User talk:Agnosticaphid/Archive 1

Hello, somebody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercad (talk • contribs)  23:04, 28 February 2009

adding someone else's signature on talk pages
Hi - I saw your question about how to add sigs on unsigned talk page comments. The template is  and the way you do it is to add a "pipe" followed by the user ID (or IP number). So if I wanted to add your sig I would type    with the curly braces and it  would appear as  " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnosticaphid (talk • contribs) "     Hope this helps. Tvoz / talk 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That is very helpful.  I'd vaguely recalled seeing older and wiser editors add signatures before -- now I can do it myself! Agnosticaphid (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What's in your Name?
I can figger out "agnostic" but what about the "-aphid"? Do you mean the little tiny bugs? Cheers Bellagio99 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court case drive
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help


 * Help me improve this Template:Infobox SCOTUK casetemplate based off the US Supreme Court equivalent.


 * Complete that template and add it to existing cases.


 * Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.


 * Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking


 * Create new articles for UKSC cases


 * Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.


 * Improve the judgment listings articles: 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

hello
Hi there, thanks for saying that you'd support The Human Centipede (First Sequence) being on the Main Page this year for Halloween. I just thought I'd let you know that I've formally nominated it now, so if you could repeat your support on the nomination page it would be really helpful. The page is at Today's featured article/requests. Thanks! cya Coolug (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Revisit the RfC for Notability (astronomical objects)?
Hi Agnosticaphid, you indicated that you were generally supportive of this proposed guideline in a section of its talk page. Would you consider returning to the RfC to leave a vote of support in the comments section of the RfC? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! AstroCog (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams
Thank you for your comment at the conflict-of-interest board. This type posting is recommended by Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution to encourage other interested parties to provide opinions. See WP:DR. Pkeets (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization
As mentioned on my talk page, when I brought up the issue, there was nothing about MOS at WP:Naming conventions (music) when the topic was brought up. I would like to remind you that if you think I was skirting my topic ban the places to bring that up are at my talk page or at WP:ANI, and never as a part of an article or guideline discussion. That talk page is solely and only for discussing the guideline, and not editor conduct.

Unless we are actually transcluding a subpage, it is not a good idea to repeat information in more than one place, as it constitutes a content fork. The example of Korn at the top of the section is good, and a section on disambiguation is fine, but not capitalization, which is covered elsewhere. Apteva (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that while of course personal attacks are unacceptable, it's not really the same thing for me to point out that you're topic banned from the MOS. The whole point of a ban is that the community thought you were being disruptive in MOS-related matters. So why should I be forbidden from pointing that out when you propose things that clearly implicate the MOS? I don't think it's a personal attack to point out that the proposal sprang from one with a flawed view of the MOS. So please refrain from unilaterally removing my comments. Thanks! Finally, for the record, please also refrain from making edits like this one. Obviously it violated the spirit of you being "banned indefinitely ... from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles." You explained your edit on the talk page by saying that we shouldn't "create" a new title by imposing capitalization rules on articles titles involving band or song names. It seems to me that that constitutes "advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles." AgnosticAphid talk 07:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk page guidelines make it clear what talk pages are for and how they are to be used. They are not for bickering about "aren't you supposed to be topic banned from this". They are for discussing the topic. If someone is topic banned from MOS and has a discussion about MOS (that discussion was about titles, not MOS), then the place to bring that up is on their talk page, or at ANI or AE. In consensus decision making comments are only directed to the group, not to another participant. Doing that allows everyone to be involved equally in the decision making process. The same rule applies to the other method of group decision making, parliamentary, which requires that all comments are directed not to other participants, but to the chair/moderator/clerk etc. Both methods prohibit incivility and personal attacks. WP is currently discussing how to "enforce" civility, in an ongoing RfC, per ARB motion February 2012, "The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions." Current policy is that "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." Current policy on dealing with incivility states "Ask them to strike out an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally, if they haven't already done so by this point." My experience is that re-wording is not as advisable as simply removing it, using the redacted template, which replaces it with (Redacted), but that of course is also rewording. In extreme cases, oversighting or WP:Revision deletion is done instead, particularly if personal information is included. In other cases it is sufficient to reword, delete, hat, or archive the inappropriate discussion. It is inexcusable to simply allow such behavior. We are all here to improve the encyclopedia, not to call each other names or bicker with each other. There are plenty of other forums where that is done, but not Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're banned from advocating not to apply the MOS to article titles. You advocated not following the MOS's capitalization rules with regard to music-related article titles.  That violates your topic ban.  I still think that it is fair for me to point that out.  I wasn't making a derogatory comment about you.  I said that your edits violated the topic ban.  Obviously this is a fine line but I am willing to defend my position on the correct side of it.  I don't see the point of having topic bans if we are forbidden from informing other editors about them.  And I'm not really interested in undertaking an exciting journey into the waters of ANI.  AgnosticAphid  talk 18:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is prohibited from informing other editors about violations, even when they clearly are not a violation (in this case, for example), but only on their talk page (or at ANI and posting a link on their talk page to the discussion). For example, lets say there is an article about Gaza, and someone who is topic banned from all articles pertaining to Israelis/Palestinians. How does it involve improving the article to point out the ban violation? It is a distraction and prevents discussion about the actual topic. I am not taking any position on how band names are capitalized. I am unequivocally stating that we already have a page for that determination, at WP:NCCAPS, and there is nothing unique about the capitalization of bands that warrants what thus becomes solely a content fork. It is not like, say bird names, which are treated differently. And saying something to the effect of "I am not going to have a conversation with someone who..." is wrong on many levels. Apteva (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel like there would be value in informing people that someone who contributed to the Gaza article is banned from Israeli/Palestinian articles because then the rest of the contributors will view the contribution with skepticism, as they should. If comments about bans are limited to user talk pages, that's not possible.
 * It also seems to me that you were taking a position on how to capitalize the articles. You were not just saying, "oh this section is redundant in light of all of our other rules, so let's delete it."  You argued that the section should be removed because if we followed the MOS' rules on capitalization we'd be "making up song titles and band names."  While it's true that finding a violation in your edit requires making an inference about your purpose in making the edit (namely, why you think we're currently "making up" the names), I think that in light of your history it is fair to infer that you think the names are being made up because they're wrongly capitalized.  For instance, you made very similar arguments about how using the "wrong" type of dash constituted "making up" names of comets.  So, I think all things considered that you're in direct violation of your topic ban.
 * Nonetheless, you're right that it's poor form to dismiss contributors. I was trying to dismiss your contribution, not you.  I seem to have given you the opposite impression and for that I apologize.  AgnosticAphid  talk 18:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with dismissing contributions, but it is the contribution that needs to be the focus, not who made the contribution, and needs to be done on a contribution by contribution basis on its merits alone, and is not fair to anyone to say "I am not going to pay attention to anything you say only because you said it." To color comments on the basis of them being from a problematic editor is a huge problem, and to notify the group that someone is participating that needs to have their comments dismissed is highly inappropriate. Focus on the merits of the discussion, not on the contributors. We do strike comments of editors not eligible to vote, for example, at RfA, but I am not aware of striking talk page comments made by banned editors. They tend to get blocked quickly, to stop that from continuing. In consensus decision making the premise is made that everyone is equal and is provided the same treatment as everyone else. The original reason (400 years ago) for using consensus decision making was that there was and could be only one correct decision, and the decision making process existed solely to find out what that was. Today as then consensus decision making is used to allow large groups to listen carefully to dissenting views regardless of who held the view. I seem to recall multiple cartoons involving scientists trying to solve a problem on a blackboard and a janitor inadvertently providing the key solution. Apteva (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  bold justice

Thank you for dealing with MOS questions, for tireless copy-editing behind the scenes, and for entering a scene with ], worded with a sense of justice that even I understand, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! AgnosticAphid talk 14:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI (Wagner talk page)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Smerus (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My RfA
I should have thanked you for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven   Talk  12:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * oh, of course. I'm sorry it didn't work out. AgnosticAphid  talk 14:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * 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, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

AP list exempt from the comma convention
Hi Agnosticaphid. What do you mean by your name? Do you have a nick name? You Reverted good faith edits by SmokeyJoe (talk): "This is a terrible example because NYC is on the AP list exempt from the comma convention. (TW))" Associated Press?  Can you point me to the AP list exempt from the comma convention.  I have so far been deliberately avoiding paying attention to comma conventions, but am interested this time.  Thanks  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe, the list itself is here. There was a super duper long discussion about USPLACE and the AP list exception recently that you can read here, too.  My name's just pretty arbitrary. AgnosticAphid  talk 15:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there have been so many discussions about this that I actually linked the wrong one. The "original recent" discussion is here; the one I linked is a more brief follow-up.  AgnosticAphid  talk 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 and commas
Thank you for your message on my talk page. Yes, I am totally surprised to learn of the mindless, asinine wikirule at MOS:LQ, which is a prescription for chaos and confusion; and I see now that all the many, many hours of my leisure time I have spent copyediting articles has been a shameful, foolish waste of time. So now that you have enlightened me to this provision of the MOS, I am tossing my blue pencil in the trash can, and I will in future devote my leisure hours to activities that actually serve some good purpose, which copyediting Wikipedia obviously does not.

Thank you again - I am truly grateful that you opened my eyes to this astonishing misperception on my part. I will not copyedit Wikipedia articles again, ever, except perhaps my own - but why bother even doing that, when others will just come along and mess the hell out of whatever I do? Textorus (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, but I'm not going to read the discussion - long experience has taught me there's no point in going there. There is a wikirule, and you are right and I am wrong, so whatever I think doesn't matter.  I know too that all resistance is futile, so while I sit quietly waiting for the assimilation squad to arrive, I will confine my edits to purely factual corrections - at least until I'm informed there's a rule against that.  So thanks again for opening my eyes to the futility of what I've been doing, which is quite a relief, actually:  no more fretting and fussing over minute punctuation marks, grammar, and spelling, which nobody in their right mind gives a shit about anyway.  And by serendipity, today is my seventh wikibirthday, so it's obviously a sign that I need to move on to more constructive, genuinely helpful things, like making pictures of lolcats or something.  But I've repented the error of my ways here, and I'm over it.  Textorus (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Agnosticaphid. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea
Thanks for your comment. Everything got closed. Oh well. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA
I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#En dash vs. "and" for multi-state metro areas
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Herostratus (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)