User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

December 2009

Chess-WikiProject

Resolved

 – I refuse to argue about this any longer here; will take it to WP:RFC for consensus discussion instead of personal bickering.

Can you explain more about why you removed Round-robin tournament from the Chess-WikiProject. I'm quite happy that you add other projects to the article but I've not encounters WikiProject untagging before, could you point me to discussion or guideline about this. SunCreator (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Because WikiProject Chess is a child project of WikiProject Games. If every child project of WPGAMES added their own tag there, the talk page would be useless. Likewise, WikiProject Biography does not add its tag to the talk page of Albinism just because there are albino people, and WikiProject NASA does not add its tag to Aluminum just because some parts of NASA spacecraft are made of aluminum. Your project is over-tagging. Guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. See in particular the entire "Overtagging is disruptive" section. Some choice quotes: "banners should not be used to duplicate the category system", which is what you've been doing. "If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article"; one of multiple tournament formats used by chess and hundreds of other games is only tangentially related to chess in particular. Another section worth reading is "Identify the best scope" (intended for pre-project-creation consideration, but serves as a good reminder to limit scope. Hope that helps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Even Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games, WikiProject Chess's most immediate parent, and itself a child of WikiProject Games, shouldn't put their tag on basic sporting/gaming articles like Round-robin tournament. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That project says:

• • Other WikiProjects with similar scope include:
    • WikiProject Chess and Wikibooks:Chess: Articles relating to chess.

And nowhere does it say that the chess project is their child and no where on wp:chess does it say that board and table games is a parent. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 06:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are sorely misapprehending how parent/child relationships work between WikiProjects (namely the same as they work in Categories). Is chess a game? Yes. Is is played on a table and/or a board? Yes, both. Then it's a child project, period, just like WikiProject Go, etc. The board & table project's been updated to reflect this. I won't bother trying to update the chess project, since you clearly WP:OWN it and will reflexively revert anything I do (based on my experience so far, which is a 100% revert rate by you of chess-related edits made by me). I'll have to address these OWN and over-tagging problems in a different way, namely with an RfC. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to recent edit summary claiming chess exists in a void and isn't a child project of anything: Let's not be silly. Of course the chess project is a child project of the games project (more specifically of the table and board games project, itself a child of the games project). Whether you've bothered to list it as such notwithstanding. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You quit being silly by telling a project that you are not a member of what they can do. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 06:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OWN, please, and have a cup of WP:TEA. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: There are no such things as "members" of WikiProjects (per WP:CFD, several years ago), and if you actually read WP:WIKIPROJECT you'll become more familiar with the idea that there is nothing special about them, and one does not have to be a self-identified participant in (not "member of") a project to affect it, comment on it, edit it, edit "its" articles, etc., etc. This is a wiki, not a continent of warring mediaeval fiefdoms. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PPPS: You're also off-kilter here. I'll quote "your" own project page: "Several other WikiProjects can be considered as "parent" or at least "related":...'. It then proceeds to list not only the games but also the table and board games projects, and specifically describes the table and board project's relationship as that of a parent project, namely one that has relegated all chess scope to the chess project as a child project/task force, and refusing to handle chess articles within its own scope. Please relax and stop picking fights over absolutely nothing. Stirring up dust here just to argue for the heck of it because you like arguing is going to get you labelled a tendentious editor, habitually incivil and eventually actionably disruptive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Read on: "WikiProject Board and table games specifically excludes chess articles from its scope, in order to avoid interference with WikiProject Chess." So it is not a parent project in any real sense. The chess project articles are not automatically also handled by the board games project - they are specifically excluded. That is the way the chess project wants it and that is the way the board games project wants it. A more accurate name for that other project would be "Board games excluding chess". Chess is a board game, however the chess project and board game project have nothing to do with each other.

So what is the point of your taking an article that the chess project specifically works on out of the chess project and put it into a project that specifically doesn't work on it? The chess project works on those articles, the board games project does not. We (the chess project) know what we are doing and you don't know what we are doing. Don't disrupt our work. Don't bother to respond. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 06:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Trudeau and User:Canadaman1960

Resolved

 – Mutual understanding reached; user in question is a sockpuppeteer, reported to noticeboards now.

I left a note on User talk:Canadaman1960. We're obviously dealing with a newbie, so be careful not to bite. (S)he's obviously basically correct in most of those additions, but it needs to be done in the proper manner. If those are already wikilinked in the article, then they shouldn't be added to the See also section. Some of them should probably be added, but I haven't checked right now. Let's see how this develops. Again, be careful not to bite. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not WP:BITEing a legit noob in my view, but I will relent. It's the same editor that's been making the same edits under multiple IP addresses, pushing a POV without sources, in contravention of our most hard-core policy. The editor, taken as a multi-account whole, may well be a noob or quasi-noob, but policy still applies, and the user should have gotten the point by now. I'll back off and let you handle him/her/it. I am was less tolerant of anti-helpful editors than you are. >;-) PS: I tend to agree on Trudeau's nature and doings, but I'll still revert material that violates the BLP policy, even if I personally happen to believe every word of it. PPS: Not a single one of those things should be in the "See also" section, because they are leading, begging the question, and highly POV. If any of the linked-to articles are appropriate for the main prose of the article (arguably all of them are), they should be worked into the text smoothly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we basically agree, and keep on watching that editor and the page. BLP violations are serious matters. This editor is indeed edit warring and needs to learn not to do it. They are editing in a disruptive manner and need to learn how to edit Wikipedia. They should use the talk page and seek consensus. If the sources and content warrant it, See also links can be appropriate if not already dealt with and wikilinked in the body of text. The categories already deal with some of the criminal issues, but the See also section can be used legitimately. It is still best if such things can be incorporated into the text. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Right-o. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

<-- I have moved the See also links and started a subsection for their discussion right below your section here. I have also invited the disruptive editor to join the discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Trudeau article

The problems continue at Kevin Trudeau and I've recently reverted an anonymous editor who is almost certainly the same person you discuss in the section above. Your report to ANI was not actioned, in part because it was not really the right place (though it could have been handled better as a block was clearly called for). At this point Canadaman1960 has engaged in more than enough edit warring to warrant a block (I would do this myself but I've reverted twice and do not use admin tools when I'm involved in editing the content). If you come across a further revert by that account please consider filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (if I see it I'll do the same obviously). Another possibility, since the person seems to be using both an account and IP address, is to make a report at WP:SPI and ask for a checkuser to see if the person is switching between an account and anonymous editing.

I'll try to keep an eye on this as well, but just wanted to give you some advice on how to proceed if the edit warring flares up again since you have been working on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Canadaman1960 is up now (not yet added to main SPI page by their clerk bot; I think that takes 5 min. or so). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Have now also filed a report at AN3, and requested semi-protection on the article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Blocked for the unusual number of 31 hours; page semi-protected for 7 days; an admin says SPI isn't even needed. Would prefer long-term semi-protection, since almost all anon edits at that article are crap, but oh well. It's a start. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, glad that got dealt with (just FYI 31 hours is often a standard block for vandals, the rationale being, I think, that many vandals are kids at school and by blocking for 31 hours we prevent them from causing trouble for the rest of that school day and the next one). I have the Trudeau article on my watchlist strictly because I've noticed a lot of drive-by BLP violations there (it's difficult to exaggerate the extent to which I do not hold Trudeau himself in high esteem), and you could well be right that a longer term semi-protection is necessary. If you see continuing problems with IP edits don't hesitate to contact me and I'll consider protecting for a lengthier chunk of time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the 31-hour span. That now makes sense. Agree with you about Trudeau (and I come from the pool side, not the informercial side!) Lastly, I've been 'listing this article for 2+ years, and virtually every IP edit is either bogus or is so minor (typo fix, etc.) that someone else would have made it shortly anyway. I'd semi-protect this long-term, on the same basis that albinism was until years of constant IP vandalism finally mostly went away (probably because of a very large increase in watchers, making any "amusing" attempts at vandalism fruitless unless one gets excited by dork edits lasting for 3 seconds), and eight-ball, which is constantly subject to non-vandalistic but ignorant mangling by IP editors, that often doesn't get reverted for extended periods of time. I'll leave it all up to you, though. The article seems to be watched enough to revert this puppetmaster pretty quickly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS

Resolved

 – Me being a bonehead.

I was reverting Eubulides's change. --NE2 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I missed that, and jumped the gun. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

Resolved

 – Just a chat.

Why aren't you one? Have you thought about it? --John (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Been busy offline. I don't want to commit to adminship until I am certain I have time to be good and consistent at it. Won't do WP much good to hand me the broom if I'm not in a position to sweep.  :-) I've had many nomination offers. I will think about it again in Jan., when I anticipate having some time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fairy nuff. Please give me a ping if and when you do decide, if you could. Best, --John (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia or relevant?

Resolved

 – Going with Lulu's fact-tag idea.

You deleted one item from the RaH article (about PETA ads), while leaving in a bunch of others that were equally uncited. I see some value in having the items, even if they do border on trivia. But it seems to me that there was no basis for distinction of the deleted item from the retained items. I deleted the section per your trivia comment (though I might restore it if there seems an interest). If we use "Popular culture" references at all, we should keep all of them (unless one seems genuinely dubious, or somehow a BLP issue). Just adding a {fact} tag, or even better finding a citation, is a more moderate approach to an individual item. LotLE×talk 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was an unsourced allegation that a controversial organization, PETA, has been engaging in reductio ad Hitlerum, a stupid fallacy. We should not keep all of such trivial crap, only the sourced bits, and even then only if the editorship of the article in general thinks that having a IPC section is worthwhile (FYI: such articles rarely pass GA, and never FA). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to put it back, go ahead with {{fact}} as you suggest; my objection is already on file in the edit history, and someone who cares about that article more than I do will fix it one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

David Pearson

Resolved

 – Out of my hands now.

Please ask next time before you randomly pick the name for an article on a well-established topic like NASCAR drivers. The article should have been named David Pearson (NASCAR) as established on dozens or hundreds of articles. I hate to redo the move and do another round of disambiguation changes. He's a highly visible driver and controversially missed the first class of five the sport's new hall of fame. An argument could have been made that he's the primary topic for the name since he was so huge in the sport. At least some of the other people with that name are nationally know in their field, so it's probably not too controversial. The article is listed at GAN, so that needs to get cleaned up once the name is finalized. Please respond here on your talk page. Royalbroil 13:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about my actions on Wikipedia is ever "random", thanks. First, please start with WP:NCP, and you'll see that the convention is "NAME (description of the person as a person)", not "NAME (name of their field)". WikiProject Baseball and WikiProject Ice Hockey have been defying this convention, for reasons they have never been able to justify at WT:NCP or elsewhere, but that is no reason for anyone else to do so, especially since it is an argument these holdouts will eventually lose. I note that the hockey folks have inserted an "(ice hockey)" example at NCP. I'll probably revert that once I find a replacement example, as it is the one and only example in the entire document that does not actually follow the WP-universal convention. At any rate, the naming conventions make it perfectly clear that "(NASCAR driver)" - or simply "(driver)" if "NASCAR" is not needed as a further disambiguator - is the correct disambiguation, just like "(chemist)" and "(pool player)", not "(chemistry)" or "(pool)". Pearson is a person, a driver, not a type of racing.

Secondly, if you actually look in driver categories (e.g. Category:NASCAR drivers - I actually DID look there and in various other driver categories, before doing anything), most DAB'd drivers fit this pattern, e.g. "(driver)" or "{NASCAR driver)" or the redundant "(racing driver)" which should be shortened but is at least human-descriptive. Only a minority (although a disturbingly large one - apparently a lot of NASCAR editors don't read guidelines) use something inane like "(NASCAR)" or "(motocross)", as if people were, themselves, sports. All that said, the real proper disambiguator may well be simply "(driver)", given apparent lack of any other, non-NASCAR, notable driver by this name. If that is the case, all it will take is a very simple AWB job to fix it. Actually, really all that has to happen is moving David Pearson (NASCAR driver) to David Pearson (driver) and a bot will fix all the double-redirects within a few days, with no human interaction.

How visible or controversial Pearson is has nothing to do with anything. Whether his article is at GAN or not has nothing to do with anything. Even many Featured Articles have disambiguated titles. Article title disambiguation has nothing to do with anything but the fact that article titles can be ambiguous, and this is nowhere more true than with simple human names with common components like "Pearson" and "David". No, no argument can (reasonably) be made that this David Pearson is the primary topic for the name "David Pearson" on the basis that he is oh-so notable in his field. The other David Pearsons are notable in their fields, and to claim that NASCAR racing is more important than science or other fields would be a silly PoV-pushing exercise. Let's hope no one goes there. Of course the move shouldn't be controversial, or I wouldn't've done it, and even if it was, it would have been immediately reverted (instead, I've had many leisurely hours to fix redirects, which I have quite conscientiously been doing, but will now stop doing since it's apparently a source of irritation to you).

His notability in his field isn't even that impressive. Yes, he was a champion and even a rookie of the year, but so were lots of others; there are whole navboxes of them. Interestingly, he only appears in two such navboxes, while Earnhardt Sr. appears is something like six or seven of them. Outside of NASCAR fandom, Pearson is certainly not a household name, the way that Andretti and the two Earnhardts are. He didn't make it into the inaugural HoF for actual reasons (none of us know all of them probably, but I really, really doubt that all of them were capricious and stupid). That there's "controversy" about it is meaningless. There is always fan outcry when the object of their fandom does not receive some honor or accolade that a competitor does.

I think that addressed all of the things you raised (whether to your satisfaction remains to be seen of course). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I got you upset, I was just discussing what happened. I'm not upset. I'm fine with changing him to David Pearson (driver) - he did a little drag racing and I think some sports car racing. You're right about NASCAR contributors not following standards - I gave up on trying to enforce something like that years ago. Now that there aren't very many regular contributors anymore, it might be a good time to open a discussion (which involves contacting the active contributors) to get all articles named the same. The reason there are some motocross is because a few drivers are far more notable for their motocross accomplishments than a few NASCAR starts. Changing to "driver" might change this, although motocross people use the term "rider". For the GAN, I was commenting that a disambiguous link cannot be a GAN, so the final name needs to be placed there (a checklist of something to be done). I still think that an argument could be made for him being the primary topic - he's second on the all-time wins list in a major sport watched around the world. He's higher on the win list that Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson. So arguing that he's not that impressive in his field is interesting. As far as I'm concerned, we should drop the topic of making him the primary topic and leave it as a disambiguation (as I alluded to in my first post so it's probably not too controversial). I think you should wait with changing incoming links until the name is finalized. I like how this discussion has brought out two items to address in his article (quiet, controversy for not making the hall of fame's first class). By the way, I don't consider myself to be a fan of his. Cheers! Royalbroil 14:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not upset; just trying to be clear. No discussion is needed with anyone to rename articles to adhere to naming conventions. Every single "(NASCAR)" and similar bio article should be moved to "something-er" versions - (driver), {NASCAR driver) if necessary, (rider), whatever. WP-wide, stable and very well-accepted naming conventions and other guidelines do not require any WikiProject's or other group of editors' permission to be enforced, by anyone. If you think it would be constructive to discuss the matter with editors who have been disambiguating bios with "(NASCAR)", be my guest, but it has been my frequent experience that editors who a) do not know and understand the NCs and b) have been violating them, are c) extremely likely to have bizarre and self-important reasons why their pet project and favorite article type is not subject any such rules, and they will fight you to the death for the "right" to ignore guidelines with impunity. Given that, as you say, the number of active contributors has dwindled, there's a fair likelihood that the remainder are very entrenched in their fiefdom's special ways. That's the problem I've encountered with the aforementioned projects, among others on other topics (e.g. the highway projects hated WP:MOSICON when I was developing it, because they were peppering prose - like, regular paragraphs - with street signage icons). GAN: I changed it already to the current article location; I have stopped any further post-move cleanup after that (there are 100s left), and am moving on to other things. Not that notable: I don't mean to imply in any way that he's not notable, only that his notability is not so huge outside of his field (unlike, say, Albert Einstein outside of physics) that he trumps everyone else by that name including one who holds 10 world records (how many does NASCAR Pearson hold?), and he's still a redlink. The competition hasn't even fully arrived yet, as it were. :-) Anyway, your two suggestions to me directly (drop the primary topic issue, and stop the link changing): Done. PS: Wasn't meaning to imply you were a big fan, only that fans might indeed feel controversy with regard to the HoF thing, but this is normal and doesn't make it a notable controversy, viewed more objectively from outside. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2

Resolved

 – Done.

Hi SMcCandlish. I noticed you created an RfA page some time ago. I was wondering as to what the status of that RfA might be. Please let me know if you still intend to run for adminship with that RfA; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete it for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone else created that preemptively. I might aa well actually use it. Been putting it off for years. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. Please go for it soon (I'm cleaning out old/unused RfA pages right now and it'd be great if you could get that off my radar.) Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Death cats

Resolved

 – Just a chat.

I noticed you cleaned up something close to one of the cats I tagged - do you have any opinions about tagging or over tagging or quiestionable overlap or pardon the term underlap of caat tags? I would be interested. SatuSuro 03:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think about that stuff a lot, probably a lot more than most. I tag like made in categories, and think they should all be tagged just like articles. For one thing, it helps readers and other editor know what project might be relevant for scope issues, help with problem articles, who to report problems to, where to find "sister" topics, etc., etc. Secondly, it populates categories like the (misnamed - should be "pages", not "articles", but that's the template's fault) Category:Category-Class cue sports articles type of categories under WikiProjects, which can be very helpful to project geeks like me - has someone tagged a category we didn't even know about as somehow relevant to us? Has someone in the project added a new category last month and I didn't notice? I need to change something on every category related to the project, but how do I find them? And so on.

I'm an un-fan of redundant tagging. That is, something (article, category whatever) should not be tagged as being in the scope of both WikiProject Chicago and WikiProject Illinois just because it has to do with the former and the former is part of the latter. That defeats the whole purpose of having narrower and narrower projects and categories. Of course if something is relevant to both Chicago as a municipality and Illinois as a state, specifically and for different reasons, then it should be in both.

Partial overlap: Not worried about it. If two projects can claim scope, that's fine, as long as one is not a child of the other, except as noted above.

As for the particular stuff you saw, I was just removing redundant parameters (the tag auto-detects that it is in a category now), and listas stuff that isn't needed either any more (MediaWiki doesn't cat.-sort by prefix any longer; hasn't for some time).

Hope that helps. :-) I consider Category:Cue sports and all its branches to be my best cat. work. Some are probably initially confused by Category:Snooker being subcategorized at every level under both it and Category:Sports and its subcategories; this is because snooker is historically and technically a type of cue sport, but culturally an entirely unique phenomenon in sports, much as rugby is not just a variant of association football (soccer). Anyway, I've taken the cue sports approach more recently with Category:Pinball as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: "Death Cats" would be a great band name, maybe a Cure tribute band? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow - please to have met you - I trust you have a very safe christmas - I can see we have some things in common - I will get back to you later on some of this stuff - I have some diffs I might need to share to solve a few problems sometime SatuSuro 04:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually parent child category mix on both mainspace and talk page items leaves me apopletic but at times bewildered that editors cannot see what they have done - I still have heaps to go back to and unravel at places seen SatuSuro 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya. The problem is, in part, that one or another of the guidelines, written in near-impenetrable jargon ("differenced" is a key word, as I recall) seem to actively encourage such crap. Needs serious addressing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You speak my language sir - may the new year hear the trumpets - and a bit more of the clash and cure songs penetrate the walls of the death project :) (death songs in modern rock, dead rocks stars, etc etc ) SatuSuro 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Works for me; been on Killing Joke all week long. Found their entire discog. — SMcCandlish ^2¢   ‹(ō¿Õ)ʔ   05:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry XMAS

Resolved

 – Just an e-card, not really a discussion.

Armbrust is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Armbrust (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your barnstar...

Resolved

 – Just a thank-you, not really a discussion.

Your Barnstar Was EATEN BY A BEAR!

I regret to inform you that the barnstar that I was going to give you for this bit of hilariousness was eathen by a bear. Happy editing! Hamtechperson 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank ya verra much! I like feeding the animals anwyay. ;-)  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy, massive subcategory renaming - Rugby union players

Resolved

 – Replied at CfD talk.  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Thank you for your recent input and support on the renaming of the category Rugby union footballers to Category:Rugby_union_players. The rename is done, but unfortunately all the subcats have not. I have asked the question at the CfD talk page as well, but are you perhaps aware of an easier way to do this huge renaming. Apart from the subcategories, there are a host of other categories that also need to be renamed... Any chance of a bot doing the hard labour? - Sahmejil (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Skye Villages

Resolved

 – Responded over there.

You contested a proposed speedy renaming of Category:Skye Villages, so I have relisted it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25#Category:Skye_Villages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT editing.

Resolved

 – Issue was settled at WT:NCP.

Continue to revert against the consensus on the proposal talk page will be considered disruptive editing and you will be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I was going to leave you a similar warning, to stop removing dispute tags from a page when the dispute is unresolved or be reported to ANI for blocking. But I had some tea, and realized there's really no point. You are flailing around in a rage, and rational communication seems unlikely to have any effect. If you cannot keep from going apoplectic over a few words in a proposal that is probably going to fail anyway, you may want to look for another hobby. I'm genuinely sorry that I upset you, but honestly you shouldn't be that upset over an editing dispute, especially when its resolution has been put into the hands of the community via an RFC. It's just not that big of a deal. Imagine what AfD and CfD would be like if everyone flew off the handle like this about every dispute? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's funny because I am quite calm, have made almost no comments other than to revert to the agreed wording to the proposal. I consider you to be flying off the handle. Which is why you are running around to every forum you can to push a point of view nobody has agreed with. If it wasn't a big deal to you, you wouldn't be dredging up something that was resolved a year and a half ago with absolutely no support of your idea other than one or two people. -DJSasso (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, since I have not raised the issue at any forum at all other than the directly involved pages. I never said you had either, I simply said you were being unreasonable and appeared to be overly emotional. If you feel you aren't, that's great: one more thing we can disagree about yet have no reason to continue discussing. Now, for the third time: I've left the naming conventions matter at issue in the hands of consensus, and have no further interest in arguing with you about this, your or my feelings about it, or anything else related to it. I have better things to do (was in the middle of doing them, actually), and would hope that you would as well. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have in fact notified a few other talk pages about the RFC at this point, as they are directly relevant (NC, MOS and the MOS wikiproject). They were neutrally-worded. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Conveniently, you failed to notify the related wikiprojects upon whom you wish to force a change of guidleine... Resolute 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not notify any topical projects at all, only procedural ones, as there are hundreds and hundreds of topical projects. Participants from the three projects that wish to not adhere to the existing guideline (I'm not trying to "force a change of guideline", on anyone anywhere) are already in the debate, and do not need to be notified, by me or anyone else. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Resolved

 – Another editing pass from me would not be productive.

Hello,

I was wondering if you could copy edit Darius I of Persia. I recently re-wrote the article from scratch and am wondering if you could copy edit the article for further improvement. Thanks, warrior4321 17:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Working on it now. I will stop after a while, and you can tell me if you like the results so far and wish for me to continue; otherwise I'll leave it as-is when I stop. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you had copy edited the entire article already. If you haven't, I'd love for you to finish copy editing. As well, after copy editing the article, is anything else required or should I send the article to WP:GAC? For next time, could you place a talk back on my talk page when you have replied. Thanks, warrior4321 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous places I have inserted {{Clarify me}} and other cleanup tags (usually with a |reason= parameter explaining what needs to be done. The article would need to resolve those issues before going to GAC, which will, I'm sure, think up their own things to do with the article. They always do. :-) I will try taking another stab at copy editing perhaps tomorrow (I have yet to do much of anything at all in the entire Government section). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, will await your next copy-edit. warrior4321 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Been sidetracked with other stuff. I will try to do it some time this week. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 12:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to step away, as too much of what I worked on there has already been reverted (which is frustrating and a waste of my time), and the rest of the article seems to be being edited by you and at least one other editor with progress being generally made (which is good). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

Resolved

 – Declined.

Hello, I was wondering if you could help in copyediting Something, Something, Something, Dark Side, it was recently largely expanded, and could use some work, mostly in the cultural references section. Gage (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll have to pass on that one. I haven't seen the work in question, and I am more "anti-trivia" than most editors here, so my inclination is to remove the entire section as original research. In my view, we cannot say that this-and-that is an homage to Star Trek, while this line is a reference to Seinfeld and so on, no matter how obvious it may be, but can only quote a reliable third-party source saying so. Deleting the section would probably lead to a dispute, and I am already engaged in one (see topic immediately above), and one is enough for any given day. :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: your question

Resolved

 – Just an FYI, which did not actually address my question, but oh well.

Your question > The answer: original author tried to throw in the other two articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Right; my point was it seemed that it needed to say "Denver and Tennessee", not "Denver and Colorado" which it says thrice. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Great to see you involved

Resolved

 – Just a chat

Hey SMcCandlish, I think it's a really positive development that you are more active now at WT:MOS. A couple of things of yours I have reverted, wanting some discussion first. But I have great respect for your work, and I know you won't take it personally. Myself, I will probably disappear again soon, as I do regularly. The Possessives mess was enough for me to prefer other engagements, well away from MOS and indeed Wikipedia (see the current Possessives guideline, and Archive 108). Anyway, I'll stay on board for the en dash ride.

All best wishes to you. –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Good to be back in touch as well. I'm happy with WP:BRD generally. On the parenthetical, I didn't have a huge reaction to it, it just seemed like an awkward substitution for "wild dogs or dingoes". In article prose (talkpage rambling is a different matter) I try to avoid parentheticals as much as possible. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Resolved

 – Fixed.

I'm sure you're not aware of this, but the use of template for signatures is explicitly forbidden by WP:SIG#NT (see [1] by our former chief technical honcho Brion). You will need to go through and subst your signature template, and then switch to a non-templated signature. In the meantime, I have protected the page so that nobody can vandalize it (and thus vandalize every page you have signed with it). — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a template per se, it's a transclusion of something from my userspace, via a subst, to reduce the size of the code my sig uses in editing view. Protected (I hadn't thought of that), what's the issue? Seems like all custom sigs should be done this way. Reading that Vibber bit, it seems like he's talking about putting Template: namespace things in sigs. (I.e., I only see his point about vandalism, which you just fixed). Am I missing something? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The namespace is not really a factor; it's the transclusion. The main concern that Brion had is that all the problems that templates have in terms of performance are exacerbated by their use as signatures. The template you made is not actually being substed (check the diff of your last edit to the this page). If it were being substed, I wouldn't have noticed it when looking at some other page diff :(

As long as the source of your template is less than the maximum sig length (255 bytes) you can just copy it into your preferences, and you will have the same effect as substing it. If it is longer, then some trimming will be required. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know the final result isn't subst'd (that would defeat the point). I see what you're saying. Seems a shame, since one can put toolserver stuff in the "template" that exceeds the 255-char limit, w/o impacting (actually, improving) talk page readability. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This should fix it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs 01:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry again to be the bearer of unpleasant information. I think it's so unexpected because in almost every case the server admins say that it makes no difference what we do with the wiki, in terms of performance, but in a very few cases it does. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I am just catching up with my watchlist and came here to ask the same thing. Great that you already changed it. I notice though that it's still slightly longer than the guideline asks. You can shave off a couple of characters to push it below 255 without a visual difference like this:

• — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC) (original, 270 characters)
• — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC) (253 characters)

It uses the actual non-breaking space character, but that's OK in non-article space. Would you mind making that change as well so that any newly placed sigs are within the guideline?
Thanks Amalthea 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Didn't occur to me to use the Unicode equivalent of & . — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiny thing, but much deserved.

Resolved

 – Just a thank-you, not really a discussion.

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For general template taming goodness. Ludwigs2 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Golly jeepers! Thanks. :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

CfD

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

I don't normally drop notes on a user talk page to tell them that I've responded to them elsewhere, but I was unsure if you were likely to return. To be on the safe side, just thought I'd let you know that I've replied to your comments here. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I check CfD pretty often when I have been active in it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)