Open main menu

Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other.
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

No RfAs or RfBs reported by Cyberbot I since 13:32 6/11/2019 (UTC)

Template-edit requests, etc.

6 template-protected edit requests
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Template:Refideas (request) 2019-06-06 21:49 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 4000+ transclusions"
Module:Old XfD multi (request) 2019-06-11 06:32 Template-protected (log) From Module:Old AfD multi: Protected by Mr. Stradivarius on 2015-07-07: "High-risk Lua module"
Template:WikiProject Canada (request) 2019-06-13 18:31 Template-protected (log) Modified by WOSlinker on 2013-10-17: "allow template editors to modify"
Template:Country data United States (request) 2019-06-14 18:33 Template-protected (log) Modified by WOSlinker on 2013-10-19: "allow template editors to modify"
Template:Infobox sportsperson (request) 2019-06-15 14:52 Template-protected (log) Modified by Mark Arsten on 2013-10-18: "Allowing Protected Template editors"
Template:Editnotices/Page/Grenada (request) 2019-06-15 16:17 Title blacklist (log) Matching line: Template:Editnotices\/.* <noedit|errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-editnotice>
Updated as needed. Last updated: 06:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).


Administrator changes

removed AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.


Most recent poster here: Legobot (talk)


Did you know

Good article nominees



As of 2019-06-16 , SMcCandlish is Away.
Due to on-wiki hounding, and "blame the victim" punishment for being harassed, I won't be actively participating or editing until 23 October 2019 (or sooner if the bogus sanction against me is lifted). I may respond briefly to important things if people e-mail me directly about them, but I have ping notifications turned off.

Wikimood -05.png
[purge] [edit]
Please stay in the top 3 segments of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

Old stuff to resolve eventuallyEdit

Cueless billiardsEdit

Unresolved: Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.
Extended content

Categories are not my thing but do you think there are enough articles now or will be ever to make this necessary? Other than Finger billiards and possibly Carrom, what else is there?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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


How well forgotten some very well known people are. The more I read about Yank Adams, the more I realize he was world famous. Yet, he's almost completely unknown today and barely mentioned even in modern billiard texts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Some more notes on CrystalateEdit

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

Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.[3]; info about making records:[4]; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:[5]; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991wGtDHsgbtltnpBg&ct=result&id=v0m-h4YgKVYC&dq=%2BCrystalate; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:No5 Balls.html. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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


Unresolved: Not done yet, last I looked.
Extended content

No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

You post at Wikipedia talk:FAQ/CopyrightEdit

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

That page looks like a hinterland (you go back two users in the history and you're in August). Are you familiar with WP:MCQ? By the way, did you see my response on the balkline averages?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Hee HawEdit

Unresolved: Still need to propose some standards on animal breed article naming and disambiguation. In the intervening years, we've settled on natural not parenthetic disambiguation, and that standardized breeds get capitalized, but that's about it.
Extended content

Yeah, we did get along on Donkeys. And probably will get along on some other stuff again later. Best way to handle WP is to take it issue by issue and then let bygones be bygones. I'm finding some interesting debates over things like the line between a subspecies, a landrace and a breed. Just almost saw someone else's GA derailed over a "breed versus species" debate that was completely bogus, we just removed the word "adapt" and life would have been fine. I'd actually be interested in seeing actual scholarly articles that discuss these differences, particularly the landrace/breed issue in general, but in livestock in particular, and particularly as applied to truly feral/landrace populations (if, in livestock, there is such a thing, people inevitably will do a bit of culling, sorting and other interference these days). I'm willing to stick to my guns on the WPEQ naming issue, but AGF in all respects. Truce? Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Truce, certainly. I'm not here to pick fights, just improve the consistency for readers and editors. I don't think there will be any scholarly articles on differences between landrace and breed, because there's nothing really to write about. Landrace has clear definitions in zoology and botany, and breed not only doesn't qualify, it is only established as true in any given case by reliable sources. Basically, no one anywhere is claiming "This is the Foobabaz horse, and it is a new landrace!" That wouldn't make sense. What is happening is people naming and declaring new alleged breeds on an entirely self-interested, profit-motive basis, with no evidence anyone other than the proponent and a few other experimental breeders consider it a breed. WP is full of should-be-AfD'd articles of this sort, like the cat one I successfully prod'ed last week. Asking for a reliable source that something is a landrace rather than a breed is backwards; landrace status is the default, not a special condition. It's a bit like asking for a scholarly piece on whether pig Latin is a real language or not; no one's going to write a journal paper about that because "language" (and related terms like "dialect", "language family", "creole" in the linguistic sense, etc.) have clear definitions in linguistics, while pig Latin, an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally-managed form of communication (like an entirely artificial, arbitrary, intentionally managed form of domesticated animal) does not qualify. :-) The "what is a breed" question, which is also not about horses any more than cats or cavies or ferrets, is going to be a separate issue to resolve from the naming issue. Looking over what we collaboratively did with donkeys – and the naming form that took, i.e. Poitou donkey not Poitou (donkey), I think I'm going to end up on your side of that one. It needs to be discussed more broadly in an RFC, because most projects use the parenthetical form, because this is what WT:AT is most readily interpretable as requiring. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I hate the drama of an RfC, particularly when we can just look at how much can be naturally disambiguated, but if you think it's an actual issue, I guess ping me when it goes up. As for landcraces, it may be true ("clear definitions") but you would be doing God's (or someone's) own good work if you were to improve landrace which has few references, fewer good ones, and is generally not a lot of help to those of us trying to sort out WTF a "landrace" is... (smiles). As for breed, that is were we disagree: At what point do we really have a "breed" as opposed to a "landrace?" Fixed traits, human-selected? At what degree, at which point? How many generations? I don't even know if there IS such a thing as a universal definition of what a "breed" is: seriously: [6] or breed or [7]. I think you and I agree that the Palomino horse can never be a "breed" because it is impossible for the color to breed true (per an earlier discussion) so we have one limit. But while I happen agree to a significant extent with your underlying premise that when Randy from Boise breeds two animals and says he has created a new breed and this is a problem, (I think it's a BIG problem in the worst cases) but if we want to get really fussy, I suppose that the aficionados of the Arabian horse who claim the breed is pure from the dawn of time are actually arguing it is a landrace, wouldn't you say? And what DO we do with the multi-generational stuff that's in limbo land? Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really certain what the answers are to any of those questions, another reason (besides your "STOP!" demands :-) that I backed away rapidly from moving any more horse articles around. But it's something that is going to have to be looked into. I agree that the Landrace article here is poor. For one thing, it needs to split Natural breed out into its own article (a natural breed is a selectively-bred formal breed the purpose of which is to refine and "lock-in" the most definitive qualities of a local landrace). This in turn isn't actually the same thing as a traditional breed, though the concepts are related. Basically, three breeding concepts are squished into one article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Side comment: I tend to support one good overview article over three poor content forks, just thinking aloud... Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure; the point is that the concepts have to be separately, clearly treated, because they are not synonymous at all. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 02:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Given that the article isn't well-sourced yet, I think that you might want to add something about that to landrace now, just to give whomever does article improvement on it later (maybe you, I think this is up your alley!) has the "ping" to do so. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Aye, it's on my to-do list. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Although I have been an evolutionary biologist for decades, I only noticed the term "landrace" within the past year or two (in reference to corn), because I work with wildland plants. But I immediately knew what it was, from context. I'm much less certain about breeds, beyond that I am emphatic that they are human constructs. Montanabw and I have discussed my horse off-wiki, and from what I can tell, breeders are selecting for specific attributes (many people claim to have seen a horse "just like him"), but afaik there is no breed "Idaho stock horse". Artificially-selected lineages can exist without anyone calling them "breeds"; I'm not sure they would even be "natural breeds", and such things are common even within established breeds (Montanabw could probably explain to us the difference between Polish and Egyptian Arabians).
The good thing about breeds wrt Wikipedia is that we can use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE to decide what to cover. Landraces are a different issue: if no one has ever called a specific, distinctive, isolated mustang herd a landrace, is it OR for Wikipedia to do so?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been reluctant to use landrace much out of a concern that the concept is a bit OR, as I hadn't heard of it before wikipedia either (but I'm more a historian than an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know?): Curtis, any idea where this did come from? It's a useful concept, but I am kind of wondering where the lines are between selective breeding and a "natural" breed -- of anything. And speaking of isolated Mustang herds, we have things like Kiger Mustang, which is kind of interesting. I think that at least some of SMc's passion comes from the nuttiness seen in a lot of the dog and cat breeders these days, am I right? I mean, Chiweenies? Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The first use of the word that I saw referred to different landraces of corn growing in different elevations and exposures in indigenous Maya areas of modern Mexico. I haven't tracked down the references for the use of the word, but the concept seems extremely useful. My sense is that landraces form as much through natural selective processes of cultivation or captivity as through human selection, so that if the "garbage wolf" hypothesis for dog domestication is true, garbage wolves would have been a landrace (or more likely several, in different areas). One could even push the definition and say that MRSA is a landrace. But I don't have enough knowledge of the reliable sources to know how all this would fit into Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Landraces form, primarily and quickly, through mostly natural selection, long after domestication. E.g. the St Johns water dog and Maine Coon cat are both North American landraces that postdate European arrival on the continent. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I see some potential for some great research on this and a real improvement to the articles in question. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 20:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Redundant sentence?Edit

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

The sentence at MOS:LIFE "General names for groups or types of organisms are not capitalized except where they contain a proper name (oak, Bryde's whales, rove beetle, Van cat)" is a bit odd, since the capitalization would (now) be exactly the same if they were the names of individual species. Can it simply be removed?

There is an issue, covered at Wikipedia:PLANTS#The use of botanical names as common names for plants, which may or may not be worth putting in the main MOS, namely cases where the same word is used as the scientific genus name and as the English name, when it should be de-capitalized. I think this is rare for animals, but more common for plants and fungi (although I have seen "tyrannosauruses" and similar uses of dinosaur names). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. I would leave it a alone for now; let people get used to the changes. I think it's reasonable to include the "general names" thing, because it's a catch-all that includes several different kinds of examples, that various largely different groups of people are apt to capitalize. Various know-nothings want to capitalize things like "the Cats", the "Great Apes", etc., because they think "it's a Bigger Group and I like to Capitalize Big Important Stuff". There are millions more people who just like to capitalize nouns and stuff. "Orange's, $1 a Pound". Next we have people who insist on capitalizing general "types" and landraces of domestic animals ("Mountain Dogs", "Van Cat") because they're used to formal breed names being capitalized (whether to do that with breeds here is an open question, but it should not be done with types/classes of domestics, nor with landraces. Maybe the examples can be sculpted better: "the roses", "herpesviruses", "great apes", "Bryde's whale", "mountain dogs", "Van cat", "passerine birds". I'm not sure that "rove beetle" and "oak" are good examples of anything. Anyway, it's more that the species no-capitalization is a special case of the more general rule, not that the general rule is a redundant or vague version of the former. If they're merged, it should keep the general examples, and maybe specifically spell out and illustrate that it also means species and subspecies, landraces and domestic "types", as well as larger and more general groupings.
  2. I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to MOS:ORGANISMS, which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at Lynx or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With Lynx, I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization there[8], and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
  2. I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "Canna" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
  2. Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Note to self on WP:WikiProject English languageEdit

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

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

Excellent mini-tutorialEdit

Extended content

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

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

Current threadsEdit

A side note on the gender kerfuffleEdit

There was some recent drama I got embroiled in here, about an essay criticizing shitty writing practices, which turned out to be controversial to a certain subset of editors because one of these shitty writing practices, in one particular variant that I didn't even illustrate, has a fanbase among language-change activists who have a fixation on transgender people. This drama is part of a broader wave of extremist browbeating and non-encyclopedic advocacy. Someone pointed me to this article, as just one example. It's a quick and interesting read. Précis: Someone in a philosophy journal made the case that arguments in support of transgender/non-binary (TG/NB) identity can also be used in support of the less common idea of transracial identity (which takes several forms, including "passing" as a member only of the dominant ethnicity despite ancestral admixture, to adoption of another ethnic identity that doesn't match one's genetics at all, which is often claimed to be a form of cultural appropriation and something of a social fraud). Rather than take this as it was actually written (same problem in the way my essay was received and reinterpreted), in this case as a potential defense of transracialism and tolerance toward it (or at least an argument that our rationales need to be clearer), the same kinds of TG/NB "allies" who misrepresented and attacked me started a letter-writing campaign of opprobrium against the paper's author. Their idea is that transracialism isn't actually acceptable (at least not the appropriating kind), ergo any argument in support of it that relies on logic in any way related to TG/NB is an actual attack on TG/NB people (i.e., as saying that TG/NB should be suppressed because TR should be suppressed). It's an obvious straw man that reverses the actual meaning of the paper, and all in the name of being blatantly intolerant while posing as tolerance activists. As with Wikipedia Signpost caving in and one of its editors "apologizing" under duress and the publication subjected to actual censorship of its e-pages, the publisher of the journal article also retracted the paper with an "apology". These are not actual apologies, they're PR moves to bring negative attention to an end, at the cost of some public shaming and – important here – throwing the individual author under the bus, despite what they wrote not saying anything like what the ranty critics said it did. This is not a good trend for broader reasons, since it suggests that rational discourse no longer has a place; it's telling us that as long as you can generate enough angry ranting, you can get what you want, both on Wikipedia and in real life.

Well, fuck that noise. I've said this before and will say it again: The real danger to Wikipedia's long-term future isn't the kind of vandal wave we survived in the 2000s; it's creeping takeover by people with socio-political and other agendas. More broadly, TG/NB (and LGBT+ more broadly) are not well served by "allies" like this. They do far more harm than good, and turn centrist, neutral, open-minded people to the political right, just to get the hell away from these creeps. And they are creepy. Nearly none of them are themselves TG/NB, but are privileged, cis-gendered, white, and mostly hetero New Left activists engaging in an in loco parentis "manufactured outrage" posturing party, and rather objectifying actual TG/NB people in the process (it's closely related to "inspiration porn"). They have no real-world political power, and rather than try to do anything about Trump, et al., they verbally attack people for imaginary doctrinal faults. It's kind of a form of public mental/verbal masturbation. It's so much easier to start shit with people on the Internet over fake interpretations of what they said than actually do any real-world grassroots effort to make the world a better place.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Your point eludes me, perhaps because I keep tripping up at "adoption of another ethnic identity that doesn't match one's genetics at all", ancestral admixtures and so on. Are you assuming that these premises can be verified objectively, or do they merely accord with the american obsession with 'race' and otherness? I hope I'm getting this wrong :| cygnis insignis 23:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe read it again? My point has nothing whatsoever to do with how such matters are actually defined. :-) My point was that the same "gender warrior" types are making everyone miserable everywhere about everything they can think of, using the same "distort what you really said and claim you're saying something very different and that it's an attack on TG people" bullshit, and they're crawling all over Wikipedia like ticks. As for the background matter, the controversy seems to be about "reverse passing", namely white folk self-identifying as some other ethnic group. (And I'm sure it is probably is bound up in racialist thinking, a common fault in North American and European thinking, though it's worse over here in the US of A). I really don't care about the "issue", or any side on it; I care about reasoned writers being witch-hunted by censorious TG/NB "allies", a bunch of hypocritical busybodies – over things the writers didn't actually say or mean. It's just one example of the sorts of PoV crap that hits us in waves, of course, but it's one hardly anyone will dare to speak up about, because even doing so garners accusations of "transphobia" (it has nothing to do with that at all, but with calling TG-obsessed, cis-gendered extremist activists on their bullshit).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
that is why I asked, as I've said I haven't read the piece and didn't read the links to your example. Do I need to accept the premise that someone can identify as some other ethnicity and it can shown that they are are, in fact, white, science is amazing. I guess my comment is on the 'conversation points' and I should probably hold my tongue about those, I don't presume to have a right to air my views on conversations that trigger more absolute forms of censorship. As an editor, and part of this community, I am comfortable with being conservative and censorious with regards to personal views, but at the end of the day we can agree to disagree about how wrong you are :P Have a good one, cygnis insignis 05:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
On the science stuff: genetic markers are pretty well catalogued now. But I think this has more to do with family history. If someone claims to be an Arab, and the members of both sides of their family say there are no known Arab ancestors, then people are going to point fingers about it. The article in question neither pointed fingers nor refused to, but simply asked some epistemological questions about the rationales one might use to come to such a decision.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Signpost talk pageEdit

I have opined at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom# From_the_editor re: WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/From_the_editors concerning their need for a "formal apology" from people who had absolutely nothing to do with what they are apologizing for in the first place. I thought you might find it of some minor interest. Collect (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I did have a discussion with that new editor-in-chief about what he planned to post, though I'm not sure how much of it he accepted. I guess I should go read it and find out. It's okay for a role to issue an apology, I suppose, but I did strongly make the point that I, The Signpost, and Signpost volunteer staff are in no way in a position to apologize for people being/feeling offended; everyone owns their own emotions and no one is responsible for someone's [mis]interpretation of something but that individual. However, WP's e-newspaper, as a collective work, is arguably in a position to be responsible for predicting likely-to-be-obvious [over-]reactions by the readership, and to make decisions accordingly. Signpost's error was in running something that was almost certain to offend some subset of people, over a point that's not really all that important and which could have been made some other way. (And of course it's my fault for writing it that way in the first place, but as userspace jotting and basically a work in progress, that's perhaps forgivable. I'm not too sure about my decision to let someone from Signpost use it as a humor piece. That was just a really poor decision on my part.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Went over it. Some of the issues I flagged in the first draft have been resolved. I would wordsmith it further, but it's not my page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's hope the concerns are addressed in the end product. Collect (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Provided the noise level gets down to only 120 dB or so --- seems that some folks like noise? Collect (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SMcCandlish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"No proof of intent" ≠ "Exoneration"Edit

I rather think the new Signpost direction is "interesting". Collect (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The other side hates it, too, calling it a "sorry-not-sorry" piece. I predicted this outcome and said they should not run it, and simply do a better job with Signpost rather than make a show of groveling about how they're going to a better job.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Ground billiardsEdit

Updated DYK query.svgOn 26 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ground billiards, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that modern cue sports games such as snooker and nine-ball can be traced back to the game of ground billiards, played with hoops and mallets (illustration shown)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ground billiards. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ground billiards), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Huzzah!  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Glad to see another one hit mainspace. Have you got anything in the old archives that needs looking at? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Some things I didn't know and was pleased to discover, a good DYK mate. cygnis insignis 10:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
That was an interesting read, thank you for putting it together. Yunshui  11:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
+4. Nice work there. Cheers, North America1000 13:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
For reference, I've added this to Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics, as it reached almost 10,000 views on the date of mainpage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Wowser!  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: The only draft stuff I have laying around worth looking at is under User:SMcCandlish/Incubator. It varies from new articles to overhauls (some of which might be outdated – I'm not sure the one on Russian pyramid is viable, since the article itself has changed over the years), and some splits maybe. A few are pool related, but many are not. Some are too drafty for use at all (e.g. the one on Pedro Rigual – has no sources, and only very skeletal information). Three or four are WP:REFUND rescues from AfD: Gatmaitán, Schuldt, Pool TV, maybe Williams.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Dog foodEdit

Hi SMcCandish. I saw somewhere that you were working on dog food pages. I just tried to pick up on a conversation from 3.5 years ago here on a page where I have a disclosed COI but the editor I was collaborating with has since retired. I was wondering if you had a few minutes to take a look regarding renaming the Controversy section to something more descriptive and adding the judicial outcome of the case. No rush. CorporateM (Talk) 23:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's no focus of mine, but I can take a look.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, dog. North America1000 02:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Someone barked up the right tree. I wasn't hounded into it, mind you. And I appreciate the pat on the head. Nice when someone throws you a bone on this site, amid all its howling drama and ankle-biting nitpicks.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I hadn't noticed that the sentence about veterinarians was tagged as editorializing. It feels off to me to cover a medical topic without stating the position of the associated medical profession, but I defer to you.
Most of the stuff I'm doing for them is copyediting, infoboxes, and better logo images, but I do have one other controversial one at Talk:Alpo_(pet_food) under the heading "Un-cited content" if you feel like it. No bother if you'd rather do something else. I think most editors prefer to contribute on topics of personal interest, rather than those items that catch a COI's concern. CorporateM (Talk) 12:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Veterinarians are neither human-psychology experts nor legal-research experts, so their opinions about what may motivate people aren't any more pertinent than anyone else's, and even if they were, there's no evidence presented in the sources that the rationale they surmise was the actual cause of the party filing the case. Veterinarians are experts in veterinary medicine. It's a causality/correlation confusion (of the same sort as "Some people are racists, ergo XYZ Corp must be racist because they fired a Hispanic woman last week. And this must be true, because this social-science systematic review proves that, in fact, some people are racists.").
I'll try to look into the Alpo thing when I get a moment.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articlesEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)Edit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)Edit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levelsEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminshipEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

More flag farmsEdit

Hi SMC, the "foreign_suppliers" parameter in Template:Infobox national military has a tendency to become a flag farm, as seen in Armed Forces of the Dominican Republic and People's Liberation Army. Btw, I can't find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Flagicons in predecessor/successor. Is it somewhere else? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

It was; I got confused as to pages I was looking at, in which tab. Thread by this name how opened at WT:MOSICONS. I'll inject your point into it as well.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminshipEdit

 Done: Thought this was duplicate notice but there were three concurrent RfCs there.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

See above / See belowEdit

Resolved: I just got around to finally fixing it.

I'd like to make sure that the templates you created and deprecated {{See above}} and {{See below}} should be replaced per the documentation. If so, I'll be nominating them at TfD so this can be more properly handled. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: They should really be replaced with very simple wrappers of {{crossref |printworthy=y}}, and I should've done that a long time ago. They don't need parameters unless people come up with actual-need use cases for them, instead of imagining use cases, which is where I went wrong. Anyway, I've swapped out the code and made new, simple documentation, so no TfD should be needed. Some people probably used this template in weird ways that aren't going to have the intended output now, but it shouldn't be many, and easy enough to track down.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Also a good solution. Thanks for the help. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I believed I've cleaned up every instance of both templates in mainspace and projectspace (didn't bother with talk archives, userpages, etc.). They were never very popular due to their bewildering, pointless complexity. Maybe I was drunk or something when I wrote those templates, ha ha.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
(see below)
What's with all these obscure templates I've never seen before? 718smiley.svg North America1000 03:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(see above)
Well, they're templates and obscure ones, thus your not having seen them. Heh. They were disused because they were way too complicated. I've replaced the code with very simple versions, so they may get used more. Or not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've always liked {{paragraph break}}. Then there's {{meh1}}; bet you've never seen that one, since it's new. North America1000 21:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I might have to use that para. one more often, especially in cites. I wasn't aware there was an accessibility problem in using para. breaks in cites. However, the documentation is partly incorrect. An <li> is a block element that can contain any flow content, including <p> paragraphs. I would suggest proposing {{meh1}} for merger into {{meh}}}, and to use the emoji in {{meh1}}, since it's much clearer. I can't even tell what the face in {{meh}} is doing; it's too small, with details too faint.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United StatesEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Jacobo ArbenzEdit


Hi. Please comment on the talk page of the article "Jacobo Arbenz", under the thread "Nicknames", as to whether "El Soldado del Pueblo" nickname is obscure or not and whether it should be added to the first sentence of the lead or not. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019)Edit

Disregard: Already closed, and was just bureaucratic noise anyway, about a situation that almost certainly will never really arise.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminshipEdit

 Done The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of flagcruft...Edit

Check out List of diplomatic missions of the United States. I ... can't even find words. And what's with all the "Responses to <event>" articles with the flags going insane - see Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, International reactions to the Arab Spring, Reactions to the death of Bhumibol Adulyadej, Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings, etc... (We have an entire category tree for these reactions articles? REALLY? Category:Reactions to 2010s events) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I would just raise this all in the thread at WT:MOSICONS. You and me wanting to do something about it has little weight compared to a month-long discussion with everyone agreeing something should be done about it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I've added these into the discussion over there, to centralize.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...Edit

Waldsauerklee, Rauenthal.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving articles in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Only sometimes. Fortunately, my wave of evil vandalism has still gone undetected. %-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversyEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversyEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified rulesetEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:English grammarEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:English grammar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)Edit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wayback MachineEdit


Hi Mr. McCandlish, I wonder if you can help me? I'm having trouble with the Wayback Machine at the moment and another kindly editor has advised me that you might be the right person to turn to. Rather than reproduce my problem here, may I direct you to my Talk page, where you have already been pinged (so if it appears that I'm bugging you, I profusely apologise). This is really not urgent, but I am rather stumped, especially as I find the WM extremely useful and I feel like I've lost a limb!
Many thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to sayEdit

A *sigh* is all we have when we know we've been targeted by POV pushers who couldn't give a big rat's ass about NPOV. I'm beginning to believe a decade may be the cornerstone for make or break. Atsme Talk 📧 23:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: Not sure if you mean a decade of your own participation, or a decade of an issue being unresolved, or whether WP will still be viable at the end of a decade. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Mac...the depth of your thought process is not only intriguing, it's stimulating. I was thinking "service" to the pedia...but now wondering if there's a way we can categorize pedians by time served? Atsme Talk 📧 01:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we'd need WP:Parole board. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis linesEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019Edit

Back to the drawing board Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

  • Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
  • The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
  • They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

  • Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
  • The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
  • Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.


A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.


An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   01:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Thank you for this clear, thoughtful, non-reactive, invective-free update on what has been a real mess, with gross disruption alleged by both sides (actually three sides, which is weird). I think this newsletter is strong, maybe undeniable, evidence against accusations that you're negligent/incompetent with regard to portal deployment, failing to listen to complaints/criticism, being single-minded and defiant with regard to continuing in the same vein despite objections, and all the related accusations made by the other two "sides" (one now indeffed, and the other the subject of my own urging that ArbCom take a portals-related behavior case). Feel free to quote me on this should the need arise, since I'm not always active.

While I have not agreed with you on all this auto-portals stuff, and particularly warned against and predicted a backlash about both portals on too-narrow/specific/obscure/redundant topics, and portals with too little mainspace content behind them even if not in the former category, I deplore the pitchforks-and-torches attitude that has been directed toward you and the entire good-faith WP:WikiProject Portals (in which I have only participated as an MoS advisor). It's been a shameful episode, as has been the unbearable disruption of MfD with a tsunami of "kill all portals" nominations, many of them very ill-considered, followed by the two main instigators of that mess turning on each other like rabid animals over a minor difference of opinion in how to kill all portals. It's fuckin' nuts and nothing like it should ever happen again on this site.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyber RightsEdit

I was amused to find various paragraphs about you in Godwin's book. :) Nemo 21:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that was half a life-time ago – back when I had the energy to "carry the picket sign" every day.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversyEdit

 Done: It's The RfC Chain That Would Not Die.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adam Leitman BaileyEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Laying down a marker hereEdit

I reverted your edits to {{Quote/doc/boilerplate}}, since I don't know any reason why {{quote}} shouldn't indicate that there are also other quotation templates available for use. This is a service to the editor I'd think. This is something that could be discussed and we can see how people fell about that.

Hi, you can pretend I'm an icon (like real templates have), except I'm cuter

I think it'd be best to let {{Quote/doc/boilerplate}} lie for the time being. My latest revert might be what the admins would call a "WP:3RR", so I'm laying down a marker here so's not to get in trouble. I think there's some template I'm suppose to put here, but I'm not big fan of templates except for new users. You can consider the equivalent of a template that says "Let's slow done, since what's going on at {{Quote/doc/boilerplate}} could be considered edit warring at this point, I guess." Herostratus (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've undone part of your revert because the "don't use this in articles" part does not pertain to one of the templates at which this is transcluded, and the other part has nothing to do with articles in particular. This was already explained to you, but you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I've already, for now, conceded on every other matter pending a broader discussion, opened that D part of BRD for you, and provided policy-based rationales for everything, but you are not matching this pace. Your blind and blanket revertwarring, relying on more WP:IDONTLIKEIT pseudo-reasoning, and clearly without understanding the meaning and applicability of the text in question, is not competent and is looking more and more like WP:WIN behavior. Please stop.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Herostratus: That came across as more testy than I intended. I don't think you have a general CIR problem, of course. Rather, you did not appear to be actually parsing the wording/code of the doc-snippet template and its applicability to the pages actually transcluding it, but reverting just to revert. I have no issue with discussing all this stuff in detail, and opened a thread to do that myself, but it can't have incorrect instructions in it, like telling people that the one template that MoS actually does call for shouldn't be used, nor make claims about block quotes which are factually wrong even if they might be applicable to pull quotes (if we were using those in mainspace, which has now been off the table for over a year).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. I'll look at it later, reserving the right to roll back.
Let's move forward, maybe we can render this particular issue moot or something. I'll write something on the MOS talk page presently.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talkcontribs) 22:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kamarupi PrakritEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)



With this edit you seem to have remove other users comments [[9]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You fixed it, it happens.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There's some kind of issue with the beta edit-conflict resolver, but it's so intermittent I can't pin it down.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 Done: Linked to the last ANI, which has a diff pile.

It would be nice to see a link to the sanctions they is under so we can judge. Could you post a link in the ANI?Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

opps, mistake hahahahahahaha … haa? So cute. cygnis insignis 12:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Not under sanctions; the sanctions were lifted. The condition under which they were lifted was that Fæ would not engage again in NPA/CIVIL breaches or canvassing in sexuality or gender disputes, but did both, and has continued to do so (at least with regard to the first part; dunno about further canvassing). I'll see if I can dig up some links.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Cheers, that is what I meant.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC closedEdit

A request for comment you started: Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions has been closed. With thanks. --qedk (t c) 16:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thankee.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Some snooker input, if you have time.Edit

Hi SMcCandlish! I hope you are well. There's a couple things I'd appreciate your input on, if you have time. Please ignore if this is considered WP:CANVASSING.

  1. WT:SNOOKER##To-do list
  2. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2018 World Snooker Championship/archive1

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hardly canvassing to direct people in the snooker project to its to-do list and an FAC in it. :-) I chimed in at the FAC to try to help move it past the "which flag template, if any, to use" foundering point. I don't think I have much time these days to dig into project to-do lists (given the size of my own), and if I did, it would be the general cue sports one, since at least 9/10 of our active cue sports editors are snooker-focused already.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I once got caught out for canvassing, and I've been very careful since then not to do so.
  1. thanks for replying on the FA. It did get a bit derailed. The semantics of the particular MOS is a bit beyond me, I'm happy to use whichever template, but it doesn't really mean the article should fail on flags alone.
  2. the to do list isn't really that, it's more a list of things that were brought up during the world championships. One of the things I thought you might be interested in was a notability guideline for cue sports inside WP:NATHLETE after an AfD for Tian Pengfei. I'm also trying to get a new consensus on WP:LIVEUPDATES as until now, no one enforced it. As you most likely wrote the guideline, I would appreciate any input you might have.
Thanks for your time even if thats it! I know you're a busy man and always appreciated your input. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 05:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the icons thing is a simple fix. Will look into the other stuff. I don't recall writing any of LIVEUPDATES (and it's kind of strange that shortcut goes to a snooker-specific page). I would actually move that into a general MOS:SPORT, but we don't have one. Always something I meant to work on, but never got around to it yet (huge amount of work, poring over all the sports-related MoS and NC guidelines, and all the WP:PROJPAGES for stuff that's actually guideline-worthy wording (versus, often, random opinion, or much worse, like active defiance of site-wide guidelines or policies by a few wikiproject people, e.g. WP:ICEHOCKEY for years was trying to "ban" diacritics in "their" articles, and so was WP:TENNIS). I've not editing WP:NATHLETE much, but did write most or all of WP:CUENOT, which oddly wasn't even mentioned there, so I fixed that with a cross-reference.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thanks for your reply. WP:CUENOT is a great resource, but isn't guidelines, so usually gets chucked back in a deletion discussion. I'll potentially see what I can do to implement a MOS version, hopefully that's cool with you.
The FA nomination seems to have completely stalled, due to quite a disagreement regarding what the templates should actually do. Do you know where I could contact to get some experienced input? I've already contacted MOS:ICON, I don't really mind what templates are being used for this, just that it fits with MOS. Should be an easy fix, but I just get reverted if I do what I believe to be right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, but it'll probably have to be re-approached much later because someone will not listen. If you can patch up the article without Tvx1 revert-warring you, that'd be great. But I think it's pretty obvious that the editor either just does not understand or is having some kind of WP:IDHT episode and pretending to not understand as some kind of lame WP:WINNING tactic. The Rambling Man and I know what we're talking about on matters like this. While FACs are sometimes passed despite guideline compliance problems it happens less and less, and only when there's a really good reason for it, and frankly only when the principal author of the article is a long-term FAC regular with a lot of allies, and the stickler for guideline compliance has pissed off some of them (e.g. Tony1's troubles). This kind of WP:ILIKEIT defiance without a real rationale is pretty poisonous to FACs, and unfortunately we don't have any control over when someone has a hare up their butt about "their" article and what tiny minutiae they feel like fighting to the death about.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  13:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I will re-raise when/if this fails (it probably will). It's such a shame for me, as in comparrison, the GA process is significantly more friendly. To me t seems like such a non-issue. If icons aren't compliant, and doing find and replace will make the article FA, we should do it. It's rather stubborn for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. This is one of the reasons I don't FA-nominate things. I don't nom my own articles because I have too much history with too many FA regulars and they're likely use it as an excuse to re-start shit with me. I don't nom others' articles, because too often they have a myopic WP:OWN problem. You likely do not have the first of these problems, but no one can escape the latter. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's a bit sad, as the state of the article hasn't really been discussed at all. I'd work on more cue sports articles up to FA, but I suspect they'd have the same issue. Got quite a few GAs planned though, which I'm sure will not have the same issues. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It is sad. It's down to blocking behaviour of disruptive editors that mean no-one is inclined to see past the obvious failings because it's a waste of time to get involved when the candidate will obviously fail through these MOS issues. As SMcCandlish notes, once the disruptive forces move onto other things, perhaps we can take another run at it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, and frankly GA is much more important. GA marks the real test of an article as an actual encyclopedia article, and is focused on making it worthy of the term, including sourcing, being written sensibly, and having enough information. FA is just polishing chrome. I've said many times that improving Stub to B-class pages to GA level is far more important than making an already-good article slightly better. In the long run, I think FA is actually doomed. It's turned into an insular good ol' boys' club, with a very high barrier to entry, and a hostile, cliquish atmosphere. GA is open to everyone and while its analyses are less in-depth, they're actually more meaningful in the grand WP:ENC scope, and are performed by a far wider variety of editors, without a locus for WP:CONLEVEL problems to get ingrained.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)Edit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Got mail?Edit


Would you mind e-mailing me to try to see if it works? PPEMES (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:JuulEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Juul. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of StyleEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ainu languageEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ainu language. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Julius Evola disputeEdit


Hi SMcCandlish. There is an ongoing dispute regarding a claim made in the lede of the article on Julius Evola. Since you were involved in a previous discussion on the subject, I was wondering whether you had any input or suggestions on how to proceed in the current discussion. (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Correction/response requestedEdit

Completely non-productive. User:Roy McCoy has been asked not to continue posting here about this.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I note at the top of your page here: "I'll probably see that I've erred, and will at least acknowledge that you've raised an objection." Please acknowledge not that I've raised an objection — which is already obvious — but that you in fact made the mistake you did. I'm not asking for an apology (though an apology would be in order), but simply a retraction of your presumably unintentional repeated misstatement. I note also: "If we have a dispute, usually it's something we can easily hash out and move past with no hard feelings." I would hope so, and certainly neither of us needs a continuing conflict. I think it's a pretty sure thing that I won't be requesting anything of you in the future, so I think you may view responding to my two present concerns as a quick and convenient way of winding things up. I hope you'll excuse my having handled a couple of things less than perfectly upon arriving in the discussion, and I think you'll find that I've acquired at least a bit of experience in depersonalizing discussions. But please be informed that your neglecting to correct your misstatements or answer my question is unsettling me, and if you're sincere about not wanting to offend or engender hard feelings, I hope you will act promptly to relieve me on this. It would also avoid further disputation on the matter, on the page or elsewhere. If you still don't understand what it was you repeatedly said that was untrue and to which I am objecting, then please let me know and I will again try to explain it to you. It's already there on the page, though. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I stopped trying to plow through your repetitive WP:BLUDGEON posts days ago (I just respond to whatever point I first discern, and move on). So I'm not sure which thing(s) you're on about. If I run across them and they seem to need a response I'll make one. It's not a matter of being angry with you or anything like that; this simply has not been a productive expenditure of anyone's time. It's like two people in two different counties arguing with tree stumps and mistaking it for a conversation with each other.

Given what I last responded to, I think it must have something to do with sources you like. I'm don't think it makes any difference at this point. What SPS/UGC blogs say doesn't matter. What news-style and marking sources say doesn't matter (regardless whose they are, even Oxfords's). What a one-publisher internal stylesheet says doesn't matter (even Oxford's). That when you try hard you can find some non-news sources that agree with you doesn't even matter when they are house-style sheets, and nothing like the public-facing style guides that WP and the rest of the world treat as reliable sources on English usage. Those almost unanimously treat such commas as optional, and recommend including them any time ambiguity or confusion could result. On WP that is effectively 100% of the time, because we have no control from moment to moment over what the text says. "This is not ambiguous because it's short and the rest of the sentence cannot be read with any other interpretation" is only true right this second and may be false on both points one second from now, or next week, or in August.

This "someone at Oxford [in a non-relevant role] said ..." stuff is the same issue as "notability doesn't rub off"; reliability doesn't either. Internal documentation for a narrow one-publisher use ("how to write about Oxford U.", "how to submit something for publication by Oxford U.") are not RS publications on English usage, they're just primary sources for what some of Oxford's internal policies are. If they also have an internal policy that people may not leave open packages of food in the staff refrigerator over the weekend, this is not a reliable source that, in the wider world, leaving open packages of food in a refrigerator over the weekend is a problem. You've been confusing publication and publisher: not everything on paper or e-paper that came from some sub-entity of Oxford University is of equal reliability, relevance, or applicability in every context.

Anyway, no posited that it would be impossible to find any academic-leaning sources that agree with you. Rather, the argument is that what they prefer may make sense for their context, but doesn't (or, if you like, makes less sense and less clearly makes any sense) on Wikipedia. I've laid this out in almost excruciating detail multiple times. If you can't surmount that argument, on its merits, then it simply doesn't matter whether I responded to every single thing you've posted the way you wanted it interpreted. By way of analogy, if we're talking about avian evolution, and someone starts in with "Well, according to the Bible ...", it doesn't matter whether anyone else exactly follows the scriptural quotations, since they're simply not germane to settling a bio-evolutionary question.

If my argument doesn't work for you, then it doesn't; if you're not convincing me, then you're not. I'm not inclined to keep going over it again and again. Cf. WP:WINNING. See also WP:SATISFY; no is obligated to answer you, much less required to do so to until you are contented. Just dropping the matter is generally a better course when an argument turns circular.

Probably the key point throughout all of this, though, is EEng's: Absent proof that this comma is a matter that editors frequently edit-war over, and a clear consensus to advise one way or the other, it's not something MoS is ever going to have a firm line-item about. I.e., it's a moot argument to begin with, so no need to perpetuate it. As you put it, "certainly neither of us needs a continuing conflict". I'm also having connectivity issues right now; it's taken over an hour to get this response to submit to the server; so going and digging up more of the same material to respond to is not on the table right now anyway.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There was no occasion for this. I didn't request further commentary from you in the first place – "commenting if you feel like it", I said, and this was only in relation to your finally having a look at the guide I had actually cited. I certainly didn't even suggest a further commentary now. The two points remain as before, though you've taken a step towards addressing the second one by citing EEng on the absence of a clear consensus. Does this mean that your answer to my question is "no"? This, again, is a yes-or-no question, and it in no way invites yet further unrequested commentary from you. Let's leave it clearly at that for the moment, since it seems necessary to simplify the matter even more than I've already simplified it. Please stick to the actual point here. I previously wrote: "I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge the absence (or possibly claim the existence) of a present consensus on the issue. [...] I'm asking you to [...] respond to the question of whether or not you think a consensus on the current comma issue exists." Could you please give me a yes or a no on that, speaking for yourself and not for EEng or anyone else? Thanks again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I just now thought that it might not have been noticed – or perhaps it was later forgotten – that the initial message about the other Oxford style guide came from Number 57 and not from me. Could this explain the error? –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No? cygnis insignis 18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Good question. Perhaps it's being implied that I'm badgering an editor to state the obvious, except I don't think it's obvious. Actually it's kind of an interesting situation, in which it might be claimed that the answer is obvious both ways, yes and no. If that's the case then it actually isn't obvious at all, and hence my request to clarify something is in order and justified. It is indeed a request to clarify something and was expressed as such, as a request. Moreover, I'm clearly not pestering anyone to respond to a litany of debate points, nor to restate what anybody has already said clearly enough, nor to go into any detail whatever. Again, it's a simple yes-or-no question, and one may reasonably ask why it is not being answered.
I believe I read somewhere else that an editor is indeed not obligated to reply to a question, but that in that case he's supposed to announce that he's not answering it. If such a statement were to appear on the MoS talk page, without being obfuscated through burial in a mass of additional text, I don't suppose there would be anything I could do about it and I would not present a complaint on that account. Perhaps that's how this part of it could be settled. While waiting for a possible word on this I guess I'll do what the (curiously cited?) WP:BLUDGEON recommends and ask an uninvolved administrator, or perhaps several, for their opinion. Thanks cygnis. By the way, I agree that "Commas indicate a soft stop — really any kind of pause" was amusing. –Roy McCoy (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
You seem sensible and have good communication skills, so this time and effort seems misspent and displaced. Have a good one. cygnis insignis 13:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
^^^^^ What he said. EEng 00:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
We've already been over this. There certainly is no consensus in favor of your view on the underlying question; it's simply something MoS isn't going to address, mostly because there is no consensus on it, and in part because MoS doesn't address every imaginable point, only those matters that result in frequent editwarring and other problems, or it would be longer than Chicago Manual of Style. No, that is not me "walking back" anything at all; it's an observation I make frequently, and was making before EEng even arrived at WP; he just happened to make the point again, in that discussion, most recently. You asked for a response here and at WT:MOS, so "There was no occasion for this" doesn't make sense. I refer you to WP:SATISFY and WP:STICK, again. I'm under no obligation to answer you at all, much less to do so in a way that pleases you, or in a predetermined format. This is my talk page, not yours. Please don't respond here further unless it has something productive to do with encyclopedia work. Continuing to argue about this is a waste of my and your own time. And, no, there is no admin anywhere on WP who is going to force me to answer you in a way that makes you happy.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I would have been very happy for our dispute to have been resolved prior to now, and I think I made this clear on your talk page before. You were correct about 3O's being for matters involving article content rather than user conduct; the links I was led through before didn't clarify this, but I now see through the previously unseen WP:DRR page linked to at the top of the MoS talk page that the appropriate place is WP:ANI. I have prepared a written complaint regarding your behavior and will most probably present it there unless the matter is resolved otherwise. In this regard, by the way, I don't know what happened to the "If we have a dispute, usually it's something we can easily hash out and move past with no hard feelings" text that I noted at the top of your talk page before. In any event I would prefer to settle the dispute without going to ANI, so I hope you will agree to discuss the problem here and now rather than there and later. This is the recommended and preferred way to handle such a problem, as I'm sure you are aware. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Knockya self out. You should probably familiarize yourself with WP:BOOMERANG first, since that's the likely result. "[U]sually it's something we can easily hash out and move past" has the word usually in it for a reason. It doesn't work when one side of the discussion is tendentiously pursuing some kind of "personal honor" WP:GREATWRONGS thing, and engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. It's already been made clear at WT:MOS that others are damned tired of the discussion. Here, as there, it has turned circular, so there is no point in going over it any further. The substantive matter isn't something either of us are changing our minds about, and is a moot point because MoS is not going to change without clear consensus to do so. WP:Drop the stick. Your attempts to arm-twist and browbeat me in to giving you "satisfaction" are bordering on WP:HARASS at this point, as ANI will make clear to you if you attempt such WP:DRAMA, especially since you keep posting this shit to my talk page after being asked not to. When I said "Please don't respond here further unless it has something productive to do with encyclopedia work", I actually and obviously meant it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on Talk:Kamrupi dialectEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kamrupi dialect. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kamarupi PrakritEdit

Disregard: I closed this as an invalid RfC.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish - Yes. My mistake, and yours. You closed it as an invalid RFC, due to an error on my part. Your closure was invalid, because you put a {{Discussion top}} template at the top, but didn't put a {{Discussion bottom}} template at the bottom. This had the unintended effect of making the page write-only. I would have appreciated if you had told me that I had made a good-faith error and needed to repost the RFC. (I don't really especially want to be running this RFC, but I am carrying out a task that has been assigned to me of resolving this dispute, which is not so much like herding cats as like trying to use cats to herd rabbits.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about DS alertsEdit

I can't seem to locate where (or if) it is a violation to post a DS alert on a user's TP after they have already been alerted of the sanctions that year. If it exists, can you point me to it so it can be included here? Atsme Talk 📧 18:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: It's covered at either WP:AC/DS or at the Template:Ds/alert docs (maybe both). We're instructed to not leave redundant (within 1 year) alerts for the same DS topic area, i.e. the same {{Ds/alert}} {{{1}}} parameter code (or alias thereof). It's unclear what if any consequences there could theoretically be for doing it on purpose. As far as I know, 0 editors have ever been punished for it. Most transgressions of this supposed rule are tit-for-tat childish crap that happens once (i.e., you leave someone a {{Ds/alert|at}}, which also necessarily and automatically constitutes renewed notice to yourself (you can't be "unaware" of the DS if you're telling someone else about them), but then the recipient runs to your talk page and gives you a copy of it right back and tells you to go screw yourself. Happens all the time, and no one really seems to care. It's kind of hard to leave a duplicate notice accidentally, since when you try to save the template, it pops up the box of options to check the logs. If someone were to WP:POINTedly keep leaving the same editor redundant notices as some kind of intimidation antic, that probably would be actionable, most likely at WP:AE. (I don't think a WP:RFARB or WP:ARCA would be accepted over that; it's too trivial and is the kind of thing AE can deal with quickly.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: Here at the deets:
  • WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Alerts: "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned. Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."
  • Template:Ds/alert: When you attempt to save the alert on a user talk page: "Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months. Please now check that this editor has not already been alerted to this area of conflict in the last twelve months: [links to logs and stuff here]". The template's doc didn't include this information. I'm about to go add it, though I may get yelled at (supposedly only Arbs, their clerks, and maybe AE admins can edit that directly, but that's actually against WP:EDITING policy).
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Perfect, Mac! Exactly what I needed. Will add to my ARCA request. Atsme Talk 📧 09:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Whoever came up with this whole DS alert system is burning in hell. EEng 20:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah. I tried to get rid of it, as applied to internal material like MoS, and more generally, and ArbCom is just flat-out addicted to it. I even did a WP:VPPOL RfC about it, roughly a year ago, and the (thin) majority of respondents were in favor of abolishing it. Didn't happen of course, but at least it was sufficient pressure to seriously revise the Ds/alert template.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:HarassmentEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kamarupi PrakritEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video gamesEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello SMcCandlish,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Anastasiya MeshcheryakovaEdit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Anastasiya Meshcheryakova. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1Edit


The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kamarupi PrakritEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Kamarupi Prakrit RFCEdit

SMc, I have collapsed some parts of the discussion at the Talk:Kamarupi Prakrit RFC since the lengthy and somewhat heated back and forth was IMO distracting from the subject of the RFC and was likely to drive away uninvolved editors from the discussion.

Your central objection to the framing of the RFC as a choice between two ledes versions in toto is still clearly visible and may well prove to be correct; if so, the RFC participants and closer will reach the same conclusion. But as you may have realized by now after looking at the talk-page archives, DRN, etc, the RFC itself is somewhat of a Hail Mary attempt to resolve a long niggling debate among a small group of editors. So it would be useful to give this good faith albeit unorthodox effort the best chance to succeed. Hope you understand. Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Request concerning SMcCandlishEdit

A case involving you is presently being initiated at WP:AE. –Roy McCoy (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33Edit

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...Edit

Raps, Ehrenbach.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kamrupi dialectEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kamrupi dialect. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanctionEdit

Per the discussion at Special:Permalink/898254684#SMcCandlish, you are banned from interacting with Roy McCoy for six months, subject to the usual exceptions. If you wish to appeal this sanction, please see the instructions at WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals. GoldenRing (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Should have been a BOOMERANG against the filer, and you know it. I'll say this and otherwise just go do something else than Wikipedia for a while. This drama should have gone away and instead you and the rest of the AE admins just encouraged more of it. When you do things like this, you are teaching people how to game the system and get away with it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  20:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Pretty bizarre, indeed. Next time don't let yourself by trolled by the likes of Roy. I have to admit I sympathized with EEng's "Both of you shut the fuck up" comment, but it appears that you had already shut up by then while Roy kept at it, and more than a week later filed a complaint, apparently because you declined to interact with him any further. So, yes, it was an obvious boomerang situation; hard to see why admin GoldenRing failed to realize that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Reacting to problems, instead of acting toward solutions, keeps problem-fixers employed? I'm told this is a cynical view, but it always occurs to our disobedient impulses to seize the levers of control. My weird and meta thinking after reading this, as I'm considering how I can sublimate dissent into content. cygnis insignis 06:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bayer designationEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bayer designation. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:IranEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


I would like to say that I'm vaguely aware of the recent developments and that I'm sorry about that. Most importantly, you've done a lot for the project and I want to thank you. What happened seems a minor issue for a non-involved person like me, but I can certainly understand the resulting frustration and temporary lack of motivation. If you decide to take a break, I just hope that you'll be back whenever you feel like it. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 04:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment. I'm just tired of periodically being subjected to punitive measures due to other editors being disruptive but gaming the system to make themselves look like victims. It's severely corrosive to community morale and long-term retention of productive editors. Thinking back: with the exception of someone who died, every departed editor whom I miss was chased off the system by similar means.

At some point, the AE, AN*, and ArbCom admins have to start absorbing the fact that "we're too busy or uninterested to bother investigating the claims, and will just believe whoever whines the loudest" is a recipe for the inmates running the asylum. Admins are effectively immune to any repercussions from things like i-bans and short-term blocks. For all of the rest of us, they're nasty weapons that other editors will turn against us to WP:WIN, more often and more doggedly the more one participates in controversial areas (i.e., the "magnet" subjects for PoV pushers, and that certainly includes some internal subjects like MoS and AT/RM).

Maybe going on editorial strike in protest will not be effective – if I'm nearly alone in the practice – but it's worth trying, since formal appeal processes are totally useless. They always and strongly side with backing the admin who imposed the sanction. I call it the Myth of Administrator Infallibility, one of WP's weak spots that more and more WP:NOTHERE types are learning to exploit, especially after building up some WP:CIVILPOV strategies.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:DisambiguationEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Date of birth missing (living people)Edit

As the creator of this maintenance category, I thought you might want to give your comments to this question of mine. --bender235 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of StyleEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dean AmbroseEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dean Ambrose. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Criticism of HuaweiEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of most visited museumsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most visited museums. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)/NYC Subway RfCEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)/NYC Subway RfC. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video gamesEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category scope CaribbeanEdit

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Category scope Caribbean has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TaiwanEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured articleEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Snooker portalEdit

A tag has been placed on Category:Snooker portal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "SMcCandlish".