| Revision as of 04:23, 23 August 2017 editLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,672,118 edits →Please comment on Talk:Ted Bundy: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:31, 23 August 2017 edit undoTwitbookspacetube (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,224 edits →FYI: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 72383 --> ] (]) 04:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC) | The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 72383 --> ] (]) 04:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| == FYI == | |||
| Could you please join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_community_sanctions_placed_on_User:Barts1a ]]] 12:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:31, 23 August 2017
 |
Notice: I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles.
 |
|---|
| 15 January 2025 |
|
RfA
| File:New Zealand TW-17.svg | Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen Let's discuss it 02:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC) |
- You're more than welcome, Cullen; thank you for stepping into the role--we need more experienced community members filling our mop corps. I've observed a lot of RfAs over the years and I've never seen a more uniform outpouring of support than that. You should be proud of the warm and respectful response your presence on the project has inspired, and if my observations of your conduct are any indication, I'm sure you'll continue to inspire the same reactions in your role as admin. :) Snow 03:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for standing up for me and others
I just wanted to thank you and let you know that I appreciated you stood up against the users that were incessantly fighting against the users voting to keep the television ratings graph template, especially since you also voted to delete. Your stance really made me feel heard and understood whereas without it I would have just thought that I was swimming against the current and essentially insignificant. I really wanted to show you my gratitude especially because so few take their time to express appreciation online (whereas everyone has plenty of time for hate). Good debate is hard to come by and thank you for trying to uphold it. Camilleopard (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Camille--that's very kind of you to say. :) I just felt that, even having reached a different conclusion than you, the way your reasoning/motivations were being described did not feel accurate to my observations, or fair. I think editors should feel free to make useful utility arguments; such arguments often fail against any kind of guideline that represents broad community consensus, but its one of the pillars of this communities conduct rules that we at least hear them out, to decide if the existing typical approach is advisable in all circumstances.
- And in this instance, one need not even go that far, because both sides were arguing from pragmatic standpoints, without so much as a single policy or guideline quoted in that entire long-winded debate, and the deletion proposal did not conform to any of the four consensus rationales for deletion at TfD (which could have earned it a speedy close if other parties had not shown the delete votes the courtesy of at least discussing the matter). So for those two editors to go around replying "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" to pretty much every keep !vote (which represent about 2/3 of the !votes so far) was hypocritical, I felt. Not only hypocritical, in fact, but doing more harm than good to their overall position (a position I nominally agree with, even if it is also only based on pragmatic evaluations). And at this point, with 2/3 of responses leaning towards !keep, the discussion is likely to be closed as either "keep" or "no consensus" soon. Although I think that's the wrong conclusion and the templates probably should be deleted, I do hope the discussion is closed with less grousing than the unexpected opposition was met with.
- All of which is my long-winded way of saying, you are very welcome, but I was just saying what I thought needed to be said in those circumstances, based on our processes and guidelines for how consensus building is meant to be conducted here. I hope you'll consider staying and contributing more to the project. Contributors can be a little zealous at times, as you've seen, but we usually get to a reasonable answer or solution that lays between us, eventually. :) Snow 01:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Halimah Yacob
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Halimah Yacob. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding articles in Yoruba Language
Hello, please I need a guide on how to use accents / diacritics in wikipedia. It will help me to add articles in yoruba language. Thank you. Oshhhh (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Oshhhh--sure, no problem! From your question I am not 100% certain whether you are looking for technical help with the entry of accented characters, or if you are looking for policy/rules on how to use them on en.wikipedia, so I have included both bellow.
- Help:Entering special characters - This help page will give you a few different methods for actually finding and entering characters with diacritics and other special characters not found on a typical English keyboard. You should be able to find versions of the tools it refers to on both en.wikipedia and yo.wikipedia.
- Help:Special characters - Provides some additional technical details on how these characters will display.
- Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified_letters - This page will provide you with guidance on which situations call for the use of diacritics and which do not, at least where en.wikipedia is concerned (other Wikipedias will each have their own page for "style guideline" rules for diacritics).
- I hope that's helpful for a start. I know cross-wiki editing can be a challenge, so please let me know if anything in those guides is unclear, or if I can otherwise be of help. Welcome to en.Misplaced Pages! :) Snow 02:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your response. I have earlier read through the links you provided before contacting you. I needed a tool that will enable me type in Yoruba speedily and easily. I had to install a software on my computer . I must say "thank you so much" in Yoruba - ẹṣé púpọ̀. Kind Regards. Oshhhh (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Keyboard layouts and virtual keyboards. Well I'm glad you already found what you need. But don't discount the keyboard UI for mediawiki; it's useful too! Snow 11:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Misplaced Pages:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, Anarchyte--appreciate the review of the request! Snow 07:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mary Jane Girls
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mary Jane Girls. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic re RfB
Hi there. This is a kind of off-topic follow-up to your comment at my RfB but your insightful and detailed response was really helpful. I noticed you have the admin hopeful userbox on your userpage and I was wondering whether you plan to run anytime soon? If so, you might want to check out WP:OCRP first. Also, using edit summaries for all your edits will be very helpful in convincing me to support 
Regards SoWhy 11:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hello again, SoWhy. :) I'm glad that my comments could provide some assistance to your approach, to offset the fact that my vote is an oppose (for the moment, anyway). I still hope to get that question up later today, life permitting, so hopefully that will prove even more productive for your effort.
- As to my own RfA ambitions...well, I'm not exactly certain. I've been contemplating the possibility of running for a couple of years now, but the time has never seemed quite right--and the present date is unfortunately no different. My professional and home life are going to be a bit of a gauntlet this coming year, and I don't want to acquire the tools only to let them sit. I think my experience, stats, outlook, and standing in the community would probably be sufficient to secure support now, but I'm in no rush. I can't discount the possibility of running sooner (if it looks like I will have a decent amount of time to invest after securing the mop), but at the present time my plan is to wait another 12-15 months before re-examining the issue. If enough community members urged me to make the move, I might move up the timetable (we do need more hands on deck, and I do already volunteer a fair chunk of time in some areas where admins are especially scarce and necessary), but right now that feels like the right time frame.
- Besides, the extra time will allow me to shore up my case for the mop; with a couple hundred more XfDs, a few thousand more mainspace edits, and a couple dozen more articles (on top of my existing contributions in these and other areas), I reckon I should be a shoe-in. I also plan to apply for a new permission every couple of months in the interim, just to erase any gaps in my technical knowledge and reduce the learning curve when it comes time to utilize the full admin toolkit. I do plan to inquire for thoughts at WP:OCRP a couple of months ahead of the request, and seek out further insight from admins and other veteran editors I know and respect. But even that is a little ways off now. As to the edit summaries, I do try! Most months these days, I manage 95-100%, but I was so lax about them in my first couple of years as an autoconfirmed user that it's been a long slog to get the total percentage above 80%. But I use them so reflexively now (and subscribe so totally to their importance) that it's a source of some frustration to me that they cannot be just twenty-five characters longer; I always find I'm short just the space of a few more words, grr!
- Anyway, thanks for the inquiry! Given the huge number of RfAs you have participated in, I will gladly tap your experience when the time comes, if you're amenable. :) Snow 15:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see the RfB is closed now; I hadn't realized we were so close to the seven day mark already. I'm sorry I couldn't have provided that question and an opportunity to change some !votes, and that run was not successful. For what its worth, I meant what I said about your being an obvious asset to the community. For my part, I foresee no likelihood of objecting on the next one, since familiarity with the current state of the community was my sole concern. Snow 15:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there will ever be a next one but thanks anyway. I'm always happy to help. Btw, writing about how important edit summaries are and then making that last comment without one (and marking it as a minor edit!) is probably something you should avoid going forward. Oftentimes even the smallest things - like incorrectly using the minor edit checkbox - can come back to haunt you
You might want to check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" checkbox in Preferences => Editing to avoid that in future. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there will ever be a next one but thanks anyway. I'm always happy to help. Btw, writing about how important edit summaries are and then making that last comment without one (and marking it as a minor edit!) is probably something you should avoid going forward. Oftentimes even the smallest things - like incorrectly using the minor edit checkbox - can come back to haunt you
- Did I? Must have been a mis-click. I actually very rarely add an edit summary on my own user talk page; I know it hurts my stats, but I feel like comments usually speak for themselves and don't need extra clarification, especially in casual conversation. Even on the talk pages of other users, my edit summaries are often no more involved than "comment", "response" and such. But you're probably right: every little inch helps and every little matter can come up at an RfA; I haven't participated in nearly as many as you, but that's something I learned very early on. I didn't even realize there was a prompt option for blank edit summaries, it's been so long since I looked at my settings, but I'll look into that--thanks!
- As to your RfB, I don't think you should make it your last run, given your confidence that you were/are a good fit for the role. But that's just my two cents, as they say here. Snow 15:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments
Thanks for your comments at ANI. I appreciated your perspective. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Ernie--that's very kind of you to say. :) I sure hope that situation between those two settles down from here! Snow 03:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 5 August 2017
- Recent research: Misplaced Pages can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality
- WikiProject report: Comic relief
- In the media: Misplaced Pages used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity
- Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list
- Featured content: Everywhere in the lead
- Technology report: Introducing TechCom
- Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs
Please comment on Talk:Lindy West
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lindy West. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Infoboxes
Hello Snow Rise,
I just wanted to let you know that I agree completely with your sentiments about infoboxes expressed at ANI. I am commenting here rather than there, in the hope that the conversation there will wither away. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Cullen, I appreciate it. And yeah, I was 50/50 on whether to say anything for the same reason (not wanting to prolong the present matter)--and also because I have my doubts that it will be received as intended by any of the parties. But having seen the same situation that brought them to ANI play out repeatedly over the years in so many different spaces across the project, I just felt it might be beneficial to let them know that the community still notices that this is an ongoing issue and that we see the way they are talking to one-another (and sometimes edit warring). Sooner or later someone (either inside the dispute or without) is going to take the matter to ArbCom again, and since stale edits/longterm patterns of behaviour are more tolerated as evidence there than at ANI (usually), very few of those regulars would not be vulnerable to sanctions for the issues surrounding those discussions. Unless the find a way to cool it (and I'm not holding my breath at this point; I've never seen a more zealous or single-minded group of editors, and that applies to both sides) I fear it's just a matter of time.
- And I tell you, it's all a real shame, because just taking a couple of those editors and just looking at their musical knowledge alone, there is sinful amount of waste of specialist knowledge that results because their time is all tied up in this nonsense. And could be lost altogether if they get themselves banned in some respect. I just don't know what they are thinking. I just hope that when the situation does come to a head that they only get topic banned from infoboxes and not other useful areas. Snow 08:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- If I may: what are the discussions you refer to? We had a very peaceful first half of the year. I did my share by never arguing (I think, I hope). When an infobox was reverted (four times, no more), so what, there are thousands missing, why waste time over that one. The IP that went to ANI, however, challenged me by no reason/no edit summary, - that could have been a misclick. Turns out, it wasn't. I have no idea who that is, and what they want to achieve by going to ANI and Jimbo. RexxS put it well. - Remember the infoboxes case? The opponents then were Pigsonthewing and I vs. Nikkimaria, Kleinzach and Smerus. Do you see any of these names in recent discussions? Nikkimaria added an infobox, and Smerus invited me to his home only yesterday. We should just forget that dated stuff, if you ask me. Tell those who still feel like fighting that they are too late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Gerda. If some of you are having an easier time communicating civilly and coming to compromise solutions, I'm glad to hear it. However, we need not look any farther than the very dispute that brought the roving infobox battle back to ANI in order to find numerous examples of clearly incivil comments and battleground attitudes, just as have always existed in the discussions where this same complex of editors mysteriously show up all together, form two ranks, and then begin to exchange broadsides. I don't view it as a particularly positive pronouncement that this is actually an improvement upon discussions between members of this group (who are clearly following one-another around); that says more about just how hostile things have been in previous discussions than it does about how friendly they are now. Snow 21:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question. At ANI was a case where one IP was against my addition. I assume in good faith that the IP didn't "follow me around", otherwise the IP could have found hundreds of cases. I was reverted in only three others, by people who watch articles and don't belong to a "group". (A list of reverts I see is on my user page. It's short.) I think it would help if we'd stop general assumptions about groups, and following. I don't follow anybody around, but of course I am curious when the hated word comes up on my long watchlist, as today Colleen Ballinger. Check that case out, perhaps. I am not interested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, in my sincere opinion, you really ought to drop this infobox interest, for your own good and completely and forever. But I am deeply saddened to see that you seem unable to drop it. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question. At ANI was a case where one IP was against my addition. I assume in good faith that the IP didn't "follow me around", otherwise the IP could have found hundreds of cases. I was reverted in only three others, by people who watch articles and don't belong to a "group". (A list of reverts I see is on my user page. It's short.) I think it would help if we'd stop general assumptions about groups, and following. I don't follow anybody around, but of course I am curious when the hated word comes up on my long watchlist, as today Colleen Ballinger. Check that case out, perhaps. I am not interested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Do you see how strange that comment is after I said "I am not interested."? Snow Rise and I talked about the topic from 2014, always good talks. My topic is not infoboxes, but assuming good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Gerda, in case I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: I value you immensely as a contributor, both for your countless additions to our content on music and your tireless efforts to spread goodwill on the project and thereby recognize and encourage our editorial corps. Nevertheless, it is my view that this issue has become your white whale, and one which has lead you into trouble more than once over the years. I'm not saying that your positions are without merit or that the content in question is altogether trivial, but this mutual escalation between the partisans on this issue, who all too often resort to flame wars over the topic, is far out of scale with the difference of content that is debated in these recurring battles.
- I'm not saying that you personally have been incivil; you can certainly be dogged, but I've never known you to be rude or unkind. Note also that I did not mention you (or any other editor) by name either at ANI or here--you self identified with the groups I was talking about, though not incorrectly. And even then, I was clear at ANI to state that the tactics used to track these issues may not technically fall under the categories of stalking or canvassing. Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that it is far from coincidence that just about every infobox debate starts among the same dozen or so editors, and that each of these debates quickly and invariably attracts the others, dispute after dispute, year after year. You are clearly all using the same channels to arrive at the same places to have the same debate, over and over.
- Which would in itself be a very small problem, if those debates could stay civil, but very few of them do; most devolve into unkind slugfests in a very predictable fashion. Again, not saying you are among those who is incivil (some of you scrupulously avoid personal attacks), but regardless of the tone they bring to those discussions, each member of each side of that eternally recurring battle plays a part in perpetuating that cycle and the disruption that results from most iterations. Yes, I'm sure you can point me towards occasions I am unaware of when the debate proceeded more softly, but that's a little beside the point; the disruptive discussions, where the vitriol just pours out, are more than enough to make this battle of wills (the longest running in en.Misplaced Pages's history), not nearly worth the improvements to content which may or may not result in any individual case.
- Anyway, I'm not the person to convince of anything; my post was meant as a kind of head's up that, whether the infobox partisans see it or not, the discussion on those disputes continues to dip too frequently into the disruptive, and the community continues to notice it, even if most of us have gotten too exhausted with pointing it out in individual disputes that we get RfC'd to (or notice in passing). I certainly have no intention of being the person to take the matter back to ArbCom or a similar community process. But I bet someone does sooner or later. That was the purpose of my comments at ANI; not to attempt to assign blame to any particular editor(s) in any particular disputes, but to try to give fair warning that the community has a memory for these things and a finite amount of patience. That warning may fall on deaf years, as each side seems to be unwilling to de-escalate, either because they are too myopic about the issue or because they fear the other side will exploit their backing off. That's just plain mad to me, though, and I hope you all reconsider, because by and large, I respect, like, and value you as contributors. And that's about the total extent of what I have to say on the matter. Snow 07:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am on vacation, with no time for anything but the most essential. Arguing over infoboxes is a waste of time that I don't do anymore. Go look at the mentioned case and see if your assumptions about groups are justified, there or anywhere else. Off to exploring. (The topic damaged my reputation, yes, I know it. It took 300 years for Grace Sherwood's good name to be restored. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Be safe and enjoy your trip! Snow 08:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, I do. Today was here. DYK ... that the Slovenian soprano Sabina Cvilak (pictured) was Puccini's Mimi in Washington, Wagner's Sieglinde in Wiesbaden, and performed Britten's War Requiem in London on the composer's centenary? - Can you help me to expand Ubu Rex? It needs a plot section, - almost all refs have a summary, but how to avoid plagiarism? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. At least, in the broad strokes. I have never seen the opera and only a couple of the references have a plot summary (and all of them are brief and mostly reduplicative; also, German is not my best language, so you should fact check me, in case I misinterpreted anything from those particular references). I mostly stuck firmly to details I could find about Ubu Rex itself, but I did fill in some details from context from Ubu Roi, upon which it is, of course, closely based. One detail I'm not sure about is whether the war with Russia is already ongoing at the opening of the opera. The sources also seem to suggest that i this version Bordure is betrayed by Ubu before he can defect to the Russians, but I'm not 100% on that either. Anyway, it should suffice for now, but I'll see if I can find additional sources to flesh out and clarify particulars. There were many elements that are central to Ubu Roi that I assume were carried over into the opera, but I didn't want to make assumptions and introduce untrue statements. Snow 07:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, very helpful! I never saw the opera, I just thought the 2008 stub was too short to be linked to from the Main page (with Michael Boder). Seems a fascinating play, advanced for its time. - You can always check my user page for recent tasks, will resume filling a red link per day tomorrow, - on my way back home right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'll try to keep up! Snow 03:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Randy Quaid
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Randy Quaid. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Donald Trump series
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Donald Trump series. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:John Oliver
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Oliver. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ted Bundy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ted Bundy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI
Could you please join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_community_sanctions_placed_on_User:Barts1a Twitbookspacetube 12:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)