several hot-button issues that need to be treated carefully. Most editors feel race should be mentioned only when the preponderance of coverage in reliable published sources has given it actual relevance to the subject of the article (as opposed to simply mentioning it in passing). This happened in Shooting of Michael Brown, for example, but it has not happened in the Umpqua case. One or two editors felt it should be included, others felt it should be omitted completely, and the footnote was a compromise between them. See the above-linked discussion for more information and better insight.
The status quo has consensus, so you can't change this without changing the consensus first. That would be done on the article's talk page, but I doubt you would have any luck. I for one would be there opposing you. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, will leave it as is then. I seen what I asked for on certain others wiki page articles that are similar and wasn't sure why the inconsistency. Thanks again fro taking the time to reply. Crunkus (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The race of the shooter's parents seemed notable since he was referred to as having white supremacist leanings, and if that is correct, it would reflect on his mental status. It would seem particularly pertinent since he apparently may have been entirely dependent on his mother for the past ten years or so, save for the five weeks he was in the army. He was an immensely conflicted individual, it appears. I wasn't part of the discussion as to include or not to include their ethnicities. I've appreciated your input on this article. Activist (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but I'm sure you know this isn't the place. Thanks for the appreciation, which is mutual. We need more cool heads. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-42

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The database size lists have been updated. These control special page update frequency and which wikis use global abuse filters. [57]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from October 13. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 14. It will be on all Wikipedias from October 15 (calendar).
• You will be able to upload images to Wikimedia Commons using the visual editor. When the image is uploaded it will be added to the article you're editing. [58]
• Pages that show citation error messages will automatically be placed in a hidden category. [59]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 13 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Quick Inform - SPI discussion

Hello Mandruss, I just start the sockpuppet investigation on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Versus001, can you please look into this SPI? Thanks!--Infinite0694 (Talk) 03:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This might be relevant. Similar circles and whatnot. Good cop, bad cop? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

ADD prevented me from reading and absorbing all that.
I guess one knows they're significant when they start being discussed off-wiki. If it ever happens to me, I won't bother responding, I have enough to worry about right here. If people want to criticize me within a system that includes the possibility of BOOMERANG, I'm happy to respond, of course. Without that, an accuser has zero accountability, and they talk about corruption. I wouldn't validate that with a response.
I still don't get how anyone could concoct those two very different personas, with consistently different writing skills, intelligence levels, personalities, willingnesses to collaborate, etc, etc. Versus had an almost obsessive preoccupation with inter-article consistency on minor details, and repeatedly went on "mass change" forays to create that consistency. WS showed no such inclination. Versus got his feelings hurt and retired when I was overly harsh with him in article talk, WS kept his cool during an extended and heated debate with me about the section redirects. I remain astounded by all this, and I'm staying out of sockpuppet issues from here on out since I clearly can't trust my own judgment on these things.
And I still want to know how Checkuser can know these weren't two people at the same IP address. Maybe they were able to determine that it was either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and the response is the same; block both. In that case, the name SPI is somewhat misleading. And the moral for two people editing in the same household: edit different articles and even different subject areas. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it's a bit weird. I just stumbled across that Reddit post a few days ago, innocently Googling myself.

As a pro wrestling fan, I've seen guys turn from Samoan savages to inner-city activists to masked Sultans to dancing asses. Nothing phases me, as far as alter egos go. Rest assured, though, I've only ever been Hulk. I think you've always been Mandruss?

Anyway, if it was all a misunderstanding, it can only become a learning experience, right? I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes, too. Have no idea how checkusers work. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've always been Mandruss, except for the period before I got serious about this, and one interval of a few days where I didn't want to log in (can't remember why). As for where this goes, it's already gone there. Versus001, Warner Sun, and the puppetmaster DisuseKid are all indeffed per this SPI. Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's what they thought about Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter. They were wrong. Seriously though, maybe it is over now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

• When I saw that WS had reverted a number of my edits that were, I thought, pertinent and properly sourced, I looked at that editor's activity. What I'd gotten from the NYT and LAT appeared to be well sourced regarding CHM's background and behavioral problems. I've run into presumably paid editors/reputation "defenders," before, and wondered if the gun lobby was having an editor remove details about issues that might be politicized regarding background checks, etc. I also suspected sock puppetry, since WS seemed to me to be unusually proficient and active for a "new" (Oct 5) editor. So I looked more closely at WS's edits and noticed that they seemed to be almost entirely focused upon high profile and/or mass shootings, save for some obscure films and anime. Then, I looked at the history of a number of articles where WS posted, to see if some other editor(s) had significantly overlapping prior interests. I thought I might find one blocked, and "reborn" as WS. I found about half a dozen other editors who seemed similarly consumed, even obsessed with mass shootings. (Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Sikh Temple, Ft. Hood, VA Tech, etc.) I noticed further that a number of those editors had Japanese IPNs. Also,"Vs1" and "DzuzKd" stood out. At that point, I chucked my notes into the vast pile of crap on my desk, as I thought it would be unlikely that the gun lobby would reach out to Japanese paid editors. I also couldn't care less about truly neutral editors, even if they are sock puppets, though their motivation might mystify me. I have in the past nine plus years here run on to extremely determined and contentious editors who seemed to me to obviously be paid editors, for whom I thought I could arguably assemble a client list. Some were blocked often, but did not change their behavior and knew how to work the Wikipedia system. Most were posting only on articles that covered active political campaigns, usually for candidates in competitive and expensive races, and/or a few issues, posting positive copy for their or their usually unidentifiable employer's presumptive clients, and likewise scrubbing negative text. The behavior reversed regarding articles about their presumed clients' opponents. I became very frustrated in trying to deal with that behavior, in particular because the majority of persistent and neutral editors posting on those pages, who might otherwise be supportive in the effort, seemed to cling to the naive notion that all edits are made in "good faith," when such is obviously not the case for a very small minority of editors. I don't and have not had the time, energy or interest to fight with the apparent shills, given that lack of what I felt was community support. I did give a little grief to a few editors who could conclusively be identified and shown to have a COI, especially because they were corporate or organizational employees. I'm not an intense editor, and have only averaged about 250 edits a year, though they've been higher than average in the past few years. I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Feel free to erase or archive these comments, of course. You can post a response to my TALK page, if you have time. Activist (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Activist: I prefer to keep a conversation together, and it's not clear whether you have a preference otherwise; so I'll respond here.
Paragraphs help a lot with long posts, especially for folks with attention problems. For the easiest way, see the wikitext for this post.
If you implied bad behavior on an article talk page, they were quite correct to cite WP:AGF and ask you to stop. Article talk pages are not part of the system for dealing with bad faith behavior. This post was inappropriate, although the suspicions apparently turned out to be correct, which is why I removed it. The person should have skipped the accusation in article talk, gathered his SPI evidence, and gone directly to WP:SPI without passing Go.
I don't and have not had the time, energy or interest to fight with the apparent shills, given that lack of what I felt was community support. Me either. I'm not here to be a Wikidetective, any more than I feel compelled to conduct Internet fraud investigations. The way things are going, I think WMF will be forced to provide people doing that full time. I'm not sure whether they would need to pay them or whether they could get enough volunteers. In any case, although a few choose to do so, we're not here to ferret out the socks and the meats. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:C/1980 E1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:C/1980 E1. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Tech News is trying to make reading the newsletter easier. The icon means the item is in the newsletter every week, but with new dates. The icon means the item is mainly relevant for readers with technical knowledge. You can leave feedback on this change.
• Timestamps in the protection log will now be in the user's timezone. Previously they would show Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). [60]

Problems

• A problem with MediaWiki made some pages show no content on October 14. This has now been fixed. [61]
• Some templates were misplaced in the Flow description bar. This could make it impossible to click on links. This will be fixed this week. [62]
• The deployment of the new MediaWiki version was stopped on October 14. No new code was deployed for the rest of week. This meant planned changes did not happen. [63]

Changes this week

• Changes that were planned to happen last week will happen this week. [64]
• Wikispecies, Meta and MediaWiki.org will be able to use Wikidata for sitelinks. [65][66][67][68]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 20 October at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you leave an edit summary saying that I was edit warring?

Why did you accuse me of edit warring, in an edit summary no less? One revert is not edit warring.- MrX 00:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Mrx - Sorry for the delayed response, I did not see this until now. My understanding of edit warring is that the war exists after a couple of reverts of the same content, regardless of how many editors are involved, and regardless of how many reverts are done by each involved editor. Thus, the war existed when you arrived, and you joined it. If I'm wrong here, I've been refraining from a lot of reverts unnecessarily for years. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: - Fix ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is wrong, and it's part of the battleground mentality that is so detrimental to the project. It's the same faulty reasoning that an admin used to block me more than a year ago; a block that was overturned by the community. The admin, as arrogant and unapologetic as they come, retired shortly thereafter, right before being desysoped.

Any editor can revert an edit. It's the unrestrained reverting back and forth that is disruptive. You had no business using an edit summary to discredit my editing in the way that you did, and now that you have breached 3RR, I hope you will reflect of just how wrong you were to do so. - MrX 03:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If in fact I was wrong, it was not battleground mentality, it was just a good-faith failure to understand the precise meaning of "edit war". By your definition, 20 editors doing one revert each (of the same content) is not an edit war, since they each only reverted once; by the definition I've gone by for two years, it is. If I was wrong, I apologize. I'm working on perfection, but I'm not there yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're both right, in a way. Yes, there was an edit war on Shooting of Samuel DuBose and MrX did join that war instead of, for example, discussing it on the talk page. However there would be no question of a sanction for just one revert and I don't think it would be fair to level an accusation of edit-warring at MrX personally. The advice at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR seems helpful here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ownership

Thanks for your note. WP:OWN. Be careful to avoid the tendency towards ownership. Being quick to delete sourced material that doesn't meet your personal standards is one of the signs. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. Since I doubt you're going to take my word for it, I'd suggest you check out dispute resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You wrote, " While the first revert (mine in this case) is routine process, re-reverting is the start of an edit war, which violates Wikipedia policy and can result in sanctions.". Where do we stand now that you've made two reverts? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

My first revert was routine process per WP:BRD. All subsequents have been one of the following: Attempts to remove the article from its status quo ante, the proper state until consensus is reached for a disputed edit, or (2) attempts to return it to that proper state. Not all reverts are created equal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So it's OK to edit war if it's to return an article to the status quo ante? How do we decide how far back that goes? Is it OK for me to revert back to an older version multiple times if I object to some changes since then? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It goes back to the state that was in effect for a certain amount of time. There's no widespread agreement on the specific amount of time, but almost everyone would agree that half an hour is not nearly enough time. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So it's cool if I revert your next few changes until you've satisfied me that they're up to my standards. Interesting. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

These are not my standards, they are community standards. I'm done trying to reason with you, please stay off my talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm only posting here because you posted on my page first. Also, you posted a link to dispute resolution. Discussion is right at the top. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party.I'm sorry you don't wish to resolve this dispute. Regarding edit warring - I don't see anything in there about this situation. It's not listed in the exemptions. I won't post here again, now that you've explained your idiosyncratic view of WP:3RR. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, you clearly don't have a lot of Wikipedia experience. You cannot post on a user's talk page after they have asked you not to. You had not asked me not to. If you squint your eyes and try really really hard, can you grasp the difference? STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You asked me to stay off your page, and then you go post to mine? Weird. Anyway, I'm required to post this:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked a question over there. Please can you review it at your early convenience? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Shooting of Samuel DuBose. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If in fact 3RR is all that matters, why ask me for further comment? What comment would have prevented this block? As I said, I have many times seen other admins look at context before blocking, avoiding the rigid application of rules. I have also brought up the 3RR issue at WP:VPP and was told that it depends on the circumstances. It now appears that 3RR is a bright line some of the time, depending on which admin happens to show up.
This was far more than content dispute, it was about experience and good faith vs incompetence and bad faith. But lesson learned, the good guys don't always win and caring sometimes has a price. If I decide to continue editing Wikipedia, I will train myself to simply walk away from situations like this and let someone else worry about the state of the article. If I'm unable to do that, it will be time to retire. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not really such a big deal and certainly not worth retiring over, but of course that's your choice. You have a great many contributions here and I'm sure they are valued. I asked the question to make sure I hadn't missed anything important; for example there are a few exemptions which editors sometimes try to use. But I realised that I had not missed anything and it was a straightforward violation of 3RR. Yes, I'm sure some admins exercise their judgement in different ways and some may be more lenient than others. But you did exceed three reverts and this block is within policy. I suppose if you had demonstrated that the violation was accidental (perhaps self-reverted) or shown that you knew you were in the wrong then it might have made a difference. But instead you persisted with a defence of your actions along with accusations of bad faith of the other editor, so I judged that the block was appropriate. Characterising the dispute in terms of good guys and bad guys is really unhelpful. Anyway, see you round and don't forget that last box on your userpage ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I came here to edit Wikipedia, not to spend my time building and defending legal cases at WP:ANI, and not to walk away from situations like the one I found myself in last night. I stand by my accusations of bad faith with this editor. They are clearly not a stupid person, and they do not appear to have a reading disability, they chose to repeatedly ignore points made and disregard attempts to help them understand. That is not good faith where I come from.
This is the first block of my 2.5 years here. Yes, it really is "such a big deal". (In contrast, after you unblocked them early, the other editor simply switched IP addresses and started over with a clean block log.[69] So it's not such a big deal for them.)
By the way, this is the kind of thing being encouraged and reinforced by your actions in this matter, while I get the first block of my career for exceeding 3RR by one (1), with a revert of a clearly POINTy and disruptive edit. Yeah, we need more of that.
I've been thinking about this continuously and at this point I think retirement is the best path for me, per that last box on my userpage. I can't continue to have my hands largely tied when it comes to dealing with aggressively incompetent editors; I'm simply not made that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This block is ridiculous. Here we have an excellent editor being blocked for what exactly? Please unblock. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ Please reconsider. Check page history and see the disruption the 3RR reporter was creating in that page. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ—Notice the variety IP addresses participating at RfC: Should the article mention that the firearm used in the shooting is a SIG Sauer P320? I suspect that one person is using more than one IP address. They have nothing to lose because their IP addresses are essentially disposable. Bus stop (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

First, my 24-hour block is long expired, so an unblock is not possible. I don't know whether it's possible to expunge a block log entry, or to add something to prevent the damage to one's reputation. I'm guessing probably not, so that damage is done since no action was taken before the block expired. I would have appealed the block, but (1) I had little confidence an appeal would be successful, and (2) I've seen my share of editors abuse the right of appeal in a disruptive way.
Virtually everything has a downside, and I fully understand the downside of blurring the 3RR line. It means an admin has to evaluate the context of every case, and who has the time? Every good thing can be turned around and abused by shrewd, cynical, bad-faith editors. It's what we call gaming the system, and it happens routinely at Wikipedia.
I could accept what I see as a bad block on my record. The reason I have decided to back away from Wikipedia is because of the larger, ongoing problem typified by this block, the overtolerance of aggressively incompetent, chronically disruptive editors. The available remedies require a huge amount of time and effort, cause a significant amount of stress, and usually result in a slap on the wrist for the offender if anything at all. So, were I to continue here, my choices would be to allow articles and article talk pages to be overrun by the disruptive editors, or to receive more blocks until I'm indeffed. Neither choice is acceptable to me.
The system is badly broken, there does not appear to be any community will to change it, and this is not something I can continue to live with. I leave with much regret, but without assigning blame to any specific person or persons. It's just a poor fit and this is a no-fault divorce. Good luck to all. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• IPs should be restricted. IPs have no "reputation" to lose. I have in the past argued in support of allowing unregistered users to edit, but there should be restrictions. Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose is unfairly influenced by lots of IP numbers. Mandruss merely reverted persistent IP numbers. Bus stop (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I hope you re-consider your decision. Take the block as a badge of honor, street creed if you wish, but come back and continue to do the excellent work you have been doing. Be well, and hope to see you around soon. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• I hope you reconsider as well. I know having a clean block log sullied is a big deal and I'm sorry that happened to you. But in the grand scheme of things, no one is going to think less of you because of this. Everyone understands that it happens and it's not going to effect your good standing in any way. Please don't give up over this. Swarm ♠ 05:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Mandruss—I hope you change your mind and edit some more. It was a pleasure having you around. Bus stop (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Project Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26

The image of the perpetrator is nominated as FFD. I invite you for commentary. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing your participation

Hope you come back soon. Happy Thanksgiving! - Cwobeel (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, you are being mentioned at User talk:Bbb23#Requesting advice. Perhaps a note on your userpage to note your alternative account might be advisable? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Two weeks ago I removed the "indefinite wikibreak" template and noted in this page's history that I am editing logged out for the time being. I have no alternate account. As you noted, there is no violation of anything here. As far as I'm aware, registered editors are allowed to edit logged out without even declaring that they are doing so, let alone publicly announcing their IP address on their account's user page.
WV has a long history of mean-spirited, malicious, combative behavior combined with a hypocritical propensity for correcting others for their transgressions (e.g., note his template warning below). I called him on that yesterday at Talk:Umpqua_Community_College_shooting#Discussion, and his motives on Bbb23's talk page are clear enough to me. As long as WV is the only editor finding fault with my current editing, I see no reason to explicitly state my current IP address. Let me know if I'm missing something I should know.
By the way, that 24-hour block that you deemed "not a big deal"? Note how it's being used by WV as a weapon against me. I wouldn't call that not a big deal, and this is why I objected to the block as strongly as I did. That will forever be there for people like WV to use as a weapon. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that I saw the recent addition/removal of the IP address on your userpage, and have since suppressed the edit. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I hadn't seen that edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You recent change on mass shootings

I want you to understand that I had to undo the change you made in mass shootings. Wikipedia policy requires information that comes from every side of the political debate in an effort to give readers an even choice on which information to trust. You recent change removed the criticism that Shooting Tracker has received. If we are going to include the statistics that Shooting Tracker has to offer it is only fare that we include the criticism that the site has received to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. The definition of a mass shooting varies upon the many sources the media has been touching upon. As part of Wikipedia policy it is important to use a variety of sources to open peoples minds when research. This isn't about political bias as you've mentioned during your change. It's about acreating a balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs)

No idea what you're talking about. I objected to the addition of content about ISIL in the lead, per WP:DUE, which appeared to be politically motivated coming so soon after November 2015 Paris attacks and 2015 San Bernardino shooting. My removal had nothing to do with anything called Shooting Tracker. Perhaps you've got the wrong guy. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:John F. Kennedy Jr

You reverted my edit when I added a comma to John F. Kennedy Jr's name to make it John F. Kennedy,Jr. Every other person on WP who is a Jr has a comma after their surname and before Jr. I just changed it on JFK Jr's WP page to make it consistent. You said it needs to be consistent with the title. Well then somebody should change the title. Check it out, every other public person who has Jr as a post-nominal has a comma between their surname and Jr. NapoleonX (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The applicable guideline is WP:JR, please read it. The no-comma form is used in John F. Kennedy Jr. and John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash and should be kept consistent within those two articles. There is no requirement for consistency across all Wikipedia articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring on 2015 Colorado Springs shooting

I am happy to request comments, but don't know how to do so. I thought it was clear given the discussion on the Talk page that there was no reasonable substantive argument, I thought that edits by other users supported the idea that mine was the consensus position, and I thought the limit was three, and that thus I was short of it. I see a fringe position being enforced by a single user citing non-reliable sources (and misrepresenting what the sources say) in an attempt to justify it. And I don't know the appropriate remedy. I am open to suggestion. Inonit (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Inonit: You may have mistaken my comment in that discussion as support. It began with the word "If", and that question remains without consensus. The only other party to the discussion left nothing but a little one-liner. Even if you count them, that's only 2-to-1. In my opinion, 2-to-1 is not enough to claim a consensus except for trivial matters. If you see yourself stalemated with GBRV, you have three choices as I see it: (1) Let it go, or (2) Sit back and wait and hope for more participation in that discussion, or (3) Open an RfC on the question, carefully following the instructions at WP:RFC (which I also linked in my comments on your talk page). Starting an RfC is a skill you'll need soon anyway, if you stick around much longer.
That's the short answer. The longer and more complete answer is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't take your comment as supportive, but I took it as conditionally supportive. I think what I mistook is that in response to your criterion -- RS agreement -- I asked for reliable sources supporting the alternative, and instead got one reliable source that said the opposite, and two unreliable sources (one of which is from a site blocked by Wikipedia's spam filter, and the other which relied on police scanner traffic, and even that one didn't support the position). So I thought it was clear there was agreement among reliable sources, given that the leading proponent of the opposing position could not produce any supporting that position, even if there is not agreement among all Wikipedia users. Inonit (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Inonit: Understood. But proving you're right (in your opinion) is not the same as reaching a consensus that you're right. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Also understood. I thought (think!) it was pretty plain and pretty obvious, but I will accept that absent explicit support from others, it's not demonstrable consensus. Consensus is a tough requirement on a topic so polarized that it's likelier that one side, the other, or both will ignore inconvenient facts, and I'm not an experienced enough Wikipedian to know how that's typically dealt with. But I'll hang in there and try to be constructive. Inonit (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Inonit: Thanks. That's a great approach and all too rare. Wikipedia isn't called the rabbit hole (or worse) for nothing. By the way, I looked again at Parsley Man's comment and it was about the choice between "near and at" and "outside and inside", not about this question. So it's really 1-to-1, not 2-to-1. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Design borders

Hello Mandruss, Maybe you know how to make the walls of all sorts which holds letters? --Lukaslt13 —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, where to you for signature example where Wikipedia: Signature tutorial "where exterior styling. How to change it? P.s Sorry, I'm learn an a medium English language :) --Lukaslt13 talkLukaslt13Lukaslt13 talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't know what you mean.
It looks like you already found WP:Signature tutorial.
To change your signature, click "Preferences" at the top of any Wikipedia page while you are logged in.
If this does not help, you can use Google Translate to translate to English, then copy-and-paste the English into a comment.
Why do you think I can help you better than the Teahouse? ―Mandruss ☎ 17:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you …

Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2016!!!

Hello Mandruss, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this holiday season. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user happy holidays and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for New Year 2016. Happy editing, - Cwobeel (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: Thank you very much and the same to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

	Good Holidays for you!
	I wish you very well to celebrate the holidays. L.ukas_lt_13_--Talk 19:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Séralini affair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Block warning

The behaviour of both of you at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk is unacceptable. If any of this continues, I'll block both of you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Accepted. However, I will take the other party to ANI before I allow them to remove legitimate comments that are critical of them, from a very experienced editor, making up rules to justify the removal. The best thing you could do for the situation is to step in. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So be it. Inset comments about me into a closed discussion? Is that how you feel things should work? ANI it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI it isn't, unless you remove the critical comments again. You had a right to respond to the comments, which you have done, and I'm more than happy to leave it there. You could have responded inside the hat for all I care, I've seen that done from time to time when the situation calls for it, without objection. But if you're going to assert a hard rule on this, it needs to be a hard rule in writing, especially in a situation like this where you are directly involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that earlier. Thanks but I can't support any of the choices on the table. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Underscores

Hi Mandruss. My Blackberry Bold 9900 relies on underscores in long links as it converts spaces in long links such as in this ce to periods and that kills the long link. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. At the same time, I've seen experienced editors excoriate the underscores, although they didn't say why. Could be just a matter of appearance for them. Sounds like a good topic for WP:VPM.
But in that particular case, I left the underscores in the link but removed them from the visible link text (which I deliberately made to look like the link that it represents, for informational purposes). Note, it was an external link, not a wikilink. The link should still be functional for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. My bad. I did not see the space after the long link, but did just now on a double check. Yes: Removing the underscores is protocol after the space, just like you did. Sorry. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to conform to any "protocol" I see in a guideline. Heck, I would even abide by a consensus at WP:VPM. Sorry but I won't just take any individual's word for this or anything else. That's my protocol. So, unless you show me a guideline or raise this at VPM and win a consensus, I may very possibly remove underscores from a wikilink. If I create a wikilink by copying the page title, as I sometimes do, there are no underscores to remove anyway; there are spaces in those positions to begin with. Best,―Mandruss ☎ 12:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, years ago I read on a guideline page that the Wiki software is less apt to get confused if the underscores are removed where possible. And if they are already gone, even better. Underscores can be removed from anything inside double brackets (and including image links). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I just my take you up on your offer. Fxmastermind (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

NP! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Read your edit backwards... font is right there. My apologies. PaleAqua (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Guess you'll think twice before correcting ME again! :D No problem! ―Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem like I won't make a mistake on the third try. :) PaleAqua (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

edit requests

Hi, I undid your deletion of edit requests, because I am working on [70] a post for AN, and I think the number of edit requests we get at the talk page will be useful information for people to have. If you'd like to comment or participate in my planned post, I'd welcome your contribution. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@SemanticMantis: I saw your editsum and have no problem with the revert.
As for the rest, I've largely stayed out of that because I can't get my head around the problem. Either (1) I'm missing important pieces of the puzzle, (2) the situation is too complex for my simple mind, or (3) the problem is intractable (some nuts can't be cracked).
About all I feel confident in saying is that no solution will work unless it's clearly codified on the guidelines page for all to see. Simply storing the solution in the collective consciousness of the current regulars, even if that's backed up by some opaque discussion buried deep in the WT:RD archives, is not going to work. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that it's frustrating, and I agree that we should not depend on collective conscience as you put it. I do also get frustrated when the sane, smart, civil users like yourself opt out though. I hate to see a major decision dominated by those who are most vocal, brash, and keen to argue. I don't even care if you'd agree with my stance on this, I'd just like to see more civil voices participate in consensus forming. Your (1) or (3) may indeed be correct, but I'm sure you can understand why many of us think there is a problem. In as few words as possible: I see the reference desks as a public service. I volunteer there because I like to help people, and I'm good at finding references, and it doesn't take as much time per session as major article improvement. When one admin closes the desks for three months, without consensus, and with much disapproval even from other admins, I feel like my options have been unfairly limited, and the ref desks can no longer perform their mission. On the other hand, others think the problem is that the desks have been overrun by bad folks, and that the only solution is keeping the desks for registered users only, despite the fact that this goes against our core principles. But both sides seem to agree that there is a problem ;) I should probably back away for a few days, but I'll post once more on the ref-desk talk page if/when I post to AN. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@SemanticMantis: Another, perhaps more significant, reason I'm abstaining (and it took some self-reflection to realize this):
I'm strongly in favor of requiring registration for editing, so I see that as the solution to the semi-protection problem. Therefore it's hard for me to get behind any other solution, or even to devote much mental energy trying to finding one. As far as I'm concerned, the solution is very easy beyond the ideological/political obstacles. As Steve Summit said on 13 January, (Now, I concede, it could be argued that the principle, though once vital, has outlived its usefulness. However, as I say, some of us still cling to it.). I feel it's time people stopped clinging to it. I've heard from one wiser than I that the WMF is the obstacle, not the community. But I don't see a community consensus for this change, and I think we would stand a decent chance with WMF if one existed. All I can do is try to change one mind at a time (how about yours?). Registration is easy and painless. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, if they can come up with a unique username and a password. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well thanks for clarifying. Again, I wasn't necessarily asking you to be on my side, but just to participate. I think that you clearly stating that you think registration should be required to participate in any part of WP would help clarify things, as so far I think only very few others have come out and stated that in reference to the ref desks. I am not one to fight against consensus. If there is a consensus on closing the ref desks to IP users, I will shut up about it. The main problem I have is that I don't see this consensus. Robert, who agrees with long-term protections, said While I have been arguing, apparently in disagreement with a consensus of the other regular editors here, that long-term semi-protection of the Reference Desks themselves is the lesser evil compared to any other strategy for dealing with trolling. If anything, I see loose consensus to keep the desks open, with support from many. e.g. Steve summit, Steve Baker, Jayron, Guy Macon, The Rambling Man, StuRat, Modocc myself, etc. I see one admin who is dug in against this consensus, and a few others, including Robert, Baseball Bugs and I guess now you, who think that closing is worth it.

I actually do agree with you that it is not a problem for registration to be required for editing mainspace articles. Most of our important articles are fairly mature, and there is very little left for low-skilled volunteers to do, and the larger, structural and content improvements left to make require more expertise and persistence of userIDs to facilitate community and communication. I'll set aside and overlook for the moment any larger notion of the value anonymity, etc.

But I very feel differently for the ref desk. Maybe I am too naive and idealistic, but I have this idea that many of our IP askers at the ref desk are not that computer literate and not that well served buy other venues for getting good information. Your proverbial grandparent or small child at a public library, a poor person of low computer literacy that doesn't own a computer, some ESL speaker at an internet cafe, these are the the people who will likely never go through the hassle to get an account. And I don't think they should have to, just to ask one question. These are also the people who probably won't go through the process of edit requesting, and instead may end up with bad or no information. After some introspection of my own, I realize that I am personally invested in WP:RD in a way that I am not with any one other page. Other than adding a few wikilinks or correcting typos, I don't do much in mainspace. But I really do put a lot of time, effort, and expertise into RD, and that's probably why I care more about what goes on there than elsewhere on WP. And if I'm honest, that's also why it bugs me that FPAS, Bugs, and a few others that almost never give helpful info on the desks, still think they are somehow improving the situation by telling me I can't volunteer my time to answer whatever questions I want. Sorry this got long, as I said, I should probably step away for a bit :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, I just feel that the massive problems created by IP editing outweigh those concerns.
Accountability is as essential to this community as to any other, and there is virtually no accountability for IPs. No editor should be able to largely leave their past behind them whenever their IP address happens to change. I will always be known and recognized as Mandruss, I have to consider the reputation behind that username, and that affects how I behave in a positive way. Even if an IP address remains constant—and some IPv6 addresses are seen to change at least daily with no repetition—who the hell can remember that 51.88.102.250 is the same person who was causing trouble last month? Or did something good last month? Let alone 2a02:c200:0a16:10f:2:5:7825:1? This results in a very uneven playing field, with very detrimental consequences. We need every editor to have a lasting identity.
Sorry, but it doesn't take any more computer literacy to register an account than it takes to use the Internet in the first place. If doing so is too difficult or too time-consuming to bother with, all I can say is (1) you must not want to post at RD very much, and (2) life ain't always easy and fair. We require a driver's license to drive, even though getting one is too difficult for some. There is no constitutional right to drive, or to edit Wikipedia, or to ask a question at RD. We require one to pass a driving test to drive, and some fail it and can't drive, but I'm willing to skip that and let anyone edit as soon as they establish an editing account.
I would never suggest requiring registration only at RD. The RD solution would merely be one of the many beneficial effects of requiring registration to edit anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting (and somewhat more sane) discussion here - I hope you don't mind me chipping in.

I am also somewhat in agreement that Wikipedia as a whole should require people to create an account in order to edit articles. The "founding fathers" concept was that this would inhibit anonymity that might be essential for some people (eg if they have to tell truths about an abusive government who might hunt them down and imprison them or something). However, it's pretty clear that an IP address is less anonymity than an account name - so I think that original goal is invalid here. Another possible reason to allow IP edits is that it's just to hard for computer-illiterate people to do that - but since you do need a degree of computer literacy in order to format your text properly and not screw up an article with bad formatting, I don't think that a small degree of comfort with computers should be an obstacle to most people who edit here.

My problem is with the ref-desks. In most other Wikipedia situations, we can see a line between "Content creators" ("editors") and "Content consumers" (everyone else). You certainly need to be able to be a consumer of Wikipedia content without needing an account or having to log in - and requiring content creators to log in isn't too onerous. But in the ref-desk situation, content consumers need to be able to edit in order to ask their questions. So what we did was to 'cross the streams' - we require consumers to play the role of editors in order to ask a question.

By the way, the term "content creators" bothers me. In this context, it does reasonably mean "editors", but usually, in my experience, it means "editors who do an excellent job of creating new articles, and therefore should not be held to the standard of civility that applies to gnome editors", as "XXX is an excellent content creator", meaning that he should get a pass on civility. That doesn't apply here, but the term bothers me because it has a code meaning. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So while I have little concern over preventing IP users from editing everywhere else in Wikipedia - I have huge concern over requiring that for the ref-desks (and a few other places such as WP:AFC, WP:BLPN, etc).

I have an idea that might fix this - I'v just to put it up as a new proposal on Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#New_Idea.... SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned, I will comment. First, I am indeed in favor of requiring registration in order to post, but I recognize that this will not happen. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing. Of the ref desk regulars, I think that I agree with Bugs and Mandruss. I disagree with a group of ref desk regulars who think that the Ref Desk has a special mission of outreach to unregistered editors. At least, I disagree when they think that mission should override the WP:Protection policy that says that semi-protection is occasionally needed. That is, even if outreach to unregistered editors is part of our mission, it does not justify overriding or ignoring Wikipedia policy. As I posted at WT:RD, anyone who thinks it should override the overall policy should file an RFC against the Protection Policy, not at the reference talk page. However, third, I don't favor long-term semi-protection. I just don't think that all semi-protection is evil, and I don't think that a two-day limit on semi-protection is needed, since I favor a five-day limit. I was mentioned. I have commented. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hatting of Post

Either the poster is remarkably naive about the meanings of words, or the poster is a troll, especially since the poster posted a question calling for opinion and speculation to the wrong desk. I am inclined to think that the poster knows that "conservative" in an American context is quite different from "conservative" in a Greater Middle Eastern context. In each case, it means "conserving the traditional religious values of the culture" (also having a desire to enforce the traditional religious values), and the traditional Christian values (now no longer majority values) of the United States and the traditional Muslim values of the Greater Middle East are quite different, and irreconcilable between those who seek to conserve and enforce them. You may be right and maybe the OP really doesn't understand. I will be a little like Bugs and suspect that, with multiple troll flags, the poster is a troll. The alternative is that the poster doesn't know anything at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Geez, Robert, you don't grasp that you're probably in the 80th percentile or above among the general public, when it comes to knowledge about these things. A lot of what you just said is over my head! In any case, I'm firmly in the camp that an innocuous troll should not receive troll treatment. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You may have a point there. I have recently defended various clueless editors who simply have no clue what Wikipedia is, in saying that these editors are not vandals. It was posting to the Science Desk to evade semi that made me think troll. But maybe the user didn't have enough clue to know that is troll behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, many don't have such a clue. I didn't have much of one before I started editing Wikipedia a couple of years ago. I hadn't spent any significant time in online communities. If I were new to Wikipedia, and someone falsely accused me of trolling, I would probably ask them why and ask for proof. Given the rabbit-hole thinking that is so common around here, that would tend to incriminate me as a troll. I would then leave and not come back, shaking my head at the asylum that is Wikipedia, and probably spread the word to my friends and the world. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision of DENY close

DENY does not necessarily have to do with vandalism posts. It is designed so the trolls are not fed. Period. Good posts, bad posts, vandalism, constructive things, all fall under DENY. That IP has been harassing and stalking Ricky81682 for months. Allowing that post to stand just further perpetuates the harassment. I would have deleted it outright, but another user posted in the interim so I hatted it since I did not want to delete their post as well. --Majora (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, per WP:BMB, bans apply to all editing, good or bad. The user is banned. Formally banned by the community. --Majora (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Majora:

1. If DENY does not necessarily have to do with vandalism posts, why does WP:DENY say nothing about anything but vandalism?

2. If that IP has been harassing and stalking Ricky81682 for months, why is that not seen in their contribs?

3. The IP is not blocked.

4. Are we DENYing every IP in the range 166.x.x.x now? Are you aware of how many addresses are in that range? Are you aware that that range constitutes 1⁄255 of the IPv4 range worldwide?

A bit of reason and sanity, please. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Banned means banned. DENY is just an easier way of saying that. And no, we aren't DENYing every IP in the 166 range. If you actually read the community banning discussion that is obvious since there are good edits from that range. It isn't in their contribs because the banned editor is on a dynamic IP that shifts around a lot, but always stays within the 166 range. Any IP that starts any conversation regarding anything Ricky81682 has done can safely be reverted and DENY'ed. Ricky works extensively in MFD and the IP is using the village pump to continue harassing him. Their posts are obvious to spot once you know what to look for. I am not saying DENY every post made from the 166 range. But I am saying DENY this one since it is obvious that they are the banned editor that has been stalking Ricky for months and have been formally banned by the community. --Majora (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you could be right. I've recently been involved in a situation with certain people self-appointing as expert troll-hunters and getting people blocked on very flimsy evidence, so I'm a bit prickly about the subject right now. I have self-reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying to block the IP. They would just switch over anyways. And I certainly don't consider myself an "expert" at troll hunting. Just this one particular troll is really obvious to spot. Anything from the 166 range that is complaining about MFD or Ricky in general can be ignored, denied, or reverted. Thank you for self-reverting. It is appreciated. --Majora (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Fourth opinion on attack classification

Do you think the attacks I removed in this edit qualify as lone wolf attacks? I disagree for reasons I said here. Spirit Ethanol (talk · contribs) Parsley Man (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know very much about the subject, so I wouldn't care to offer an opinion. I don't know how or why you chose me to approach. But the question should be discussed on the article's talk page, not on user talk pages. If you want to bring in outside opinions you can try the RfC process. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Because apparently Spirit Ethanol thought it was a good idea to consult with E.M.Gregory about the matter, so I thought I'd do the same. Parsley Man (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Re

Generalizations are ALWAYS bad... not there's anything wrong with that! GAB^Hello! 00:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Back... Not sure for how long?

Howdy!

Well the Virginia Tech shooting page went to hell with all sorts of errors in the citations showing red and no one doing anything about it. Fixed, and may be planning further refinements. I've just discovered the {{r}} template, which is even further shorthand when calling named references:

This is an abbreviation for <ref name=foo>, where {{r|ABC}} is the equivalent of <ref name=ABC/>.

Adding specific page numbers is easy as well, by adding |p=# to the {{r}} template: {{r|ABC|p=1–3}}.

The resulting display will show the footnote in brackets followed by the page number: ^[4]:1–3. This indicates pages 1–3 of the ABC article; subsequent notes could easily cite different pages, as in ^[4]:5–9.

I think my OCD / ADHD is in high gear!—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 10:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, all the naming conventions still apply. If quotation marks are to be avoided, spaces aren't allowed, etc. Just FYI.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 10:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, you can string multiple ref names together in one template:

<ref name=ABC/><ref name=CNN/><ref name=HuffPost> would become {{r|ABC|CNN|HuffPost}}

and render as:

^[1][2][3]

It's possible to include page number references for some names in the string and not others, so:

{{r|ABC|page=1–3|CNN|HuffPost}}

would render as:

^{[1]:1–3[2][3]}

I doubt I'll ever use this feature; getting editors used to the abbreviated form will be enough of a struggle without also challenging them to combine individual citations into a single string. It's elegant, but apparently some hate this system already and the template was nominated for deletion in 2010.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 11:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you were back yesterday and was contemplating the possibility of a welcome back message. Welcome back ... not sure for how long.
Sorry to hear the VA Tech article went to shit, I admit I haven't been paying much attention to it. I was never that involved with it in the first place, tho.
{{r}} can be useful when you want a string of cites to stay in a certain order regardless of their cite numbers. It's ignored by that bot that assumes that the reader experience is somehow diminished if those numbers are out of sequence, and goes around "helpfully" rearranging cites. I use it for that purpose in our old LDR friend, Shooting of Michael Brown. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And I'm noticing that you're more involved at CS1 pages and other technical aspects; I've also noticed your excellent answers to help page posts. Good on ya! As for the VT article, are you uninvolved enough to review it for a Good Article nomination? The last person to do so totally misinterpreted a tool that identified massive numbers of links as being dead, even though all but one had an archive url in place. Even after I pointed that out, he didn't change his review. I'd really like to get the article back to Featured Article status someday, but GA is the next step for now. There's a huge backlog, though. I looked at one of the articles that's been nominated to see if I could review it and didn't get very far. I'm so totally opposed to the use of {{sfn}} for citations that I honestly can't read an article with any neutrality that employs that method. Why someone thought it was a good idea to make folks read two different lists in order to understand a citation, I'll never know. Anyway, cheers!

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 01:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As for Shooting of Michael Brown, that all happened while I was away from WP. I was marginally involved with 2014 Isla Vista killings. I just looked at Michael Brown and noticed some use of {{sfn}} citations that don't make any sense. Look at footnotes 2, 5, 6, 12, 17, 45, 51, and 227. They all reference USDOJ 2015, but that's never defined anywhere. There are two USDOJ reports defined, both from 2015. Someone didn't pay attention to your instructions!

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 01:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

GA reviewing really doesn't interest me and it's not something I want to take on at this point. Sorry. I also lack any interest in pursuing GA for anything I've worked on, btw. DGAF increases longevity.
Ah, I had forgotten there are two all-LDR articles, and we developed our standard for 2014 IVK. But those are the only two where I've tried all-LDR. It pretty much requires one person to maintain it single-handedly, since literally no one else can be bothered to observe the local standard, and there's enough downside to it that I haven't felt it was worth all that effort.
Those sfn's seem to work for me. I click on the link in the tooltip and it takes me to citation 13 in the References section, which is how I thought they were supposed to work. Granted, it's one more click to get to the source. I opposed the use of sfn's, but mostly for a different reason. I was stalemated with the editor who likes them, and no one felt like breaking the stalemate, so here we are. The compromise was to use them only when citing a specific page in that source, IIRC. The related discussion is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the {{sfn}}} is being used very clearly at all. In checking the documentation, it's not wrong, but it's not easily understood from just reading the references. If you don't have access to the tooltip or don't click the link, it's not obvious (partially due to poor naming) which of the 2015 USDOJ reports is being referenced with the short note. For a (marginally) better example, see International Atomic Time. This was the quickest example I could find of how I normally see {{sfn}}} used. The notes referred to are in a separate section, usually organized alphabetically, and so are easily identified as to which is which without having to read the entire list of footnotes. One of the many reasons I despise them is that their use is even less consistent than other methods (imo).

I long for the day when two things happen here, which probably never will: 1. Everyone has to register with a user name; no more IP edits. 2. Citation formats are standardized and the umpteen different ways of citing information are merged into one to three at the most (I can see the necessity for citing some things in accordance with other regulatory bodies). I ain't holdin' my breath for either occurrence. Icing on the cake would be to assign weighted votes to editors based on the number of substantive edits they've made. Therefore, when topics arise that seek consensus, the voices of the editors who actually do the work would have more influence than the ones who sit around complaining about how things can't be standardized. Let them do the cleanup for a change!

Not that I asked, but I appreciate the opportunity to rant a bit. I must say this isn't indicative of my sticking around long, however. I really did try to stay away until I had a better attitude. It is better, but still needs improvement. Ha!

—D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  04:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

My agreement with the other editor was to let the sfn's stay, not to let them stay in their current form. If you feel they can be improved, improve away as far as I'm concerned. For that matter, eliminating them with a 2.3-to-1 "consensus" (Dyrnych being the 0.3) wouldn't offend my ethics, but I would wonder whether Bob K31416 should at least be given an opportunity to respond before that was done. I note that Bob has been on a declared Wikibreak since October 15, however.
I share your longing for #1, less so for #2. I also share your pessimism that either will change, at least in our useful lifetimes. As far as I'm concerned, the project is broken beyond repair in many ways, and that leaves me with the choice of DGAF or permanent retirement. So far, I'm choosing DGAF (obviously), and I think a ton of other editors have done the same. I basically live by a Wikipedia version of the Serenity Prayer, and there aren't many things any of us can change. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Australian head of state

I've got a bad feeling, that topic is somehow going to end up before either AN or Arbcom :( GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. I've pretty much moved on. I wouldn't even be aware of that if not for your VP thread. (Thanks a lot!! ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Officer Michael Thomas Slager.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Officer Michael Thomas Slager.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Norman, Oklahoma and Indian Territory

Hello! I had pretty loose grasp of pre-statehood Oklahoman history yesterday but your concern made me study up. You are correct that Cleveland County, Oklahoma was part of Oklahoma Territory, but the OKT wasn't organized until 1890, while Norman, Oklahoma was established in the Land Rush of 1889. I believe in 1889, at the time of the Land Rush and Norman's founding, the area that would become Cleveland Co. was in the Unassigned Lands of the Indian Territory. The map on the Unassigned Lands page shows it pretty well. When I made the edit I was just operating on an assumption, but I feel pretty good about it now. It's sorta convoluted, so if I'm reading it wrong or misinterpreting anything, let me know. American Money (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that looks right I suppose. I doubt I'll be the last to raise the question. Sometimes I wonder why Wikipedia needs a category for everything under the sun that can possibly be categorized, but that's a different issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Barkley

Just wanted to say thanks for helping clean up the article about the Barkley. Steven Walling • talk 05:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Likewise! ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Robin not-null edit

1. no, it wasn't a null edit, it's just hard to see, the replacement of a blank with a hyphen. 2. regardless, what would be the point of reverting a null edit?

Touché! 1: Dang, I scrutinized that diff at 6x zoom and couldn't see a thing! 2: I asked myself the same question before I did the rv...might be a philosophical debate. I wish there were no IP editing, and that edit summaries were mandatory. Cheers. Eric ^talk 21:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eric: You might be interested in User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff. It makes the tiny edits easier to see (I didn't see it until I toggled on the wikEdDiff view), as well as working better for certain other types of edits. You can leave the wikEdDiff view on all the time, in which case you see both views all the time, or toggle on the wikEdDiff view only when you need it, which is what I do. Use the "Gadget" method to enable the feature.
I share your first wish. As for the second, making editsums mandatory would simply result in tons of editsums like "x" or ".". There is no way to use software to enforce a requirement for meaningful editsums.
Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks a million, that's slick! Two life-changing gadgets in as many days...just deployed Twinkle the other day, many years late. Cheers. Eric ^talk 22:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

George Washington DOB

See how it's done at John Adams, Thomas Jefferson & James Madison articles. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait a sec. I remember you now. You participated at WP:POLITICS a few weeks ago, concerning the Australian head of state topic. Would you believe we're still having trouble with that, at an article concerning the Olympics? GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I certainly can believe that. That's why I was pressing for a clearer and more specific declaration of consensus, with little support for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly a frustrating place, at times. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be the understatement of the month. I used to have a lot more hair. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr.

Hi, just wondering why you couldn't just move the page without a redirect? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. All moves leave you with a redirect to the article via the old name. Otherwise you would be breaking existing links. If I misunderstand your question, please elaborate. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. You clarified it for me. Much appreciated. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment

What you call "therapy" I call "advice". However, it was no doubt a mistake to write what I did. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Therapy is advice. Have you received any of it? If you have, I'm sure you can see that what you're providing to the user is almost identical in nature to what you received in that therapist's office. In any case, I don't see how you can reasonably claim objectivity here, and I have no doubt you understand the concept of recusal. And finally, don't feel the need to convince me; I'm only one guy standing almost alone. I do hope you will at least give some off-wiki thought to what I've said, as I've thought about your comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I find the oversight removal of my comments from your talk page highly alarming, and I would like to learn what Wikipedia policy I violated. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobody suggested that you violated any policy. There was public revealing of personal information which was unsuitable for such public posting. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a separate copy of what I wrote, as I wrote it in Notepad. Nothing was "revealed" there that had not already been "revealed" in that thread by both of us. This is a clear and blatant abuse of oversight power, but I don't care to pursue it in court, whichever court that would be. Just walking away, shaking my head at the absence of ethics in a place that supposedly cares about ethics. I'll do my best to avoid you in the future. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. I did not say that it was you who revealed personal information. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, so technical considerations required the oversight of my comments too? My apologies for overreacting. In that case, you wouldn't mind if I re-added my comments? (It would have helped if you had suggested that at 13:11, but never mind.) ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your comments referred to (and even briefly quoted from) comments which gave personal information which it would have been better not to have posted on Wikipedia. Your comments were addressed to me, and I have read them and taken them on board, and I have no current intention of pursuing the matter any further. I am not sure that reposting the comments would serve any useful purpose. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Not acceptable for reasons that should be obvious, issue dropped. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading comprehension and vocabulary

Hi Mandruss. A small continuation of our discussion on the ref desk talk page: Of course we should endeavor to write clearly, and of course our questions will get better answers if we use the right words. Russell.mo wasn't doing either of those things. But I cut second-language learners a lot of slack that doesn't apply to native speakers. My comment was mostly out of frustration with Bugs. He consistently challenges question askers based on false premises, and it frankly pisses me off. It's ok if he didn't know what Russel.mo was saying, and it's ok if you didn't either. Your line of questioning had the feel of a good faith effort to help someone. Bugs almost never accomplishes that tone. I suppose I also take some of this too personally. I've seen Russel.mo and other ESL users challenged and harrassed repeatedly and unnecessarily in my opinion, and I don't care for it. My main point was that "[user] tagged me" is a not wrong or incorrect. It is true that "[user] pinged me" would be better for use on WP.

Anyway, as for philosophical ramblings: at a quick skim of the articles in the header, I think that vocabulary is essential for reading comprehension. The first says "Reading comprehension and vocabulary are inextricably linked." in the intro to its whole section on vocabulary. I'm sure you could write a few sentences that I cannot easily understand because you use words I don't know. But it does get confusing, because I might be able to ascertain your meaning from context, and so sometimes we can figure out semantic content even if vocabulary is missing. Bottom line is: I probably let my long-term annoyance get the best of me, and I didn't mean to snipe at you personally. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@SemanticMantis: The ESL thing is a good point, but even ESLers can learn Wikipedia terminology. It's all there in the documentation. I think it had more to do with not caring about Wikipedia terminology than with ESL. If I had it to do over, I would say the same thing more gently.

Bugs bugs me too. I'm very direct, sometimes to a fault, so your approach to that issue seems oblique and therefore probably unproductive (maybe even counterproductive). In your place, I think I'd either address it directly with him, or remain silent about it. I'm not in your place, partly because I don't frequent RD as much anymore. Annoyances (or worse) are kind of a way of life at WP anyway.

You don't have to explain to me that you "didn't mean to snipe" at me. I've yet to see you snipe, and I suspect you're incapable of sniping. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:JR

When renaming a page, for whatever reason, it's not good enough to just move the page. All subpages and review pages have to be moved or have redirects created for them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: For example? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I now see this move in your contribs. Sorry you're "really really tired of this"; I'm not particularly enjoying this task either, and this is the first hint I have received of any problem with the work I've been doing. Where should I look for such subpages and review pages? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Same here. Are such things detected automatically? How are you finding them, Hawkeye7? Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are not. You have to check the article history for AFD, GA, PR, ACR and FAC. You have to be particularly careful with any article that is currently under review, as page moves can confuse the Bots. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would make sense to add all that additional effort to catch the one in, what, 250 or so such cases? You've shown that it's feasible to handle those outliers after the fact. But, if that is not a reasonable expectation, I wouldn't know what to look for in the page history, which would present the question of whether my participation is a net positive. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about that – you're doing a ton of great work even if there are some potholes. I suspect such things will be very rare now that we've already done roughly all the articles that how up in the top 500 articles with intitle:jr. Articles with that kind of attention are not likely to be down in the tail, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example search to find such things: [71]. It's not clear to me how these subpages are accessed; are they linked from somewhere? Is just moving them always the right thing? User:Hawkeye7, can you advise? The first one I check, Talk:Jimmy Reiher, Jr./GA1, is explicitly linked from Talk:Deuce (wrestler) (a move I made over about 16 months ago). Moving it would break this link (unless a redirect is left, which I guess would be the norm). But isn't leaving it OK, too? What do RM closers do about such things? Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Anthony A sometimes moves subpages, like here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrators and now page movers have the ability to move all subpages along with the main page, which makes this easier. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

So how should non-page-movers behave? Ask page movers to check for subpages on our moves? Or what? Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The easiest way to check for subpages is to type Talk:PAGE NAME/ into the search bar (without pressing enter), which should then show them. Subpages are pretty much always attached to the talk page. For example, if one types Talk:War in Donbass/, one sees that there are a ton of archives that would need to be moved if that page were to be moved. If one finds that there are a lot of subpages, it might be better to ask for assistance in moving them all at once at WP:RM/TR. RGloucester — ☎ 15:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for adding the {{unsigned}} for me. Small kindness like that make Wikipedia a more enjoyable place. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm only in it for the baklava. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Though the article has been protected in the somewhat wrong version, the arguments for presumptive presidential nominee will have a stronger base, after today's primary results. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the discussion these last few hours. It's appearing as though the opposition isn't going to go away, until Sanders drops out. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully, the opposition is outnumbered, and their arguments are exceedingly thin and have been easily defeated. Many of them don't even seem to have read the proposal very carefully if at all. The protection will expire in a few minutes, and in my opinion there is sufficient consensus to make the change at that time. I can't do that without violating 1RR, however. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to restore the correct version, but the likelihood that it would've been reverted 'again' & the time it takes me to insert such an edit (due to the article being too long), seemed pointless. Also, a new editor on the scene, appears determined to push the We don't know edits. The only thing I could do, was modify those changes back to 'candidate' :( GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty much out of control and I'm tired of fighting for awhile. If no one else cares, why should I? Once again, those who play by the rules lose. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's even more frustrating, as the matter has been very much settled at the United States presidential election, 2016 & 2016 Democratic National Convention articles. Now that I got the Rfc going, I too will sit back & watch. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a forum.

A lot of articles show the grave of the deceased. If you go to Chrisotpher Lee's talk page, there is another person who asked for his remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E790:5800:28D1:261B:CF4D:7F8B (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied at that talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A reply to your edit summary

My apologies if I offended you by citing your comment in my reversion the way I did. It was actually intended as a compliment of sorts. I thought most of your statement was a good summation of my personal reasoning for a reversion (i.e. "And in this case the objections were actually anticipated and consciously ignored" and "Obviously anyone who cares enough can go to WP:VPR and start that RfC, or even just a discussion with wider audience"). Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: My sentiment is that the non-battleground move is to start that VPR discussion, if you care enough. The only difference is the state of the template while that discussion is in progress. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	My thanks for a civil and engaging interplay. Regardless of any RM. 🖖ATS / Talk 20:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)