User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 96

Archive 90

←

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

→

Archive 100

November 2014

Please comment on Talk:Punjabi language

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Punjabi language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

 Fixed

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dumnonia 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:

• '''Damnonia''' is sometimes encountered, but was also used for the land of the [[Damnonii]] (later the [[Kingdom of Strathclyde]], in what is today southern [[Scotland]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Please avoid edit-warring, as you did at Apulo-Calabrese. If your addition to an article is reverted, do not make the sam edit again, but instead take the matter to the talk-page of the article. Persistent edit-warring can lead to being blocked from editing. The relevant part of the infobox documentation in this particular case is "use if more than one". Would you be kind enough to self-revert your incompetent edit? Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. There is more than one. The only difference between my version and the previous version was addition of one (maybe two, I forget) altnames, and using what I thought was a more readable vertical layout, which I've since put back to the original horizontal. I also have to note that your accusation of incompetence is unnecessarily WP:BATTLEGROUNDing and arguably constitutes a personal attack.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, definite over-reaction on my part there, sorry about that. Doesn't excuse the edit-warring, of course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

False charge. Undoing a revert that was predicated on the other party's mistake, after I've explained why it was that party's mistake (not to mention self-reverting the stylistic, non-content aspects of the change I made in an effort to mollify said party, whose objection didn't actually make sense even after reviewing the documentation it was demanded that I review!) is not "edit-warring". If it were, every single good-faith edit on WP could be filibustered by reverting with a nonsensical "reason" that wasn't applicable (even without adding incivil accusations of incompetence that hoist the reverter with his own petard; those are optional). You're not one to lecture about not using reverts to get your way, since you do it often, and in this case you reverted me to begin with, and reactively, without getting your facts right or examining the content. It's not magically righteous when you revert for no defensible reason, but somehow edit-warring when someone half-reverts you, with a real rationale.

I think this is also a good opportunity to observe two other things. One is that if you're reacting to someone else's efforts with an instant urge to undo them for personal-dispute reasons (or to anyone at all's efforts because they affect something you feel proprietary about but which doesn't really belong to you), but cannot take the time to look more objectively at what they're doing, and ask if uncertain, it's time to walk away and stop interacting with that person (or trying to control that resource), whether that be on Wikipedia, at work, or whatever. It's a general life principle, regarding being too emotionally invested to engage rationally. Cf. your pointless procedural challenges at RM today in this light.

Secondly, pseudo-apologies that take the basic form "Sorry I did X, but you did Y" are passive-aggressive antagonism and backside-covering, do not go over well, and simply reveal an intent, conscious or otherwise, to escalate and play a blame-game. They are therefore best avoided. I don't accept hand-shakes or back-pats that also come with attempts to hit me in the gut. I was happy just quietly not engaging with you for a month or so. I imagine you were, too. Let's go back to that. That also means no longer using your talk page as an anti-SMcCandlish webboard with your buddies, which violates several policies, beginning with WP:NOT#SOCIAL and WP:NPA.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Goats

• I have moved the goat move discussion back to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You da boss.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: Actually, the big one is still open at Talk:Aspromonte (goat)#Requested move 07 November 2014.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your uncontroversial move requests at WP:RM

Hi,
I saw your uncontroversial goat breed move requests at WP:RM. Shouldn't you be able to do these yourself? I decided to see if I could move one, and I was able to move the article over the redirect. (I just moved one, as I'm not really in the mood to do all of them, but anyway...) --Biblioworm 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: In theory, yes. In reality, I have a couple of contributions-stalkers who, for personality-based reasons, contest moves I make myself, and who throw a huge, attacking/incivil fit about it, even going to ANI to try to get me move-banned (successfully once, for three months, and without success twice). See the contested section at RM today for some examples of the kind of heat and disruption generated, filing angry contestations against my moves, even though they are pretty much certain to proceed anyway, because the policies, RM precedents, sources, and other facts are all on my side. I have enough non-fans that it's more trouble than it's worth to attempt to move pages myself other than things like sandboxed templates and drafts of things no one else has edited, so I use RM to do it with real articles. I was move-banned at ANI for moves that eventually were upheld by consensus, because my rationales for making them were correct, only my moving them without discussion was an issue. I avoid taking the current antagonism matter to WP:ANI myself to "punish" those engaging in it, because I don't come here for WP:DRAMA. I'm trying to de-escalate with these people (I'd totally ignored and avoided them for a month, and two or so months before that, I quit Wikipedia for a month just to get away from them). Failing that, I guess I'll simply let them hang themselves in public with their constant, unjustifiable antagonism. In the mean time, I'll keep using RM procedures. If they want to contest RM-performed moves, it generates process, and I'm good at and patient with process. My theory is they'll eventually tire of their game and knock it off. The vast majority of moves I propose proceed precisely as I propose them, no matter how I propose or perform them (I have a >95% success rate at RM in its various forms), and even when they don't, it's usually a minor variation of what I proposed.

It's also an interesting open question to me what constitutes "controversial" or "potentially controversial" vs "noncontroversial" and "technical". My view is that moves that clearly comply with policy and recent consistent precedent, without raising any issues unique to the article/name in question, are by definition non-controversial. Someone being sore about having failed to carry the day in a previous RM doesn't make later moves predicated on the RM decision "controversial", no matter how loud and angry they are, or every possible move would always be potentially controversial, and every consensus would be dubious. It's also obvious to me that, absent a WP:ARBCOM ruling saying so, no particular general topic area is automatically controversial with regard to article titles, nor are moves by any particular editor. I also hold that one or two editors filing constestations of moves for personality-based reasons does not actually constitute "controversy", but WP:GAMING the system. Disputes afoot right now will help prove some of these hypotheses in short order, I think.

PS: As a consequence of all this drama, I generally do not bother to check whether a redirect can be moved-over without admin assistance, since I won't move it myself anyway. (I moved two yesterday myself just to see if I'd be jumped-on for it, and I was, despite there being at least 6 solid rationales for the clearly non-controversial moves.) I so frequently edit redirects to add the proper {{R from ...}} redir-categorization templates that many redirs I might have moved over have already been edited by me at some point, anyway, especially in animal breed articles. It was kind of a fluke that they weren't in the recent goats cases.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You were recently topic-banned for several months from making page moves. Only days after this restriction expires, you are back to precisely the same pattern of behaviour that caused that ban half a year ago: initiating mass moves that you know will be contentious, in exactly the same kinds of cases that were the focus of criticism earlier; misuse of the "uncontroversial moves" section at RM for such proposals, including in at least one case the filing of a move request as "uncontroversial" when it had been rejected by an explicit RM on the article's talkpage just days earlier (an RM that you yourself initiated, so you were clearly aware of it); drowning follow-up discussion with aggressive and overly wordy postings; and the continued general display of battleground attitude that has been characteristic of your conduct in this field for long. This is unacceptable: if you get a community sanction, n matter whether it has run out or not, it means the community expects you to actually modify your behaviour. You clearly didn't.

I have therefore blocked you, for an initial period of 3 days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SMcCandlish (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: That's not actually the case, however. I moved two articles (only) after a long series of RM discussions all unanimously concluded in favor of precisely the same pattern of moves. There's nothing controversial about them, there is only Justlettersandnumbers (Jlan) campaigning against the consensus indicated in RM after RM after RM against his parenthetical disambiguation and over-capitalizaton. My behavior clearly did change; I was ANI'd for making mass-moves of hundreds of articles without discussion. Since then (including after the expiration of the ANI-imposed move ban) I have been using RM processes to move articles and to initiate RM discussions, precisely zero of which have gone Jlan's way. I even stated explicitly at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves that I moved those two articles, for which there are at lest 6 solid move rationales, specifically to test whether this individual would accept consensus or attack me for it, and he did the latter. Pointing out that an editor is engaging in patent forum shopping is not "battlegrounding". My comments at that page, while detailed, are not "aggressive" (especially compared to those of Justlettersandnumbers and his pal Montanabw, who has been administratively warned repeatedly, by Dreadstar, about personally attacking me, yet did it again blatantly at that page with comments about "going off my meds", etc.) Also, there is no WP:BREVITY policy I have violated, much less one that is a block rationale.

Ironically, the only response I was going to make at that page, to the entire raft of commentary that's ensued there, is that the RM facts speak for themselves, and I don't even need to respond to any of Jlan's and Montanabw's personalized hostility, which also speaks for itself, indicating their issue with me is personal, not substantive. You've blocked me from explicitly declining their attempt to bait me. I also note that their demands to game around RM process and get admins to manually reinstate parenthetical disambiguation there have been rejected by at least two three more admins in that discussion.

You've completely misread the Talk:Dutch Landrace goat#Requested moves discussion. It concluded to not "pre-disambiguate" Dutch Landrace to Dutch Landrace goat while there wasn't any other article it would be confused with. It specifically did call for "Swedish Landrace goat, moved [from Swedish Landrace] because of a conflict with the existing article Swedish Landrace pig". What happened in the interim was the creation (by me – Jlan's and Montanabw's claims that I'm not a productive editor in these topics are lies) of the well-sourced article Dutch Landrace pig a few days ago, triggering exactly the already-decided logic in the same RM that Dutch Landrace, like Swedish Landrace must now also be disambiguated to Dutch Landrace goat per Swedish Landrace goat. (Note that PigeonIP, another fan of parenthetic disambiguation, pre-emptively moved it to Dutch Landrace (goat) against around a dozen RMs against such names, and I requested it be moved to Dutch Landrace goat as non-controversial, because the just-concluded RM proves is is non-controversial.) I think you ow me an apology for your false accusation of making a disruptive move against the consensus in one of the RMs I launched. It actually followed that RM quite closely, but you didn't check.

This is an improper, one-sided block for "disruption" that proceeded from Jlan's behavior, not mine, and which both incorrectly reads current events and misinterprets my expired move ban to begin with. You're silencing just one party to a debate, and the one with most policy, source, and consensus legs to stand on, as well as the least hostile of the three major parties in the debate. I have studiously avoided both Jlan and Montanabw for over a month. They came out of the wordwork to manufacture bogus conflicts with me, not vice versa, and have been doing so in a WP:TAGTEAM manner. (See history of Montanabw's renewed conversations on Jlan's talk page about cooperating against me, including explicit rejection of my attempts at dispute resolution[1]; see also Montanabw's attempt to recruit me against Jlan when Montanabw decided I was her "friend" and Jlan was her "enemy".[2] And you say I'm battlegrounding?). A few months ago, I almost entirely quit editing for a whole month, to get away from Montanabw's hostility. Mine are not the actions of a disruptor, but of someone being harassed. See also their two additional but failed attempts to pillory me at ANI.

PS: Your block log summary includes another false accusation; I have never been found to have engaged in "disruption of move procedures", so I cannot be guilty of "renewed" bad-faith action of that sort, can I?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PPS: And this is impeding my ability to do unrelated work, like fixing a citation template error at William A. Spinks, and uploading an article I've written on a Lucy Show episode (S6E13, "Lucy and the Pool Hustler"). Are you volunteering do this for me while your block lasts?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Block has expired. Peridon (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Concurrent discussion

That was a clean block log.

I am looking through SMcM's edit history for the controversial edit, and I'm just not seeing it. There must be hundreds, if not thousands of species titles being moved. Maybe whoever responds to this can clear that up with the blocking admin. —Neotarf (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And they're being moved by standard RM processes, with the results following WP:NATURAL (when that's the relevant issue) and/or WP:NCCAPS/MOS:CAPS/MOS:LIFE (when that's the issue) in every single case, precisely as I proposed them, with RM after RM coming to a consensus against the positions taken by Jlan. There is no controversial edit by me here. (As I've shown above, the one the blocking admin thinks is some kind of smoking gun is a clear error on his part, of not checking the facts before leaping to conclusions). The blocking admin is treating my 3-month move restriction as if it had been permanent, interpreting personal antagonism and tendentiousness by Jlan against months of consensus building by legitimate RM discussions, as if Jlan's system-gaming were a legitimate controversy I've somehow "disrupted", treating any move by me and me alone as if it were automatically controversial, and falsely labeling as "battlegrounding" me simply showing that the opposing editor is forum-shopping. It's completely baseless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Protonk Just so you know, the three-month move ban you imposed is now being abused as if it were a permanent ban. I'm being blocked for making two moves that were clearly justified after several months of multi-page RMs concluded in favor of precisely the same kind of move in the same topic area, and after strictly using RM processes even after the move ban expired, because they were having good results. I chose two not-possibly-controversial cases to move manually, as a trial balloon to see if JLan and Montanabw would accept that consensus has moved beyond the name styling they prefer or would start drama over it, and they went on the offensive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Anthony Appleyard I note at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves that you are not buying Jlan's forum-shopping, and recognize that the RMs have in fact being going against his wishes, both in cases where I've requested the moves and when where he's requested counter-moves. I'm skeptical that you'd see this punitive, one-sided block as justifiable, even if you're in the camp who find me irritating.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• This block fails WP:Blocking policy in multiple ways. Right off the bat, it fails the first two major criteria: "Blocks should not be punitive", and "Blocks should be preventative." Everything about this is punitive, and there's isn't anything legitimate it could be preventing, since all that was happening was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves in which I have little further to say anyway. I certainly was not mass-moving articles, and the only two articles I did move were done so with solid rationales, were easily challenged and have a discussion open about them, and I'll bet good money they'll go the way I proposed, since months of similar RMs have also. There's nothing disruptive about that, it's standard operating procedure. Under "Blocks should not be punitive", it fails points 1, 3 and 4, at least. Under the longer list of criteria below these two main points, it fails "Protection", as it doesn't qualify under any of the bullet points enumerated there (if anything, the first one, "persistent personal attacks" applies to the other side of the dispute, especially Montanabw, who engaged in more of them in that very discussion dispite administrative warnings to not do so, yet here I'm the one blocked). "Disruption" doesn't fit (except, again, points 2, 3 and [in relation to edits elsewhere] 5 describe the behavior of Montanabw and to a lesser extent Jlan toward me), and the others simply aren't applicable, though Future Perfect at Sunrise appears to be attempting "Enforcing bans" after a ban has expired. "When blocking may not be used" has three directives. "Conflicts and involvement": I don't see that Fut. Per. is "involved" (though clearly favors one side of the dispute against the other, so this section might as well apply). "Cool-down blocks" appears to cover precisely what this block was imposed for. "Recording in the block log" seems also likely; many have resented the fact that I have had a clean block log for 9 years or so despite being a stubborn curmudgeon. "The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating." That's a perfect description of this block.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is so, so sad to see your account destroyed like this, especially since you are using your real name. —Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Not that worried about it. As I understand block-challenging procedures, I can seek to have the false accusation at least removed from the block log via WP:AN as soon as the block expires. My main concern was that the usual suspects would use my temporary absence to even further forum shop against the recent RMs' concensus, but all the admins at WT:RM pretty much shut them down on that effort, one right after another, because their actions in that regard that I was allegedly "disrupting" weren't legitimate. This block is serving no purpose other than a petty personal punishment.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • If you find out how to have a false block removed from a block log, let me know. My understanding is once there is anything at all in your block log, the abusive admins don't bother to read it, they just use it as an excuse to pile on more blocks. Plus they will take every opportunity use it against you in content disputes. And don't bother to run for admin, that's the first qualification you need there.
      • At this point it would be better if the blocking admin realized there were no diffs to support the block and was willing to say so. —Neotarf (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• FYI; I just noticed this situation. Dekimasuよ! 05:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dekimasu: Thanks. I agree with your comments there that the dispute per se is counterproductive, which is why I've twice taken month-long, self-imposed breaks from it, to get away from the other two major participants, one of whom, Montanabw, explicitly stated she was taking a position she didn't even believe in but against me for purely personal reasons [3], the very definition of battlegrounding. This is one of the most blatantly one-sided administrative interventions I've ever seen, especially given that Montanabw shamelessly personally attacked me (after repeated administrative warnings to stop) as being someone in need of psychiatric "meds" [4], in the very same discussion I was blocked for. That was simply a refutation (albeit not a very concise one) of Jlan's misrepresentations, and an observation that he was clearly forum shopping, which I think all the other admins in that discussion realized, which is why they turned his requests down three times in a row and directed him back to RM procedure and consensus. I made no allusions of any kind about anyone's character or motivations, only the observable editing patterns and the logic flaws in their rationale. The purpose of it was to short-circuit their tendentious disruption of RM processes, exactly what I've been blocked for. It's like filing a police report and getting shot in the face for it. The thing is, I have nearly zero faith this behavior isn't going to continue (if any thing, this bogus block with probably embolden more of the same and worse). It's not limited to this RM stuff, but a general pattern of trying to blockade me me from editing animal breed articles. Montanabw has voiced the opinion that whoever shouts longest and loudest wins, and I think that says a lot about this WP:FACTION strategy. I'm not really sure what to do about it. It's not right to concede that they simply WP:OWN the domestic animal article sphere for the next decade, but this is where we're being herded (pun intended), now by baseless administrative sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dutch Landrace pig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conformation (animal breeding). 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) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Engvar

Resolved

@DePiep: That sounds good, including overwriting the sandbox; I was just using it to demo the code I think would work, but if you have an overhaul in mind it will probably make those tweaks obsolete.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Development may take some time. I'd like to see that template used more often. Keep an eye on it. -DePiep (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Right-o. I long for the day when tools can be used with user Javascript to auto-show articles in whatever English variety a user wants and we can stop forcing articles to be written in one Eng. var. or another on the dubious criterion of "first major contributor".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. new version is in the {{Engvar/sandbox}} & {{Engvar/testcases}} page right now, the documentation is being overhauled. Please take a look (these are the right ISO codes, I hope?). -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Replying at template talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arius

Moved to Talk:Arius § rfc 186A6DC

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arius. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the Wikipedia editing process. I put in the RFC, based on the info I read in the "Dispute Resolution" article, which says that, "Request for comment (RfC) is a process to request community-wide input on article content. RfCs can be used when there is a content-related dispute, or simply to get input from other editors before making a change." The dispute that I put in a RFC for is "content-related" (i guess). Under the article for RFC it says that, "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct..." I'm not sure where you get the idea that RFCs are for "editorial not content-factual matters." This seems to directly contradict the section on RFCs in the "Dispute Resolution" article and on the RFC article (unless there is a difference between "content-factual matters" (as you say) and a "content-related" dispute or a "content dispute" (as in the "dispute resolution" article and RFC articles, respectively). Anyhow, my problem is that I was unable to edit the page (without my edits being immediately reverted), despite my citations of peer reviewed sources. Any suggestions as to how/where I can address this issue if an RFC is not an appropriate means (with some reference as to WHY it is inappropriate given what the various articles I have quoted say with respect to RFCs) would be much appreciated. Thanks for any help or suggestions you can give.Ocyril (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arius: I wrote imprecisely. RFCs are not for Wikipedians to engage in their own process of consensus about the facts; that's original research. When RFCs are about content they're about whether the content is relevant, whether it accurately reports what the reliable sources say, whether it is citing actually reliable sources, etc. What you have at that article is sources disagreeing, and the solution to that is to note in the article that sources disagree, and how, not try to come to some kind of wiki-tribunal decisions as to what the facts are. Only external sources can tell us what the facts are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I understand and agree with what you are saying about the purpose of an RFC. I think the article should reflect what the sources say, and the relative value of those sources. How is the RFC "invalid"? The article currently does not reflect disagreement in the sources and I am citing sources that cannot be left out of the article. Please look at the edits and discussion if you have a chance, thanks.Ocyril (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boletus edulis

Stale

 – I was away, and did not get to this in time.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boletus edulis. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ukraine

Stale

 – I was away, and did not get to this in time.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Light bulb (disambiguation)

Stale

 – I was away, and did not get to this in time.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Light bulb (disambiguation). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

Stale

 – I was away, and did not get to this in time.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your Recent Edits to Template:RMassist

Resolved

Hi, I have reverted your recent edits to Template:RMassist because it broke the processing of |3=reason. I can't produce a testcase right now as there are inclusion guards that limit the inclusion of the template on a certain article, but using {{RMassist|new|old|reason}} (without the space between the first two braces) always produced "Please put your reason for moving here." Just wanted to let you know. Thanks, Timothy G. ^{from CA} (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Timothy Gu: I'll take your word for it. I'll try to look into what the problem was soon-ish. PS: you can give source code of a template with parameters with {{tlx}}. Code: {{tlx|RMassist|new|old|reason}}. Result: {{RMassist|new|old|reason}}. Your space trick is "unsafe", because the trailing }} will prematurely close any container template (e.g. {{Collapse}}) put around the content. Another way to do it, without a template link, is <code><nowiki>{{RMassist|new|old|reason}}</nowiki></code>. Hope that helps.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last needed to reference a MediaWiki template and I'm a little bit rusty now. Thanks for the {{tlx}} tip! Timothy G. ^{from CA} (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the reason message that was used for that edit (manually added by the next edit):

{{subst:RMassist/sandbox|Old|New|3=The official capitalization for RTMPDump is RTMPDump, as seen from the official website: [https://rtmpdump.mplayerhq.hu/]. I cannot move this myself as there has been a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RTMPDump&diff=prev&oldid=573604124 bot edit] to the target page. Aside from that, there is a human edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RTMPDump&diff=next&oldid=573604124 by me] so I am not marking this request as controversial.}}

It works fine as long as the parameter is named (either 3= or reason= will do). If the parameter is unnamed or the parameter is misspelled, e.g. reasom= it doesn't work. And that's the case with either the old version or your enhanced version.

Your enhancement was up for 22 days, and in that time the template was used many times with no other reported problems. I've integrated your changes into the most recent version. Thanks for helping with that template! Wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles Fahy

Stale

 – I was away, and did not get to this in time.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charles Fahy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates

Stale

 – I was away, and did not get to this in time.

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)