Jump to content

User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91→Archive 95

April 2014

BracketBot message 2 April 2014

Resolved
 – Fixed.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HTML element may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 April

Resolved
 – Fixed by someone else before I could get to it.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Date series header

Resolved
 – Responded at that TfD.

Template:Date series header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sig

Resolved
 – Fixed.

Hi, SMcC, I just got myself extracted from that new font bug, and what a headache that was. They seem to have got it so I can now read my screen, but now I can't read your sig. I could always read it before. Screenshot: [1] Did you do something new to it? —Neotarf (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I turned it into a cat instead of a guy's head. You're using a font that is missing some Unicode characters. I guess I should look at my sig on some other devices and see if this is common (i.e., see if it affects everyone but Mac users, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  07:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Since all the font gurus are now assembled at village pump, I have asked there; perhaps there is an easy answer. —Neotarf (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The left whiskers "⚞" ( THREE LINES CONVERGING RIGHT U+296E ) don't show up for me either, though "⚲" ( NEUTER U+26B2 ) does as part of the apple symbols font. Have you considered using >̶ and <̶ for the whiskers? Normal > and < with combining long stroke overlay ( U+0336 ). PaleAqua (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The NEUTER problem was that I was using a combining character under it that looked like a ")" turned 90 deg. clockwise, i.e. a smile, but in some fonts it was show up next to the NEUTER symbol "nose", instead of under it. I suspect a similar problem might occur with using U+0336 to overlay the angle brackets, so I used some similar character that already have three strokes, but seem more common. I forget what they are, maybe Japanese characters of some kind. See other face experiments (not just cats) at User:SMcCandlish/sandbox4. PS: My Mac Firefox default font is Arial, and it's rare for me to encounter Unicode that won't display. I don't seem to be overriding that in personal CSS here, either, so I think it really is Arial being awesome.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
PS: Yeah, in the Trebuchet MS font I impose on my own talk page, the overlaid angle brackets look like >- and <- respectively.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, better with the parenthesis, I think, and maybe even the larger ears. But your old image always used to crack me up, I seem to remember spectacles. ——Neotarf (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I've had lots of different ones. I was always fond the red-eyed Terminator. How about this kitteh? ≽(ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ)≼ or this one? ≽(Ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷɅ)≼ Or this one? ≽Ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷɅ≼ I bet a lot of them on that sandbox page of mine don't work in your font. I was pulling characters from deep in the guts of Unicode, and doing multiple overlay tricks with some of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, most of the kittehs on that page I can't see with my browser. Your current one is good though, as are the ones above. —Neotarf (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel your pain.

Resolved
 – Underlying dispute with Ring Cinema no longer exists, and I have no interest in looking further into that editor's history, but thanks anyway.

User_talk:Ring_Cinema/Archive_3#As_a_practical_matter_... and User_talk:Ring_Cinema/Archive_4#Good_faith_is_as_good_faith_does. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I don't have anything against Ring Cinema in particular. I find the editor's reliance on avoidance of logical argument to be troubling, in as much as it affects articles or policypages and debates about them. Everyone has their quirks, and if Ring Cinema wants to engage in arguments that cannot rationally go anywhere because of all the red herrings and handwaving and subject changes and refusals to respond to the actual issued raised on that editor's own talk page (and now mine; see below), that's not a big deal to me. When that behavior starts turning into revertwarring, it's an actual problem to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  02:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your bad habit is picking fights when you're wrong

Resolved
 – Underlying dispute no longer exists.

I guess you don't know that change requires consensus. If you don't know that, it seems like you shouldn't be editing the Consensus policy page. Bad form! When you're reverted, even on something small, take it to discussion. That's the process and procedure. Thanks for all your good edits! --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to review WP:BOLD which is policy you're blatantly ignoring, then skim WP:CONSENSUS again, which is policy you cite incorrectly (note in particular that a single strident reverter who doesn't provide actual reasons for resistance does not somehow indicate a lack of consensus or a genuine controversy), and actually read WP:BRD, which is not a policy and which you clearly misinterpret in ways that lead you to think it's a magic bullet against BOLD edits you don't like. In particular, you cannot use BRD to revert changes just because you vaguely disagree with them or don't like the editor; you have to provide reasons based in WP:POLICY or (in mainspace) on reliable sources. Instead of complaining here, address the edit rationales on that talk page. You demanded "discussion", so you have to engage in it when it's opened in response to your revert-warring, or you're simply being disruptive, not actually using the BRD process (which is not mandatory anyway). PS: Your heading here doesn't even make sense in the context; nothing you said here has anything to do with factual or philosophical correctness on the issues raised at the discussion (the discussion you demanded and then ignored). Given the obtuse avoidance of rational argument all through your talk page archives, and your block log for disruptive editwarring, this is not much of a surprise to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  02:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This Ring Cinema self-revert resolves the issue for me, other than editorial behaivor stuff I've raised at that editor's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  02:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Alleged nonsense

I'm honest and accurate. I recommend it for everyone. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sam Stern

Resolved
 – Declined; outside my experience/knowledge areas.

Hello

I ask here to you this, because you contributed on Stern talk page. I'm contributor on french wiki. I found info on Sam Stern. Look at this. Sam Stern has been hired by Bally Manufacturing in 1969. but i don't know the date he stpped. more, reading seeburg and stern page, Sam Stern should be executive CEO untill 1979 at williams Manufacturing Company ? / create Stern Electronics in 1977 ? / and become seeburg president since 1980 ? !

I can't find anymore info, my native language is french, and it's pretty difficult to go further in research.

PS : i also Added a message on SNK page without answer of anyone! Best regards.--Archimëa (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not just cite these sources at the articles in question? Neither are articles that I edit much. I know very little about pinball and arcade games. I'm mostly a structural cleanup and grammar correction editor on such articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  02:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. already cited this, i was looking for help and more informations about stern.
OK i understand, i will try with another contributor --Archimëa (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I am misunderstanding the nature of your request.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼  05:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
hmmm, i was looking for help to find what's happening to this man after that. I was looking fo someone who could update sam stern page/stern elctronics page/Williams electronics games page/ Bally manufacturing page. Certainly, i'm not native english speaking, and perhaps an native americain can have idea to find, or where and how to find more informations. But there is no problem. --Archimëa (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at guidelines, and stuff

Stale
 – No reply.

All this arguing is wearing me a bit. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Removing_current_consensus_from_guidelines. Let's see if we can agree on some general principles. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Enric Naval: So why start another argument? Heading to WP:VPP when you get reverted but have not really engaged in the "D" part of WP:BRD to actually explain why you want the edit you're insisting on, much less addressed others' responses to your rationale, seems like WP:PARENT behavior, regardless what the intent was really.
I hope the discussion that's actually happening at the NC page in question addresses your issues, at least for now. I sympathize with them more than you might expect, but now is not the time to raise them more stridently, I would suggest. There's way, way too much chaos between the organisms provisions in 5 different guidelines. AFTER that's normalized, then it might make sense to approach the breeds question, but attempting to do so now is going to result in a "@#$% no, no more weird capitalization demands" response from the community, I guarantee. The "issue fatigue" on this is very high. I'm taking the brunt of all the concentrated ill will in this entire topic area, by being the flame-retardant guy pushing for the normalization and keeping at it until it gets done. You don't want any of that heat, I assure you. PS: Don't worry about it if some breed articles get de-capitalized; almost all breed articles are capitalized, so it would take an LOT of work to undo all of that. Even if it happened, that not seriously affect the consensus decision (it might even get someone in trouble for WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior). And some of those "breed" articles need to be decapitalized (and I've been doing it myself, e.g. at St. John's water dog, because they're not formal breeds but landraces (e.g. general types or sorts of animals, per WP:MOSLIFE). I'm being careful to leave capitalization of real breeds alone, because the jury hasn't even been convened yet on that capitalization issue. The arguments for caps there are different and stronger than for species common names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

T:FAUNA listed at Redirects for discussion

Resolved
 – !Voted to nuke it.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:FAUNA. Since you had some involvement with the T:FAUNA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom sanction

Resolved
 – Just a chat.

Thanks for the reference to WP:ARBATC. I notice mention there at WP:ARBATC#Individual sanctions of one against you. Is it current? Andrewa (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You do the math: If a one-month restriction beginning on 12 March 2013 is imposed, does it extend to 10 April 2014? The very fact that you asked the question you did, as if avoiding considering how your own behavior is going to look if reviewed at WP:AE in light of ARBTC, doesn't bode well for keeping your own name off that page. I have to say that you are not "doing your homework". You had no idea about ARBATC, despite MOS, AT and various other relevant pages all bearing large warnings at the top of their talk pages about ARBATC sanctions. You had no idea about the two month consensus discussion (dominated by WP:BIRDS editors trying and completely failing to gain consensus to capitalize bird common names) in early 2012, leading to our current very stable MOS:LIFE language, and declared that you couldn't find any previous attempt at "non-local consensus". You are aware that MOS has talk page archives, right? And that they're searchable? I know I've already apprised you of the detailed log at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names, which links to all of this stuff with notes. You are a very late-comer to the discussion. If I were a common-names-capitalizer, I would be quite angry with you because you've (seemingly unintentionally) done more to steer that line of reasoning toward a point-of-no-return consensus failure than anyone in the last 2 years. You might wonder why I'm not singing your praises, then. I don't agree with your "ignore everything I can't address" tactics, WP:CIVILPOV behaviors, sport argument for its own sake, pretense of understanding a debate you haven't researched at all, and other troubling editing patterns. I got in some ARBATC trouble a year ago for being a WP:DICK in style debates. Learn from my pillorying or you'll find yourself in the same stocks soon enough. Tolerance of ad hominem arguments at MOS/AT has gone down not up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
OK... There are two sanctions against you there, and you are referring to the second of them, on 12 March 2013, which has of course expired as you say. I'm referring to the first, on 2 March 2013, [2] which doesn't mention any expiry date, or have I missed something? I think I made it clearer on my own talk page, when I responded to you there. [3] Andrewa (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Been doing more productive things than arguing with you. Oh, you mean the rather symbolic "restriction" that I have to obey the same WP:AGF policy as you and everyone else? Sure. I'm going to guess you posted something on your page suggesting that I cannot raise concerns with your editing behavior or you'll run to WP:AE about it. See WP:BOOMERANG and unclean hands before even contemplating something that WP:POINTY. You'll get sanctioned yourself rapidly. (If you file an AE request that is not absolutely ironclad demonstrating a presently ongoing pattern of seriously disruptive transgressions, you get boomerang blocked for being a jackass, basically. BT;DT! I filed a case and was boomerang sanctioned simply because the evidence wasn't fresh enough. AE is nothing like WP:ANI at all.) Sorry to disappoint you that you are not magically immune to criticism. The March 2 case means simply that I'm a bit more likely than average to be punished if, in a MOS/AT debate, I patently transgress WP:AGF, e.g by accusing someone without evidence of having motives antithetical to the project, or making personal attacks like calling them stupid. The thing is, everyone participating in MOS and AT debates is on a short leash, because of the discretionary sanctions. I believe they're actually antithetical to the well-being of the project when applied to non-content discussions like MOS, so I tend to remind people who exhibit hot-headed behavior at MOS. I've seen four editors sanctioned at once for a single thread. It has a chilling effect on our ability to hash issues out, the more so the more people get blocked for it. If I were the whine to AE type, probably 5 editors involved in the discussions the last few days could have been sanctioned, but I'm not interested in pursuing WP:LAWYER antics. The discretionary sanctions stuff was implemented to rein in the most intractable wars on Wikipedia, like the Israel vs. Palestine editwarring and other mostly ethnic and religious disputes, and has been broadening ever since, to include various pseudo-science topics and other hotbeds of dispute. The entire thing's being overhauled at WP:AC/DSR. Some of us don't think overhauled enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Followup note: Andrewa's veiled threat became moot as of May 2015: "All notices given prior to the May 2014 cutover date will expire on 3 May 2015. New notices are to be given using {{Ds/alert}} and they expire one year after they are given. No new notices should be logged here." [4].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please respect the sanction

I think you are repeatedly violating the current sanction. Please refrain from questioning my motives, as in argument for its own sake, pretense of understanding a debate you haven't researched at all above.

I'd also strongly advise you to keep your replies succinct and to the point. As well as questioning my motives, the above attacks me in ways that are simply over the top. I've been doing a great deal of research... including reading the arbcom decision of course, but that was a while ago and I had not realised that you had been specifically sanctioned, or if I did I'd forgotten. Andrewa (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to this, observing that an argument is an action not a motive, etc., and then I had a system crash and lost the reply. Instead of rewriting that response, I will, since noticing your more recent comments at WT:MOS in response to Tony1, just take you at your word that you'd like to see a reduction in conflict, to "lighten up", and that you honestly acknowledged there that some of your own contributions were not seen as helpful. By the time our discussion got to where it was the last time you posted here, my issues with what I saw as your editing behavior at WT:MOS weren't actually ongoing any longer; it was already day-old news, and seem moot now. I, in turn, will acknowledge that you feel that I've been questioning your motives, and that you object to it. (I don't need to agree that I've being doing so, to agree that reasonable people could disagree on the matter, and that pissing you off isn't constructive if the discussion can happen without that side-effect.) I decline to get into a discussion of whether I'm "to the point" enough for you, as that is not a policy matter.

If we continue henceforth to stop stepping on each others' toes, that'll probably be the end of it. Maybe we'll even be good collaborators (Noetica and I were for a long time, and e-met each other through a personal conflict very similar to this one). If we do come into conflict again, I think we should try to resolve the matter with discussion. It's seemed to work okay so far.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with some of this, but none of it seems relevant. I want a constructive relationship too.
Do you really believe that the quote I gave above conforms to the sanction?
If not, then stop it. If that simple request is treading on your toes, then I'm honestly sorry to do it, but you leave me no option. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Progress

Even though I've strenuously disagreed with the format and nature of that poll-like discussion you initiated over there, I do have to admit that the reliable sourcing round it resulted in has been productive. Well, not so much for the pro-capitalization argument, but which side is WP:WINNING isn't the point; an end to the dispute and having 5 guidelines finally stop contradicting each other is the point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I made the suggestion for the poll not knowing or much caring which way it would go, and not much caring, relatively speaking.
I do have an opinion, and I think it's soundly based. But being right isn't always enough as I'm sure you've found out too.
And I also think that the angst is doing much more damage than the capitalisation or otherwise possibly could. But to simply give in for that reason doesn't seem terribly satisfying or a good precedent. Problem.
If we can come up with a consensus on anything, I think that would be progress. It's that bad so far. Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've said myself that this isn't really about style or capitalization, it's a political struggle over Wikipedia's self-governance, so yes, it's is going to be angsty. It comes down to whether you believe that specialists can dictate style, content, article formatting, categorization, titles, tagging, sourcing rules, and other aspects of creating the encyclopedia, with regard to articles and topic areas generally that they consider within their scope. It's ultimately a question of whether WP:OWN is really a policy or an abandoned principle from the early 2000s that we're only paying lip-service to. Some editors clearly lean toward the position that groups of specialist editors must have unique-yet-collective rights/privileges in certain topics. This udnercurrent has always been there, despite a policy that begins: "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." Some wikiprojects seem to act this way (well, rather, their most vocal "natural leader" members do, while most ignore this crap as wiki-political noise of no interest to them, and go back about editing articles, rolling their eyes). But the actual anti-WP:OWN views here are a vanishingly tiny minority. The problem is that these messages are loud and tenacious ones, and they rapidly attract new "recruits" because they seem to promise increased power, authority and "rights", like some form of topical adminship without the scrutiny of WP:RFA.

But it actually is also a legitimate style matter, and the reliable sources as well as common sense fall solidly on the side of lower case. Virtually no one uses upper case for common names of species but specialized guidebooks and journals. And we have a really clear policy about that, too, even titled to specifically address both classes of usage! WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. There is no tenable position for capitalizing this stuff here, not without changing several different policies, radically.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sort of... but we don't need to join them, we can beat them. Have you had a look at my WP:creed?
You're discussing two separate issues above... the capitalisation one and the governance one. You say it isn't really about capitalisation, and I'd agree in a way, so far as the antiC camp is concerned, that's exactly right.
But so far as the proC camp is concerned it is just about style. They don't seem to want any of this. Have I just missed it? One of the staunchest and most articulate of them said they'd respect the outcome of a poll, and that was after the poll had already shown an antiC trend. I'm afraid I see no hope of the antiC stalwarts making such concessions.
There are arguments both ways, and either way will do perfectly well. Wikipedia is about content, content and content (as is the WWW). See User:Andrewa/the Andrew tests and User:Andrewa/Andrew's Principle.
Frankly, the underlying motivation for non-capitalisation does seem to mostly be that's what I was taught in school. Then there are arguments from Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but these are quickly abandoned once it's pointed out that they can cut both ways, or we fall back into local consensus claims which are just the most common case of this and go much the same way but with more twists and turns. Then there are arguments from other style guides, but Wikipedia is unique. My opinion is that none of these arguments would be advanced at all if it weren't that the proponents have been taught a restrictive and obsolete grammatical rule in primary school and can't rise above that to ask what will best serve the reader?
And we have claims by the antiCs of misbehaviour by the proCs (including me) at many levels, but all the misbehaviour I have seen so far is by the antiCs. To (allegedly) conspire to disobey a guideline is not quite misbehavious, although it falls close to the line (and could certainly cross it if some tactics are used - but I haven't seen them). There are remedies which should be followed. They don't include counter-misbehaviour!
Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you're looking at the evidence piling up in User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names very carefully (and it's expanded rapidly just today alone). It is absolutely not just about style to the pro-caps camp; for them it is about One True Way, a "universal" "official" "standard" that is not any of the above in reality. See the material I quoted from them yesterday, about absolutely refusing to quit because they see it as a professional ethical mission to never, ever give up on this. Fortunately only a handful of people at the birds project actually feel that way, and several of them have already quit (perhaps because they weren't here for the right reasons). The rest of them just want to write bird articles and really don't care about the style question. There's a real reason that only about a dozen or fewer bird editors ever speak up about this; the rest don't care, and they certainly don't care to turn it into a wiki-political WP:BATTLEGROUND.
The arguments about policy and guidelines are not quickly abandoned at all! They're consistently advanced by those with a pro-MOS position, and simply ignored by those with a specialist style fallacy to maintain. There is no policy-based pro-caps argument to make at all. WP:IDHT is not an argument, it's a stalling strategy, and it's all that the pro-caps argument has. Even the reliable sources argument is overwhelmingly against them. I have no idea what which are just the most common case of this and go much the same way but with more twists and turns is referring to. The arguments from other style guides all say "do not capitalize these things". Even the world's most prestigious science journals do not capitalize species names even in ornithology articles. The WP:BIRDS claims that ornithological style is unique are nonsense; herpetology journals also mostly capitalize, but we do not pick up their habit here. The reason that this has kinda been done on WP with regard to birds is nothing but force of personality in one self-selecting group. There is no other difference at all. I recently posted a challenge to the idea that the IOC list was somehow qualitatively different, somehow "more special", more authoritative, whatever, than the name lists in other fields like herpetology, and cited them, and said show me what the difference is. Result? Dead silence.
All the pro-lower-case camp ever ask is "what will best serve the reader?", and it certainly is not a geeky, ungrammatical convention that (aside from the fact that it's not even completely accepted in the field from which it's being inappropriately misapplied to an encyclopedia) confuses readers and requires specialist knowledge to understand much less write correctly. Again, using lower case like MOS says requires no specialist knowledge of any kind at all. That's the end of it right there. I would bet real money on this being the outcome of any real consensus discussion, and probably more on that particular basis than any other. All other concerns aside, it isn't practical, as 9 solid years of "stop doing this, we all hate it" objections prove. That wikiproject cannot keep pretending indefinitely that it has Wikipedia consensus to do what it's doing. It doesn't even really have WP:BIRDS consensus, it just has "the 10 people at WP:BIRDS who will not let this die" false consensus.
I have no idea what "counter-misbehaviour" you might be referring to. Answering nonsensical, biased arguments with clear logic and clear policy citations is mostly what the pro-MOS editors have been doing, as well as proving that real-world sources overwhelmingly prefer lower case. I'm not sure what you mean by "hang in there". I'm not on the edge of anything, expressing any doubts, or feeling any pressure. For the first time in my entire long tenure here, a resolution to this capitalize-or-I-quit nonsense is finally right in front of us, and we're clearly headed toward it on the basis of common sense, sources and policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you might be right about being close to a resolution, one way or another, and hope you are. But I'm afraid that I think that long posts such as the above, largely repeating things you know I've already read and answered, are counterproductive. They just make it more difficult for me to answer any new points you make. That is obviously unsatisfying for me, and for anyone else who meets similar posts, and this just drives us further from true consensus.
I'm fascinated to know how the capitalisation confuses readers and requires specialist knowledge to understand much less write correctly. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I repeat that the second-to-last refuge of someone whose argument can no longer be sustained is to suggest that they just can't be bothered to respond to the opposition. It's just a sour-grapes concession.

Anyway, "I'm fascinated to know how" you possibly could have missed the fact that the IOC conventions require specialist knowledge to write correctly, despite how many times it's been covered (by many, not just me) over the years this has been going on, especially when I recently cited the Handbook of the Birds of the World criticizing the IOC's particular capitalization scheme, unless you simply have not been reading anything from any side of this issue other than watch catches your eye for a few second. Did you even read the quite short WP:BIRDS#NAMING review of the complicated rules? They require exact knowledge of the scientific classification of the species or subspecies in question and its relation to others in order to get it right for any given bird if a hyphen is involved, and so on. That's why anotehr bird taxomonic authority rejected the IOC's system as too complicated to be useful. Oh, two of them did, actually; forgetful me. Are the facts of the debate simply not of interest to you? Has only the debate as a thing unto itself, like a reality show, caught your attention?

It's highly unlikely that that straw poll mess will result in any kind of consensus at all, though it clearly hints which direction it will eventually go (since, gosh, it's already gone that way again and again, every time the debate comes up in a bigger venue than WT:BIRDS). I'm happy to see a 3-to-1 majority in favor of lower case, which is about what I predicted (I think it will be closer to 4-to-1 soon enough), but I expect that WP:BIRDS will reject it as not-really-a-consensus, because it's an impenetrable thicket of sub-sub-sections, littered with link-farms to bogus ngram searches, people voting in the wrong section and editwarring about people moving their !votes to the right section, and blah blah blah. It would be an insult to the community to list that thing at RFC or CENT. It needs to be started over, from a draft RFC that both sides buy into the wording of, and with a rule at the top against inserting comments into the !vote sections between people's posts, only commenting in a comment section, and enforce this by refactoring regularly. We can put sourcing on separate pages.

Or the status quo can just continue. More people, who do not regularly edit MOS, are going to file RMs to move bird articles, more people are going to remove LOCALCONSENSUS gunk from guideline pages, and the weird-capitalization wall will just come apart, brick by brick, as it's been steadily doing since 2008. I'd be happier with a "clean" RFC, but whatever. Even Casliber says the lower-case side of this debate "has the numbers". We clearly and more importantly have the sources and the reasoning; the birders have nothing but a tradition of sorts that they like a lot and want us to like, to no avail.

In the interim, I'm working on some ideas to provide a compromise I think people can all live with after tempers cool (despite my anti-fanclub's beliefs, I actually want all sides to be okay with what we end up doing). I am not interested in squabbling with you further in public. If you feel we need to argue about something, you can e-mail me directly (or we can Skype or whatever); this medium is too slow and formal. If we each had a better idea where the other party was coming from and why, I think our interaction might go more smoothly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that this justifies the claim that the capitalisation confuses readers and requires specialist knowledge to understand much less write correctly (italics changed a little for clarity, the first two words are mine of course). I think that, once more, this approach misunderstands how language works. A reader, whether specialist or not, can interpret the phrase Black Crowned Crane just as easily and accurately as black crowned crane.
There are valid arguments both in favour of and against capitalisation. These long, overstated and personalised posts do not help to sort them out, in my opinion. They are counterproductive.
I am not interested in squabbling either, so please stop the personal attacks, on both me and the birders. Andrewa (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
PS: I did look at your creed page. They seem like nice ideals. Difficult to live up to. Quite a few of your posts don't seem to make the cut from my perspective. That's more a criticism of the bar you've set than whether you've met it, perhaps.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree. See the second clause at User:Andrewa/creed#civil, and also of course 1 John 1:8. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Both 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.

Domestic long-haired cat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pet rescue
Domestic short-haired cat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pet rescue

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

English species names, proper names and capitalization

Stale
 – Discussion trailed off without any action items.

I've generally tried to avoid commenting in any detail on the argument that the English names of species should be capitalized because they are proper names, because it's a complex area of linguistics (which I'm used to teaching to undergraduates, so find difficult to discuss at the right level on a talk page). If you're interested, I've updated my thoughts at User:Peter coxhead/English species names as proper names. I don't think that English grammar supports either view, and particularly not that bird names should be capitalized in English. If you find the essay at all useful, feel free to commend it to bird capitalization enthusiasts! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think ultimately this conclusion is the key; even if species names are somehow proper names, it doesn't mean we should capitalize them for that reason. Considering how many high-quality sources don't capitalize, any suggestion to capitalize (or not) based on grammatical correctness would be wildly prescriptivist. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Good start, but I raised some issues with its oversimplifications. The core argument makes sense to me, though I think the birds difference you're seeing is incidental. I like that there's one more argument against the notion that common names of species are proper names. If we capitalized them, we might as well capitalize all nouns. Kind of like Group, eh?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I've improved (I think) the essay in response to both your comments – for which thanks. It still needs a bit more work near the end. ErikHaugen: I agree that to capitalize based on the argument that English species names are proper names is dubious at best, wrong at worst. (Only "at worst", because of the lack of philosophical clarity over the semantics issue, which does allow a tiny loophole to argue that some uses of English species names are proper names.) However, as SMcCandlish well knows, the "slippery slope" argument is always a bad one: it doesn't remotely follow that if we capitalize species names we might as well capitalize all nouns. One of the reasons for capitalizing species names is the same as that for capitalizing "White House": it's a way of making a distinction that is made in speech through stress and intonation but is otherwise lost in writing. The alternative is to write in a careful way which ensures that the lost information doesn't mislead. If the name "blue jay" might be confused with the description "blue jay", we can either capitalize the first but not the second (which I prefer, and which I think is simpler for most people) or (as SMcCandlish has regularly pointed out and clearly prefers) we can re-write the sentence so the ambiguity doesn't arise.
(The other argument for capitalization in some circumstances is quite different and let's not take it up again here; it's a reluctance to go along with the MOS's regularly expressed view that styling in sources can be freely over-ridden.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll extend the olive branch

Resolved
 – Just a chat.
I'll extend the olive branch
I don't seek to be adversarial and I meant no offense. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thanks! This should be a template. I'd probably use it pretty often! {{Olive branch}} was a redlink, though. For my part, I didn't mean to go on at that much length at the retention page. I didn't see what a screenful+ it was until after the fact.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC) On a second read I was also unnecessarily intemperate. Sorry about that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I templated it at {{Olive branch}} and credited you in edit summary. Have already used it at User talk:Peter coxhead. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the tribute in template! I hadn't watchlisted your talk page before and I just stopped by on a lark. I'll make a point to be a talk page stalker of yours in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There is an existing template at {{Olive Branch}}. PaleAqua (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, well, the new one's better.  :-) 'Snot my fault the old one wasn't mentioned in the wikilove navbox. <shrug>  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Both are nice. But might make sense to move one the new one to {{Olive branch 2}}, and the old one to {{Olive branch}} leaving the redirect or vice versa. PaleAqua (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlb

Resolved
 – Responded to at the WP:TFD entries.

Template:Tlxb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redirect actually. DePiep (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlxb

Template:Tlb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rediredct actually. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tlxi

Notifying myself for the record, in case I need to search for it later.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! A gift from fellow Wikipedians.

Resolved
 – Done.

You have been selected to receive a merchandise giveaway. We last contacted you on April 16, 2014. Please send me an email at jmatthews@wikimedia.org if you would like to claim your shirt. --JMatthews (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bracketbot April 2014

Resolved
 – Fixed.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hamburger Schule may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ' tradition, are [[Spillsbury]], [[Kettcar]], [[Erdmöbel]], [[Kajak (band)|Kajak]], [Justin Balk]], {{sic|hide=y|[[Virginia Jetzt!]]}}, [[Astra Kid]], [[Modus Noa]], [[Marr (Band)|Marr]] and '[[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bird common name capitalisation

Resolved
 – Done.

I've made a suggestion at the afc that I now close it--could you look, and say if you agree? DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: I was impressed by your positions on wikicultural issues and your rationales for them on your user page, and your admin actions I looked over seemed neutral and focused on what was right for WP based on its own rules, not extraneous impositions of how it "should" be. I hope you have a thick asbestos suit. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Emerson

Moved to User talk:Chuunen Baka § Emerson
 – No need to fork this discussion to two talk pages.

Thank you for taking the time to be such a patronising arse. It might leave you with a nice smug feeling but it really doesn't contribute much to the debate in question. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This two-page thread and some similar ones with other editors have lead to WP:EMERSON.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Tlg module

I've recreated (some of) {{tlg}} in Lua w/ a shorthand here -- it works 86% percent of the time! Anyway, this way should be easier to maintain, and we'll still have a shorter syntax if the tl-whatever tpls get deleted. If you like the idea, then maybe we can pitch it at tlg's talk page or wherever. If not, then oh well. — lfdder 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lfdder: Cool beans!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Lfdder:: The temples were kept, marginally, but I agree that the Lua route you were working on is ultimately a better way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish/Archive_89&oldid=1143280524"