This is an archive of past discussions about User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

December 2007

League of Copyeditors roll call

Resolved

– Just projectspam.

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

English billiards

Resolved

– Just a chat.

I have a book about it here you see from the library, so I'm trying to mention as much as I can about some of the contents before I have to renew it! I plan to write something about the history of English Billiards.

Tell me what you think of the John Roberts Jr. (billiards player) and William Cook (billiards player) pages. Sadly the book has little about their lives, but it has a lot about the games. I can be more score specific at times if requested.

Alex Holowczak 14:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great! We've needed articles on the Robertses and Cook for a long time. Please fully cite this book with {{Cite book}} in these articles; it will just save others a whole lot of time later, tracking that book down and getting the details all over again. What other articles is it being used as a source in? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Were any other sources used for the Robert and Cook articles, or only that book? If the latter, we can use <ref> tags to indicate this; it generally is not safe to simply add one source down at the bottom of the article, because others will edit the article later and add new facts, with different sources, eventually making it impossible to tell what facts were sourced by the first reference added. I can handle that part. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They were the only source I used. However, I have a question. You've tagged with "POV", but the Point of View is Clive Everton's, i.e. from the book, where he states that the fans considered him to generally be the better the player. So is the "POV" tag still warranted? Alex Holowczak 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We would need to quote Everton verbatim, and make it clear that we were doing so, otherwise it is Wikipedia offering its own collective opinion on who was the better player. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Primarysources tag

Resolved

– Just a chat.

I added the tag because I could not find details of the book quoted as the source John Roberts Jr. (billiards player). I even tried Amazon UK but couldn't find it. For what it's worth (and that is very little) I am pretty sure I have read the book. Hammer1980·^talk 16:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, books like that can be very difficult to find via sources like Amazon. They are mostly in libraries (where our Roberts article author got it) or in the hands of collectors. Anyway, my point had been that the primary sources tag is for things like manuscripts and other works that come directly from the subject of an article (the problem with primary sources is they often need interpretation, which leads to WP:OR too often). This isn't a primary sources problem, but hard-to-find source. I have asked the article writer to fill out the ref citation fully with {{Cite book}} so we should get more info shortly (publisher, ISBN, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the info I looked for on Amazon. I wasn't trying to find the book to buy. I understand your point but without being able to establish the primary (only) source as verifiable then in my opnion there is a lck of primary source. I will ahve another hunt around to find more about that book.Regards. Hammer1980·^talk 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! We have been talking past each other. You mean the "main, principal or only source in an article". I was confused by what you were saying (and you seem to have been confused by the name of the template), in that this is not the meaning of the prase "primary source" in Wikipedia (or in the field of research much more generally); see WP:NOR for more details on what "primary source" means here (and what that template refers to). Also, WP:V and WP:RS are quite clear that a source does not have to be readily available for it to be a valid source here; no tagging needed. The source in this case can certainly have more said about it than has been said, though, such as publisher and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway its sorted now, and I found the details on the book so have added them.Hammer1980·^talk 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Schweet. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear that the book turned up! If you (i.e. anyone) can add those tags to the other pages then go ahead. Alex Holowczak 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Hammer1980 put it into {{Cite web}} and I made it an inline reference with <ref...> in each section, with a note not to interpolate new material w/ new sources w/o also making sure that the attribution to this source isn't broken. See the wikicode at the article; should be instructive on how to do this yourself next time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

Resolved

– db-move taken care of.

Howdy, the redirect at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering has been deleted. Best wishes, --TeaDrinker 19:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no page move has occurred, I have gone ahead and restored the page. If you wish to have it deleted again, feel free to contact me. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Was at dinner, sorry. Wikipedia:WikiLawyering needs to move to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to agree with the text of the page there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted again. - auburnpilot talk 20:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you appear to be off line again, I've moved the page and noted it as your request. - auburnpilot talk 21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I was at lunch this time. Must seem like all I do is eat! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion from Template:Fact/doc

Resolved

– Just a chat.

"Okay then: Rv. re-addition of articlespace template that has no applicabity here at all, and appears to be random and capricious weirdness. Try talk page if there's an actual rationale for adding it."

I already have done. How did you come to the conclusion that it has "no applicabity [sic] here"? Moreover, the template may be intended for the article namespace, but how else is one supposed to bring up the issue that a template is or seems to be badly named? -- Smjg 12:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually read the template: "The title of this article seems not to accurately describe the article's subject matter." Template:Fact is not an article. If you don't like the name of it, start a thread about that on the talk page. Better yet, just use {{Citation needed}} or {{cn}}, and don't worry about it. Some people like to use {{fact}}, others like to use a more mnemonic name, and it is of no consequence at all. PS: I'm sorry I labelled that one edit "Rvv"; I had no idea that someone put that template there in good faith; it looked like someone making a WP:POINT or just adding random templates for the heck of it, since that's an articlespace template about WP:NPOV issues, which aren't germane to whether a template is usefully named. I have more than 2000 pages on my watchlist, so it is inevitable that I'll misflag a few things as vandalism when they are not. No personal insult intended! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you telling me to "start a thread about that on the talk page" when I've just told you that I already have done? Moreover, I do use {{cn}}. But that doesn't in any way stop anybody from having this question. -- Smjg (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think we are talking past each other. What I am saying is:

Removing the template was appropriate, because it did not make sense in the context; it is an articlespace, not templatespace, cleanup tag, and its very wording refers to "this article", not "this template", and the concern behind that cleanup tag is WP:NPOV policy - i.e. article titles that misrepresent the nature of an article or its subject, which is not applicable to {{Fact}}.
Labeling that removal "Rvv" was a mistake on my part, for which I apologize.
What the name of {{Fact}} should be is a topic for that Template talk:Fact; you now indicate that you've taken the discussion there, so hurray. My point on this was that you and I talking about it on my talk page won't do anything one way or the other to resolve that question.
If you are already aware of and using the {{cn}} name for this template, then what's the issue? What the real name of the template is, isn't really of much consequence.

Hope this was clearer than the last version. :-) PS: Sorry if I seemed grumpy in the original reply (if I recall correctly, I was just in a hurry, so I wrote more brusquely than usual). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your warning on Goldquest

Resolved

– Just a chat; nothing requiring further resolution.

Hi, This is regarding your warning on Goldquest- the article being one-sided (negative) ,I completely agree with you , but you might also note that excluding some attempts to blank the page there were no positive edits to the page, which is why the article appears one-sided. Also if you look at the google results for goldquest (excluding blogs and goldquest's homepage), the results are mostly negative. In my opinion (I am new to wiki-editing so correct me if i am wrong) instead of putting the page up for deletion , the other view point should be added.-- Ubraga608 —Preceding comment was added at 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not put the page up for deletion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Up the revolution

Resolved

– Just an FYI.

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Proposal_to_merge_this_page_with_MOS. Tony (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I weighed in. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Resolved

– Just a chat.

...to be a little harsh and hot-headed on the Card Shark discussion page. I see you're supporting your arguments and being funny to boot. I'll listen to what you have to say. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries; I got a little carried away too, and just re-edited my comments at the AfD in response to you as being too harsh on the first draft. May still be. I think I will re-edit them again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just did so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD

Resolved

– Not my problem any longer, since template is protected and I can't edit it.

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_27#CompactTOCs_merge_and_rename has been closed, and the instructions set forth in your nom are endorsed. I, however, am not going to do the clean-up, it's too large of a task. RyanGerbil10(????????!) 03:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone volunteered to do at least some of the AWBing; am in touch. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge on List of champion snooker players

Stale

– What to do about the big mess of snooker list articles is still an open question. Punting to merge discussions on these articles' talk pages, and at WT:SNOOOKER.

Hi, I would partially oppose the move. The page has had a patchy history, first being AfD'ed when it was titled "notable players" due to potential POV concerns. The compromise was "champion players" which, now that I look at the page, I am not really 100% with. The aim (and I think it is a very sensible aim) is to get together a article with the "names" of snooker. I would use the word notable but it has been stricken from the record as being POV. Essentially we want an article that highlights the big names in snooker - but not at the preclusion of having won the world championship. People like Jimmy White - and a more recent example in Ding - I think are important to be included in the ensemble without only having a mention in the ridiculously long List of snooker players. Thoughts welcomed (this can be cc'ed across to the article talk page if there are more noises, but they are pretty low traffic pages and issues). SFC9394 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that such an exercise as you describe is POV, by definition. At least being World Champ is an objective criterion. The "champion snooker players" list is almost certainly destined for AfD as soon as someone notices its subjectively inclusive nature. The World Champions list is safe, since it is documentable and objective, so no one can attack it on the grounds of it being nonencyclopedic. I've looked around and so far can't find a list like the champion players list at issue for any other sport or activity. No list of baseball greats or brilliant minds in chemistry or champion race car drivers. This strongly suggests to me that such lists aren't encyclopedic, and where they have been created they've either been deleted or converted to objective criteria like world record holders in baseball, Nobel prize-winning chemists, winners of the Indianapolis 500, etc. I'd prefer that WP:SNOOKER just merge them now and redir the subjective article to the objective one, rather than wait for someone to AfD it, because such an AfD might well draw attention to other WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. problems that are still rampant in the snooker bio articles, many of which are barely-altered copy-pastes (i.e. copyvios) from World Snooker's website and other previously published material. We have so much cleanup to do that creating additional questionable articles seems like a dangerous idea. I'll respond in less length over at the merge-to article's talk page, just so it's there and others have a chance at input either way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of professional snooker players

I have suggested editing the 'List of snooker players' (on its talk page as well), to only the players with articles written on them. What do you think? Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is bigger than this. There are way, way too many lists of players (by this criterion or that); I have merge-tagged several of them, and brought the issue up at WT:SNOOKER. As for your specific proposal, I do not believe this necessary or even a good plan, as we know from experience that redlinks encourage article creation, and one does not have to pass WP:N in order to be mentioned in a list, only to have an article. Some would argue that everyone presently on the list (other than some probable vanity entries that have slipped in) are notable enough in their own right for articles anyway. So, I'm a little on the negative side of neutral with regard to your specific proposal, but strongly positive toward merging and cleaning up these player lists into a single comprehensive list-based article on snooker players. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that actually sums up my feelings as well really, I think editing the list like I suggested would be a negative thing to do on second thoughts. Samasnookerfan (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Resolved

– Just a chat.

It was not clear from your MFD nomination that you believe that one of the projects has run astray. If it has, it may be worthwhile bringing this up on the admin noticeboard. We are capable of forcibly shutting down a project if need be, but that is an extreme measure that would certainly need more evidence of problems than has been shown. As it stood, the MFD was generating more heat than light, so I don't think it would have helped your cause. >Radiant< 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think that one or the other project has completely run off the rails. Rather, the situation is that the consensus-building process has crashed and burned on this topic. Instead of people working toward a consensus view of what to do about trivia in articles, two warring factions have set up competing projects, and are more and more entrenching their views and fortifying their defenses against the competing project (something similar though less marked has also been taking placed between WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA, which I've also been pushing toward merger). I took it to MfD because merge discussions on the projects' talk pages have failed to produce a consensus. I'm not afraid of heat; hot XfDs often eventually generate light, as is now happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card shark and did a few days ago at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 27#CompactTOCs merge and rename, which both began heated and some would say looked like WP:SNOWBALLs for early closure. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lefover tidying up

Resolved

– Just a question (answered).

See Template talk:CompactTOC2#Editprotected: TfD merge nomination. If the deletion notice does need removing, let me know and I'll do it. Wanted to check with you first about what was happening. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Some AWBing needs to be done. The notice can certainly be removed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Resolved

– Simple issue to fix.

Not sure it's even worth mentioning, but all of the national/language related style guides have been using hyphenated MOS shortcuts, so I don't find them highly irregular: WP:MOS-AR, WP:MOS-KO, WP:MOS-JP, WP:MOS-ZH, WP:MOS-IR. Dekimasu?! 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It seems superfluous and inconsistent (in the larger scheme) to me, but if it is that internally consistent, then I would not have any issue with being reverted on the -zh and -jp changes I made. Better to have a consistent exception to the overall consistency than near-consistency with exceptions that are not consistent with each other, so to speak. Meaning, any MOS subpage shortcuts of this sort that are not hyphenated should be. And non-hyphenated versions of the shortcuts should also exist, even if they are not "advertised". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Filled in the gaps for these as requested and rehyphenated the two you mentioned. There are others not listed as guidelines enjoying consensus, and those might still have irregularities. Sorry to bug you about it - just now noticed the RfDs on the MOS:XYZ pages. Dekimasu?! 07:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Card shark AfD issue

Resolved

– Just a chat.

(I'm moving the entire conversation over here, rather than have it in two places at once.) Rray (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to consider that my experience with this editor aside from his/her posts on this specific page may inform my opinion of what the editor is doing. No "motive" or "judgment about intentions" is assumed – I did not theorize (and honestly have no idea) why seemingly desperate source falsification would be happening; that it is, is clear, and that is problem enough. This isn't even a matter of source interpretation, but a matter of completely misrepresenting what the alleged sources, which are very clear and in plain English, actually said. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are not Wikipedia:Be obsequious and brown-nosing at all times. If an editor earns criticism, I'm not prone to withholding it. And criticism is often required when an editor is pushing an unsourced PoV so hard that actual collaboration is thwarted. If your point is simply that I seem to be citing WP:DICK at this person in a roundabout way, you are correct, and I'm also quite well aware that to cite WP:DICK is itself a WP:DICKish thing to do in most cases; I'm not afraid of that – I've earned enough Wiki good will here that I can handle the temporary reputational sacrifice required by using this tactic to try to get through to this disruptive editor. I understand but deflect your criticism for going there in this case, because I think that in this case it is justified. If it weren't I'd be contrite about it and apologize. If it were simply a difference of editorial opinion, I would agree with you, but this is not an issue of that sort, but one of flagrant disregard for policy at WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I got your note on my talk page. I don't really care much about this particular AfD, although I disagree with you about the merge and the deletion. But I was actually trying to help you with your argument. Ranting about your problems with another editor in the AfD discussion actually weakens your argument rather than strengthens it. It makes it look like you're just creating the AfD in retaliation or frustration. You should focus on making your case instead of your dislike of another user.

Seems to me if you have a problem with another editor's behavior, then there are places to deal with that. It also seems to me like you already addressed your problems with this user in those places.

You might not care about my opinion, which is perfectly fine with me. :) But I assume because you took the time to post on my talk page that you had some interest. At any rate, we can probably agree to disagree and move on. Happy editing. Rray (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that citing WP:DICK is always a dickish move, but I don't think you realize who's coming across that way in this particular situation. And I mean that in the kindest, gentlest way possible. Like I said, you can and should make your points without accusing people of being shrill or of being deliberately misleading. And you might not have noticed, but most of the people in the discussion oppose the deletion of that article, and there's only limited support for a merge. Rray (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Ranting about your problems with another editor in the AfD discussion actually weakens your argument rather than strengthens it": Good point. I was actually coming to that conclusion myself.

Re: "I don't think you realize who's coming across that way": Criticism noted and absorbed. I just bowls me over that someone would blatantly fake sources in that debate and I couldn't let that rest, but maybe I should have. Even I don't really give a darn about those two articles, it just irks me to see an article PoV-forked like that without any defensible basis for it. Perhaps I am letting that irritation get in the way of productiveness.

Re: "most of the people in the discussion oppose the deletion of that article": If the closing admin is paying attention, that won't matter, because the opposes have no backing. They are entirely based on personal PoV. It's been a week or nearly so, and my argument has been "there are no sources for the separation", hint hint. Even a single reliable source would probably undermine the entire AfD, but the separation demanders have not provided even one legitimate source. If it were 100 to 1 and all 100 were ILIKEIT !votes like that, the AfD should still close as "The consensus was: delete". AfD not being a vote, I just hope it's closed by someone that reads between the lines and thinks about the weight of the differing logics raised. "They're just different because I say so" is not a valid argument at XfDs.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. I do think you are right that I've been too combative on this one, and I will internalize that and come out different, so it wasn't wasted effort. I do think the merge is still needed, but I needn't make a battle out of it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken about the potential about how the AfD might turn out. Time will tell. At any rate, thanks for the discussion. I'm sure we'll see each other around, since we seem to be interested in at least some of the same subjects. :) Rray (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Piped links

Stale

– Old issue.

Are you inclined to add your piped links proposal to wp:mosnum? Please answer there. Lightmouse (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you refresh my memory? I was in about 50 different WP discussions yesterday... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Proposal:_Do_not_use_surprise_links.

Lightmouse (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Band infoboxes

Resolved

– Just a note.

Thanks for your contributions in the band infobox discussion. Everything you said was very well articulated. Personally, I'm with you on the topic, as I consider myself middle of the road. I certainly don't think flags need to be everywhere, especially where they will cause strife. But I also see no reason why they should be hunted down and removed where they are innocuous. As I stated in my post, I just became tired of talking about the issue in that forum, because as you pointed out, it was a self-selected group of people with the same agenda (myself obviously excluded). Oh well. Anyway, thanks again for contributing to that. See ya around! --Andy (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Marco Fu

Resolved

– Nothing further to hash out.

Hi, I don't know too much about the technicalities of wikipedia edits, but I accept the points you make. However, there is very little evidence that his nickname is "cue-man-fu" either. Try googling it - the only hit you'll get is the wikipedia entry. Even if you take the hyphens out, you only get a three times repeated blog post from October titled Beware Cue Man Fu.

There are several "anecdotal" uses of Hong Kong Fuey when you google it, leading me to believe that it is the most popular nickname for Marco Fu.

It may even be possible that the one blog mentioning "cue-man-fu" got the nickname from Wikipedia. The idea that Wikipedia is creating new "facts" is certainly an exciting one! But probably not the intended purpose of Wikipedia.

I think the best compromise would be to include both nicknames; failing that, to take away both nicknames.

One other point; the wikipedia entry specifically for snooker nicknames mentions both of their nicknames; perhaps Marco Fu's wikipedia entry should reflect this information.

Regards, Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.113.220 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I flagged the longer-standing one as unsourced as well. My inclination would be to remove both, as neither is well-sourced or apparently any better-sourceable. One problem going on with these nickname fields is that they are subject to not just vandalism but original research. A sports journalist trying to be clever and coming up with some punnish phrase to describe a player doesn't make it a nickname, but any such usage is too likely to be added to articles here as a nickname. I bet that under this criterion, about 70% of the snooker "nicknames" should be deleted. This is probably a matter for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports, really, or maybe even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, as it affects much more than just snooker articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed both of them, and took the matter to WT:SNOOKER for broader discussion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard space

Resolved

– Done.

Hi Stanton, are you aware of the discussion on the hard space at ActionMOSVP? You haven't weighed in on the matter yet; perhaps you haven't had time yet, but I'm sure your opinion will be much appreciated. Regards, Phaunt (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It was about the words (re: Neologism)

Stuck

– Discussion belongs at Talk:Neologism#Names are not neologisms.

Stanton:

In your rush to remove my contribution, apparently you ignored or overlooked that the posting was about words. Did you look at the source material?

The place names were words, which wre influenced by change in culture, politics etc. These in fact were made up words, and words that were new, with meanings that were manipulated for the larger purpose. You've missed the point.

Where is it written that a place name, which purports to be a new word, would not qualify within the spirit and intent of this article?

Take a look and think about this. With respect, your unilateral action is wrong on this, and apparently did not look at what I posted, or at the source material.

Best to you. 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

I have not missed the point, I simply disagree with you. I did take a look and I did think about it, which is why I addressed the matter on the article's talk page, and directed you (and anyone else who cared) to that discussion, in my edit summary. As I can't discern a valid user-directed issue in the above, I'm deflecting this back to the article's talk page, since no consensus about what that article should say is going to be arrived at in "User talk:", after all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've responded to you on the Neologism discussion page. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

Optional autoformatting

Resolved

– Old news.

SMcCandlish, Perhaps I'm confused to see a "take to RfC first" edit summary by you (was this in relation to the current debate or the old unconverted metrics in science articles debate a while ago? So you do think the autoformatting issue should go to RfC first? I'd rather not, since MOSNUM is its own self, but I'll be influenced by your opinion. Tony (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of them. I do not believe that a metrics-only, unconverted-metrics or even metrics-first change has actual consensus at all, other than metrics-first in science articles. On the autoformatting issue I agree with you completely I think, but have reviewed some of the vitriolic debates over the matter from the past, and believe that getting sufficient buy-in to not cause either massive flamewars or worse yet people just ignoring the MoS is going to require more "advertising" of the change; RfC is a good way to do that, and is good ammo against claims that changes are being made by a micro-consensus or "cabal". It'll be a good CYA move under WP:PROCESS.

I.e., two completely different rationales for two different RfCs.

I could be wrong on the latter; perhaps just changing it won't cause such a backlash (since it isn't banning autodating, but saying it is optional), but "better safe than sorry", I say.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I do a lot of WP:PROCESSy stuff, and find that it works pretty well if you understand the system's strengths and weaknesses. I have a lot of successful merges under my belt, as well as WP:MOSFLAG actually going through the proposal process and surviving with very little controversy at all (how many guidelines can say that, eh? I have read that the survival rate at WP:VPR is something like 5%). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the change some time ago to allow unconverted metrics in articles on scientific topics (with consensus on the article's talk-page; i.e., not if people object, I guess) seems pretty mild and unobjectionable. Some people, including Americans, wanted more dramatic change. I haven't heard of grief about it since the change was made. On the proposal to make autoformatting optional, I suspect that the same principle might calm the hysterical naysayers: autoformatting may be dispensed with in an article provided there's consensus for doing so. I'm going to put it again soon. The situation at the moment has become a little fuzzy, since (1) "normally" is impossible to interpret or enforce; (2) we now have a set of guidelines for the raw date formats, and (3) MOSNUM already mentions situations in which autoformatting can't be used (date ranges, slashes). It's an inevitable step, I think, even if these people are going to make things difficult in the short term. I have no experience of taking proposals further up the food chain. Unsure. Tony (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally not happy about the "well, sometimes we just won't convert" bit, but have bigger fish to fry (e.g. WP:NCP cleanup lately; could use some backup on that; Francis seems a little over-protective of the extant version, though I can also understand his preference to hash out the overhaul on a draft-editing subpage; have done things that way before, and it is a reasonable request – in fact it's a technique we might want to start using at MOS pages to prevent "churn" in the "live" copies of the guidelines. Sorry for the very run-on parenthetical here).

I agree with you on the "make date autoformatting optional" stuff, as you know; all I'm suggesting is that we add an RFC tag to the top of the discussion (either the current one or the new, cleaner "reboot" of the topic you intend to do). It isn't hard, and I'm certainly not suggesting it be taken to WP:VPR. It'll just "advertise" the discussion a little and garner a little more input; due diligence against any claims of WP:OWNership at MOSNUM. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Would much rather have had "don't convert" in articles on scientific topics, since American school-kids should be getting used to metrics by now, and so should the elderly (Hoary has provided a quick-and-easy conversion method for them, if they still need it). The consensus bit was a significant compromise to get it through.

Will have a look at NCP. RFC is a good idea on the autoformatting thing. Tony (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Hendry

Resolved

– Old news.

Hi Stanton,, can you keep an eye on the above page for a potential edit war I want to avoid with an unreg. user? Thanks, bigpad (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. What's the nature of the dispute? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If we're speaking of recent twiddles by 134.36.37.86 (talk · contribs), I'm inclined to agree with his/her edits, since they are bit clarificational, if I may invent a perfectly reasonable new word. It may well be significant to our readers when who held what record, if I may write a really atrocious phrase full of question-words. Is there a factual dispute about these details? Like, if the cited sources do not actually support the anon's wording, then I absolutely would have to side with reverting them, since per WP:V and WP:RS we are not in a position to cite sources that do not actually support what the article says (or more accurately, we are not in a position to write something unsupported by the cited sources). If such is the case, it might be best to find additional sources to support the clarified wording (provided it is actually true). If I'm off-base, please let me know what anon is being problematic; I didn't look that far back in the article history, so I could be going on about the wrong anon. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Stanton, It's not so much a factual innacuracy but the overkill. As I said on IP user's page, it's about Stephen Hendry, not O'Sulluvan, and "his good friend" is anecdotal and could be moved down to the bottom of the page. And what is the evidence for this friendship? Some of the snooker pros say that there are no real friendships in this dog-eat-dog individual sport, other than the fact that they have to spend so much time travelling and playing together that they have to get on! And the IP 80. has been replaced by the same person on a different IP. I'm not going to lose sleep over this but the focus of the article should be sharp, not anecdotal. bigpad (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"What is the evidence" is a good point; so let's remove at least that part. I do think I am getting your relevance point, and if you really feel the "O'Sullivanism" to be significant, I'll re-examine the issue, but am presently inclined to think that the distinctions drawn are useful/educational, no? Not worried by the IP shift; this often automatic – before I switched from DSL to cable, my IP address used to change darned near hourly. Very annoying. Anyway, I definitely have that watchlisted and if I see anything revertworthy I'll act on it. May go fix the "friends" thing right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of relevance, after I restored some truly minor futzes by the anon, and added some cleanup tags, I noticed some yakkety-yak about some other player's cue getting bent; I believe it refers to Mark J. Williams but am not sure since there are two Mark Williamses that are notable in the snooker context and only one has an article here yet.) I think that should be moved to that player's article per the same objection you raise to going on and on about Ronnie O'S. While there are loads of stories to tell, they need to be told in the right places, yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I made an explicit move to open this as a discussion topic at Talk:Stephen Hendry#The record. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is tidied up a bit now, inc. the jargon section which did need some editing, and your comments above are spot on. All we're interested in is keeping POV out and the standards high. That's why the O'Sullivan article, which I've tweaked recently, is such a task. All the best, bigpad (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

– Responded at WT:MOSNUM.

See my latest contribution at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Closure. None of us had noticed that guidance at wp:moslink on this has existed for some time. Lightmouse (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded at MOSNUM. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a comment over there. Lightmouse (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributions derogatory in nature

Resolved

– Answered.

I recently made an edit on a pool player article page that I initiated long ago.

An unidentified person made an change in this article which was derogatory in nature to the article. I fixed it, but I wanted to know what is the best way to notify someone that this is happening. TIA! RailbirdJAM (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a well-documented system for handling such transgression: See WP:UWT for full guidance on the usage of the appropriate user warning templates. There are several that can be used in cases like this depending upon the exact nature of the edits. If they are just sort of unsourced crap (not particular lycontroversial or offensive, just dubious), there is {{uw-unsor1}} and its escalated varieties. If it is POV-pushing, there is the {{uw-npov1}} family. If it is adding controversial and unsourced (but not necessarily blatantly attacking) material about a living person, {{uw-biog1}} and related. And finally if it constitutes blatant attacks on someone, living or otherwise, use the {{uw-defam1}} family of tags. There are many others, for WP:NOR violations, outright vandalism, and so on. When to escalate from a level-1 warning is matter of some subtlety and practice, but you'll figure it out (hint: If user already has, say, a level-2 warning this month, yours should be level-3, but you don't have to start with level-1 if the violation was egregious to a serious to really-really serious degree. If it was just unbelievably unconscionable, you can actually use {{uw-vandalism4im}} (one warning only, imminent block), but that is for cases like "John Q. Doe is a FATASS CHILD-RAPING PIG-PORKING SICK FCUKER WHO SUCKS BIG DONKEY D1CKS" type edits, as well as repeated total page blanking and other hard-core vandalism. If anyone transgresses with an issue addressed by these templates after a level-4 warning of any kind, they should be reported to WP:AIV for blocking. PS: If you literally mean that it was derogatory in nature toward the article itself rather than the article subject that would be {{uw-npa1}} ("whoever wrote this is a moron" - personal attack) or {{uw-agf1}} ("this article is completely stupid and intentionally misleading" - attacking the good faith behind the article. There doesn't seem to be a {{uw-civil1}}, so something like "this article is really badly written and is misleading" doesn't qualify for a user-warning template, though adding comments like that directly to the article rather than using HTML comments, edit summaries or cleanup tags might qualify for a {{uw-joke1}} - people should not be inserting their alleged wit, ascerbic or otherwise, into article prose. PPS: All such templates should be subst:'d. PPPS: WP:AGF and WP:NPA yourself, and don't assign a user-warning template more severe than is warranted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Resolved

– Just a chat.

Season's Greetings from my hometown, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Boy times have changed since, I think it was about 1994. So much overhead to lug around, but nothing the woman I met in the San Diego DMV couldn't write around in about 2 seconds with something called "ST Include" for Windows. Only kidding, I forgot the program's name but writing around an operating system would be quite easy for someone who completed studies in India recently. Best wishes for the new year from someone who recognizes your name from more than a decade ago. And you helped me so much in about one email. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I misremember what I allegedly said that was so helpful; refresh my memory? I think most W3C peeps found me to be a pain the nethers! And still do when I dare to wander into their talkspaces. Or are we talking about Usenet times? About all I remember from '94 was being in over my head! (I do remember you, but don't remember being helpful. D'oh.) Regardless, happy holidays to you as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll be okay. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But alas I swallowed a small piece of porcelain or thought I did (actually the cup was inexpensive but it was the only souvenir I had from a trip to Amsterdam other than two tulips now turned to bologna). How sad that people need to invent problems. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! The TidBit's piece. Dang, that was a while back. I should check LinkedIn more often... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

At Thanksgiving, I borrowed a poem for the tune of the voice of Mrs. Laura Bush (you will recall Victoria and the others from many years ago in the Mac OS could read chat rooms after one signed off, until done, thus saving money for the user), "If I should die before I wake, I pray the lord(sp?) my soul to take. And please remember Neil Shapiro in my will." -Susanlesch (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard spaces again

Resolved

– Just a note.

You're keeping busy, I see!

Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces, after a bit of a lull. I hope you will stay involved, as we approach a crucial vote. Your participation is of great importance to the success of this action.

Best wishes to you.

– Noetica^?? Talk 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. I will look into it again. I strongly suspect that #12 is what we'll get, because getting the developers to do anything is hard. And #11 is pretty much simply impossible due to the nature of MediaWiki. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Freakonomics

Resolved

– Just a note.

Stanton—just reading it now. Totally unexpected data mining that yields fascinating insights into all manner of things. Have you read it? Might even have use in anthropology. Tony (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't heard of it. Sounds quite interesting! Thanks for the tip. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)