User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 11

Please comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you of your "name" being alluded to

In Advice to keep a distance defied by editor Tenebrae ANI:

"Tenebrae has violated non-binding advice issued by someone who probably shouldn't be issuing that kind of advice given their own history of involvement in cases that definitrly did involve hounding."

Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Charice Pempengco

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charice Pempengco. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:George Duke discography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Duke discography. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid ... schmoid

Since you left a comment in the ANI just before it was closed, you should know: condescending comments about me made behind my back by the Admin that closed the ANI suck big time. It was a reply to a message in his talk page on 11:18, July 9, 2017. (Two ANIs are being mixed together.) Anyway, I found out about it from an email. And since you stated in that comment, "I have a notion of who may be the more aggressive party": I got a message in my talk page today from ..... Pyxis Solitary talk 14:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pyxis. I can appreciate your not wanting to be discussed in that fashion, and there's at least one statement in that exchange that I think could have been phrased more diplomatically. But here's the thing: even though I agree that a great deal of unnecessary drama did in fact flood into that that thread, you are the one who opened the window to allow it in. I meant it when I said there had been so much refusal to AGF/bad faith behaviour between you Tenebrae that I thought it was pointless to try to determine which of you was "more" at fault for the battle reviving repeatedly. But I'll be frank: when I also said that, not withstanding the former, I thought I knew who was the more aggressive party, I was thinking of you. If Tenebrae really is the one trolling you, he is doing a truly masterful job of it and has you wrapped around his finger, because you are the one who is coming off as more histrionic and less willing to WP:drop the stick.

But I just don't think he's that kind of svengali; if he were, he would have avoided that message that he just made on your talk page after the close of the ANI, because (and I will give you this much) that was completely inappropriate. Considering that the edit he cited was not even addressed at him, his coming there to provide you with that "opinion" was needlessly inflammatory and shows that, like you, he is not serious about backing away from this battle of wills. Doing that, and running the risk of provoking another round of disruption with an editor he just exited an ANI with, shows such a blatant disregard for the community's time that is he is lucky to not have been blocked for it, especially given the fact that you have previously asked him not to comment on your talk page, a request that he is required to respect. But the pragmatic truth is that the two of you have already exhausted community willingness to referee you for the time being, and another ANI at this point is unlikely to be tolerated (you can still go to an individual admin to request that he be told to abide by your request that he not post on your talk page, but I wouldn't expect more than a warning).

More generally, since you seem to have again come here for my perspective, I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time: this does not seem like a one-way situation to me. The two of you need to find a way to disentangle yourselves from eachother's orbits or I can fairly well promise you that (like me) the community is going to start seeing you as a problem, collectively--no matter who instigated the battle on a given day. I think that the last ANI was closed at a bad time, insofar as a community member had finally suggested a course of action which may have worked (TBANning the both of you from the area where you have traditionally butted heads). The interesting (and welcome) thing is that you seemed to tacitly support this approach. So if you really want my advice, it's this: implement that plan of action yourself, unilaterally. I know that's going to burn and feel unfair, and maybe it is. But it puts you in the best possible position moving forward. Ideally, it will remove you two from eachother's spheres entirely and the matter may be resolved. And worst case scenario, if Tenebrae really is actively stalking you to the degree you suggest, he would have to extend himself even further to find an excuse to come into contact with you on yet more pages, at which point you are in a better position to make your case for hounding.

If giving up that article (and all related topics where you and he have previously clashed) was something you were willing to accede to when it was going to be applied to both of you, it should be something you are willing to embrace now, if your priority is the project and not your own pride. Maybe giving all of that territory is infeasible for you (or at least feels that way), given your editorial interests, but I advise you to try: its a big project, with a lot of work that needs doing, and these ANIs and related discussion are consuming more of your time than anybody else's (you'll notice that even Tenebrae makes about one comment for every five of yours in those threads). Failing that, you need to learn how to use community dispute resolution processes, such as RfC (and no, under the present circumstances, I am no longer willing to mediate that process) and learn to ignore your personal history with the user and focus on the content, which is really what you should have done from the beginning. I do wish you luck, Pyxis, and for what it is worth, will tell you that I do not think you are entirely without cause for complaint here. At the same time, you need a drastic switch in approach in how you handle these kinds of challenges. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Rise: For the record, (1) the only article where Tenebrae has continued to change or undo my edits is the Carol article; (2) I have not done the same to him there or anywhere else; (3) I have not responded to his comments/messages in an article's talk page; (4) I have not left a comment/message in his user talk page. If that's what it takes for you to consider me "the more aggressive party", then we have a very different view of personal behavior. Thank you for your time. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, my entire experience of the two of you has been those two ANI threads, the handful of Carol-related edits I reviewed during the first ANI, and the back-and-forth between you two here on my talk page. In those exchanges, you have often been the more vocal party. It doesn't necessarily mean you are the one in the wrong, and I've tried to be clear in the above (and elsewhere when trying to reconcile you two) that A) I don't know all of the details of your conflict and B) to the extent that I do, I view it as a problem between the two of you, rather than arising from the conduct of one person. Part of what complicates all of this is that my experience of both of you, outside your conflict, suggests that both of you are usually pretty reasonable, pleasant people. But get you on the same page and you both see only red. But that's part of why I am happy to learn that the reverts/TP debates have remained confined to that one article since the first thread. That means you have every ability to end the matter between you two by simply avoiding one article about one film. Again, maybe you shouldn't be required to, and maybe Tenebrae really has been pushing your buttons, and you have made every effort to avoid him. Even in that case, I still think it's the smart thing to do at this juncture. (And though I be only one editor in a large community and my opinion may not count for much in the grand scheme, I'll respect you for it). Snow ^{let's rap} 02:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae in my talk page again. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you either: A) Blank his comments and ignore him (as you are entitled to do), which would be the simplest solution, or B) ask an admin to look into the matter. I can't provide any more practical advice on how to deal with the situation than that. If it's just a matter of you feeling you need someone to sympathize with you on this, I agree that his coming there and refusing to leave is inappropriate and is needlessly protracting this whole affair between you two. For what it's worth, I generally am a huge skeptic of IBANs, but I am beginning to wish the community would adopt one in this case; a pity another ANI is not an option right now. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice user page! Comment

I just wanted to compliment you on the layout of your user page. It's very attractive looking. I was impressed. Huggums537 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Huggums--very nice of you to say! I didn't have much experience in Wiki markup when I started it, so building it was a bit of a learning experience that ended up helping me elsewhere on the project. I just studied the layout other community members had used for their pages and then when I understood enough, tried to make something unique and functional. I hope it gives a fair impression of what I like to work on here and why I am so dedicated to the project, but the part I'm really pleased with is the navigation/tool table; it saves me so much time that I've always been confused that I've never seen anyone else on the project make something like it. Everyone should have a navihub! Snow ^{let's rap} 01:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very encouraging to know since I'm working on gaining more markup experience myself. I feel inspired to start making improvements to my own user page as a learning tool now. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck! I'm no guru, but if you're trying to work the design of something out, let me know--I may be able to suggest an approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes

Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more

In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce

Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers

Op-ed: Why Task Forces are Dying in 2017

Gallery: A mix of patterns

Humour: The Infobox Game

Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday

Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts

Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hal Sparks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hal Sparks. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Batternut reverted my administrative change, so I have now reinstated it. In between you made a comment and then an afterthought. My responds to your afterthought is not aimed at you, but at anyone who is unfamiliar with the differences between a RfC and an RM (Batternut ?). -- PBS (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. :) I put a little procedural note under your comment to clarify for anyone coming after. That whole process is getting to be a bit of a mess; first he opens the RfC in a non-neutral fashion (though honestly, I don't think it would have made much of a difference; I think most experienced editors arriving via the RfC were likely to have seen the proposal to be a violation of policy. But now converted to an RM, after the tags were already out and after he had already garnered support !votes, but before others could respond. I mean, I'm sure these are all good faith mistakes, but that's not the cleanest discussion I've ever seen, and I can't imagine the community is going to be happy to see such a high-profile article moved from its WP:COMMONNAME through such a questionable "consensus" discussion... But I'm not sure requesting he revert it back is the best approach for disentangling matters either... Snow ^{let's rap} 07:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, my mistake; I misread the order of events. You wanted it changed to a requested move (presumably to conform with the normal process for name change discussions). That makes more sense. Still, what a mess this has become. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a mess. I decided that the alteration I made was the least disruptive. When I closed he section Qualifier for Islamic State article title I added this comment "I have converted that RfC to a RM because most people do not want to have to take part in two discussions and if there is a different outcome between the RfC and the RM there will be discord and conflict. So use the RM above to decide the issue." -- PBS (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My concern, though "concern" may be an overstatement, is that this feels like a WP:SNOWBALL issue to me. So much so that I think that, even if the OP feels like he gets a support consensus out of this (or a drive-by closer fails to see the procedural mess here) and the change goes forward, it's going to attract every random editor who visits that high-traffic, high-profile page to comment on how strange it is that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE are being ignored, such that it instantly goes to WP:MR. I guess going back to square one as quickly as possible might be the best to be hoped for here, but still feels like a waste of contributor time. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unwelcome_conversion of RfC to RM. There was a huge controversy five years ago over the closing of an RfC used as a subsitute for an RM and the administrator who did it was hounded. See Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 12#Action at WP:ANI concerning the RFC and its closure (there is a lot more talk on various other pages). The meaning of "should" in guidelines became an issue when considering what the guideline means. It turns out that "should" has different meaning/nuances in different dialects of English. -- PBS (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good golly. Here's to hoping it doesn't get nearly that...involved, this time! Snow ^{let's rap} 10:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Harry Lauder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harry Lauder. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

You're more than welcome, Cullen; thank you for stepping into the role--we need more experienced community members filling our mop corps. I've observed a lot of RfAs over the years and I've never seen a more uniform outpouring of support than that. You should be proud of the warm and respectful response your presence on the project has inspired, and if my observations of your conduct are any indication, I'm sure you'll continue to inspire the same reactions in your role as admin. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 03:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for standing up for me and others

I just wanted to thank you and let you know that I appreciated you stood up against the users that were incessantly fighting against the users voting to keep the television ratings graph template, especially since you also voted to delete. Your stance really made me feel heard and understood whereas without it I would have just thought that I was swimming against the current and essentially insignificant. I really wanted to show you my gratitude especially because so few take their time to express appreciation online (whereas everyone has plenty of time for hate). Good debate is hard to come by and thank you for trying to uphold it. Camilleopard (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Camille--that's very kind of you to say. :) I just felt that, even having reached a different conclusion than you, the way your reasoning/motivations were being described did not feel accurate to my observations, or fair. I think editors should feel free to make useful utility arguments; such arguments often fail against any kind of guideline that represents broad community consensus, but its one of the pillars of this communities conduct rules that we at least hear them out, to decide if the existing typical approach is advisable in all circumstances.

And in this instance, one need not even go that far, because both sides were arguing from pragmatic standpoints, without so much as a single policy or guideline quoted in that entire long-winded debate, and the deletion proposal did not conform to any of the four consensus rationales for deletion at TfD (which could have earned it a speedy close if other parties had not shown the delete votes the courtesy of at least discussing the matter). So for those two editors to go around replying "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" to pretty much every keep !vote (which represent about 2/3 of the !votes so far) was hypocritical, I felt. Not only hypocritical, in fact, but doing more harm than good to their overall position (a position I nominally agree with, even if it is also only based on pragmatic evaluations). And at this point, with 2/3 of responses leaning towards !keep, the discussion is likely to be closed as either "keep" or "no consensus" soon. Although I think that's the wrong conclusion and the templates probably should be deleted, I do hope the discussion is closed with less grousing than the unexpected opposition was met with.

All of which is my long-winded way of saying, you are very welcome, but I was just saying what I thought needed to be said in those circumstances, based on our processes and guidelines for how consensus building is meant to be conducted here. I hope you'll consider staying and contributing more to the project. Contributors can be a little zealous at times, as you've seen, but we usually get to a reasonable answer or solution that lays between us, eventually. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 01:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Halimah Yacob

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Halimah Yacob. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding articles in Yoruba Language

Hello, please I need a guide on how to use accents / diacritics in wikipedia. It will help me to add articles in yoruba language. Thank you. Oshhhh (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Oshhhh--sure, no problem! From your question I am not 100% certain whether you are looking for technical help with the entry of accented characters, or if you are looking for policy/rules on how to use them on en.wikipedia, so I have included both bellow.

Help:Entering special characters - This help page will give you a few different methods for actually finding and entering characters with diacritics and other special characters not found on a typical English keyboard. You should be able to find versions of the tools it refers to on both en.wikipedia and yo.wikipedia.
Help:Special characters - Provides some additional technical details on how these characters will display.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)#Modified_letters - This page will provide you with guidance on which situations call for the use of diacritics and which do not, at least where en.wikipedia is concerned (other Wikipedias will each have their own page for "style guideline" rules for diacritics).

I hope that's helpful for a start. I know cross-wiki editing can be a challenge, so please let me know if anything in those guides is unclear, or if I can otherwise be of help. Welcome to en.Wikipedia! :) Snow ^{let's rap} 02:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your response. I have earlier read through the links you provided before contacting you. I needed a tool that will enable me type in Yoruba speedily and easily. I had to install a software on my computer [1]. I must say "thank you so much" in Yoruba - ẹṣé púpọ̀. Kind Regards. Oshhhh (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Keyboard layouts and virtual keyboards. Well I'm glad you already found what you need. But don't discount the keyboard UI for mediawiki; it's useful too! Snow ^{let's rap} 11:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anarchyte--appreciate the review of the request! Snow ^{let's rap} 07:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mary Jane Girls

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mary Jane Girls. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic re RfB

Hi there. This is a kind of off-topic follow-up to your comment at my RfB but your insightful and detailed response was really helpful. I noticed you have the admin hopeful userbox on your userpage and I was wondering whether you plan to run anytime soon? If so, you might want to check out WP:OCRP first. Also, using edit summaries for all your edits will be very helpful in convincing me to support Regards So Why 11:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, SoWhy. :) I'm glad that my comments could provide some assistance to your approach, to offset the fact that my vote is an oppose (for the moment, anyway). I still hope to get that question up later today, life permitting, so hopefully that will prove even more productive for your effort.

As to my own RfA ambitions...well, I'm not exactly certain. I've been contemplating the possibility of running for a couple of years now, but the time has never seemed quite right--and the present date is unfortunately no different. My professional and home life are going to be a bit of a gauntlet this coming year, and I don't want to acquire the tools only to let them sit. I think my experience, stats, outlook, and standing in the community would probably be sufficient to secure support now, but I'm in no rush. I can't discount the possibility of running sooner (if it looks like I will have a decent amount of time to invest after securing the mop), but at the present time my plan is to wait another 12-15 months before re-examining the issue. If enough community members urged me to make the move, I might move up the timetable (we do need more hands on deck, and I do already volunteer a fair chunk of time in some areas where admins are especially scarce and necessary), but right now that feels like the right time frame.

Besides, the extra time will allow me to shore up my case for the mop; with a couple hundred more XfDs, a few thousand more mainspace edits, and a couple dozen more articles (on top of my existing contributions in these and other areas), I reckon I should be a shoe-in. I also plan to apply for a new permission every couple of months in the interim, just to erase any gaps in my technical knowledge and reduce the learning curve when it comes time to utilize the full admin toolkit. I do plan to inquire for thoughts at WP:OCRP a couple of months ahead of the request, and seek out further insight from admins and other veteran editors I know and respect. But even that is a little ways off now. As to the edit summaries, I do try! Most months these days, I manage 95-100%, but I was so lax about them in my first couple of years as an autoconfirmed user that it's been a long slog to get the total percentage above 80%. But I use them so reflexively now (and subscribe so totally to their importance) that it's a source of some frustration to me that they cannot be just twenty-five characters longer; I always find I'm short just the space of a few more words, grr!

Anyway, thanks for the inquiry! Given the huge number of RfAs you have participated in, I will gladly tap your experience when the time comes, if you're amenable. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 15:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the RfB is closed now; I hadn't realized we were so close to the seven day mark already. I'm sorry I couldn't have provided that question and an opportunity to change some !votes, and that run was not successful. For what its worth, I meant what I said about your being an obvious asset to the community. For my part, I foresee no likelihood of objecting on the next one, since familiarity with the current state of the community was my sole concern. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there will ever be a next one but thanks anyway. I'm always happy to help. Btw, writing about how important edit summaries are and then making that last comment without one (and marking it as a minor edit!) is probably something you should avoid going forward. Oftentimes even the smallest things - like incorrectly using the minor edit checkbox - can come back to haunt you

You might want to check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" checkbox in Preferences => Editing to avoid that in future. Regards So Why 15:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I? Must have been a mis-click. I actually very rarely add an edit summary on my own user talk page; I know it hurts my stats, but I feel like comments usually speak for themselves and don't need extra clarification, especially in casual conversation. Even on the talk pages of other users, my edit summaries are often no more involved than "comment", "response" and such. But you're probably right: every little inch helps and every little matter can come up at an RfA; I haven't participated in nearly as many as you, but that's something I learned very early on. I didn't even realize there was a prompt option for blank edit summaries, it's been so long since I looked at my settings, but I'll look into that--thanks!

As to your RfB, I don't think you should make it your last run, given your confidence that you were/are a good fit for the role. But that's just my two cents, as they say here. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your comments at ANI. I appreciated your perspective. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ernie--that's very kind of you to say. :) I sure hope that situation between those two settles down from here! Snow ^{let's rap} 03:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

News and notes: Non-English special edition! 99% no news about English-based wiki communities!

Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality

WikiProject report: Comic relief

In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity

Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list

Blog: Canadian Supreme Court rules against Google in favor of worldwide court orders

Special report: Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic

Featured content: Everywhere in the lead

Technology report: Introducing TechCom

Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lindy West

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lindy West. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Hello Snow Rise,

I just wanted to let you know that I agree completely with your sentiments about infoboxes expressed at ANI. I am commenting here rather than there, in the hope that the conversation there will wither away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen, I appreciate it. And yeah, I was 50/50 on whether to say anything for the same reason (not wanting to prolong the present matter)--and also because I have my doubts that it will be received as intended by any of the parties. But having seen the same situation that brought them to ANI play out repeatedly over the years in so many different spaces across the project, I just felt it might be beneficial to let them know that the community still notices that this is an ongoing issue and that we see the way they are talking to one-another (and sometimes edit warring). Sooner or later someone (either inside the dispute or without) is going to take the matter to ArbCom again, and since stale edits/longterm patterns of behaviour are more tolerated as evidence there than at ANI (usually), very few of those regulars would not be vulnerable to sanctions for the issues surrounding those discussions. Unless the find a way to cool it (and I'm not holding my breath at this point; I've never seen a more zealous or single-minded group of editors, and that applies to both sides) I fear it's just a matter of time.

And I tell you, it's all a real shame, because just taking a couple of those editors and just looking at their musical knowledge alone, there is sinful amount of waste of specialist knowledge that results because their time is all tied up in this nonsense. And could be lost altogether if they get themselves banned in some respect. I just don't know what they are thinking. I just hope that when the situation does come to a head that they only get topic banned from infoboxes and not other useful areas. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may: what are the discussions you refer to? We had a very peaceful first half of the year. I did my share by never arguing (I think, I hope). When an infobox was reverted (four times, no more), so what, there are thousands missing, why waste time over that one. The IP that went to ANI, however, challenged me by no reason/no edit summary, - that could have been a misclick. Turns out, it wasn't. I have no idea who that is, and what they want to achieve by going to ANI and Jimbo. RexxS put it well. - Remember the infoboxes case? The opponents then were Pigsonthewing and I vs. Nikkimaria, Kleinzach and Smerus. Do you see any of these names in recent discussions? Nikkimaria added an infobox, and Smerus invited me to his home only yesterday. We should just forget that dated stuff, if you ask me. Tell those who still feel like fighting that they are too late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. If some of you are having an easier time communicating civilly and coming to compromise solutions, I'm glad to hear it. However, we need not look any farther than the very dispute that brought the roving infobox battle back to ANI in order to find numerous examples of clearly incivil comments and battleground attitudes, just as have always existed in the discussions where this same complex of editors mysteriously show up all together, form two ranks, and then begin to exchange broadsides. I don't view it as a particularly positive pronouncement that this is actually an improvement upon discussions between members of this group (who are clearly following one-another around); that says more about just how hostile things have been in previous discussions than it does about how friendly they are now. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. At ANI was a case where one IP was against my addition. I assume in good faith that the IP didn't "follow me around", otherwise the IP could have found hundreds of cases. I was reverted in only three others, by people who watch articles and don't belong to a "group". (A list of reverts I see is on my user page. It's short.) I think it would help if we'd stop general assumptions about groups, and following. I don't follow anybody around, but of course I am curious when the hated word comes up on my long watchlist, as today Colleen Ballinger. Check that case out, perhaps. I am not interested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, in my sincere opinion, you really ought to drop this infobox interest, for your own good and completely and forever. But I am deeply saddened to see that you seem unable to drop it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see how strange that comment is after I said "I am not interested."? Snow Rise and I talked about the topic from 2014, always good talks. My topic is not infoboxes, but assuming good faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, in case I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: I value you immensely as a contributor, both for your countless additions to our content on music and your tireless efforts to spread goodwill on the project and thereby recognize and encourage our editorial corps. Nevertheless, it is my view that this issue has become your white whale, and one which has lead you into trouble more than once over the years. I'm not saying that your positions are without merit or that the content in question is altogether trivial, but this mutual escalation between the partisans on this issue, who all too often resort to flame wars over the topic, is far out of scale with the difference of content that is debated in these recurring battles.

I'm not saying that you personally have been incivil; you can certainly be dogged, but I've never known you to be rude or unkind. Note also that I did not mention you (or any other editor) by name either at ANI or here--you self identified with the groups I was talking about, though not incorrectly. And even then, I was clear at ANI to state that the tactics used to track these issues may not technically fall under the categories of stalking or canvassing. Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that it is far from coincidence that just about every infobox debate starts among the same dozen or so editors, and that each of these debates quickly and invariably attracts the others, dispute after dispute, year after year. You are clearly all using the same channels to arrive at the same places to have the same debate, over and over.

Which would in itself be a very small problem, if those debates could stay civil, but very few of them do; most devolve into unkind slugfests in a very predictable fashion. Again, not saying you are among those who is incivil (some of you scrupulously avoid personal attacks), but regardless of the tone they bring to those discussions, each member of each side of that eternally recurring battle plays a part in perpetuating that cycle and the disruption that results from most iterations. Yes, I'm sure you can point me towards occasions I am unaware of when the debate proceeded more softly, but that's a little beside the point; the disruptive discussions, where the vitriol just pours out, are more than enough to make this battle of wills (the longest running in en.Wikipedia's history), not nearly worth the improvements to content which may or may not result in any individual case.

Anyway, I'm not the person to convince of anything; my post was meant as a kind of head's up that, whether the infobox partisans see it or not, the discussion on those disputes continues to dip too frequently into the disruptive, and the community continues to notice it, even if most of us have gotten too exhausted with pointing it out in individual disputes that we get RfC'd to (or notice in passing). I certainly have no intention of being the person to take the matter back to ArbCom or a similar community process. But I bet someone does sooner or later. That was the purpose of my comments at ANI; not to attempt to assign blame to any particular editor(s) in any particular disputes, but to try to give fair warning that the community has a memory for these things and a finite amount of patience. That warning may fall on deaf years, as each side seems to be unwilling to de-escalate, either because they are too myopic about the issue or because they fear the other side will exploit their backing off. That's just plain mad to me, though, and I hope you all reconsider, because by and large, I respect, like, and value you as contributors. And that's about the total extent of what I have to say on the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am on vacation, with no time for anything but the most essential. Arguing over infoboxes is a waste of time that I don't do anymore. Go look at the mentioned case and see if your assumptions about groups are justified, there or anywhere else. Off to exploring. (The topic damaged my reputation, yes, I know it. It took 300 years for Grace Sherwood's good name to be restored. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be safe and enjoy your trip! Snow ^{let's rap} 08:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I do. Today was here. DYK ... that the Slovenian soprano Sabina Cvilak (pictured) was Puccini's Mimi in Washington, Wagner's Sieglinde in Wiesbaden, and performed Britten's War Requiem in London on the composer's centenary? - Can you help me to expand Ubu Rex? It needs a plot section, - almost all refs have a summary, but how to avoid plagiarism? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. At least, in the broad strokes. I have never seen the opera and only a couple of the references have a plot summary (and all of them are brief and mostly reduplicative; also, German is not my best language, so you should fact check me, in case I misinterpreted anything from those particular references). I mostly stuck firmly to details I could find about Ubu Rex itself, but I did fill in some details from context from Ubu Roi, upon which it is, of course, closely based. One detail I'm not sure about is whether the war with Russia is already ongoing at the opening of the opera. The sources also seem to suggest that i this version Bordure is betrayed by Ubu before he can defect to the Russians, but I'm not 100% on that either. Anyway, it should suffice for now, but I'll see if I can find additional sources to flesh out and clarify particulars. There were many elements that are central to Ubu Roi that I assume were carried over into the opera, but I didn't want to make assumptions and introduce untrue statements. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very helpful! I never saw the opera, I just thought the 2008 stub was too short to be linked to from the Main page (with Michael Boder). Seems a fascinating play, advanced for its time. - You can always check my user page for recent tasks, will resume filling a red link per day tomorrow, - on my way back home right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep up! Snow ^{let's rap} 03:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Randy Quaid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Randy Quaid. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Donald Trump series

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Donald Trump series. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:John Oliver

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Oliver. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ted Bundy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ted Bundy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Could you please join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_community_sanctions_placed_on_User:Barts1a Twitbook space tube 12:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Just to note that your statement at WP:A/R/C#Winhunter and WP:ADMINACCT is 630 words. The limit is 500, and though we're usually tolerant of going a little over, it'd be good if you could trim it down a bit.

For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

statement length

On behalf of the arbitration committee, I would like to inform you that you have been granted the permission to exceed the words limit. Therefore, you do not need to reduce its length, as you were previously instructed. --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Kostas20142: No offence mate but you could probably tone the templating down; take the edge off so-called instructions anyway :) — fortunavelut luna 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox philosopher

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox philosopher. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Sparks image

Hi Snow Rise. In July, you !voted in an infobox RfC at the Hal Sparks article here. The RfC closed a couple of months ago and the infobox image needs to be changed to the consensus image. I am unable to make the change. Would you mind stepping in and taking care of it? Thanks! -- ψλ ● ✉ 19:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi::

Done. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ubu Rex

On 5 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ubu Rex, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Polish composer Krzysztof Penderecki co-wrote the German libretto of Ubu Rex, his only opera buffa, based on the French play Ubu Roi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ubu Rex. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ubu Rex), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih ^Talk 00:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your part! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to lend a hand, Gerda--especially for your music-oriented articles! :) Snow ^{let's rap} 05:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take part in the peer review of BWV 80 then, the work of many, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Snow Rise. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Trusttri (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?

News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments

Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies

Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts

Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future

Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia

In the media: Google's Ideological Echo Chamber; What makes someone successful?

WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube

Technology report: Latest tech news

Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up

Humour: Bots

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:David Ferrie

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of Liberty University people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Liberty University people. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bee Gees

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bee Gees. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Zoë Quinn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zoë Quinn. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL

In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues

Humour: Chickenz

Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe

Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications

Gallery: Chicken mania

Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

Traffic report: Fights and frights

Featured content: Flying high

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Rhett

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Rhett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Manny Pacquiao

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manny Pacquiao. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lee Rhiannon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lee Rhiannon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

←== Two things ==

1) You have a beautiful userpage. Its a diamond in the rough, and it makes me feel sad that Phaedriel (talk · contribs) isn't here to see it cuz I think she'd like it too.

2) Seeing as how you've been here since 2012 and have advertised that you'd might like to be an admin someday, how'd you like access to an admin tool? You qualify for the rollback tool, and based on your edit history I think you'd be able to put it to good use. If you're interested, let me know, otherwise good luck on someday making it to - and through - RFA. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TomStar81, and thank you very much for the kind comments! They actually come as quite a pick-me-up after a long couple of days. :) On that topic, I hope you'll excuse my slowness in responding; obligations kept me off project for the last few days. I don't believe I ever had the pleasure of meeting Phadriel, but based on the outlook expressed on her user page, I suspect I would like her--and certainly the comments from others on her talk page suggest her absence has left a real gap on the project. Well, here's to hoping she makes a surprise return some day!

As to rollback tool: as it happens, I've been contemplating requesting access for a while now. I contribute to quite a few areas where it would be useful, but I think it would be especially helpful for doing recent changes/vandalism checks, which I try to slip in here and there and which I've been meaning to scale up. I had anticipated making the request some time this fall, but this has turned out to be a bear of a month for me, so it slipped my mind altogether. If you're saying that I've already cleared your evaluation for granting the permissions, I will very gladly and gratefully accept your timely offer. :) But I'm also happy to apply through the dedicated page, if that was what you were going to suggest!

Anyway, all pragmatic talk put aside, I really appreciated your taking the time for the kind comments. Sometimes this project really comes through with a bump of positivity just when you need it most. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 06:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've updated your userights to include the Rollback function. If you have any questions or comments on its use, feel free to drop me a line. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tom--I appreciate it! I'll get down to putting to use for the project immediately. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 18:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Energetically Modified Cement

Sir:

I read the page that you were involved in and left a comment on its Talk Page. It seems upon further investigation, a person who seemed to really understand the science was pushed off the page editing, and someone calling his/herself "Karl" took over (and reduced the page to virtually nothing). It seems this was done by "Karl" first creating huge volumes of aggression using very extreme language to create the false vista about the science being "guff". Then, having effectively wrested control of the page, reducing it to nothing.

I am not beyond credible conspiracy theories and I do know there is a lot of money invested into the cement industry etc., at a time when the world is trying to reduce CO2. It would not be beyond the bounds of credibility that "Karl" was the puppet. If this is the case it means the objective poster was actually barged-off (it seems he/she was actually banned) in favor of a puppet writing a false-fact narrative parading as science (I come back to the fact that "Karl" used a lot of very extreme language to wrest control)

I would not raise this with you but for the fact unless I got this wrong, then upon further investigation, as soon as the page had been edited to remove its fuller informational content, "Karl" NEVER MADE ANOTHER EDIT on Wikipedia. He/she simply VANISHED never to be seen again.

I post this with no financial interest in anything to do with any part of the construction industry and I actually came across this page only because I was looking for milling techniques to do with preserving seed nutrients. But it does disturb me that it seems valid science was pushed out because the actual puppet shouted the loudest. This point is made because I have looked at the process and I have to say vibratory ball milling is very different to normal milling and therefore the claims about the effects being due to fineness of the particles seems more like Wikipedia original research based upon what "Karl" wanted it to read, than actual science (I went to the EMC website and there are loads of papers on there).

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.88.194.70 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Marlon Brando

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marlon Brando. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

Humour: Guys named Ralph

In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

In the media: Facebook and poetry

Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Julie Payette

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julie Payette. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Steve Bannon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Bannon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of pioneers in computer science

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of pioneers in computer science. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vision.

Hey, were you going to continue on about vision in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#How_do_photons_work_to_enable_visual_perception ? Thanks. 12.130.157.65 (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, friend IP. I'm sorry that I never had the opportunity to follow up on my original description as I had hoped, but I'm afraid an emergency situation at home took me off project for a couple of weeks. Unfortunately, because you operate across a range of IPs, I have no means to reliably ping you. But if you are still watching this page and the information is still of interest to you, please drop me a line and I will pick off where I left off. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay yes, this is where you left off on "the higher-level neuroscience, cognitive psychology and metaphysics of the perception are where I will pick up tomorrow. Hope the first part helps for now!"

And this is what you had: "Since no one has yet spoken to the biophysical, neurophysiological and cognitive mechanisms at work with regard to your latter set of questions (regarding what happens once the light enters the eye), and seeing as visual cognition is an area in which I have expertise, I will pick up the description from there. However, owing to time constraints, I may explain this process in small installments over the next couple of days, as this is a deeply complex set of topics--though I will try to keep discussion concentrated on the most top-level processes and try not get caught up in the weeds on the chemistry and neuroscience. Photons enter the eye through the optic lens, which, in the human eye, is controlled by muscles which flex it in order to focus the light on different portions of the retina, which absorbs the photon. Amongst the matter absorbing these photons are photoreceptive cells, rods and cone cells. These cells are preferentially sensitive to light of varying wavelengths and intensity (see also Photometry (optics) and Luminance). The absorption of photonic energy catalyzes a reaction in a receptive protein molecule, of class known as opsins, creating a chain reaction of protein activity for the purposes of cell signaling. The degree and duration of this stimulus either excites or inhibits the cell, towards a threshold where the cell will be more or less inclined to fire, sending a bioelectrical signal to another kind of specialized nerve cell, as the first step of relaying the signal that carries information as to what has happened with that particular receptor into the optic nerve and ultimately into the brain, where the combined stimulus of all the receptors is amalgamated, filtered and processed to create visual perception and the subjective experience of vision" Thanks. 12.130.157.65 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Richard Blumenthal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard Blumenthal. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Danica Roem

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Danica Roem. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Randy Quaid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Randy Quaid. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alex Jones (radio host). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

Technology report: Searching and surveying

Interview: A featured article centurion

WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

Featured content: We will remember them

Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sergio Verdú

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sergio Verdú. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Snow Rise.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere:: Hello, ICPH! Forgive my delay in response; I've been completely off-project, uncustomarily, for the last couple of weeks, due to urgent matters, so I did not see your message until today. First off, thank you for the kind comment and vote of confidence--always a lovely first thing to return to. :) Second, yes, I do have an interest in becoming a new page reviewer. It's something I've looked into in the recent past, but had not yet found the time to pursue. But given your encouragement as a recruiter, I think I'll look into stopping by WP:PERM/NPR in the coming weeks; just at the moment, my life is a complicated, tangled mess of professional and home life obligations. Of course, I suppose I could request now and then hit the ground running when I return (already intended to predicate my next wave of editorial activity in contributions that leverage special user rights. Well, we'll just see! However long it takes me to go about the request process, thanks again for the invitation! Snow ^{let's rap} 04:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Blake Shelton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blake Shelton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tom Hiddleston

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Hiddleston. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Snow Rise. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]]

: Snow ^{let's rap}

to

''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b>]] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b></sup>]]''

: Snow ^{let's rap}

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anomalocaris, and thank you for the head's up. I'm happy to make the changes, as they do not appear to create any difference in the display or functionality of my signature. However, just to satisfy my own technical curiosity, could I trouble you to elaborate on the nature of the error? Is it just that the lint check is showing that the HTML mark-up I am using is outdated, but still perfectly functional for the time being? Or is the HTML mark-up so obsolete that it can cause actual pragmatic issues with en.wp's native software? I'll make the change briefly, in any event, but clarification as to the exact nature of the lint errors might help me avoid similar mistakes in the future, so I'd be grateful if you have some time to provide me with some elucidation in this regard--thanks in advance! Snow ^{let's rap} 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For more on why, see WP:Linter. Thank you for updating your signature markup! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I see, so it's a prospective measure to facilitate HTML5. Thanks for the info, both times! Snow ^{let's rap} 23:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]