User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 91
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
June 2014
Please comment on Talk:Romeo and Juliet
DisregardGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romeo and Juliet. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Bracketbot June 2014
Resolved
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Norwegian Forest cat 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:
- Norwegian Forest Cat|reason=like almost all articles in this and other animal breed categories (the animal type is just a disambiguator, not a proper name}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Small Greek Domestic Dog 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:
- While there are sources (mostly NOT cited here) for the existence of the large historical breed (the Meliteo Kinidio or Kokoni, nothing but an unreliable dog blog site suggests that this smaller
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Basque mountain horse may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
- {{
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Page move
ResolvedThe request for a page move for:
appear to be self-referential
For
the source page does not exist
Other than that, nice cleanup work, thanks. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I removed the tags. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Gotland Pony has moved to Gotland pony and Guinea Hog went to Guinea hog. The remaining one is Tonkinese (cat) to Tonkinese cat. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
What the H--- are you doing?
You just fouled up several dozen horse articles by moving them against consensus. Some breeds have the word "Horse" in their proper name (others don't) and these names were sorted out on a case by case basis - Please restore ALL your moves back to where they were and address each article individually; you just screwed up a longstanding titling consensus on several articles by doing this. Montanabw(talk) 16:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I just looked at a few recent moves and don't see a problem. I don't think reverting all recent moves is something that SMC should be doing at this point; can you be more specific, perhaps an example? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) I was bound to make a few errors (or alleged errors) in the course of this ongoing cleanup across the various animal breed categories. No need for anger (like last time...). When we were collaborating on this several years ago, I seem to recall the consensus being that "Botswanan Five-legged horse" is how this should be done (not "Botswanan Five-legged (horse)" nor "Botswanan Five-legged Horse"). This is how virtually all breed articles were already done, and this is now even more true; there are very few stragglers, which I've just been cleaning up. I'm not sure which particular moves you're objecting to; if you can, feel free to revert them (if the redirs have been edited for proper "r from" templates, you might not be able to, though). I'm just doing what WP:AT calls for in disambiguation and what WP:MOS calls for in capitalization (or, rather, avoiding it). It's probably time this stopped being an occasionally tense discussion between you and me every couple of years, Montanabw, and instead was just a WP:RM discussion or a WP:RFC more broadly about how to handle these article titles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
PS: Please also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation – attempts at "WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes" to make up wikiproject-level rules (surprisingly commonly about animals) that conflict with MOS, AT and other site-wide policies and guidelines has not been successful and has caused a lot of problems and strife. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bird names are for species, not breeds. As for horses, I'm discussing about 12 or 15 exception to a general rule. Some of your moves were OK and are not under discussion.You really know better than to do this stuff without asking first. Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thing is, there's been nearly zero progress in over four years on cleaning up the domestic animal article titles mess. WP:BOLD action on this scale usually raises a concern or two, but the community sorts it out. The community is whom to ask, not you or the equine project (that wikiprojects don't get to make up their own style rules is the important things about the birds decision; what classification level it was about, like species vs. breed, is irrelevant). Maybe "American Quarter Horse" needs to be a conventional exception, but most of those don't; they're no different from Siamese cat or Valencia orange – there's no reason to capitalize the organism type after the breed name. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- You know perfectly well that there are active editors on the horse articles, and there is a significant difference between species and breeds. Seriously, some of your moves, you may note, I didn't put into the RM request; If American Quarter Horse is an exception, there CAN be others, and I have about 12 that I think qualify. A majority of the breed articles already use natural disambiguation. We have a few that don't, and common courtesy would be to ping the talk page or do a RM Before making sweeping, unilateral moves that could not be undone without administrator intervention and a dramafest. Montanabw(talk) 23:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not generating any drama. The RM you started doesn't seem dramatic either (other than in the phrasing of the nomination, a little). It's just a discussion. They're just article names. No one will die. I don't see any difference between your examples and, e.g., Siamese cat or Kuril Islands Bobtail cat (if that much of a disambiguated were actually needed). There is no reason to capitalize the horse/cat/whatever after the breed names. I'm not even convinced "American Quarter horse" shouldn't be written like that (or as "American Quarterhorse", or "American Quarter-horse"), to the extent we're going to continue capitalizing breed names at all except where proper names occur (i.e., we may well go the way of "German shepherd dog" not "German Shepherd dog" much less "German Shepherd Dog"; I've been on the fence about this for years, but a lot of people are not and are unhappy with the jargonistic capitalization; their concerns can be minimized a bit if we consistently stop capitalizing the organism type after the breed name). There is no difference between species and breeds when it comes to what WP should do with regard to them, on the basis of what policies, guidelines, reasoning, sources, etc. There isn't even a scientific difference between them; they're entirely arbitrary names, usually geographical, for genetically distinguishable populations. In horticultural botany, the breed-level designations (which vary - there's form, cultivar, grex, etc., depending on the exact genetics involved) are part of the scientific name, and it's just academic accident and breeder/fancier politics that this isn't also true of domestic animal breed names). Just let the RM run. We don't need to individually go over our personal take on the matter again and again. I know you think these things should be capitalized and that the community will agree. I think the opposite. Let's just see. PS: There are active editors on all sorts of articles; that doesn't mean that anyone's permission has to be sought. The very problem that groups of editors, most often a wikiproject but sometimes on particular articles, can get very OWNy and want to do things are particular way that triggers WP:SSF concerns and conflicts with what other editors are doing, is often a good reason to just be BOLD – it triggers a reaction that usually leads to a broader discussion than just trying to convince an entrenched camp to change their collective mind. Finally, I'm cleaning up a mess that covers many hundreds of articles as disparate as cattle and chickens and guinea pigs; if I've netted a handful of horse articles that end up being moved back, that's a small price to pay for the expediency engendered by just fixing things without trying to get people to have discussions and come to agreements on a case-by-case basis, which could take another decade if done that way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- You know perfectly well that there are active editors on the horse articles, and there is a significant difference between species and breeds. Seriously, some of your moves, you may note, I didn't put into the RM request; If American Quarter Horse is an exception, there CAN be others, and I have about 12 that I think qualify. A majority of the breed articles already use natural disambiguation. We have a few that don't, and common courtesy would be to ping the talk page or do a RM Before making sweeping, unilateral moves that could not be undone without administrator intervention and a dramafest. Montanabw(talk) 23:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thing is, there's been nearly zero progress in over four years on cleaning up the domestic animal article titles mess. WP:BOLD action on this scale usually raises a concern or two, but the community sorts it out. The community is whom to ask, not you or the equine project (that wikiprojects don't get to make up their own style rules is the important things about the birds decision; what classification level it was about, like species vs. breed, is irrelevant). Maybe "American Quarter Horse" needs to be a conventional exception, but most of those don't; they're no different from Siamese cat or Valencia orange – there's no reason to capitalize the organism type after the breed name. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bird names are for species, not breeds. As for horses, I'm discussing about 12 or 15 exception to a general rule. Some of your moves were OK and are not under discussion.You really know better than to do this stuff without asking first. Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not discussing species names, there IS a difference. Breeds are human creations, though they are still animals and living beings. Do you advocate for "volkswagenpassat" or "honda civic"? Even my dictionary capitalizes Quarter Horse. It isn't what wikipedia wants, it's calling things what they are properly called; if you want to dig in on 12 horse breed names, you certainly will, but really, isn't this one stick to just drop? Montanabw(talk) 00:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's a difference between what species and breeds are, not how they're named. No one's making an argument about whether species have had their breeding guided the way breeds have; this is about why WP should prefer some names and not others; the names are comparably isolated. The Eastern newt did not pop up one day and say "Hi, my name is the Eastern newt". It's an fictitious human label for a span of organisms that seem to us to be genetically and phenotypically similar enough to for our purposes to stick the same label on them (just like a breed). For WP purposes, there is no difference between a species label and a breed label. PS: What dictionary capitalizes Quarter Horse? Just curious. As I'm sure you're aware, most non-specialist (in this context, non-horse-focused) publications do not capitalize the names of any animal breeds except where they contain geographical or other proper names. If you want to object to compounding, start with American Saddlebred, American Warmblood, Friesian Sporthorse (and note that's not consistent with Brazilian Sport Horse), NorthAmerican Sportpony (WTF?), etc. Finally, I'm not "digging in" on anything; I've expressed an opinion at RM and moved on. E.g. the entire Category:Goat breeds is now cleaned up, and I think Category:Cat breeds only has one hold out pending a
{{db-move}}. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)- New Oxford American, the one that came with my computer. I theoretically agree with you about the NorthAmerican Sportpony WTF, but given that it IS a real breed registration organization, it's a good example of calling things what those who create them want. FWIW, there is also Friesian Sporthorse and Friesian Sport Horse (And while I don't GAF, those who care almost started an edit war over it several years ago. All words are a fictitious human label, and English is a language that has so many other languages influencing it, no wonder we can't decide between German or Latin capitalization, hell we can't even agree on US/UK spelling! Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- The logic at WP:SSF applies to animal breed names as much as to anything else. Again, I'm not trying to have an argument with you, Montanabw; we work well together when we're agreeing, and the disputes of this particular sort seem more a community matter to settle. Honestly I think it needs to be a larger RfC than that one multi-horse move, because that one mostly only attracts horse editors. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- New Oxford American, the one that came with my computer. I theoretically agree with you about the NorthAmerican Sportpony WTF, but given that it IS a real breed registration organization, it's a good example of calling things what those who create them want. FWIW, there is also Friesian Sporthorse and Friesian Sport Horse (And while I don't GAF, those who care almost started an edit war over it several years ago. All words are a fictitious human label, and English is a language that has so many other languages influencing it, no wonder we can't decide between German or Latin capitalization, hell we can't even agree on US/UK spelling! Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking of cat breeds, can you glance at Tonkinese cat? The page to be moved is a red link. I know I botched something, but I thought I cleaned it up. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seems fine now. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
New self-reference
Resolved- Fixed; it's Akbash Dog. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- As an outsider to the discussion of how breeds should be named, I can see the logic of "Akbash Dog" in running text, comparable to something like "White Pine" or "Common Daisy". I can see the logic of "akbash dog", comparable to "white pine" or "common daisy" (since "akbash" is not a place name). I can see why we should be choosing between the two styles (and also see that after the decision on the English names of species, the sensible choice is the latter). What I can't see is any reason to prefer "Akbash dog". No-one (so far as I know) argued for "White pine" or "Common daisy" in running text. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
New Guinea Singing Dog
ResolvedYou are right, but I notice you preferred the term "landrace" at times and "variety" in others. While both are better than "breed", isn't the former more standard for animals and the latter for plants? Chrisrus (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Variety has a specific meaning in horticulture, but not otherwise; I was using it in the generic sense, to avoid repetition, but have no actual objection to using landrace consistently (and landrace is also used for plants, in botany more broadly; horticultural and botanical terms aren't quite the same all the time). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Parmigiano-Reggiano
ResolvedGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Parmigiano-Reggiano. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 7
ResolvedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old English Game fowl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bantam (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) 08:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Horse content edits
StuckI don't object to wikignoming, and your cleanup that is consistent with the horse breed titles status quo is helpful (I never realized we had missed Byelorussian Harness horses), but please resist the urge to do content edits unless you discuss the issue. In particular, the landrace/breed/landrace breed issue is complicated in horses and there is a project consensus on the matter; (and no MOS rulings that I know of) so WikiProject Equine is the place to raise if that consensus should be reexamined, with a lot of thought and references to the highest quality peer-reviewed studies. Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're reverting me doing typographical fixes. This is WP:STALKING and it has to stop. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- You are disrupting wikipedia to make a POINT. I have all 400 -some horse breed and type articles on my watchlist, and I am watching wiki constantly today because of the Belmont, so your disruptive edits are popping up on my watchlist constantly. Why don't you go work on all the other animals until tomorrow? We can discuss then. Montanabw(talk) 22:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please see also, such as waste of time and sad loss, over what? House Sparrow vs. House sparrow. I can't believe it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- So, if I threaten to quit over some style matter does that make you a bad editor for not letting me have my way? Don't blame me for other people's temper tantrums or needs for breaks, and especially not for the results of a bird capitalization dispute launched by someone else at RM, and by someone else again – a fan of the capitalization – at WT:MOS, where another fan of the capitalization closed the discussion against the capitalization, based on the actual merits of the arguments, sources and relevant policy. See above a week or so ago; I've already been over this with the very party who says he's leaving and who came here to blame me, too, not having actually paid any attention to who launched what. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please also see "get a grip on reality" (there's no Wikipedia guideline or essay for this, but it's just a real life thing). This propensity to adhere to a bizarre "guideline" (note) which then devolves into edit warring etc is simply pathetic. Suggest you get back to doing something constructive, maybe focus on improving some of the Mosconi Cup articles for instance. You are capable of so much more than just moving pages for capitalisation wars... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please see also, such as waste of time and sad loss, over what? House Sparrow vs. House sparrow. I can't believe it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) I've actually been constructively working on a rewrite of Basque mountain horse, with reliable sources (like genetic studies and such, not crappy horse blogs). Maybe you all need to quit picking fights just to get into it with WP:MOS regulars because you hate MOS. Not everyone agrees with you personally and your camp on every style issue. So it goes. Stop editwarring about it, particularly in ways that just antagonize the editor you're disagreeing with and which have nothing to do with that dispute anyway. Who are you label my cleanup work unproductive? Is it only productive when you're doing it? Is no change good except when it's unopposed?
More importantly, I'm not the one making disruptive "points"; I'm the one being followed around and reflexively reverted by people who just insist on some status quo ante principle that does not exist on Wikipedia, as a matter of clear policy. I'm not being reverted on changing potentially controversial article titles (that's an RM discussion, and I haven't moved any controversial ones since that started). I'm being reverted on attempts to discuss that RM, on ensuring that the RM discloses the actual articles it is liable to affect, on correcting incorrect impositions of English capitalization rules on Spanish titles, on fact-tagging alleged facts with no sources, on correcting WP:OR novel synthesis, on getting article text to agree with its article title and with the rest of its own text, and on and on. Normal, everyday editing work. I'm going to take a break for a few hours at least (I own my own emotions and need to manage them instead of sticking around to bicker further just for bickering's sake), because you're antagonizing me so much with blanket reverts in a stalking pattern, and getting your cronies to come here and dump on me, that it's distracting me from the actual productive work I was doing, because I can't even write one sentence before I get yet another revert notice, or hostile user talk message, or a ranty but unsubstantive article talk page reply, mostly from the same guy. So, I'm simply going to stop doing the actual productive, constructive work you're demanding I do and that I was doing, because you and some other horse and bird people won't stop editwarring with me to make point. Good job. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- EXCUSE ME? I am not "stalking you" - I have 4000 articles on my watchlist, and this includes all horse breed articles. What I also have are about 200 watchers -people who "stalk" my talk page and contributions - with my permission - who independently choose their own actions. TRM is right; you do need to "get a grip on reality" - and own your emotions - I have no interest in "antagonizing" you, it is you who are the antagonizer! - I am trying to keep you from ham-handedly tangling up an editor consensus that several of us have been working on for YEARS on these horse breed articles. Whatever happened to the bird articles sounds like a nightmare and a horrible decision. Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's probably good that you took a break, perhaps you can take the time to reflect that your abilities extend way beyond trivial (and controversial) page moves, and focus on adding or improving good content. I don't think all the "fuck it"s are necessary, but it's understandable when you get questioned for doing something which is ultimately of no value at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that Montanabw has a watchlist too long for him to handle, and responds to activity on it by engaging in blanket reverts (including, I repeat, of discussion at an RM, an update to an RM to disclose the actual articles it is liable to affect, correction of incorrect impositions of English capitalization rules on Spanish titles, of fact-tagging of alleged facts with no sources, of corrections WP:OR novel synthesis, of basic copy-editing of article text to agree with its article title and with the rest of its own text, and on and on), means that Montanabw needs to re-read WP:OWN, take some stuff off his watchlist, and stop harassing me (or anyone else editing a horse article who isn't part of his special club) with his revert-on-sight policy. If I were the litigious policy-wanker of the sort that's overrun WP in the last couple of year, and I took his recent spate of "shut this other editor up at all costs" behavior to WP:ANI, he'd likely be blocked and topic-banned for a spell. Rambling Man: Thanks, but I don't need condescending anti-MOS stuff out of you. If you have a problem with MOS, take it to WT:MOS. PS: If I want to say "fuck it" to get my point across clearly, in an edit summary about my own talk page, that's my prerogative; see WP:NOT#CENSORED. Now, please stop badgering me, and you go do something productive instead of inspiring me to leave again. You two tag-teaming me has already gotten me to abandon turning a misleading stub into a sourced, proper article. That ought to be enough for whatever WP:POINT you feel you need to make. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wow. Holy ad hominem attacks of psychological projection Batman! I have no interest in "badgering" you so long as you cease your highly personalized attacks on me and your inaccurate statements about my motives and actions. To be clear: My position is that you have been making scattershot changes in random horse articles, without discussion with the editors involved with the articles in question, some of these being moves against a very longstanding consensus on the articles in general, and the specific articles in question. For that reason, before you further create what is simply a mess that others will have to sort out, please bring your suggestions and concerns to WikiProject Equine (WPEQ), where we can discuss all potentially affected articles as a whole and see if there is a need to change a consensus that created consistency and stability in project articles. As for the rest, User:The Rambling Man is right to caution you, and if you really think swearing at people is acceptable, please ask User:Eric Corbett to instruct you in the proper nuances of using profanity in a matter so as to make your point effectively as opposed to the mere spraying of random vitriol. Montanabw(talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that Montanabw has a watchlist too long for him to handle, and responds to activity on it by engaging in blanket reverts (including, I repeat, of discussion at an RM, an update to an RM to disclose the actual articles it is liable to affect, correction of incorrect impositions of English capitalization rules on Spanish titles, of fact-tagging of alleged facts with no sources, of corrections WP:OR novel synthesis, of basic copy-editing of article text to agree with its article title and with the rest of its own text, and on and on), means that Montanabw needs to re-read WP:OWN, take some stuff off his watchlist, and stop harassing me (or anyone else editing a horse article who isn't part of his special club) with his revert-on-sight policy. If I were the litigious policy-wanker of the sort that's overrun WP in the last couple of year, and I took his recent spate of "shut this other editor up at all costs" behavior to WP:ANI, he'd likely be blocked and topic-banned for a spell. Rambling Man: Thanks, but I don't need condescending anti-MOS stuff out of you. If you have a problem with MOS, take it to WT:MOS. PS: If I want to say "fuck it" to get my point across clearly, in an edit summary about my own talk page, that's my prerogative; see WP:NOT#CENSORED. Now, please stop badgering me, and you go do something productive instead of inspiring me to leave again. You two tag-teaming me has already gotten me to abandon turning a misleading stub into a sourced, proper article. That ought to be enough for whatever WP:POINT you feel you need to make. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:History of the United States
ResolvedGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of the United States. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know I have relisted the RM. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 18:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation on article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Native_chicken
Resolvedplease reply on Talk:Philippine Native chicken page
thank you. Fowl vet (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Fowl vet: The admins who deal with copyright stuff will need to look into that matter; it's not up to me. PS: Please put talk page posts at the bottom of talk pages. You inserted yours kind of in the middle of my talk page and if I had not decided to go through and archive all the old, resolved stuff, I would not have noticed your message for weeks or months (as it was, I didn't see it for about 3 days). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Moved to Template talk:User toolboxSince you changed it to a collapsible template. Do you know where to add the username to the template (to show which user it is)? -Porchcorpter 10:31, 11 June 2014
- Thank you for including the username. -Porchcorpter 05:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kamehameha I
ResolvedGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kamehameha I. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mexico
ResolvedGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Pahlavi dynasty
ResolvedGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pahlavi dynasty. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
BracketBot notice, June 2014
Resolved Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to In Enemy Hands (film) 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:
- the Germans and Americans begin to work together to keep the boat operational, another U-boat] and an American [[destroyer]] threaten to overwhelm their tentative truce.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
BracketBot notice, June 2014 (2)
Resolved Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stick-fighting 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:
- and practical forms of stick-fighting. Eskrima sticks are traditionally crafted from [[rattan]] (''[[Diospyros blancoi]] ("butterfruit" or ''kamagong'') and may be wielded singly or as a pair. The
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 23
ResolvedHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White-collar boxing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Boxing Association (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) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Category talk:Antisemitism
StaleGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Antisemitism. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Changes to the Football squad template documentation
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have again removed some of your changes to the documentation in which you are trying to impose your POV on the matter. Per WP:BRD, please gain consensus for your changes to the documentation rather than make unilateral changes. Thanks, Number 57 11:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Again, please do not insert your own views onto the documentation. There was a long and tedious discussion on the MOS talk page, with no outcome. Some people believe the template violates the MOS, others are happy that it is within the rules. You do not get to decide the outcome, and using documentation to insinuate that there is a definitive conclusion to the debate is dishonest. Number 57 12:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- And as an aside, there is a consensus that current season transfers should not be in club articles. The sections may remain in one or two, but that's only because they haven't been spotted or removed. Please discuss at WT:FOOTY if you do not believe this to be the case. Thanks, Number 57 12:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
- @Number 57: You need to read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, and and WP:CONSENSUS generally. Wikiprojects do not get to ignore site-wide guidelines just because they don't like something in them, and a discussion on a guildeline's talk page about whether to change something in the guideline does not magically invalidate the guideline in the interim. Our templates and their documentation still have to comply with our guidelines, whether you wnat to change the guidelines or not. FYI, the transfer material was copied directly from an footy article; I don't what "consensus" against transfer-related information you speak of, but it's clearly not a "consensus" that even other footy editors believe in. If you don't like that particular example, that find some other thing to use as an exmaple of the
|notes=a.k.a.|other=feature of the template. Don't make a pretend issue out of something that's not actually an issue. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)- LOCALCONSENSUS is not an issue, because the discussion we're talking about was on the MOS talk page, not at WP:FOOTY. Your argument is that the template is not compliant, but many editors (including myself) believe it is within the rules, so it's not a clear cut issue that the template violates the existing rules. The whole discussion was around clarifying the wording to stop these disputes, but no consensus could be reached on that either. There is not a clear wrong or right answer here. Number 57 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're mistaken when it comes to that sort of "nation" data. The blathery dispute at WT:MOSICONS is about whether to change MOSICONS to permit that sort of use, not about what that sort of use it constitutes. There's not any dispute at all that using such a template to indicate a player's birthplace nationality (not their professional sporting nationality) is, in fact, using the template to indicate their birthplace nationality; let's not be silly. There is no dispute at all that the guideline has an entire section called WP:MOSICONS#Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death, addressing (in the negative) precisely that case. QED. Many particular uses of the template also violate WP:MOSICONS#Do not emphasize nationality without good reason, which my documentation improvements also address. I guess I'll cite these sections in particular since you don't seem to be understanding this. The template in question also violates WP:MOSICONS#Accompany flags with country names, but that's another matter for later resolution. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not mistaken at all. It clearly states under the "Appropriate use" section of the guideline that "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." In football squads, nationality of the players is a pertinent issue. I agree that you have a point about the country names, and I have supported adding the country trigrammes to the template. However, because some editors are not willing to compromise, agreement on that matter has never been reached. Number 57 12:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I decline to keep discussing this in multiple places. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not mistaken at all. It clearly states under the "Appropriate use" section of the guideline that "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." In football squads, nationality of the players is a pertinent issue. I agree that you have a point about the country names, and I have supported adding the country trigrammes to the template. However, because some editors are not willing to compromise, agreement on that matter has never been reached. Number 57 12:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're mistaken when it comes to that sort of "nation" data. The blathery dispute at WT:MOSICONS is about whether to change MOSICONS to permit that sort of use, not about what that sort of use it constitutes. There's not any dispute at all that using such a template to indicate a player's birthplace nationality (not their professional sporting nationality) is, in fact, using the template to indicate their birthplace nationality; let's not be silly. There is no dispute at all that the guideline has an entire section called WP:MOSICONS#Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death, addressing (in the negative) precisely that case. QED. Many particular uses of the template also violate WP:MOSICONS#Do not emphasize nationality without good reason, which my documentation improvements also address. I guess I'll cite these sections in particular since you don't seem to be understanding this. The template in question also violates WP:MOSICONS#Accompany flags with country names, but that's another matter for later resolution. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- LOCALCONSENSUS is not an issue, because the discussion we're talking about was on the MOS talk page, not at WP:FOOTY. Your argument is that the template is not compliant, but many editors (including myself) believe it is within the rules, so it's not a clear cut issue that the template violates the existing rules. The whole discussion was around clarifying the wording to stop these disputes, but no consensus could be reached on that either. There is not a clear wrong or right answer here. Number 57 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Number 57: You need to read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, and and WP:CONSENSUS generally. Wikiprojects do not get to ignore site-wide guidelines just because they don't like something in them, and a discussion on a guildeline's talk page about whether to change something in the guideline does not magically invalidate the guideline in the interim. Our templates and their documentation still have to comply with our guidelines, whether you wnat to change the guidelines or not. FYI, the transfer material was copied directly from an footy article; I don't what "consensus" against transfer-related information you speak of, but it's clearly not a "consensus" that even other footy editors believe in. If you don't like that particular example, that find some other thing to use as an exmaple of the
- And as an aside, there is a consensus that current season transfers should not be in club articles. The sections may remain in one or two, but that's only because they haven't been spotted or removed. Please discuss at WT:FOOTY if you do not believe this to be the case. Thanks, Number 57 12:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
Due to the fact that you've added the information for a fourth time, failed to respect BRD and used edit summaries in a very bad faith manner, I've reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Number 57 13:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
AcknowledgedYou and another editor are involved in a dispute at Template:Football squad player/doc. I've temporarily given the page full-protection. It is far preferable for the two of you (and others) to discuss this on the talk page instead of reverting each other. If this continues, this edit warring may result in a block. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Lord Roem: I was actually in the process of filing a WP:RFPP for it anyway, so no objections about that. However, I think you've misapprehended what's actually going on, which I've explained in lots of diff-y and link-y detail back WP:ANEW. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- PS: Actually, template protection's kind of pointless in this case, since one of the parties is an admin anyway. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Damaged Lady
ResolvedGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Damaged Lady. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Inconsistency in MOS:ITALICS#Foreign terms
I would like to point out an inconsistency in the Foreign terms section of MOS:ITALICS. Two terms, praetor and esprit de corps, given as examples as something not to italicize are italicized in their own articles. Both terms are included in Merriam-Webster. Finnusertop (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's not an inconsistency in the guideline, but article editors not complying with it. <shrug> Its probable that these examples were added after the articles were written (and italicized) without checking to see if they were italicized (in our articles already, and in general usage in other style guides). Whether it's in a major English dictionary doesn't mean anything; except for the shortest ones, they regularly include foreign words and phrases that are used by English speakers, and they're typically italicized in English writing until such time as the become totally adopted into English (e.g. "role" and and "liaison"). On this, I would consult Fowler's, Hart's, etc., and see what a majority of style guides do with these words. I'd bet good money they do not italicize praetor but that some of them do still italicize esprit de corps. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop:: I raised the issue at WT:MOSITALICS. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 30
ResolvedHi. 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.
- Bajan stick-licking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Barbadian
- Juego de maní (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Santero
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)