This is an archive of past discussions with 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 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

February 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Manual of Style and article titles policy

Resolved

– I resigned editing for a year over this admin's false accusations. While he and I (and the others accused) did not come to a personal resolution, WP:ARCA finally resolved the out-standing issue to enough of my satisfaction to drop the rest of the matter.

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

This warning is made as a result of the arbitration enforcement request made on 27 January 2013 concerning Noetica. Please take care, in future disputes concerning the issues mentioned above, not to misuse the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (or other fora) to cast aspersions against others or to otherwise continue personalizing stylistic disagreements, as directed by the Arbitration Committee's reminder. Regards, Sandstein 21:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I dispute the applicability of your warning and the accuracy of your characterization of my edit at the cited discussion, and your interpretation of the discussion itself, as well as the ArbCom discretionary sanctions you are misapplying.

Here's the text of my comment at that AN AE filing, in full:

Comment by SMcCandlish

I, too, find it disconcerting that SarekOfVulcan does not seem to understand that WP:INVOLVED applies to admins in particular, not random editors, that he seems unclear that his statements and actions in this matter are not comparable to Noetica's, and that he's been so heavily involved administratively in something he's also been so heavily involved in as a stakeholding editor. Anyway, this request for enforcement by Apteva is a WP:POINTy farce. PS: I agree with the criticism that Noetica's "if you sanction me, I quit" smacks of WP:DIVA. That said, of all the "wiki-sins" one could commit in this extended brouhaha, that seems to be the least of all. I take it as a simple expression of frustration, and of bewilderment that Apteva has been permitted to carry on so disruptively for so long. His (and Wikid77's & LittleBenW's WP:TAGTEAM) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense makes me want to quit, too, sometimes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You mischaracterized these comments of mine at ~~WP:AN~~ WP:AE as "serv[ing] no useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable, and...also mainly concerned with casting aspersions on others, further personalizing the underlying dispute(s)." There are several issues to address with regard to your warning and your expressed reasoning behind it. In summary, they are that you have clearly misinterpreted all of the following:

My post (it did address the issue at hand, was not a misuse of WP:AN, and was not a personalization of any dispute)
The nature of the AN AE filing in question (it was Apteva lashing out to be vengeful, and had little-to-zero merit of any kind)
The nature of the debate at AN AE and AN (it's about forumshopping, tendentious disruption, soapbox advocacy and refusal to get the point, not about style)
WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded (WP:ARBATC) itself (it's about pointless, angsty argumentation over style matters, not factual reportage of problem editors to WP:AN for action to restrain their abuses, successfully and on the merits), which you have here misapplied (I have not in fact violated the provisions of that arb sanction, broad and discretionary though they may be).

In more detail, I have to note all of the following problems with your warning:

Misconstruing the nature of the AN AE filing: You seem to be missing the fact, as noted by the majority of respondents to that bogus AN AE report, that it was simply filed in retaliation as a WP:POINT against Noetica by Apteva, just for Noetica having dared to file an entirely legitimate AN report against Apteva (one which successfully resulted in a block against Apteva, I might remind you, with the overwhelming majority of respondents supporting a block, and a majority also supporting blocks of Wikid77 and LittleBenW, though those were not enacted). Apteva's AN AE counter-filing was simply lashing out at Noetica. Very few respondents to it found any merit of any kind in it, and even those that did found them insufficient to take admin action.
Misunderstanding and mischaracterizing my statements: There is nothing disruptive, incivil, attacking or otherwise a "misuse" of ~~WP:AN~~ WP:AE about either of the following:
1. I observed a demonstrably inappropriate admin response to an AN AE filing: I noted that an admin on ~~the admin noticeboard~~ WP:AE who has involved himself in that AN AE filing had both a clear conflict of interest in the filing and its background issues, and also did not appear to understand the difference in applicability between admins and non-admins of an important guideline, but was attempting to hold the subject of the AN AE filing accountable for not adhering to an admin-only rule. It was a salient and entirely appropriate comment about the process the AN AE filing was undergoing, and had nothing to do with style disputes.
2. I expressed a belief that an AN AE filing was frivolous or vexatious, and on what basis: I reminded AN AE watchers that Apteva is being AN-reported for disruption, of such a magnitude that many editors are frustrated to the point of leaving, and suggested that Apteva is just filing counter-reports at AN AE to be vindictive. The consensus was in favor of sanctions against Apteva already (note also that I had already demonstrated in the original AN report, with piles of diffs and beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Apteva was tendentious, forum-shopping, tag-teaming, and disruptive on this issue). Labeling Apteva's constantly spewing firehose of noise on this topic "farcical" and "disruptive", when one can and already has proven it and consensus already agrees, is not "personalizing the debate", it's short-circuiting yet another Apteva attempt to ask the other parent by abusing ~~WP:AN~~ WP:AE as a point-making platform.
Discounting my statements as irrelevant to the AN filing when they were clearly on-point: My comments did in fact serve a "useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable" (namely pointing out that they are not, and that the process being applied had COI and other problems). Noting which parties are doing what in a dispute is not "personalizing stylistic disagreements" at all. AE, AN and AN/I cannot function when parties are not identified.
Confusing the MOS/AT style debate with the AE & AN behavior debate: Neither of the related AN AN & AE filings (Noetica vs. Apteva and vice versa) have anything to do with style intrinsically, but only user behavior; the background debate could just as easily have been about whether the Van cat is a breed or a landrace, or what George Balabushka's real name was. More to the point, Apteva could turn out to be correct about the style matters he editwars and forumshops over incessantly, but this would still not excuse his pattern of grossly abusive and disruptive behavior, which is what he was taken to WP:AN about; the ends do no justify the means. Apteva's counterclaim against Noetica, which consensus did not support, was also about alleged behavior, not style.
Misidentifying me as the source of the problem: It's ironic to be labeled (publicly on ~~WP:AN~~ WP:AE, not on my user talk page) as "battlegrounding" by you when myself, Noetica and various other parties successfully reined in Apteva's actual battlegrounding, in the related AN report immediately precding the AE one you're castigating me about for no reason. It's as if you did not even read the original AN case, but only the AE one against Noetica.
Misapplying the ArbCom style-debate sanctions simply to protect a fellow admin from criticism: I have to wonder how much the fact that I criticized an admin's judgement in my quoted post, above, weighed in your decision to issue this inappropriate warning to me. I have to think that it is the principal reason you did so, and will show why. My comments about Apteva's editing pattern were directly relevant to both of the AN & AE filings, and already proven with evidence. My comments about Noetica were that while I agreed that his response to the bogus AN AE case wasn't helpful, it was easy to see that it was just the product of frustration and not serious; this isn't any kind of actual criticism, but a request for forgiveness. My mention of Wikid77 and LittleBenW is supported by already-cited proof of tag-teaming, which a consensus of respondents in the original AN subsection about it found compelling. That leaves only my comments about admin SarekOfVulcan for you to use as the basis for this warning! The problem here, though, is that nothing I said with regard to SofV's clear conflict of interest in the outcome of the AN AE filing or his attempt to apply admin rules to the non-admin subject of the AN AE filing have anything at all to do with style, the MoS, or the ArbCom case you are citing as justification for warning and thereby threatening me with a block. My comments with regard to SofV were 100% about, and about nothing but, ~~WP:AN~~ WP:AE process as it applied to that particular filing at AN AE!
Effectively censoring my legitimate participation by misapplying rules and process to make a threat under color of admin authority: This may not matter to you, and it might not have been your intent, but I now feel palpably and unmistakeably threatened by you with a punitive but illegitimate and undeserved block, should I ever participate in any WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:AN/I or similar noticeboard discussion, in which any MOS-related issue happens to be involved, and in which I necessarily identify any other editor; and similarly threatened should I ever criticize another admin's judgement in such a forum. Only one other party at AN AE suggested you make this sort of ArbCom-related warning, against me or anyone else who commented there, and did not provide reasons, just a "me too", so your action to do so is essentially unilateral and does not represent any kind of consensus at ~~WP:AN~~ WP:AE to do so. I.e., you are directly chilling my expression and participation in basic WP procedure, in an entirely out-of-process way, without consensus to do so, and based on nothing but a string of misinterpretations of everything from ArbCom sanctions to the messages and debate at issue, with the result if not the outright goal of hampering my ability to continue doing some of what I do best here, which is help prevent random pet peeves of fanatical editwarriors from getting enshrined in, and/or threatening the stability of, our Manual of Style.

Feel free to explain your rationale, clarify what your threat really means, or better yet just rescind it.
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 05:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I maintain the warning. While I can't reply to all of the above because of its length, here's my comment about the gist of your remarks:

I am not sure why you talk at length about some WP:AN filing. I have not participated in, or even read, any AN thread related to this matter. My warning relates to your comment at WP:AE which you reproduced above.

WP:AE is not a general purpose dispute resolution noticeboard. Its purpose is not to resolve any ongoing, underlying disputes. That is the province of the normal dispute resolution process. AE is there for one purpose only: to help admins decide whether the specific edits that have been reported warrant an enforcement response. This means that allegations about misconduct by people not party to the request at issue (as subject or, at most, as filer) are unhelpful to begin with. For instance, the AE request did not concern the conduct of SarekOfVulcan. Therefore, criticizing that editor's conduct in the AE thread serves no useful purpose at all. If you have a problem with it, you should discuss it directly with SarekOfVulcan, or in an appropriate discussion forum, or file a separate AE request if you believe that SarekOfVulcan's conduct is so problematic as to warrant enforcement action.

Particularly, the Arbitration Committee's reminder I linked to above reads: "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus". In light of this, it is especially unhelpful, as you did, to make the following comments: "... Apteva has been permitted to carry on so disruptively for so long. His (and Wikid77's & LittleBenW's WP:TAGTEAM) tendentious-to-death-and-beyond nonsense ...". These are just broad allegations of severe personal misconduct on the part of several editors, two of which are in no way concerned by the AE request at issue. These allegations are unsupported by any useful evidence. They would have been inappropriate in any forum, not just AE. That's because you don't resolve disagreements by flinging broad accusations at one another in community fora. You resolve disagreements by working through the dispute resolution process in direct contact with the editors involved, focusing on the substantial disagreements (about hyphens and dashes, for instance) rather than on any personal conflicts emerging from them. That's what the Committee's reminder is about, and what I ask you to keep in mind in the future.

I would like to emphasize that I have no opinion about, and frankly at this time no interest in, whether the various people you criticized have in fact engaged in any misconduct. They may well have, and if so, that should be addressed in proper form (i.e., with evidence, no broad allegations!) through the dispute resolution process. But as I said their conduct is not within the scope of an AE request that is not about them. Whether any of these people are administrators is of course immaterial with regard to the dispute resolution or AE process, except in that I personally expect administrators to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than other editors. Sandstein 08:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: AN vs. AE – You're correct; I had forgotten that Apteva vs. Noetica was at AE, here (which will eventually be archived either here or here while the original Noetica vs. Apteva report was at AN here. Either you already knew what filings I was really referring to, or you did not know of the Noetica vs. Apteva filing at AN, and that missing information badly affected your understanding of the Apteva vs. Noetica filing at AE. There is also the related SarekOfVulcan vs. Apteva AE filing here, but it isn't crucial to what's being discussed here, other than it further demonstrates that I am not making broad, unsubstantiated accusations against Apteva, but summarizing facts about Apteva's behavior that consensus has already arrived at, at both AE and AN.

Re: more substantive matters – The fact that you're refusing to even address most of what I wrote probably explains why your response misses the point in several crucial ways. It's also symptomatic of your involvement more generally. In particular, "I have not participated in, or even read, any AN thread related to this matter", is the entire problem – you've actually missed the majority of the discussion, and have consequently misinterpreted just about everything about it.

Discussion about process that relates to discussion about content is not itself discussion about content. Your warning fails to make this distinction and this is the main reason, among several, why the warning is inappropriate and invalid. You're confusing posting at ARBATC about user behaviors relating to WP process including ARBATC, which is what I did – it's a meta thread, and a use–mention distinction – with posting about opinions on style and titling matters themselves in ways that trigger the sanctions contemplated by ARBATC, which I did not do, at either AE or AN. Frankly, trying to stretch ARBATC's sanctions to cover posts about ARBATC and how it should be enforced, not just the content & presentation disputes ARBATC is intended to moderate, both makes a mockery of what WP:AE is for and how it works, and in my view constitutes a form of wikilawyering to warp the intent and meaning of ARBATC to simply shut up people you just don't want to listen to. If that was not your intent, then please consider, seriously, that this is precisely what it looks like.
WP:ARBATC sanctions are simply not applicable to my post. (Nor to those of most if not all of the others you just issued the same warning to for what they said at ARBATC). It was not about any style or article titles matter, and thus is not subject to those sanctions, even when broadly construed. It was about the disruptive editing behavior patterns of Apteva a.k.a. Delph234 (the community agrees, at both this earlier AE filing and the original AN filing, that this happened, and blocked both of this users accounts, for sockpuppetry in energy articles as well as his style-related editwarring), including his filing a ridiculous AE request just to get back at Noetica for criticizing him). I also mentioned the Wikid77 & LittleBenW tag-teaming for a specific reason, detailed below (the community also agrees that this abusive editing happened, after I and other presented lots of evidence, and there was a consensus to block both users for it all here, in a subsection of the AN filing, though this got lost in the shuffle and those additional topic bans didn't actually get implemented). That the original disputations, weeks and month ago, involving these editors and landing them at AN in the first place had something to do with article titles and the manual of style is completely irrelevant; it could have been over biographical sources or cat breeds. Stylistic/titling disagreements have nothing whatsoever to do with the behavioral issues being addressed at AN and then at AE, by me and others. My post also raised concerns about inappropriate admin involvement against Noetica by SarekOfVulcan (conflict of interest, and misapplication of admin rules as restricting non-admins). Also not a style/titles matter. (Cf. your own comment: "I personally expect administrators to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than other editors." So why bash me for doing the same thing?)
Naming names for the sake of accuracy and truth is often necessary, to avoid false blame, not "inappropriate". Just for the record, I mentioned Wikid77 and LittleBenW by name simply for accuracy; to suggested that Apteva was acting alone and being solely responsible for the disruptiveness would be an unfair misstatement of fact (as well as an aggrandizement of disruptive behavior, as if Apteva is some kind of disruption badass, which WP:DENY strongly discourages for good reason). I do not feel I need to be threatened by you simply for not wrongly blaming Apteva for everything!
No one said AE is a general-purpose dispute resolution noticeboard, and none of us except Apteva were attempting to use it as one; you're advancing a straw man argument. My post stated my position that Apteva was filing a nonsense, frivolous AE request, that SarekOfVulcan was out of line, and that Noetica could be forgiven for overreacting a bit because Apteva (with Wikid77 and LittleBenW) has been frustrating him and many other MOS/AT regulars, including me, to the point of breaking. This is not personal attack, it simply summarizes exactly what the community has said in its consensus findings at AN and the earlier Apteva AE, and is not an ARBATC matter, as it isn't raising any style or titling arguments of any kind.
I emphatically did not make "broad allegations of severe personal misconduct"; I made summary reference at AE to very specific and well-proven facts of severe personal misconduct, supported by solid evidence and by community consensus at the AN loci already linked to. You are warning (and thereby block-threatening) me simply because you are unfamiliar with the overall debate and the evidence and remedies already arrived at in AN. You've reacted, without full knowledge and information, to what you saw at AE, as if it existed in a vacuum. At any rate, you say "with evidence, no broad allegations!", and I had already provided it, in spades. But you hadn't see it, and more importantly made the baldfaced assumption that I was randomly and broadly casting aspersions, just to be an ass or something, instead of doing homework to find out if I was. I'm a very long-term, productive, rationalist editor here, and think I deserve enough credit and benefit of the doubt to not be assumed-by-default to be a rampaging nutter. I was in fact referring to proven, settled matters for which warnings, topic bans and now blocks had already been issued (I think the blocks may have come after my post; I misremember). Your statement that "[t]hese allegations are unsupported by any useful evidence" is factually incorrect; you simply were not aware of the evidence and didn't bother to look or ask for it, but obviously should have.
Your expectation of "working through the dispute resolution process in direct contact with the editors involved" already happened (at AN, at RFC/U, and in many other fora), apparently without you knowing about any of it. NB: There actually is no substantive style question at issue (consensus did not change on dashes and hyphens in response to Atpeva et al. forumshopping it to the ends of the earth); by the time this went to AN and thence to AE all that was at issue any longer was editing behavior pattern issues. Resurrecting and "focusing on the substantial disagreements (about hyphens and dashes, for instance)", as you suggest, would have been a massive step backwards! It's as if you said "Argh, not these damned style people again; let's just issue ARBATC warnings and shut them all up!", but the Apteva-related issues moved past style matters into addressing abusive and disruptive behavior patterns, several weeks ago (arguably months ago, actually).

Again, I ask that you realize that you have misinterpreted my and some others' posts, the AE/AN filings themselves, the situation and its history more broadly, and the [lack of] applicability of the ARBATC sanctions. Please, just rescind this bogus, overreactive warning. It is based entirely on nothing but those misinterpretations and your clear assumption of bad faith on my part. I've already proven I was not acting in bad faith. As it stands, you've issued a "you can be blocked without further notice" warning against me for something I clearly did not actually do. The result is that basically anyone with admin bits can block me willy-nilly for engaging in virtually any MOS or AT thread (or RM, or AN/ANI/AE, or other discussion that mentions any style or title matter), if it even slightly irritates anyone for any reason, because "I've already been warned". It's an error, it's unjust, and it's having the direct effect of topic-banning me from both MOS and AT without there actually being a community consensus that I should be topic banned, since I'll hardly dare to discuss anything in such forums if I'm instantly subject to blocking by anyone with a hare up their butt about some style nitpick, or having some kind of personal bone to pick with me, which is actually a quite large stockpile of PoV-pushing editors (several of them admins who got the bits back when RfA was a cakewalk). You've handed every PoV-pusher on the system a gag to use on me, and you're directly censoring my participation (it's called the "chilling effect"), without good cause.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 12:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I regret that you feel that way, and let me assure you that I do not assume that you are acting in bad faith or with deleterious intent - rather, the contrary. However, the length and intensity of your arguments in this thread alone indicate that the Arbitration Committee's reminder to step back from the personal side of the disputes surrounding WP:MOS does apply to the situation you find yourself in, and that the warning is therefore appropriate. My advice is to either withdraw from these personal conflicts and focus on the discussion about the substance of the dispute, to the extent such a discussion may still be ongoing, or alternatively to pursue the formal dispute resolution process (such as WP:RFC/U, community topic ban requests, or arbitration enforcement requests) with respect to the editors you believe are severely misbehaving. What you should however not do – and this is what my warning was about – is just to vent your anger in whatever forum a related issue may be discussed in, no matter how justified that anger is (and I recognize that it may well be). Such venting has no chance of promoting the successful resolution of interpersonal conflicts; rather, it tends to inflame them further.

With this, I believe I have adequately explained the reasons for my warning. Of course, if you do believe the warning materially affects your ability to participate in topic-related discussions, which I do not think is the case, you are free to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee, although I do not consider it likely that they will act on such an appeal. Sandstein 13:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You have not "adequately explained" anything other than that you feel righteous.

For one thing, your assuming and asserting that I was making "broad allegations...with[out] evidence", when a few minutes of looking would have shown that I was in fact referring to specific, proven facts of Apteva-and-crew's dirsuptive editing, for which consensus had already arrived at remedies at WP:AN, is, yes, a blatant assumption of my bad faith by you. Denying that violates basic logic. Your continuing to defend a warning/threat the entire basis of which is your now disproven claim of me making of broad allegations without evidence, simply defies all reason and is not tenable.

In my view you are simply so unwilling to admit that you have made an obvious and undeniable error – in a near vacuum of salient facts and information – that you'll happily see anywhere from one to four productive editors quit the project. I repeat that you simply do not properly understand the context of the posts in question, and here you are essentially refusing to contemplate even attempting to do so. There is no content/style dispute at issue, at all. Apteva tried to make one, and failed to change consensus (again and again and again and again, for months, in every forum he could raise his pet peeve in) The AN case, which you evidently still have not bothered to read even though it is crucial to understanding what is happening, was not about style or titles, it was about disruptive user behavior patterns, as was the RFC/U about Apteva that preceded it (more homework you have not read). Apteva then ran to AE to try to disrupt it and "ask yet another parent", and me and a few others said "no, this is more noise – this user has a long history of making trouble like this and refusing to get the point; don't listen", and we have a consensus to topic ban and block him at WP:AN to prove it. Yet you've turned like a rabid wolf on those of us who have not just tried, but succeeded with community consensus in reining in a grossly disruptive editor (actually a three-editor tag-team). You're like a judge who would hang the cops who caught a murderer instead of punishing the killer, just because you don't like something they said. Apteva was topic-banned and blocked for the very disruption you say I'm being a bad-actor for mentioning as a reason to disregard his attempt at WP:GAMING AE! Do you not understand how off-kilter your position looks?

How many editors have to quit before you'll actually do an hour of background reading and reconsider what you're doing? At this point, you appear to be willfully refusing to find out the facts and see whether your decision makes sense in light of them. You are not the Pope and there is no presumption, even among those who look up to you, that you are magically infallible. You need to learn this, quickly, before you do any more damage. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Whatever your strengths as an editor and an admin, your lack of knowledge of this extended RFCU/AN/AE case, which is only related to ARBATC in the very tenuous way in that that now-blocked disruptor at the center of it all liked to pick fights about hyphens, compounded by your abject refusal to get up to speed on it and reconsider, means that your are simply not competent to have made such an AE decision in this case, should undo it, and should recuse yourself from further involvement in this one unless and until you do get up to speed on it. I would say the same thing to you even if you were an Arbitrator. Even if you were Jimbo. You cannot make rational decisions that affect other people without possessing enough facts to understand what is actually going on. Refusing to obtain them means you are asserting an actual right to make irrational and bad decisions that harm other people. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 14:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships

Resolved

– Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Input needed at RfC

Resolved

– Done.

Hi. Input is needed on a an RfC. You were randomly selected from the WP:FRS list of editors willing to help with RfCs. If you have a moment, your help would be appreciated at the RfC about the Nobel Prize. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Tagging redirect pages for deletion for the purpose of moves

FYI

– Just a reminder.

When tagging a redirect with a {{db-move}}, please place the tag at the beginning. When you place it at the end, the tag never shows up on the page, making it more difficult for admins to handle your request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Right! I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Disregard

– I started this one myself, silly bot.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You may want to consider adjusting your writing style in this and similar discussions. I would hate for you to be blocked for writing a word in all-caps; see here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Shrew technical moves

Resolved

– Fixed.

Hello SMcC. Per WP:RM/TR, I did all the moves that remained, but had to improvise a bit with Forest Shrew. The lower case article was about the genus Sylvisorex, not the single species Myosorex varius. So I moved Forest shrew to Sylvisorex to free up the name. It is possible that these actions will cause some articles and redirects to need updates. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Noted! THere was another one like this I had to work around yesterday. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This one's even more complicated than that; a third genus is involved. Forest shrew needs to be a DAB page (presently at Forest shrew (disambiguation). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 05:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

All is well with this now, and the pages (all three relevant genera) are now disambiguated properly. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 03:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Personalizing disputes

Resolved

– Noted, and responded to at WP:AE, where SarekOfVulcan lost his harassing, frivolous case, shortly before being rebuked and nearly desysoped by ArbCom for similar abuses, then resigning adminship under a cloud.

This will be showing up on WP:AE shortly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. All you're doing is demonstrating that you have some kind of personal vendetta against me and are engaging in a tag-team harassment effort. I have a right like any other editor in good standing to raise problems with a candidate's behavior patterns at RFA; the fact that those patterns – as evidenced by not one but two anti-MOS introductory rants by the candidate! – involve MOS in disturbing ways does not magically mean that WP:ARBATC can be used to censor RFA. Such an idea is illogical, since RfAs are named and are about reviewing the personal behavior of candidate, and thus are already personalized, by definition; raising issues about behavior of the candidate is not "personalizing". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Resolved

– Corrected as suggested.

Read Hersfold's comment again. I think you didn't fully understand the sentence containing the word "silly". Concentrate on the following sentence. Once you have understood the purpose of the "silly" sentence, read the last three sentences of Hersfold's comment. Once you have done that, read the first of them ("Going back...") again and think about the implications. I think you don't have an interest in quoting Hersfold the way you did. Hans Adler 00:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Right! Fixed. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 03:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ward-Nasse Gallery

Resolved

– Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ward-Nasse Gallery. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded there and left the problem noob at the center of this both a {{Welcome}} and a {{uw-coi}}. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel

Resolved

– Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Resolved

– Fixed.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cameroonian forest shrew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Type locality

Grant's forest shrew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Type locality

Lesser forest shrew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Type locality

Rain forest shrew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Type locality

Shrew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Echolocation

Volcano shrew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Type locality

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

Disregard

– Just projectspam.

Extended content

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue
Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January!	GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news

Read this newsletter
Single-page
Unsubscribe
Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

-- EdwardsBot 0460

New MOS:CAPS discussion

Resolved

– Done.

The topic of an inconclusive discussion that you participated in (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 8#Apparent conflict of guidelines) has been brought up again at WT:MOSCAPS#Contradiction and divergence at MOS:MUSIC. You may (or may not) want to express an opinion at the new discussion. Deor (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter

Disregard

– Just projectspam.

Extended content

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter

We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive.

The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review.

Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles

Disregard

– BT;DT.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales

Resolved

– Moved RfC to WT:MOS#Translation of patronymics.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:WP talk:WP Wales

Resolved

– Just a chat.

Thanks for your helpful and commonsense comments over there.

Three points:

You made a number of replies to my comments while actually responding to others'. I understand you seem quite busy and were probably sailing through, but do try to be careful about that.
~~You didn't seem to actually record a vote for any of the alternatives. I'll post to~~I see you've posted to WT:MOS already. Thanks and I'll take my discussion there.
You referred me to WP:AGF (which I had done: hence the hour+ of typing as I tried to communicate the need for explanatory notes in the first place). After that hour+ of typing, a particular user continued to deny we had any obligation to explain things in common English to non-experts; disrupted a vote; and edited my comments. Your points in the abstract copied exactly points made by me and ignored by that user and yet I was the one being personally chided by you.

Now, I take your point I should make my arguments more abstractly. But I had done that and there was a particular user continuing to behave as above, in the service of deleting explanatory material.

Since I obviously managed to WP:BOOMERANG in your eyes, could you advise me on how to handle editors once it's apparent they are in bad faith (or at least more committed to their view than established Wiki goals like consensus and helpfulness)? Is there anything between ignoring them and taking it up with one of the Admin noticeboards?

Thanks for your time. — $Llywelyn II$ 23:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about #1. I should go have look and tweak the indentation.

Re: #2 – I've greatly clarified at the broader MOS RFC that the exact formatting will vary depending on other rules like WP:COMMONNAME; see the new version that's up now.

Re: #3 – Other editors can be frustrating; see WP:DR for how to deal with disputes. If you are really certain that it's a true bad faith, WP:NOTHERE, WP:DE, etc., case, then a noticeboard may be the only way to go. It just doesn't help to use the project (or MOS, etc.) talk page to make it be about this editor or that editor. AN/I is necessarily about specific editing behaviors, and hopefully in a way that separates them from the content or style issue under discussion elsewhere. I get caught up in this kind of stuff too (see a bit above on my talk page, where someone warned me administratively about personalizing a dispute when I was in fact at the WP:AE noticeboard!) I didn't mean to be WP:TROUTing you, just trying to be helpful. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

1's fine, particularly given that the conversation's moved on from that forum anyway. Just pointing it out.

3 – yeah, I saw above. Noet had been rude to me before so there's some shadenfreude, but s/he doesn't seem to have deserved that mess. Anyway, thanks for the advice & I'll second the purple barnstar above. Don' let the b@stards get y'down. —

Llywelyn II

23:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Resolved

– Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

FTN

Resolved

– No dispute.

In response to Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Psychoanalysis_and_CoS. I'm not sure what sources you are looking at, but I've never even heard of CoS attacking Psychoanalysis specifically (rather psychiatry generally). Pick a top tier science journal, look for an article describing the status of Psychoanalysis. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a request for AE enforcement

FYI

– Just a notice.

See WP:AE#SMcCandlish.

In the MOS page I saw the sentence that starts with "I can only think of one project"[1] and I was going to ask you to strike out that part. But then I realized that you had several other comments over the last days. This sort of repeated sniping at people poisons the atmosphere in talk pages.

I haven't proposed any specific action because I don't know what could work. Maybe a ban from commenting on WP:BIRD wikiproject, its editors, and any past or future action made by them? That's the only thing I can think of. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request

Resolved

– Just a chat.

I don't think you'll get the arbs engaging with this if you don't give them diffs to look at. I agree that Sandstein should by no means have closed the AE. Bishonen | talk 13:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC).

Meh. The way this is going, I'll probably have to file a real RFARB. I've been avoiding it because it's a time-consumptive, stressy, excessively legalistic pain, but this back-and-forth-to-AE stuff is too, at this point. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 13:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You're not the only one. AE is very trendy these days. —Neotarf (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE news: February 2013

Disregard

– Just projectspam.

Extended content

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up

Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days!

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Proper awe of adminship

Disregard

– Just some sarcasm.

I have just stumbled across this script that is supposed to turn admin names blue, so you can know whose views to take into consideration. In addition, the instruction

.amalthea_userhighlighter_sysop:after{content:"♔" !important;}

is supposed to add a discreet royal crown above admin signatures. I haven't tried it to see if it works, since I am no longer interested in editing (outside of the matter that triggered my resignation), but since you seem to think you can still work in this environment, it may come in handy for you. —Neotarf (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose I had better install that immediately, though I'll change it to blood red instead of blue, to serve as a suitable fire-and-brimstone warning. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: your summary note. Not meant to be ironic so much as a sad commentary on who is entitled to have their views taken into consideration. Qui potest capere capiat. —Neotarf (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Note

Resolved

– Just a chat.

Hi, thanks for the courtesy note. I assume "I can provide evidence of his canvassing (of a mob to intimidate another user)" relates to e.g. the 11 editors at Talk:Dominik Halmoši, some of whom I recognise as being in favour of treating foreigners' names as we treat Charlotte Brontë, but I can assure you that I have always erred on the side of caution with the bigger principle of not Wikipedia:Canvassing, and have at least once asked a canvassee not to respond to a canvass - I fear LittleBenW may not be able to discern the difference. I have to go out now for 5 hours, but thank you again for letting me know. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand, and I know you didn't do anything wrong. I just notified you because LittleBenW was tarring us both with the same brush, and you were mentioned in passing at the ANI filing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 15:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

LittleBenW

Resolved

– Just a chat.

I considered whether or not to block him off the ANI report and decided a final warning was best, as he doesn't appear to realise that his ban extends to even talking about the issue. I've left a very clear message on his talkpage now, though. Any more infractions will be met with a lengthy block, and I will be watching. Feel free to let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I honestly hope he doesn't get blocked (for long), as I don't believe that lengthy blocks are at all constructive with users like him (i.e. productive editors who exhibit one recurrent problem); they tend to either drive the editor away forever, or lead to recalcitrant sockpuppeteering. I hope enough "you need to knock if off" messages get through to him. I may have ANI'd him myself more than once, but it was to stop disruptive anti-MOS campaigning, not to get rid of him. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Theater/theatre

Resolved

– Done.

Thanks for the important distinction you've made in response to Blueboar at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Create_Redirect.3F, with regard to live stage performances as opposed to movies. His example comes directly from a move request presently ongoing at Talk:Theater_District,_New_York#Requested_move_2. This article had been titled Theatre District (New York) for many years, and was recently moved to Theater District (New York). A number of editors feel this move was mistaken, and argue that it ought to be reverted. Your input there may be helpful. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traditional marriage

Resolved

– Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional marriage. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York

Resolved

– Moved discussion back to the article talk page.

The move discussion at Talk:Theater District, New York was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What theatre people choose to call it is not necessarily relevant; if the official name according to the city or state of New York is spelled "Theater", that's the end of the story. If there is no official name, but a preponderance of general (i.e. not theatrical-specific) reliable sources that are US-published (ENGVAR does matter here) use "Theater" that's the end of the story again. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 04:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually that isn't accurate at all. It isn't the city that makes that call for our policies, its the establishments or theatres. So, if Broadway.com (the collective theatres) state the spelling as "re" that should have more weight and I don't even see that mentioned in the discussion. Also, your comments at the talkpage just now were way out of line.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed this at the article talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 06:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Resolved

– Fixed.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Shorthair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedigree (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Tine-y point

Disregard

– Just joking around.

Well, a fork has to have a point, doesn't it? That's just plain common sense. [2] EEng (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Has to have at least two points, or it hasn't forked! Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 17:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well fork you! EEng (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll take the split, and take the high road. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 18:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume you know what the "high road" refers to in the song? Not a penalty (yet) within the power of admins... Peter coxhead (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Haw! I came pretty close to having my head on a pike lately. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Resolved

– Just a chat.

I am sorry I only just clued in on the AE thing. I left comment there saying I don't think anyone can be sanctioned because the original RfC close wasn't clear regarding leads, which is where aggravation continues. I wasn't particularly impressed by the foreigners comment but those kind of comments are pretty common and we have no WP:TOOMANYFOREIGNEDITORS guideline to say don't say things like that. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. If it had just been a "too many foreigners" comment, I would probably not have noticed, but it was part of a longer, larger pattern, that has included a "there are too many foreigners, and the Swedish ones in particular are <insert various unprovable accusations>" post. Figured AE would actually do something about it, but I was very wrong about that. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Resolved

– Acknowledged.

I won't go so far as to say "warning", but it might be a good idea to back away from the topic and LittleBen for a bit. I've blocked him for now, but I'd also suggest that you read WP:STICK if you haven't already done so. Pick a different topic for a bit and let the emotion levels die down some, it will make editing much more enjoyable for you. I'm sure others will keep and eye on the other things. — Ched : ? 01:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Noted, and I will drop the matter. But I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. It's undead, and keeps rising again and again. Heh. I DID ignore him at AE, for two days, but after two more administrative warnings at AE, LittleBenW still kept at it. Enough is enough. I've frankly never seen anyone so flagrantly and repeatedly violate a topic ban and pretty much just get away with it over and over again. And principally by way of making personal attacks in dispute resolution forums that are topped with warnings to not engage in personal attacks. And doing so in MOS/AT-related debates, for which discretionary sanctions exist that call for blocks on anyone engaging in personal attacks. Etc. I'm being keel-hauled simply for daring to bring someone to AE, while no rules seem to actually be brought effectively to bear on LittleBenW at all, except for little wrist-slaps. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 01:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yea, he does seem to be flipping the finger at the community pretty much any chance he gets. — Ched : ? 02:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

He's actually a good editor on several topics and even sometimes on style matters, other than diacritics. <shrug> He's angry with me for ANI'ing him on diacritics in the first place (Dec. 2012), which could explain why he shoehorned himself into my AE request with regard to User:Fyunck(click), but that doesn't explain the other party's ANI case that he got involved in shortly before that ongoing AE. I don't know what to make of it, and I am effectively disallowed from guessing, per a warning in a prior AE request, against making any non-good-faith assumptions in style disputes. (Which is fine; WP:AGF policy exists for a reason, after all). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jermaine Jackson

Resolved

– Done.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jermaine Jackson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you not use Template:Clarify to note issues with citation styles?

Moved to Template talk:Clarifyref

Firstly, that's not what the template is for. Secondly, this sort of thing does not need to be tagged. If you don't want to fix it yourself, leave it alone.--Dodo bird (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Clarifyref}} and {{Clarifyref2}}, which are subst'd to produce these cleanup requests, have been around for over four years without objection, and that is precisely what they are for. If you think they should use some base template other than {{Clarify}}, that's a discussion for Template talk:Clarify, not my talk page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 22:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Clarifyref

Resolved

– Commented over there.

Template:Clarifyref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)

Disregard

– I'm only preparing AE/ArbCom stuff right now, otherwise on a protest wikibreak.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining

Disregard

– I'm only preparing AE/ArbCom stuff right now, otherwise on a protest wikibreak.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-March 2013 newsletter

Disregard

– Just projectspam.

Extended content

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive.

The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review.

Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

Disregard

– I'm only preparing AE/ArbCom stuff right now, otherwise on a protest wikibreak.

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.

At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.

If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.

Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Please comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet

Disregard

– I'm only preparing AE/ArbCom stuff right now, otherwise on a protest wikibreak.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Sockpuppet. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions

Stuck

– I can't participate due to the bogus topic ban I'll be appealing shortly.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

We have completed our March backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter

We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive.

The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:8 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).

Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)