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.

→

November 2020

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Done

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war 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 19:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I know your library has burned...

... but you might want to take a look at phab:T265947, which proposed to style Vector block quotes the same as Minerva (aka the mobile site). I've left a comment there that you might see fit to correct or reinforce as you so choose. --Izno (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Two requests

Greetings,

First off, I don't know how much time you spend trying to keep cat breeds and landraces from being completely terrible, but when you are, could you check to make sure the articles are badged with WP:CATS banner? I am trying to do so but life means I don't have as much time as I'd like.

Second, also without knowing how much you know about wiki coding/markup/whatever it is, I've been trying to do something in my sandbox as part of a proposal for WP:Cats that involves coding and I do not really know what I'm doing, so any help or advice would be appreciated.

Happy editing! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: I'm not aware of any cat articles that don't have the project banner on their talk pages, but people probably have created new ones since I last checked. I did a cleanup pass on the HTML in your sandbox (<center>...</center> hasn't been valid markup since the 1990s, for example), but otherwise I'm not sure I care much about the project layout, as long as we do not lose features. The project should retain the standard banner at the top (and if WP:DOGS is missing one it should be re-added). Wikiprojects do not need infoboxes, a bad idea that just helps confuse them with articles. I'm tempted to take that infobox to WP:TFD for that reason. Some kind of navigational sidebar, however, is common, and there are many wikiprojects from which to lift one. One that doesn't look like an article infobox. Looking further, I see that the Dogs project has had some pointless image gallery shoved into the banner area. That should be removed. The layout is not terribly helpful. The nav/infobox in particular isn't linking to things the average page visitor (project participant or otherwise) is going to need to get to quickly (e.g., no one needs a prominent link to the project's talk page banner, since all of them are predictably named {{WikiProject ProjectNameHere}}). Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds has a much more practical approach. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I took out the infobox, but the tabs at the top continue to defy me.... I have a feeling they'll only work once I put the coding on the Project main page.

And yes, there are cat "breeds" that I've found without a project banner, or even all the correct categories. Luckily we're not like WP:DOGS with several hundred breeds and even more crossbreeds. Anyway, happy editing! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: Try ripping tab code from WP:BIRDS or another page that's better established, maybe. I think the dogs one was changed fairly recently, and it looks rather poor to me (e.g. the tabs are unnecessarily tall).

Thanks for the advice- I replaced the code taken from WP:Dogs with some taken from WP:Birds and it works perfectly. Now I just need to find a different color (probably should be chosen be discussion rather than unilaterally), create some pages, and it'll be good. Hopefully. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Possibly of interest to you

Done

This discussion does not directly relate to the area of my topic ban, but it is more broadly about some of the general issues we've discussed, so I'd like to know if you have an opinion about it. 2600:1004:B14C:9A3D:E91B:7BAE:EC90:B281 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I chimed in a bit. I care more about the meta-issue, of our administration/enforcement system acting as an enabler of bias. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cat breeds originating in Cyprus

Disregard

– I can't think of a breed article that belongs in this category, so deletion for being empty is proper.

A tag has been placed on Category:Cat breeds originating in Cyprus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cat breeds originating in New Zealand

Done

– I repopulated the category, since at least three things should be in it, and were at one time.

A tag has been placed on Category:Cat breeds originating in New Zealand requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Florida azalea flowers.jpg

Hi - I saw that you are a part of WikiProject Horticulture. Could you help identify this species of flower? Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@P,TO 19104: That's far outside my areas of expertise, or even good references. It'll probably require one of the comprehensive garden-plant encyclopedias. If you don't have immediate access to any (e.g. at local libraries), inter-library loan can probably get you one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAMES

Please take a look at these discussions, where editors have set out both logical and empirical evidence that your interpretation of the former stable version of DEADNAME, for which you have written new language, is not the interpretation held by a number of other editors. Please join the ongoing discussion concerning how to proceed, but edit-warring on the assumption that the interpretation you hold (of the prior consensus version) is not subject to dispute by other editors does not set a good example for others. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Then revert to the prior stable version (I have already done so). This attempt to both forbid old names in the lead, and forbid contextual use of one anywhere else, absolutely do not match consensus. If you think otherwise, RfC it to test that hypothesis. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

As you will see when you get around to reading the Talk page, we are already discussing what the next RfC will entail. Editors have already offered differing opinions about whether notable deadnames should always be included in the lede or in infoboxes, or whether their place in the article should not be mandated in the MOS. When we are no longer distracted by the dispute over what the prior language meant, I expect that the parameters for the RfC will emerge. Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop assuming. I've already read the talk page. The very fact that multiple of us are saying to RfC this is why to stop editwarring to drastically change that section to do both of the things I just mentioned. I cannot for one second really believe that you believe either of those represents consensus. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Now I am more disappointed still. How would you characterize the behaviour of an editor who read the Talk page, understood that there was a GF dispute whether the new language they had proposed reflected the meaning of prior consensus, and edit warred to include their novel text anyway? I mean, how would you characterize that if you did not know that you were the editor in question. I was AGF when I assumed you had not read the discussion. Sigh.

By the way, I expect that "putsch" qualifies as a personal attack under the circumstances, and certainly does not AGF for those of us whose participation on the MOS page has only been to revert your novel formulation. Your reformulation clearly moved beyond the requirements of the version you have now restored and shifted the norm towards including deadnames in the lede, where the previous policy had been permissive rather than a mandate to do so. All I did was to revert your novel language; there was no "putch" or policy innovation from me. If what you actually wanted was the status quo language, you could have made last week the edit you made today. Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, the calls for another RfC on this are not specific to any "side" of the underlying issue. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No one involved has argued (least of all me) that desire for an RfC on the matter is one-sided, so I don't see what point you're trying to make. Reversion to status quo ante is standard operating procedure in disputes like this, and we can go as ante as necessary, stepwise, until edit-warring stops and an actual constructive discussion (e.g., a proper RfC) resumes. There is in fact a putsch being attempted here, an invalid power-grab by an activistic minority to thwart the common will; that's observation, not an "attack". Whether you are an intentional part of that effort or just accidentally helping it by revert-warring on the basis of "principle" isn't something I've commented on, anyway. If the latter, the principle is wrong. Consensus is not a discussion; consensus is a result, of collective action. Consensus is what WP actually does in the aggregate, regardless which parts of it we bother to write down as rules. When you attempt to rewrite or even incidentally help others to rewrite our rules to reflect an anti-consensus position (i.e. trying to get guidelines and policies to change/dictate practice instead of describe it), you are not standing on principles, but misconstruing them – the WP:BUREAUCRACY / WP:LAWYER / WP:GAMING self-trap. I ask that you look more carefully and sidestep that trap. A couple of loud individuals suggesting you walk a particular way is no reason to just do it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For whatever reason, you seem completely blinded by the limitations of your own perspective on this issue, so that you are unable to observe accurately what you, or others, are actually doing. You describe a situation When you attempt to rewrite or even incidentally help others to rewrite our rules to reflect an anti-consensus position (i.e. trying to get guidelines and policies to change/dictate practice instead of describe it) that isn't in any way what I was doing, but was exactly what you were doing in this instance. How can you not see this? You added text in this edit that the deadname should be added when, rather than the longstanding should only be included when, and you doubled down on it again with this reversion - that I then reverted - to the even more novel should then appear in the lead. There simply was no MOS language (since the GENDERID RfC) nor any consistent practice in article space that should have licensed you to make or Edit War for this change; you were precisely attempting to rewrite or even incidentally help others to rewrite our rules without a consensus to do so, and the fact that this apparently sits in a conceptual blind spot for you does not make it less true. By contrast, all I did in this situation was to revert what I felt were fairly BOLD changes to the MOS.

Now I may have misread your comment The very fact that multiple of us are saying to RfC this is why to stop editwarring ... - I thought your "us" was those of you on the BOLD side of the edit war. Certainly if you are recognizing that people from various perspectives were acknowledging the need for an RfC, then you should have made the (correct) edit to restore the status quo ante, as you did today on second thought. Your first edit instead prolonged the edit war by restoring the most recent BOLD version, in spite of the observation, clearly voiced on the Talk page by multiple editors, that it represented a significant departure from the last consensus language. Newimpartial (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I decline to continue going in circles with you. I think the fact that I've more accurately identified every explicit and latent question that needs to be examined, in the entire debate, than anyone else so far speaks to whether I'm observing well or not. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The extensive categorization in that diff is fine, but we generally judge "observation" on WP by actions rather than claims, and your actions in prolonging the edit war take higher priority on this than anything else that I can see. As far as actual operational consensus is that if the name does date to the notability period, it should be in the lead section if not lead sentence (usually in the lead sentence), I have seen so many exceptions to this "in the wild" that I can't regard this as an observation, though I recognize that it is your strongly-held belief. Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: To address something substantive that's latent in this discussion: The fact that a handful of activistic editors are, at articles where they think they can get away with it, unconstructively ignoring the results of every RfC ever held on this topic, including one that ran for months at WP:VPPOL with near-record-level participation, is not evidence of a general lack of consensus. Nor is innocent "write on WP like I would on my blog" content resulting from editors not yet familiar with WP writing style. Rather, this is evidence that certain parties have become tendentious and need to be topic-banned, on the one hand, and on the other is a confirmation of the obvious, that WP has many norms that take a while for new editors (or those new to a topic) to absorb. It is very important in matters like this to remember WP:NOTUNANIMITY; the consensus still exists (and has been reaffirmed many times) despite a) some isolated refusal to accept it on the part of a few dug-in individuals, and b) unawareness of it by some newly arrived ones. An incidental intersection of PoV pushing from a "camp" and a learning curve experienced by unrelated editors does not indicate that a rule is either broken or wrong. Otherwise we would have to scrap most everything in our guidelines and even our policies. You seem to be falling for the WP:FAITACCOMPLI trick. A few editors defying consensus by rushing to make all applicable content they can find do the opposite of that consensus does not mean consensus has changed, it only means someone is disruptively trying to game the system.

In particular, an "I see a lot of exceptions 'in the wild' in our articles" argument is virtually never a good one to make in relation to MoS, which no one has to read much less comply with before editing here, and which exists pretty much solely for two purposes: 1) as a reference work for cleanup application by WP:GNOMEs, to make our content more encyclopedic-reading and consistent for the reader; and 2) to serve as an editorial dispute-resolution and -prevention reference on style questions. To put it another way, there are literally millions of "exceptions" in our articles to the most basic elements of English-language writing (e.g. how to use commas, how to spell words, how to form proper sentences, etc.), most of which are not even subject to MoS rule nit-picking at all (because MoS doesn't exist as a general-purpose, basic writing manual). But these common occurrences in no way indicate a lack of consensus that this mangled English is faulty, nor are they any kind of reason that we should not improve that writing.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

There is more in that comment than I have time to deal with right now, but let me name what I take to be the key question: where do you feel that the positive principle, that deadnames that people used during their period of Notability ought to be included in the lead of articles, was articulated by the WP community? I am not talking about the consensus on a specific page like Caitlyn Jenner, or the language on the former MOS:DEADNAMES section that many of us read as permissive about including such names rather than normative. You seem to have a strong conviction that such deadnames should be included by default, and you also seem to feel that the community has spoken in favor of your position. I would like to where this has been documented, as that would really help frame ongoing discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

In short: Just see every major discussion of this in WT:MOS archives and WP:VPPOL archives. And, yes, at various specific articles; another key point of WP:CONSENSUS is that consensus can form anywhere. Much consensus does form through article-talk and only gets added to site-wide guidelines or policies quite a bit later. It's effectively a prerequisite, absent a site-wide, cross-topical RfC on whatever the matter is, because we do not change WP:P&G pages to say anything that they don't need to say to resolve and hopefully prevent recurrent disputes that keep ending with the same outcome. Anyway, I already have another "dig up stuff in the MoS talk archives" task on my list, so I'll try to kill this bird with same stone when I get around to that. I probably won't get much into the article-talk side of it, since that would be tedious, and when we get a proper RfC going, it'll be moot anyway (unless that RfC also train-wrecks).

PS: Please don't mistake defense of a consensus position (whether it's what I would have preferred or not) for arriving with a preconceived preference (and hoping consensus goes along with it); they're basically opposites. I really haven't cared much about how this matter was settled (though I have about some related ones, e.g. where TG/NB questions have wandered into suggestions that amount to rewriting history or using pseudo-English neologisms). If I really did care all that much, I would not have reverted to the old, more stable wording, which is more in keeping with your "permissive ...rather than normative" take). Rather, I care that the matter was settled. I'm very preservative about major consensus decisions, because willy-nilly or PoV-motivated changes that are substantive rule alterations have a destabilizing effect across the project (both in the content and in editorial goodwill). Changes beyond trivial copyediting have to be very well-thought-out, representative of real consensus about non-trivial problems, and actually worth their costs. From what you said above, I would surmise that you'd agree with that, and are simply skeptical that the matter was ever settled. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you have surmised quite correctly. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, just been swamped with misc. stuffs. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The less substantive stuff:

On the less substantive matter: I don't know why you want to keep arm-twisting me about supposedly being not helpful in that discussion and related editing. It's entirely normal to return to prior wording in a page after recent changes result in a dispute. It's also normal to go back to even older, more stable wording when the wording just returned to seems to itself be disputed. And it's normal to seek page protection, which I successfully did, when edit-warring was going on before that and seemed likely to continue after. And it's normal, when the discussion about the matter has train-wrecked, to re-frame the issues in clearer terms and at least lay the groundwork for an RfC (or just start the RfC). I get that you don't agree with me on all the substantive questions' answers, but continuing to try to manufacture some kind of behavioral problem out of this isn't very useful. It's simply not credible that me returning to a version of the wording from before the latest flamewar then going back to an even older one, rather than going back to the very old one the first time, constitutes "actions [that] take higher priority on this than anything else", as if exactly who takes which resolution step at which moment somehow matters more than the actual resolution of the debate, more than the actual content. Cf. WP:BIKESHED, WP:DEW. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And to deal with one non-substantive bit, you described yourself as returning to a version of the wording from before the latest flamewar - if you had done that, I would not have criticized your actions. What you actually did was restored the flamewar version, and it was that bit of napalm that I was objecting to. Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, though that's not my personal perception of it. I saw two distinct dispute phases and took two successive BRD actions, but you're seeing them as one combined dispute. It's just different but legitimate analyses of the debate, which is why I was a little butt-hurt about your invective level above. :-) If it helps, my second return to [even] earlier wording is a tacit acknowledgement that the first was insufficient. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks; I do recognize that. And I would not have made such a "butt-hurt" post here, myself, if your status quo ante reversion had been available to me before I took the conversation to this Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point; I don't think I was thinking much about the exact timeline. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

An update

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.

As with the last round of this, I'm closing this because the anon participant appears to be someone subject to a topic ban that is at least potentially triggered by this discussion continuing (and my talk page isn't a good venue for it anyway). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like you to be aware that as per your advice, I sent ArbCom the information I have from Kirkegaard's Slack server in an email on Nov. 2. ArbCom acknowledged their receipt of my message, and told me in reply that if they needed further information they would contact me again, but after two weeks I've heard nothing else from them. Based on their responses to me in this discussion, which seem somewhat evasive, I think that my original suspicion was correct: ArbCom is not able to act on this type of information if it does not relate to any current arbitration request.

As was suggested by user:Nil Einne, my message to ArbCom quoted some of Kirkegaard's private correspondence with ArbCom, because there is no possible way I could know the contents of that correspondence if I had not been in his Slack server while he was sharing it there. I also offered to put ArbCom in contact with other members of the Slack who disagreed with his Wikipedia trolling project, if ArbCom needed additional verification about his ban evasion or his reason for starting the RFC. I had hoped that if ArbCom wished to look into this issue but felt that the evidence I presented was insufficient, they would have taken me up on that offer.

I have two further questions for you (and for Nil Einne, if he chooses to comment here):

1: Now that I've sent my information to ArbCom, but they evidently cannot act under the present circumstances, is there anything else I should be doing with respect to this issue?

2: Is it still the case that you don't want to request arbitration yourself? My reading of the situation is that ArbCom will not take any action outside of an arbitration request (and that no one else is going to request arbitration), so I'd like to make sure your own feelings in this area haven't changed. 2600:1004:B14E:E450:EC41:AFBC:81CB:54D8 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I see zero indication from the linked thread that arbcom cannot act without a case. That's complete nonsense, both against arbcom policy and against how things have worked in the past. Arbcom is unsurprisingly unwilling to offer much public comment on private evidence. They also are not going to give you by the minute updates on their thinking. And 2 weeks is a very short time in arbcom terms anyway. It is easily possible arbcom will choose not to take action for the simple reason they don't find your evidence compelling. Even assuming you provided evidence of private communication between arbcom and another subject, this doesn't prove anything else you say about the other subject is accurate. The private information could have been shared in different circumstances. Or it could not have been shared, and you have access to it because you were one of the parties, presumably the subject you are claiming "shared" this information. The other participants bit may help, but it depends how confident they can be these really are other participants, or other people at all. I can't speak for arbcom but you establishing some sort of reputation will likely help if they do choose not to take any action. It's always very difficult when you basically have to trust another editor that the evidence is genuine, but it helps when you have a reason to trust that editor. Of course you having an excellent reputation is not going to be enough if they look into the people you are accusing and decide your accusations are false or malicious. In other words, the first requirement for any successful case needs to be that all your evidence is genuine. I personally remained highly skeptical since you've continually made a lot of silly claims, including your continued instance that a case is needed, and your persistent refusal until now to go the normal route for private evidence. And even after that, your persistent attempt to make a big deal of it publicly. The way you've handled this reeks to me of someone who is trolling rather than someone who is genuinely concerned about a malicious editor. If I'm wrong, I apologise, but it's how I feel from what I've seen. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything substantive to add to what Nil Einne has said. While I have some experience of ArbCom, it's from very different directions (mostly trying to avail myself of RFARB, ARCA, and AE to shut down some specific bad-acting patterns, and more "meta" in trying to get ArbCom to overhaul or even eliminate the discretionary sanctions system). I really do not know very much about the fine points of when/if ArbCom can act on this or that bit of evidence, so I would have to defer to the insights of others who have studied that in more depth. I don't have enough direct experience of the parties involved in the specific dispute the anon has been involved in to formulate an opinion of whether one side, neither, or both are at fault, though it's been my experience that ArbCom is pretty good about taking note of private evidence even if they don't talk much about it. In short, I'm really not worried about this, and I think the anon needs to find something else to do. There are no further steps for the anon to take, and (if this is the party I think it is) they are subject to a topic ban anyway, which this discussion is at least testing the boundaries of, if not crossing. If the other side of this dispute engages in disruptive conduct moving forward, I would think that by now ArbCom has the information it needs to be decisive. But that kind of RFARB or ARCA case will probably need to be opened by an editor in better standing, with deeper involvement, and will also need to present fresh evidence of a current/ongoing on-wiki problem, even if older evidence ArbCom already has will also be relevant. I do know that ArbCom is not going to "retro-decide" that someone should be restricted for stuff they did some time ago; it will hinge on a present problem to resolve. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: The recently closed RfC at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC is actually pretty instructive when it comes to how ArbCom is going to handle private evidence. With that as closure, I do not believe this thread should be kept open here, since one party to it appears to be someone subject to a t-ban. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

New partnership: Taxmann
WikiCite
1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Table of Contents suppression

Greetings,

As part of updating the WikiProject Cats project main page, I've moved on to trying to figure out why the Table of Contents isn't showing up. Nothing in the source editor seems to be preventing it, and it does show up in my sandbox, which is basically identical. Since you know markup better than I, can you shed some light on this puzzle? Happy editing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: I'm not entirely sure why; it's probable that something transcluded there has ToC-suppression code in it. A brute-force workaround for things like this is the __TOC__ "magic word". It forces the ToC to appear, where that code is placed: [1]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh. That's interesting. Thanks for the solution, anyhow. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: I forgot to <nowiki>...</nowiki> that in my last reply, which may not have made as much sense as it was supposed to. Fixed now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

November

Thank you for article work in November! Look today at BB music, a little crusade of mine ;) - his birthday on St Cecilia's day, patron saint of music. - Good luck with your candidacy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

More precise: good luck! - Did you know my vision for 2020? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice sentiments. :-) I think a few of them are too much to hope for, but if we did not hope then we would not reach very far, eh? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. See my talk for the response to the vote notification, - in a nutshell: I believe that voluntary restriction to 1RR and only a few comments in a discussion would be more effective than DS. (My personal experience: arbcom restriction only made me defiant, - I don't recall how they made me any better.) I mellowed much in my responses to said notifications over the years - just compare last year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it's voluntary, then most topically, chronically problematic editors won't do it. But that combination of limits might make a good imposed remedy, instead of "carpet-bombing" an entire category with DS that suppress everyone's involvement, and DS-using admins making up novel, weird, ineffective sanctions on-the-fly for particular editors. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at this limited field of an alleged war where I actually haven't observed "chronically problematic" editors, ever, only stubbornly not listening ones - who probably think the same of me ;) - DS have done nothing to improve tensions, imho, nor the arbcom ruling to fight on every single article's talk page, which they probably didn't mean, but that's what happened. I just don't go, - waste of time. - Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I must strenuously decline to disagree on any of that. ;-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In case you want to look at a an article related to "my question": L'ange de Nisida, - mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, if obscure. I raised a quession on the talk page about MOS:TITLES and the orthography. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Any comments regarding the top right corner, on the background of the alleged infobox wars? Next: Rita (opera). And/or the Donizetti comments? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: If you mean, do I think it needs an infobox, I guess it would depend on what was in it. I don't follow classical/opera much, so it's not the sort of thing I would have an immediate answer to (while I might for, say, an animal breed). It's probably best to draft one up in a sandbox and propose it on the talk page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean that. Look at BDD's talk, then I don't have to repeat. The question was if infobox "squabbles" still occur, and we thought no, and here is one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

... or, to be more precise, there was one, only - even if resolved - I think they are a waste of time. I have a man and a woman on the Main page today, and that's what I want to do, not pleading ... - For background, look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 November 16#Template:Composer sidebar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There will surely always be some. I just try to stay out of them, and of course we don't want to see them turn into a sweeping "infobox war" again. We need that about as much as we need another systemic "portal war". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you look at this one? In general, I agree, of course, but I think we didn't need this one either. If you look at the edit history, you'll see that I reverted twice which I hate to do. There are more like that, unresolved, btw. If you don't want to look at the (neutral) edit history, check out the review of the deletion discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. I'm just mostly avoiding getting re-involved in anything like that, unless it pertains to articles I care about closely, and even then maybe at an aloof remove (e.g., I've been involved in Template:Infobox dog breed overhauling, but not so much what pages the box will be at or exactly what will be in the parameters at that page; I might care more for Template:Infobox cat breed, because WP:FELIDS is underpopulated with project participants these days, and WP:DOGS is not.) When it comes to average bios, and articles on published works, and companies, and devices, and TV shows, and such, I'm taking a hands-off approach. All the I-box drama feels like a burn that's not healed yet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's infobox drama, as Voce said in 2018, who wrote in 2013 that the side navbox should gradually be replaced by infobox and bottom navbox. I did that - no more - seven years later, and that should have been it. Waste of time having to think about polite responses, or better no response to cool it down ... - I wouldn't mind the template kept if the close wasn't used to revive the old thing where it was already improved, following the project guidelines. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Anyway: L'ange was resolved today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SMcCandlish. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mz7 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: having a kick-ass profile. :D Ivario (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Schweet. Pan-seared, fresh-caught trout, with hashed-browns and an egg on the side is the best breakfast ever. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bon appetit! Ivario (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Arb

Decided to click on the ArbCom voting notice, really just to vote and make it go away, when to my surprise I saw your name there. I hope my vote helps put you on the Committee. I don't know much about it, honestly, but it can't hurt to have another intelligent and even-headed person on there. White Whirlwind 04:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thankee. By those criteria, we have a lot of good candidates this year. I disagree with a few of them on this and that, but most seem appropriate candidates. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Arb Election

Good luck. You know you will, as last time, likely get enough support to get in, but you'll still be faced with a lot of opposition because you are not an admin, and that will balance out the support. But, it was close in 2017, so maybe this year. Who knows. If you do get in there may be an opportunity for some improvement to DS. That in itself should be a positive reason for people to vote for you instead of against. SilkTork (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been "getting on DS's ass" for years, and won't just give up on that if I don't make the cut this year. Given the number of candidates (and some sitting Arbs) already in a mind for some reform of DS, things look better on this front than they have since 2013 (when the opportunity was squandered by polishing the chrome instead of rebuilding the engine). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

My best to you as well. You are probably my favorite editor; not because you have agreed with me, but because you have disagreed with me so well that I realized I wasn't seeing the whole picture. You make other editors better, and I can think of no skill more crucial to ArbCom. Van Isaac_WS^cont 11:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Wow, I think that's the kindest thing anyone has ever said to me here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Jerm (talk) has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!

Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, though I think it'll be chicken and blackeyed peas for me this year. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That thing that happened that one time

Background: many years ago the FBI got permission to tap the phones of a Mafia boss. here is what they got:

"Hey, remember that time you did that thing with those guys? I think you might like what these other guys are proposing. Let's talk about it at that place where we did that thing together"

So in that spirit, let me just say that I was glad to see that situation with that person resolved that way. I thought about commenting about that other thing that happened to me that one time but I decided that I had been manipulated into responding badly, that it was partly my fault for taking the bait, and that my comments would not have helped. I was rooting for you, though.

Guy Macon has given you a ferret! Ferrets promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a ferret, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Give someone a ferret by adding {{subst:Ferret}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I adore ferrets! (Though I actually turned out allergic to them; their oils trigger hives and asthma). They're just about the funniest creatures on the planet to observe, especially the bouncy sideways running when excited. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sshZ8B7YQDY --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: That stuff we discussed, about them people .... I'm starting to feel it's a pandemic of its own lately. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Periodic table: animation

Following your remarks here at talkpage YBG. To explore more presentation options, I have started User:DePiep/PT-toggle-zoom (with a first gif loop for group 3 :-) ). You can reply on my talkpage as well; I prever not having to follow very long or multi-topic threads. -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check it out. And, yeah, I didn't care for the level of WP:TALKFORK going on either; having had the entire discussion at a template talk page or the wikiproject page would have been better). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Examples

Hiya. I noticed on my watchlist that you edit the list of phobias article, and it is exactly that article that some time ago got me thinking about uncited examples of phenomenon. I've started a thread at WP:OR but I thought I'd get your take on this:

It has become my belief that virtually all uncited examples of phenomenon should be removed from all articles as OR. It seems to me, in fact, that a lot of these examples are violations of the most egregious sort. An example, after all, attempts to get to the very essence of whatever it is being used to explain. If a phenomenon is sufficiently complex to warrant an example, surely the example should be verifiable, and if an example of a phenomenon is so "blue sky" obvious, then no example is needed. No? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Primergrey (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Primergrey: I agree in general, other than I think an effort should be made to source them before removal. We had the same sort of problem at List of fallacies for a long time, and while a handful of things verging on joke entries are no longer in there, most of them were eventually sourced, and the list actually grew a lot with more sourced entries (because the sourcing research turned up other ones to include). I would take that list's improvement as exemplary of the approach to take, rather than just nuking it down to 10 items or whatever.

If I may engage my legendary wordiness-with-a-point: There's a lot of nuance in that kind of article-building. As with "fallacy", the concept "phobia" has multiple meanings that range from very technical to just everyday, imprecise language; some of it's formal terminology centuries old, some of it's new memes (in the original sense) from the last couple of years. But each such particular term may still be WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE to include, or even stand-alone WP:Notable and thus also worth including. On "blue-sky obvious", see WP:BLUESKY. Many things on the fallacies list are stupendously obvious to anyone with any education at all, yet the fallacies still surround us everywhere. And people often don't know the exact name for a particular logic problem, or they know the term but are not 100% certain of its scope. That'll be true of various phobias, too. Plus there's the problem that people misuse these terms (often badly, e.g. calling something unintentionally potentially offensive to trans/nonbinary people as "transphobic", or calling something genuinely transphobic "homophobic", and so on). So, both the term and what it means (which may need explanatory examples) will be encyclopedic, if the entry is sourceable. All that said, I'm not sure any examples are needed in such a list, versus terms and short definitions. The fallacies list does fine without examples, and I don't see any in List of phobias, so I'm assuming you're finding them in drill-down articles on particular phobias. We sometimes do need to construct our own examples; we do this all the time in linguistic and math articles, for example. They're not OR if they faithfully reproduce the meaning found in the sources, without just directly plagiarizing their examples. The usual way to do this is to take an published example and swap in equivalent by different terms, or keep the terms and restructure the prose about them, then make sure that the result isn't a WP:AEIS monstrosity.

So, to come full circle, sources are indeed the answer. :-) PS: The current List of phobias has WP:NOTDICT problems. The List of fallacies has a much more encyclopedic approach to its entries (though the table layout might be better for both articles).
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response, although its thoroughness makes me a bit embarrassed to say that I think I threw you off the scent by mentioning the fallacies article specifically. I'm actually talking about all uses of examples in any article. Particularly in lists and glossaries, given the short definitions therein, giving an example seems like a great way to sum up a phenomenon. However, it is my belief that such examples violate OR spectacularly, given that they are meant to get to the "essence" of said phenomenon. You mention math and linguistics articles as having acceptable user-constructed examples, but of all the topics to use actual examples from RSs, these two must be among the easiest. You say that, "They're not OR if they faithfully reproduce the meaning found in the sources", but isn't that a routine excuse for OR? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I find my expository skill wanting, although on this page I guess that could happen to almost anyone. Primergrey (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have missed a crucial line in your response. The one where you mention restructuring the prose. I totally agree. Given that to do so guarantees the existence of a sourced original example. (You know, my Mom only had to quit drinking for nine months!! You'd think she could've done it...) Primergrey (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Primergrey: [On your last point, I know the feeling, for the same reason, plus smoking, plus some other stuff. I was preemie enough for an incubator, and have had asthma and other problems since infancy.] I see what you mean now. On the one hand, we're actually required to reword and summarize source material in our own prose (to avoid plagiarism and copyright violation). This necessarily is a form of "original research" in a really broad sense; it's a very low-grade form of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and [sometimes] synthesis", but isn't what the WP:NOR policy or the WP:AEIS section is getting at, which is novel AEIS that is coming to conclusions, assertions of fact, connections between ideas, etc., that are not found in the source material. So, a simple example that is constructed following exactly what the source material is saying, and which produces a result completely consistent with the source material isn't OR, it's just us doing what we have to do (if we must have an example) to avoid ripping off other writers. :-)

It's definitely a skill, and some people are bad at it, and produce OR; but when it's done properly it's permissible. I would agree with the premise that most articles do not need it, that attempts often fail, and that suspicious examples should probably be deleted. And that it's easier to do in formulaic circumstances like equations, grammars, game/sport rules, etc. In something like politics or psychology, it will be much harder to pull off without wandering into OR territory. (And I guess that brings us back around to phobias.) PS: Another alternative, of course, is direct and attributed block quotation of a previously published example, or at least a directly attributed paraphrase of one. That avoids the ripoff problem, as long as the quote/paraphrase isn't so long it triggers WP:COPYVIO concerns anyway.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That last line of mine was an (obviously tasteless, not to mention unsuccessful) attempt at humour which I now feel like a horse's ass for writing. Anyhow, thanks for the advice. I will take it. I just noticed you were running for ARBCOM. I'll wish you good luck, all the while knowing that your election would take you away, at least in part, from your regular productive editing.Primergrey (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Primergrey: Oh, I'm not offended in any way; I took it as real personal history (and am not pissy about jokes that turn out not to be, unless there's something malicious behind them). :-) [That actually probably explains a whole lot about why this drama could have even happened. It's a challenge to be sensitive to things that might offend others, if oneself would not be offended by them.] In my case, I'm just barely old enough to have been born at a time when most people didn't believe that stuff had any effect on the development and health of their spawn. So, I never got particularly mad at the 'rents for their substance indulgences. It's just been an ass-pain in certain ways.

Then again, when I foolishly tried to join the US Army (for the GI Bill college money), I got rejected for the asthma, and that was surely a good thing. I would have been the absolute worst soldier. Drill sarge would probably have lost it and killed me the first week in frustration at my arguing, and refusing to take orders I didn't think made sense. Plus there's that utter lack of interest in becoming a killing machine. That said, they were actually contemplating me for Army Intel, and had me tentatively slated to begin training in Arabic and Russian, which would have been cool. But then they realized I could not run a block without needing my inhaler. I was already sworn-in and everything. The recruiter was livid, since he'd driven me 2 hours to the MEPS and had to drive me back. Yakkety-yak. I am so full of coffee right now. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah the military industrial complex hard at work. How cool would being in intelligence be? Of course, based on the timeframe you would've ended up...in Kuwait? Primergrey (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I would have to dig up a timeline. It was 1987 or 1988, and I was only going to do the two-year enlistment (I'm not sure they even have that any more). I did pizza instead (and ended up the restaurant mgr. within 6 months), then had enough $ to get back into classes. And buy a PC. Then my life went in a very different direction. I was like a Flatlander discovering the third dimension! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggested I message you

...so I am. I removed the parenthetical comment on my guide and left a brief remark on the question page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I came up with a second question.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Letting you know I revised the voter guide again in case you want to review it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I expanded the Q2 material on internal "surveillance" to an separate list item, with an additional example. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfair mischaracterization; please retract

Hello, I'd like to ask you to retract your comments in these two edits: [2] and [3]. I think this is a case of argumentum ad hominem which is in point of fact groundless even if such arguments were not themselves logically fallacious. On top of that it's quite an insulting suggestion which is as hurtful as it is misplaced. There's absolutely no substance to the remark a review of your user talk page shows it to be a firehose of warnings and sanctions for disruption, especially in "human group conflict" topics. Anyone with in this much trouble centered on "your people vs. my people" conflicts is not likely to provide very useful input into how WP should write about much matters. My talkpage is a standing testament to the volatility of editors with entrenched nationalistic or otherwise bigoted attitudes when provoked by the NPOV I have brought to such articles as The Holocaust in Bulgaria (formerly absurdly titled "Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews"!) and Syrian Kurdistan. I have been accused of being an ardent Kurd, an anti-Bulgarian, part of a "Macedonian" cabal, pro-Turk, anti-Turk, anti-Christian, pro-Christian, and much besides, but I take much more seriously the implication that my views are not important because you say I have been involved in "your people vs. my people" conflicts. This is completely untrue and unjustifiable and I hope you can agree it was made in error. I've occasionally grown impatient and used the acid tongue in such situations but to insinuate that I have disruptive views is wholly unsubstantiated. I rarely edit articles dealing with the third or second millennium, I focus on antiquity, but sometimes articles are so shot through with nationalism and mythology that I devote some time to sorting that out. I almost entirely rewrote The Holocaust in Bulgaria article, which was previously in a farcical state of denial, as was Bulgaria during WWII. Now the hornets' nest at Syrian Kurdistan has been kicked and I've been stung, though the issue (the issue of the Arab Belt and the Arab nationalist pseudo-history that went with it) is ongoing. I'd actually like to continue discussion on the point at hand (two points in your previous comment need answering), but I'd rather you delete your last remark before I resume. On a procedural point I also don't think it's sporting for you to collapse a discussion in which you are involved, in a discussion you started about a change you'd like to see, and to characterize it as "circular" and "going nowhere" because of comments you disagree with. At the very least other editors should not be discouraged from following the reasoning, even if only to prevent the same discussion happening again. Sorry for the long comment but there's a lot of context which I think you (understandably!) missed. GPinkerton (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton. just reviewed your user talk page and it really does contain a firehose of warnings and sanctions for disruption. (sarcasm) Oh but of course none of that is your fault. its all "the volatility of editors with entrenched nationalistic or otherwise bigoted attitudes"(/sarcasm). There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!"

I strongly suggest that you read and follow the advice at User talk:GPinkerton#Some unsolicited advice.... It is spot on. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Nothing I have done or others have said justifies the insinuation of racism or nationalism on my part. GPinkerton (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. Your behavior, no matter how bad, does not justify bad behavior by anyone else. But you seem to be completely missing the other side of the coin: the behavior of other editors, no matter how bad, does not justify bad behavior by you. You cannot control the behavior of others but you can control your own behavior. And yet I have yet to see a single example of you discussing your own behavior. You keep going to the "they did it first!" well and talking about the behavior of other as if that excuses your bad behavior.

I am going to stop replying to you now. I was foolish to try reaching you. You appear to be ineducable. Multiple people have carefully explained to you what you are doing wrong and how to fix it, and instead of listening you keep complaining about the way they explained it to you. I advise SMcCandlish to delete this entire thread as being Yet Another Waste Of Time.

I have always wondered whether people like you act this way in real life or whether it is just a mask you put on when you go online. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: You are correct. Your behavior, no matter how bad, does not justify bad behavior by anyone else. Thank you for saying this, this is point I was making here. GPinkerton (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Being honestly and reasonably critical of another editor's behavior and the content of their input on something relevant to the an ongoing dispute is not "bad behavior" nor "ad hominem". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: To the contrary, I have a strong feeling that you soon enough will be topic-banned from a number of these subjects. Your participation in them has clearly been too frequently disruptive, despite your probable intentions. Community patience with this behavior is clearly nearing an end. It's literally been years since I've see a user-talk page with that long a list of warnings, blocks, and other sanctions in general, much less all pertaining to the same overall kind of topic (real-world ideological conflicts, in summary). And all in a 6-month span? Zoiks.

The fact that you've not been community banned or indefinitely blocked suggests of your participation has so far been interpreted to be in good faith. But you're rapidly approaching the WP:CIR benefit-of-the-doubt limit. See especially the last two points under §What is meant by "Competence is required"? The gist of your long post above (and I don't mind long posts) is that the the first two points of that section don't apply to you (and from what I see, I think that's true). But it doesn't matter much. The ability to do good source work and shape it into usable content isn't sufficient if you infuriate those around you; this is a collaborative project.

Someone who has not internalized our WP:P&G is not in a good position to try to help rewrite them. You have as much privilege to "!vote" in such a matter as the next editor, but I am by no means obligated to entertain you with endless circular argument about your viewpoints on such questions.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your remark was an ad hominem, and while it is your right not to reply, I do not think you are justified in collapsing the discussion (leaving out your own comment) and calling it "circular" merely because you have taken your own remarks to be decisive evidence in support of your own pre-existing opinion. GPinkerton (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You need to re-read Ad hominem (and see also my other comment above). You're free to uncollapse the sub-thread if you want to. It is not hidden or deleted just by being collapse-boxed; that's just a courtesy to other users of the page who have no interest in watching two editors go round in circles at great length. You also seem unclear on what a circular argument is; it's one in which the participants are saying the same things over and over without either adjusting their stance. (This is distinct from circular reasoning, a fallacy within a specific argument.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: See also WP:CAPITULATE. You're exhibiting some of the "give me satisfaction or else" habits addressed therein, and excessively resistant to taking in-stride anything that is being told to you by multiple editors on this page and lots and lots of them at your own. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: I see this in the block log now: "15:50, 4 December 2020 Guerillero talk contribs changed block settings for GPinkerton talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly here to right great wrongs and not to build an encyclopedia) Tag: Twinkle". This is exactly what I warned would happen. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)