User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

August 2014

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Resolved

 – Fixed.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Van cat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish Van cat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

Resolved

 – Responded to that vexatiousness at ANI.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SMcCandlish page move ban: request for clarification. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Revisions and WP:BIRDCON

N Not done and not likely to be done

You might be able to assist in revising the articles in the three listed categories and in revising the eight individually listed articles at WT:BIRDS#Revisions and WP:BIRDCON (version of 17:14, 3 August 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Will look into it, but my initial feeling is of intense skepticism, because of the level of never-ending, hateful invective hurled at me by members of that project, at that project's talk page and elsewhere, with no repercussions for it ever (e.g. under WP:ARBATC, or even everyday enforcement of CIVIL and AGF and NPA). The whole wikiproject appears to have license to character-assassinate me personally (and all MOS regulars generally) with impunity, and whenever I get near them, they find some way to turn it into a "why SMcCandlish is evil" flamewar. I'm very doubtful that efforts on my part to constructively edit bird articles, for any reason, will be met with anything but hostility and derision. Only a week or two ago, editors from that project, who were directly canvased by an equines editor, piled-on an ANI case against me despite having no connection at all to the issue under discussion (natural vs. parenthetical disambiguation in sheep and other mammal breed articles); my detractors in the birds and horses projects are not just interested in chasing me away from bird and horse articles, but away from all biology articles everywhere. There's an ongoing ANI I've just been ignoring all day, wherein the same usual suspects are trying to abuse the ANI process to punish me for using WP:RM, after the previous ANI specifically instructed me to use RM.

I give up. If they want my help with bird articles, they can start by apologizing for repetitively demonizing me. The decapitalization they're so pissed off about is them being hoisted by their own petard. I tried to just clean up some MOS subpages conflicting with MOS, and they turned that MOS discussion into an RFC they then failed to carry. All of this was ultimately generated by an RM/MR case that had nothing to do with me at all (other that I commented late on the MR half). I was gone for a whole year, yet they still want to blame me for everything they don't like in MOS. Well, not my problem. I just looked at that talk page, and see further attempts to evade WP:COMMON and other WP:AT policy concerns by insisting that IOC names are some kind of WP "standard". This gets really absurd when IOC, which doesn't have as much real-world buy-in as they say, starts making up WP:NFT names for extinct avians only known in the fossil record, and people in the project start trying to move them to these pseudo-common names instead of keeping them at the scientific names like all other fossil species articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Apparently avoidance is good, because involvement might cause problems to you.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeedy. I did take a look, and working on the fictional ones could be plausible; the wikiproject's more vociferous participants have conceded several times that their naming "standard" was only intended to apply to ornithology articles; other categories are outside their scope. Articles on fictional birds should never have been using IOC capitalization style to start with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Woody Woodpecker, for example, is a specific individual fictional bird, and not a bird taxon at any level.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 August

Resolved

 – Fixed.

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

• On the Landrace page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Permanent death

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Permanent death. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We spat, but

Moved to User talk:Montanabw § Landrace article tagging

 – It's about that user's editing, not mine.

You are doing good work on the landrace article. It's not easy to write where the research leads and to stay within what can be meticulously sourced. If you and I can agree on content in there, there is hope for the wiki. And I think it would be worthwhile to bring it to GA and perhaps someday FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 03:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the olive branch. I was just thinking of dropping you a "Hey, how can we collaborate better?" talk page note. On the landrace article: Agreed on all counts; it's been on my "to fix" list for about two years, (well, I'm not sure it's on the "official" to-do on my user page, which I forget to ever update). The Breed article has to come with it; a large number of the sources on the one can also be used to improve the other, because they're talking about them in the same material and how they conceptually differ (in which contexts, etc.) I have about 20 such sources still open in tabs in a browser window. Anyway, I've suggested a way forward out of landrace/breed disputation, at Talk:Banker horse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring the rest of this to your talk page, since it's about your editing, not mine.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song)

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Disregard

 – It was on purpose, because the article was about to move (or, rather, I predicted that it would at RM, and I'm usually correct in such predictions).

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Landrace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seed bank. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Autism

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Autism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

TfD notices

Resolved

 – !Voted at the TfDs.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-en-AU

Template:Lang-en-AU has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. George Ho (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-en-CA

Template:Lang-en-CA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. George Ho (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-en-emodeng

Template:Lang-en-emodeng has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. George Ho (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Landrace article tagging

Stale

 – Discussion trailed off without resolution.

Moved from [[:User talk:Montanabw#Landrace article tagging|User talk:Montanabw § Landrace article tagging]]

 – It's about this user's editing, not that one's.

In the interim, and I'm sorry if this sound like a laundry list of complaints, I have to ask that you stop "WP:DRIVEBY tagging": "Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." In many cases, you're clearly not even bothering to read the sources already cited at Landrace to see if they say what you think they don't say, or bothering to look and see if the rest of the article provides citations for material you keep {{cn}}-tagging in the lead. In one case you added a cn tag immediately before a citation and even suggested it was SYNTH, when the source cited there is quite explicit. There's should be more than a handful of citation-needed or other cleanup/dispute tags on that page, and they should all correspond to a talk page discussion. In several cases it's not even clear what you were objecting to. For my part, I know I added one or or another cn's myself, and I need to go resolve them. Just asking for the shotgun approach to stop. :-)

I don't want this to come off as some kind of "WP:..." link-lecture, but it may anyway. Please See WP:WHYCITE: Citations are ... often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead. This article is still under a whole lot of construction; peppering it with unnecessary citation-needed tags is really unhelpful and a waste time. This is especially true of facts already sourced in detail in the main articles linked to from the summary-style part of the article, namely the animals sections. A single post on the talk page outlining the stuff you think should soon-ish be sourced in situ in this article from the main articles on other topics it links to, will be quite sufficient. It's not urgent anyway, as there is no need to add citations for any of the routine information in there right now (e.g., before GA, I would say). As WP:SUMMARYSTYLE says (relying on WP:V) to source "all quotations and any material challenged or WP:Likely to be challenged". That page, in turn says: "The community is using the plain English dictionary definition for the word likely: "probable; having a greater-than-even chance of occurring" or "having a high probability of occurring." No one is likely to challenge material that's already reliably sourced one article away, except for WP:POINTy reasons.

The material will all eventually be sourced in this article. Doing so right this moment for stuff we already know is actually sourced one click away is a distraction from writing and sourcing new content, which we obviously desperately need at this and related articles. Lastly, removing citations from two not closely connected statements just because they're sequential is almost never a good idea, because it's very likely that someone will insert a statement source to something else in between them at some point, and not notice that Statement A cited to Source 1 now falsely appears to be cited, like the interpolated Statement B, to Source 2. This the number-one form of "verifiability rot" on WP, and in an article being very actively edited over a few days like this one, it's almost guaranteed to cause problems. At GA and FA this would be a problem anyway, as all statements have to be clearly attributable to a specific source, and simple proximity isn't a guarantee of that; any editor can come by later and move sentences around, and it takes especial care to do this and preserve exact citation accuracy. This care is often lacking, as you surely know.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

SMC, I have worked on MORE than the 16 FACs that I "claim" on my user page and ditto on more than 41 GAs, plus I've done a reasonable pile of GAN reviews for others. And actually yes, there is a lot of dubious material and unverifiable claims in there. There is no rush to fix a cn tag, I'm glad to let it sit for awhile, but the tag helps anyone find the problem areas via word search or simple skimming. I think there are even tools and scripts that help people insert cites that are driven by the tags (I don't use them, but I've seen others do so). Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a credentialist handwave. How much GA/FA work you have under your belt has nothing logically at all to do with whether or not you're properly using citation tags, per their documentation and per our guidelines. They're not even correlated. WP:DRIVEBY's reasoning is rather clear. I'm sure someone has developed a tool that looks for these tags (because they're serious and need to be resolved); this is not evidence that every tagging is a useful one, but actually the opposite. {{Citation needed}} tags flag problems severe enough that every single reader of the article needs to be brow-beaten about it, right in their face, and editors need to track them down and fix them as soon as possible. That tag (same goes for it's variants that are more specific) is for actual ongoing disputes, for highly dubious material, for correct but hard-to-believe facts, and for material that will be controversial whether true or not; it's not for routine, trivial, dic-def, or common-knowledge factoids. Those will necessarily be sourced during the GA (or even earlier, e.g. B-class) review processes; that is what there's no hurry about. Your statement that {{citation needed}} tags don't need to be fixed in a hurry is simply incorrect; they're serious dispute tags that are date-categorized specifically so they will be hunted down in a chronological order of urgency, and we are not supposed to tolerate them long.

Finally, it seemed that you were trying take issue with everything you could think of to take issue with, on any basis (probable or not, and thus seeming rather WP:POINTy), and in such a huge rush that you didn't remember the difference between a huge banner and the inline {{Clarify}} tag, and didn't even notice despite having wrongly used the huge banner twice in the middle of paragraphs, even after you apparently re-edited for typos; that's a lot of opportunities to notice two errors that large. And you misconstrued one of the horse-related sources (to say that horse landraces were rare, when it actually said that for them to remain isolated for long periods of time was rare, a major difference). You also deleted source citations, and deleted entire passages of content. The entire couple of edits that peppered the page with these tags and made those other changes had a careless reactionary feel about them, and it took many hours to clean up after them without simply reverting (in fact it took up the entire rest of my week's editing time allotment, which means another reliably-sourced expansion did not happen).

The above will come off more ankle-bitey than I intend it. The point is that I have what I feel are valid reasons for raising over-tagging and incautious editing concerns, and they don't have anything to do with what FA/GA work you're capable of, or any bad faith, or anything of the sort. I'm not sure what the issue is, other than statements you've made that seem to indicate a general dislike for the term and its especially application to horses, but I'm not a mind reader. I haven't been back in several days, because I've been busy IRL, and I don't like to get into repeated disputes on the same article, especially back-to-back, but am hoping we're making actual progress there, not more of the same "death by tagging" stuff. I've opened various talk page sections for discussion of issues as they come up at that article, instead of trying to pseudo-discuss them in reverts and edit summaries; there's been too much of that going on, and WP:BRD doesn't work without the D part. As a show of extra good faith, I spent considerable time sourcing the Spanish example in great detail, because you were for some reason insistent about it (in reality, it was the least important thing on the page to source, because it's trivial dic-def material, in an example in an endnote, but if it keeps the peace, so be it). I'll try to look in on the article Wed. or Fri.; I had a lot more sourced material to add, but my windows for doing 10 hours, or even 1 hour, at a time of research and sourcing are rare.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And if you don't want this conversation on your talk page, we can move it to the talk page of Landrace, as I have no interest in housing it at my talk space, either. Montanabw^(talk) 20:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine; it's in the page history of both user talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Remember the human

 Acknowledged, but  Disagree as to details.

Regarding your edits on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 13:

Please remain WP:CIVIL when debating. Resorting to passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and personal attacks does nothing to contribute to the debate at hand and only serves to discourage users from becoming active editors.

Regarding your message about WP:BITE above, surely you are aware that the guideline does not apply only to "noobs." I urge you to take a look around at WP:RETENTION and to read the following links for more information as to why checking your behavior is important.[1][2] - SweetNightmares 16:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@SweetNightmares: Resorting to...? You mean like calling people passive-aggressive, condescending and personally attacking? You're not in a position to give advice you won't follow yourself. Yes, BITE does only apply to noobs; that's why it's called WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. Furthermore, letting people with some anti-template or anti-metadata position to push overrun XfD processes with ranty arguments that are not grounded in policy is not a valid editor retention goal. You can't just randomly cite WP:RETENTION every time someone says something that you don't like.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"/' templates and bold

Resolved

Is there a way to use {{"'}} and {{'"}} with boldface, or are there other templates that would make this doable? I’m specifically thinking of the opening sentence of an article like "Heroes" (David Bowie song), where it would have to be "'Heroes'". —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This should work: "'''{{-'}}Heroes{{'-}}'''" I.e., double-quote, open boldface, the {{space+single}} template, the text, the {{single+space}} template, close boldface, double-quote. Results in: "'Heroes'". If there were enough cases of this, it could be made as a wrapper template, but there are so few of them it's not worth the effort and someone would probably TfD it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Languages of Afghanistan

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Languages of Afghanistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Resolved

 – Responded to at ANI.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Van cat: Revision

Moved to Talk:Van cat § Turkish Van (not Van cat) and water

Van cat: Revision history 09:28, 18 August 2014‎ - "cat owners aren't reliable sources, & wouldn't be even if identified."? Then who is - someone that is not at all familiar with the cat and never owned one! That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard! If this logic was true - then our entire legal system would break down as no one would be qualified to give testimony just becuase they owned the cat. Yet a single unnamed "Cat Fancy magazine article" is somehow a reliable source for its "possibly false" opinion contradicting all other "probably true" magazine articles, web sites and owner reports. when it comes to pet behaviors - the actual owners are the "expert" witnesses and anyone else is just second guessing. If you don't own a cat, then you've got nothing to say about the subject!

But since you seem to be owner of this page - why don't you Goggle search and see the number of sites and other sources (who are actual owners!) reporting that these cats love water. In fact, you can even watch one on YouTube who loves to jump in their swimming pool for a swim. To say that these cats don't like water is to say Labrador Retrievers don like water either which is utter non-sense!

See Labrador_Retriever#Temperament Photo: "Labradors like water" - who siad? Anyone can take a picture of a dog standing in a baby pool - does that mean they like water?

- Ozdawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozdawn (talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion of this belongs at the article's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

UNDAB

Resolved

 – Addressed to the extent it's reasonable to do so.

Your statements about WP:UNDAB at the mfd are confounding. I can't associate anything the essay actually says with any of your criticisms. Can you please identify something specific in the essay, by actually quoting it, that you believe says something contrary to policy, guidelines or conventions, and explain how and why? Thank you very much. --В²C ☎ 17:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I decline to waste time playing WP:IDHT games with you; others have already enumerated some of these problems at the MfD, and the essay/proposal's own talk page covers those issues in detail, and has been referenced in the MfD debate, so there's no reason to recycle that material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

All of your objections and criticisms are based on fantastic claims about what the essays says, and criticize that. You are not quoting from the essay to substantiate any of your claims, to show the essay actually says anything you're criticizing it for. I was very careful to make sure nothing I wrote contradicted policy. You claim it does, but don't say how or where. When I ask you to clarify, you cite IDHT. Very strange. --В²C ☎ 00:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What's very (really, quite) strange, is pursuing a !voter at XfD process to badger them on their talk page about how useful you thought their input was at the XfD. If you're doing this with lots of us, that's a WP:CANVASS problem. I'm confident that the respondents at that MfD and the closing admin will understand the evidence. If I change my mind about that, I"ll self-edit. I don't need to re-quote the essay/proposal to summarize problems with it when the entire talk page associated with it already lays them out in a great deal of detail.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've asked others to take this on; I'm running out of energy for wikidrama.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sportsperson

Resolved

 – Done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sportsperson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Artpop

 Done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Artpop. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

 Fixed

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Romano-Celtic temple may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and overseeing festivals are key features of priesthoods in the Roman Empire. In [[Aquae Sulis]] (modern [[Bath, England]] an altar was dedicated by a ''[[haruspex]]'';<ref name="Bedoyere">De la

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation Museum

 Done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation Museum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Resolved

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

WP:OUP access

Resolved

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

Landrace

 Started

Excellent work you're doing on this article. It would be good to work into the article the general point that all attempts to produce rigid boundaries when defining groups/taxa of organisms are bound to fail, because of inherent genetic variability between individuals. Darwin's statement "I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" applies equally to distinctions between landraces and breeds or cultivar groups and cultivars. However, although I've looked I can't find a source for this exact point. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I've been keeping an eye out. I can find lots of sources for the fact that there are different definitions serving different interests (some very broad, some very narrow, most in the middle), but I've not run into anything about the underlying genetics reasons that make it a thorny problem from the outset.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd almost bet money that we don't find a universal definition. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't need one, just an operable one that doesn't significantly contradict what less narrow and more reliable sources are getting at. Automobile is a good case in point; it provides the reader with a general-consensus definition assembled from how use in most sources' overlaps – i.e., it a non-novel synthesis, permissible under WP:NOR – and that article allows for (right there in lead) other, less common definitions without dwelling on them (which would be WP:UNDUE under NOR), and it makes it clear that the article is not principally about those alternative views (a permissible form of WP:SELFREF). We would not tolerate a lone editor trying to force a PoV at that article that the term must include 18-wheelers, in WP's treatment of the subject, just because they encountered some definition somewhere that did; nor that we must not include SUVs because this editor personally can't stand the term being applied to SUVs or thinks that off-roading magazines (a narrow, specialist source) mostly don't use the term to refer to SUVs; or that we can't have an article that provides a general, broad definition, on the basis that it's somehow original research to note what the sources do agree on, or not every source agreeing on every aspect of a definition makes it somehow an invalid approach.

I detect all three types of this reasoning being applied against the Landrace article, and it's not how we do things here. A very large number of our articles provide general-purpose definitions and treatments of a term/subject, note that other definitions exist and sometimes what they are, then move on, with the rest of WP mostly using and linking to the term as used at that article. For another case in point, see Species. All sorts of PoV pushing could be done with regard to that topic (and has been tried), but we shut it down, because it's anti-encyclopedic noise. Enough has been written, in reliable sources (but perhaps only by one researcher, which may itself present a PoV issue) about definitional disagreement that perhaps a section can be devoted to it (it's not like it rises to an article-level issue like the species problem), but even that may be overkill.

At any rate there's no such thing as a "universal definition" of anything. WP nevertheless goes on just fine. This too shall pass, and we'll end up with a perfectly fine landrace article, and articles on animal and plant varieties that properly refer to it and stop abusing the word "breed" for everything that isn't a wild species, whether that happens this month or ten years from now. Hell, it took ~9 years for the species common name capitalization issue to sort out (if it really has). I take the long view of these things. I could disappear off the face of the earth, and it'll still happen eventually, just because of how the WP community builds and cross-references articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_160#Italics_re._toy_lines

Unresolved

 – Proposal not made yet.

Hi. Sorry for not seeing this before it got archived. Yes, I would be happy to support your suggestion for updating MOS in an RFC if you started one on the subject. Best, It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:September 11 attacks

 Done

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:September 11 attacks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup

 Declined

 – Way too much going on IRL to devote sufficient time to this.

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

 Done

I saw your comment at the Michael Brown talk page. I remember working with you years ago at WP. I don't do much here other than occasional clean up, mostly without logging in. But I use WP to get to the heart of information, as I feel that for most topics the system works. For that reason I came to the MB article last week and was upset by the POV and bias in the Lede. There was subtle and not so subtle sensationalism. I think that it is better now. But I think it could be better. You gave some broad direction, but could you be more specific? I hope that all is well with you and that you are having a great weekend. Kevin. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

 Already done

 – Someone else fixed it.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tam Lin may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• publication date of ''[[The Complaynt of Scotland]]'' that mentions "The Tayl of the [[Yogh|Ȝ]]ong]] Tamlene" ('The Tale of the Young Tamelene'}}) among a long list of medieval romances).{{Refn|Child, ''ESPB'' '''II''': 336<ref name="child-tam-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)