User talk:Mandruss/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Annual discretionary sanctions alert regarding post-1932 US politics and closely related topics, 2017-11-20

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Already well aware of this, but thanks. Actually I was considering posting this for you, since you're the one who re-reverted in violation of the remedies. My re-re-revert was only for enforcement of the remedies, as I stated in my edit summary, and I believe that's allowed. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mandruss. Saying that I cannot revert once, but you can twice, is illogical. Please try to grep the intent of 1RR. Logically. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Already responded to, below. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

1RR warning for Donald Trump regarding three reverts of my edits

THIS IS YOUR ONLY WARNING: Your recent editing history at Donald Trump, shows that you have engaged in edit warring. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the one-revert rule (1-RR), which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on any other topical pages (e.g.- abortion, transgender, iraq, post-1932 US politics, and so on) that are also 1-RR within a 24-hour period. BECAUSE THIS ARTICLE IS A 1-RR ARTICLE: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—even on different pages—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule, which you have.

You reverted my edit at the Donald Trump article, claiming in your edit summary that my edit was not a convention that suited you, and that it was somehow arguably worse (without presenting the argument in your edit summary), then you restored the substantive portions of your revert (fixing the bare URL, harmonizing the datestyle, etc.) back to status quo ante bellum. I restored the remaining non-controversial portion of my edit, and you reverted that, along with anti-WP:Link rot archiving that I had performed using a sanctioned archiving tool created by the Internet Archive. All edits performed by me were done in a conventional manner, using stock tools. There was zero customization. Please self-revert my edits, or agree to have me do it with no further ado from you. Thank you. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

For my first revert, see (1) WP:BRD and (2) this sentence in the ArbCom remedies: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." For my second revert, I have already said that, as I understand it, reversion is allowed for the purpose of enforcing the ArbCom remedies. I've done it before without consequences or even objection from uninvolved editors (including multiple admins who often visit that article and could impose a discretionary sanction on me). I've also seen it done by others, also without consequence. If you disagree, take it to WP:ARCA for clarification. As far as I can tell, you are taking an aggressive stance from a completely baseless position, and any experienced outside observer would see that. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I have no idea what you mean by "stock tools". Anybody can create a script without community consensus for its use. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mandruss. You state that no spacing is the convention?

You state that 1RR only allows you to revert once, and not me.

The verbiage you see on the Trump talk page is contracditory and that verbiage is not found on the official Template:ds/talk notice templates. Such templates must be placed unaltered and via substitution. The one you see is altered, not substituted, and is therefore invalid. Ds template text may not be altered. Period.

As to your BTW, you have no idea about much. Your vision is myopic and self-serving. Consistently.

Actually, no. The preferred method is to archive links proactively so that they cannot rot. Adding the archived link to the live link makes an easy task of getting to the archived version when necessary; no searching.

As for spacing, some are spaced, some are not, and the script provides harmony. Why is that an issue for you? Wow.

Undoing somebody's edits because you have a preference is nervy.

Please do not bludgeon this. Your bullying is pedantic and boorish.

As to your statement of where I must discuss things, we are permitted to have discussions on the page of our choice - mine, yours, theirs, or the article. I chose to have it here, and there, but not where you dictate it must be. I look forward to a bit more collaboration and cooperation from you. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if you hadn't started with personal insults, I wouldn't continue arguing with you here. I have stated my position clearly and I stand by it. Feel free to take it to article talk, WP:ANI, or ArbCom, but the user talk ends here and anything further will be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Mandruss. 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) 10:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mandruss. 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)

Season's Greetings

Hello Mandruss: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Ping test

Hi, did you get my ping, from my user talk? Anyway, happy holidays to you! Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant - No, same test here, and likewise happy to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

What I did was post a comment with my sig, then edit the comment by including the ping plus replacing the old sig with a new one. I thought that worked, but thanks for letting me know it doesn’t. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Oh I see. Yeah I've seen people do that and didn't know whether it worked. In your case, however, you were within the same minute so the new sig was identical to the existing one, and the software may not have recognized it as a new sig. I'll now do your test while waiting a minute or two between edits. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Anythingyouwant - Test 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Drat, no ping received.  :-( Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, question answered then. Glad to have that cleared up. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Mandruss!

Happy New Year!

Mandruss,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Help looking over a new article

Hi Mandruss, you've been pretty critical of some articles I've started in the past, and helped improve them by critiquing sources / improving language, etc. I've just made an article about a village in Myanmar, Inn Din, which is in the news now because the Myanmar army just admitted to executing 10 Rohingya there. I've written articles about small villages in Kenya, but never about a village where a massacre occurred. Would you mind looking at the article and critiquing it when you get a chance? Best, -Darouet (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet: I do language, and I'll have a look. I also make good citations and a mean margarita. As for critiquing sources, that's not a strength, so you may have me confused with somebody else. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

OK I probably wasn't being precise when I wrote "sources," but you are the editor I was thinking of [1]. Thank you! -Darouet (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet: - Done, I think. Good work there, you didn't leave me much to do in my skill areas. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Mandruss: I appreciate your time. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet: - I happened to look at the file page for your satellite image and saw that it has been nominated for deletion.
I was there because I wanted to add geo coordinates, Google Maps apparently never heard of the place, and I was hoping there might be a clue there as to location. But the existence of the satellite image suggests that you found the location somewhere else. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss — I did find the satellite image elsewhere (it's available on dozens of news sites, typically sourced differently on different sites). I took one with no annotation and added my own, making a new image. I'm not an expert on copyright and images so if someone who knows better thinks it should be deleted, I can't contest that. As to the location, I tried to give a sense in the article description, but it's here [2], for your records. Thanks! -Darouet (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I found a replacement background image at USGS and will upload that version in a few minutes. -Darouet (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet: Added coords, precision per WP:COORDPREC. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP

RE: this: The construct "that is far from a C class article especially about a biography of living persons.... is nonsensical, even if its author was trying instead for condescension. I'm not sure what your comment sought to achieve. Too bad we can't simply use the talk page to develop content, as was the objective of the discussion that I started. - MrX 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It sought to achieve a correction of the record of the statement, It's also not a BLP. You see, the 'B' in BLP mean biography"—for the benefit of any editors who don't know any better, who read that now or at any time in the future. I haven't a clue why you would say such a thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the title of BLP is misleading as hell and should have been renamed to WP:Content about living persons ages ago. That doesn't mean experienced editors should be using the misleading title in the way you did. If you didn't know what he meant by his comment, you should have. In my most humble of opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

One of us is missing the point. PackMecEng did not refer to the policy; he referred to the article. Everyone on the talk page understands how WP:BLP works, but a few toss the TLA around like a hand grenade. Why encourage that?- MrX 20:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I may well be missing the point. If your objection was that the "living person" aspect is irrelevant to the class, that is not what you said. I agree with your point as to hand grenades, but I didn't see his comment as one. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

Apologies for removing your {{od}} and changing your indentation. However, as I understand it, the purpose of Template:Outdent is to indicate that an outdented comment is a reply to the indented comment above it, see WP:Indentation#Outdenting. So if your unindented comment isn't a reply to any comment above it, I think you should omit the {{od}}. --Pipetricker (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose I could just left-align in such cases, but then it's indistinguishable from the widespread indentation laziness/inattention. My instinct is to give a more positive indication, I don't know of any other way to do that, and it's not inconsistent with the information you linked above. I grant you that the "more positive indication" isn't worth much if others don't know what I mean by it.
From your perspective, it appears that you simply judged that the indentation was not deep enough to justify the use of {{od}}, and I don't think that's sufficient reason to modify someone else's comment. WP:TPO speaks of "Fixing format errors", not adjusting things according to your personal views and preferences. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump health

Hi thanks for your comment. Would you mind moving my comment in whatever you feel is the appropriate format as Prop. 3? I'd appreciate it since you seem to be better at that sort of thing than I. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Huh?

I don't understand this edit, or your edit summary. It reads MUCH better before your reversion. I think you should self revert with a "my bad" edit summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Duh, I misread it too. HORRIBLE sentence, though. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Fix it with my blessing. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I gave it a go. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Thanks. I'm tempted to split the sentence, one sentence for the comments, another for the international condemnation. That would allow active voice in the first sentence. I'm resisting the temptation for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump health proposal 1A

Dear Mandruss, I just noticed your close of Talk:Donald Trump#Specific proposal 1A, and I would respectfully disagree that a consensus was reached. Headcount is 7-4, and even supporters are having reservations about the sentence as suggested. I believe that the close should be reverted, and more discussion should be allowed to proceed, perhaps with yet other wordings. I'm refraining from undoing your close or reverting the article edit, because I'm involved. I will however remove entry #24 from the "Current consensus" summary, because as you noted several times in the past, this list should be reserved for the most solid consensus outcomes; this is not one of them. — JFG ^talk 14:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: This was anything but a unilateral decision. The possibility of a close was raised by Galobtter, who is not known for inexperience, poor judgment, or unfairness. It was then discussed by him, me, Scjessey, and Emir. I went out of my way to ask Emir whether he felt it was a consensus, since he was on the other side, and that's more than most editors would do in that situation (the discussion itself is more than most editors would do). He said he considered it a narrow consensus, and we then proceeded. Nobody starts a separate discussion to seek a consensus on a consensus and lets it run for four days to give everybody a chance to chime in; that would be ridiculous and you would then have the same close issue with that discussion. I note that MelanieN is aware of the close and doesn't think it was out of line. I think you're somewhere in the gray area between legitimate complaint and wikilawyering. I'm not reopening that myself, but I'll abstain from discussion about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you acted unilaterally. I'm just saying that this particular discussion doesn't meet our usual standard for the "current consensus" itemized list. That's the only thing I reverted. — JFG ^talk 20:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Ah, so you are, I didn't read carefully enough. What is your understanding as to the difference between consensuses in the list and consensuses not in the list? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: No, you said above, "I believe that the close should be reverted". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It clearly had consensus. And -- conditional on there being any mention of the event -- I would support it as the consensus text that's been discussed and accepted. The alternative is that somebody will come along and remove the bit about the commenting third parties. So it belongs on the consensus list to prevent a drive-by removal and set an appropriately high bar to change it after all this effort. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: If you would clarify whether you are disputing the close or the list entry, we can go from there. I feel less strongly about the latter, but there's no point in elaborating until we know where you stand. I'm seeing mixed messages. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I was lightly disputing the close, and won't die on this hill. I am however strongly disputing the list entry, and will maintain my stance unless convinced by a more clear-cut discussion or an RfC. — JFG ^talk 20:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Ok, then I repeat: What is your understanding as to the difference between consensuses in the list and consensuses not in the list? I mean, as to how to handle future BOLD edits to the content? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus items on the list are the result of RfCs or quasi-unanimous local surveys. We've been through many such cases before, where you cautioned us against applying any less-stringent criteria, and I agree. — JFG ^talk 21:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

OK this is going to get real disruptive fast. Because the next step will be a rush to see who's first to post an artfully worded RfC that assumes the conclusion lies within a certain limited range of POV alternatives. Been there, done that. Is everything on the consensus list the outcome of an RfC? No. Otherwise we wouldn't need the list. So the only difference is that we'll get bot-summoned RfC paratroopers coming in and waste more time on a minor issue that will drain editor resources from the much more important matters of parsing racism, obstruction, taxation, international trade, military strategy, and so forth. We need to be clear that would be disruptive and oppose it. And if there is an RfC, we should first have some chat about what the alternatives will be -- to prevent the kind of gaming that too often invalidates them. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any appetite for opening an RfC about the particular text being discussed at Trump's health section. The text from "Proposal 1A" can remain in there, supported by its local consensus. If other editors care to revisit the issue in the future, we may obtain a stronger consensus. — JFG ^talk 21:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That begs the question. Consensus can change, but it belongs there unless you object to the close and are prepared to stick to site process to resolve your issues. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Our dear friend MelanieN agrees that we have reached a good outcome.[3] No need to discuss further at this stage. — JFG ^talk 15:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Rfc on math behaviour

Hi Mandruss,

you removed the Rfc in the caption because you thought it is not an Rfc. As I said below, I do not have any experience with Rfcs here and I do not know if I should have included a template or it was missing a voting section. Maybe the wording is not precise enough or I included too much or too little explanation. Maybe it should be a proposal rather than a policy issue.

What I proposed will probably be classified as a "breaking change" on phabricator which cannot be done without community consensus and people will have different opinions on what the best solution is. There are still technical issues that probably take at least a year to resolve, however I think such a controversial change should be announced and discussed as early as possible.

I know people that will probably have an opinion on the matter and it seems that they have not seen my proposal. I did not want to ping them directly since that might create the impression that I want to manipulate the Rfc somehow. I thought someone would publicize it for me and notify relevant projects such as Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Engineering, because I don't know how that is usually done.--Debenben (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Debenben: Hi. At a minimum all RfCs (1) have an {{Rfc}} template and (2) begin with a concise and neutral question followed by your signature. Following that signature you can add elaboration, explanation, background, etc., as needed. A bot copies the part up to and including the first signature to one or more RfC listing pages specified using the "topic" parameter(s) of the {{Rfc}} template. An RfC is not required to have a !voting section, but a majority do for the sake of organization (usually called "Survey"). It often also has a Discussion section for threaded discussion. Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#RFC: Alleged is a fairly typical example, although it doesn't have an "elaboration" part.
Because RfCs are listed, they automatically have greater visibility than normal discussions, and therefore more participation. It's important to choose the topic(s) carefully. To notify WikiProjects, (1) find the desired projects starting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory and (2) create a new thread on each project's talk page, each with a brief explanation of what is being decided in the RfC and a link to the RfC. These notifications can be done for non-RfC discussions as well.
WP:RFC is worth a read before starting any RfCs. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

your revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Douglas_High_School_shooting&diff=next&oldid=825783512 Interesting to read that you acknowledge the "politically loaded"-ness of the phrase but entirely fail to make a connection to the meagre excuse the POTUS has to offer in this mass shooting. Of course I was aware that we have more conservative contributors in WP. I am only amazed at the instant willingness for complete denial to make logical connections. But thanks for the demonstration. -- Kku (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That interesting, since I've found that most people claim there are more liberal contributors in WP. I'm fairly certain if you investigated closely, you would find that 95% of people who see conservative bias are liberals and 95% of people who see liberal bias are conservatives. For the record, I'm personally quite anti-Trump, but I check that at the door when I edit Wikipedia, so it often looks like I'm pro-Trump. I guess I make about as many Trump-unfavorable edits as Trump-favorable ones, I can't say I keep track of that. Bottom line: Wikipedia content policy forbids making such inferences and associations on our own judgment. Have a great day. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Joking apart, I did some investigating, and I am convinced that you speak/write the truth. I quite like your kind of humour that you show on your user page, too. So let's remain sensible: The phrase of contention is a Janus-faced one. As such it is and will continue be "loaded". It can as such never be treated as a completely neutral expression of sympathy. As an aside I can add that for most parts of the rest of the world, its various repetitions in various inappropriate contexts do sound extremely shallow. This may not be of any concern for US-Americans, but fortunately, WP and its reach is international, even when you restrict yourself to the en:wp (which is, from my point of view, the most complete, open, critical and relevant of them all). -- Kku (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Move - Trump/racism

Hi Mandruss. Just to let you know -- I put that short note about move-thumping up top as an indented reply to the note from the Admin who closed the previous move request.Somebody else then moved it downstairs with the "distraction" section header. I suspect part of your reaction was to the tag that kinda made a straight little comment into something quite different -- turning a suggestion we not waste time into a pointy waste of time! Regards. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Sorry, totally misread the situation. I did see the comment at the top, but I assumed you moved it down for increased visibility after you didn't get any replies to it. Mea maxima culpa. I removed my comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I figured as much. A successful little tactic. Kind of mini-Putin intervention. I think we've turned the corner on these American Politics articles. The POV holdouts are fewer every day and the good RS reporting is converging on a robust narrative of the facts. It's just too bad when a few editors waste everyone else's volunteer time. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

/* "Close" at Stoneman Douglas */

Reverted edit as requested

-Captain

No idea what to title this, feel free to rename as you see fit

I can't tell which angle of approach you're taking. Either I'm wrong or I'm disassociated enough to be cognizant of both sides. Curious to know which it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Diff for clarity, please? I might change the heading once I know what you're referring to. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Basic shit I know because I'm not an American. Actually there was no point bringing up "American" into it, I only did because of the legislation involved, since in my experience it's a common issue of not understanding these terms regardless of where you're from. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I'm saying Americans over all are not well informed on political issues, which is why we're in serious trouble now. Apologies if that was unclear. That was admittedly tangential and meta, which is why I made it small. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I can understand that. Informity isn't only a U.S. problem, its pretty much a global one. I wish you Americans all the best in sorting your problems out. There is no doubt an issue with gun crime in the U.S., just that throwing buzzwords at it isn't going to fix it. It's offtopic, but where do you stand on the whole gun control issue? if you don't mind me asking. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Can't say my position is fully formed, but I'd start with a ban on AR-15 style guns and anything similar. I think the NRA are insane.
Strongly opposed to teachers carrying guns, as there is too much fear in society as it is. The weapons might be concealed on the person, but kids would know they were there anyway and draw conclusions at an age when they are developing worldviews that will be with them for the rest of their lives. It's basically equivalent to arms escalation. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't say mine is fully formed either. I grew up with the preconception that Americans were nuts for wanting to have guns, but my position there has tempered drastically in recent years. I don't really understand why the U.S. has problems with school shootings but Australia, for example, doesn't. There's nothing preventing a similar devastating massacre here, even with our tighter gun laws. I'm not really sure on concealed carry versus open carry, I feel like I'd rather know if the person walking by was carrying a firearm then not (granted it's not exactly easy to conceal the bulge created even by a smallish handgun). It's something I am interested in, hence my asking. Thanks for your time. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Eternal burnt peace offering

InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, February 25, 2018 (UTC) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

The bread represents our breaking of such years ago, the pickle symbolizes the bitter acidity we found ourselves in later, the beef is the substantial filling we've squeezed into massacre articles despite the pickles and the cheese signifies our warm gooey future of overall homogenized palatability.

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, February 25, 2018 (UTC) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

This shot of scotch means they were all out of milkshakes. It is good for one free excuse to break the ceasefire, and comes with free and infinite refills. I trust you to use them responsibly.

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 03:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Very creative! I think a bit of an overcompensation for something that was just a pointed discussion between two guys who know and respect each other. There certainly was no bitter acidity that I'm aware of, but I know you needed to make the analogy theme work. I've already reflected after sleeping on it that you behaved a little better than I did in that situation—as usual. Over all, I think we were an example of keeping a strong disagreement civil, and I pat us both on the back for that. We do this stuff right. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to a particular pickle; we've squabbled a lot over the years. Not the sort of acid to instantly dissolve a Mortal Kombatant or anything, just a bit of a kick, relative to cucumber cool. "Tangy", some might say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

Squabbled. You mean disagreed? Yeah, we often see things differently because we're wired differently. Big deal. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Big deal indeed. If Joe Perry and Steven Tyler can still make Aerosmith work, we can still make Wikipedia work. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, February 25, 2018 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't go that far. Wikipedia is broken beyond repair, as long as it insists on the self-governance model. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Wikipedia got big around the same time Aerosmith got sad. But if they can still coast, we can still coast. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

And yes, there should have been a comma after "business" in my previous edit summary. Had to delete it for space constraints. How minor an edit is that? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

a heads-up

You said you agreed with Animalparty, so I draw your attention to my reply to his comment. Geo Swan (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I see that you have been kept very busy herding cats of late.

Gandydancer (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

OPPS! That kitty would not come to your page - maybe you can find him... Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I like kittens! (And puppies, so dog-loving talk page stalkers won't hate me forever.) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Well it good that you like cats because you certainly have your work cut out for you on that new page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it ain't easy opposing anything and everything anybody else does. I'm completely drained by the end of the day! ―Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for devoting your energy and editing skill to this page. Much appreciated! Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sutherland revert

--Mandruss, this is AllSidesMatter. Give sufficient reason as to why you're choosing to delete pertinent facts from the page I've edited or you will be reported to Admins for disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@AllSidesMatter: Hello. The reason you request is found in the edit summary by Ianmacm, here. But the point is now moot because I have removed the name, which was added today by a different user, from the lead, for the reason I stated in that edit summary, here. You are of course free to start a discussion on the article's talk page to seek a consensus for your edit. You might also have a look at WP:BRD for some perspective on disruptive editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to code so this is AllSidesMatter again. I wonder why you're selective about the names in this article. You don't care that Kelley's name is mentioned more than once or any other name besides Stephen. Furthermore, if you were actually right in deleting Stephen's name, you were wrong in deciding to delete his name the first time Stephen is referenced. Deleting his name the second time he is referenced is one thing (still wrong though) but it is incorrect by grammar, writing, and journalistic standards to delete his name the first time he is referenced. I am going to challenge your decisions on all fronts here, but until I get that ball rolling I'm going to add Stephen's name back into the article the first time he is referenced and delete his name where he is referenced the second time to minimize the serious political bias you're bringing into your editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSidesMatter (talk • contribs)

I am going to challenge your decisions on all fronts here - @AllSidesMatter: You might wanna read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Take it to the article's talk page where other editors may see it and participate. Or, drop the issue. The choice is yours. Also read WP:AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disregard last message, I got shootings mixed up. Fuck, what is this country coming to? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the articles mixed up, you didn't need to self-revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No problemo. Chaos reigns anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Mandruss but I am not challenging you out of hatred or grudge but because I believe all of your points on this matter are inaccurate, disingenuous, or not properly backed by Wiki rules/guidelines. I believe I have a better case on all fronts which is why I am challenging your assertions on all fronts. This does not fall under Battlegrounds. AllSidesMatter (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

JavaScript

I noticed you wish to learn JavaScript.

Would you like to jump right in?

I just got a script I've been working on for enhancing search results to operational status.

It's definitely not ready for prime time, and so I haven't listed it anywhere. I haven't put any try/catches in it yet, but it should work in most cases.

If you are interested in giving it a test drive, it is SearchSuite.js.

Give it a run around the track, and ping me from its talk page, under discussions. Let me know your thoughts, questions, etc. Any and all feedback is welcome, as I am very interested in improving the script further, and its documentation. (Be sure to try it out on larger searches, that have 500+ results, and the TrueMatch feature, by using the "intitle:" parameter in your searches).

By the way, what programming experience do you have?     — The Transhumanist   02:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: I recommend you join WP:JS, and use/help-further-build the resource pages presented there.

Yeah, I was basically wanting to get to a point where I can write my own scripts to help me with stuff that I do all the time, like cite cleanup. I haven't seen a script that comes even close to the kinds of things I would want to do (and most of them are frankly pretty ugly). I wanted to get there with a minimum time investment. What I was looking for at VPT was pointers to the best online learning resources for people like me. No doubt there are many of them, and some of them are better than others. All I got was a pointer to information about how to use JS at Wikipedia, for people who already know JS.
My programming experience is about 30 years of IBM mainframe assembler, REXX, COBOL, RPG II, etc, basically dinosaur stuff. Some minimal work with HTML for personal applications (that's not programming, I know). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What are pretty ugly? The things you want to do, or the scripts you've looked at?

What did you mean by "cite cleanup?"

What kinds of things do you want to do?

I look forward to your replies.     — The Transhumanist   07:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What are pretty ugly? I can't say precisely what I mean by that, but it has something to do with my being a neatness freak when it comes to software output. And that a lot of the scripts that affect citations are out of line with guidelines and/or current practice.
What did you mean by "cite cleanup?" My definition is adding or correcting parameters and neatening the wikitext. My main focus for scripts, at least in the beginning, would be just the neatening part. There's no reason all the cites in a given article couldn't have exactly the same format with parameters in the same sequence, and a script should be able to do that easily in one click. This would benefit editors in ways many of them wouldn't even be aware of.
Actually I won't be able to devote a lot of time and brain calories to this learning immediately, as I'm pretty deeply involved in an article at the moment. Appreciate your interest and assistance. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I've signed each paragraph below, so you can intersperse your replies, if desired...     — The Transhumanist    18:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Sounds good. Such standardization couldn't hurt, as long as there is nobody else trying to standardize the same thing to a different standard. We wouldn't want a script edit war, for example.     — The Transhumanist    18:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Assuming there aren't any scripts in use at cross-purpose to yours, it seems that when the time comes, that one possible development approach would be cloning and cleaning up an existing script, not necessarily a citation processing script, adopting it to your purpose. RedlinksRemover.js has a menu item that invokes some fairly involved regex in nested loops, which may be what you'll need to change the order of citation contents. You might find that script of use to you. If you ever need to implement a toggling menu item, keep in mind that SearchSuite.js has 5 toggled features, each working on the output of the others. If you do take a look at the source code of these or their workshops, I'd appreciate any comments on anything you might notice. I'm sure your experience makes you aware of things I have no inkling of, like sane program design, and effective development support.     — The Transhumanist    18:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another approach would be to see what others are doing in this area, and perhaps collaborate. Maybe your ideas are features they could add to their program, saving you a lot of time and effort. And if their program was off kilter, you could help them bring it into line with MOS, etc., by pointing out current practices. The only citation-related script I know of under active development is User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck. The author started recently, beginning with JavaScript at the same time, from a background in programming with other languages. Lingzhi got up to speed fairly quickly.     — The Transhumanist    18:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I hope you find the above comments useful, for when the time comes. Good luck with your script-writing endeavors. Sincerely,     — The Transhumanist    18:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

When you are ready to get started...

I have some familiarity with resources, as I have been gathering them as I go...

I've compiled a list of online JavaScript learning resources in WP:JSRL, sifting through loads of crap to find these. Many of these are listed in the outline mentioned immediately below in a beginner/intermediate/advanced format.

I've begun mapping out the JavaScript ecosystem in the Outline of JavaScript.

I've gathered up everything I could find about user script development for Wikipedia, including gadgets, in the Outline of scripts.

I've started writing walk-throughs for the scripts I'm developing, to be found on their talk pages, to explain the source code in depth. I've got most of the basic stuff explained, such as aliases, bodyguard functions, loading dependencies, the ready() event listener/handler, the coding for menu items, etc. Though I've got a long ways to go before the scripts are all fully documented (I'm not taking a linear approach). I'll keep working on them as I find the time.

The fundamentals (operators, variable declaration, etc.) will be easy for you to grasp. The essence of JavaScript lies in functions, even more so than in objects. Also, you will run into code including the jQuery function (alias "$") a lot, jQuery being the most popular JavaScript library -- it's designed to make your scripts cross-browser compatible, and it also simplifies many typical tasks. Therefore, learning that too is essential to getting up to speed.

Wikipedia's main article on JavaScript is actually JavaScript syntax. It gives a basic overview of the language on one web page.

The three main sites about JavaScript are:

1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/javascript
2. https://www.w3schools.com/
   1. JavaScript tutorial
   2. JavaScript Reference
3. https://jquery.com/

The main problem-solving site for JS, with over a million JavaScript questions answered, is Stack Overflow.

The main tool for communicating in JS, i.e. for sharing code examples in the cloud, is JSFiddle.

As for a code editor, I've found the one invoked automatically on Wikipedia to be quite adequate.

Those are JavaScript's resources in a nutshell.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Sincerely,     — The Transhumanist   07:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Stoneman Douglas

Thanks for your clear note in the edit summary, regarding my removal of wiki links. I have reversed my actions on the other two links. Point well taken, and I shall keep it in mind for the future. Hints, tips and corrections are much appreciated! Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 12:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being a good Wikipedian. There are few "correct" answers, only good faith collaboration. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Your patience is remarkable...I just did a face palm when I saw the disambiguation for "tips"! Duhh, I knew that! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 13:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for error. I was attempting to correct another of Anthony22's edits. He changed "released" to "escorted by police". I didn't read carefully after I switched edit mode, the wiki code trips me up a bit sometimes. I saw the note you posed on Oshwah's page, good move. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Understood. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Your BS comment

re "Nobody is better than you at searching" if only that were true :( Kind of a pick-me-up to hear though! I understand my appeals to others to help w/ searches can get annoying, I'll try to put more work into research before requesting aid. In some case it's just trying random keyword associations and scanning google news seeing if anything relevant comes up. I'll try "building 12" w/ Hogg though, I don't think I tried that yet. Glad to learn a metaphor I didn't know today. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nice piping in the heading. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Cite links

I removed all but the first link in the references section, to clean it up and reduce WP:OVERLINKing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Hello. I don't think the OVERLINK concept applies.
1. OVERLINK says that too many links makes it impossible to convey which links are most important; in the case of cites, they are all equally important.
2. If a reader is looking at a cite tooltip and wants to find out more information about the source, why should we expect them to go find another cite for the same source that contains the link? There being no consistency across articles, how would they even know such a cite exists?
One might make a case that none of them should be linked, and I would oppose that at that article, but there is no case for linking only once for each source. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I created Category:Infobox templates using small or smaller. Forgot to recurse, so I only got the top-level infobox cat, but it should start us off. Primefac (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Genius! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

AE history

Hi Mandruss, before Thucydides411 was last sanctioned, I wrote a short AE post, detailing one of the countless occasions in which they had been baited by personal attacks and generally tendentious editing.

[4] [5]

The occasion I detailed was typical: Thucydides411 had made a careful post on content, in an RfC where their viewpoint would eventually win out. Their post however was responded to by egregious personal attacks, devolving the straightforward content discussion into mudslinging. In the case where Thucydides411 was blocked, the same had occurred: Thucydides' block log was raised against them in a content dispute, so in reciprocal fashion, Thucydides brought up the other's block log, and was sanctioned.

I respect you as an editor, and for that reason, I think it best to call you on a misrepresentation of where responsibility for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing falls in this case. Perhaps it is pointless to make a note of it on the talk page of a new editor who's in all likelihood on their way out. But your comment in particular deserved reply I think. -Darouet (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've responded there and it's quite possible that's all I have to say this time 'round.

This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia.

―Mandruss ☎ 22:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please reply

I'm posting my response to you here since when you replied on my talk page you conveniently avoided addressing pretty much all of the points I made:

Mandruss with all do respect this whole thing makes no sense. A user (BullRangifer) posted the following just above your last previous response: "I have a message for fringe political editors on my talk page: If your personal POV is based on unreliable sources, unlike the ones we use in Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Trump–Russia dossier, then you will likely disagree with those articles and run afoul of our disdain for editors who push pro Trump/GOP/Russia conspiracy theories" This is an editor who you say has "many times the experience" but he/she clearly has a POV political agenda. I always assumed that this wasn't allowed on WP, especially in combination with that same editor removing other editors RS/NPOV contributions. Also since when does a user get to just decide what sources are reliable or unreliable, I thought there were rules for that. You also say that I should take a "less aggressive stance against editors". The problem with that is I am not the one who is immediately removing any RS/NPOV information added into articles that I don't like (and believe me there is a lot of it in some of these articles) and then claiming WP:CONSENSUS in coordination with other users who share the same ideological politically driven censorship tendencies. How is this blatant hypocritical behavior allowed on Wikipedia?

Hope you can respond and maybe clarify what is going on here because I truly am baffled by how blatantly biased and POV so many of these political articles are on Wikipedia...and they all go in one direction. Some users are even claiming THEY (not Wikipedia) get to decide what is considered RS and what isn't...thanks... PZP-003 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@PZP-003: New editors lack the policy knowledge to judge what article bias looks like, and Wikipedia has an endless stream of new editors (and readers who comment on article talk pages) who claim that articles are biased. I've worked a lot at Donald Trump since before the election, and new editors (and readers) are about evenly divided between those who think it's biased against Trump, those who think it's biased in Trump's favor, and those who think it's about right. Whenever they see bias, it's always a bias opposite to their own political views. Be aware of your own bias and how it affects how you perceive article bias.
If you feel something is biased, you can challenge it on the article's talk page. If the consensus goes against your challenge, you lose, even if you're right. In other words, consensus is king. One of the important things to learn is how to lose. If the consensus process is not enough to make articles neutral, then articles will be biased because consensus is all we have—there is no Wikipedia Supreme Court of Article Neutrality, and there never will be. I don't know whether it is or not, since I'm still learning about policy. But I know how to lose. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice the consequences of your edit?

This reformatting of indents made a fundamental change. It mixed bullets with colons in a manner which removed the bullets for all the following comments, even though you used bullets. If someone chooses to use bullets, it's common for following comments to indent, but also "show" a visible bullet. Your way doesn't do that. The bullet/colon order makes a difference.

The way I remember is to think of a bullet as a bullet, and colons as the "real" indenters, even though bullets will also make an indent. The bullet (only one) always goes to the right of colons as the last indent. Use the number of colons needed to indent, but use the bullet for the last indent. That way all comments will still have the indents and a bullet will be visible. It's especially critical if only bullets are used for indenting and a blank line gets interjected. Then things get really haywire. If colons come first, with the last indent using a bullet, blank lines don't affect anything.

Examples: (look at the code version)

Proper:

• LOL

• LOL

• LOL

(A blank line has no effect.)

• LOL

Improper: (The way you just did it.)

• LOL

  LOL

  LOL

  LOL

Even worse:

• LOL
  • LOL
    • LOL

(A blank line screws it up.)

• • • • LOL

Mind you, this is just my way of remembering it. I don't think it's really formalized in the MoS, but it works. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: It's in the MOS at WP:LISTGAP, which I conveniently linked in my edit summary per best practices. If you look at the prior revision, you'll see that only the first two in the series had a bullet. I edited to make the series consistent, and the consistency I chose is the second example at LISTGAP (which has a big green check mark associated with it). While LISTGAP says that consistent bulleting is also acceptable, I chose that example because I feel the bullets should go with the bolded Support/Oppose/etc. I don't bullet each successive comment for the same reason I don't bold the first word of each successive comment. It just makes more sense to me.
As to your heading, Did you notice the consequences of your edit? - I don't do many edits without carefully checking the results. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Good explanation. I thought you were aiming for consistency for each line, but your way looks fine too, and can be achieved with only that first bullet. It's so common that people don't double check to see if their edits work as intended. It's good you do, so keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 13:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That name at the Donald Trump talk page

Mandruss, you scolded Malerooster for removing that four times. But you have now restored it three times. I think you need to take your own advice against edit warring. Let someone else deal with it - or not. IMO it's not worth launching a talk page discussion about that one word. Everybody who was going to get a chuckle out of it has already seen it. This is probably not a worthwhile hill to die on. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I think the principle is worth making a stand for. It's about more than the immediate issue. Not only would Malerooster continue to believe that's an acceptable way to behave on article talk pages, but other editors would believe so too. And maybe it's time I died on a hill if that's going to be tolerated for the sake of peace. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, your call. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: After all that, after it appeared to be finally behind us, I was dumbfounded to see Bus stop do it again.[6] This is where tolerance gets you, and I agree with Scjessey's comment[7] that this warrants a discretionary sanction. Otherwise, expect more of the same in the future. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Chief Israel

re diff/832232927, was not trying to change/revert title or even that section. i just removed one character. see phab:T66281 for gory details. --Jeremyb (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jeremyb-phone: Understood, the software does weird things like that from time to time. If I had thought it was intentional, you would have known it. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

About the village pump proposal (disregard if you read my response already)

I'm not really one for pinging individuals, so I just wanted to ensure that you read my response to your question on WP:VPR. Didn't want to bother you otherwise, but I would like to continue our conversation. Thanks for your time! Javert2113 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A request

Mandruss, please revert yourself at Annunciation (Memling). Someone posted at a central board asking for help with it because it's an FA affected by a recent ArbCom ruling. As a result, you arrived to revert in other changes, which is hardly encouraging. There are exceptions to the image-size rule for art articles; not written down anywhere, but widely understood (at least so far as I am aware). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Are said exceptions about image size (i.e. art articles may use larger images than others), or that art articles may use fixed image sizes? If the former, you'll note that I used upright values larger than 1 which corresponded to the pre-existing px values. If the idea is that the article is too hot right now to make any changes of any kind, I wish someone would actually say that and we could go from there. That would suggest the need for full protection. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's both, and that the "unless there is good reason" exception for fixed sizes (or however it's worded nowadays) applies to art. This isn't written down anywhere that I know of, but for years I've seen editors who care about these things not apply them to art articles. We don't need full protection; we just need people to leave it alone for a bit. Otherwise one of the main authors is being "punished", in a sense, for having asked a question about it at that noticeboard. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: In other words, a reader who has registered so they can use the image size user preference to increase or decrease image sizes—to be more suitable for their viewing device, or merely for personal preference—should be denied that ability for art articles. As that makes absolutely no sense, I'm not going to defer to your "understanding" of such an unwritten convention. I can't prevent you from reverting me, and I'm not going to edit-war that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And see WP:CONLEVEL. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

While the template says this, I'll just repeat: This doesn't imply you've done anything wrong or that your conduct has been improper in any way. It's simply a heads up of something you should be aware of, given that you're involved in a discussion related to infoboxes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: given that you're involved in a discussion related to infoboxes. Rob, that's not true. I started a standard BRD discussion about image sizing, completely unrelated to infoboxes. At least that was my intent; unfortunately one ABF editor was allowed to derail the discussion.
I shall keep the alert information in mind, in case I'm ever involved in infobox issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

For better or worse, the derailing led to the discussion being at least partially about infoboxes, making the whole thing fall under DS. As I noted, I’m not saying you did anything wrong. The discussion got a bit heated, so I alerted everyone involved. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with image sizing

You seem to know a lot about this, and I don't. Would you mind taking a look at the images at Trump–Russia dossier and improving their sizing, format, etc.? Any other image suggestions would be welcome. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I did my best as to layout (the big thing for me is avoiding px values). I assume the images are appropriately placed near relevant prose. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I'll have to follow your lead in the future. Now we just need images for Christopher Steele, Glenn R. Simpson, and a better image of Paul Manafort.

BTW, now that the article is a GA nominee, we need help to bring it up to snuff for that standard, so any copy editing and other help would be welcomed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I don't know what the GA criteria are, but I'll take a look at the copy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Any improvements are welcome. It's good to have more eyes, and other eyes than normally look at it. The GA criteria are here: Wikipedia:Good article criteria. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Great copy editing. These things matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You haven't left much for me in the copy editing area, I'm feeling a bit like the Maytag repairman. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Don't be so modest. You've found a whole lot. Some are the types of things that the masses may not notice, and it takes a keen copy editor to spot them. For GA and FA, those things must be in order. I was good at that in high school and college, but then I moved to Europe for most of my adult life, living in a foreign language, and that screwed up my previously expert English skills. Now I'm a bit "language confused".

The actual quotes from the dossier are a bit tricky, because they often contain imperfections, poor grammar, and missing words. I have tried to leave them alone, but have [inserted] occasional words. I'm not sure if that's really good practice or not. What do you think? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If the insertion is obvious and improves clarity, I lean support. Otherwise strong oppose. I saw nothing that jumped off the page and slapped me in the face, although I wasn't particularly looking for that. I trust you. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

April Fools block

I was once blocked AS an April fools joke. Not cool. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No sense of humor, obviously. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on not ranking Trump

Greetings Mandruss. Given the overwhelming opposition to report rankings of Trump compared to other presidents, I would suggest to add this item to the "current consensus" list. This issue is likely to resurface every time a new poll emerges, so that we would avoid pointless edit wars and redundant debates by documenting the consensus view. Would you agree? Pinging MelanieN as closer of that thread, and overall appreciated curator of the Trump bio. — JFG ^talk 08:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: You may see a consensus against the general, but the close says it was only against the specific and the close is what we go by. Therefore any consensus entry would have to be limited to the specific, and I'm not sure that would have enough benefit to justify the entry. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the arguments made in the discussion emphasize that we should not compare an ongoing young presidency with prior full terms, so that speaks in favor of a general case. — JFG ^talk 09:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: That may be, but I don't think a discussion can answer a question that wasn't formally asked and be called binding in any way. That's probably why Melanie didn't close it that way. I suggest you formally ask the general question if you think we need a consensus entry. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure it's a good idea to stir the pot and drive attention to this topic again, so quickly after a heated discussion. I was actually surprised by the quasi-unanimity in opposition, so that prompted my suggestion to place this in the consensus. — JFG ^talk 20:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Trump articles are protected by many supporters who follow their own Trump Exemption policy. It works like a notable instance of affluenza involving Ethan Couch. Trump is the Affluenza President, and his supporters here at Wikipedia think he should be allowed to get away with things no other president would get away with, including in his articles here. This is obviously against numerous policies, but Wikipedia is allowing it to happen. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus is so obvious—obvious enough for an entry in that list that we limit to the strongest consensuses—how could formalizing it be pot-stirring? You're basically saying that if you asked the general question you might get serious opposition. That's a bad reason not to ask a question. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not afraid of "serious opposition", I'm pretty sure we'd get the same result if we asked the question in more general terms. I'm just unwilling to waste more editor time on a clearly-settled debate. — JFG ^talk 21:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that would undermine the integrity of the list, the integrity that has prevented the list from being a battleground in itself. My opinion was predictable and this is what you get for asking for it (although I probably would have reverted a bold addition to the list). ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Precisely, I came here to ask you because I was not sure you would consider this thread strong enough. Dropping the idea now. Many thanks! — JFG ^talk 21:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Any comments? — JFG ^talk 20:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. My inclination is not to add it to the list of established consensus. The discussion ran for only four days. Although the consensus to keep it out was strong, it was not unanimous. And my closing should not be taken as authoritative since I participated in the discussion. If the issue comes up again (next January?) it could be helpful to refer back to this discussion, but we should be able to find it with an archive search. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I concur with both of you. Let's wait until the topic re-emerges. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 21:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change, and this would not be happening with any other president. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Indenting

Per this. I actually do that deliberately so that each person's comment is noticeable. When they are all at the same level, it's more difficult for me to notice that it's different people commenting, and I have good vision. I literally might oversee your comment and never read it, especially if the last signature is someone whose comments aren't normally worth reading. Everything above that sig, with the same level of indenting, gets ignored, and that's not good. There are different and allowable ways to indent. If there is a serious risk of confusion, I start with the username so it's clear to whom I'm responding. Otherwise, bulleting helps to draw attention to the start of a new person's comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: It's a problem only because you included white space within your comment. Otherwise the white space between comments (and the signatures) would be sufficient to separate them visually. There is a need for clarity as to who one is replying to, and indentation is the way that the community has chosen to show that. This is an area where it's important that everybody be on the same page, and I submit that that "page" should be the one supported by written guidelines. Your way is not AFAIK. If you want to propose a guideline change to the effect of "either way is fine", go ahead, and please let me know so I can be there to strongly oppose it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL. No, I have no intention of making waves. The different ways which are approved and customary seem to occur spontaneously. If the start follows one style, editors seem to adapt and follow that style. If a different style is chosen, then they adapt and do it that way. Some use indents, some use bullets. It can get confusing when different styles are used in the same thread.

It would be nice if there was a software thing that automatically placed a mark or flag at the beginning of the first line of any comment which ends with a signature. That would resolve my concern, but not yours. Yours is rarely a problem for me. Context nearly always makes it clear who is being addressed. Whatever. We can figure it out. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It can get confusing when different styles are used in the same project. And it does. Every damn day. And it distracts from the work. Agree to vehemently disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You're suggesting that it's a great idea to vary the meaning of indentation between threads. In this thread, it shows who's being replied to, and in the next it's to separate comments, and in this other thread it's not really clear what it means. I say that's a terrible idea, probably the worst idea I've heard this month. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but I didn't suggest "it's a great idea"; I just described reality, and called it confusing. That's all, so I understand your frustration and sympathize. It would be better if Wikipedia settled on only one required way of doing it. Then we'd know, for certain, what is the "right" way to do it. The current situation is unsatisfactory, and we can agree on that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I misread that, sorry. One thing is certain, the editing population is diverse enough that there is never going to be widespread agreement on any "right" way do to this. I've seen exactly zero progress toward an agreement in the five years I've been around, so at this rate we will still be living with this inefficiency around the end of the century, waiting for the agreement to spontaneously develop. As I lack the patience to wait until after I'm long dead, I think some group of editors should decide that project-wide consistency is more important than their personal preference and spend a bit of effort to change their habits. Barring that I'll continue to spend some of my time fixing things per WP:TPO bullet 8 and WP:THREAD. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Promoting your micro-essays

I just came across your mini- and micro-essays, and I highly appreciate several pearls of wisdom in there. Perhaps the time has come to stick your neck out and write a proper essay or two in WP space. I would particularly support WP:SELECTIVEPROOF as a better formulation of WP:SATISFY. Many "polite POV-pushers" have a tendency to move the goal posts at every reply, and it's easy to give up, or worse, get frustrated and do something foolish, which they will jump on and harp about for years. Such attitude should not be tolerated in the name of assuming good faith; those are experts at gaming the system.

Your condensed musings on bias also deserve highlighting. — JFG ^talk 06:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Hmmm. I'm no good at full-blown essays, I don't know that that kind of thing would benefit from more words, and I would like to see more than a handful of approvals before going to WP space (you're either #2 or #3, I don't recall which). ―Mandruss ☎ 06:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW I think SELECTIVEPROOF is quite a different message from SATISFY. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Another approval: I like User:Mandruss#Culture_of_disrespect too Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's my personal favorite. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. Your thoughts are worth sharing. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You say: I'm no good at full-blown essays. That's precisely why you should publish. Short essays are refreshing and illuminating, I also believe they are more impactful than long-winded extra-nuanced guidelines. You have a talent to communicate deep thoughts in few words. As Churchill said, short words are best! You could also opt to place some of the condensed aphorisms at strategic place in existing essays or guidelines. Whatever you choose, I'm wiling to help. — JFG ^talk 06:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! What he said. I write very long and detailed essays, and I doubt very many read them. Short ones are often more effective. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

My words are in the public domain. Anybody can copy them to WP space, modifying them as they see fit. If you're "willing to help", you have my permission to do that, as does anybody else. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well then, I've copied the the culture of disrespect essay as WP:DISRESPECT :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well done! That one will sure get quoted next time some WP:DISRESPECT is on display… — JFG ^talk 22:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: It would be out of place in that context, I think. It's about the culture that enables the behavior, not the behavior itself, so any value is in meta discussions. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It would possibly bring some people to reflect on their attitude and the ambient culture, and that's always welcome. — JFG ^talk 22:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I know you love Easter Eggs, and 'tis the season, so there…[8] — JFG ^talk 22:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on your prose getting promoted to the new WP:POVFIGHTER section of WP:Tendentious editing. — JFG ^talk 23:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

Since you took the initiative to add more detail to the Hillary birther close, can we qualify that a bit more because RS have confirmed that Hillary supporters did start it...what we don't know for certain is who the "supporters" are, or if they might have been part of the campaign. I think it's safe to say supporters - just don't want that getting tossed into the vio heap. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: A close should not be interpreted to mean more than it says (see #Consensus on not ranking Trump above), and I will vigorously argue against any attempt to do so with that one (notify me if I'm not around). ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: And I don't see that consensus there anyway. That wasn't the question asked, so it wasn't thoroughly examined. It was a tangential side issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem - just don't want any half-baked hooplah in the event the close is misinterpreted to include Hillary supporters and not just her individually. It's amazing how easily things are misinterpreted - perhaps it's the absence of facial expression and voice inflection that makes it so. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, that close has a blank facial expression and a flat monotone. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ohhhh...ok. I think the following represents such an expression: . You're welcome to use it for clarity. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Stoneman Douglas

The article that is linked to is an opinion piece. It's not "unthinkable" that crisis actors exist, it just offends the author's sensibilities. There isn't a single source in his article, nor does the internet reveal any fact checked work by the article's author.

Nevertheless, when you place quotation marks around a term, it immediately casts doubt on the statement, such if you say someone is an "expert." Whether or not the claim is false should be evaluated by the person reading it on their own, and not pre-determined for them based on what is arguably an opinion piece as a source. Cl0udmaster (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cl0udmaster: In my edit summary I asked you to seek consensus on the talk page (I was referring to the article's talk page). It makes little sense to exclude other editors from this discussion. I will be happy to contribute my comments on the ATP. Thank you for not edit warring this, that's the most important thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Image size changes

Hi: Would you consider changing your edit summaries "(remove fixed thumbnail size per WP:IMGSIZE)" to something like "(changed fixed thumbnail size to upright equivalents per WP:IMGSIZE)"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For doing some great, painstaking copyediting on the Trump–Russia dossier article. Keep up the good work! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Timing

No one has objected, so how long should we wait? The "Protests"_sentence_in_the_lede discussion in archive 63 did not include any suggestion to add or not add material like the material I added. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious

mature and respectful tone of conversation

Thank you for your drive for image sizes that respect users' preferences, for cleaning up articles that get attention such as Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, for pointing out our need for a level of understanding, and use of our time, for "No obscure corner of Wikipedia is safe from this user's rabid agenda-driven crusade to censor spelling errors." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yay me! Thanks Gerda, sincere compliments are precious. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well said. I hope you are aware (and don't mind) that they come from the cabal of the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll take 'em where I can get 'em. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

you're fast, wanted to add pictured ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've probably converted a couple of hundred articles in the past few days and have had only one objection, from someone who didn't know Thing 1 about scaling, which was promptly withdrawn. When an editor believes they are smarter than community consensus, there isn't much you can do. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, |upright=1.3 is 14 pixels smaller than 300px, quite noticeable. I round to the nearest 0.05, which gives a max change of 5 pixels. |upright=1.35 is 297px. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes and yes, I mean not much you can do, and I know about 1.3 slightly smaller, but - unless it's an image where you really have to see details at a first glance - try to stay between 0.7 and 1.3. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Image sizing is a different and separate issue of layout. My point was that your comment to Modernist, "upright=1.3" produces the same result as "300px" for someone with default settings struck me as improveable. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Got it ;) - I try not to comment this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:FONTSIZE corrections

I see you have been engaging in MOS:FONTSIZE corrections. This is easier with WP:AWB. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It probably is. I don't trust automated tools much in general, and I have lots of time. But thanks for the tip anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Baloney

No issue taken at all. If you look at my meta talk, you will see it is the correct pronunciation TonyBallioni (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

People who know me wouldn't suspect that was intentional. In that venue it's best to say what would normally go without saying. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. A few admins asked me off-wiki recently where the name came from. The answer: 14-15 year old me couldn't spell bologna. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for archiving. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Policy question

A few weeks ago you were able to provide a link to policy re: using the names of editors in talk page headers. At least, that's what I recall. I am unable to find that discussion and the specific policy. If my memory is serving me correctly and that is the policy you provided the link to, would you mind giving me the location of that policy once again? Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW bullet 4.3. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

MOS:FONTSIZE and MOS:ACCESS

Howdy, Mandruss. Quick question about this discussion: am I correctly understanding this to mean that font-size reduction shouldn't be used in infoboxes? An editor is still tweaking the fonts in IBs ([9], [10], …) after being made aware of this discussion, and I just want to be sure I understand the latest community position before I file a disruptive editing report. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: Editors should not use any of the variations of small in infoboxes, per MOS:FONTSIZE last paragraph, and I always stress that it's an accessibility issue and link to MOS:ACCESS. I've yet to have such a change challenged when I've linked both shortcuts. But I deliberately limited the discussion you linked to usage within template code (not template transclusions), so it shouldn't be cited for the kind of edit you linked above. If you wanted to mention it rather than cite it, I wouldn't see a problem with that, but I don't think it should be necessary either. Hopefully nobody will force us to have a similar community discussion about transclusions. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

AE filing against me

Just FYI, in case you have not seen it yet: [11]

I recall you wanted to recommend sanctions based on my talk page behavior. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've been watching that, people know how I feel about the general issue of civility, it accomplishes nothing to keep repeating it every time civility goes to AE, and it looks like they have things as much under control as anything ever gets at Wikipedia. But thanks for the "anti-canvassing"! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Late ping test, redux

This is a comment. @JFG: @JFG: ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Transclusion

Can you point me to where that policy is about transclusion and I will revert the change. I wasn't aware that editing a template that is transcluded incidentally on many pages is a violation. If it is, I will revert it. Andrevan@ 21:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: There is no policy I'm aware of, and these bans are always a matter of interpretation. We'll see what the banning admin thinks, but it seems clear enough to me. It would make little sense for the ban to be about physical page files rather than rendered pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, then I will wait for NeilN to decide what he thinks about it. I don't believe the ban is about page files or rendering at all, but "topics." As long as I am not talking about the topic but am merely applying an abstract principle to an abstract hypothetical scenario, I would think I am not discussing that topic. Andrevan@ 21:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What's the telephone next to your username for?

Just wondering. Heliozoan (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Heliozoan: My link to this page. Telephone, talk, get it? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Huh. Is it supposed to be a link? Nothing happens when i click it. Heliozoan (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Heliozoan: It is disabled on this page because it links to this page. Click it on a different page. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Silly me. That must be some cool text wizardry or something. Maybe I should learn how to do it? Heliozoan (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Heliozoan: Tech tip: No need to ping somebody from their own user talk page, they automatically get a notification when somebody posts on it.
It's called a customized signature. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature and Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. If you do it, do me a favor and don't make it overly flashy. Many editors find that annoying. The purpose of a signature is to identify you in talk spaces, not to show off your creativity. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Just wait until some babe in arms asks you "what's that funny looking picture next to your username?" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You callin' my telephone funny looking? Them's fightin' words. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Break it up... I usually ping people when they ping me. Probably should get in the habit of pinging more often. Heliozoan (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What's a telephone? Some kind of new mobile with teleportation capabilities? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It's something that allows you to tell people things. What will they think of next? --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Always funny to explain to kids how telephones had a cord and what it means to "dial" and to "hang up". — JFG ^talk 06:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Quiet please. I'm trying to listen to the Marconi. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

See you around!

Hey it's Computer40. I'm thinking about editing some politics articles and it seems like you have good experience in that field. Do you have any suggestions on what I should edit? By the way I changed my signature. Thoughts on it? See you around! Computer40 «»(talk) 06:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Computer40: I assume you mean current U.S. politics. That's a rough area, so much so that it needs special rules to keep things from going out of control. I don't recommend it until one has ~15,000 edits of experience.
Since you asked, my opinion is that the use of background color makes signatures visually distracting on a talk page, and should not be used. The signature should be easily visible but should not stand out from the rest of the text.
I don't know why you are still linking to the old username in your signature. I understand that it redirects to the new username, but it will still cause confusion going forward from editors who don't know that. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe up your alley

Perhaps you'd like to look at the following and offer your thoughts on grammar:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DragonFury_reported_by_User:Pe19_(Result:_No_violation)
• Talk:Max Verstappen

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a grammar expert by any means, but I think I have a good ear for common usage by people who write for a living (which should be a high enough bar for us). I've commented at the ATP. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

ANI

No big deal, but I'm sure you realize that none of the disparaging visitors even bothered to research, understand, or comment on the central issue raised by OP at that ANI thread. That speaks for itself, right? You distinguished yourself by abstaining. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm abstaining because ANI is broken, a complete waste of time except for the purpose of getting rid of new vandals and such. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you refrained because you had looked at the complaint and seen there was nothing to it. Meanwhile, some editors there apparently did not even bother to look at the complaint or the evidence. How else could they bring up completely unrelated complaints and then refer to this silly one as proving their point about something or other else? The OP simply made a mistake. He should have engaged on talk with me or gone to NPOVN or RSN or whatnot. There were no recriminations from me. In fact I said no boomerang was necessary. The "worst" diff he posted was me calling obviously false, blog-sourced misstatement of fact -- that was put in the article by a sockpuppet who started the article with all sorts of bad stuff and was promptly banned -- his "worst" diff had me calling that content (not even the sockpuppeteer) "blithering nonsense". OOOH. That's bad! SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You may be right, I don't know and I don't care. I'm certainly not going to come to the defense of an editor who persistently demonstrates a destructive battleground ABF approach to Wikipedia editing. I do care that ANI is broken, and I responded to a good example of one of the reasons why it's broken. It was more a comment about ANI than about you in particular, although every editor has a choice whether to be a part of that problem or a part of the solution. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

ANI (2)

I said your comment was bullshit with only the greatest respect and affection, of course. EEng 00:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course! Love you too. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS comments

Thanks for the follow-up post at the MOS tp. I'm not hyper-vigilant about those sorts of things, normally, but it seems like those types of irrelevant discussions help to foster certain notions of MOS-regulars-as-MOS-navel-gazers that undermine the general credibility of our house style. Have a good one and thanks again. Primergrey (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes in the Assam Wikipedia page

Assam is a large state in India with more than 30 Million people residing in the state. There are multiple tourist places of importance in the state. I added the most important places. The ones which are added are not the post important ones like nobody in Assam knows about the Panbari mosque. Its not a tourist place.

You have reverted the changes saying that the gallery images are way too many. How many you think are good number of images to be displayed in the gallery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saumya.purkayastha (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I would like to know what Wikipedia policy/guidelines say about gallery images and if there is a maximum number of images which can be added to the gallery in a certain page.

I have not reverted anything at Assam. That was a different editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...

Suspending any discussion, (whose closure has been requested at ANRFC (or not)) with a comment closing means that the editor is in the process of reading the entire discussion and/or writing the closing statement.

See this edit and the current state of a similar discussion that was requested to be closed.

Thank you, for your understanding.∯WBG^converse 15:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: - I wasn't aware of that, after 5 years editing. In my opinion that justifies just a few more words for clarity, such as "I am working on the close statement." Even "Closure in progress", using your example, would be an improvement. Either way it only takes a few seconds. I, and I'm sure others, would appreciate your understanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah:) I've clarified that.... ∯WBG^converse 15:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Tasty omelet

Given your taste in fresh eggs, I thought you'd love to see this piece of creative cuisine: reducing two launch vehicles to one.[12] — JFG ^talk 13:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Back in the days...

When things get batshit crazy, remember to hold your tongue. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Thanks for signing this, since it's gross. Apparently you couldn't find an image of bat shit. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

A sign directly from above - guano crazies. ^{Be careful what you wish for. Atsme📞📧 15:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)}

Back in the days of the comma wars (remember the Christmas Truce, when we met in the middle of the trenches and toasted the season?) you moved the page of the fictional character James Gordon Jr. to its commaless state. Could you move that one back (I tried by its blocked by the redirect)? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that's bat-shit crazy. Where is the evidence that we treat fictional names differently, or that this character's name is consistently preferred with a comma? Dicklyon (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Dicklyon, there have been RM's where it was decided that fictional characters, and their articles (especially the titles), are named for the character. The only exception I remember was when you and I agreed about Ricky Ricardo Jr. being commaless (because of a toy or whatnot). And remember, guano is a fine burning fuel. p.s. are you bringing back the comma war? do we have to dry-clean our uniforms? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I have any move powers that you don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I can't move it, and I thought since you moved it originally back in the comma wars period (Dicklyon seems to want to spark those up again) that you could move it back. Fictional characters are not covered by MOS:JR, unless someone has been tinkering with the language (I don't keep up with all language changes, far too many of them and they come quick sometimes) because they are not people. Not a biographical subject. They are made-up works of art, like the Mona Lisa or Monet's Water Lilies, except in a comic book, and the name their creator gives them is their name (comma in Jr. included). This was discussed at film titles like Steamboat Bill, Jr., and at characters like Ricky Ricardo Jr. (was it that page? I can't find a move discussion. Dicklyon, do you recall which page I mean?) which went commalesss on a loophole about an ad for a toy or for the show or something (Dicklyon was actively engaged in finding that loophole). Anyway, if you know how to change it back, please do so. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well normally that would be WP:RMT, but, since we already know it's contested, I think it's an RM. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Serious? Dicklyon, are you seriously contesting this? Fictional characters are fictional, they do not fall under biographical pages. MOS:JR is for human beings (or other creatures of habit). I thought we'd gone through all of this a couple years ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes. So far you haven't even shown why you think this character should have a comma in it's name. The DC Comics web site] certainly omits it frequently. Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Randy, was there some precedent for keeping the comma for a character name, other than in the title of a work where it's kept to match the "on-screen" title styling? I don't recall such a precedent. Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:JR is for real people, flesh and blood or whatever they are using nowadays to get around. Fictional characters have nothing to do with biography, which is where MOS:JR lives (please click on it and see where it is situated). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I relish the phrase comma wars period. EEng 21:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I miss the Cold War, too. Those were the days. And gee, old LaSalle ran great. Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is a semicolon larger than a colon? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Why? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a one-liner. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's just hanging there for an unexpected punch line. I haven't thought of one. I'm going to leave a short note on the James Gordon Jr. talk page asking about his comic name and comma usage. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Randy, et al., are confused and being tendentious on this, as before. The confusion is that we've had some RMs close against the idea of enforcing MOS:JR inside titles of published works in which the comma consistently appears there, in the works themselves and in the RS about them. [One of these RMs actually closed in error, because the majority of the film marketing actually was without the comma, and RS vary widely on whether they use the comma (the older they are the more likely they are to do it). This means "no comma on Wikipedia", period. So, that one needs to be re-RMed, especially since a new dispute has broken out about whether to inject the comma into the name of the character in running prose, not just in the title. This is getting obsessive and disruptive.]

Randy and friends have mixed this up this "leave the comma in the title" result in their heads and are re-imagining it as "MOS:JR doesn't apply to anything to do with fiction", which is the only real fiction here. No decision on WP has ever come to such a conclusion, and it would not. We render fictional names the same as nonfictional ones. All that would do is sorely confuse readers and lead to editwarring about the "true" name of someone who doesn't F'ing exist. To paraphrase what Dicklyon said at Randy's usertalk, the idea that "fictional equals insert a comma" is irrational and has no basis. It's just desperate re-lobbying to hold onto a "precious" comma somewhere at all costs. This really has to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please be civil. All well and good, and this should be discussed fully at some point because of the opposing views (neither of which are set in stone at this point, and neither worth name-calling and/or pie throwing). You seem to want to remove the comma, though, from even such things as the name of the film Steamboat Bill, Jr. which was decided by a closer who then warned about mixing up MOS:JR with non-biographical topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging users

For future reference, you might find {{bcc}} helpful, which pings users in the same way as {{ping}} but doesn't display anything on screen. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the visible documentation of the ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Close travel ban wording?

Hi Mandruss. You seem uninvolved in this discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Travel ban. Would you care to close it? — JFG ^talk 17:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You had me at ICBM

(Bowing in laughter)[13] — JFG ^talk 17:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I predict that the language will be entirely composed of acronyms by about 2200. (And I defy anybody alive today to prove me wrong.) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump Talk

You are on the verge of losing your credibility. I hope your self-revert of that stupid, thoughtless comment indicates that you've self-evaluated and will not repeat that kind of nonsense. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It was a stupid, thoughtless comment, and my first of the day. I'm quite sure it won't be my last stupid, thoughtless comment, and I can only hope to self-correct in a timely manner. As for being on the verge of losing my credibility, speak only for yourself please. I'll survive without credibility in your eyes. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, your conduct is visible to the entire world. Don't squander your good will here. You will struggle to win it back. Friendly advice. I've seen you do much better. Moving on... SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Speak only for yourself please, not the entire world. Even if your dire predictions came true, I could live quite happily without Wikipedia editing, just as I did before Wikipedia editing. But thanks for the "friendly" advice. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: What is friendly about calling another editor's comment "stupid" and "thoughtless"? Your personal attacks and threats are not helpful, especially towards a particularly polite and considerate editor such as Mandruss. Remember you are on civility watch (second time I have to tell you this today). — JFG ^talk 05:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please do not ban me from editing. I will manage it and log back in. Banning people from editing is inappropriate and mean. They will, be angry with you. Renacares (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump

Watch it with the personal attacks. Every time you disparage other users instead of addressing any substantive points just ensures that your words will continue to be ignored by the bulk of editors on these articles. Be nice. Maybe you'll even strike it out. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You just disparaged a large group of unnamed editors without evidence, and you're complaining about my link to part of "an explanatory supplement to Disruptive editing"? Surely you're not serious and, no, I won't strike.
Also, I'd appreciate it very much if (1) you wouldn't self-appoint as the sole arbiter of what points are substantive in a discussion (you're a participant, not a moderator), (2) you wouldn't continue to speak for other editors, and (3) you would make an attempt to judge yourself by the same standards by which you judge others. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If you can't stand reading other folks opinions in a long talk thread, you'll be a lonely fellow indeed. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what that has to do with my comments there or here (see your own admonition about putting words in one's "mount"). But thanks, once again, for your "friendly" advice. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Chronological order of polls

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Chronological order of polls. —GoldRingChip 12:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Motor Torpedo Boat PT-59

I would appreciate a second opinion as to image sizes as to this article, if you don't mind, having a look. I note, you have done similar edits on the PT-109 article. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

My comment at the page in my namespace reads (upon my re-reading of it) far more terse and confrontational than it should be, and significantly (if somewhat less so) more than I intended it. Your description of "high schoolish" was something I found rather belittling and dismissive, and it irked me, so I responded irritably. I apologize for that.

I understand why you said my usage of the term was inaccurate and imprecise, however if you read the lede of the essay, I specifically define how I'm using the term. You can't compare a word used in a context in which it has a specific meaning to the more general meaning (see Jargon). That being said, if you have suggestions about better terminology that simply lumping them all together as "nazis" then I am open to that. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page with any such suggestions, and if I like them I will immediately change the terminology I used in the essay. I'm aware that some editors will find elements of this essay controversial, as evidenced by the fact that some editors find blocks leveled against the types described by that essay controversial. I'm not going to accuse those editors of being nazis themselves, but I don't want to turn the writing of that essay into another huge fray like the recent Michael Hardy or GorillaWarfare/Kudpung fiascos. I just want to get a group of admins to sign off on it, and then move it to namespace so that they (and others) will have something to point to the next time an editor is shown to either be pushing a white supremacist POV, or is found to be putting nazi imagery on their user pages. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Thanks, I appreciate this—you pierced my thin skin! —and my comment could have been better. I didn't inspect and absorb the essay as thoroughly as I could have, and I'm blaming my ADD. But the precise scope wasn't clear to me, so I couldn't suggest a better word. I assumed the scope was clearer to the person who wrote it. In any case, nazi and neo-Nazi are not synonymous in my vocabulary—I don't know how typical I am in that regard, but nothing at Nazi (disambiguation) seems to imply such synonymity. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, they're not. That's why I made sure to define my use in the lede. It's probably a shortcoming of the essay that it needs to define a term at the onset, but I'm not sure how better to do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: After re-reading your lead, I'd lean toward "racists". Aren't "neo-nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races" all types of racists? It would avoid a word (1) commonly associated with a WWII-era German political party and (2) used as a synonym for "overzealous", as in feminazi and prose nazi. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Aren't "neo-nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races" all types of racists? No*, but I'm open to using "racists" instead. I see a similar problem with that word, but I think it's no worse, really. I'll pose the question at the talk page and see if Tony, Drmies, Doug or Bishonen (the admins I'd asked to look at it) agree that it's better, and go with what comes out of that. I'll consider your suggestion to be an !vote in favor of "racist".

^*

The vast majority of racists are casual racists. The "I'm not racist, but..." types, who hold racist beliefs, but also believe to one extent or another that it's important to treat others with respect, even when the others are "less worthy" of it. There's also the Klansmen type of racists. Those who will admit to hating one or more races, but who base that on only a few, specific false beliefs about those races. For them, racism isn't really a part of their identity, so it doesn't always manifest itself in every aspect of their life. I'm quite convinced that we have at least a few klansmen types, and a whole bunch of casual racists editing WP right now, accumulating barnstars and possibly even passing RfAs (I don't have anyone in mind when I say that). And I'm okay with that, right up until they start expressing those beliefs.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• You might be interested in this diff. Doug Weller agreed with you, and the more I thought about it, the more preserving the general meaning of "nazi" seemed like the better option. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)