User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 165
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 160 | ← | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | → | Archive 170 |
August 2020
Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alpine Learning Group on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2018 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy on a "Social sciences and society" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Lord of the Rings on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If you think that's bad...
{{circa}} has nothing on the bottom of {{infobox drug}}... worth the fight to have it removed as well? Primefac (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
- @Primefac: Let's give it a shot. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've actually been thinking to start a collection of patch notes for our citation templates, but those would be placed on a subpage and subsequently linked prominently rather than in a hidden comment... --Izno (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Izno:. See the
{{To do}}idea I posted here. With an additional parameter instead of an embedded list, it can pull the changelog you want to do from a subpage, which would probably be the cleanest way to do it (i.e., just have a collapsed log box on the talk page, but the actual log entries not bulking up the amount of material in the page if you edit the talk page, since it would be transcluding the list from /changelog or whatever). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Izno:. See the
- I've actually been thinking to start a collection of patch notes for our citation templates, but those would be placed on a subpage and subsequently linked prominently rather than in a hidden comment... --Izno (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
re Infobox edit
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- One of the participants in this thread is subject to an editing restriction the bright line of which this discussion keeps crossing, so it should not continue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
re this edit you made: You did not discuss it. IOW, you had to use your WP:TPE rights to push your point (other quotes from the TPE apply). So I propose (strongly) that you revert, and then start a proposal talk here. -DePiep (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not "pushing a point", I'm doing normal cleanup. Enormous piles of edit history is not the sort of stuff we put directly into template code. But I'm never averse to discussion. Nor did I even notice the page was partially protected. Do you not also have the TE bit? Would have been simpler to just WP:BRD it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep does not have TPE. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's weird, given how much template work DePiep does. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- It has been removed previously. See his user rights log. --Izno (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- (And you might be able to figure out why it has not been reinstated. --Izno (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC))
- ) for you
- Anyway, you trolling does not undo my argument. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's weird, given how much template work DePiep does. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep does not have TPE. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Simple: I state that you did not do a "normal cleanup", I state that you (ab)used your TPE top perform an edit, by now obviously disputed/controversial/undiscussed. Please revert, then start a talk. -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Are you disputing because you disagree with the edit, or because SMC didn't discuss it first? Primefac (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- OP. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Disputing an edit purely because it wasn't discussed beforehand is disruptive. Under WP:TPECON, the main criteria that SMC's edit matches is
Changes that don't affect the result when the template is transcluded
, which is in the can almost always be made unilaterally section. In addition, plenty of reasons were given when they made the edit, and they all make sense. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)- No that is not "disruptive". It is taking a TPE-editor to account. But hey. By now, Primefac, you are threatening me with severe repercussions, enwiki-level wise or worse, and you know. While protecting a fellow editor. What is wrong with my OP? -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oh and if you did not get my OP, there is my second post, you missed. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Saying something is disruptive is not a threat; when I "threaten" someone (i.e. warn them from continuing such behaviour) I use the phrases "administrative action" or "sanctions." All I was saying is that disputing a change purely because it wasn't discussed first (and not because of the content of the edit) is problematic. And clearly I saw your second post because I was the one that replied to it. Primefac (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- "disruptive" is a threat, especially when I said so. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- FFS: Not purely as you turn it, Primefac. I said "before", aka "without" talking. In other words: I refuse to start a 'discussion' while under TPE ignorance. As this editor's behaviour, whose talkpage we use, shows. -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Not nice anymore: before. -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- FFS: Not purely as you turn it, Primefac. I said "before", aka "without" talking. In other words: I refuse to start a 'discussion' while under TPE ignorance. As this editor's behaviour, whose talkpage we use, shows. -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- "disruptive" is a threat, especially when I said so. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Saying something is disruptive is not a threat; when I "threaten" someone (i.e. warn them from continuing such behaviour) I use the phrases "administrative action" or "sanctions." All I was saying is that disputing a change purely because it wasn't discussed first (and not because of the content of the edit) is problematic. And clearly I saw your second post because I was the one that replied to it. Primefac (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Disputing an edit purely because it wasn't discussed beforehand is disruptive. Under WP:TPECON, the main criteria that SMC's edit matches is
- OP. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Are you disputing because you disagree with the edit, or because SMC didn't discuss it first? Primefac (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Golly jeepers! I go take a nap, and my talk page asplode! I'm not sure why this has turned tooth-gnashy. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say disputing an edit simply because it wasn't discussed is disruptive, but if it's habitual, stubborn, or otherwise not rooted in a genuine concern about the content, then it is contrary policy, guidelines, and very well-accepted essays we treat like guidelines (WP:EDITING, WP:OWN, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:VESTED, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:AADD, WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, etc.). No one has to have any individual editor's or a general consensus's prior permission to make edits, to any page (well, actually, there are some exceptions: we're not supposed to make non-WP:GNOME changes to WP:OFFICE or WP:ARBCOM pages, as a matter of Foundation rules, and doing it to the front page is strongly discouraged and almost always reverted). Anyway, what I did was gnoming ("can almost always be made unilaterally"). I don't fault DePiep for wanting discussion; we do a lot of that, and opening it on the template's talk page has actually produced good results, like informative links in the material, and at least two ways to set up a more appropriate changes log, which may come in handy for Izno's planned citation template changes-tracking, too.
However, I do take exception to the WP:AGF problem of strange accusations like "I state that you (ab)used your TPE". (I do this kind of editing all the time, and if it were against WP:TPE, I would have lost that bit long ago.) I'm not butt-hurt about it, but it seems rather out-of-the-blue and unreasonably hostile. Next, "obviously disputed/controversial/undiscussed" is not accurate. There is no dispute or controversy about the edit itself (the content change); rather, DePiep is unreasonably disputing my personal actions in a particular role and within the rules of that role (i.e., raising a behavioral not content claim – we are on the right-hand side of "address the edits and the content, not the editor and the person" – not to mention toward the grimy bottom of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement). And one editor's objection even about content doesn't constitute a "controversy" (see WP:CONSENSUS: does not require unanimity), nor a "dispute"; a dispute is what happens when two or more editors are failing to get along, whether that be over content or anything else, and are in need of dispute resolution. Yet this pseudo-dispute is one-sided. I'm not angry or anything like that; the whole exchange just seems kind of silly. That the edit was initially "undiscussed" is irrelevant per the previously cited policies etc., and is moot per discussion now ongoing (in two places). See also #A side comment to both parties in previous thread; I make a point of clearing my mental buffers of who said or did what, and it's a good way to avoid WP:DRAMA. I have vague memories of frequently agreeing with DePiep, and sometimes disagreeing, but cannot for the life of me recall disputation so acrimonious that would inspire this level of assumptive hostility, especially over something so patently trivial. To the extent I get a "feeling" when I see DePiep it has been positive; I get a sense of "this is one of our more tech-competent regulars" (which is why I though the editor already had template-editor permissions).
While it was written to Primefac, not me, I also have no idea what "you are threatening me with severe repercussions, enwiki-level wise or worse" means. I think we have a WP:MASTODON moment happening, and someone needs to take a little wikibreak perhaps. There's certainly nothing real or important here that warrants this sort of flaming. This is making a mountain out of a dust mote on a molehill.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)PS, @DePiep: If after all of this you are still convinced you are right and that I'm abusing advanced permissions, you're free to raise a de-TemplateEditor-ing case at WP:TPE. Be aware that this is just a notch below a desysopping case at ArbCom (i.e. you should probably re-familiarize yourself with WP:BOOMERANG). Now, I'm going to go back to the mainspace work that all this weirdness interrupted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- So, after absence & ridicule & deviation, now your latest argument is 'boomerang'? How or why is 'boomerang' a motivation for your editorial behaviour? Please take note: what you just wrote, invoking 'boomerang', sounds like a threat to me. -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- That makes no sense, in any part of it. No one's been "absent". I have not "ridiculed" you; I've been insulted and accused by you and took it in stride, and disagreed with you. That's not what ridicule means. "Deviation" does not appear to have any sensible referent. WP:BOOMERANG is not an argument, it's a page of well-accepted community advice you were referred to. BOOMERANG and my mentioning it has nothing to do with my "motivation" or "behaviour"; that's a completely separate segment of the discussion. It has to do with happens when people with bogus and inscrutable grievances abuse the WP:DR systems (including trying to get people's permissions removed without proper cause). Informing you what the probable result will be is not what threat means (a boomerang result is a consensus the community comes to, so it simply isn't possible for me to "threaten" you with it, unless you believe I have magical mind-control powers and can bend all of Wikipedia to my will). To the extent that "threat" could ever even be applied to discussions of behavior and noticeboards and predictable outcomes, it has nothing to do with WP:HARASS, to which you linked "threat" for some reason. However, if you persist in making false accusations, even after you've been refuted by multiple parties, and in engaging in bizarre outbursts of unwarranted hostility over trivia like HTML comments in template code, it's likely that the HARRASS policy (and WP:CIR) would be applied to your own behavior. I think we're done here, unless you want to let me in on whatever it is that has you angry with me in the first place (since it clearly isn't an HTML comment in a template), so we can resolve that. Otherwise, this discussion is clearly not going to go anywhere. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would suggest reading this before engaging further. IMHO from DePiep's first post: "you had to use your WP:TPE rights to push your point" is a blatant violation of his editing restrictions at WP:RESTRICT. Specifically "DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" - bolding mine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thanks for letting me know, Only in death. I also had not noticed the link to User talk:Primefac/Archive 28#Infobox drug, which reveals similar DePiep "abuse of TPE" accusations against Primefac – and they make even less sense than the ones here (Primefac made an edit DePiep asked for, then fixed another error DePiep pointed out, and DePiep accused him of abuse of TemplateEditor. WTF?). Well, this should prove to DePiep that I have no ill will toward him (just no more patience for this quixotic time-waste, nor any clue why he's up in arms in the first place): I could just take this to WP:AN right now as an obvious violation of his AGF restriction, and he would be blocked or otherwise sanctioned further – but I will not. There's enough WP:DRAMA going around for everyone, and the world is kind of on fire, so we don't need more of it here at our hobby. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would suggest reading this before engaging further. IMHO from DePiep's first post: "you had to use your WP:TPE rights to push your point" is a blatant violation of his editing restrictions at WP:RESTRICT. Specifically "DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" - bolding mine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- That makes no sense, in any part of it. No one's been "absent". I have not "ridiculed" you; I've been insulted and accused by you and took it in stride, and disagreed with you. That's not what ridicule means. "Deviation" does not appear to have any sensible referent. WP:BOOMERANG is not an argument, it's a page of well-accepted community advice you were referred to. BOOMERANG and my mentioning it has nothing to do with my "motivation" or "behaviour"; that's a completely separate segment of the discussion. It has to do with happens when people with bogus and inscrutable grievances abuse the WP:DR systems (including trying to get people's permissions removed without proper cause). Informing you what the probable result will be is not what threat means (a boomerang result is a consensus the community comes to, so it simply isn't possible for me to "threaten" you with it, unless you believe I have magical mind-control powers and can bend all of Wikipedia to my will). To the extent that "threat" could ever even be applied to discussions of behavior and noticeboards and predictable outcomes, it has nothing to do with WP:HARASS, to which you linked "threat" for some reason. However, if you persist in making false accusations, even after you've been refuted by multiple parties, and in engaging in bizarre outbursts of unwarranted hostility over trivia like HTML comments in template code, it's likely that the HARRASS policy (and WP:CIR) would be applied to your own behavior. I think we're done here, unless you want to let me in on whatever it is that has you angry with me in the first place (since it clearly isn't an HTML comment in a template), so we can resolve that. Otherwise, this discussion is clearly not going to go anywhere. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
- So, after absence & ridicule & deviation, now your latest argument is 'boomerang'? How or why is 'boomerang' a motivation for your editorial behaviour? Please take note: what you just wrote, invoking 'boomerang', sounds like a threat to me. -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Orca's Song on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:How Long 'til Black Future Month? on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 9
FixedAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social engineering.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
|
Hey, SMcCandlish. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
- @Synoman Barris: Thank you. I didn't even realize! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- @CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you. "What a long, strange trip it's been." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear SMcCandlish/Archive 165,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: Thanks. I am now officially a WikiFossil. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of presidents of the United States on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
August
 | |
| Sunflowers in Walsdorf |
Thank you for improving articles in August! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sweet! I've not tried for featured anything. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Try it, though, - it's not hard if you have a neat small topic where you can manage to collect most available sources. If you need a reviewer for your first GAN, I recommend to ping Aza24, - such a sweet experience, that last one! - Today just a DYK: Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have GAs, just not FAs. I really has more to do with "wikipolitics" than with writing/research time. I don't think I need to get back into the grotty history on that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Try it, though, - it's not hard if you have a neat small topic where you can manage to collect most available sources. If you need a reviewer for your first GAN, I recommend to ping Aza24, - such a sweet experience, that last one! - Today just a DYK: Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
"Domesticated" red fox
DoneHello Mac, I seek your advice on yet another perturbation. Back in the past you were involved in this move: Talk:Domesticated red fox#Requested move 28 September 2017. So we have an article on the Domesticated red fox which covers the "domestication" experiment. Unfortunately, the fox that was "domesticated" was the melanistic form of the red fox, the fur-traded Silver fox (animal) that already existed (but you were not to know), which also covers the experiment. We have a content fork. Now to add a complication, the scientist that undertook the experiment was Dmitry Belyayev (zoologist), which also covers the experiment in great detail. Triple fork. We also have an article on the Red fox#Taming and domestication which gives a brief overview. Do you have any views on an approach to consolidate some of this stuff? William Harris
talk 11:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- @William Harris: Yeesh. Yeah, that really does need a merger. I think it should probably be moved to Domesticated silver fox (with more specific wording), and the mostly redundant material in the three other pages compressed ruthlessly per WP:SUMMARY and hatted with a
{{Main}}tag. The topic itself has more than enough non-trivial coverage to exist as a stand-alone article. We just don't need to tell the same story in detail in four places, which will produce conflicting information, possibly even a WP:POVFORK, and is apt to confuse readers into thinking two kinds of foxes have been quasi-domesticated. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)- Thanks Mac, that is a good starting point. A stand-alone article on the farm fox experiment was one of my thoughts as well. William Harris
talk 08:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Mac, that is a good starting point. A stand-alone article on the farm fox experiment was one of my thoughts as well. William Harris
- @William Harris: Well, I'm meaning that Domesticated red fox is that article already, but should just be moved to Domesticated silver fox to be more WP:PRECISE, and then the overabundance of material about this in other articles should be merged into it, aside from highly compressed summaries and
{{Main}}cross-reference hatnotes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)- Good plan, leave it with me, we are underway: Talk:Domesticated red fox#Proposed page move William Harristalk 09:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've chimed in there, with a summarized version of what I recommended above. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hope I'm not interrupting this friendly parlee between you & William Harris, but the paw prints caught my eye when I arrived here to recruit your help. When I saw the topic was domesticated red fox...well, the devil made me do whatever happened next.
Atsme Talk 📧 21:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- [1] I actually knew a guy who bought Redd Foxx's custom kit car (looked like a mutated '70s Corvette, kinda), and used to drive it around San Francisco. It had a custom plush dash in the shape of a stylized red fox, and the whole car was of course red. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sometimes I do not receive pings for some technical reason, and did not receive Atsme's ping above. Crikey girl!!
- The move template is now formal. Someone has suggested simply "Domesticated fox" - what is your view on that one, it may be a more WP:COMMONNAME or do we stay with WP:PRECISE? If we go with Domesticated fox, it opens it up for every attempt at domestication of the fox in history (which may, or may not, be a bad thing). And then to add complication there is the Fuegian dog which is a "fox" of a completely different genus. William Harris (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- The move is complete, thanks for your advice, now for some consolidation across other articles. Then the latest update to this story - these were never "wild Siberian foxes", they were silver foxes originally bred in Canada for the fur trade says their DNA - they had already been in the human environment for quite some time before their sale to Russia. It is beginning to look as if "domestication syndrome" is more associated with living in the human-made environment - whatever that brings to the table - rather than "selective breeding based on behaviour". (It makes you wonder what living in a man-made environment has done to us compared with our "wild" ancestors.) William Harris (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, we started killing each other less (in frequency, if not in total number - we've obviously has some terrible wars in modern times), and we came up with language, and culture in the big sense. Somewhere around the 40K to 70K years ago range, a whole lot of stuff happened in comparatively quick succession (early art, larger groups of people, technological improvements, better health, extinction of competing hominids, etc.). The prevailing theory seems to be that it all depended on an explosion in language complexity from not much better than ape noise-making to "language proper" with the ability to handle abstract concepts like time and relationships. That in turn was surely due to a brain mutation, which would only have been a favorable adaptation under intensifying social behavior (indeed, they're basically a positive feedback loop). So, humans self-domesticated each other/themselves slowly over a zillion generations (even australopithecines were pretty darned social, like a lot of modern primates), until the equilibrium was punctuated and we became entirely human not just proto-human in the space of just several hundred generations (if not faster). It's hard to prove this stuff, of course, since "anatomically modern" humans from before that era mostly just leave bones. But too much of the dating of sea-changes in the palaeo-archaeological record back to that specific period. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- The move is complete, thanks for your advice, now for some consolidation across other articles. Then the latest update to this story - these were never "wild Siberian foxes", they were silver foxes originally bred in Canada for the fur trade says their DNA - they had already been in the human environment for quite some time before their sale to Russia. It is beginning to look as if "domestication syndrome" is more associated with living in the human-made environment - whatever that brings to the table - rather than "selective breeding based on behaviour". (It makes you wonder what living in a man-made environment has done to us compared with our "wild" ancestors.) William Harris (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- [1] I actually knew a guy who bought Redd Foxx's custom kit car (looked like a mutated '70s Corvette, kinda), and used to drive it around San Francisco. It had a custom plush dash in the shape of a stylized red fox, and the whole car was of course red. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hope I'm not interrupting this friendly parlee between you & William Harris, but the paw prints caught my eye when I arrived here to recruit your help. When I saw the topic was domesticated red fox...well, the devil made me do whatever happened next.
- I've chimed in there, with a summarized version of what I recommended above. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Good plan, leave it with me, we are underway: Talk:Domesticated red fox#Proposed page move William Harris
- @William Harris: Well, I'm meaning that Domesticated red fox is that article already, but should just be moved to Domesticated silver fox to be more WP:PRECISE, and then the overabundance of material about this in other articles should be merged into it, aside from highly compressed summaries and
![[1]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gq1QnHboHm0/UIOts3z7nQI/AAAAAAAAcNw/Bo-33LRMky8/s640/Redd-Foxx+(8).jpg){kind=link}
Category:Defunct newsletters of wikiprojects has been nominated for renaming
DoneCategory:Defunct newsletters of wikiprojects has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:R-73 (missile) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
But of course...
Don't worry, I'm well aware of what eventually happens if any editor seeks a consensus against the usage of diacritics. No one ever accused Wikipedia of being 'open minded'. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- I almost did a spit take with my coffee when you suggested that attempting to suppress diacritics, which you feel are "un-English", is an example of open-mindedness. To quote from The Princess Bride: "I don't think that word means what you think it means." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Really not interested in going over old arguments, so I won't bother you any further about the topic, here. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- You guys are funny. Not spit-take funny, but funny enough. Thanks for the light entertainment during this time of smóke and döòm. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Döòm – that's so METAL!!! <insert thrash riffs here> — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- You guys are funny. Not spit-take funny, but funny enough. Thanks for the light entertainment during this time of smóke and döòm. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Really not interested in going over old arguments, so I won't bother you any further about the topic, here. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Would appreciate your expertise
Hi, Mac - I'm working on Timothy Drury, and trying to figure out the best formatting to use for the material I'd like to add to the article, a rough draft of which you can see in my sandbox. I'm working on finding the sources I need to cite so any help in that department would be most welcome. I'm thinking a table, or possibly individual tables, or would prose be better? Atsme Talk 📧 21:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Looing through User:Atsme/sandbox, my initial thoughts would be that "Album credits" should be a subsection of "Discography" (probably at the end, maybe something like "Guest-appearance credits", or something? "Album credits" seems to imply credits he gave to others on his own albums). The "Discography" section is already leaning otherwise inclusive, with TV appearances, guest roles with the Eagles and others, commericial jingles, etc. To the extent this might not all fit within the usual definition of "Discography", then "Discography and other musical works" would be fine; there's no rule to always use the exact heading "Discography". Next, three world tours don't make much of a list, so better integrated into prose. If kept as a list, adding "world tour" to each entry is redundant. Similar with the photography stuff; two isn't a good list, so it'd be better to have a paragraph (maybe a section) on his work as a photographer, and anything else not directly connected to his music. Comparing to the original article, I think it could use some additional structure, of different career phases, instead of one monolithic "Career" section. But at present, we don't even have that, but a confused/confusing "Early life and career" mega-section, which is commingling two things that should be separate sections. Hope that helps. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mac, please...perform your magic. I have a little bit of a COI there and don't want anything coming back at me over my contributions. I can't think anybody I know on WP who knows the industry better than you. Atsme Talk 📧 23:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright. Let me know when the sourcing is in place, and I can squiggle the arrangement around and merge the material in, I guess. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ok...thank you! Atsme Talk 📧 13:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Alright. Let me know when the sourcing is in place, and I can squiggle the arrangement around and merge the material in, I guess. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Mac, please...perform your magic. I have a little bit of a COI there and don't want anything coming back at me over my contributions. I can't think anybody I know on WP who knows the industry better than you. Atsme Talk 📧 23:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Arameans on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Talk:999 (emergency telephone number) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Editing news 2020 #4
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Reply tool
The Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.
- More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
- Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
- Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[2]
The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).
The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.
New requirements for user signatures
- The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
- Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.
Next: New discussion tool
Next, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Done
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)