If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
Welcome to SMcCandlish's talk page.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply.
Greetings! I'm a real person, like you. Collaboration improves when we remember this about each other.
Edits that appear to be mine but do not come from specific IP addresses listed below are not necessarily me (I've been impersonated on here at least three times). However, starting in 2015, I've been occasionally editing via mobile ...
Occasionally I get logged out and don't immediately notice. Any edits from the following IP addresses,during the timeframes specified, are by me. Any that seem to be from me but which are not from my account name or from one of these known IP addresses might not be. Also, I do not use any of my doppelganger accounts (I just have them to thwart impersonation).
Former long-term IP addresses: 18.104.22.168 a.k.a. 2601:9:4303:8590:4571:E326:4AB2:E047 (21 January 2013 to ca. January 2016) 22.214.171.124 (21 September 2012 to 21 January 2013), 126.96.36.199 (21 August 2012 to 21 September 2012), 188.8.131.52 (1 August 2012 to 20 August 2012), 184.108.40.206 (1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012, 220.127.116.11 (23 December 2010 – 1 August 2011) 18.104.22.168 (11 July 2010 – 23 December 2010), 22.214.171.124 (29 October 2008 – 11 July 2010), 126.96.36.199 (May 21-23, 2009), 188.8.131.52 (early July 2007 – 29 October 2008; overlaps several of the below) 184.108.40.206 (12 June 2008 – 17 July 2008), 220.127.116.11 (2 September 2007 only), 18.104.22.168 (January – early July 2007), 22.214.171.124 (ca. late 2006 – January 2007).
Unresolved:Can't get at the stuff at Ancestry; try using addl. cards.
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.— SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 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). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
If I happen to come across it in a used book store I might pick it up. There's nothing wrong with citing the older edition (as I've said to you before). I had not heard of Adams before yesterday either. Yank is apparently not his real name, though I'm not sure what it is yet. Not sure there will be enough on him to make a DYK (though don't count it out). Of course, since I didn't userspace it, I have 4½ days to see. Unfortunately, I don't have access to ancestry.com and have never found any free database nearly as useful for finding newspaper articles (and census, birth certificates, and reams of primary source material). I tried to sign up for a free trial again which worked once before, but they got smart and are logging those who signed up previously. I just looked; the new Stein and Rubino is about $280. I'll work from the 2nd edition:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I haven't tried Ancestry in a while. They're probably logging IP addresses. That would definitely affect me, since mine doesn't change except once every few years. I guess that's what libraries and stuff are for. S&R: Should be available cheaper. Mine came with the Blue Book of Pool Cues too for under $200 total. Here it is for $160, plus I think the shipping was $25. Stein gives his e-mail address as that page. If you ask him he might give you the 2-book deal too, or direct you to where ever that is. Shamos: Not saying its an unreliable source (although the newer version actually corrected some entries), it's just cool because it has more stuff in it. :-) DYK: Hey, you could speedily delete your own article, sandbox it and come back. Heh. Seriously, I'll see if I can get into Ancestry again and look for stuff on him. I want to look for William Hoskins stuff anyway so I can finish that half of the Spinks/Hoskins story, which has sat in draft form for over a year. I get sidetracked... — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 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). — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying. It was worth a shot. I signed up for a newspaperarchive.com three month trial. As far as newspaper results go it seems quite good so far, and the search interface is many orders of magnitude better than ancestry's, but it has none of the genealogical records that ancestry provides. With ancestry I could probably find census info on Yank as well as death information (as well as for Masako Katsura, which I've been working on it for a few days; she could actually be alive, though she'd be 96).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
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! — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 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)
Unresolved:New sources/material worked into article, but unanswered questions remain.
Some more notes: they bought Royal Worcester in 1983 and sold it the next year, keeping some of the electronics part.; info about making records:; the chair in 1989 was Lord Jenkin of Roding:; "In 1880, crystalate balls made of nitrocellulose, camphor, and alcohol began to appear. In 1926, they were made obligatory by the Billiards Association and Control Council, the London-based governing body." Amazing Facts: The Indispensable Collection of True Life Facts and Feats. Richard B. Manchester - 1991wGtDHsgbtltnpBg&ct=result&id=v0m-h4YgKVYC&dq=%2BCrystalate; a website about crystalate and other materials used for billiard balls:No5 Balls.html. Fences&Windows 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll have to have a look at this stuff in more detail. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ 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)
Unresolved:Need to fix William A. Spinks, etc., with proper balkline stats, now that we know how to interpret them.
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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
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.
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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I hate the drama of an RfC, particularly when we can just look at how much can be naturally disambiguated, but if you think it's an actual issue, I guess ping me when it goes up. As for landcraces, it may be true ("clear definitions") but you would be doing God's (or someone's) own good work if you were to improve landrace which has few references, fewer good ones, and is generally not a lot of help to those of us trying to sort out WTF a "landrace" is... (smiles). As for breed, that is were we disagree: At what point do we really have a "breed" as opposed to a "landrace?" Fixed traits, human-selected? At what degree, at which point? How many generations? I don't even know if there IS such a thing as a universal definition of what a "breed" is: seriously:  or breed or . I think you and I agree that the Palomino horse can never be a "breed" because it is impossible for the color to breed true (per an earlier discussion) so we have one limit. But while I happen agree to a significant extent with your underlying premise that when Randy from Boise breeds two animals and says he has created a new breed and this is a problem, (I think it's a BIG problem in the worst cases) but if we want to get really fussy, I suppose that the aficionados of the Arabian horse who claim the breed is pure from the dawn of time are actually arguing it is a landrace, wouldn't you say? And what DO we do with the multi-generational stuff that's in limbo land? Montanabw(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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ 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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ 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)
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. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ 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)
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.
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)
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.
I had noticed that point and was going to add it, along with some other points from both NCFLORA and NCFAUNA, soon to MOS:ORGANISMS, which I feel is nearing "go live" completion. Does that issue come up often enough to make it a MOS mainpage point? I wouldn't really object to it, and it could be had by adding an "(even if it coincides with a capitalized Genus name)" parenthetical to the "general names" bit. The pattern is just common enough in animals to have been problematic if it were liable to be problematic, as it were. I.e., I don't see a history of squabbling about it at Lynx or its talk page, and remember looking into this earlier with some other mammal, about two weeks ago, and not seeing evidence of confusion or editwarring. The WP:BIRDS people were actually studiously avoiding that problem; I remember seeing a talk page discussion at the project that agreed that such usage shouldn't be capitalized ever. PS: With Lynx, I had to go back to 2006, in the thick of the "Mad Capitalization Epidemic" to find capitalization there, and it wasn't even consistent, just in the lead. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, certainly "rove beetle" and "oak" are poor examples here, so I would support changing to some of the others you suggested above.
I think the main problem we found with plants was it being unclear as to whether inexperienced editors meant the scientific name or the English name. So you would see a sentence with e.g. "Canna" in the middle and not know whether this should be corrected to "Canna" or to "canna". The plural is clear; "cannas" is always lower-case non-italicized. The singular is potentially ambiguous. Whether it's worth putting this point in the main MOS I just don't know since I don't much edit animal articles and never breed articles, which is why I asked you. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Will take a look at that later, if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
Beats me. Doesn't seem too frequent an issue, but lot of MOS stuff isn't. Definitely should be in MOS:ORGANISMS, regardless. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Worked on both of those a bit at MOS. We'll see if it sticks. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
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 ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes (about figuring out how to reference e-books), though I suspect existing (non-WP) citation styles have addressed this already (no need to re-invent the wheel). This is a slightly different case, though. It is a digitisation of an existing (physical) book that has no page numbers. If I had the book in front of me (actually, it was only published as a single copy, so it is not a 'publication' in that traditional sense of many copies being produced), the problem with page numbers would still exist. I wonder if the 'digital viewer' should be thought of as a 'via' thingy? In the same way that (technically) Google Books and archive.org digital copies of old books are just re-transmitting, and re-distributing the material (is wikisource also a 'via' sort of thing?). Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: Ah, I see. I guess I would treat it as a |via=, and same with WikiSource, which in this respect is essentially like Google Books or Project Gutenberg. I think your conundrum has come up various times with arXiv papers, that have not been paginated visibly except in later publication (behind a journal paywall and not examined). Back to the broader matter: Some want to treat WikiSource and even Gutenberg as republishers, but I think that's giving them undue editorial credit and splitting too fine a hair. Was thinking on the general unpaginated and mis-paginated e-sources matter while on the train, and came to the conclusion that for a short, unpaginated work with no subsections, one might give something like |at=in paragraph 23, and for a much longer one use the |at=in the paragraph beginning "..." trick. A straight up |pages=82–83 would work for an e-book with hard-coded meta-data pagination that is consistent between apps/platforms and no visual pagination. On the other hand, use the visual pagination in an e-book that has it, even if it doesn't match the e-book format's digital pagination, since the pagination in the visual content would match that of a paper copy; one might include a note that the pagination is that visible in the content if it conflicts with what the e-book reader says (this comes up a lot with PDFs, for one thing - I have many that include cover scans, and the PDF viewers treat that as p. 1, then other front matter as p. 2, etc., with the content's p. 1 being something like PDF p. 7). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:07, 14 September 2016 (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)
Crap!! Just saw this - 😢 AtsmeTalk📧 14:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Dicklyon, Cygnis insignis, Atsme, and EEng: I'm back now. While I used an alt account here and there to fix some typos and mangled citations, and to chime in on a few RfCs and such, this bogus "arbitration enforcement sanction" – being punished for walking away from a pointless dispute and being harassed by the other party at my own talk page – cost this project about 98 to 99 percent of my usual Wikipedia work for 6 months, and GoldenRing should absorb that. Some of us will not tolerate being victim-blamed (especially without even being given a chance to have our own input on the matter considered). If it happens again, I'll probably just leave permanently. I found lots of other stuff to do while I was away. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hush that nonsense, Mac. Your input is needed and I don't think I'm alone when saying we are not going to let you off the hook that easily...although I've been close to where you are now. As an eternal optimist, I made the decision to become even more involved by attending WikiConferences and am sooo looking forward to Boston in November! I hope to be able to attend at least one Wikimania event in the near future. We cannot institute positive changes if we are not here contributing. 😊 AtsmeTalk📧 20:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been to a couple myself. Definitely interesting. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
California blackout, limited bandwidth, glad you’re back of course. EEng 03:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
good to hear from you mate, I assumed you were busy elsewhere and taking a break is healthy. I'm inactive for a while, trying to keep my focus on others matters. Hope you are well. Regards ~ cygnis insignis 12:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Yar, I had a lot of other stuff to do in the interim. Used an alt account to fix typos and to chime in on RfCs I couldn't resist, but otherwise left the 'pedia to its own devices. Strangely, the site didn't fall apart without me. Heh. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
jolly good. I'm having to peek at my notices on a phone, fairly pointless when I cannot easily act on them. Oh well, I'm getting through my pile of unread fiction and books on off-topic subjects ~ cygnis insignis 00:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The entity intermittently known as SMcCandlish has returned. It is generally in a more chipper mood than in May or so (and not totally out of the loop – was using an alt. account here and there in the interim, at about about 1–2% of the usual clip).
Some big news, MoS-wise: I got dead-tired of lugging around over 5,000 books every time I moved (and ten times too much stuff in general, really). I've liquidated. While I still have a large e-book collection of style guides and dictionaries and such, I no longer have two entire bookcases full of paper ones. Thus, I'm no longer going to be the go-to guy for a mile-long comparative rundown on what every style guide in the English-speaking world has ever said about some usage or punctuation nit-pick. Some of those took several days (all-day-long days), so I probably won't miss it. I do have enough in electronic form to have meaningful input into various style debates, though.
Yes, welcome back! Coincidentally, I donated a bunch of my style guides (among other things) to the "Friends of the Library" yesterday. Trying to divest of too much stuff, and moving to an apartment. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I hear ya. I moved from a bug- and rodent-infested converted warehouse space of about 2000 sq ft to a one-room efficiency, and also cleared out two storage units of cruft in the process, not just everything in the big warehouse space. I was holding onto a lifetime worth of stuff, plus two estates' worth of stuff, and it was getting to hoarder level. Just for kitchen stuff alone, I had enough for probably four families. Almost every hand tool ever devised. Probably 50+ gallons of paint, varnish, cleaning supplies, etc. Three beds, at least a dozen tables, over a dozen chairs, three desks, four antique dressers/cabinets, a scaffold, at least five vacuum cleaners, yadda yadda. Just had to go. I can fit everything into a 12 ft U-Haul now. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Very glad to see you show up in a capitalization-related RM, just like old times. Welcome back. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I see at your ticket, you mention repeatedly that the range in question rarely edits. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Open_proxiesOpen proxies may be blocked on sight according to the policy on open proxies., Wikipedia:Open_proxiesOpen or anonymizing proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time., m:NOPPublicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. and Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Open_or_anonymous_proxiesOpen or anonymous proxies may be blocked on sight.. There is no requirement to wait for edits when dealing with open or anonymizing proxies. To correct one other minor point, you can put the IP range into this page, and it will give you a start and end ip for that range - the IP you mention is inside the range (belonging to a dedicated server / datacenter company) that I blocked. If you have any technical questions, feel free to ask - I'll do my best to answer. SQLQuery me! 01:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@SQL: That's fine; I'm just wanting to get an exemption for when I'm logged in. Right this moment, I'm using a different endpoint from the same VPN provider, but it's slower, so being able to use the one I submitted the request about would be a boon. The one I'm on for the moment isn't just slower for WP, but for everything I do online, so it's not a practical long-term solution. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
Getting the queue to 0
There are now 724 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
NOLY already covers that if you pore over it: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they ... have won a medal at the Paralympic Games". I'm not sure this is really true in practice. I would be surprised if one-time winners of Paralympic medals (especially bronze or silver) have never been successfully AFDed. "Presumed" doesn't mean "guaranteed"; anything can still fail WP:GNG. That said, a) I doubt people would go after any well-developed and sourced stubs on Paralympic medalists in snooker; but b) there may be more notable missing cue sports bios to work on (even just within snooker, such as amateur world champions, and women's champions). Up to you what you want to focus on of course! Someone somewhere probably would think I'm being anti-disabled or something. To me, it's just a matter of competitive field size and difficulting, thus relative achievement level. Paralympics winners are a subset of amateur world champions, of a sort, but only within a very narrow competitive field compared to open IBSF amateur championships. I'd put Para. medalists about on par with SEA Games or other broad regional winners (though for those, likely only the first-place winners are notable, absent some other kind of unrelated RS coverage, e.g. because one is also a politician or a murder suspect or whatever). PS: Hope you are well too! I'm tired of moving, but may have to do it again in Feb. [sigh] — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it wasn't next on my list to do, I am steadily working my way through pool bios and tournament articles before I get that far (I've been powering through a number of GAs/FAs in these recently for the WP:CUP.) I just wanted to know if they were suitable to work on, considering a few don't even have first names. There are some European Pool Championships winners in the wheelchair division (such as Henrik Larsson) who would be higher priority. I was just going to add them to WP:CUETODO.
Glad that the moves went well though. I hate moving, hoping I'll eventually be able to afford to buy a house and never have to move again - but unlikely. Is it a big move in feb? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 09:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Nah. As I rambled about somewhere higher up the page last week, I divested myself of decades of clutter and white elephants, and several thousand books. That part hurt, but it had to be done. My back at my age can't take that much lugging. Anyway, next move should just be across town. It'll all fit in a single moving van now. But it's still a hassle. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I did see that. I don't even like moving the three boxes of kit that I own down the road, it's such a headache. Great to see you back, regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 11:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
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. LizRead!Talk! 15:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Question was answered on CfD for Subsidence cratersEdit
I answered the question Marcocapelle asked and you seconded in the CfD for Subsidence craters. He came back and added support. I'm sorry to ask on your talk page - but as I understand it, the CfD would fall short of a discussion without at least 2 responses, right? Thanks! Ikluft (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Your actual edits to the article seem to be OK, as far as I can tell now, but your edit summaries contained some semi-inflammatory and pointless remarks. I'm not sure that anybody cares about Bennett's "tone"[sic] -- what they care about is that he's basically incapable of evaluating things within their historical context. Also, it's interesting that his book has been embraced by neo-Confederates and white supremacists. I wonder if you read some of the previous comments at Talk:Forced into Glory? AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in what the drive-by commentary is; I actually read the book, and other scholarship in the area. Have you? The majority of editors at that article have likely read nothing but reviews of the book, most of which were written by Bennett's opponents (whose work was criticized by him in great detail and for good reasons). It's not "interesting" that his book has been embraced by X, any more than Hitler liking cake is interesting, or a bad reflection on cake. It's the oldest fallacy in the book. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC) PS: I have now read it, and what I see in that very meagre talk page is that others have previously raised some of the same concerns I have, going back more than a decade to 2009. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The category of "Bennett's opponents" is something that you basically invented and is not particularly useful or interesting. They're professional historians who go about their work on various topics, and only devote a very small fraction of their time to Bennett. Claiming that 1950's physicists defined themselves as "Velikovsky's opponents" would be just as inaccurate and pointless. If you ever incorporate the loose, inaccurate, and semi-inflammatory language you use in your edit summaries and on this page into your actual edits on the article itself, then you will probably find yourself being quickly reverted for very good reason. AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Um, the article has – and had before I ever touched it – an entire paragraph beginning "Bennett's critics ...", so no I did not "basically invent" anything. Most currently/recently active "Lincoln aficionado" historians like Foner have written scathing reviews of FiG; most of them had also already had their material specifically criticized in FiG in great detail; various other reviewers are less critical and have no self-defensive reason (though some may have a patriotic doctrine-defensive one) to skew their reviews; yet our article gives WP:UNDUE weight to the critics like Foner who were previously criticized by Bennett in FiG. It has nothing to do with exactly what percentage of someone's output is Lincoln-praising work versus other historical biography. And comparison to the advancement of a hard science like physics is a false analogy. I have no idea why you'd say something genuinely inflammatory like your closing sentence, as if someone here since 2005 somehow doesn't know the difference between encyclopedia content, and editorial talk and edit-summary rationales – or needs to receive some kind of WP:OWNish threat in that regard. It'd be easy to take that as deliberate escalation instead of collaborative consensus building, but I'm going to instead assume it was just a heat-of-the-moment thing. None of us are robots or Vulcans, after all.
What really needs to happen at that article is a separate section on the dispute between Bennett and other Lincoln critics versus more Lincoln-praising "traditional Lincoln narrative" historians. This is a research and doctrinal dispute within the field, and one about which material has actually been written. Then have a separate section on independent critical response to the book (i.e., by people who have not published their own Lincoln books!). Foner, McPherson, Morel, and Dirck are firmly primary sources, not neutral reviewers, when it comes to Bennett; they have a vested reputational and fiduciary interest in discrediting him. You should agree with this distinction regardless whether you think Foner et al. or Bennett are in the right about Lincoln. This isn't about who is right (WP:TRUTH, WP:GREATWRONGS), it's about (perhaps unwitting) misuse of source material to effectively pick a side in a real-world dispute among professional authors of reputably published source material within a field. In particular, the treatment of Dirck's review as if it is independent, by excluding it from "Bennett's critics, including ..." is extremely misleading of the reader, since Dirck is also a major Lincoln-praising book author. It's just not right for us to treat opposing and criticized authors as typical academic book reviewers in the sense that our readers expect. We should not forget (or pretend to forget) that academia is highly politicized. We should approach this the same way we do other internecine academic-consensus disputations in other fields.
PS: We may have similar problems with Woodrow Wilson and women's suffrage, though I have not looked deeply at our coverage. He was largely a blockade to it, until Congress forced his hand, making it clear that a veto by him would be overridden. WP should not be helping to perpetuate the "Wilson got American women the right to vote" myth. This is not DeificationPedia. :-) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘ Some additional stuff to work into this article:
I think we're all aware of WP:CONTROVERSY: We describe the controversy and its sides, quoting or paraphrasing as necessary for balanced treatment; we don't give the article over to one side of the debate.
Even some curricula for American history education seem to be getting this right, and include the views of Bennett, even DiLorenzo, not just those of McPherson and company .
Various reviews in mainstream, major publications are also going to be critical or skeptical, but they'll be so with more credibility (not being side subjects of the book itself), and with more balance. A good example is Steve Chapman's in the Chicago Tribune (which took under 5 seconds to find). It actually says pretty much all the critical things our article mentions (i.e., can be used as a drop-in replacement citation instead of Dirck, who should move to the material on in-field critics/dispute) while also conceding various important points that Bennett got right.
The principal criticism toward the book (from other than academics with their own competing Lincoln books) isn't that it's an attack or factually incorrect in its details, but that it sometimes misapplies modern standards of how to define racism to an earlier era. This is something pretty much all the critics agree on (including ones essentially independent of the subject), so it's not a criticism about which Wikipedia needs to hedge much. Most or all of the other criticisms, however, are limited to particular critics and thus need to be attributed directly to them.
Another thing we need in there is details on support Bennett's analysis gets from some other historians and political scientists, including Michael Lind (U. of Texas at Austin, What Lincoln Believed: The Values and Convictions of America's Greatest President), Stephanie McCurry (Columbia U.), and Howard Zinn (Boston U.), among others.
The book has been cited in at least 162 journal articles (not always positively, and not always in notable journals, of course. But it's worth looking into, by someone with access to a full-text journal search site.
When in-the-same-field academics (with their own highly praising Lincoln books or online equivalents) title their "reviews", their attempts at rebuttal, with things like "Lincoln the Devil" (McPherson, New York Times Book Review, 2000), and "Great Emancipator or Grand Wizard?" (Steers, of the obviously one-sided AbrahamLincolnOnline.org), and "Emancipation Deniers Target Lincoln’s Reputation" (Allen C. Guelzo, Gettysburg College, op-ed in Wall Street Journal), they're childishly mischaracterizing Bennett's views in a transparent straw man fallacy. Guelzo in particular has made up a fake and patently dishonest label under which to shove Bennett, Zinn, and others. There is no doubt that there's an ideological "opponents" camp, and that it is a camp set up in opposition to another camp. We are really obviously not in a position to treat them as neutral and reliable; they're impassioned opinion pieces, and are the other side of the real-world dispute we're supposed to be neutrally describing. Their orthodoxy, virtually unquestioned for generations, is being challenged and they're clearly pissed off.
Not only is something ideological going on, it's been going on a long time and The Chronicle of Higher Education makes no bones about it. In their review of Steven Spielberg's Lincoln (2012, with Daniel Day Lewis), they not only observe that it's a Hollywood "challenge[ to] a decades-long scholarly, if not popular, vision of [Lincoln] as halfhearted and reluctant in his efforts to eradicate slavery", they also call out to Bennett's book, in the same paragraph as analysis of the civil-rights movement's ambivalence toward Lincoln and the middling results of his version of emancipation. I.e., BBC is providing several forms of context, which our article sorely lacks.
And we really need some non-American sources on this, for less myopic context. This BBC News piece  puts Bennett's work in the same context as Lincoln re-examination by Henry Louis Gates Jr. (Harvard) and Donald Yacovone (Harvard), as well as the culturally broader context of post-Obama American society and of the Lincoln bicentennial. Some key quoted material: "But amid the commemorations, it is easy to forget that Lincoln ... never lacked for critics. Even in this anniversary year, there has been vigorous debate over his legacy. One lingering source of controversy among historians is Lincoln's moderation on the slavery issue. ... Yacovone says complexities have been lost in celebrations that have focused on hero worship." (I mean key material this thread; it's probably off-topic for quotation in the article, but would be good for a broader article like Abraham Lincoln and slavery.)
Most criticism of Lincoln comes from far-right quarters, yet Bennett was the opposite, with very different concerns. (Same goes for Zinn.) This has been commented upon in the press and in more academic circles. It relates directly to the reason the book, among a sea of Lincoln books, is independently notable. As even a conservative reviewer put it, Bennett is "no conservative or friend of the Confederacy".
There's no question that the book was "controversial" and "provocative"; even some African-American academics have said so , but we don't cite any of them.
What of later American politics? Not always what a reader might expect. Rand Paul, for example, endorsed the book  – not in some kind of Tea Party, pro-Confederacy, crypto-racist, weirdo-'Publican way, but as a defense of abolitionists and abolitionism among the American public of the era.
And what of later re-consideration in academic and mainstream-news material? It's not right to only look at reviews (and opposition) from ca. 2010 when the book came out. Bennett died in 2018, and there's a lot of high-end obituary material out there, most of which mentioned the book. The more it's "news" the more primary-source it is, and subjects like this benefit from time for analysis and impact (and analysis of impact).
The US Supreme Court's official blog goes into some detail about a Justice Kagan-hosted Supreme Court Historical Society lecture by Lucas Morel (Washington and Lee University). Not only did Morel directly quote (in agreement) one of Bennett's central points in the book, so did SCotUS's blog.
Singling out DiLorenzo as someone whose work should be compared to Bennett's is bullshitty, since DiLorenzo has known extreme/fringe political leanings. There are numerous other writers who should be mentioned for balance. An obvious one is Robert W. Johannsen (Lincoln, the South, and Slavery), plus aforementioned ones like Yacovone.
In closing, for now, I'll just point out that I dug up all of this in the space of under five minutes. It took far longer to put it in a bullet list.
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
It'll be more productive to continue this at the article talk page. Article-improvement threads tend to do nothing useful when they sit in user talk and archive away. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Funny. When I saw this heading come up on my timeline I thought it was about someone insisting you go for Arbcom again! Hope you're well! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Heh. The long break (aside from occasional pop-ins under one of my alt accounts to comment on some RfCs or fix typos or whatever) was helpful. I don't think I'll go for ArbCom again, not until the voting system is fixed. It's farcical that it's rigged so people can vote multiple times (once for whomever they support most, and then several more times against each opposing candidate). I won a seat on ArbCom by actual support, but someone with less support than me got the seat. It's a sham. And a shame. The current and previous ArbCom seem to've been doing as little as possible, and particularly resistant to ArbCom community and self-review. I would have pushed hard within the committee for overhaul of WP:AC/DS, following on the majority community support in this advisory-to-ArbCom RfC at Village Pump; among other reforms. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Same here - the reality was a bitter disappointment! You should run - there may never be as good an opportunity as this year. You have my vote if you promise to archive your talk page at reasonable intervals. I still have a number of supports in my pocket (even after giving TRM one). Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment, but it's a time commitment I wouldn't be able to practicably make right now. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Stretch yourself, lad! Cut back on the eight-balling and the cat-fancying. You can always set up auto-archiving on your talk page - that should save a substantial amount of time. Sleep is far over-rated as well! William Harristalk 11:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)