User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 10

Please comment on Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Casey Affleck

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Casey Affleck. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for defending the WP:NPOV policy

Like I noted in that RfC, it's one of the most misused and abused policies we have, if not the most misused and abused policy we have. Seeing some of the arguments made there.... It's just one of the reasons I don't enjoy editing here anymore. People will twist our policies to their liking, regardless of what the policies actually state. Ugh. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Viral Acharya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Viral Acharya. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ibn Tumart

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ibn Tumart. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ibn Tumart

Hi Snow Rise,

I'm the editor who wants to add "Arab" along with "Berber" in the lead, and also make other changes in the body. I'im not commenting in the survey section by principle because I think the overall presentation of the problem is misleading.
I edited today my summary that can be found in the end of this part, could you please have a look at it, if you have the time ? After looking at all the arguments and sources in the summary, don't you think that "but mention later in the lead that he claimed Sharifian ancestry" is not really representing all the sources, as some of them, then and now, clearly accepted it after analysis ? Please note that I know several sources denied it, but I still think it's legitimate to simply have the "Arab" opinion mentioned along with "Berber" one in the lead, not a "he claimed it (but it could be false)" mention.
What do you think ? Fulgery (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fulgery. I'll take a look at the issue when I can find a minute and give you my impressions, but I will say in brief here, as a pragmatic matter, that the consensus seems to be leaning strongly in the other direction. I think there might be something to a more middle-ground approach (hence my inquiry on the TP when responding to the RfC), but I'll have to investigate the sourcing in more detail, and even if I do end up endorsing your perspective, I'd be surprised if it will carry the day in the discussion. Nevertheless, I will get back to you on my analysis of the content issue on its own merits. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Attempt to come to an understanding

Softlavender, I wanted to respond to your most recent comment at the ANI, but we've already attenuated our back-and-forth there past a point that I think is suitable, given we've been going in circles, so I'm going to respond here. I hope this will bring us closer to understanding eachother's positions without invective. Hijiri88, if you feel inclined to respond, please know that insofar as I am concerned, you are always free to comment here. My understanding of IBANs is that they are generally considered to have dissolved once one of the parties is sitebanned, so insofar as this post briefly touches upon that ban, I think you are safe in responding to it, but I would probably check with an admin first. I make a point of saying this because of the unfortunate circumstances in which you previously blocked for discussing the ban here--I don't want it to happen again from our carelessness. If an admin advises you not to respond here and you really want to respond to something I've said, let me know and I can move the post to the ANI, where you are able to comment without fear of sanction. In fact, if there is any reason you would rather this post was included there, I will comply. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(Softlavender's first post copied and pasted from this ANI discussion by Snow Rise.)

Every fact I have stated about your position has been accompanied by diffs and quotes. In terms of Catflap, in your own words "I held out as a long as I could ... and held out on !supporting the ban proposal--specifically because I recognize that indefs/sitebans are the solution of last resort" and you initially resisted the unanimous and obviously needed call for a siteban [1], but you are unwilling to give this mutually agreed-upon IBan a chance? In terms of my responses to you, when someone !votes "Absolute strongest possible oppose", with a 4,500+ byte rationale without any direct evidence, they should expect to be responded to in depth and in detail. Softlavender (talk) 5:08 am, Today (UTC−8)

SL, I have no problem with pushback--I anticipate it as a possibility any time I forward an opinion on this project, particularly when it runs counter to the current majority view. That's fine. What I do object to is being told my own mind. Believe it or not, I am the definitive authority for my own perspectives. So when you say "Snow wants X", and I say "No, actually, I'm in favour of Y", there's nothing to be gained from telling me I'm wrong about what I support; whatever you initially interpreted my position to be, I've clarified it for the record and its vexing (indeed WP:disruptive) to keep telling me what my "actual" position is, just so I can be your strawman.

It's also an astounding violation of WP:AGF to keep postulating on my motives as you have--you can't possibly know my mind and calling me a liar about my own perspectives is not helping us reach a resolution here! I am opposed to the IBAN here because we have a substantial record as to how well it has prevented disruption/exhaustion of community time for these editors in other circumstances. That is, it hasn't; we have had to have numerous threads spawn here about the enforcement of those bans, demonstrating that they actually became a major part of the problem, not a solution. The IBAN between Hijiri and Catflap didn't stop them from ending up at ArbCom, where they were both sanctioned, did it?

So I think my opinion is quite valid on this matter, and it doesn't hinge on the alternatives, whatever we might consider the reasonable alternatives to be, though at BMK's request, I delineated what some of the possibilities might be. And whatever you say, I was careful to state that we have a range of options. But my main objection is not the particular suitability of any alternative, but rather the unsuitability, as I see it, of the IBAN. I'm sorry, I'm not particularly persuaded by your arguments or the fact that both users endorse this action, given they have already displayed an inability to disengage from one-another; there was already a scheme in place for separating them and they both apparently violated it (hence this thread). Given the track record, I think it's, in a word, silly to suppose that they will restrain themselves to conform to the IBAN by staying away from eachother. If they could do that, we wouldn't be here in the first place.

And even if we supposed that you were right and they would stay away from one-another if we just stuck the magic word "IBAN" between them, that's an absurd result in it's own right; if they are so amenable to this solution, why can't they just exercise that same level of self control on their own, without needing to come here and get the community involved, over and over? We (the community) are dropping the ball if we fail to impart to these editors that they need to find a healthier way of avoiding conflict with others on their own, rather than launching another week-long ANI every time they fail to do so. As BU_Rob13 succinctly put it, even if the IBAN arrests the disruption between these two editors (and I very much doubt it will), we are still just kicking the matter down the road to the next editor who has to deal with one of them, and from whom they will not disengage. And, I would add, to the next group of community members who have to wrestle with that disruption. I instead favour, also per Rob13's comments, just taking administrative action in compliance with our existing behavioural policies. Editors who stalk or hound, even after warnings to desist, are subject to blocks. Editors who violate clear community-mandated restrictions on contacting eachother directly are subject to blocks, whether they forgot about them or not. You think a siteban is excessive here. Fair enough. It wasn't my first choice either, whatever you think. But having seen this issues revolve through AN, ANI, ArbCom (yes, there is an ArbCom case involved here--this dispute is clearly an extension of the Catflap and Hijiri case, to which both of these editors were named parties) and other forums aside, and having seen the damaging (rather than helpful) role that IBANs have played in that process, I view following the model of "IBAN and hope for the best" to be incredibly ill-advised here.

So does that sufficiently explain my rationale on this matter such that you can believe that I'm taking the stance I am to protect the project from further disruption, rather than because I take some perverse pleasure in seeing someone sitebanned or indeffed? I hope so; I'm genuinely sorry we don't see eye-to-eye on this, and I certainly wish the subject was less acrimonious. But my position is informed of my long experience with these editors and this dispute, not a cavalier disposition to the ban hammer (if you look at my ANI contributions as a whole, I think you will find I am slow to embrace sanctions on the balance. But every dedicated community member has a limit on how much disruption they can see marched across the project before they want a solid resolution to an issue. Please feel free to respond at length (or not), but I hope this puts us closer to understanding one-another here. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tony Blair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Blair. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Poverty of the stimulus

Hi Snow Rise,
Once you have made lots of changes to this article, mostly copy-editing. So maybe you are still emotionally connected with it. Besides, unlike me, you are a native English speaker and experienced copy editor. So, I would be very grateful if you take a look at my edit and enlighten me a bit? I can't see any sense in the phrase "were it acceptable".
Regards. 85.193.237.204 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello 85.193.237.204,

I don't think that particular piece of prose is mine, but I can give you my impression as to the change, which is mixed. On the one hand, I think the sentence needs something in that space to maintain the assertion which I believe it is meant to make. That is to say, as I read it, the sentence is meant to say that "if a language pattern is never encountered, but its probability of being encountered would be very high were a grammatical correct in a descriptive sense, then the language learner might be right in considering absence of the pattern as negative evidence". So taking that element out actually fundamentally changes the meaning of the statement.

That said, I totally agree with you that the sentence was incredibly awkwardly phrased as it was. In fact, that whole section is highly problematic and has been as long as I've been aware of it. At some point in the early 2000's, before I joined the project, someone went through and added massive criticism sections to just about every Chomsky article, particularly those concerned with cognitive linguistics. While there should be some criticism, it is my opinion that those sections are massively disproportional with regard to their WP:WEIGHT in our sources and in the contemporary field of general. If someone without a background in the field read those articles, they would come away with the impression that Chomsky was not at well received by his field, as opposed to being one of the most transformative thinkers in the history of any academic discipline. Now I'm not a Chomskyan devotee really--at least not without some rather substantial caveats--but treating his work as if it is an outlier (rather than the basis for the most widely accepted model of language acquisition which helped spark the cognitive revolution) strikes me as deeply problematic to our neutral coverage of that topic.

Furthermore, said entries are largely written in a format that is radically inconsistent with encyclopedic tone; most read like academic lectures/graduate essays and there's a huge amount of WP:Synthesis and WP:Original research interjected into them. They also use a lot of awkward language that is probably deeply inaccesible to our average reader. Tom some extent these are highly technical topics, and we can't avoid expert language altogether, but we could certainly do a lot better than what you are seeing there, with regard to allowing this language to be parsed by the average Wikipedia reader. I think that's probably the cause for your edits, if I am reading them correctly. I've always suspected (but I've never done the edit history research to confirm) that our Chomsky/universal grammar/linguistic nativism articles are in poor shape because some minor academic who had pinned his reputation on repudiating the Chomskyan model part and parcel got to those articles and used them as a platform for his own arguments, out of proportion with their acceptance within broader academia. But that's just a theory. I've been meaning for years to trim down those section and bring them in line with our policies on weight, but it is such a daunting task, that I've never found the time/inclination to get on top of it. And there aren't many other editors with a background sufficient to let them see the issues in how those articles read, so it has gone unaddressed for years.

All of which is to say, I think your to that sentence needs some further tailoring, but I do agree it needed to be fixed. If you like, I can attempt to construct something utilitarian to bridge the gap between the two versions, in such a way that the statement makes more sense to the casual reader (per your effort) but also maintains the argument the original author was meaning to make. But ultimately a lot of that section should just go. It argues for an interpretation of Chomsky's model which is out of proportion with that found in contemporary academia. If you're interested in collaborating on that, I will try to devote some time in the near future. I don't know if this is a field of interest for you or if you were just correcting a poorly-constructed sentence, but either way, your input would be valuable if I am to finally sort those sections out. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The mere length of your response is impressive - way beyond my expectations. Besides it was inspiring. Thanks.

I have no authority to approve your proposal, but I am happy to inform you that I approve of your proposal. I will respond more fully, but now I must get some sleep. 85.193.237.204 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, nice to see you again ;-) The problem is important and deserves to be discussed in a more public place. Let's continue our discussion on the article talk page, where you will find my ideas. I am very curious about your opinion. 85.193.237.204 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing! As you say, the talk page is the ideal location for the discussion 9at least as concerns that article). Please be patient with me though, as my time is incredibly strained just now and it may take a day or so between responses. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI/Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue

Hey Snow!

I don't know if it brings dread or anything to you to be reminded of this but you decided to try and weigh in on it so I thought I'd bring this by you. Is it worth proposing an Interaction Ban between Tenebrae and Pyxis? I had a read of about, I dunno, between a quarter to a half of it, and, if I'm not mistaken, these two have had a lack of Civility and AGF for each other for a while? MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 15:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Matticusmadness. :) Yeah, I'm not sure what to do with those two at this point. I had hoped that offering to undertake the RfC myself as a neutral third party would give them cause to disengage with eachother, as nothing good is coming from that back-and-forth, but neither of them seems willing to give up the "last" word. I'm skeptical of IBANs generally, but something ought to be done to separate them. I think at this point the best place to start is to just close the ANI thread. Tenebrae didn't meet his burden of proof on the canvassing and there is no consensus for action against either of them on the civility issue (no support whatsoever, in fact), though I daresay they have both clearly passed into WP:Battleground territory in the ANI thread itself at this point. Only the fact that one or the other of them launches a new broadside every couple of days has kept the thread from being archived (no one else is commenting), so it is serving no administrative function and could be NACed.

Both of them should probably also receive a formal warning. My dim memory of past encounters with Tenebrae is that they are generally a level-headed editor, but they've lost all perspective on this matter, imo. Even if Pyxis' initial refusal to engage properly on how they selected those editors was problematic, the clashes between them are now just pure disruption, and Tenebrae is matching Pyxis point for point. The thread should be closed and if they want me to formulate the RfC, I am still willing and awaiting their summaries on their perspectives. That way they do not need to engage at all with eachother, or at least much, much less. An RfC is what they each should have attempted from the beginning and is the standard first-line community response to this kind of intractable content dispute. If they decide not to make use of such tools and continue to clash/edit war/whatever over the article, then one or both should be temporarily blocked to send a message that they need to focus on policy, not eachother. I don't think an IBAN is well advised in these circumstances, because they are going to continue to work on the same article(s), and it will just be an enforcement nightmare that will cause more trouble/wasted community attention than it will prevent. Let's start with closing the thread and see if they will retire to their corners. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Welp. It appears Tenebrae has beat us both to it on suggesting the thread be closed. [2] I dunno the coding for turning it into a purple box or I would cordon it off myself. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 03:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up; I'll close it myself momentarily. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. As I said in my response of 09:36, 27 January 2017, I will be composing my RfC question soon. In truth, the ANI entanglement zapped some of the joy of editing WP and I'm creating some blank space between it and the RfC that I would like to pursue. I appreciate your offer to submit it as a neutral third party. I'm just (for lack of a better word) recuperating for a few days. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. Prudent, even. Take your time--I'll be here when you're ready to proceed. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, again! I experienced some serious writer's block with this. For the life of me I could not formulate the words. I think I must have been shell-shocked. :-) But I finally put an RfC question together:

A recent discussion in WP:MOSFILM concerning the difference between "Top-ten lists" versus a "summary prose" about a film's inclusion in best of year lists, and the difference between guidelines for Accolades vs. Critical response, remains unresolved.

The guidelines for the Accolades section (or separate accolades article) do not allow:

"critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus".

The guidelines for the Critical response section do not exclude the addition of a summary sentence about a film's inclusion in "best of year" lists.

• Example of Top-ten lists (deleted from article).
• Example of summary prose (deleted from article).

(A) Is the addition of a single sentence (i.e summary prose) about a film being named one of the best films of the year with a few reliable sources to support this information -- the same as an addition of "top-ten lists"?
(B) If there is a difference between the two: should the wording of MOSFILM guidelines be modified so as to clarify the distinction between what is a "list" and what is a "prose" -- and allow for the latter?

Thank you, again, for your kind assistance in this matter. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

After the recent ANI was resolved, you recommended that User:Tenebrae and I keep a distance:

Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about each other, and to be scrupulously civil.

However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if User:Tenebrae continues making edits to the Carol article -- which was behind the ANI -- it is a roundabout way of not keeping said distance. I cannot sit idly by and watch edits made to the article that are (1) unnecessary and (2) not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus. Now he's leaving messages on the Talk page addressed to me: Italics. This behavior is not acceptable to me -- and should not be tolerated by any Admin who witnessed the ANI.

He was recently blocked for edit warring on another article and by continuing the "my way or the highway" with editors he is provoking confrontations: see 03:17, February 22, 2017 - reversal of edit to Carol. For the sake of other editors, and those who care about the spirit of Wikipedia and its articles, something needs to be done to put a stop to this behavior. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: First off, please allow me to apologize for not responding to your message on the 18th sooner; for some reason I never received a ping for it--or if I did I failed to notice it. Before we get too much into the weeds of the exact wording of your proposal, I need to clarify a few things. In particular, your approach to the question presented leaves me uncertain whether you want to run the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film or Talk:Carol (film). Both are possibilities, but each needs to be approached in a different way and will have a different breadth of outcome, but your current formulation of the wording mixes them up a little bit.

The easiest approach (and probably the one I would recommend) would be to simply host a very narrow discussion at the Carol talk page, where the initial dispute took place (as I understand it anyway). In this instance, you would advocate for your position on how the lists/no lists matter should be approached, based upon the existing reading of MOSFILM and any other relevant policies/guidelines.

If you want to change the actual recommended approach of MOSFILM, then you would host the discussion on the talk page for that style guideline. This could lead to a change to (or clarification of) the existing wording in that portion of MoS and thus a subtle change to the project-wide approach to the matter in question. However, because the implications are much broader, there may be substantial resistance to any change, and you may need to make a very compelling case to win over consensus.

If you believe policy already favours your position, you should keep the focus narrow and discuss the matter on the Carol talk page alone. If you believe that policy favours Tenebrae's position but you believe that Wikipedia's current approach to this issue is non-pragmatic or otherwise ill-advised, you should advocate for a change at MOSFILM talkpage (but again, get your ducks in a row and make your best possible argument). If you feel that MOSFILM is currently vague on the core dispute, you have two choices: you can either argue for your preferred interpretation to be applied to just the Carol article, or you could advocate to refine the particulars of MOSFILM itself. Let me know which is you preferred route on this and I will begin to incorporate your arguments into a neutral statement, and ask Tenebrae for his counter-argument. As to whether to engage with him and whether there is a behavioural matter to be addressed here, let's first try and see if we can resolve the content issue and thus remove the source of contention between you. Given the number of rounds of square-off between you two at the previous ANI thread, my best advice is to avoid going back to a behavioural forum with this, if it can be avoided. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping! Pong! Not to worry. :-)

I understand what you're saying about either the MOS:FILM talk page or the Carol talk page. The only reason I provided examples of what appeared in the Carol article is because it is where the contention about "list" vs. "prose" arose, and in its history the article provided both. I comprehend the reason for ixnaying a list of top-ten (just looking at the example for it, it can overwhelm a page). But interpreting this guideline to also apply for a single sentence, with reliable sources, about a film being named best of year is something that affects all film articles -- and I believe it needs to be decided by consensus, because as editor @AndrewOne: stated in the discussion:

The guideline reads, "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." This statement addresses the inclusion of a list itself, not of a single sentence reporting how many lists a film made. As I posted in my previous comment, "there is no uncontroversial basis in the manual of style for the removal of the sentence that Pyxis Solitary wants, but only an arguable and highly disputed basis – which is a sign that the manual's wording could be improved. When the noun of the guideline is not rankings on lists or summaries of how frequently a work appears on lists but lists themselves, the only thing that the guideline is explicitly barring, realistically speaking, is the inclusion of lists themselves. If the intent of the guideline is to ban virtually any mentioning of top 10 lists, the manual must state this in a more unambiguous way than it currently does."

I think posting an RfC in the MOS:FILM talk page is the best venue. Even if it were only about Carol, and RfC in its talk page would not generate much response, if any, since the editors who were actively involved in its development have almost all moved on to something else, and the only way now to get editors involved in a discussion is to personally solicit their input (as another editor did regarding edits to the Plot section).

So, yes, please, create an RfC to post in the talk page of MOS:FILM. Thank you, Gracias, Merci, Grazie, Efharisto, and ... Mahalo!

As for User:Tenebrae, I'm sorry but as far as I'm concerned he invites and enjoys controversy and conflict. And he values his judgement above those of other editors. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for him to pop into the Carol article periodically to make arbitrary edits. Insisting, as he did in his recent edit, that the applicable template parameter for Box Office Mojo and Deadline is "publisher" instead of "website" (which the latter is what they are) is just screwing around with the article. He invents guidelines. Why is he being allowed to get away with this? If I go back and change the several parameters to what they originally were ("website"), he's only going to revert it. Someone else needs to step in and do what's right for the article. I can't be the only one at its gate. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's problematic to think of yourself as the "gatekeeper" (solitary or otherwise) for any article. If you disagree with Tenebrae repeatedly with regard to this article, and you two are the only regular editors there, then you must find a way to resolve these impasse's constructively, whether through WP:dispute resolution or tools which attract broader community attention (WP:RfC, WP:3O, ect.)

On that topic, let's return to the subject at hand--the RfC. If I may provide an observation; do not predicate your decision to host the discussion on MOSFILM on the basis that there are too few active editors at the Carol article; one of the beauties of the RfC process is that it will bring outside editors to the talk page where the discussion is being hosted, regardless of where that is; when an RfC is created, the editor who files it chooses a number of topical lists to file it under and these lists are in turn utilized by notice bots who will send out messages to random uninvolved editors. So you will get some response regardless of where the discussion is held.

Bearing that in mind, I'll repeat that you will probably have a much more uphill argument to make at MOSFILM, because the policy arguments made will be seen to affect a much larger number of articles/amount of content. I can get you off on the right foot by starting the discussion, but you'll probably have to do a lot of leg work to convince other editors. If I am reading your argument correctly, this is a matter that you could argue at the Carol talk page alone; borrowing from the excerpt you quoted above, you could make the argument that "[MOSFILM] addresses the inclusion of a list itself, not of a single sentence reporting how many lists a film made" and then see whether or not the respondents agree that this interpretation is correct and allows for the content you wish to add to the Carol article. (And again, you will get at least some respondents, though it may take a few days in some cases). The only reason to host the discussion at MOSFILM is if you think the style guideline itself should be more clear on this matter, but trying to convince other editors that the implicit argument you see in the current reading should be affirmed as an explicit provision will require some work. Regardless, I will still start the discussion on whichever talk page you prefer, but I wanted to clarify that there will be attention/third opinions wherever it takes place, so don't let that be the determinative factor in your choice. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

≈ Well, ok, then. Perhaps it's best to post it in the Carol talk page. Let's do that.

≈ "I can't be the only one at its gate." is only a turn of phrase. But I have noticed that there are WP editors who like to tinker with an article after other editors have done the heavy lifting. They wait for something to be built, for the editing that created it to die down ... and then they start to poke at it. Something that, say, 100 WP editors found acceptable can drip, drip, drip be distorted by 1 WP editor with an editing hairball. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as how Pyxis Solitary is disparaging me behind my back, I believe I have a right to respond. I'd note, first of all, that RfC questions must be worded as simply and as neutrally as possible, which doesn't seem to be case in that editor's quote box above. Second, anyone can see that Box Office Mojo and Deadline.com are never italicized. So they can't go into the "website" parameter since the "website" parameter automatically italicizes that field. Because this issue has long been acknowledged, the template recognizes the "publisher" parameter.

Wikipedia doesn't italicize Box Office Mojo or Deadline.com, so I'm uncertain how de-italicizing them is "arbitrary." If Pyxis Solitary believes that "what's right for the article" is italicizing terms that are never italicized, well, that's as wrong as slagging me off behind my back. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Insofar as I am concerned, I have no objection to you responding here to the criticisms made against you (so long as no one dips into PA/incivil territory in their comments), but I would encourage you both to avoid further personalizing this dispute between you and keep focused on the content argument. Likewise, with regard to the parameters for that particular template, I have no experience or input to provide, so I also encourage you both to save that discussion for the talk page, since there is very little to be gained from repeating your arguments here.

Now, regarding the RfC and the lack of neutrality in the wording proposed by Pyxis, bear in mind that we are just work-shopping at this point; the entire reason I volunteered to help out in this regard was because Pyxis was concerned about their lack of familiarity/comfort with the process--and because you two clearly needed a buffer between you and whichever of you wrote the RfC the other was almost certain to disagree with the approach on some level. Pyxis has begun to submit their take on the matter to me and I still encourage you to do the same, so that I can present both views on the guideline fully and accurately. I'll wing it based on the previous discussion if I have to, but I'd rather have your direct input. Regardless, the final product will not be a copy and paste of anyone's sole outlook; I'll word it as neutrally as I can manage as an uninvolved party. And FYI, you're still welcome to preempt me and start the discussion yourself, if you are concerned about the wording; I'd just remember your own concerns about neutrality if you do so. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the invitation. At this point, I frankly have no idea what they're trying to say in that quote-box jumble of words. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused on the particulars too, though I think I understand the general thrust of Pyxis' argument. Please feel free to track the discussion and submit a counter-argument at any time that you wish to. Or just summarize your position from the previous discussion, if you wish. I'll try to render both sides as faithfully as possible when I open the discussion (probably at some point this coming weekend). Snow ^{let's rap} 02:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The general thrust is in the above comment I quoted from editor AndrewOne.

By the way, User:Tenebrae accused me of making a personal attack against him because of the changes I made to my PROFILE page, and sought the help of another editor to (fill-in-the-blank). I mean, what the hell! Take a look: personal attack accusation. What are y'all going to do with an editor that was told to "keep a distance" -- but instead keeps pushing the envelope? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

After my 10:37 ^ response I saw this waiting for me in my Talk page: Requesting help re: a personal attack. I'm not going to file an ANI or whatever over this. I am, however, formally now requesting that — after (1) the reversal of my edit in the Carol article, (2) message directed at me in Carol talk page, (3) undoing my edit in MOS:FILM {which he then self-reverted after actually l-o-o-k-i-n-g at the edit}, (4) accusation of personal attack in talk page of editor CapnZapp, and (5) the ANI accusing me of a personal attack — the sanction warned in the canvassing ANI be enforced to stop User:Tenebrae from continuing to provoke and create conflict between us. Enough is enough. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what do you call this, posted two days after CapnZapp and others asked us not to engage?

I don't care if no one knows the total edit counts I've made to Wikipedia, nor what rank I am as an active editor. I don't contribute to this webopedia because I seek and expect recognition for my work in it. I'm not interested in medals and awards. My ego isn't so fragile that I need to plaster my user page with "Look at me! Look how great I am!" attention getters. (I applaud those Wikipedians who collapse their kudos and virtually hide them.

So you tell me why you posted this. You tell me what other editor you personally have come across with "total edit count", "rank" and "medals and awards"? Yours is the worst kind of insult, because it's all insinuation. Shameful. Should I list all the insults and name-calling you're hurled at me and other editors, with links to them? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And incidentally, please explain how someone contributing anonymously is "seek[ing] and expect[ing] recognition." My goodness.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I please ask...

...that you two take a break from referring to one-another (about accusations or whatever), engaging one-another or even acknowledging one-another for 36 hours or so? I just got home from a truly long day carried on two hours of sleep--if not for that, I'd formulate the RfC right now to try seek some resolution on this manner and channel discussion into the content, rather than having it hinge on implications of impropriety between you. But because of the need to frame the matter neutrally, I think some rest is in order first. I really think it would be best if you two retired to your respective corners, tried to pretend the other doesn't exist (including avoiding checking up on eachother or editing on the articles you disagree over), and got some distance from the issues for a day and half. When you come back, I hope to have the RfC up for you and you will both be in a better position/mindset to bring your best content arguments, free of insinuation about eachother's conduct. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not put me on the same level. He's the one who, this week alone, has undone my edits in TWO articles. He's the one who has been monitoring my user page. He's the one who has accused me of a personal attack. He's the one who, in the last 24 hours, filed an ANI against me that other Wikipedians found to be baseless.

This was the response from User:Primefac:

• "...looking purely at that edit there's no indication that it's pointed directly at you. I could spit and hit a dozen admins here who have accolades and counters and what-have-you. Maybe you should stop watching their userpage and go about your business?"

This was the response from User:Softlavender:

• "It's clearly not directed at anyone at all, and the fact that you are monitoring the user's userpage is a violation of the advice to avoid each other. If I were you I would WP:DROPTHESTICK. Take the user's page off your watchlist."

This was the response from User:TheGracefulSlick:

• "...I don't believe it is singling you out, but if you still disagree why would you validate it with this AN/I? Just avoid her and if there is an actual issue work it out."

He's the one who now, in your talk page, has repeated the accusation of an insinuated personal attack. He has now, more than once, violated your warning in the canvassing ANI: "Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other..." I do not involve myself in articles he's editing because I know the definition of "keep your distance". But he is going to continue to monitor my actions in Wikipedia, he's going to continue trying to rule over my edits, and he will again accuse me of wrongdoing.

He's the one who continues to provoke and create conflict with me and about me. Do not paint me with the same brush. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything to anyone about you until you did so here, with a deliberately Trump-like obfuscation — "However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if User:Tenebrae continues making edits to the Carol article -- which was behind the ANI -- it is a roundabout way of not keeping said distance" — followed by a lie: "I cannot sit idly by and watch edits made to the article that are (1) unnecessary and (2) not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus."

I hadn't touched the article since January 16. You were the one who made several edits after that — not me, you. Here's the article hsitory, so anyone can see for themselves. I didn't make an edit until Feb. 21, for grammatical reasons after you broke MOS and the basic rules of English-language punctuation. See these articles for themselves: Box Office Mojo and Deadline.com are not italicized. Period. Neither is Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or other sites that WP:FILM used. So: Liar, liar, liar that correct grammar for these sites is "unnecessary and not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." Liar. See their own Wikipedia articles.

And yet: I didn't say anything here about your obfuscation and lies. So unprovoked, you attacked me here, again, saying

he invites and enjoys controversy and conflict. And he values his judgement above those of other editors. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for him to pop into the Carol article periodically to make arbitrary edits. Insisting, as he did in his recent edit, that the applicable template parameter for Box Office Mojo and Deadline is "publisher" instead of "website" (which the latter is what they are) is just screwing around with the article. He invents guidelines. Why is he being allowed to get away with this?

Get away with what? Using proper grammar? Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Box office, which clearly does not italicize Box Office Mojo or Deadline.com. Read it. Go to the good article Captain America: Civil War — Box Office Mojo and Deadline.com are not italicized. And you lie and say my grammatical corrections of your incorrect grammar is "unnecessary and not supported by existing WP guidelines and consensus." I have just shown you both guidelines (WP:FILMMOS) and consensus.

And heaven knows, no, I don't enjoy this controversy and conflict one bit whatsoever. Not. One. Bit. So you're wrong again there. It was only after you disparaged me twice on this page that I finally commented on your slagging me off behind my back. I hope you're proud of yourself, talking about someone behind their back. I have made sure you're notified every time I've commented about you.

And now you bring another editor into it, who has a good heart and is trying to be helpful — and rather than accepting their help and being constructive, you spend your time trash-talking another editor. You think Snow Rise wants to hear that? You think a helpful, goodhearted editor wants to have you bring venom onto their page? And for what? The battle you want to fight is for wrongly italicizing two websites. Really? Good gracious. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: if your warning "Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid each other..." does not apply when, in just one week, one of the two parties continues to incite conflict by (1) reversing the other party's edits in two articles, (2) accusing the other party of creating a personal attack on their userpage, (3) filing an ANI against the other party, (4) post messages directed at the other party in an article's talk page and in this talk page, and (5) challenging the other party to respond to accusations ... then it was a meaningless warning. I am the Admin of a wiki. I know when a user has defied warnings. I know how to stop that user. I know you're not a WP Admin. But you issued the warning. If you can't, then someone on your behalf has to walk the talk. Please hold off on the RfC until this situation is resolved. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I reiterate: You started this contretemps here when, unbidden, you disparaged me behind my back. Slagging off another editor is not "avoiding" the other editor. You could have made your same points without mentioning me at all. And, once more, I said nothing the first time you disparaged me here, and only responded when you did it a second time! I don't know why you believe you're allowed to insult, disparage and lie about other editors behind their backs, and then claim innocence. Remarkable.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

e-mail

You might want to check your e-mail. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

John, for whatever reason, I did not receive your email--though oddly, I did get notice of it. Anyway, insofar as I gather the email concerns your dispute with Hijiri, I think any such discussion of that matter should be kept on the project. And as you are prevented by the terms of your IBAN from discussing him, my advice therefore defaults to just letting the matter go. I'll AGF that your message may have been something along the lines of what you sent to Sandstein--that is, a mea culpa about having pushed the community's patience on the ban and a promise to steer clear of Hijiri. If the tone of the message is something along those lines, I'm heartened by it and I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to read it and to respond encouragingly. If it was something more critical of Hijiri, I'd advise dropping the stick. Certainly I am no fan of how he approaches conflict on this project, but the community overwhelmingly endorsed the IBAN as the solution, despite my very strong objections about how it could be problematic--and I'm afraid that contributing to the ANI thread is as far as I'm willing to get involved in the matter. You seem to appreciate just how unlikely Sandstein's lifting of the block was, so I hope you'll make the best of the opportunity to find areas to contribute in that keep you and Hijiri out of eachother's sight and mind. Happy editing. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Daddy Yankee

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Daddy Yankee. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Willie and Joe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Willie and Joe. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Brady

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Brady. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julia Montes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julia Montes. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10

Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Request

I'm requesting that you please remove the parenthetical comment you made about my username at the Erika Lauren Wasilewski talk page. I'm sure you were just trying to be friendly, and that's fine, but I would appreciate it now if you would remove it. I can't imagine it's relevant to the ongoing RfC, but it does matter to me. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 00:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Just to be clear, though, the comment was an effort to bring to your attention, in a friendly manner, that there's something of a minor WP:UNCONF issue with your username. I don't view it as an inappropriate thing to make note of and I'm unsure why it has rubbed you the wrong way, but at the same time I have no objection to removing it, given your request. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "minor issue" w/ my username, was it by any chance a readability/visual accessibility issue? Something else? Two other editors just raised color contrast ratio & talk link issues at User_talk:Redrose64#Sig, and I'm in the process of addressing those concerns. Levdr1lp / talk 22:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that potential accessibility issue of the display was part of it, but I also found it somewhat compounded by the alpha-numeric combination of the name itself; I had to go back to reference your name any time I wanted to address you directly, because I couldn't remember the exact sequence of the characters and I couldn't divine any phonetic or conceptual underlay to it. So, a very minor issue indeed (even when combined with the atypical display), but I thought it was worth mentioning in passing, even so. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see User:Levdr1lp/n.b. Levdr1lp / talk 02:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As the above user subpage notes, I formerly edited as "Levdr1", but I lost my password for that account. I created a new account -- my current account -- as a replacement. That was six years ago. At first, my account name was "Levdr1lostpassword". At some point I abbreviated the name in my signature with a piped wikilink to my userpage: "Levdr1lp" ("lp" for "lostpassword"). Last March (2016), I formally requested to change my username to "Levdr1lp", and I was approved for this username change, both on the local English Wikipedia, and globally for all related Wikimedia sites (Commons, etc.). Technical issues aside, you're the first user to ask about my username. Basically I didn't want "password" in the name any longer. I kept the "lp" suffix for the sake of continuity since that's how my signature appeared. Hope this clarifies it. (Side note- I believe I've now addressed any accessibility issues with my signature with the new colors.) Levdr1lp / talk 06:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see--it must have been frustrating to lose access to your old account like that. Well, for my part, although the previous colours were not an issue for my own perception personally, I still appreciate your attention to the accessibility issue, as an editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sean Spicer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Spicer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC … still willing?

Hello, Snow Rise. Are you still willing to compose the RfC regarding lists vs. prose in film article? Reminder re what it's all about (from your archive):

A recent discussion in WP:MOSFILM concerning the difference between "Top-ten lists" versus a "summary prose" about a film's inclusion in best of year lists, and the difference between guidelines for Accolades vs. Critical response, remains unresolved.

The guidelines for the Accolades section (or separate accolades article) do not allow:

"critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus".

The guidelines for the Critical response section do not exclude the addition of a summary sentence about a film's inclusion in "best of year" lists.

• Example of Top-ten lists (deleted from article).
• Example of summary prose (deleted from article).

(A) Is the addition of a single sentence (i.e summary prose) about a film being named one of the best films of the year with a few reliable sources to support this information -- the same as an addition of "top-ten lists"?
(B) If there is a difference between the two: should the wording of MOSFILM guidelines be modified so as to clarify the distinction between what is a "list" and what is a "prose" -- and allow for the latter?

Relevant comment by User:AndrewOne in WP:MOSFILM discussion:

The guideline reads, "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." This statement addresses the inclusion of a list itself, not of a single sentence reporting how many lists a film made. As I posted in my previous comment, "there is no uncontroversial basis in the manual of style for the removal of the sentence that Pyxis Solitary wants, but only an arguable and highly disputed basis – which is a sign that the manual's wording could be improved. When the noun of the guideline is not rankings on lists or summaries of how frequently a work appears on lists but lists themselves, the only thing that the guideline is explicitly barring, realistically speaking, is the inclusion of lists themselves. If the intent of the guideline is to ban virtually any mentioning of top 10 lists, the manual must state this in a more unambiguous way than it currently does."

Just to emphasize: I'm the editor that started the still-unresolved discussion in WP:MOSFILM and the one that would like an RfC regarding the matter. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: It's okay if you don't want to do it any longer (lord knows, after the recent drama it would be understandable). Maybe you can suggest someone else who can help? Txs. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Pyxis, unfortunately, the issue for me now, and for the next week or two, is time. That and the fact that it seems likely to be a disruptive process insofar as the issues between you two keep ending up the topic of AN/ANI discussions. Normally I might recommend WP:DRN, but I'm not sure there is much chance of you two ever seeing eye to eye on either the content matters or the notion of which one of you is more out of line. Still, it may be that Robert McClenon would be willing to try to get you on the same page. Though if you avail yourself of that process, I'd like to ask you to try very hard not to make me regret that I pinged him on the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise, User:Pyxis Solitary - What article are we talking about? This must have been an article where I tried to mediate or provide a third opinion several months ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to trouble you, Rob--hadn't realized this has had already passed through DRN, if it is in fact the same dispute--the article in questions Carol (film), though I believe the lion's share of the discussion has taken place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise, believe me when I say that the last thing I want to do is make your experience on Wikipedia miserable for trying to mediate conflict between two editors. I simply would like to edit a film article without feeling harassed. What is discussed in WP:MOSFILM about this specific subject (a "list" vs. "prose" that mentions the existence of lists) is strictly for the purpose of reaching consensus among a variety of editors because as other comments in the existing on-hold discussion indicate ... I'm not the only one who thinks that having a guideline with specific clarification about it has merit. Whatever the resulting consensus is, that's what I and all editors will be able to better follow. This is not about two editors seeing things differently -- it's about Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise and @Robert McClenon: This may have begun as a dispute in January between me and another editor in one particular film article, but it has to do more about film articles having a clearly-defined guideline regarding what can be included in the *Critical response* section -- which the other editor has interpreted as being identical to the guideline for the *Accolades* section. I began a discussion in WP:MOSFILM that is on hold pending an RfC (which I haven't done before and no doubt will somehow get it wrong on the first try): "Lists" vs. prose about lists. The crux of the matter was stated by User:AndrewOne in the on-hold discussion:

The guideline reads, "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." This statement addresses the inclusion of a list itself, not of a single sentence reporting how many lists a film made. As I posted in my previous comment, "there is no uncontroversial basis in the manual of style for the removal of the sentence that Pyxis Solitary wants, but only an arguable and highly disputed basis – which is a sign that the manual's wording could be improved. When the noun of the guideline is not rankings on lists or summaries of how frequently a work appears on lists but lists themselves, the only thing that the guideline is explicitly barring, realistically speaking, is the inclusion of lists themselves. If the intent of the guideline is to ban virtually any mentioning of top 10 lists, the manual must state this in a more unambiguous way than it currently does."

I have no knowledge of this specific subject having been included in a past DRN, if it was. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, since the specific debate about a "top ten lists" in the accolades section vs. a "prose" about critics lists in the critical response section began in the Carol article, I did a search of its current Talk page and archive from October 2015 to January 2016 -- and there has been no discussion about this. Which means that the DRN mentioned above did not involve Carol. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I cannot promise you it will arrive quickly (hard to fully express just how busy I am right now), but I can still format the RfC for you. But you can help make that feel like a productive use of my limited community time if you could avoid disputes with Tenebrae in the meantime; I recommend this in any event, even if it means avoiding articles you two share in common for a little while. There's a whole lot of articles laying around that could use the attention of a concerned editor. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no deadline and I truly appreciate your willingness to do it. You don't need to worry about me avoiding articles Tenebrae is involved in:

re: Carol

Just so you know: I became involved as an editor of Carol on 07:44, 15 December 2015‎. A review of its revision history will show how much I have contributed to it and the degrees of edits. The first time Tenebrae set foot in the article was two years later on 22:17, 11 January 2017‎, to reverse my edit. And his summary for his first edit was: "Once again, WP:FILM articles do not do top-10 lists ... or top-20 or top-100. This flouting of WP:FILMMOS needs to stop or it's going to end up in an ANI". After its GA nomination on 16 September 2016 failed because it had been nominated by an editor that had "not exponentially contributed on the page base on the edit history", I renominated the article on 6 March 2017. It's easy to find out what articles Tenebrae has been involved in (past and current) and I have deliberately stayed away from them since your advice to avoid each other. You won't find my name in their revision history.

Thank you, Snow Rise. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You know what? Talking about me behind my back and sneakily trying to hide it by collapsing your text is not avoiding someone. I'm flabbergasted that you don't understand that you can't go around badmouthing people to other editors. People have a right to defend themselves. I don't badmouth you behind your back ... and your tearing me down before other editors is unfair and unethical behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I apologize: with all of the demands on my time right now, I completely spaced on my promise to get this discussion up soon. I will host the RfC this weekend, so look for it then. In the meantime, please, no more comments regarding eachother on this page--they accomplish nothing but to up the acrimony between you, since neither of you is capable of accepting the other's perspective as legitimate on any of your points of contention. Further comments about eachother will be deleted, and may even be reported to an admin as unwanted and disruptive. Appreciate your understanding and patience. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know ... I'm all female from the get-go. :-D

Thanks for still being willing to saddle the bronco. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh--duly noted! You'd think I'd be more careful--suppositions about my own gender land all over the place! :) Snow ^{let's rap} 07:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Howdy! Have you posted the RfC? The reason I ask is because I've been experiencing technical problems with my watchlist (I've reported it) and was wondering if you had started the discussion and I didn't get a notification about it. If you did, I haven't found it. Thanks! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Is everything ok? Or did my message from May 3rd get lost in the sauce? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Were you posting about me off-wiki?

I was doing my intermittent check for bitter banned users complaining about me off-wiki (because of an email I got that informed me that "Wikipedia Sucks" has apparently been taken down that reminded me of an incident on Wikipediocracy a few years ago), and I found https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/5q0hsc/whats_the_deal_with_hijiri88/

The original post has been deleted, but the text visible in the Google preview was The guy has a lot of flak with people, especially with [name redactd] and other guys. The amount of Interation bans he has seems to be a bunch.... The date, January 25 of this year, was right in the middle of you complaining about me a bunch on ANI and talking about my IBANs (the redacted name is the user who was the subject of the ANI thread you were posting about me in), which is why I'm asking you. You are also the only one I can recall going on and on about my two interaction bans.

I admit it's entirely possible it's some random troll, or perhaps a stalker I had from years ago, so if you say it wasn't you I guess I'll accept that, but if it was you I would appreciate if you were upfront about it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I also spent some time back when I first noticed it to figure out who posted this, and I just noticed now how difficult it would be for an uninvolved party to come to a conclusion like He also responded to Snow Rise and blamed them for Albino Ferret proposing the topic bans based on a removed, objective reading of the comment in question, which really makes me think that it was one of the users being discussed in that portion of the post. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record: At the time, I think I came to the conclusion that it was some randomer with a grudge against Beyond My Ken and no on-wiki involvement with me. User:Sturmgewehr88 can back me up on that, as if I recall correctly it was with him I was exchanging emails about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

No. I have no interest in discussing project matters anywhere but on the project itself. I have even less interest in discussing you; my only comments about you (other than when your battles of will with Catflap and John Carter spilled on to my page at no invitation of mine--as when you showed up here to make your case against Catflap and got blocked and got blocked by Drmies) have been in the significant number of community discussions at ANI in which you have so frequently appeared as an involved party and my interest in you does not extend a character beyond the end of those threads. I told John Carter the exact same thing when he tried to drag my attention offline over your (latest) personal grudge match.

I'm so very glad to hear that you "guess" that you will take me at my word, but I am afraid I must ask you, from herein, to refrain from commenting on my talk page. I try to make my time here an outlet of joyful work;when I do choose to get involved in behavioural discussions, it is only through the appropriate, central community forums. The last thing I want when I log on after a looong day, hoping to help build something with like-minded souls in the kind of harmony that eludes much of my days, is to be confronted with a baseless accusation born out of someone else's insecurities and eagerness to see foes all around them. Perhaps if knowing people are knocking on your contributions winds you up like this, you should stop actively searching for that exact thing?

Or work a little on your relationship towards your community of fellow editors so that you don't constantly find yourself making a fresh batch of accusations at someone new. It's clear that process has brought you to a place where you are willing to base those accusations on the most bizarre hunch that occurs to you. I don't know if no one has ever explained this to you, but making a claim of this nature without a scrap of evidence to support your paranoid supposition is a WP:Personal attack under our policies. You have your answer, so please do not return here with this or similar drama again. Thank you for your understanding. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:JonTron

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:JonTron. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Natalie Portman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Natalie Portman. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joe Scarborough

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joe Scarborough. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bikini Moon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bikini Moon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ann Thetis Blacker

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ann Thetis Blacker. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Plant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Ferrie

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Erik Prince

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Erik Prince. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Draft talk:US Presidents navbox

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Draft talk:US Presidents navbox. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlie Chaplin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charlie Chaplin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Law review

I am posting here to not clutter AN/I. I know the difference between a secondary source and a primary source, but I want you to understand why MOS:LAW has different rules for primary sources. The Supreme Court of the United States is a primary source. The only source it cites with authority is itself. This is a fact of law and WP:IAR applies. We could not have law articles on Wikipedia without this rule, which is part of WP:MOS. The sum of American law depends on an order of authorities, the highest of which is the Supreme Court. It is a fact as much as base-10 number systems are a fact in mathematics articles.

Law Review is a preferred academic source for articles about law per WP:RS. It is a secondary source - most of the time it is meticulously cited expert writing about cases or statutes (primary sources). That is, by definition, a secondary source. But, also per MOS:LAW primary sources have greater authority then secondary sources. This is also part of Bluebook, there is an order of authorities - there is a right way, and a wrong way. It is not like writing for the social sciences. So please stop saying this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Seraphim System--a couple of points. First, I just read the entirety of MOS:LAW and I don't see where it supports any of the points that you just asserted. More so than that, I'll tell you the same thing that I told GregJack: it would be extremely weird and atypical for an MoS page to say anything like that. All of the community's standards for how to properly source information is found in the the pillar policy WP:Verification and, of course, WP:RS, as well as a few other policies and guidelines. MoS is a style guide. It is concerned not so much with which sources are appropriate for supporting content on this project, but rather how they are presented and formatted. I'm not sure if you just took GregJack's word for all of that, but I think you need to review that page, because it isn't the source for policy you seem to think it is, nor does it say what you purport it says. Sources are not listed as secondary or primary anywhere on this site, that I can think of. Rather each source is secondary to the claim it is meant to support in any given context. Thus law review articles are neither secondary or primary, per se. If a law review article makes a statement and cites to another source (law review, primary law, or otherwise) in support, then it is a WP:secondary source for that claim; if it makes a statement that is an expression of original thought or research, it is a WP:primary source for that claim. Anyway, I'd like to reiterate what others have said at the ANI thread: WP:RSN is the ideal forum for further discussion of the particular sources, if issues cannot be resolved at the relevant article talk page and in consultation with the policies and policy talk pages. Convincing me as an uninvolved party may be an interesting abstract discussion, but isn't going to move the needle any on the pages you are working on. Happy editing on those articles, in any event! Snow ^{let's rap} 07:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, MOS:LAW requires that we cite cases with greater authority then secondary source scholarship - I understand what you are saying and you are right nothing in MOS:LAW allows WP:OR with regards to primary source scholarship. I have never interacted with Gregjack before yesterday and I am not speaking for anyone but myself - there are rules for how we cite primary sources in law articles including introduction signals. Rules can always be abused. Here is the relevant section of the citation guidelines. Of course simple "citation guidelines" are no small matter in legal writing. Anyway, I am concerned if anyone is raising concerns about the quality of sources I am relying on (which is what started so much drama last night when my law review sourced edit was reverted) - thanks for sharing your thoughts. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the entirety of the content of the section you just cited at me.

Citing legal materials

Cite to legal materials (constitutions, statutes, legislative history, administrative regulations, and cases) according to the generally accepted citation style for the relevant jurisdictions. If multiple citation styles are acceptable in a given jurisdiction, any may be used, but be consistent, and consider using the most common. Also consider using the citation style used in secondary sources (such as law reviews or academic journals) rather than the citation style used by a practitioner's legal briefs or a court's decision.

Guidelines

The following guidelines will be generally useful in many jurisdictions:

In general

• Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority.
• When a case has been published in an official reporter (e.g. the United States Reports), editors should cite the version of the case that appears in the official reporter.

Case citations

• Case names are italicised, as in the Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. article. (Case citation or law report information is presented in normal font.)

Citation signals

• When necessary, use the appropriate signal. Be aware that the use of Id., supra, and infra are discouraged, as are internal cross-reference signal to another footnote. This is due to the fact that any reference may be edited or changed, and render the cross-reference signal inaccurate.

Can you explain to me where in that you see support for the assertions of your first post, or your new argument that the policy mandates that "To be perfectly clear, MOS:LAW requires that we cite cases with greater authority then secondary source scholarship"? Because I'm not seeing the connection between your assertion and anything said on that that MoS page. Nor am I seeing anything remotely supporting your original policy claims. And again, it would be really weird if an MoS page did say something like that; MoS is a style guide, it never really advises on what sources are appropriate to support a verifiable claim, only how citations and such are presented and formatted . Let me try to put this to you in terms I think may better contextualize Wikipedia's community documents a bit for you, using your professional experience as a frame of reference. MoS is like the Bluebook--it tells you how to reference various legal sources and principles, for the narrow purpose of citation, but it is not in any remote sense a source for legal procedure. Think of our policies and guidelines as the rules of civil procedure. You'd never cite Bluebook before a court on a matter of procedure, right? You might use Bluebook to format an argument you put before it in some form or another, but it's not a source of law, it's a style tool. And as a matter of reality, other editors are not going to take an WP:IAR approach to whether or not the general rules of WP:RS and WP:V apply.

But I do repeat, insofar as I am not a party to the work on the articles you need to resolve this for, I'm not really the one to be discussing them with if you hope for a productive outcome. I reiterate that WP:RSN can be a great resource when trying to work such matters out. Best of luck to you. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority." Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Well, it's out-of-place being discussed there, in an MoS page and in the context of citation style (as opposed to verifiability), but that wording is just a replication of a general principle of sourcing, already codified in WP:RS; we almost always prefer secondary over primary sourcing. But bear in mind my previous point on how those terms operate on Wikipedia: sources are "secondary" and "primary" here in relation to the specific claims they are used to source (so the same document can be secondary in relation to one claim, and primary in relation to another); it's a slightly different usage than the static categories that are referenced by those terms in the context of legal citation. Anyway, though MoS has not steered you wrong in duplicating this useful point, I would still recommend that you take your policy ques on sourcing from WP:RS and WP:V; those are the core (and to again borrow from legal terminology, the controlling) policy sources here. Good luck, hope you work it out with the other editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noël Coward

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noël Coward. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tsolak Bekaryan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tsolak Bekaryan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antonio Margarito

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antonio Margarito. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ned Kelly

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tupac Shakur

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tupac Shakur. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Draft talk:Jonna Mannion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Draft talk:Jonna Mannion. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shneur Odze

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shneur Odze. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gisele Bündchen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gisele Bündchen. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ali Hassan Salameh

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ali Hassan Salameh. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bob Stoops

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bob Stoops. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

• News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)

• In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill

• Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take

• Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues

• Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth

• Recent research: Utopian bubbles: Can Wikipedians create value outside of the capitalist system?

• Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Jamerson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Jamerson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Gant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Gant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)