This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Re your comment here: this summer, right around the time of your post, I was bot summoned to an RfC about Balochistan, Pakistan asking whether the long-running civil war in that region should receive any mention. I was amazed at the laziness of a block of users (who regularly edit on Pakistani topics from a nationalist perspective) all arguing against any inclusion, without serious rationale. All bot-summoned users proposed some kind of inclusion.
I tend to agree with your concerns, and recently found out that half of the editors I've come into conflict with on random Eastern European pages once ran a secret email list serve together before I even began editing Wikipedia: [1]. Organized editing by governments or other major institutions would be that much more dangerous. -Darouet (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The question now is what to do about it, both generally and more specifically with regard to Pakistan. The obvious Pakistan solution would be to use an account (without overlapping editorial participation at any pages that appears sympathetic to pro-Pakistan PoV editing (without actually making or supporting such editing directly, asking Pakistan PoV pushers to participate with them in e-mail, and seeing if it leads to a private mailing list invite. But I don't know who has the time or inclination to play such "undercover agent" games. In the interim, it seems like we're limited to WP:DUCK. This kind of collusive campaigning exists on a lot of topics, both in article content and in the WP:POLICY space. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. It's complicated because if this kind of disruptive editing is organized by an institution (e.g. government), moles are impossible and detection difficult. If the disruption is just by a group of individual editors, then moles are possible (may have happened in the EE case), but who has time for that? And sometimes I wonder if, in practice, there's really such a big difference between people organizing off-wiki, and simply working together on-wiki long enough to behave as if they were. -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, my hope with regard to "moling" them would be that the organizationally-operated groups are not averse to admitting "converts". As for the big difference, I think the Arb case you link to gets at the difference. The question to me is "what's the difference between using e-mail a little bit for collaboration, and forming a conspiratorial bloc via e-mail? Plenty of us use e-mail between editors – the feature is built in, after all – and there's no cut-and-dry rule, so any given cluster of editors can claim they're doing nothing wrong until their level of off-WP collusion reaches exactly the level identified in the ArbCom case. The case meant well, but has effectively created an avenue for system-gaming. E-mail can be abused in multiple ways, too. One I'm familiar with (as the recipient of it) is the kind that looks like "Just a heads-up, but several other editors at [insert topic here] have contacted me in e-mail and want to pursue a [disruption | NPoV | whatever] case against against you at [ANI | AE | ArbCom | some other noticeboard]. I'm trying to talk them out of it, but not sure I can hold them off very long. Maybe you should back away from this topic area or just leave it alone for a while." Only to find out later that the same editor sent the same message, word-for-word, to every single person with an opposing viewpoint. A recent admin visitor to my page used to pull this stuff all the time, and I nearly filed an ArbCom case about that myself, having gathered sufficient evidence to have them desysopped. (I decided against it, because the on-WP discussion itself resolved out soon enough, against their position, I don't like drama, and the behavior was pervasive and obvious enough that they couldn't keep doing it, or someone else would take care of the matter; there was already an informal mailing list of recipients of such veiled and bogus threats who were preparing a case before I got involved.) These days I'm more concerned with WP:CIVILPOV and "slow-editwar" gaming. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have a lot of faith in the wikipedia project (I guess everyone who sticks around must), but even it has its dirty laundry :). Regarding civil POV-pushers, if editors truly are civil, I find they tend to be less disruptive because civility includes listening, learning and being open to changing your mind. People who don't aren't really civil, and if they stick around for long, it's because the community tolerates them. In a project like this that's hard to deal with. -Darouet (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, what's happened is that the community to an extent, but especially ArbCom and its "enforcers" at WP:AE have come to badly misinterpret WP:CIVIL as meaning "you can get away with anything, as long as you sneakily phrase everything in obsequious and ass-kissy language, no matter how much of an insulting WP:JERK you're really being if one reads between the lines, and no matter how much of a crazy PoV you are pushing." This has led to a lot of problematic outcomes. Straight-shooting editors are being chased off the system, and it's being handed over to long game slow-editwar types. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages
Disregard
– Requested behavior does not match that of the requester.
Hi, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't change my posts, including by splitting them up or adding my signature, and if you wouldn't change the order of posts. It makes it hard to follow the chronology. Many thanks, SarahSV(talk)22:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Fair enough. Then please don't post them as multiple sections on one post with a single sig. It's standard operating procedure to respond within one section to material in that section, and in another section or subsection to material in that section or subsection (and to refactor as necessary to not lose/confuse attribution). If you need a section-like heading within a post the ; Pseudo-heading here method works well. I didn't change the order of any posts. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Actually you did, I note, in moving my response to your claims way to the bottom where no one is liable to associate them with what you posted. I'm hereafter going to ignore any requests of this sort from you, since they're hypocritical and nonconstructive. You have no business demanding people leave your poorly formatted and section-OWNing material alone when you have no qualms about refactoring others' posts to make them effectively irrelevant. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). SMcCandlish and SlimVirgin: I've heard that using ; to create pseudo-headers causes problems for low-vision users with screenreaders. I think I read it at MOS:ACCESSIBILITY some time back, so the preferred method is '''Pseudo-heading here''' (using wikimarkup). As for threaded replies, I wish Wikipedia had a better system for smoothing those in. I have read a couple or ARB cases and their system of section replies is really hard to follow in context because everybody has to reply only to themselves in their own comment section. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}20:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I recall there being a bug open about MW treating this markup as DL/DT/DD at all unless more specifically told to do so, but I don't think anything's come of it yet. Anyway, we also have the {{pseudoheading}} template for this and other purposes, and my point above was that creation of entire talk page subsections and then objecting to anyone using them as talk page subsections isn't how we do things. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SMcCandlish. 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.
Hiya, I'm sure you noticed that WP:CELTS is a total mess. I decided to have a stab at reviving it. I'd appreciate it immensely if you could help out with this, eg by inviting anyone you know who might take an interest (and/or scouring user categories for Wikipedians who speak Celtic languages, support Celtic nationalism, enjoy Celtic music etc)--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 14:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. It was advised by Dirtlawyer1 to ask you a question about 'The' in an article name. Should The Summit League article be moved to Summit League per WP:THE. IMO, it should as it is just like the universities (e.g. Ohio State University) and No. 2 for the US. Just because the league wants to be called "The Summit League", doesn't mean we need to, as well... I planned on doing a requested move once I got a couple of others' opinions on the matter. Thanks. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 19:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Corkythehornetfan: Yes. We don't keep "The" except in the titles of published works (The Lord of the Rings), and a small number of conventional cases that are near-universally treated this way (The Beatles, The Hague). For other cases like the United Nations, the Crimea, the Cato Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Labour Party (UK), etc., "the" is dropped. Our readers expect this by now, and it's just redundant to include it. Several university RMs are good precedents to cite, along with MOS:TM and WP:COMMONNAME. The inclusion of "The" in a logo is just a stylization, if the vast majority of reliable souces do not both include it and capitalize it as part of the proper name, even if it legally is one, as in the case of the Brunswick Corporation which is technically "The Brunswick Corporation". Per WP:OFFICIALNAME, what the official legal name is takes a back seat to the common name. If sources are apt to refer to things like "a 2015 report by the Summit League" (not "The Summit League"), or "the current Summit League president", etc., this is a good sign that the common name does not have "The" in it, regardless of the logo. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I see more with just the lowercase "the" than I do with the capitalized "the". Appreciate the response! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 20:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your note at the end of your comment on the article. I forgot to give y'all credit for the help. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
RE this matter, I agree -- it shouldn't have required a RFC but for some reason I was unable to fix it. It seemed to be embedded somewhere (see [2]) -- no place to make any correction -- no lead text. Quis separabit?01:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Understood. This kind of situation doesn't arise much. When the top of the article looks something like:
{{pp-pc1}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{calendar}}
{{This date in recent years}}
{{Day}}
You can simply look in each template in series (Template:pp-pc1, etc.) until you find the one with the broken content. Very few articles have template-generated leads, though. Arguably, this template should be substituted in all such cases so that the lead content is in the article proper, not still in the template. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Fixed
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sơn Đoòng Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spelunker. 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.
Hi, Did you get my ping from here? I botched it because I used the 'ping group' template and it does not work on meta, so I tried to reset the ping but that does not always work. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:09, 15 Jnuary 2016 (UTC)
Not sure. On mobile right now. I did follow your link above, and sent the Eventbrite form request per the messagev there :-) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
When it comes to including trivial details that aren't controversial, but which don't seem encyclopedically relevant, that's more a poor vs. good writing matter, not a style matter in the sense usually meant here, and is a matter for editorial discretion at the article.
I think your points are good, but they are rarely enforced (when does a plot claim become dubious?), which I believe speaks to our silent consensus on plot usage. The question I'm after is whether plot coverage should be proportional to secondary source coverage, as a matter of due weight. (That isn't a sourcing requirement but the corollary is about preference—when we do source a plot, why do we not say that we prefer secondary sources for plot over primary sources, when we prefer secondary sources for everything else per the primary source guidelines? I didn't think that would require a WP:V discussion as it seems very straightforward.) That "poor vs. good writing matter ... editorial discretion at the article" conversation isn't happening (at least in the video games wikiproject), and it makes for plot sections like that of Freedom Planet (a featured article): three whole paragraphs, in great detail, even though the reviews barely cover the basic plot. The discussion is at MoS because this was a Writing about fiction question but it could also fit in a number of other talk pages. What's your take? czar22:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Plot claims frequently become dubious, especially in summaries of plots about which there are debatable interpretive points (e.g. the "Is Deckard a replicant?" debate among Blade Runner fans), and in summaries of TV episode plots when people bring their personal interpretations of how events in episode 47 relate to those in episodes 12 and 29, etc. I don't see how plot coverage on WP can be proportional to secondary source coverage of plot points at all. The purpose of a WP plot summary is neutrality and adequacy. The purpose of most plot-discursive material in secondary sources is a) commentary on what's popular/surprising/exciting/controversial, and b) analysis of that which is subjective/complex/subject to interpretation. For WP itself to pursue the former is a WP:NPOV problem, and the latter is a WP:NOR problem. WP's own coverage of the former belongs in a "Reviews" or "Public response" or "Critical reception" section, and the of the latter in a section on literary/film studies and other academic approaches to the subject, with specific interpretive views (which are primary source material) being credited to those making them. I don't have an immediate answer to the problem of over-detailed plot summaries in video games, I just don't think that tying it to what the gaming press wrote about as exciting or as subject to conflicting interpretations has much to do with how WP should summarize the plot, to the extent a game has one (many really don't). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
– Sources clearly demonstrate that the style in question is known and recognized, ergo this editors' sourcing demand has already been met.
By saying that you might have a "good reason" and "we should all hear him out," I was trying to be affirmatively supportive.[3] I know you have trouble with AGF, but this was my thought process in this case. Maybe now it will be easier to recognize. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not misinterpreting anything, or making any assumptions, much less bad-faith ones. Using unctuous working to disguise the fact that you don't trust any other MoS editors [4] doesn't make that any less an assumption of bad faith on your part. This is just more of your WP:CIVILPOV habitual opposition to MoS saying anything unfamiliar to you personally, unless and until someone "sources the MoS" with external material to back up each and every point in the guideline, which as you well know but refuse to admit is based not on external rule-book thumping but, like all of WP:POLICY, on consensus observation of what does and doesn't work well on WP.
Let's turn this on its ear: You provide reliable sources that say specifically that the other reliable sources that support this kind of hyphenation when it's needed are wrong, and which make a good case why they're wrong. Absent that, all we have are a) sources who favor and disfavor the practice, and thus b) the observable fact that the practice exists and is supported by some sources. Ergo, even if MoS were subject to WP:CORE like an article, which it of course is not, this imaginary "MOS sourcing" requirement would be satisfied already. We're done here. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
January 2016
Fixed
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nine-ball may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
{cuegloss|bar pool}} players, using coin-operated tables that deliver a full set of fifteen balls.{[clear|both}}
– No resolution is possible if the other party will not participate toward resolution.
Hostile, circular chest-beating isn't a valid use of my talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We're obviously not going to agree on your interpretation of events, so I'm not going to rebut it—but, wow, do you seriously need to advertise this grudge? Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!21:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: When someone objects multiple times over a long period of time to the same behavior pattern – of recasting people's arguments in parodied, bogus form and then attacking the straw man version instead of responding to what they actually wrote – the appropriate response is to take the objection seriously and stop the behavior, or explain why you think you're not mischaracterizing their views after all.
An inappropriate response is to declare a "grudge", and criticize them for raising an objection. I have no grudge with you, and I reject your announcement of one.
I've had no editorial dispute with you for months, even mostly agree with you on the thread that raised this objection again, and have supported your views in several other discussions on the same page in the intervening time. But if you continue to make up warped caricature versions of what I said, and just respond to your projected fantasies about my positions instead of what I actually did say, it's entirely reasonable to point it out and object to it, until you get the point that this is an uncivil behavior pattern, and stop doing it. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
recasting people's arguments in parodied, bogus form and then attacking the straw man version—I did nothing in my comment that even resembles that, SMcCandlish—and your bogus "strawman" argument was torn to fine shreds very publicly at ANI by more than one other editor. I came here in an attempt to get this all put behind us, but apparently you're going to carry the humiliation to your grave and find every opportunity to drag it up. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!04:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hyperbole and melodrama isn't useful here, and gives the impression your intent is WP:WINNING not resolution. The fact that someone at the ANI thread wasn't familiar enough with fallacy definitions to understand why straw man arguments are straw man arguments and sided with you doesn't make me wrong (I chose not to contest their assertion that I was wrong, not because I was conceding, but because ANI is not a forum for sport debate about fallacy definitions, and that ANI wasn't even about either of us). I actually wrote a refutation of your above response, including exact quotes demonstrating what the straw man was this time (and that your claim that no one proposed using "winningest" all over the place is false to begin with – two editors in the discussion quite clearly did exactly that; and so on), but on a re-read it just makes me look like I'm trying to win instead of finding common ground. If the discussion continues in this vein, I think an outside observer would simply cite WP:JERK at both of us. Given that we're actually agreeing more than we'll allow ourselves to agree, as it were, in the actual MoS discussion in question, this seems counterproductive and immature, so I'm just going wipe the slate and try again. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Reboot: I have no feud with you. I just ask that you not recharacterize my arguments as other than they were and then respond to your version of what you think I'm saying, versus what I actually said. It's unnecessarily antagonistic whether intended that way or not, and all it results in is wasted time and effort: you to try to restate me and argue against that restatement, me to object and then repeat what I said the first time, then both of us to re-argue what our points really are and how they relate, plus side-band mutual complaining like this user-talk thread. WT:MOS and similar pages already have too much off-topic debate on them, so let's not contribute to it. I will endeavor to not make the same error with you. I also concede that my expression of frustration about what I saw as the same pattern happening again could look like an attempt to revive an earlier dispute, or just pointless sarcasm. It wasn't intended that way; it was an "I thought we were past this already" sentiment, but it clearly didn't come across as intended. Live and learn. Your own post here, though less temperate than I would like, ultimately appears to express the same "I thought we were past that" message. Can we be good with each other now? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
No, your fellow editors (plural) were not "not unfamiliar enough with fallacy definitions"—you were (and are) simply flat-out wrong, yet are nevertheless digging in your heels—now, there's a pattern of yours I recognize. Your reboot is in bad faith, and I reject it. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!09:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Well I tried. I see only one person here who won't let something go and is digging their heels in, and it isn't me. I'm just going to repeat what I said earlier, "Hyperbole and melodrama isn't useful here, and gives the impression your intent is WP:WINNING not resolution", and write you off. I won't ask this time: Stop making up nonsense fantasy versions of what you wish people said and trying to put that in their mouths. Go read straw man. The definition is very simple, and even a child can understand it. If you recast someone's argument in a modified, caricature version and argue against that fake, silly rendition of it, instead of addressing what they actually said, that's a straw man. You do it constantly, it's childish, and it's uncivil. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Not interested in further circular nonsense with you. "Proof by assertion" is just as ridiculous as straw-manning. Simply denying what I say without actually refuting it is not an argument, it's just noise. If you don't agree how our article at Straw man defines it, go find sources that support your view and change it. Otherwise you're just talking to yourself. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It's been refuted point-by-point by more than one editor, yet you continue with your "proofs by assertion"—and "If you don't agree how our article at Straw man defines it" is about as perfect an example of a strawman argument as you can get. Curly Turkey🍁¡gobble!12:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hand-waving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Misdirection. 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.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Leave me alone
On the off-chance that you actually didn't understand this the last time I told you, I'll be clearer: Leave me alone.
Don't follow me around. Don't post on my talk page. Don't presume to take credit for my productivity or anything else that I do.
If anyone had said about you one tenth of the things that you just said about me, you would be calling them a liar and insist that they stop willfully falsifying your words. Per AGF, let's say that you are just extremely bad at figuring out my motives. It's past time for you to leave me alone. I'm not your business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I did not follow you around; I went to Curly Turkey's page to talk to him about something (which I still need to do), and incidentally found you violating your topic ban and personally attacking me. As instructed by the TB-issuing admin, I'll be making an AE enforcement request. I have not posted to your talk page since responding to the question you asked, you blanking my response, and asking me not to post there (and I've had no reason to, since you stopped posting aspersions and accusations there about me, though I will be required to drop off an AE notice later, as a procedural matter). If you don't want communication or interaction with me, then stop doing it. You should not be posting on my talk page, maligning my mental health on other people's talk pages, and trying to get someone to WP:PROXY for you to continue your personalized MoS-related grudge match. Did you not read a thing that all those canvassed admins told you? When you verbally attack people and conspire to start trouble for them, you make yourself their business, against their will, against policy, and against the purpose and goals of the project. We've all begged you, and a noticeboard full of admins has required you, to give it a rest, move on, and re-examine your priorities here. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
American Indian Movement
Resolved
I wanted to make sure you were aware of your mention in the discussion of the recent speedy merge of Category:American Indian Movement to Category:Native American Movements going on at [6]? I'd personally prefer to see Category:American Indian Movement for a number of articles, but like many, I missed the speedy merge discussion. Best, Smmurphy(Talk)16:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Commented there. Yes, the CfSR was an error on my part; I misread the nature of the majority of the category's contents, because it was a mixture of AIM-specific stuff, other movements, and a random-looking assortment of individual activists who belong in the activists category. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Already commented in this one.
Disregard
Declined
Done
Fixed
Moved to WP:AE request
