User talk:SmokeyJoe/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Thanks for letting me know about the MFD. He actually MFD'd another draft in my userspace as well. I left the details in the discussion on Jclemens's talk page here. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello SmokeyJoe. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job here. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you cut the phrase "worthy of notice" at WP:N (and also at WP:ORG). I have no problem with removing the the phrase... but your edit summary is confusing: you say "It uses a much looser traditional dictionary definition that contradicts the GNG"... given that WP:N is the GNG, I don't see how something it says could "contradict" itself. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The summary was:

Cut "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." 1. The lead is repetative, this is a variation written multiple times. 2. It uses a much looser traditional dictionary definition that contradicts the GNG

The statement "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"" contradicts the GNG.

Paraphrasing to "Articles topics must be worthy of notice", this is a threshold that is much lower than the GNG. Many topics are worthy of notice, but it just so happened that no one is recorded in reliable sources as noticing them. The point is that the dictionary definitions are different to the GNG test. I will be happy to continue at WT:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You miss my point... WP:N = GNG... since the phrase was contained in WP:N (ie GNG) it can not contradict GNG. It is part of GNG. You can disagree with the statement, and argue that GNG should not say it... but what you your edit summary said is: "this statement in GNG contradicts GNG"... which is impossible. Sort of like saying "Article V of the US Constitution contradicts the US Constitution."Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the sentence cut is part of the GNG. The GNG is defined in the section below, and the wording there is different (and acceptable). Or am I still confused? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I see. You think “WP:N = GNG”. Where did you get that idea? GNG = “General notability guideline” is the first section of WP:N. The GNG is the core of WP:N, with everything else supporting, clarifying, explaining, etc. In this case, I removed the words from the lede because they conflict with the core of WP:N, the GNG, and because they served no useful purpose. For real world definitions of “notability”, the reader is better directed to Wikt:Notability or another dictionary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

She had a six pack of Otter Pops. That's what happened. :-P Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The two pages I was thinking of and couldn't find at the time were Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. MBisanz ^talk 14:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The references needed to pass GNG are already linked in the DRV. Why not just restore the article to mainspace and then plop the references in without the additional hassle of moving the deleted content in and out of userspace? pbp 15:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've created a userspace draft at User:Purplebackpack89/Sealand. It has five references and five interwiki links. pbp 13:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols". Thank you. --Neuroticguru (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that Avounbaka, as per WP:Articles for deletion/Avounbaka is a WP:N notable topic without WP:V verifiable sources?  Otherwise, we are not going to be talking the same language.  Unscintillating (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That subject (obscure location, possibly populated) could well be considered notable by someone in a local sense, according to the broad possible usages of the word "notable" in real world English. NB. Even if it were marked in reliable atlases, I consider atlas data to be a primary source. In terms of Wikipedia usage, it is not notable. It has no coverage in other secondary sources and so fails the GNG. It fails the essay-status SNG pointed to in the AfD. However, notability questions are moot, with the topic failing WP:V due to all sources being plausibly accused of unreliabilty with respect to their data on the topic. If it were verifiable, it could be merged. If verifiable, obscure locations, much like small asteroids, are notable enough for mention within a broader context, but not notable enough for a stand alone Wikipedia article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

QED we are not talking the same language.  Which means this problem is deeper than the issue of the definitions stated for the word "notable".  It seems that your internal design/concept for notability isn't allowing topics to be notable in the absence of WP:V verifiable sources.  And this was at the core of my comment on May 7.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I usually find myself well understood. You, I sometimes find hard to understand, and I suggest that you would do better to be more specific. By what measure do you describe Avounbaka as notable? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was specific on May 7.  I quoted two definitions for notability and the nutshell of WP:N, and further noted that the definitions were "generally accepted standards that editors should attempt to follow".  As I understand it, you heard Wikilawyering and instead of seeing standards saw "garbled" definitions.  The hypothesis here is that your concept of notability was imprinted in 2006 when you became an editor, just as mine dates to early 2011.  In late 2006, wp:notability required that there be material with which to write an encyclopedia article.  WP:N and the concept of wp:notability has changed, as what we need now is evidence, without a guarantee that the evidence provides sufficient material with which to write an article.  As for Avounbaka, do you agree that all populated places are notable?  Is Barber Island notable?  Are all high schools notable?  Are all plants and animals notable?  My point remains that at Wikipedia, we need to be putting more emphasis on WP:V than on WP:N.  Also, that you and I are having trouble finding any points of agreement.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If I can work through that backwards:

• No, I don't think we are that far apart. I agree with your conclusions, your final positions, but I get there with a different explanation.
• We need to be putting more emphasis on WP:V than on WP:N. Of course. Don't we? Unverifiable material is very easily removed. I assume you are not talking about unvierfied material that nobody reads. WP:N features highly in discussions because it covers the boundary regions of what we cover.
• "Are all [X] notable"? No. This has been rejected many times, every time. Something is notable because others have already covered it. However, notability is only about whether we have a standalone article. Often, all of [X] is well covered in a larger page. Schools are often merged to district. Asteroids are covered in groups. WP:N, specificaly WP:GNG, requires sources that offer material to write something about the subject.
• Barber Island. It may be near the edge of notability. A geography SNG might be helpful here. I am unfirm on whether Wikipedia should encompass atlasses. However, if Barber Island is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, then the entire content currently there would be merged to a larger article.
• Avounbaka? I don't think you can ask about notability if you cannot even establish that it exists. Reliable sourcing, WP:V, comes well before questions of WP:N. Are all populated places notable? Possibly, but you have to start with verificable. There are an awful lot of places without reliable sources if you imagine all populated places that ever existed.
• You say WP:N has changed? I don't see it. There's some changes in the fluff around the edges, but the GNG says pretty much the same thing as Uncle G's PNC.
• You've been around since 2011? I thought you were an old timer.
• Am I working with an imprinted defintion of notability from 2006? Possibly. However, I don't think WP:N has changed. Something that has changed is that WP:N is enforced more broadly now.
• I do not accuse you of wikilawyering, just that something you said sounded like it. "Garbled" might be a bit strong. I see the GNG as offering a precise definition of notability, with things like "worthy of notice" causing more confusion than clarity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You know what? Why don't I just go back to anonymous posting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.144.198 (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages (talk)

In case you might be interested in helping out with the page's development. - jc37 20:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe. I made a change to one of your posts.[1] Best! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:GloZell Green. I think I've found enough sources to reinstate the article. Please comment on the talk page. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Will undelete shortly. Whouk (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you please look over your position at the MfD here. That MfD is getting old and it would be easier to close with stronger consensus. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think a page consisting of nothing but headers absolutely needs to be kept? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe. When Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 19#Universe Today is closed, would you start an RfC at Talk:Universe Today regarding a merge of Universe Today to List of astronomy websites#Universe Today? If you consent to do so, feel free to do it immediately after the DRV is closed or in three or six months. I myself would prefer not to start the RfC because I was the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination) and was subjected to personal comments at the AfD. Such personal comments may reoccur at the merge discussion were I the RfC initiator, so it is best done by someone such as yourself who has minimal involvement with the article. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Five days have passed since I posed this request to you. I would be grateful to hear your thoughts about my proposal. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke. Please find my answer at Talk:List_of_astronomy_websites#or_merge. I'm inclined to say that this needs a BOLD solution, and that an RfC should wait for evidence of active disagreement in editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal. I am hopeful that your bold proposal will be uncontested and uncontroversial, but if it turns out otherwise, an RfC may be necessary. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Help Project Newsletter Issue III - August 2012

Project news summary Final results and conclusions from the help pages survey were released. The wub gave a presentation at Wikimania 2012 about help pages, and the slides are now on Commons. A discussion is taking place about the purpose and future of the venerable Community portal. New designs for tutorial pages have been proposed, comment from project members is welcome.

From the editor Welcome to the (slightly delayed) third issue of the Help Project newsletter. The past month has once again been a busy one for my fellowship. The full results and conclusions from the extensive user survey on help pages are now available, and make interesting reading. These do confirm a number of our suspicions about Wikipedia help, and suggest that the current plan for the remainder of the fellowship is a sound approach. Also last month I was fortunate enough to attend Wikimania 2012 in Washington DC, where I gave a presentation about help pages and the aforementioned survey results. You can find the slides from this on Commons. Wikimania was also a great opportunity for many discussions with staff and community members, and these brought up some interesting ideas which I hope to follow up on. One of the things much discussed was the planned tutorial pages. I've been working on a new design for them which can be seen at User:The wub/sandbox/1, please let me know what you think (especially if you spot any bugs!). Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. the wub "?!" 13:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that little bit of information about Fred Bauder. The insight I derive from it is that in practice Wikipedia is governed by article ownership, the mirror image of wp:own and one of the five rallips, if I may. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What I find even more amazing is that somehow the article owner got cornered this time. He must be a really nice guy for that to be even possible. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• What is a rallip?
• I've read your post at WT:RM. It's not so bad. You are concerned about decisions that have major implications outside of Wikipedia? That's fine. I am not up to speed with this issue. I'm also not up to speed with the Financial crisis page, but I do read you making sensible points.
• WP:RETAIN, which I advocate as a solution for most page name disputes, does have a bit of WP:OWN, but only a little bit. It says that if everyone can't agree, the original form of the (non-stub) page is the default. It doesn't say that the original author can stand in the way of a consensus by others. If WP:RETAIN sets the stage for a WP:GAME, then it does so by encouraging the gamer to write a whole lot of non-stub articles. I think that this is actually a good thing.
• Article ownership is an old, big issue. WP:OWN is a response. Ownership still happens. The owning editor intimidates newcomers. They get away with making rules for editing their article. They engage in soft protection, the delayed, slow reversion to their preferred version. However, if an OWNer is identified as engaging in owner behaviour, it tends to force them to withdraw from dominating long discussions. Please be polite though, OWNership is a bit of a trap easily fallen into, an the editor may still be a valuable. This tool is particularly helpful in seeing if someone is dominating the history of a page. I would not call Fred an OWNer of the talk page. The article however has him as the clear front runner, although number two is not so far behind. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In order:

• I can tell you now or I can tell you tomorrow, it is a child's riddle really but still could be fun, which would you like?
• Thanks, I can't even begin to tell you what it means to me to get that bit of positive feedback. It has been very lonely so far.
• Good point. Don't keep it just for me.
• As I said, I have no interest in that page anymore, and dealing with anything like that would be way unwelcome.

your friend, →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I was too tired before to click on the links you provided, but now I did. That is quite a powerful tool and I promise to use it with great care, putting the future of the article above any technical appearances or less important considerations, such as what title does an article have. Thank you! →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 08:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Which brings me to the following question. My economist's instincts shout that owned articles would, in the bottom line and on average, be able to provide better service to the reader. This is supported by my recent experience with the article democracy which seemed oddly deserted when I met it with more than a year of POV edit creep, and nobody being bold enough to remove it. How does that compare with your experience? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 09:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That is to say, of course there would be many bad apples here and there, for which wp:own is needed, but by and large most owners would welcome the company of fellow editors, and they provide good service to the owned article. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 09:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We usually differentiate between OWNing an article (which is always bad, by definition) and "curating" one. Curation implies that you continue to support the article, while welcoming other people's help and accepting viewpoints that do not agree with your own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware that the bad connotation was mandatory. You guys have a real extensive vocabulary matched with the English word "asshole". Like Eskimos and snow, I would guess.→Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 02:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that the thing about Eskimos and snow is a myth,^{[citation needed]→Yaniv256 talk _contribs 23:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)} and the extensiveness of wikijargon is only too true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is one word that I am currently in need of on AN/I. What would be the proper specialized wikijargon for asshole by inaction? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 23:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

See Eskimo words for snow for the citations you wanted.

The correct wikijargon depends on the situation. I have heard a variety, including "ArbCom", "admins", "editors", "the community", "volunteers", "the devs", "the WMF", and several others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone with OWNership problems can cause WP:NPOV problems, especially if they have a WP:COI. But you are right in that an unattended article is also a bad thing. Unattended articles have the problem of decay due to drive-by edits from people who are not so knowledgable. Both problems can cause Wikipedia to be unreliable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey SmoJo! I just wanted to let you know that I'm delisting that yelling-contest of an MFD (Consensus seems clear and there are 2 or 3 too many WP:BATTLEGROUND mindsets for my liking), and ask that you let me know if anything else worth commenting on develops. Thanks! Achowat (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

...that a while ago you turned this blue. [tips hat]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

...And I'm trying to turn it back to red. Just dropping a CfD notification here. VegaDark (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider your !vote regarding my use of user-space. New users should be made aware of common etiquette, what to do and what not to do, on Wikipedia. Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm answering in here because the article's talk page is a mess, as the super-voter intended. As to your comment, I believe you might have missed this post of mine.Did you see Wikipedia's main page today? That's Pedro I of Brazil, who was also Pedro IV of Portugal. He was the grandfather of Pedro V of Portugal. That's a FA I wrote.None of the English sources in the bibliography spell his or name his ancestors' names as "Peter". I can't rebuke Walrasiad's claims because he actually didn't make any. All his is doing is to write, write, write and write with no clear end. At first he claimed it was against WP:Sovereign guidelines. It isn't. It says that we should use the name that most historians prefer. Then he claimed that he opposed as per a discussion that occurred somewhere at the beginning of the year. After that he came with a vertical/horizontal blah, blah that I couldn't and I still can't understand at all.

You shouldn't be asking me to counterpoint his arguments. You should be doing that to him. Didn't you notice that he didn't show up with a single source that says "Peter III", "Peter II", etc...? Thus, all I can say to you is that I, in all my years writing articles such as Pedro I of Brazil, Pedro II of Brazil, Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies, Empire of Brazil, etc... I have never saen an English source using "Peter III" or "Peter II" (for his grandfather). If that's not enough and Walrasiad's blah blah sounds better to you, then you should stick to your oppose. I mean it, I'm not being ironic at you or something similar. But if you do stick, you should also ask him where are his FAs, where is his knowledge of the subject under discussion, because "I don't like the Portuguese name" is not a good excuse and that's what he has been arguing so far. P.S.: You should also see this. --Lecen (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You make good points and I sympathise. The challenge for you, something I would find persuasive, is if you would add a range of reputable references to the article, supporting expanded content, and then point out that a majority of the article references, those in English, use Pedro not Peter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You're asking me to write the article of Portuguese royals from top to bottom, which is something that I've doing for the last years. I wonder why you don't ask the same for Walrasiad. Anyway, there is no rule that says that someone has promise to turn an article into a FA to have it's name corrected. If you believe Walrasiad is correct, then fine. This last message of his is pretty telling. I wonder who gave him the powers to say what sources are acceptable and what aren't. Thank you and have a nice day. --Lecen (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not rewrite a whole article, but increase the referencing. I presume that you have suitable sources. The hurdle in front of you is the guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking. The guideline is clear that we should use the names used by most scholars. Pedro it is. I showed you the link to my post where the latest books about the Portuguese royal family all use "Pedro". I also pointed you to a comment by another user that all best-selling books about Portuguese history sold on Amazon use "Pedro". The guideline is not an issue. The issue is one editor (Walrasiad) who understands the guideline they way it suits him the best. --Lecen (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. LadyofShalott 16:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to ask this at DRV in fear of getting off-topic, but what might you suggest as a possible merge target for the page? Perhaps List of RPG Maker games or something similar could be created. CtP (t • c) 09:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked. Can't find anything suitable. It's a poor article, the AfD came to a wrong result. I still reckon leaving it for six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, can I get your opinion here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Talk:List of shopping malls by country. JohnCD (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Curb Chain. I noticed that you made a change to an article, fashion faux pas, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Curb Chain (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

SJ, have I managed to convince you for the need of a separate article for the Bond film character (or at least the potential to have one), as long as this does not overlap with the James Bond in film article? If so then I propose to work on something in my userspace which will allow at least people to judge the merits of the article as it stands, rather than the knee-jerk tagging to which it fell victim last time. If I haven't managed to convince you that there is a need, then I won't waste my time in putting something together (something that does not exist anywhere else, and currently has no place in WP!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I see potential for the additional article, but am uneasy with talk of "no overlap". The two articles should have many points of similarity, and each should contain brief summaries and cross references to the other. Please do write the userspace page, it may very well help me to understand better. At worst, it could be merged into the existing article, and that would be a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that: "as long as this does not substantively overlap with"? We are working on a version in my sandbox—any comments or suggestions you have are very welcome indeed. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also still slightly worried about your wording "the existing article": there is no existing article (still)! - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

James Bond in film is the "existing article". James Bond (film character) is the article you want to write. Where is your draft? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to again go into why James Bond in film is the wrong article, except to note that it's so wrong a third party active in the film project changed the re-direct because of it's "wrongness"! The draft is being written in my sandbox (User:Schrodinger's cat is alive/sandbox) at the moment. I'm away for a few days so not a huge amount will be done until next week, when things should start kicking in a little more. Already in place is the first draft of the summary of the literary Bond, and a few other bits and pieces. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi SJ, As per our conversation above, some initial work has been done on this article, albeit a little slower than expected because of RL stuff. Could I ask your opinion on Connery section of the film analysis? The Literary section is pretty much done too, but I need to read through again and see what else it misses out, so any comments you have there would also be appreciated. If you feel that this is heading the right direction, then that is all well and good. I am very conscious that the production history article James Bond in film needs to be tidied up too, to ensure that there is sufficient difference between the two, but that is a task I will do once the "JB (screen character)" article is completed. Again I'll do that in my workspace and drop both articles into the main space once they are done. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would vastly prefer you clean up the gaming on the essay, rename it to "WP:Article perseveration" and consider that there are no other essays dealing with that particular topic - that is the iterated insistence through long repetition of lengthy verbiage of what the editor "requires." It is a real and significant problem, and the current asinine gaming done on the essay does not befit collegial editing by a few miles <g>. Some of the gamers have had specific run-ins with me before, and their participation is unlikely to be caused by anything more than animus :( Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

...on the Wikipedians who aren't. Writegeist (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#24_hours

I just realised that I edited a signed comment by yourself. Would you please review the edit here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note.

While normally I appreciate help with linking in a guideline proposal, I think in this case, I would shy away from linking to an essay in a guideline proposal, especially since there is currently an open discussion elsewhere on how we should define "under a cloud".

Thanks again : ) - jc37 01:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the new proposal. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on the New New proposal. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What does "partent" mean? NE Ent 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like a typo for "parent". - jc37 23:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi jc37. You are usually very good about answering my questions which I fear may verge on annoying. If so, sorry, but I would like to push my luck further.

Would you mind considering answering my question of "05:52, 5 November 2012" at Wikipedia_talk:MR#Changing_date_.28chronological.29_layout_of_Move_Review? I would guess that your answer is that you make minimal use of watchlisting, and instead prefer to patrol your pages of interest. Is this true?

I would guess that for the same reason, you would not personally agree with me at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_24#Reinstate_WT:RMCI.

Also, did you know that archiving your talk page by PageMove makes it hard to study your talk page history? Page move archiving breaks up the history of the talk page into each of the talk page archives. I personally much prefer using MiszaBot for archiving talk pages, and like the how it is easy to review a talk page history (even of very large, such as User talk:Jimbo Wales, where a correspondant has just reach 1000 edits to his talk page. Is this weird, or do you have an opinion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly SJ, to my recollection Ive never found you annoying : )

You and I may disagree at times, but that's not uncommon on Wikipedia : )

As for the MR discussion, it looked like the discussion had died down. I'll go look. (And I'll take a look at the other discussion as well.)

And though I do have well over 5 thousand pages on my watchlist (even with periodic pruning), I do tend to try to keep up on everything (Though I'll admit that I don't check high volume ones all the time, like AN/I or User talk:Jimbo Wales : )

As for archiving, moving a page is preferrable to copy/paste moves to an archive. It keeps the talk-page page history intact. I do it "roughly" once a year. - jc37 06:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

WT:RMCI

I don't see why you can't just start the discussion at WT:RM. but that aside, if you prefer to use the RMCI talk page. Then start it. But the irony is that you'll likely have to drop a note at WT:RM to point to the discussion so that people know about it : ) - jc37 06:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No disrespect to you personally, but it is improper to fail to alert the page about the DRV.

There is a need for a bureaucrat to run the discussion, because of the problem of administrators abusing process.

The same problem happened before, and Scott MacDonald still doesn't get it.

Perhaps my expectations are too high? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• You have a point, I agree. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In an attempt to get past the impasse that has been reached re the capitalisation of I in intro on the Star Trek into Darkness article, I have created two additional sub-sections where users can put their for/against argument comments in without getting caught up in Beating a dead horse. These sections are purely for providing reasons and not for arguing back and forth, although discussions are welcome to continue in the above section. If you could come and give your view that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 21:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting has started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_into_Darkness#Requested_move — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 21:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey SmokeyJoe. I created Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Purpose and added two new threads for discussion. Your two cents there would be welcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Last September you commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character). Please now see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character) (2nd nomination). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As you have made comments regarding the interaction between WP:RFA and the proposed resysopping practices, you are specifically invited to comment on the newly proposed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices#Option 18. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've userfied it to you at User:SmokeyJoe/Kostasneymar, and left a note at where you advertised it. Tag it with {{db-u1}} once you're satisfied nobody wants it. Or do something productive, if someone does want it. Either way is fine. WilyD 14:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment at WT:Copying within Wikipedia#Upgrade to Policy. I appreciate someone noticing. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I do wonder exactly what they are all doing here. some, like books on bands, seem very practical. i didnt know they existed for a while, and i was printing out the articles separately for a person i know who didnt have computer access and loved music (it keeps him going mentally, in a very serious manner). But, some of the books are truly ridiculous, as you have noted. i dont mind if users keep books in their userspace for quick printout of a personal selection of subjects, but when they are listed as representing the encyclopedia officially, i think we need better quality control.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There is a POV danger in allowing someone to select a set of articles to represent a subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I said "this debate", not "the debate". Important distinction. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalker comment. To be fair, they are both the same. The Debate, is the same as This debate. Perhaps you should have provided a little more clarification Scjessy. MisterShiney ✉ 13:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see them as the same. That being said, I personally think the debate is over as well. Unless a colon magically appears, it is unlikely to change the outcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As an involved editor, you're invited to keep an eye on new developments at Star Trek into Darkness and its talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, regarding what you said at WP:AN, I disagree that there was a new argument. The initial request to move mentioned two of the three possible outcomes, but the discussion definitely involved all three. At the end, after all these options were discussed, it was determined that there was no consensus to any of them. Long ago, I mentally walked away from caring what the article title should be and have since commented to encourage not worrying so much, to summarize the debate where possible, and to make points of clarification. I wouldn't mind a renewed RM discussion with both some outside commentary and with the heavy debaters recusing themselves. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In case you’re not keeping up with every single edit on there. Frungi (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied again. —Frungi (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was reading reactions to a proposal of mine, and it just hit me that I don’t know this: What is common practice for changing a policy proposal’s formulation? Re-propose it? I presume editing it in place and leaving the reactions to its original wording is out of the question. —Frungi (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an old problem. Start a new proposal and you then have multiple proposals confusing and annoying many people. Stop the old proposal and restart a new one and it can get very confusing as to whether the old supporters still support. It can get very messy if old supported reject the changes. Its one of the problems of proposing, you have to have it perfect to start with.

I suggest that you edit the original proposal, using strikethrough and underlining or other methods to make it very clear what changes you made and when. Writing up the proposal in a box I think is helpful. Collapsing old and redundant proposal is also helpful. I recommend not doing too many things too quickly or you'll loose everybody. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I’ve edited it with <ins> and <del>, and hopefully it helps. —Frungi (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nicely worded! (I wish I'd said that.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw your irrelevant comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)‎. Note that we are not yet stating our preference. Could you please come back and say whether you support or oppose standardizing the dabs of this sort.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I said on 12 March. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe. I agree with you that this isn't necessarily speediable, and that we need to discuss it in only one place. Just for my own eductation where is it specified that we don't make content decisions at MFD, only at AFD? The MFD was already started and the author re-created it in the article space so I deleted the article to allow the MFD to finish, but I beleive you are saying it should be the other way around (promote to article, close the MFD early, and change to an AFD) - is that correct? I just want to make sure I am not prolonging the problem by suggesting that we finish the MFD first. Thanks  7  04:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seven. "We don't make content decisions at MFD" is not something I think is written, but something generally true. We have places, AfD, noticeboards such as RSN, for content decisions, and MfD is usually held for things with no other venue. I do recommend moving the MfD to AfD. Transfer the current content wholesale. MfDs have been moved to AfD without closing before. AfD will be a tougher test, but appropriate because the article is clearly intended for mainspace. The user's creation in userspace is essentially a statement contesting the speedy deletion.

If the discussion is to focus on whether the content is really speediable, I would be happy for some admins to discuss it at WP:AN. However, I think it fails the G10 "no other purpose" clause. I think the real question is whether this will ever be suitable for mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A more detailed reason is needed for your oppose, as the article was moved despite the majority being oppose.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smokey. I noticed this goof faith edit[2] and at the moment I don't wish to press on those articles especially as I am opposed to the current arrangement. Either way, your link was correct and it is nice to see some editors are familiar with accurate entities though it might be of interest to you to know that Milošević was President of Serbia 1990-1997 in which time the federal republic made the transition from SFR Yugoslavia to FR Yugoslavia. From 1997 to 2000 he became central president (of FRY), baring the title President of Yugoslavia. It was during the latter period his name became known to masses (Kosovo War 1998-99). To add it would produce clutter yet it is the more prominent period. So I'll leave it to you for how you may wish to deal with that. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think dab pages are very useful when they contain some words reminding the reader of which is which. Choosing a few words can be trickiest for someone with multiple epitaphs. I gave it a bit of thought, and thought the "president of Serbia" is sufficiently recognised to ensure that very few mistake which Slobodan this is. The birth-death years are more important. An "occupation" best known for is also important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair reasoning. Agree on life timeline also. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The answer is:

• (del/undel) (diff) 08:49, 18 April 2013 . . Proxima Centauri (talk | contribs | block) (33 bytes) (←Created page with 'What does this mean?')

Hope this answers your question. Bencherlite^Talk 09:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

—Darkwind (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to really know what you're doing at MfD. We need more people like that. TCN7JM 22:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Smokey, you're usually among the more sensible participants in discussions about title and style issues, as I recall it, and I appreciate that. So I'm a little puzzled to see you being taken in by the argument that the MOS might be somehow in conflict with or superceded by TITLE policy (in your comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Comment by uninvolved SmokeyJoe). This distinction between guideline and policy is often pointed to by those who don't like what the MOS says, and want to say something different in TITLE; but there is no actual conflict, since TITLE doesn't have anything to say about style (some of the related titling guidelines and conventions do, but to the extent that they do say something about styling, it is, or should be, in accord with the MOS). There is only one MOS, though parts of it have been broken out into separate pages; there was a move to re-org it that way, but it got stalled.

The biggest remaining problem in TITLE is that it contains so much that is guideline, and it's hard to see if there's actually much policy there; the guideline stuff gets touted as if policy, even though it doesn't much resemble anything else that we consider policy (like WP:V and WP:RS). Yet the anti-MOS few cling to that distinction is a their desparate attempts to denigrate the MOS, since they haven't been able to get a consensus to let style run wild, driven by random sources, or to outlaw dashes altogether, as both Born2cycle and Apteva have seriously proposed.

The ban in question, approved overwhelmingly by the community several months ago, is to restrain Apteva's 9-month reign of terror in title arguments and non-consensual moves, and his escalating advocacy at so many venues (including taking me to AE for pushing back on it). Look it over. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It was not my intention to comment on whether the MOS might be somehow in conflict with or superceded by TITLE policy. I am afraid that I count many MOS pages and connot agree that it is a single entity. I think that getting into MOS is so hard that it creates a biased subgroup of interested participants, very probably for the worse. I have previous thought (and said?) that much of WP:TITLE does not belong in policy, but should be sent to an appropriate guideline. I'm actually unfamiliar with positions, if any, of yourself, Apteva and B2C on MOS vi a vis WP:TITLE.

I am unfamiliar with a ban from months ago. I was completely unaware of something that could be called a "reign of terror". My point is little more than that if Apteva received a BOOMERANG response from a too-weak AE request, it was perhaps a bit clumsy of a response; and that if someone wants to make a case that a particular AE is unnecessary due to a commitment to a change in behaviour, I would AGF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, Is this largely about hypens/dashes? Note that I joined Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites some time ago. Should that category be renamed again, to have Sentence case? I maintain the same positions as expressed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_2#Category:Hyphen_Luddites. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, my big problems with both of these guys did start with their objections to en dashes. But B2C has been much worse in his minimalist titling algorithm efforts than in his anti-MOS efforts, and Apteva has just been a complete nut case with his thesis that the MOS doesn't apply to titles, and his many months of disruption in high venues over that. Every time he tries, he gets back a lot worse than he gave, yet he persists; the community is just not up for re-opening old settled arguments. As for en dashes, I understand that a lot of people don't know or like them, but I've used them all my professional career, since I've always had access to systems with good typography (starting with the Xerox Alto in the 1970s, then TeX, then Macintosh starting in 1984) and since I worked with a professional developmental editor who beat me up when I got it wrong, so I never thought there would be a time when everything I knew about English punctuation/typography relative to dashes would be overrun by typewriter/ASCII reactionaries. It boggles the mind. But so far the WP community has remained supportive of central style guideance, including normal ways of using dashes as supported by a range of style and usage guides; I would hate to see that erode, and for the professional look to be overrun by Vandals and Visigoths. As for your Luddite group, that predates my awareness of any community angst around such things. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

B2C’s minimalist titling is objectionable to me, and appears to be based upon some faulty reasoning, but I haven’t had time to study his explanation in detail.

Apteva, as I said elsewhere, comes across as tense, and even aggressive, but I have not found him or anything he pushes to be wholly objectionable. I have noticed friction with obvious history between you and him, though he seemed to be in friction with others generally. In case he is reading this, to be fair, I should say that I think you antagonise him.

I don’t think the Hyphen Luddites are angsty. I think we mean that we are unfamiliar with the fine details of proper use. I don’t resist it. I don’t fight Microsoft when it auto-formats dashes for me. I’ve started to understand the differences, and see the consistent usage in reputable publications, and the misuse in other places, which I don’t feel a need to point out.

As you know and care about good typography, what is you view on the use of italics for “Wikipedia” as being discussed now at Talk:Wikipedia. What about my personal opinion as expressed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a complicated one. I tend to agree that "We should prefer 'best practice' over 'standard practice'," at least when we know what that is. And I agree the Wikipedia is a major work of the sort that gets its title italicized usually. It's also a brand and an organization, which are things we don't usually italicize. I would tend to italicize when I meant the encyclopedia (the content, the work), but not when I mean the website, the organization, the phenomenon, etc. So I stayed out of that one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw your arguments regarding the proposed deletion of the old draft of the people notability standard. My motivation for making it clear that Wikiprojects do not have autonomous governance in the other MfD was somewhat motivated by what's going on with notability and the subject-specific notability standards. If we foster the idea that Wikiprojects "should not be micromanaged", that seems to me that we also endorse the idea that (for example) "baseball wikiproject members should control the baseball player notability standards", which seems to be the way that notability has been going in recent history, a development that I find to be highly detrimental to the encyclopedia as a whole. Gigs (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Which page are we talking about? The WP:Notability (people)/draft was nothing to do with a WikiProject. "WikiProjects should not be micromanaged" is something I say when someone nominates a random looking page in isolation from a WikiProject for a not very good reason, such as "no longer seems useful". The WikiProject should come to that decision, or at least a member of the WikiProject. Now, if a WikiProject page is causing actual problems, then yes, bring it to MfD. If a WikiProject page is being used or misused at AfD, then maybe it should be moved out of the WikiProject directory. However, WP:NFF is a well used and supported guideline, but being in a WikiProject page does seem to cause any problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, I was drawing a connection between the "List of California-related topics" MfD and the draft wp:bio MfD. I agree with you that deletion often serves no useful purpose and that some people bring stuff to MfD from purely an OCD-like tendency to want to "tidy up", so I see where you are coming from there. I don't know, maybe drawing a parallel there is too much of a stretch, but seeing your comments about keeping policy and guideline drafts so we can understand just how few people were involved with the drafting and adoption of them made me think of one of the things that leads me to often stress the lack of autonomy of wikiprojects. Gigs (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to formulate an opinion about the talk thread regarding WP:FAKEARTICLE and would like to know more about your comment. Specifically what are "ONEWORDS" ? Since I am probably not the only one who does not know, it might help someone else if you post your reply below your comment, but I'll watch here too in case you prefer that approach NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. "ONEWORDS" is something I coined for a very large number of single word all caps shortcuts, such as WP:FAKEARTICLE, that can be found in most sections of most policies and guidelines. Typically, they are a single word, or a compound word, sometimes are only tenuously related to the subject of what they anchor to. Supposedly used to facilitate reference to specific points of policy, I think they are overused and misused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As the creator of WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:STALEDRAFT, I never expected them to be so widely used and abused. The reason I created them was because we only had UP#COPIES pointing to that section of policy, but the policy had expanded to cover things like very old drafts that weren't necessarily copies of articles, as well as "faux articles", that seemed to be hosted indefinitely in userspace in an phishing-like attempt to defraud potential readers into believing that their product/service/biography merited a Wikipedia article.

FAKEARTICLE is probably the more abused one, because it's only supposed to refer to a somewhat uncommon situation where someone is hosting something in userspace with the intent to decieve readers into thinking it's a neutral and notable article. Gigs (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello SmokeyJoe. You participated in the move review at Wikipedia:Move review#Sanjeev Nanda. Since that moment, someone else has moved the article to Sanjeev Nanda hit-and-run case. Let me know if you find that to be an acceptable title. If so I may be able to close the issue. I also asked Titodutta what he thinks. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your question here had me confused for some time. I only particpated in the MR after the article was moved. I think the move is a good idea, as it looks OK, was supported, and was unopposed. Closing the MR was a good thing to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the comment you left on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calcutta time as you left it two hours after the discussion was closed as withdrawn. If you absolutely must express your opinion on keeping the article (which was in agreement with the deletion outcome anyways) let me know and we can figure out the best place to put it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider supporting "Reformed Presbyterianism" in light of my response to your question on Thursday? If so, I would like to request that the closer reopen discussion. --JFH (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. I think you should work on improving the article first. Add more independent references, and make it clearer as to what the exact topic is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The expression of preferences for which of the two proposed titles to adopt is fairly close. It would be helpful if you could indicate on the article talk page which of the two proposals would be your preference. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, your recent DRV comment here got deleted by an IP-user. Could it be a sock or meat puppet of Curb Chain? I dunno...it's weird though. I don't have the editing authority to restore it at my end. Guy1890 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

--Bejnar (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi SmokeyJoe I think that regardless of the outcome of the move review of Moctezuma II we should make an RfC at WP:COMMONNAME to somehow clarify how the policy is to be interpreted - whether prioritizing scholarly literature and the usage in sources that can be used for writing the article should not be prioritized. I don't know exactly how to phrase the RfC though, so any suggestions or help would be valuable. I don't want it to be simply an RfC about the Moctezuma move discussion, but I am interested in the larger policy implications for a wide range of article about Native American historical figures that have different names in layman's discouse and in scholarly literature. I was also a little dismayed by the closer's apparent partiality to the argument with which (s)he agreed, but that is unfortunately just business as usual. What matters is that we get a clear consensus that scholarly literature can and should, at least sometimes, be prioritized over layman's usage when the two differ. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am still thinking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, SmokeyJoe. The article List of military slang terms was recently merged to Military slang as you recommended at Talk:List of military slang terms#Requested move. As a result, Military slang now consists mainly of commentary on the merged lexical items. The lead section of the article does reflect the article's actual content, nor does it discuss the concept of military slang in a manner proportionate to the lexical content. Assistance you can provide in repairing and expanding Military slang, especially its lead section, will be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

My problem is not so much that you're trying to find a way to talk to me. I just think dragging up an RFC/U on me from over a year ago, particularly one that failed to express any sort of consensus on me, good or bad, was a little over the line. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"However, there is room for further discussion outside the RM process." What did you have in mind? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP. I notify you about this because you has participated in at least one RM discussion in which PDAB is cited (in any form). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D or to ignore this message. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please remember to Comment on content, not on the contributor, especially on project talk pages[3]. Thank you. --B2C 17:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your advocated approach to no consensus closes, combative, non-relenting, and perverse legalistic deterministic view on "consensus" is very bad advice, liable to mislead others into bad behaviour, and I stand by my statement. You may take reference to your approaches as personal or not, but I am not commenting on you innate nature, but what you are advocating. Others more right about specific things than you are currently banned for similarly non-relenting pushing until they win. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether such statements are fair or reasonable is not the issue. It's WHERE you are making them that is the problem. Make them on my talk page. Continue discussion of our discussion about this issue at User_talk:Born2cycle/Yogurt_Principle#Userfied. Follow WP:DR. But do not make critical statements about me or any other contributors on article or policy talk pages. --B2C 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Second NPA violation in one day[4]. Again: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Is this a test? --B2C 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Any statement of the form, "[Name] has a poor appreciation of ..." is commenting on the person. Whether the comment is about that person's "innate nature" is irrelevant. It's still personal and a criticism - that makes it a personal attack. By the way, you seem to have very little idea regarding what I appreciate and why, much less how much. --B2C 23:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. How about: "[Name] exhibits an appreciation of the spirit WP:Consensus, and here expresses views that I consider to be wrong, and so I consider that his advice here referencing that policy to be poor advice, and further, I think it very likely that following his advice will get you into trouble." If you wish to talk about the substance of this, I think the crux of the matter is that you have a deterministic view on consensus, while I think the view that there is a deterministic consensus to be discovered on a particular pre-defined question is most definitely contrary to the spirit of WP:Consensus."

More recently, your advice to others that that it is unreasonable to be told to stop repeating a proposal/discussion, and that it is OK to continue immediately after a "no consensus" close, is advice contradicting accepted behavioural norms. It has got you into trouble in the past, I expect it to again, and if you post advice like you do, I expect you'll lead others into the same trouble.

As a similar case study, I could point to my friend User:Abd. He was, in my opinion, like you mostly but not entirely right in his views, and prone to verbosity and repetition. (actually, he was definitely worse at verbosity and repetition). By being largely right, he could be not rejected entirely and cleanly. In the end, he wore everyone out. The message: Repetition, different forums, different methods/tactics toward the same goal that failed previously, are a behaviour that is not advisable.

I do have trouble inferring your motivations and intentions. Very often, you seem to have a motivation, a POV, that is not openly stated. For example, [5]. "Hopefully some day" [the community will realise that] HC [is one of the] "Current violations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (topics treated as primary that are not primary)". What?!?! "Hillary Rodham Clinton" doesn't meet what definition of PT? It may fail a conciseness criterion, but you can say "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to the world and they will overwhelmingly know who you are talking about. This suggests to me (as part of a trend) that you like to grasp policy buzzwords to push a barrow. My current best guess is that you barrow is an upweighting of the conciseness criteria. If so, why??? You appear to have an unfathomable motivation, and it makes me distrust you.

The above lies under the higher heading, "User:Born2cycle#Persistence_pays". Persistence [against the community, which is how I read it] is a quality that I thing is not particularly admirable. Negative, actually. "Pays". What is your reward? It speaks to some external hidden agenda. It tells me that you have goals that are opposed by consensus at this time (note WP:CCC), but that you are rewarded when a page titling objective is achieved (OK), but without reference to learning by the community that is required to achieve a true change in consensus. You would be less offensive if you did not gloat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the source of the words in square brackets? The PT for both HRC and HC is the same... The former secretary if state. The problem with HRC is not a violation of PT. HC meets COMMONNAME better and is more concise, and is arguably more natural and arguably even more recognizable. Hopefully a closer of a future HC/HRC discussion ( and there will be more, repeatedly, until the title changes to HC - I'm as sure about this as I was about Yogurt) will realize that community consensus favors HC. --B2C 04:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Words in square brackets "[]" are my guess, assumed reasonable, for connecting words to make sense of the quotes. If the words in square brackets are not agreed, then I misunderstand.

"The PT for both HRC and HC is the same". As at WT:DAB you and others are putting "PT" to various conflicting uses. Does a term have a PT, or does a topic have a PT term? Is a PT a term or a topic?

HC is more concise, that is a fact.

"HS meets COMMONNAME better" That is an opinion. The line of debate I joined was that if you weight usage by reliability of the sources, and choosing introductory usages over repeated usage in the body of texts, HRC is used more than HC. So what do you mean by "HC meets COMMONNAME better", do you mean this as asserted fact or as opinion?

I think there won't be conflict, largely due to the maturity encouraged by the mere existence of WP:MR. Separately, I don't think HRC is oddly offensive to wikipedia-cultural sensitivities as was yoghurt. There was a procedural wrong in the history of the yogurt title. There is no such procedural wrong in the history of the the title of the HRC biography. Ivory Coast had a different reason for irritation to the cultural norms.

Do you seriously assert that the community currently holds a consensus favouring as a title HC over HRC? If so, I think you are plain wrong, and wrong specifically about the meaning of WP:Consensus.

If you think that a future discussion will find a particular consensus, for whatever reason, then I can respect that as an opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The words you inserted in square brackets are way off. Let me clarify.

My original words, with headings and text for context.

Persistence Pays

All these articles are now stable at their current titles, but it was difficult to get them to be moved, sometimes taking many years of effort before those who stubbornly objected to these moves finally conceded, were outnumbered, or were overruled by a thoughtful closer who paid more attention to policy and strength of argument than !vote counts.

[list of a dozen examples]

Hopefully Some Day

• Hillary Rodham Clinton → Hillary Clinton

Your interpretation:

"Hopefully some day" [the community will realise that] HC [is one of the] "Current violations of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (topics treated as primary that are not primary)".

What I thought was obvious:

"Hopefully some day" [the community will recognize that] HC [meets WP:CRITERIA significantly better than HRC], so the article will be moved to HC where it will remain uncontroversial and stable.

To argue that HRC meets COMMONNAME better than does HC, not only do you have to restrict your sources to introductory paragraphs, but you have to cherry pick your sources. So far as I know, there is no recognized continuum of source reliability , especially in the context of establishing usage in reliable source for the purpose of title determination. Either a source is reliable or it is not... and we look at usage in all RS, not weighting usage by some subjective estimate of reliability.

As to your questions...

Q: Does a term have a PT, or does a topic have a PT term?

A: Terms used as titles or redirects in WP all refer to topics of articles. Some of those topics are primary for one or more terms. A given term have have zero or one PTs. I can't think of why it would ever be useful to put it this way, but I suppose you can say that topics have PT terms. For example, the topic of the article at New York City has several dozen PT terms in addition to New York City, from New York city, New York City, USA and New York City, New York to New your city and New York City, U.S.

Q: Is a PT a term or a topic?

A: Well, PT stands for Primary Topic... so a PT is a topic (a topic of an article - what that article is about - to be precise). This is fundamental to understanding and appreciating WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Yes, I think community consensus, as reflected in policy, especially at WP:CRITERIA, and applied to the HRC/HC situation, clearly shows that community consensus favors HC over HRC. This is not just my opinion; it was the finding of closer Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs) [6]. Yes, that close was overturned, but not because his argument analysis was faulted (it seems to not even have been considered). Obi's close was overturned because the RM Reviewer apparently valued the consensus of the self-selected relatively small sample of participants over the community consensus as reflected in the arguments made by the participants. It's the same error made at 6 of the 8 Yogurt RMs.

The interesting thing is that in Yogurt RM #2 the closer did what Obi did in this HRC/HC close (determining community consensus by evaluating arguments), and correctly found community consensus as reflected in policy to be in favor of moving to Yogurt, but that too was overturned (that was before we had a formal RM review, so it was overturned by a "no consensus" finding, based on counting !votes rather than argument evaluation, in RM #3). I believe that RM #2 decision, had it not been overturned, would have resulted in a non-controversial/stable title of Yogurt years earlier. After all, there was no significant change in community consensus as reflected in policy over those years - so there is no evidence that consensus changed. And I also believe that had Obi's decision not been overturned, we would have had a stable/non-controversial title there too, with Hillary Clinton, as favored by community consensus. I predict it will remain controversial/unstable at HRC because sound policy-based arguments exist favoring its move to HC. However, once it is moved to HC, that will no longer be the case, and it will finally be stable and uncontroversial, just like Yogurt is stable and noncontroversial, for the same basic reasons.

As to my motivations and intentions, there should be no need to infer! Please read my user page and FAQ! In fact, I'm about to update the FAQ. --B2C 22:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, after I wrote all of that I went back to my user page and noticed I had the HRC/HC move listed under the section for problems with primary topics. That was under the wrong section! I fixed it... so thanks, and sorry for the confusion that causes! --B2C 22:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

-- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please join us at Wikipedia talk:Consensus regarding your recent changes to WP:CONSENSUS. Your changes have been contended by me. Per WP:IAR and WP:AGF you did not violate any policies whatsoever, but it is advised that we discuss them first before implementing them. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This ANI report (opened by PantherLeapord) refers to a recent move review that you participated in. I am posting here because you (alongside SmokeyJoe) are the two commentators whom requested an explanation from the original closer without following up. It would be nice if you can comment at the ANI report. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Notifying all users that were involved in the same discussion a few weeks ago which involved deletion of this category. Technical 13 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal for a new rule for media adaptations and multimedia franchises, where the apparent inconsistency in results has been noted between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Nightmare on Elm Street (disambiguation) (deleted by unanimous agreement) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident Evil (disambiguation) (kept by a substantial consensus). Since you participated in one of these discussions, you may wish to contribute to our efforts to craft a useful compromise with respect to the proposal under discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a huge point but all the !voters before you in this discussion who used the opening "support" followed with support for the appeal, For the benefit of casual readers, would you consider changing from "Support the ban" to "Oppose unbanning"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28, would you object to putting the word "Delete" or "Keep" in bold at the start of your comment? I missed it when I did a rough count. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nannadeem (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks referring me to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Could you please brief me something more about it. Do you not think my case to be placed for arbitration, please advise me. Thanks for sparing your precious time.Nannadeem (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nannadeem. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 31, I agree with User:S Marshall, as I usually do. Your story, although fantasy immediately obvious to me to be inconsistent with evidence, is surprisingly novel and interesting. You should publish it. On a blog, or someone else's blog, or on your facebook page. Not on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia does publish original work, it only publishes coverage of topics commented on by multiple others. At Wikipedia:Alternative outlets you can find some information that may help you choose some other place to publish. You have no serious case for Wikipedia-arbitration, your work is so clearly outside of what Wikipedia publishes. I've placed a Welcome message on your talk page that contains links that may help you in better understanding Wikipedia. If you prefer blunt direct statements, you might like to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)