Mandruss

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Retirement

I've just seen your retirement on my watchlist. Whatever this is, I hope it is most temporary, as Wikipedia would be less without you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Temporary retirements demonstrate one of two things: insincerity, or a shortage of self-awareness and self-discipline. Knowing that my first retirement would be my last, I was careful not to make the commitment without thorough consideration. It's done, and I don't care to discuss the reasons. Best wishes to those who remain. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Well, I've enjoyed working with you those times our paths have crossed. Good luck to you, sir! You will be missed. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 23:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry to see you go. Thank you for your numerous contributions, and take care. starship.paint (exalt) 03:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Mandruss: even before getting introduced I see you retiring. Any ways wish you nice offline life. Bookku (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Best wishes to you, and thank you for your service. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Damn - Donald Trump needs you now more than ever. Sorry to see you go, and I do wish you'd reconsider. (Michael Jordan did and didn't regret it.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw this. I'm really sorry to see you go. I know you have already said you will not reconsider and that you are gone for good, but please know that you are always welcome back if for some reason you change your mind. In the few years that I have worked with you, I haven't always agreed with your stance or position in arguments, but I've always known that you were trying your best to write a good quality article. Best of luck in your future endavours, Chief Magistrate. Mgasparin (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Mandruss, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Mandruss! Good to see you back! Cheers, and how are you? starship.paint (exalt) 11:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Oh hi there. Well I allowed myself to get sucked into one big process-related issue at Trump; otherwise I'm still 99%-retired. This morning I noticed that I was feeling unusually on edge, a little agitated, not quite myself, and I couldn't identify the reason. Then it occurred to me that I've been back at Trump for almost a month. And I haven't even gotten involved in the more stressful, content-related stuff going on there. You're keeping your sanity, I take it?

Thanks for the beer, but I need something else and I can't drink the hard stuff. Recreational weed is legal in my state and a number of others, so maybe Wikipedia is almost ready for the option to send some Mary Jane. A doobie for you! ―Mandruss ☎ 12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite sane. I actually took a break from Trump for some time. Not that I was stressed over the article or its editors, just that (a) I got busy, (b) Trump lost and I thought (wrongly) that he was yesterday's news. I'm still skipping a lot of Trump stuff, essentially due to motivation, really. I just can't be bothered or interested. I haven't even read most of the talk page. Yeah the Carroll stuff does interest me, but again I got busy, so I've moved on, and let the pieces fall where they may. If I may suggest, perhaps you should edit something you are actually interested in; that's what I do. Anyway, thanks for the doobie, I shall magically turn it into water, as my own country is notorious for not tolerating Mary Jane, in fact last month there was a kingpin executed over it. But what refreshing water this is - just a little smoky, it seems. starship.paint (exalt) 15:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Mary Jane? Too much time on the Trump article, and you'll need something stronger. Perhaps Wikipedia can open an opium den. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Darrell Brooks mugshot 2021-11-23.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Darrell Brooks mugshot 2021-11-23.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Bruxton (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert on Donald Trump

It's hardly trivia when it shows how much of a habitual liar he is. But thanks for the revert. "Sheesh", yourself! conman33 (. . .talk) 01:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd posit Wikipedia doesn't need yet another example of what a habitual liar he is,and certainly not in that article. The article is already way too long, largely due to inclusion of things that are more significant than height/weight inconsistencies but that don't need to be in the top-level bio. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Archive

I see you archived my conversation on the Donald Trump page. Not sure what that means. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Which conversation was that? I can't find that archival in the page history. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Or closed in. Not sure about the terms. It was criminal status GamerKlim9716 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh right. That was a closure, not an archival, notwithstanding the misleading names of the templates you use to accomplish it (archive top and archive bottom). Anyway I can't explain it any better than I did in my closure statement. When there's clearly no point in further discussion, we try to close the thread so it can be archived after 24 hours per consensus #13. That keeps the table of contents at a minimum so editors can focus on things that do need discussion. It also discourages further comments from editors who don't know any better. We don't imply criminality before conviction, period. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say I don't get the difference between all of these legal terms "indictment, arraigned, arrested, prosecuted, etc". So I thought because he had a mug shot and was arrested he's considered guilty. I appreciate you correcting me. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Surely you've heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"? An arrest proves nothing except that prosecutors believe there's a good chance a jury will convict him. The trial has yet to begin. His lawyers might negotiate a plea deal before it does, in which case he would plead guilty to some of the charges in return for a lighter sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Meta reply to PhotogenicScientist

how are the Accords not notable enough to include? If you're asking me specifically, I haven't taken a position and don't intend to. I use my semi-retirement as an excuse, but in truth I never got much into such political-content issues anyway. I've had this on my user page since 2018:

The product of 17 years of self-selected self-governance, Wikipedia PAGs are a tangled labyrinth of watered-down and self-contradictory principles. For any proposition A, A and !A can usually be argued with equal PAG support. That renders PAGs useless as a guide. So-called policy-based discussions are in reality nothing more than editor viewpoints, and might as well be democratic voting. We are suffering from mass self-delusion, my friends.

The closer here will (maybe) exclude editors who make no policy claim at all; then they will count votes. They won't attempt to weigh the different policy claims, as (1) that would be very difficult and would require a ton of experience to do well, (2) it would inject their own personal biases, and (3) a close against the majority would almost certainly invite a contentious and time-consuming close review. That's how virtually all closed discussions go. The system has a built-in assumption that most editors will apply policy correctly and objectively, and that's just not the case. Most editors will apply policy to support their political viewpoints. <my opinion>Some lack the self-awareness to know they're doing that, and some others feel that the issues at stake are more important than Wikipedia principles (while giving them lip service for the sake of appearances).</my opinion> (Re the fall of democracy as we know it, I'm not sure I disagree with the latter group; "It's only Wikipedia" is my mantra; but I opted to largely abstain rather than go that route. On the subject of Trump, I doubt Wikipedia changes many minds; I think we overestimate its impact and I've yet to see hard data to the contrary. In the end, this is a stimulating intellectual exercise, more satisfying than social media, not much more.)

The solution? An unbiased, impassive, really smart AI "editor", and good luck with that. Apart from the technical challenges, it would render all human editors mere copy editors, and that's no fun. And we would have to make the PAGs comprehensible to the AI "editor"; even with a hundred years of advancement in AI, it could never be made smart enough to comprehend them as currently written. Software doesn't like vagueness, contradictions, and value judgments, and it would immediately throw up its hands and resign. I didn't say it's a practical solution. Maybe quantum computing can help? I dunno, but that would be decades away at best. I don't know about you, but I'll be decomposing like Beethoven by then.

Meta enough yet? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thick forest

It's 'sometimes' difficult to remember, considering the length of the entire discussion. I don't envy the editor who attempts to close the RFC on the former US president's rhetoric. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

please read what I write very carefully

so we do not digress into idiotic squabbles that disrupt Talk. thank you soibangla (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I always read carefully. You don't always make yourself perfectly clear. For example, you said I am not arguing against a sub-article. It would've been clearer to say I am not categorically opposed to a sub-article. [optional elaboration] I can't read your mind or anybody else's. Clear communication requires equal quality in both the receiver and the transmitter. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have never argued against a sub-article, but you insisted I have. it is false. I seek no conflict with you and I ask you demonstrate reciprocity. that's all I got here soibangla (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Look, as I tried to say above, argued against a sub-article had multiple possible interpretations. You chose one, I chose the other (and you put zero effort into trying to understand how I might have chosen the other in good faith). The solution: (Try harder to) use language that has only one possible interpretation. If you are misunderstood, clarify your language with AGF and there will be no "conflict". ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

after stating you had been up 30 hours, you suggested I was drunk

you keep goin' with that soibangla (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so now we're resurrecting past conflicts. When I was 8, my sister told my mom I did something that I didn't do.

At that time, you seemed unable to construct a complete sentence, which was entirely out of character for you, so I thought there might be some kind of impairment at play. Reasonable enough in my view.

What happened to that's all I got here? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

you seemed unable to construct a complete sentence ... Reasonable enough in my view says someone who had minutes earlier stated they had been up 30 hours. just stop this trashtalk FFS soibangla (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It's my talk page. This is where I get to trash talk all I want. Don't like it? Leave. Go far, far away. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

you suggested I was drunk on Talk:Donald Trump. Likely sanctionable. I recommend you cut your losses. Stop. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong.[1] Again. Are you drunk? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Have you been drinking by any chance?"

keep goin'! soibangla (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Link the diff to support your statement: you suggested I was drunk on Talk:Donald Trump. It doesn't fucking exist, and you know it (now). Are you capable of acknowledging your errors, let alone learning from them?? You are very close to being the first editor ever banned from this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Have you been drinking by any chance?"

hah! soibangla (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It was on your talk page, not Talk:Donald Trump, as clearly evident in the diff I linked above. Are you drunk? You are now banned from this page and I'd suggest you respect that ban for your own sake. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Mandruss, why not use your super powers for good like Batman and so forth? Nobody would have objected if you'd scolded all the off-topic, strawman, unreasoned, and chitchat posting on that talk page over the past week or so. Seriously, you could really help out that way. When somebody makes a comment like the one about amending the US constitution or ignoring RS, you could help tamp that stuff down. Then you could get some more barnstars and other internet glory. The Admins have almost completely abdicated their DS/CT role, preferring to sit back like the Supreme Court and scratch their chins at AE like the wisemen and womsen they are. That means that normal people who don't want to waste time prosecuting a complaint with diffs etc. just give up editing those pages. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to self-appoint as Talk Page Sheriff. I save that kind of thing for the few most extreme cases, and that's the main reason I get away with them (sometimes). You trying to set me up for an AE complaint? :) If elected, I might serve, but I don't see that happenin'. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump, talk,

Sir, that page is cluttered with hundreds of unconstructive chat room type posts and that user is responsible for many such distractions, including that same punctuation mistake roughly once a week. It actually would make their posts more intelligible if they figured out how to write simple sentences like that. I suspect there are several such commas on the page right now.

Maybe you could counsel that eager editor and help them focus on the use of talk pages for constructive comments. Did you know that on Arb. Palestine/Israel pages unconstructive talk page posts are actually prohibited and are regularly removed by editors and Admins? They should do that for AP too! SPECIFICO talk

@SPECIFICO: You've got mail. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You've got more mail. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You've got yet more mail. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This old gal blushes at such ardent attention. SPECIFICO talk 12:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That "The and periodicals" thread

It would have been better if both I and David had used different wording that you found more palatable (and it probably wouldn't take a mind reader to guess in either case that it wouldn't be received well; for my part, mea culpa).

But if you substitute out "weasel" in David Eppstein's post (try "wiggle" or "wriggle", as suits your dialect), and remove "goofy" from mine, the points were valid, or at least remain unrefuted. If you just take a dismissive posture based on the tone of a tiny part of the disagreements, and ignore and refuse to address their substance, then turn tit-for-tat toward the critics of your idea, that isn't "debate... by the strength of our reasoning", to use your words. It's unlikely to improve the discussion in any way or get us closer to resolution.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Well thanks for caring that much, at least. I wouldn't feel much better about "wiggle" or "wriggle", as they both imply some level of bad faith (disingenuousness, sneakiness, covert maneuvering, whatevah). Not that "weasel" was the only problem; it's just the only one I opted to highlight (trying to minimize the OT).

I was merely presenting an argument as best I knew how. I lived by KISS throughout my 30-year career as a software developer, and no doubt that influenced my particular take on that issue. If I was in over my head, that was no reason to get frustrated and respond in that harsh and overbearing tone.

Contrast to my recent behavior at Talk:Donald Trump#Link China trade war in the lead, in which I'm interacting with a far newer editor using a very different style and tone than Eppstein's. (I don't recall being frustrated, much, but my testosterone level is declining in my later years. When I do get frustrated, I generally have enough self-control to keep a hat on it. Grown-ass man and all that.) He has a ton to learn, but instead of excoriating him for verbosely showing that (which would serve nothing but my ego), I'm doing my best to help him along, without sounding patronizing or condescending, while attending to the discussion topic at the same time. I think he'll be a good editor in a few years, if he sticks it out.

It's what I called common respect, which is due every one of us except those who are clearly being disruptive and/or contributing in bad faith (that wasn't me). Yes, I'll continue to check out the minute I see his kind of talk, since there are more important things to me even than MoS issues. I'll do my best to avoid the MoS area in the future (I'm semi-retired anyway, which should largely mean DGAF). ―Mandruss ☎ 07:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. I think my wiki-skin is just much thicker (being one of the main MoS shepherds will do that to ya; everyone wants to change at least one thing in MoS to suit a personal pet peeve, and they usually get angry and venty at anyone who blockades their WP:CREEPing change demands). I don't think David was implying any kind of bad faith, he was just using unnecessarily sport-or-war-oriented analogizing with regard to argumentation, e.g. that his masterful logic necessarily imposed a hold or front from which there is no escape. I used to make arguments like that myself in my olden days here, being used to ranty debating on Usenet and other forums. It's a hard habit to break. PS: Good on you for helping hold a new-user hand. For my part, I try do this with user-talk notices when people do something broken. If they're not clearly acting in bad faith (vandalizing, spamming), I try to include helpful instructions after a boilerplate template, like where to ask the question they mis-posted; how to properly format an edit-protected request and that it expects both a "chage X to Y" request and a very clear reason to perform the change; how to do a basic <ref> citation instead of just dumping a URL directly into the article body; etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

At Trump

You need to stop getting into these little battles with random editors. It will damage your appetite for editing, and, before we know it,

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

will become

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I don't want that. Cessaune [talk] 15:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Random editors plural? What, Soibangla and TheCelebrinator? I don't think I've crossed the line in either case, but I will certainly give your comment some thought. Any off-topic can be collapsed with no objection from me, but in my opinion certain things need to be said. The latter editor is sucking up way too much oxygen for his current competence level, and he has been for some time. Imagine being a new arrival to that discussion, or the preceding one. Ick.

But that's one of the great things about semi-retirement; I can be a bit more vocal about things like that because there's not a lot left to lose. I no longer fear full retirement, whether voluntary or the other kind. It might actually be fun to just lurk at Trump. I don't want that. Well thanks. I wouldn't want it for you, either. I was highly impressed when you resurrected the section links idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Mistaken identity

For what it's worth, my references to browbeating, blocks and need to read policies were aimed at the other editor. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: Oh that was crystal clear. I'm pretty good at self-awareness, and reading that it occurred to me that I had been doing exactly that (as to browbeating). My comment was a sort of mea culpa non culpa. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump wikilinks

Hi, I'm Paper Luigi, and I'm not sure that I agree with your revert on my recent contribution to the article Donald Trump. It appears to me that the wikilinks I provided do not go against MOS:EGG, as you suggested. I was not trying to trick people into thinking that, perhaps, "impeachment" in this context referred to Impeachment in the United States or that the First impeachment of Donald Trump and Second impeachment of Donald Trump meant anything other than what they are intended to mean. I feel that my contributions represented portions of the article that would benefit from being wikilinked in the lead section. Could you please elaborate on how these wikilinks do not meet standards? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Paper Luigi: Hi. Oh they definitely "go against MOS:EGG", since a reader seeing "impeached" would expect to go to Impeachment. Your links don't take the reader where they would expect to go, thus EGG. Also, editors at that article have tried hard to minimize links in the lead, so as to avoid "sea of blue", so I'm not sure that reducing the EGGiness of your links would necessarily be accepted, either. I suggest taking this to Talk:Donald Trump if it's important to you. Cheers. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the talk page would be a viable place to go, but I'm at odds with your logic on how those terms should appear. Impeachment is a broad article that deals with governments both including and those outside of the United States. I linked to more specific articles, such as Trump's first and second impeachment. Using your expected perceptions of the reader, should we only link to the most vague of terms, or is it preferable to link to specific articles when we find it necessary? Furthermore, if your assertion were true, a revert would not be necessary. Instead, you would change one or more redirects to point to the broad Impeachment article, but you did not do so. I added those wikilinks to Trump's first and second impeachments as a reader, not as a longtime contributor. I added them for my convenience as a reader of WP. As a reader, I do not find wikilinks in the lead section to be inadequate, nor do I find a "sea of blue", as you have asserted. I acknowledge that "sea of blue" article leads can be a problem, but I do not see this as justification for this particular case. Would you please elaborate further? — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Paper Luigi: First, I apologize for not reading more carefully. I think your first link would violate MOS:OVERLINK: "... the following are usually not linked: Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river, animation)...". We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

As to the other two links, I'm telling you how editors at that article have always interpreted MOS:EGG, and I've edited there since 2015. We perhaps take it more seriously than most editors.

To reduce EGGiness, one might do something like this:

Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice. After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden, he was impeached by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020. The House impeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection.

Again, I'm not sure that would be accepted either. In the end, this is not about how you or I feel about it, but about how a larger number feel about it. Hence, Talk:Donald Trump. I agree that the talk page would be a viable place to go So go there. Re-cheers. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and initiated a conversation at Talk:Donald Trump. Your input is welcome. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

NPA

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at talk:donald_trump. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Editing-dude144 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misinterpret NPA. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2022 Dallas airs how mid-air collision

A tag has been placed on 2022 Dallas airs how mid-air collision requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO

A reminder, to you as well @Space4Time3Continuum2x, that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and that a procedural error made in a proposal or request (like submitting to a "wrong" venue) is not grounds for rejection.

@Mandruss I do agree with your close of the thread - that Talk page is bloated enough on a normal day, and especially at the moment. Any discussion like that is better held at the dab page. But a better option would be to open a new discussion there porting over the contents of the previous discussion. Getting shut down with BURO-like reasonings is disheartening. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

??? It's the wrong venue, as also pointed out by Firefangledfeathers. You're free to start another discussion on the proper Talk page, but you may want to read the closing of the last one first. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

May be - even so, "wrong venue" isn't a valid grounds alone to oppose a proposal. Per policy. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If not for the fact that it should have been a request for move, I would have simply copied the discussion to Talk:Trump. It was not only wrong venue but wrong format. NOTBURO has its limits. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point on the issue of formatting... I imagine simply copying the discussion over to that page would be met instantly with requests to use the RM format. I guess I agree that NOTBURO has limits - if they had initiated an RM format on the wrong Talk page, or had failed to use the RM format on the right talk page, it'd be a lot easier to gently correct the issue. But I certainly don't expect you to take a new user's malformed RM and fix everything about it for them.

Thanks for pointing them in the right direction and mentioning the RM format in your close. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)!

Per your argument we should discuss proposals on, say, World War II on Donald Trump's talk page? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my incomplete edit summary, but I did remedy that in a subsequent edit to the close statement. Better late than never. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed they were 2 edits, or the original edit summary. But the mention of the RM format goes a long way toward making the closure feel better. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Another satisfied customer. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Photocide

Copy-right police: as far as I can tell, the image was not a fair use violation under whatever U.S. Code but a violation of WP's own non-free content criteria, WP:GETTY #7. Yay, I'm getting closer to uploading an acceptable non-free image. Now all I need is a published non-opinion source discussing a photo of the bloody ear (definitions 2 and 6). Not holding my breath. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Admire your dedication and determination. I have never felt like expending the necessary brainpower to learn that crap. ADD? I know we have to avoid lawsuits, even failed lawsuits, but it seems to me WP is way too unnecessarily cautious. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

+1, Hunter Biden NY Post headline page. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Current consensus

Minor side question, can you link the AN thread you mentioned at [2]? Thanks in advance. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

While I'm here, re [3] They had better be an admin or we're going to have a serious problem. I'm unclear on why you think that would matter. Archiving a section requires no technical permissions and admins have no authority in the matter. To be clear I'm colossally and obviously involved so I have no reason to think this "problem" is going to come to fruition. VQuakr (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I didn't mean to imply such a closure would violate a rule; the only applicable rule is that the closer should be uninvolved. But any closure is subject to closure review and I'm saying that I or someone else would definitely take such a closure by a non-admin to closure review; thus a "serious problem" that I hope could be avoided. I fail to see why such a discussion should be preemptively shut down, but I would defer to an admin's judgment. I'll be right back with an answer to your first question. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Maybe "I would take said closure to closure review, as I believe it would be premature." would have been clearer. No big deal. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed (not the "no big deal" part). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, to clarify the "no big deal" comment was a description solely of my own feelings. VQuakr (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading the original "Agreed", I realized it could be read as "Agreed that it's no big deal". So I clarified. Whole lotta clarifying going on here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I often find that walking backwards requires greater care and precision. VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Here ya go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive362#Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Soitenly! ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't see any surprises in that AN discussion and the closure seemed a foregone conclusion. A list that summarizes previous decisions (especially RfCs, which can be frustrating to find in a long archive after a few years) is purely helpful and I don't think any of the extant entries in the list give me concern re LOCALCONSENSUS. Also, I was a little surprised (maybe even "shocked") at the clapback on the DJT talk page, I thought we were discussing something but I didn't realize I was causing frustration. Do feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like me to clarify or expand on something that is frustrating you; I'm not always aware of how I'm coming across. It's always better to address that sort of thing before it boils over. VQuakr (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

the closure seemed a foregone conclusion. Lol. At AN and similar venues, I don't think there's any such thing as a foregone conclusion. It's a crap shoot, largely dependent on who shows up.

The contrast between your tone here and at Talk:Donald Trump#De facto consensus is striking; it's almost like two different editors (who are you, and what have you done with VQuakr?). Here's the rant I privately pre-composed; it's a technique I sometimes use to get something off my chest, to help me think something through, to help me calm down like beating the crap out of a pillow. If you hadn't posted the preceding, it would have remained private. Take it as you will.

One of the main reasons I semi-retired: too many experienced, battleground-mentality editors like yourself, editors who think intimidation and snark are useful and constructive debate tactics, who seem to take a bare-knuckles, "street fight" approach to contentious discussion. Editors who are very cynical (low AGF capacity), who undervalue common respect for fellow humans, who are quick to anger when they perceive a bad opposing argument, and who usually have an overinflated self-concept ("superiority complex").

If not for the physical separation of the internet, I'm certain many of these editors would be throwing actual punches or worse. Would you? Many others would behave very much better without said separation. Would you?

The Donald Trump article is distinctly different, being dominated by a handful of experienced editors who don't believe in that kind of behavior. More than enforcing good behavior, we provide a good example for others, who either follow the example or stay away (for the most part, and certainly far more than at most other CT articles). We have some very strong disagreements but—on our worst days—we never treat each other like you treated me.

That's one of the two main reasons why I've spent about 95% of my time at that article since my semi-retirement (the other main reason being a commitment to process there).

Please take your attitude and tone to venues where they are de rigueur. Better yet, change them. That's the direction the project is evolving, mostly by attrition, even if far too slowly for my liking.

―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point on the AN closures in general. Suffice to say I agreed with this closure. Sounds like the frustration I caused was much worse than I realized - this emphasizes the importance of not letting stuff build up I believe. But I also recognize the backwardness of having a more positive conversation in user talk and a more heated one in article talk; I'll try to use more care on that. I can honestly say I've never been upset enough with another editor on WP to where fisticuffs would be a remote concern were I to cross paths with them in the physical realm (though choice words and dirty looks might have been on the table a few times). VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well said Mandruss. I, for one, appreciate your obvious commitment (along with other editors) to accurate article creation with the proper decorum among the creators. Thank you for not retiring. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

A fox for you!

xoxo.

SPECIFICO talk 02:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Fox news! ―Mandruss ☎ 16:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Likewise

What I said to S4T3C2 on his page pertains to you also. Your article management and clear edit summaries provide an idea of the wranglings that go on at "Hot" articles. You, he and others are assuring that our greatgreatgreat grandchildren have a chance to see and read the truth about a very trying time. Thanks for all you do. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I would like to know your opinion when you are free about adding See Also section on Trump article. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. When I haven't commented in an 11-day-old discussion, it's a sign I don't have an opinion. I read the discussion and tried to grow an opinion, and failed. Sorry. But I'm keeping the strawberries. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Paywalls

In editing an article about Arlington National Cemetery, I come across a paywalled source (Fox News). I have looked around for WP's policy on paywalls and I am not satisfied as to the explanation given. What do you do when confronted with a Paywall? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You can find the archived page at Wayback Machine and read it there. I assume you've read WP:PAYWALL. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me in the right direction. I guess my concern is for the future reader that will accept what is stated and not bother to look under the rug. O Well! What will be will be Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Auto-archiving period on Donald Trump talk page

Shouldn’t the bot have archived Talk:Donald_Trump#"Survived_an_assassination_attempt"_in_the_lead on August 31 or September 1, 14 days after the last edit on August 17? There were no further edits until September 10 and now this. The section isn’t pinned, as far as I can tell. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC) This explains the sudden reawakening: WaPo, Guardian. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Aalso, he tod 67 million TV debate fans he was shot in the head. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

He's been saying that — and printing it on merch — all along but now the promotion of conspiracy theories is getting bolder. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This contribution earned it another 14 days, and it wasn't removed until Tuesday. Everybody dropped the ball or, like me, just missed it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Drop the ball, meet drop the stick. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

(Timely archival wouldn't have caused any stick droppage. It's not like people are reluctant to create new threads.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Must have been disappointing that the "far left lunatic" had moved on with the herd to other pastures/discussions and didn’t even notice the personal attack. I noticed Valjean's removal on Tuesday but didn't put 2 and 2 together when I started wondering about the non-archiving. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 09:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

With the American Presidential election right around the corner, the current American political scene is as contentious as ever. Articles about the 2024 Presidential campaign and/or anything Trump related are also contentious. As many editors push agendas left and right, article management and protection is extremely important to maintain any chance of acceptable editor decorum. Trump articles are invariably long and lengthy with hundreds of references. Editors can sometimes misrepresent facts. Editors can be innocently wrong. Two editors, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Mandruss, have established a working relationship built on mutual trust and a desire to improve the editing environment. They constantly safeguard the articles for reliance on the truth and Reliable Sources. Both wisely take the time to use the edit summary to explain complicated changes and provide an example of better editing for better results. Without someone (in this case two someones) the articles would be a constant mess. "Fixed" is a common refrain for these two.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

This is not Editor Mandruss

Mandruss

Editor of the Week for the week beginning October 20, 2024

The current American political scene is as contentious as ever. At articles about the 2024 Presidential campaign and/or anything Trump related many editors push agendas left and right. Article management and protection becomes extremely important to maintain any chance of acceptable editor decorum. Trump articles are invariably long and lengthy with hundreds of references. Editors can sometimes misrepresent facts. Editors can be innocently wrong. Two editors, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Mandruss, have established a working relationship built on mutual trust and a desire to improve the editing environment. They constantly safeguard the articles(s) for reliance on the truth and reliable sources. Both wisely take the time to use the edit summary to explain complicated changes and provide an example of better editing for better results. Without someone (in this case two someones) the article would be a constant mess. "Fixed" is a common refrain for these two.

Recognized for

protecting articles

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

DT talk page

Is there a particular reason you feel the need to intervene with my requested preference as to how I am addressed? DN (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate Mandruss attempting to smooth over any awkwardness. I don't think anything productive is going to come of litigating this further. I understand you only want to be referred to as 'Darknipples' in future. Case closed. Riposte97 (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I never held any ill-will towards you, but they made it more awkward than necessary.

• "Now you're gettin' me riled. Look, you comment on this page, regardless of the topic, and you open yourself up to replies from anybody. There are no "private" conversations here or almost anywhere else at Wikipedia. You want a "private" conversation, use email. That's how it works, like it or not. End

It appears they are "riled", and they felt the need to share all of that on an article talk page and then made it look as though it was somehow my intention to do so. If this is a personal issue let's make it clear what it is here, instead of at the article. Is that acceptable to both of you? DN (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fine with me, after I correct your blatantly false statement on the ATP: You're the one brought it up here. No, the off-topic tangent began with your comment. We're both guilty of off-topic (which could reasonably be collapsed at this point), but you were guilty first. And, if you don't like me getting riled and saying so on the ATP, don't make ridiculous, newbie-worthy claims about who's entitled to reply to your comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It was a casual request, and not the first of it's kind I've had to make there. Are you normally this uncivil, or do you speak to everyone this way over such mundane incidents? DN (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If you intend to keep commenting on this at the article TP I suggest you take it to AN or speak with an admin first. There is no need for that, and if you continue on about it there, an admin will be requested. This is not like you at all. DN (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it's the "what's the big hairy deal?" fallback argument, after having been an equal party in making it a big hairy deal. I'm as "uncivil" as I need to be, while stopping short of fully expressing what I really feel, per NPA. Far, far worse is routinely tolerated at Wikipedia (usually in other venues), so countcher blessings.

If you intend to keep commenting on this at the article TP I do not, as indicated by That's fine with me above. This is not like you at all. Thanks. Thankfully, I don't see the need very often on that page. I used to, back when the "clientele" was a lot different from today. Semi-retirement helps, too. And getting old and tired, mellowing a bit in old age, testosterone level in decline. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fine with me, ...after I correct your blatantly false statement on the ATP

Looking at bold portion the quote above, perhaps you can understand the reasoning behind my suggestion...

"Far, far worse is routinely tolerated at Wikipedia (usually in other venues), so countcher blessings."

I try not to think of that as an excuse, as I've had more than my share. Admins around here work hard enough without dealing with trivial spats from volunteers. That said, if you still think I crossed a line with my request, you should know that it is not an uncommon request coming from me. I try not to make it into a big deal and it hasn't escalated that quickly for some time. Case in point, Riposte97 said it was "case closed". I didn't come here looking for hostility, and I would prefer it didn't follow me around. Agreed? DN (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

after I correct your blatantly false statement on the ATP was ambiguous, potentially misleading, and, apparently, misled you. I meant that your statement was on the ATP and I was about to correct it on this page. Then I proceeded to do so.

I try not to think of that as an excuse As do I. Not an excuse, but food for thought. Admins around here work hard enough without dealing with trivial spats from volunteers. Admins work plenty hard, but they do precious little to make behavior conform with behavior policy (I know, the community ties their hands). They could do a lot more without my being caught in the net, even on my worst day. That community failure is part of why I semi-retired; I had to back away for the sake of my psychological well-being (I'm much better now, thanks). But I'll never be one to believe that full-time Kumbaya is a viable goal in the current WP environment—even outside CTOPs. The world we're stuck with is just not a very friendly place, over all, and Wikipedia can't be expected to be much better. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, with no entry vetting, questionnaire, or exam. The founders and early editors wanted a "populist" site, and that's what they got. They wanted almost total inclusiveness, and that means including the good, the bad, and, presumably, the ugly as well.

One can get mighty "unfriendly" without clear violation of policy, let alone enforcement of it—and many editors routinely do exactly that.

What you're calling "hostility", I call "directness", and I'd venture a guess you're not in the U.S. where directness is far more accepted/routine than in other cultures. Hell, we spawned Donald Trump!

Trust me, nobody wants to read examples of what I would call "hostility", even if I could bring myself to write them. But predominant features would include snark and undeclared sarcasm, both of which I try hard to avoid using, with a large degree of success in my opinion. Snark is just rude and juvenile, high-school-ish; sarcasm is saying the polar opposite of what one means, thereby destroying the communication that is the raison d'être of talk spaces. Both are often used to inflame, provoke, intimidate, and/or diminish one's "opponent(s)". This often succeeds, which is why people do it, and it's far easier than conceiving robust arguments and articulating them. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging admin MIDI, please see the discussion above...Putting my name and "about my gender preferences" as the hat note on an article talk page seems like further violation of CIVIL DN (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Again disagree. (Yeah, I know you weren't addressing me. Too bad, as before.) Am I misusing/abusing the term "gender prefs"? Should it be "pronoun prefs"? I genuinely don't know, being hopelessly stuck in the year 2000. I'm sorry to say that sociocultural change has outpaced my capacity to change with it, including learning all the new concepts and terms. I'm still learning to accept the demise of the team name "Washington Redskins", and that happened four years ago.

But feel free to change that to whatever suits you, replacing the signature with yours, provided it adequately describes what's collapsed. "Off-topic" by itself is not sufficient information for users to decide whether to expand and read. Some OTs are more interesting and time-worthy than others, for any given user.

Not sure why you opted to go straight to admin ping, seems like knee-jerk to me. But no harm done, aside from wasting a bit of MIDI's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for missing all of this after I went off-wiki yesterday. I'm afraid I'm not in a position to read through all of this and draw a conclusion (I'll be on-and-off WP today but real-life has to take priority right now). Please consider if admin intervention is necessary; the final points of WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL might be appropriate? MIDI (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for touching base MIDI. Perhaps we can keep it short and sweet making a call on whether WP:TALKHEADPOV applies here? ie "Don't address other users in a heading" [4].

I came here to de-escalate an off-topic discussion, and just at the point I thought we agreed not to use the TP as a battleground, they decided to post my name and the grievance in the hat note summary hiding the off-topic portion on the ATP. At the time it came across as a taunting "last word" of a somewhat personal nature for everyone there to see.

They claim I have permission to alter the hat-note...but any good faith I had was diminished, giving their olive branch the appearance of bait for further escalation.

My best options seemed to be to stop engaging entirely and contact admin before making any changes to their edit, but I'll let you be the judge.

I apologize to you, MIDI, and to Mandruss for not handling this better, or on my own, but I'm ready to forgive, forget and move on if that seems appropriate.

Cheers. DN (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples: Oh for the love of God. Talk about AGF failure! Since you refuse to help yourself, I've taken my best shot at what should satisfy you.[5] ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

By the looks of this response, I take it you do not accept my apology, nor do you wish to let this go. DN (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In my ~11 years here, this is the first time I've seen someone object to being named in a collapse message. As far as I'm concerned, it's not substantially different from naming someone in a normal comment, which is fairly routine. Seems highly over-sensitive to me, but whatever. I have, never had any need to name you there. Apology accepted, if that's important to you, but I haven't seen an apology for the AGF failure which is at the root of this whole mini-trainwreck. You have repeatedly escalated (e.g. admin ping) while begging for de-escalation.

This could have and should have gone a different way:

Hi. Would you mind removing my username from your collapse message? —Darknipples

Done.[6] —Mandruss

Case closed. Please. This will be my last comment on this issue unless in reply to a different editor. You're welcome to the last word if you want it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Oops

Re tban. What happened? I didn't notice any discussions that were more heated than usual. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

All I know is what I see in the TBAN notice at the bottom of their UTP. I would say more if you had email enabled. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump

He is President elect. Not president he is simply the elect who will become president. So until then he is president elect. KyleDJF34 (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Hi. Regarding your recent revert, I already took it to the talk page *before* adding the tag, and linked the specific section of the talk page in my edit. If you want to edit war over a template, I'm not going to get involved in that, but if it's possible, could I ask that you please do not tell other editors to take an issue on the talk page when they have already done so? Thanks! NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: Sorry, could you humor me with a link to the discussion where a consensus was reached to include that banner? I get lost in the chaos and cluuter, but I would happily self-revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is needed to include a tag? Aren't tags supposed to highlight a problem and generate discussion on the talk page about the problem?

I don't see anything about needing consensus to add a tag at WP:Tagging pages for problems. Could you link me the particular policy or essay page which says that?

I do see however at WP:DETAG, "it is wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal and to identify your action in an appropriately detailed edit summary" when removing a tag.

You didn't respond to my comment on the talk page before or after reverting, and incorrectly indicated in your edit summary that I hadn't taken the issue to the talk page.

Why would an editor tell another editor who has already brought the issue to the talk page to take the issue to the talk page? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

See below. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: Oh, I guess I could've just searched for your username on the TP. My bad. I see the discussion now. Agreement that the lead is too long is not the same as agreement to include the banner. Similarly, there's fairly wide (far from unanimous) agreement that the article is too long, but we nevertheless reached consensus to omit {{Very long}}. The article gets a ton of attention and editors are well aware of the length issues. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It would've been helpful to search the talk page before telling someone to take an issue to the talk page when they have already done so, I agree. That should be standard procedure for every editor to be honest

Shouldn't consensus be sought to include Template:Lead too long in the current consensus list alongside Template:Very long? That would seem beneficial if it's used as rationale for reversion.

The vast majority of readers aren't editors, so they will notice the overly long lead but won't notice the note on the talk page which is not referenced in mainspace.

The lead also will likely have to cover events during his second term, shouldn't consensus adapt to new developments and thereby trim what existed prior? Wouldn't a tag to address this help generate further discussion? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: I opened a separate discussion so it will get more attention, and it's really a separate issue best handled separately for the sake of organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm new to that article and might be confused, but are you now seeking consensus as to whether or not Template:Lead too long is covered by consensus item 64? You already reverted using item 64 as a reasoning, but you had not before attempted to discuss on the talk page to attain consensus that the tag is covered by item 64?

You also mentioned in the edit summary that you were aware the tag had already been added multiple times recently, and say that there's some agreement the lead is too long (presumably this is why multiple editors have added the tag). Instead of continuing an apparent low-scale edit war which you were aware of, why not create a talk page discussion about the tag's relation to item 64 before reverting? As you say, this is a separate issue best handled separately and not specifically covered by the previous talk page discussions.

The tag does not affect the actual content of the article. The edit was not vandalism or any such form of disruptive editing. I still don't understand the hastiness to revert especially when you say that you had not searched the talk page before reverting. I don't personally mind if there's a casual 'oops, my bad' response or not, I just want to say this shouldn't happen again to another editor.

A situation where someone edits in good faith then immediately is reverted with a false edit summary and no talk page response is something which would discourage any normal person from editing Wikipedia (particularly when it's such a convoluted case as this where there's agreement the tag accurately identifies a problem with the article, but a local consensus seemingly exists that the article is exempt from site-wide content policies and guidelines). NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Look, I already said I should've searched the page first. Why do you feel it's necessary or constructive to keep harping on that point? I'm not perfect, are you? We admit fault and we move the hell on. Many of us never admit fault about anything. The issue of the banner is now under discussion on the talk page, thanks to me, and I certainly know how to lose if that's how it ends up. I see nothing to be gained by continuing this particular discussion. I'm not going to concede and withdraw the TP discussion based on anything said here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's beyond the matter of that particular tag. It's the rush to revert mentality. This is fine for vandalism, but my edit was in no way vandalism. This is dismissive of other editors and creates an environment where normal people would not find it worthwhile to edit. Maybe this is the first time and I'm the only editor you have reverted in this way. Hopefully that's the case.

And I understand that if someone is actively monitoring a highly-viewed, controversial article like that, there probably are lots of edits that do need to be immediately reverted with little if any discussion, but care needs to be taken too. Unless it's a BLP violation or similar situation, hastily reverting good-faith editors without discussion is far more harmful to the project than allowing the 'wrong version' to temporarily stay. I don't want to keep going on about this, but again it's not about 'losing' or 'conceding' a content dispute, it's about a standard of consideration for other editors. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the rush to revert mentality. It's called routine BRD process. You disagree with a BOLD edit to the article, any edit, you may challenge it by reversion. That's what I did. Maybe this is the first time and I'm the only editor you have reverted in this way. Hardly. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This refers back then to the earlier point that you stated in the edit summary you were aware the tag had been added and removed multiple times recently. Why knowingly continue an edit war instead of discussing the issue on the talk page?

I have no idea why you are trying to defend this behaviour. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Sir, I am past done trying to defend this behavior here. If you can't accept my defense, kindly take this somewhere else. I know I am completely within accepted process. If you continue here, you will become the second editor I have banned from this page in 11 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That's okay, we're going in circles at this point. As I said it's beyond the issue of a tag on an article. But you can't claim in the future to have been unaware that you shouldn't hastily revert edits without discussion and while using false edit summaries. Hopefully there won't be another instance in which you do that. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You are now banned from this page after fair and ample warning. If you post on it again I will file a complaint against you at WP:ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind striking through rather than deleting?

Hey Mandruss, I understand no one had responded yet, but for this revision, you rethinking the issue is a contribution to the conversation. I think it's helpful to see not just what ideas are being put forth, but what ideas are rejected, and I wouldn't want other editors who are not following the page history to miss them. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Lol. Then feel free to comment with an external link to that diff. Otherwise I think it would be an unhelpful distraction, and I don't care to be seen making very assertive flawed arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, your call. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bot rescuing undead sources again

Are you online to undo this edit? I reached my limit, could maybe undo the violation of consensus but who wants to argue with a bot? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose a crap rationale is as good as a consensus 25 rationale if it works. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump

You're the one with ownership issues at the Trump page. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of the tedious job of archiving discussions on the Donald Trump talk page. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's one of the few things I do well. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)