User talk:Mandruss/Archive 7

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

In anticipation of the RfC closing without action, I've started an essay page in my userspace (though intended for mainspace at some point). Thought you may want to see/edit: User:Rhododendrites/Don't use a billboard signature. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I had left the 'Signature' box empty and the checkbox checked. Hopefully unchecking that fixed this. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Another satisfied customer. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Mandruss, would you be interested in adopting me? I would like some of your help in editing and policies, and I believe that you are the person I am looking for through our conversation of signatures. If you choose to decline, it would be okay. Thank you and please reply me soon! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oshawott 12: Thanks for the compliment. For multiple reasons that I won't go into, I don't adopt users, sorry. See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user for a list of editors who do. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok then, thank you anyways haha. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Mandruss, I've never typed a message to a person on wikipedia in this fashion. So i'm not sure if this is the correct way. Anyway, thank you for setting the time to the beginning of the video. My question is, to me, this seems like the best source. It is literally Jesse Jackson thanking Trump at a Rainbow Push meeting on C-SPAN. Does this suffice for Wikipedia;s standards? Is there something else I should add? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disciple4lif (talk • contribs) 12:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Disciple4lif: New threads are added at the bottom, not the top. The "New section" link at the top does that automatically. As for your question, there are others who can answer it better than I, and the discussion should be kept on the article talk page anyway. I'd suggest you ask there. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

In the Donald Trump article, you reverted my work, stating "OVERLINK and DUPLINK do not apply to citations and for very good reasons" (diff). Are you just making up your own rules? Nowhere on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking page does it state that WP:DUPLINK or WP:OVERLINK do not reply to references. So, why does the article need to be overlinked in such a manner? Does the reader really need dozens of duplicate internal links to news organization articles? I don't think so. Did I miss something, or is this your own idea, rather than stated on the MOS page? It seems like the former. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

First, note that I pinged you as a courtesy. Many editors would have just let you move on, knowing that in all likelihood you would be too busy to retrace your steps to make sure your edits stuck. So in my opinion a different tone would be in order here, particularly from an admin. But at least you came here rather than simply reverting me, I'll give you that. That out of the way...
While the guidelines don't say they don't apply to citations, they don't say they do either. That leaves us to reason, which is preferred to blindly following rules. So let's talk reason.
1. If you're a reader looking at a citation and you want more information about the news organization, do you think it's reasonable to expect you to go find another citation containing the desired link (or other occurrence of the link)? It would be far easier to just use the Search box, defeating the purpose of the wikilinks. 2. The point of the guidelines is to avoid links to less important things, so as to convey to readers what is likely to be of more interest or use to them. But the References section is rarely read sequentially, so the concept applied to the article's body does not apply there. Each citation tends to stand alone in its usage, and the citation links are equally important in all citations. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I now see that you opened a discussion in article talk, in which case I don't know why you posted this here. Why have the same discussion in two places?? I'll excerpt my response there. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if my tone offended you, not the intention. I tend to be direct and to the point. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Thank you for the withdraw. Perhaps the guidelines could bear some clarification on this, but I'm feeling lazy. If you agree and you're not feeling lazy, I'd suggest an RfC at MOS. On the other hand, this is the first time I've seen the issue come up in over 5 years, so you might get a lot of WP:CREEP opposition. Your call. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think I'll just let it ride for the time being. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

My edits weren't disruptive, they were the consensus reached on the Elizabeth Warren talk page as can be seen here. User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Gandydancer are trying to push a POV that contradicts the criticism of the Cherokee Nation's response to Warren's DNA test. ScienceApe (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@ScienceApe: 1. I see no consensus there one way or the other. Regardless, 2. WP:Edit warring: "'But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." In other words, you can't just repeatedly reinstate your edit under any circumstances. It begs for a block, particularly at an article under DS. See WP:DR for how to resolve editing disputes. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

So then why aren't you warning them too? You're taking sides. ScienceApe (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@ScienceApe: Good question. Yes, it's true. I'm taking the side of editors who I'm familiar with and know to be very experienced. That doesn't make them automatically right, but it means they already know that edit warring violates policy and don't need to have that explained to them. If I were an admin seeing that at an article under DS, I would issue 48-hour blocks to all involved parties. But I'm not, so all I can do is make sure everybody understands the policy. The choice to risk a block after receiving the warning is yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ScienceApe, as for the synthesis that you keep insisting on, that statement comes directly from the article. The wording has now been changed to hopefully satisfy you and we can move on. Also, re the issue of Warren's percentage of Native American genetic material, when an editor sees information that may not be accurate in a BLP, such as in this case to suggest that they are being less than honest, it is our duty to remove it and discuss it on the talk page. Per WaPo: "Warren’s Native American DNA, as identified in the test, may not be large, but it’s wrong to say it’s as little as 1/1024th or that it’s less than the average European American." [1] Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen it yet so I can't say. No that's the fact that it's as little as 1/1024th and not including that fact is wrong. I didn't say it's less than the average European American, again you're strawmanning. But it is a fact that most Blacks and Whites who have ancestry in America have some Native American DNA, and your contradiction was unsupported as you gave no quote supporting it. ScienceApe (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You have admitted that you're taking sides and are biased. The comment ends there, you aren't telling me anything I don't already know. Don't rationalize your bias, taking a side in an edit dispute is wrong. ScienceApe (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks so much for your diligence in keeping the refs in order. It's valuable work.

You may wonder how I arrive at my ref format. I don't know how Soibangla formats refs, but I use the Yadkard citation tool, which automatically renders them like this, spaces and all (which allows lines to wrap at line breaks):

• <ref name="Washington Post 2018">{{cite web | title=President Trump’s repeated claim: 'The greatest economy in the history of our country’ | website=Washington Post | date=September 7, 2018 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/07/president-trumps-repeated-claim-greatest-economy-history-our-country/ | access-date=October 27, 2018}}</ref>

I then have to tweak it:

The part I have to do manually is double check the dates. Sometimes it gets that wrong. Also to ensure that all authors are named. Sometimes it doesn't catch that, but when there are multiple authors, it usually does, just like any scientific reference. I also have to check for curly quotes. It doesn't catch that. I also wikilink the source.

It always uses "website=", which fortunately always renders the source in italics, so the final ref is nearly always right. I'm not sure changing that is really necessary, or just a waste of time.

Then I have to create the ref name, because it doesn't create a completely unique ref name. It just uses the last name(s) and the year. That's too generic, so I also add the month and day, thus creating a unique ref name. That minimizes the risk of ending up with duplicate refs.

My final result looks like this:

• <ref name="Kessler_9/7/2018">{{cite web | last=Kessler | first=Glenn | title=President Trump's repeated claim: 'The greatest economy in the history of our country' | website=[[The Washington Post]] | date=September 7, 2018 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/07/president-trumps-repeated-claim-greatest-economy-history-our-country/ | access-date=October 27, 2018}}</ref>^[1]

It's up to you whether you want to keep cleaning up the blank spaces and changing the "website=". That may be wasted time. Otherwise, keep up the good work. It's nice to have a complete and well-functioning reflist. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

In my experience the |last=Kessler |first=Glenn format is more widely accepted than | last=Kessler | first=Glenn—for good reasons, in my opinion. It's also the format used by the {{para}} template – e.g. {{para|last|Kessler}} gives |last=Kessler, not | last=Kessler – and in citation template documentation examples. Online news sources should use {{cite news}}, not {{cite web}}, as clearly conveyed in the very first sentence at Template:Cite news. I used to use |work= or |website= for everything. Then I ran across a person who pointed out that the titles of our articles for some sources like ABC News are not italicized (because Wikipedia does not view them as "works"). Now I use |work= or |publisher= depending on whether the target article title is italicized. I've also stopped using |website=, although I don't bother changing it when I see it—it, and others including |newspaper=, are simply aliases of |work=—so it's a worthwhile simplification to just use |work= in those cases.
These are the kinds of problems with every citation script I've ever come across. Little awareness or consideration for what's in the guidelines or even common practice—little apparent awareness of all the related community discussion and thinking—just the largely uninformed personal preferences of some guy who can write JavaScript because he uses it at his job. As a result of the community's laissez-faire attitude toward these scripts, they mostly facilitate mediocrity. At some point before my wikiretirement, I hope to find the time to learn JS so I can write my own—that will level the playing field for editors who see things my way.
I'll keep doing what I've been doing at that article, until I burn out and move on. Thanks for the note. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitely keep up the good work. It's appreciated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Howdy. An Rfc at Monarchy of Australia has opened concerning the head of state issue. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm really sorry I messed up that Talk page. Please forgive me. I've printed out the two sets of instructions you gave me the links to for study and future reference. I promise this won't happen again.Grammarian3.14159265359 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Grammarian3.14159265359

Hi there. If you're looking for an article to work on, perhaps you'd consider Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust? It's hot in the political news and could benefit from your considerable carpentry skills. R2 (bleep) 16:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Flattery will get you a little ways. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Recently you changed mentions of Vox on its article to appear in italics, bearing a guideline. Could check whether that guideline also applies to other Vox Media-owned sites, and apply the formatting there, as well as on Vox Media's page? This would add some consistency to the Vox Media article and related pages. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 12:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a lot to add to my plate, for something I don't care that much about. The guideline for italics for websites is "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content" and that seems straightforward enough that you could make the evaluations yourself. Just make sure you quote—and link to—the guideline in your edit summaries, since that reduces the chances of being reverted. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think you got it spot on here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Thank you and Happy Holidays. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. Your sig is too bold. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Elizabeth Warren edit, a little below MOS:QUOTE is MOS:QWQ. When we cite an article using {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, the source's title is put into quotation marks, so if the title of the source also has quotation marks inside of it, this becomes a quotation within a quotation, so I believe it should use single quote marks. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Finally, after 5 years, I run across an editor who's more concerned about minute details than I am. Ok, but your approach will yield some pretty weird results if the title itself contains a quotation within a quotation. I see you've already re-reverted because I was in a sleep period and failed to respond to your "discussion" within 38 minutes, so I guess we're done. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Such a case is discussed in MOS:QWQ – and I don't think it's "my approach". A quote within a quote uses single quotation marks, and a quote within a quote within a quote uses double quotation marks, and so on (alternating). Sorry if my editing was a bit aggressive, but is seems like a pretty obvious case to me. I think the same thing is discussed somewhere else in the guidelines as well, but I don't recall where. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, where's the money? Not really, but... It's past Christmas, and he's still not back. SemiHypercube 03:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Not as that username, at least. In my experience editors like that don't let go so easily, as (in my opinion) Wikipedia meets a strong psychological need they can't get met anywhere else. But sure, I'll pay up Not really, but... with the provision that I get double back upon a future positive checkuser. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A request: please would you mark them as minor edits so they don't appear in watchlists of those who have filtered out minor edits to focus on content edits? Cheers. soibangla (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You're the first person in 5 years to ask for that, but I'll try to establish the habit. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've not had such a request in 13 years. But sounds like a good idea, except that it adds a little extra cognitive burden to every edit. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

There's the rub. Like I need more cognitive burden. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Your profile made me laugh my goats off

Year1888 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The humorous part of it, I hope. We try. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind undoing this close? This wasn't a formal proposal, but an informal discussion to gather broader feedback: The OP has made it clear they aren't interested in renaming the articles as of yet. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I had a question. I'm not sure what it is? ~ R.T.G 10:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to the archive page because archived discussions should not be modified. If you want to continue that discussion, do so on the Talk page, not the archive page. As I said in one of the edit summaries. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5] Annotation. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

What legitimate basis is there to delete a documented major trending national news story? A major controversy in Warren’s career has been her alleged misuse of race. She has denied this. The Bar registration is a smoking gun. Why is it being censored? BigJake54 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm certain I answered that question in my edit summary, but I'll answer it again. The legitimate basis is the last sentence at WP:ONUS, part of a Wikipedia policy. The content is disputed and there is not yet a consensus to include it. I note that you've yet to contribute one solitary word to the discussion about that content. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you have a look at Aurora, Illinois shooting? Another editor persists in adding victim names, even though I have pointed out that it requires consensus. I am getting close to 3RR. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea for those who watch the various MOS pages and are active on their talkpages to stop answering general style questions and instead refer them to the language refdesk. My reasoning is that a lot of the negativity directed towards the MOS and its "regulars" comes from seeing the talkpage of a style guideline being used for answering style questions that are not covered by said guideline. This gives the answers the appearance of consensus-based legitimacy and any critisism of that is, I think, totally valid. The talkpages should be for improvement-based suggestions and clarification of existing guidance. No?

I'm sending this to several people so please respond on my talkpage. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You understand exactly what I'm trying to say and the spirit in which I'm trying to say it. I appreciate your coming over to say so. Primergrey (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You mentioned in your notes after undoing my edit, to check the talk page as there was a consensus there not to mention the SRO's name. First of all I checked the talk page, there are 4 sections there, and not one of them talks about omitting the SRO's name.

Second, the SRO deputy is a major pivotal player in this shooting, and subsequent investigation, and should be identified by name, as is Scott Israel, Robert Runcie, school principals, etc. I can't think of any legitimate reason why other contributors would even come to such a conclusion as you used for your justification of undoing my edit, but either way, the discussion was not there like you claimed. I could not find ti in the 4 sections of the talk page.

CarIndustryFan (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@CarIndustryFan: Talk includes archives. You can type "peterson" in the box and click "Search archives". Several rationales were given for omitting the name, and privacy of living individuals (who are not public figures) is given some weight at Wikipedia. We're talking about a guy who many blame for 17 deaths, mostly kids, and it would add nothing to reader understanding of the shooting to name him. It's a value judgment with no clear answer, but we came down on the side of omission and that has not been contested until now. If it's really important to you, you're free to raise the issue again on the talk page and we can spend the next few days debating the question all over again. Absent a new consensus to include the name, it should remain out. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Just fair warning, I will be starting a discussion at WP:AN/I later today as I believe you and WWGB (talk · contribs) are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND mentalities on Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), and the article currently is violating WP:NPOV. While I sympathize with your argument that you've "had these discussions before" (paraphrasing), I am entirely new to these discussions, and there are no archives on the article we're currently discussing for me to reflect on. I've made my rebuttals to your comments, and days later, you are still refusing to answer them. Meanwhile you threaten me with a visit to AN/I (which I honestly think would turn out worse for you than it would for me). If you have the time and the gumption to make threats, you should have the time to actually discuss the topic at hand, rather than simply sideline yourself and wax philosophical on how you shouldn't have to justify yourself every time this comes up. As I said on the article talk page, it's "Bold, Revert, DISCUSS", not "Bold, Revert, VOTE". I will link you here once I've started the discussion at AN/I. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pre-notice; I'll be watching for the notice. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the developments at the talk page since I posted this, I'm going to shelve this and hope the discussions there continue to progress. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Good call. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Bad call. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Look, I hear what you're saying about discussion. There's what the PAGs say about discussion, and then there's what editors have found to be worth their time, over many years of experience. Unfortunately there is a fairly wide gap between the two, but that is not my fault, and common practice trumps PAGs. Your issue is with the community, not me, and I encourage you to raise it at Village Pump; it's probably worth talking about in a public forum. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Per MOS:SMALLFONT, please don't add "smalls" to infoboxes. This is an accessibility issue. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. As you likely know, I am currently having this conversation [here]. Can you please explain what you mean by an accessibility issue? Which section of that MOS are you referring to? Also, for consolidation, please respond on that article talk page. Just ping me there. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@X4n6: If you'll look at the lead of the page I linked above, I think that should answer your question about accessibility. That's why I linked it for you. The section of the MOS I'm referring to is the one I linked, SMALLFONT. I've commented at the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response. I saw your ping after I'd responded to you on the talk page. X4n6 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for reverting one of your edits at Thomas Jefferson: [6]. I made a mistake. Attic Salt (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: It's been corrected so no harm, no foul. Thank you for the comment. As a side note, edit summaries help, especially on reverts. I really hate getting reverted without a stated rationale, and I think most editors do. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a word "no-one" but practically no one uses it any-more.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Like hath and thine. I sit corrected. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Gotta love those cluelessly hypocritical EW warnings. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to thank you for taking an interest in Christchurch mosque shootings and for being one of the sane editors there. I understand you're an American and want to say I'm grateful to have oversight from afar, together with respect for New Zealanders and our culture, particularly when time zones mean we're asleep here and not able to watch the page. Akld guy (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've done to earn some of that, but thanks for the compliments! ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Dear sir, I am very new on wikipedia but I really appreciate and admire your work. Thank you for inspiring me. Abhinath Maurya (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A year ago ...

mature and respectful tone of conversation
... you were recipient no. 1908 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

It seems like only yesterday. Ah memories... [wistful sigh] ―Mandruss ☎ 13:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You might have missed it, but the anonymous ranter on User talk:Rusf10 is an admitted block evader. Best to deny recognition. R2 (bleep) 00:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I did "miss it", but I kind of deduced it from the block for block evasion. You're right, but I couldn't resist engaging someone who at least seemed intelligent and articulate. I'll stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: Are you aware of a username? Just curious. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No. You might ask MrX? R2 (bleep) 18:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I since learned it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI R2 (bleep) 22:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I have limited patience for what I perceive to be disingenuous misrepresentation, and I've taken a recent comment as breaking the camel's back. You said yourself that you'd struggle to moderate your tone with them, so I'm wondering what you think about my comment here (the whole thing, not just the copy-edit). Am I being too critical, or has AGF run its course? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I have no opinion on Nick's faith, but he's so entrenched/invested that you're not going to change his mind through reasoning and logic. Or vice versa, for that matter. You're also not going to change enough other minds, if any, to change the outcome. I participate in debates mostly for the mental stimulation, not because I think it's worthwhile from a content standpoint, and I eventually reach a point where frustration exceeds stimulation and quit. If you want to call that wisdom, that's your prerogative. Now I have to go play cards. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Upon further reflection, no, I don't think he's deliberately distorting your words. There are other possible explanations, like the limitations of language. See also User:Mandruss#Changing your mind, changing your !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

One clarification, at this point I'm not trying to change their mind. I'm well aware there's no hope of that. I'm only ensuring the integrity of the meaning of what I've said is maintained. I'm not going to allow a distortion to stand unanswered, deliberate or otherwise. I participate in debates mostly for the mental stimulation - Predominantly the same, although I place strong value in accuracy. I've struck the bit about dishonesty, albeit I'm not entirely convinced. Thanks for your input. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not gonna dwell on it, but you have breached the 1-RR ruling, for post-1932 American political articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Your reasoning makes it impossible for Wikipedia to decide that the majority of existing usage is wrong and needs to be changed. Wikipedia is a work in progress and we simply cannot achieve consistency overnight. It will take much longer if editors insist on maintaining consistency with the wrong majority.

As for 1RR, there is no such restriction placed by an admin on that article's talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur with GoodDay. The dominant and majority practice on Wikipedia has always been to treat the titles of senior government officials as proper nouns. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Now at Talk:President of the United States. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That was brutal :D cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 11:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, in reference to your comment here [7], a reminder that while the awareness criteria are considered by some to be too bureaucratic, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts is quite clear that "In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement". While it may be understandable that people will accidentally issue notifications when they aren't aware that this happened, if someone is aware that the person just appealed their topic ban for the area of conflict Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive247#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme less than 3 months ago, it is unnecessary, in fact I would go so far as to say inappropriate to issue a notification. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, the criteria also specify that editors are aware if they themselves have issued a notification. Again, it is possible someone will accidentally issue a notification since it's much harder to search such things, and so you may wish to ward off such a thing by issuing yourself a notification. And I'm not saying you should go around issuing notifications to others just so there is no doubt you are "aware". But it's also unnecessary if you have done so in the last 12 months and you just want to ensure you are "aware". (Or of course if you have participated in any AE related to the area of the notification.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Oh and if you disagree that appealing a sanction to AE counts as "participate in any process", remember there is also either "In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict." or "They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)" as may be appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoops I misread the discussion apologies especially to Ahrtoodeetoo|. It seems they only became aware of the appeal after they issued the notification. In that case the notification may have been okay. However if you wanted to defend it, you should have defended it as an unnecessary notification but an understandable mistake, rather than something that was required by for DS, since it wasn't. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I do agree with you that the best way to ward of others issuing alerts when they are not necessary is simply to give yourself a standard alert which can be properly searched. I also a agree a notice on someone's page that they are aware is of unclear utility, it's possible it will be accepted as awareness, it's possible it will not. Especially if the notice was added to the page more than 12 months ago and it hasn't been updated since then. Frankly your comment isn't that bad now that I realise my mistake. (The first time I read, I thought I read R2 saying "I was aware".) Still I do feel what you said wasn't clear enough that while the alert may have been an understandable mistake in the end it's clear it wasn't necessary since the editor was clearly aware even according to the strict arbcom awareness criteria and the only reason to issue a alert to someone else is to ensure they are "aware". IMO people do seem to concentrate too much on the annual alert thing. I've even seen some do what almost seem like "revenge" alert after they were just alerted by that editor despite this being clearly precluded by the criteria. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I think Mandruss's and O3000's comments should be read in the context of the accusation that was leveled against me, namely, that my DS warning was harassment. Aside from the fact that I wasn't aware of Atsme's AE history at the time I left the warning, I'd also like to note that ordinary editors such as myself shouldn't be implicated for harassment simply for not knowing or remembering all of the ins and outs of the awareness criteria. If I'm not mistaken, the awareness criteria are designed to set boundaries on when editors can receive discretionary sanctions--they aren't designed to set boundaries on when other editors can be accused of improper notification. R2 (bleep) 15:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here, but I think this discussion deserves some additional reframing. If the issue is whether I harassed Atsme (and the corollary issue whether Mandruss was improperly defending harassment), then that would be governed by WP:HA, and in this case more specifically, WP:HUSH, not by the strictures of WP:DS's awareness criteria. Or, put another way, even if a DS alert was unnecessary (a determination governed by WP:DS), that doesn't necessarily mean it was offensive, false, even questionable (determinations governed by WP:HA). All competent editors, even inexperienced ones, can be reasonably expected to understand what harassment is and to avoid it or risk being given the boot, even if they've never read our harassment policy. That really has very little to do with the finer minutiae of WP:DS. R2 (bleep) 16:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

All that's unnecessarily complicated, in the highest Wikipedia tradition, with little upside. It's telling that, of the many editors who must have seen my comment by now, you're the first to (1) recognize my error as such and (2) consider it in need of correction. We shouldn't have systems that one must be an expert to use correctly. I'll continue doing it the simpler way (although I won't make a comment like that again). If it gets me into trouble, I'll re-evaluate the pros and cons of being a Wikipedia editor. Thank you for the comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the above without having read all of your long comment, which changed direction mid-stream. I have ADD and can't stay focused through that much continuous text. Once your thinking changed, it would have helped me if you had simply removed your comment, re-grouped, and started over. I'm thoroughly confused by now, but one thing is clear: this subject has too much nuance for the average editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2019 UNCC shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please view this Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia fairly heavily for over 5 years, and I'm well aware of the policy against edit warring. That's why I have not reverted again, despite the clear violation of a different policy, WP:ONUS, which I cited in my edit summary. Instead I posted a note on the last reverter's user talk page. I'm fully aware that Wikipedia has no means of policy enforcement, so policies are meaningless if a majority present put their content preferences ahead of ground rules meant to provide an orderly way to resolve content disputes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Why did you reopen it? El_C 21:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

So the close would appear in the talk page's history. As I said in my comments that you didn't hear. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe because it was due to its length. The Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_improperly_ended is enough of a notice to editors. I fail to see why you are so enamoured with procedure, but oh well. El_C 21:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, there are 11 archives so I’m sure you can understand. What was the consensus because it seems strange not to include the suspected perpetrator in the lead or infobox. IWI (chat) 00:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: It may be an over-simplification of the discussion(s), but my nutshell understanding is that the lead should err on the side of presumption of innocence, even to the point of omitting the infobox field "Suspected perpetrator". He's named below the lead. I know this is different from some other articles, but I never attach much weight to what other articles have done unless there is a clear community consensus to treat all articles the same way. Thanks for the note. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That’s fair enough, although still strange to me. I mean the evidence against him is beyond damning. IWI (chat) 12:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss—in reference to this let me ask you—is it your claim that there is no distinction between "victim lists" and prose-form inclusion of victim names? I was under the impression that distinction had been well established in these many discussions. Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing the format of how names are provided to the reader does exactly nothing to respond to the main reasons given for opposing the lists, and you would recognize that if you gave it a moment's thought. Now drop the stick and stop trolling me. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mandruss, I think I said if Trump's best economy claim needed an RfC I would do it, but now I believe I have too much off-wiki stuff to do it. So, just thought I would inform you. starship.paint (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Ok. Are you telling me this in case I feel like starting an RfC? If so, no, we already have some content that's acceptable to me, so I'm happy leaving it alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I told you this in case the content is removed and an RfC is needed to restore it. starship.paint (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I won't block someone whose cat is dying, but as was demonstrated, you did violate 3RR (which I was not aware at the time). Please don't let it happen again. El_C 07:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Sure, no problem. But praytell what's the workable alternative when an editor repeatedly reverts a challenge to controversial content with rationales like this? This is not a rhetorical question. That is not a content dispute, it's a behavior issue, and I know from experience that an ANI behavior complaint would have quickly dissolved into an out-of-venue referendum on victims' lists.

At one past article, I decided to take a different tack, letting the list stay in pending a talk page resolution. The talk page resolution: "No consensus to remove"!! So perhaps you can see why I would be reluctant to take that tack again.

This is why I've had the following at the top of my user page for years: Eliminate the context-blind 3RR rule, which is as ineffective as mandatory sentencing and for exactly the same reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do about that — I am obliged to interpret 3RR in a detached, context-blind manner. Sure, I feel that the status quo ante should generally be up while discussion is ongoing, and I even enforce that (rarely) for some more protracted disputes. But I didn't feel it was my place to do so here. I can appreciate your frustration, though: WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not specific enough and WP:VL is just an essay. There ought to be better guidance on the matter. El_C 08:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure there ought to be better guidance on the content matter. That has nothing to do with the process matter. The fact that the content PAGs are unclear does not justify BRR, let alone BRRRRRR. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally, I'm of the view that if text, or its absence, is longstanding, then the lower threshold of no consensus to include/exclude should be applied accordingly. I even took the unusual step of rephrasing an RfC lately on that basis. El_C 08:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the 23rd I've been dealing with the impending loss of a cat that has been my good friend since 2002. Comfort me.

If I behave strangely in the next week or two (or already have), blame that with my apologies.

―Mandruss ☎ 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy, and then Katze of all names. It's sad to loose a good friend, such as Fylbecatulous. Perhaps you can dedicate an image of Katze to her (per a request of her daughter, details on my talk, look for "A kitten for you")? Best wishes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: - Thanks Gerda. I will do that when she's actually gone. For now, I've uploaded my best photo of her, from 2006. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Have added your beautiful image to the Maine Coon page. Times like this are rough and bittersweet, filled with lots of love and tears. You certainly seem like someone who has given her a good home. Love to you both. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I thought about that, but decided not to in the spirit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wasn't sure it would actually add reader value, and the owner is the worst possible judge of that. But looks like you did it; in that case, it probably needs a bit of touch-up, more brightness. I'll see to that soon if nobody beats me to it. Thanks for your kind comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The image is a good example for the page, as the cat's stylish pose, hair fluff, and intense look portray the species well. I like how the tail and plant complement each other on the bottom right. Wouldn't think of working around policy, and am shocked, shocked I tell you, to be so accused (and am thinking of taking my first case to whatever Wikipedia outpost that accusers visit to point fingers and stomp up and down). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

LOL. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Touch-up done. I think it's a clear improvement, others may feel it needs more improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I love it. My hero in image-polish is David. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My condolences, Mandruss. As a life-long cat person, I know how painful this is.

I've done my best to retouch the photograph. —David Levy 06:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@David Levy: She says she likes that one better since it eliminates everything distracting attention from her. Adopted.[8] Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, both. What an enigmatic look! Wonderful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear this Mandruss. It's very hard to say goodbye to a beloved friend. Cherish the time you have left with Katze and stay strong. - MrX 🖋 14:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I have a few cat stories of my own but my favorite cat story is about Concat. Remember when New Orleans flooded and they eventually got around to removing people from their flooded homes but they did not allow people to bring their pets with them? Well, there was this old man with his beloved pet, "Comcat". He said that a friend had brought the cat for him because he lived alone but he said no he did not want a cat. But the friend said, well I'll just leave her here for a few days until I find a home. So the little kitten wormed its way into his heart in no time at all. He said she "conned" him into taking her, so he named her Concat. How he loved Concat! I almost start to cry just remembering this story. So they forced him to leave Concat in his small flooded home. Then after a few weeks when the waters had gone down a friend brought him back to his house. He had left many bowls of food and water but he still feared she may have not made it - for all he knew the flood waters had risen and she was drowned. For many pet owners the stories ended sadly, but for this old man they ended in joy. (And I have to say, when the video showed the old man calling for her and she came to him, meowing as cats do, I could see that she was indeed the cutest cat I have ever seen - huge dark eyes and a pink nose with long fluffy fur.) What year was the flood? I'd guess that Concat has died by now. And maybe the old man as well. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My sympathies, Mandruss. A couple of years ago I got to pet a cat I was very close to while he was being euthanized. It's still hard for me sometimes. R2 (bleep) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I wish I had that strength, but I'm an utter weakling when it comes to loss. I don't care to sob in front of the vet and his assistant, that's just how I am. I think the notion that it helps the animal for you to be there at the very end is largely myth, as (1) the animal doesn't know it's the very end like a dying human might and (2) it isn't painful. She's been getting plenty of comfort from me. If you "got to" do it, I gather you feel you benefited from the experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Although it wasn't pleasant, I do feel like I got something from it. At the time I felt like I got to spend one last, precious moment with him, and he got to spent his last moment with me. And in retrospect, I think it helped me focus my grief. When I think about him I often remember that last look he gave me and his fading warmth. R2 (bleep) 23:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I chose to let the vet do it while I was out of the room and then I came and held her after she had passed. So my last memory of her is holding her peaceful body. (She was 18 and had been sick.) For me that was the right choice. Gandydancer (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I definitely don't want a memory of her lifeless body. Probably has something to do with my issues with death. You're right, to each his own, and whatever works for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Whatever our disagreements are elsewhere, one cat servant (I almost said "owner", heh) to another, you have my deepest sympathies over your cat. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well thank you, I sincerely appreciate it. After being on death's doorstep for awhile, with irreversible kidney failure—on 23 May I don't think she would have lived another 48 hours without intervention—it's beginning to look like she may make it the few more months that the vet predicted. I welcome the additional time to spend with her, and to prepare myself psychologically. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Good. Another summer in the sun. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder-- y'all might want to discuss more and revert less.Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Hillary Clinton. Please pardon me—I was unaware of MOS:JR, and was following The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th Ed., section 6.43 (pp. 384–385; online citation), which does require the use of commas in these particular cases—in direct contravention of the Wikipedia MOS. —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: Hello. Except for compelling isolated exceptions, I oppose Wikipedia edits that are in direct contravention of the Wikipedia MOS. If Wikipedia felt an exception were in order, it would be stated in our MOS (and I'd probably oppose that as an unjustifiable pedantic complication). From a more practical standpoint, commas that are not MOS-compliant are not going to "stick" in the long term, as there are far more editors who follow our MOS than who follow CMOS. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the Chicago style, but mostly I just wanted to explain why I had made that edit. (Mostly I find that "Jr.", "III", et cetera in references still appended to the family, not the personal, name, and have been trying to fix that, which is how I came to use that Chicago rule. :-/) —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I disagree with this. Please don't take offense to this, but I think your view here is reflective of your own misunderstanding of WP:NPV. If you look closely at WP:WEIGHT, it says: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, ... When editors refer to WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE, etc., or say that something should be excluded because it's undue weight, that's a shorthand for saying that including that particular content would be adding too much detail or too much text to a particular viewpoint, or more often, an unbalanced amount of detail or text to a particular aspect of the article subject (WP:BALASPS). It's fully supported by the policy.

Of course, many editors do misunderstand WP:NPV, and some lazy editors do point shout neutrality as a catchall when they simply don't like certain content, but those are separate problems. R2 (bleep) 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I had already "looked closely at WP:WEIGHT", and I believe it means weight that is due or undue per the amount of RS coverage, not per our personal views of the importance or significance. In other words, it means that RS decide what's due, not Wikipedia editors. The interpretation you and many others use leaves things wide open to the personal bias that we all have. You may have noticed that most editors' views on importance or significance correlate well with their known political leanings, as follows:

	Trump supporters	Trump opponents
Trump-favorable content	More significant	Less significant
Trump-unfavorable content	Less significant	More significant

―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC) Added the table. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems I misunderstood the thrust of your complaint. However I think if there's a problem in that regard, it's that a slight change or clarification may be needed to WP:NPV, not a change in editing behavior, at least with respect to current events coverage. I think most editors rightly understand, implicitly, that it's neither practical nor correct to decide what stays and what goes based solely on relative counts of how often something has appeared in the newspapers. This is in large part because, of course, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and our job is to inform readers of the broader historical context rather than the day-to-day goings-on. There is a nod to this in WP:BALASPS. It's an inherently speculative and subjective exercise when we're dealing with current events. R2 (bleep) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Very logical, and it would work if most editors were willing and able to truly check their biases at the door. The fact is that most are not, and your interpretation ensures that AP2 article content depends on numbers present on each side of the spectrum. If article content depends on numbers, we don't need policy or even discussion—outcomes would be largely the same without them. I'm afraid your approach fails to realistically account for the human factor. While mine is far from perfect, in my view it beats democratic voting with a lot of policy/discussion window dressing.

Anyway, I hope you haven't allowed this side issue to distract you from the main point and the larger problem, that (1) editors all too often misapply PAGs in discussions (or don't even try to connect their reasoning to PAGs), and (2) closers generally don't expend the time and energy to enforce correct application of PAGs, closing against the majority when necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah well I certainly agree with that latter part. On the flip side, the system works most of the time, albeit crudely. In my view, roughly 1/3 of the editors in any given AP2 RfC will vote predictably according to their political views, perhaps dressing up their votes with policies and acronyms, perhaps not; roughly a 1/3 of the editors do the exact same thing, just in the opposite direct politically; and the remaining 1/3 will actually vary their votes depending on the application of PAGs and the relative strength of the arguments. What ends up happening is that the PAGs and stronger arguments tend to win by 2/3 majority. Most of the time. Not always. Sometimes it's just plain mob rule with a little window dressing. R2 (bleep) 21:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:BullRangifer! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask why you referred to your acknowledgement of a warning written on user WWGB's talk page, while deleting that warning, that was directed to them? This seems like the sort of behaviour that would only make sense coming from the user who was being warned. Are you also user WWGB?--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Senor Freebie: I am not WWGB, but I am an established editor who knows the rules and vigorously opposes editors who play the tough guy while demonstrating that they don't know them. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Your behaviour definitely does not reflect your claimed intent. Why would you claim to understand someone else's reason for deleting a warning about a personal attack unless you at the very least had been told by them why they deleted it?--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Senor Freebie: I don't "claim to know" anything except the rules regarding user talk pages. As you have been advised more than once now, an editor is allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page at will. Your claims are completely without basis, and the only "policy" you have "cited" is clearly marked inactive and historical at the top of the page. Get a clue. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Your claim; "Editors are allowed to remove anything they want from their own talk pages. Learn the rules please." at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WWGB&oldid=903494302 is incorrect. The rule states that "The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." see here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_talk_pages - stop edit warring, and stop making false claims about Wikipedia rules to justify your behaviour.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Senor Freebie: WP:OWNTALK - "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Learn the rules please. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss is correct on this issue. I advise Senor Freebie to drop the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If they are, it would be trivial for one of you to cite the rule.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I just did. Please pay attention. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mandruss quoted the rule above. I instruct you to drop the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I've seen the rule now. I do not understand why you did not cite this rule right at the beginning, as when I last ran into this issue, the previous rules that I linked you to were in effect. Your tone with me has been downright rude, and confrontational, and I think that if you want to avoid issues like this in the future, you could be more conciliatory, to make it clear that you are actually trying to help, rather than hinder the other user.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, you played it tough while demonstrating ignorance befitting a rank newbie, but it's all my fault. Just go away. Far away. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I clicked on your userpage for probably the first time (nothing against you, I just only normally look at userpages when I'm trying to figure out if someone is a sock, but I made an exception for some reason this time.) No obscure corner of Wikipedia is safe from this user's rabid agenda-driven crusade to censor spelling errors. makes me very happy, as someone who is the king of typos and spelling errors. Just thought I should pass that along. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: the king of typos and spelling errors means you make a lot of them, or correct a lot of them? If the former, I certainly haven't noticed that, and being somewhere on the accursed spectrum I can't help noticing such things.

My user page is there to be read, even by editors who don't think I'm a sock. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It was just the right thing to do. The RfC had been held and closed and I couldn't really find fault with the closer's reading of the result, even if I was on the losing side. So, I implemented the result.

The closer actually missed an even stronger point in your side's favor: BLP is usually held to apply for some time after death; it does not automatically stop applying when someone dies (that has been cited to keep me from adding more details of Kate Spade's death to her article, or rather her sister's discussion, in an RS, of how she had probably been bipolar all her life and how she had attempted suicide before. I think there are people there who would still keep that out of the article per BLP, even if it's been more than a year (I see that WP:BDP says "two years at the outside"—it did not used to, and perhaps that explains why someone in a recent GAR I was involved with could argue that a death six years ago was "recent".

I suppose I could restore the beginning and ending sentences; it might just be seen as inviting people to re-add the names, though. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the rules around the wiki to me in a helpful, civil way. Your help is always much appreciated! Mgasparin (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Bedankt voor de koekjes! ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Given your interest in the subject matter, you may want to comment on this: Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Requested move 27 July 2019. — JFG ^talk 11:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that this discussion about Trump's golfing was archived without a conclusion. Would you kindly assess consensus or lack thereof? (I'm super-involved, so won't touch it.) — JFG ^talk 09:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

But see [9]. General Ization ^Talk 00:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: Sigh. I don't care to engage with that particular editor so I'll stay out of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi -- I think that's a good idea, to suggest a "Avoid focus on the perp" guideline. This would mostly apply to types of crimes which can inspire copycat shootings. The media (and Wikipedia) has a social role here, and many media are deliberately avoiding naming killers, and there are many people much more expert on this than I. What do you think? This particular piece I edited last night was a practically a love-fest about the killer, with endless details which were totally off-point from the actual killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wxidea: I didn't suggest a "Avoid focus on the perp" guideline. I said there is no basis for that in policy.

The media (and Wikipedia) has a social role here - Most disagree, saying that the encyclopedia should be dispassionate and follow rather than lead on social issues. We follow the body of our reliable sources, all of them, not just the ones that do what we approve of based our personal worldviews.

many media are deliberately avoiding naming killers - Not many. Can you find a source used in that article that mentions him without naming him? How many sources can you find anywhere that mention him without naming him and meet our reliable source criteria? Unless and until they have the majority among reliable sources, we wouldn't be "following" to avoid naming him.

I support any content about Cruz that helps explain the shooting and its impact. I don't support anything else about Cruz, but I lack the motivation to do anything about it. I'm old and tired. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please undo this edit. The discussion is about how to code Citation Style 1 (and presumably Citation) citations, not whether to put first names first in general in all citations, including those that do not use templates. If you want, you could add a pointer to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: I see CS1-specific stuff at Citing sources all the time, whether that's the optimal place for it or not. Just following that example by others. The discussion is too far along to split it, but if you want to move the full discussion I'm not opposed. I suggest the use of the {{moved discussion from}} and {{moved discussion to}} templates. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

	Thanks
	~ Nice to see you again and thanks for the education~ I had that cleaned up here I guess someone didn't like the AP ~ go figure ` LOL ` ~mitch~ (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: I substituted WaPo for AP because AP didn't use quotemarks around Mexicans. So AP didn't make it clear that that was Crusius's word, not the reporters' word. This was briefly discussed on the talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I did not know you did that oops ~ better get my reading glasses on ~ lol ~ otherwise I would have never mentioned AP ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again ~ can you teach me how to archive ~ I don't want to do it for a living ~ I just want to archive the source on this edit. Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: Looks like that has already been archived at archive.org 6 times since 2015. It has a bot that archives lots of things without being asked. You go to archive.org, copy-and-paste the URL into the box, choose and display the archive version you want, and copy-and-paste its URL from the browser's address bar. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

F & A ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: I fixed the archive parameters in the cite at Texas Ranger Division. Can you fix the other one? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

sure ~mitch~ (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

That was fun ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: - Just some additional clarification, since I'm guessing you'll be dealing more with archives.

The |url= parameter should never specify an archive version, even if the original is a deadlink.

In the case of a deadlink, you omit the |deadurl= parameter. The effect of that is that the citation |title= is a link to the |archiveurl= and the word "original" is a link to the |url=. A deadlink sometimes comes alive again (or wasn't actually dead in the first place but an editor had trouble accessing it for other reasons), and doing this makes it easy for other editors to verify that it's still/actually dead.

When the original is alive but you want to add archive for link rot reasons, as in your cases above, you code |deadurl=no. Then the |title= is a link to |url= and the word "Archived" is a link to |archiveurl=. If an editor comes along later and finds that the original is now dead, they can simply remove the |deadurl=no.

I hope this is useful to you, and apologies if you already knew it. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

yes very useful~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: Perhaps even more useful after two critical corrections (see history). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I copied and edited it in my sandbox ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again!! ~mitch~ (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to 'an editor who repeatedly claimed no consensus..." That doesn't relate to anything I said or that Markbassett did. Your comment seems off-topic for that thread. The key point is that the new "24 hour BRD" is intended to encourage small improvements en route to a stable resolution. There's ample consensus for the word "published" that I inserted and it is the case that Markbassett has reiterated his OR, whataboutism, and primary-sourced rationales even after other editors informed him they don't hold water. BTW Hi, haven't seen you for a while. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

What Markbassett did: Reverted with please don't change longstanding lead w/o consensus.

What you said: blocking constructive improvement by claiming "no consensus".

I don't claim that all of Markbassett's content arguments have merit. I've said that, in my opinion – emphasis on opinion – there is no clear – emphasis on clear – consensus there. I would probably say the same if Markbassett hadn't been involved in the discussion. There is low participation and any consensus is muddled and confusing at best. That's why I suggested a survey or an RfC.

Hi yourself and welcome back. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well there's consensus for "published" and the article on the book goes even farther. Anyway it will be fixed eventually and IMO there is little chance Markbassett will convince others of his approach. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

After a discussion with Awilley on their talk page, I realized this modified proposal is too much at this time - for me. I mean, for me, the intent is to control the editing, not essentially create a site-wide ban for this user. So, I am changing it back to the original, with the possibility of making the new proposal 3, "Proposal 4" instead. I didn't see clearly what I was doing - and this doesn't seem to happen to me a lot on Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm chalking it up to experience. Now I will have to notify everyone of this change - and then I am going to run away and hide! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

We live and learn, if we're doing it right. The capacity to recognize and acknowledge egg on one's face is actually a fairly rare virtue. I'll let things percolate for about a day before I decide how to proceed, i.e. whether to change my !vote there. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again! WWGB (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB: Thanks. I'll wait and see if it stands a chance of a consensus to include; otherwise there's no point in getting involved just so Bus stop can talk us to death. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, slowly I’m getting more info out of you... So at Donald Trump talk, how is asking a question a process violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs) 14:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Your whole position has been based on clearly false premises, such as "whether it fits WP:CONSENSUS or is an issue is only available from asking participants." And you have cited a part of the guidance without even reading it carefully, begging to be shot down in flames, which shows sloppiness in your thinking and a tendency to grasp at straws.

If you want more discussion in that RfC, you can contact the closer and ask them to re-open it. That would be consistent with the guidance about challenging a closure. If they decline to re-open it, you can start a thread at WP:AN, which would also be consistent with the guidance.

Or, you could follow JFG's advice.

But it's just disingenuous to claim that what you were doing was not a challenge of the closure. As I clearly stated (so please don't claim I have been unforthcoming with information), the process vio was failure to follow documented procedures that are written the way they are for good reasons.

As you can see in that thread, my position has received the support of two experienced editors, and yours has received none. That generally means it's time to drop the stick and accept what people are telling you – whether or not you agree with it or understand it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss sigh, well thanks for reply though you seem to feel extremely strong that it is something I feel strongly it’s not, and that it’s urgent to halt talk for some reason. Is your premise seriously that filing a challenge will tell me what Gamingforfun thinks about things there, if anything? And Bus stop, Jack Upland, Tataral, etcetera? Yes, you’ve been unforthcoming with explanatory dialogue, made a premise about no one supported my reasoning in the few dozen minutes before you blocked input, stated you did not even read my post, not accepted what I tell you, deleted TALK... I’m doubtful this approach has been efficient at getting either of us anywhere. Well, I will take your approval re JFG start another separate thread, asking more narrowly. It might get part of the answers, will see. Markbassett (talk) 04:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to visit me and spell out what your concerns are. I will listen and try to help. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: What concerns are you referring to? And why do you want to do it on your talk page instead of here? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Home is where the heart is. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want to corner you here by asking questions that might annoy you. If you come to my talk page you can leave whenever you want. But if you prefer to talk here, that's fine. What needs to be done to make your editing here more pleasant? After all this is a hobby and we're all volunteers. Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but there isn't much anyone can do about the overall problem at this level. We are very limited by the self-selected self-governance model. That's part of the reason I avoid ANI most of the time. That doesn't mean that people at ANI shouldn't make an attempt to enforce NPA, particularly in clear-cut cases.

A crucial thing to know about survival at today's en-wiki is that the community will not protect you against hostile insult. You either become tough, or you retire, or you get crushed emotionally, and I mean permanent damage. I continuously re-evaluate whether I'm tough enough to avoid retirement for another day, but I will not be crushed. And I will work hard not to respond to hostile insult in kind, per two wrongs don't make a right. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Dont want to meet half way, that is clear from your last post. Harcore for you, pity for the rest of us :( I'm willing to exit anyway. Better to jump than be pushed. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You speak in riddles, so I have no idea what "half way" you're referring to. You seek an agreement that you can insult me half that much? You got off this time, which is what I predicted,[10] and a good part of the insults remains unstricken which means you continue to stand by it. That doesn't leave much room for reconciliation, does it? I suggest we avoid unnecessary contact, such as this. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's probably wise to avoid each other. It might help Ceoil if you sleep on this and then tomorrow look over your edits and refactor them to make the same strong points, but try not to personalize or insult. Mandruss, I'm sorry you've been inconvenienced by all this. Thank you for showing some measure of restraint. Jehochman ^Talk 23:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been following the Don Trump talk page, so I just dropped the article link in for info. I like the fact that it is beautifully sourced. I appreciate there has been mucho discussion, but given the increasingly bizarre statements coming out of the White House, just how many articles in reputable sources do we need before we mention the guy's mental state? Does he have to be hauled off in a straitjacket before we mention it? A quick search shows that source after source, going back years, has diagnosed Trump with narcissistic personality disorder. Now, fair enough if consensus is that we don't mention it, but the way things are going, people will be asking just how crazy is Wikipedia to omit the bleeding obvious. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Skyring: You are preaching to the choir; I'm in total agreement as to content. But certainly upwards of 95% of the RS basis existed before that RfC closed less than two months ago, and the consensus was nevertheless omit. No matter how right we are, we can't keep re-raising the issue until we get the desired result.

I was buying the "just dropped by to provide a link" until this edit; at that point you joined the NOTFORUM vios. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see that. Are you referring to the tweet I referenced, which is classic NPD and described as such in a RS?[11] I think if we have good sources, we're on safe ground. How high does the pile have to be? --Pete (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't see it because it was revdel'ed. See the page history for more information and guidance. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey. I wanted to ask about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=prev&diff=922290929&diffmode=source - I realize that it wasn't officially closed, but there weren't any comments for over 24 hours, like you mentioned in your summary --DannyS712 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: As I said, "apparently concluded" is not closed. If you want to close it, wait 24 hours, and then archive it, go ahead, but is it worth the trouble for a page that has only 21 threads? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I just didn't understand what you meant. I don't feel strongly about it. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Sorry, I see where I threw you. When I said "edit requests", I meant requests submitted via the edit request facility, that thing that puts a template in the thread. Otherwise it can get pretty hard to define what's an edit request and what's a normal discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey there! Just cause you feel there needs to be an RfC doesn't mean you get to cut off discussion. I happen to think that what @MrX: proposed is not the same as what's in consensus 39, which I support. At any rate, nobody is forcing you or anyone else to participate in a thread, but we don't cut them off out of pique or pride. You're better than that. Please undo and let it ride. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Hey, "bro". I deliberately refrained from closing it this time. An editor completely uninvolved and quite experienced came in and closed it, agreeing with me. You, completely involved, reverted them ignoring the completely true statement that the consensus cannot be changed out of RfC so anything else is a completely pointless waste of editor time. Are you with me now? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, first what makes you think I'm a bro? Second, if you'd bothered to read my edit summary with sufficient care, you'd have seen that I refuted the "closer"'s false and obstinate reason for his summary authoritarian intervention in our WP editing process. I expect you'll self-undo now that I've explained. :) ciao. Just to preview my further post that you edit-conflicted out of existence, I went on to explain to you that an RfC is not needed because as MrX explained, discussion of demeanor is not faux-diagnosis of identified medical conditions and what's needed is just a responsible bold edit that presents RS discussion of demeanor w/o violating consensus 39, which I looove. I really loooove consensus 39 but I hate talk-page controlfreakery. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to say: bros before close.- MrX 🖋 02:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I think not. You are saying that the closer's rationale is incorrect, and I don't necessarily disagree. It should have said that a consensus established by RfC cannot be changed without another RfC. That has happened not once in the four years I've been a regular at that article, nor have I seen it happen anywhere else. To say that the thread, which should have been closed, should be re-opened because the closer got the rationale wrong, is what we call wikilawyering. If you want to add an addendum to the close statement, stating the correct rationale, go ahead with my blessing.

I you're not a bro, I'll eat my wikihat, but you can take it as gender neutral, like "you guys". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

BRD Baby. On WP unlike in real life, folks may disagree with you and you need to heed. I get it you're flirting with me, but I'm not into that. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, but there was little danger of me flirting with somebody I believe is a male bro, even if I were inclined to flirt with female bros on Wikipedia. (But MelanieN is kinda hot.) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I have self-reverted, for the record. Perhaps a bit too hasty, and there's that personality-conflict thing. Lesson learned, maybe. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey ~ @SPECIFICO: ~ Nice to meet you ~ on your edit "BRD Baby" I don't understand your meaning ~ is BRD ~ a new abbreviation of a template in WP ~ can you clue me in on what that means ~ thank you ~mitch~ (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

~mitch~ - WP:BRD, if I may stalk my own talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss ~ I googled it and got this here ~ and as far as stalking your own page ~ sorry ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

~mitch~ Just my quirky humor, not a reference to you. I said I was doing the stalking, not you. You or anyone else is welcome to stalk here any time, provided they observe the rule stated near the top of the page. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I know ~ lol ~ just wanted to get the grumps in some how ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(comment) Oops I forgot to read those ~ BRB (for those following along ~ Be Right Back) ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh right, so BRD would be Be Right Down, or maybe Be Right, Dummy. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No wonder I did't read them their in fine print ~I was expecting ~ like some sort of sign or something ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sign Guy Dudley says it stands for Bubba Ray Dudley. He was right about LSD and DVD. But hey, who wasn't in the '90s? Rad slang was the G thang, my brother from another storyline mother (tell her Mo, Oscar and my Main Man Mabel Send Their Regards, Aight?) But then Blu-Ray Disc had to go and make things so complicated. You ever watch Avril Lavigne in 4K on weed? Whole other conversation, little dudes! Seriously though, whatever happened to 311? They had that ditty about wanting to stand up (Stan Dupp) before they get knocked down? I think it was on Trent Acid's Downward Spiral mixtape. Something about rainbows. Why are there so many songs about rainbows?!? No wait, rivers. Songs about rivers. The river below. Billy Talent! If those power pop punks put their minds together, they could reform as M.O.B.A.L.T. People already buy cobalt and that shit barely even gets you high anymore. Not like we can just stop consuming it any time we want. Not when there's EZ Money rolled up on the table. And mirrors? How the Sam Hill do they work? You can't yell Whassup? before crashing through a damn mirror headfirst off a ladder while intoxicated with the madness or in love with one's sadness. Or can we? Last one through the looking glass spidernet is a CZW KOTDM! BYOBRDD! #MOMMMSTRA #FreebirdRules4Life #DrowningPool2020 I'll C U When U Get There.

Remember Coolio? Word up to Cameo. Haven't heard from Perd? Everybody's doing the bird. Oooh oooh oooh oooh Birdman! BTW, that mirror dive spot went FUBAR and now my testicles hurt but I put an ass in the seat on the way down and that's all that really counts in the hazy world of backyard political melee; The Color of Money.

Oh hey, Tony! Didn't see you trying to flirt with me there, bro! How's it hanging? Cool and coppery over here, just getting ready to make like Triple D (The Duke of Dumpster Droesing) and "take out the trash" in the completely literal sense of that rhetorical attempt to convince you I've moved on to older, newer men and life is peachy. Seriously, his name is Slim Shady, he has a cottage account offshore and he assures me he only needs one shot and the real Slim Shady is just imitating, so whaddya say? Will you "lend me a feeling"? How about "more than a feeling", like that night in Boston? Hold that thought, I see my marionette slipping away. BRD. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, October 24, 2019 (UTC)

Dashes: en or em, spaced or not (that's four), HTML or just "inserted" (that's eight) ... Is there anything [else] we can do with this mess? Please advise. --Brogo13 (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brogo13: - Sorry, I don't see a mess in that article. Normal prose uses {{snd}} (with a space following, not preceding). Citations use the actual endash character for the parameters listed at Template:Cite news#COinS metadata is created for these parameters (notably |title=) and {{snd}} for other parameters (notably |quote=). Emdash is not used anywhere in that article AFAIK. What's the problem? ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem ... isn't (any more). Preachy ate chew. 8r' 15:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln wasn't as heroic as you think. His own published material confirms it. Like the myth that "Wilson gave women the right to vote", it was actually Congress, with the then-presidents in both cases having essentially no choice but to go along, because their vetos would have been embarrassingly overturned. Forced Into Glory covers it in detail with a great deal of directly quoted material from Lincoln and his contemporaries. It is well-researched, though of course attacked by the Lincoln lionizers who dominate the subject, and our own article on the book is biased toward that camp.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Lincoln was as heroic as you think I think he was. I said I'm glad we elected him. Cheers. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

...you should not be surprised that you have just been banned from my talk page. If you ever edit it again, I'll skip straight to AN/I where I will link to the diff for this notice. I would also prefer to never interact with you again on this project, so if you could just leave me alone I'd greatly appreciate it. Good luck in your future interactions with editors who aren't me! —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Editors are not allowed to forbid issuance of warnings, ANI notices, etc, but I will otherwise happily avoid your talk page (I think I already was). Similarly, I'm happy to "leave you alone" provided you are not disrupting articles by doing things like reverting the restoration of status quo ante. Note that you got zero support at ANI for your theory about that. You can count on me to vigorously oppose that at every such article from here on out, until one of us retires or moves on to greener wikipastures. Have an awesome day! ―Mandruss ☎ 06:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear for once, the madness is over and mass shootings have gone the way of childish material things (up to and including the dodo). I went to God just to see, and I was looking at me. Saw Greaser and Soc were lies. When I'm gone, everything's fine. Sort of was inspired by Marilyn Manson there, but don't worry, I'm not going to "freak out", not gonna "bowl for Columbine", ain't fittin' to "pop no cap in yallz fool ass" (collectively or otherwise). Yeah, I swear that I don't have a gun. I don't even have a truck or spare cred to rent one. Plus, I love all of you, hurt by the cold. (Kiedis et Cobain, 1990s)

I'm not even going to overdose or hang myself, like rock gods even you must know by name. I'm just going to fade away like Jan King and maybe come back someday like Pet Sematary 2. Better wait until then to understand everything. May the light be always over you and Sister Rose. Fire girl, queen of heat, dynamite on mercy street. Find your song, Red, or at least "feel the water flowing"!

And sorry for tainting Whimsey Belle's good name with alcohol and questionable pre-match stipulations. I genuinely do hope you dance your cares away together, and truly believe the shark cage is the best place a cute female valet can turn the tide in favour of the heels. The history of professional wrestling will vindicate me on that, mark my words. The rest, as they say, is all yours.

Goodbye, Tony...hello again, Mandruss! (High, Mitch?) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

Understanding you doesn't get easier with frequent exposure. But don't feel bad, I was never worth a damn at interpreting poetry in school, either. The teacher would explain what it meant and I'd be like, "Ok, whatever you say. What's for lunch?". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Count your blessings. I didn't even get a lunch today. What did you have? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

Now that I'm all grown up and can do what I want, I reject the whole breakfast/lunch/supper thing and eat when I'm hungry. I downed a large bag of Peanut M&M's about two hours ago, and I'm going out right now for a Wendy's jalapeño burger. See ya's. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just for hints, I stole some of that from The Outsiders, a book of assigned reading prose. The middle I stole in real time from a Bush X song that was on, eerie stuff. I guess it's "Sister Rose". Red is a Fraggle Rock character, Cantus the Minstrel is Jim Henson, and they collaborated once. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

Ok, whatever you say. What's for lunch? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sweet juicy radish. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, November 19, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation...not sure if I understand it though! Hope that you are fit and well. Le dea-ghuí (https://www.google.com/search?q=googletranslate&oq=googletranslate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3755j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) ÉamonnÉriugena (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall what you're referring to, although I vaguely recall your username. From the link you provided I gather it had something to do with Google Translate. Anyway, you're quite welcome! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Although I am not commenting on Trump or political talk pages, or at least try mightily not to. I still have Donald Trump on my watchlist. So when I encountered this diff. I checked help for OP and best I can find is Open Proxy,butI don't know what an Open proxy is. Who is this OP that has been blocked? Is it an Open Proxy?If so then who is the Open Proxy? I would assume that an open proxy would be an IP address,but that collapse did not contain an Open Proxy. Hope you don't mind educating me.Oldperson (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: the reference is to original poster. El_C 16:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Oldperson: So, for example, in this small thread, you are the "OP"  :) ——SN54129 16:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:Much obliged. That really clears things up. Also instructive. I followed the OP to their talk page and see that they were indeffed, then followed there edits to see why. Instructive because I am learning what kind of behaviors to avoid. Apparently they had consecutive edits on a single article changing one or two words each time to promote an ideological POV. They would have been better off taking their concerns to the talk page, rather than editing the article, a lesson (it appears)that they learned a little too late.Oldperson (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: See also WP:Wikipedia abbreviations. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mandruss. It's take a year to learn there was such a page.Much obliged. Oldperson (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh I can beat that, it took me three years. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)