User talk:Anastrophe/Archive 2022

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Tables of contents
Many devices and PCs only read down the first level of TOC. Not to sub-headings. And a subject notable enough to have its own sub-heading may have one. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Blended Archive
The next few entries are archived fro the anonymous user's talk page; the user's IP changes frequently, and I rarely engage in talk outside of article talk pages, so figured I'd copy it here for "Posterior", heh. Begin:

(I'm responding inline as well, simply for convenience, and since this isn't a more formal discussion. Hopefully it remains readable. As well, I acknowledge that your IP may change; I personally prefer to keep my talk page clear, and rarely engage in cross-user-talk page discussions. If you are inclined, I'm willing to move all of this over to my talk page for the time being.)

((I see just now by the edit history on Maus that your IP does appear to change almost daily; feel free to drop a response on my page regarding moving the conversation there for the time being))

Chill out
In response to your screed, though I doubt you'll read it:

Why do you think it proper for you to change ref names from the wp-appointed names?
 * Because 9,999 times out of 10000, editors use actually meaningful short names for references.


 * We might consider thinking of policy and practical reasons. First, wp often assigns the ref name. Not the editor. Second, what is the basis for your statistics? I think you made that up. Third, why is one ref name chosen over another? Have you considered that.


 * From my experience, and only my experience, I've never used any of these tools that automate some of the tasks, I do it by brute force. So, I've never experienced WP 'assigning' a ref name. What I have experienced is editing a vast number of articles, wherein ref names are simply short mnemonic words, frequently the abbreviation of a source like NYT or more specifically NYTjan22 or some such, for convenient reference while editing. So, I was unaware even of this functionality. I find 'autox' harder to deal with and follow - scanning content that I'm editing, seeing 'CNN' or 'Spectator' &c differentiates them - visually, to me - better than numerous 'autox' scattered about in no obvious order.


 * As for the 'statistic', I was merely putting it colloquially. I pulled it out of my ass. This article and section - believe it or not - is the first time I've seen sources with ref names as 'autox'. I've been editing here many years.


 * You seem to be inclined to try to insert your voice into an article that is meant not to be a platform for your voice. Not just here, but in your elsewhere calling lazy those RS sources that quite properly follow the dictionary definition of the word ban. They are not lazy. They are correct. You, fellow editor, are not above all of those RSs. And it is what they say that is important.


 * I have long quibbled about the over-use of the word 'ban', but it is a personal quibble. I feel gives a sense of extremity to where it overstates it. I acknowledge that the sources are using it; thus why I have left alone your reverts back to 'ban'. I don't think that any of my edits overtly put the article in 'my voice'. I'm trying to find balance. The school district has fewer than 6,000 students over twelve grades. So the real impact is (or at least was) perhaps of several dozen students not being able to read Maus in their 8th grade english class. It is still not patently clear whether Maus is "banned" district wide; from the transcript, it sounds as if it is used in history classes in the ninth grade - but it is not specifically discernable, which I why I reverted my OR on the matter.


 * I offer that there is no practical or policy rationale for changing the ref name. It is not meant to be your platform. And as stated, you increase risk of errors.


 * Again, per above. I've been going by my past experience, and I don't believe I've been distorting the content with my personal opinions. The vast majority of cites I've come across in the last fifteen years have just been mnemonic, not 'autox'.


 * BTW, as my computer service forces my ip address to change periodically (not my doing), would probably have been better to keep this on your talk page. Otherwise, it would be fine with me.


 * As up top, just let me know.

What makes you believe that your choice is better than that of WP?
 * What makes you think that your use of automated convenience tools overrides using meaningful short names for references?


 * 1. There is no support for the notion, certainly you have not linked to any, that the purpose of the ref name is to communicate (to editors who click in?) something "meaningful." No support.


 * As above. 'mnemonic' is perhaps the better word.


 * 2. There is a very practical reason for not making unnecessary edits. They introduce the possibility of errors. You are human, and have not been above them (as you point out below), neither am I. This is why we were gloves in surgery, and seatbelts in cars - to reduce the possiblity of errors impacting us adversely .. though usually its a non-issue. Same here.


 * We'll have to agree to disagree on whether my edits have been 'unnecessary'.


 * 3. This reminds me of an editor I came across who was intent on changing cite to Cite. Or the other way around. Can't recall.


 * I acknowledge that it may have disrupted your workflow. The change has enhanced mine. I don't think the effect has been dramatic either way, but c'est la vie.


 * 4. I applaud gnome like behavior, and can fall into it myself. But when it is to the benefit, bottom line, of wp. Not the other way around.

What makes you think that the purpose of the ref name is to convey information or editorialization about the text?
 * Please, do tell what "editorializing" I have engaged in with any of the short names. Please take the umbrage down a notch. A ref name is indeed most often used as easy shorthand for cites. auto1, auto2, auto59 are emphatically not helpful to other editors.


 * You refer, even above, to your desire to have the ref name be "meaningful." That's what I am referring to. Your insertion of meaning. Which you wish to convey. Though it is unclear how many people you think even read a ref name. And why you should desire to convey "meaning" to them. And whether that is appropriate.


 * As above. 'meaningful' wasn't the correct word. Simple mnemonic characterizes it better. None of my ref names have imposed any opinion into the editable text.

As you from time to time make errors, which is of course human, you are on the downside creating more work for those who need to make sure that ones dont creep into this other needless/questionable exercise.
 * You have made more than your share of errors too, as you are of course human also. That you perceive it as 'more work for you' is immaterial, since this is a collaborative medium, and there are other editors besides yourself working here. Try to be less self-centered on this work, and more collegial, please.


 * I certainly, as I note above and as you point out (helpfully; thank you) below, make my share of errors.
 * It is more work for the editors of the Project. That is material. Especially because it is needless work, that you are creating. Just as when you separate sentences from their refs, etc. These acts serve to increase the number of potential errors at the project. Without any - any - palpable benefit.


 * I will try to do better. As far as more work or less work, I think we're dealing with nothing more than personal preference, as I explained above.

Absent satisfactory answers, I would suggest that you reconsider and stop the practice. There is no upside to it. And there is a downside
 * This sounds remarkably like a threat. Threats are not encouraged here; in fact, they are discouraged. I'd recommend you lighten up. I'm trying to make the section more neutral. That is the sine qua non here.
 * It's not a threat. A threat would be something like "If you don't, I will do something bad, which you will not like." It is, as self-described, a suggestion. Suggestions are not threats. We all know that if an editor wishes to raise an issue to other editors, or admins, there are places to do that, and it is easy for an editor to say "if you don't, I will follow wp procedures for dispute resolution, including x and y." That would be a threat of a sort, though in that manner perhaps a quite appropriate one - we have templates that all the time communicate in that manner to editors who make edits that are seen as bad for the project. But I didn't even say that. I simply made a suggestion. Thinking that, here's an editor who is well-intentioned, why not take the time to convey my thinking, and beyond that to suggest an altering in course of action.
 * What is "remarkably" ... not even faintly, in your subjective view, but remarkably .. like a threat?
 * I am happy to retract my entire, clearly mistaken as you have clarified, impression that it was a threat.


 * I love the fact that you use that Latin phrase. Though I think it's not the correct usage of it.


 * It's sort of a mixed, colloquial usage. I could have written it as 'one of' the sine qua nons, but that also isn't a 'correct' usage of it outside of conversation (a la 'unique' used relentlessly incorrectly likely one million times per day around the globe [yes, another faux 'statistic'!]. I was trying to be a bit more emphatic - 'one of the pillars' would have conveyed it better.


 * The change we are discussing does not make the section "more neutral" - which is what you close by saying is the sine quo non here.
 * It's a pleasure chatting. Have a nice day.


 * I was referring to the entire sphere of edits on the section of the article over the last couple of days, not that one specific instance.

Anastrophe (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad edit
You may wish to fix this edit - you reverted yourself instead of doing what you had stated you trying to do in the edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maus&diff=prev&oldid=1069159599&diffmode=source cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Kind of you.2603:7000:2143:8500:6515:C8D4:8E35:FDE7 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

On a personal note...
I've had my share of umbrage bubble up as well; we're human, it happens. I apologize if my tone in various places has been confrontational. The section, for the most part, is well written at this point - and it's been done collaboratively (though with unnecessary use of abrasives, heh). I still maintain that this will fade from the headlines in relatively short order; school districts the world over have been removing "objectionable" text based upon age-appropriateness for ages, and around the world (good luck getting Maus added to the curriculum in Iranian grade schools!). But time will be the ultimate arbiter. I will do my best to try to be less confrontational, as I would ask that you do as well. On an entirely separate note: I respect an editor's right to remain anonymous, though I have assorted quibbles with how it's employed here on wikipedia (the vast number of vandalism incidents are from bare IP's, which causes a generally negative presumption). It is worth noting however that an editor is less anonymous when they remain an IP address; IP addresses are often, though not always, geographically identifiable. If you employ a username, that is obliterated from public view. Just a datapoint. Anastrophe (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Apologies if my tone or content has been "rough language." I will try to refrain from using the word d*amn.


 * Gotta admit, that's a good one!


 * My experience -- an event that attracts more than twice the view over days of the sitting and prior US president, combined, does not fade from view within a month. Which is the focus of wp:recentism. Which of course is not a policy. But an essay. The view of one or two editors. If someone wanted to make an entire article about this, and not simply a section that is a fraction of the article in which it resides (and sits rather unobtrusively mid article, sections down).


 * The ip issue is an interesting one. What I see is that there is discrimination by some editors against ips. Which is contrary to wp policy. But its a fact. Anyway, yes, thanks for your note on geographical identification. I hadn't realized that editors could see that I am editing from a prison cell in Tehran. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4988:58A5:565D:7845 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, that prison cell in Tehran...Avenue in Rochester, New York, heh.


 * There is indeed a knee-jerk response to IP editors. I can only say that on the rare occasion I come across actual, thoughtful edits from an IP user, it tends to take me by surprise, due to its rarity.
 * I appreciate your willingness to engage here. I hope we've found a little common ground here, and move forward without the unneeded use of 'abrasives' in cleaning up and refining the content. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think we've been searching for the right forum. We've both used edit summaries to communicate. I have a sense that overloading an article talk page is a disservice to other editors if we can address a matter inter se. Only problem is I may lose track of where this page is. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4988:58A5:565D:7845 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Steven Crowder
Hi Anastrophe, no worries. I agree that it will be a good idea to incorporate the content about Steve Crowder infiltrating a Fat studies conference into the "Louder with Crowder" section since that YouTube video would have been part of that series. Might also trim it down as well. Andykatib 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There's also a handful of grammatical/typographic errors, but I couldn't understand what the intent was. But yeah, it falls into the LwC section pretty much. Main thing is appropriate weight. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Anastrophe, thanks I have removed the grammatical errors in the revised version, which went into the LwC section. This paragraph on his response to fat studies could be relevant to a few areas including Crowder's social media activism, conservative critiques of fat studies, and could also go into the fat studies section of Cat Pausé's article, given that she was a target of Crowder's activism. I have to admit I am no expert on the Culture Wars. Andykatib (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes. The quote from the Massey representative may be problematic however. Her claims are based upon the Youtube comments, not Crowder; youtube comments are generally speaking a cesspool across the entire youtube platform, and I don't think it will pass muster conjoining criticism of the comments with Crowder himself in terms of BLP. But I'm not sure. Maybe it should be discussed on the article talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that it will be best to discuss this issue on the article talk page. Andykatib (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 10:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Pulse oximetry
Thank you for your support. I feel happy :-) 85.193.215.210 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Marlon Brando
You helped me, now I helped you. I am almost sure that the IP 195.224.241.178 and 86.187.235.123 belong to the same user, which is known as WP:LTA/BKFIP. See also here. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fallen Astronaut
Hello. The date you reverted at Fallen Astronaut may be correct, please doublecheck the Apollo 15 article (I checked and the IP seemed to have it right but another look could help). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Randy Kryn Thanks will double- triple-check shortly. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn I've posted an inquiry over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight, as it is a confusing matter. Hopefully clarity will arise in short order!  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you have to be such a schnootz?
Nobody is laughing at you, or calling you a "stupid American". Nobody committed "gross incivility to the primary readership of en.wikipedia.org". A good advice essay I found is WP:Grow a thick skin. It's really hard for me to believe you've been here for over 17 years, and call yourself "a general reader". With over 17,000 edits under our belts, we are editors, and have a bit more responsibility than that.
 * In general, we should be tolerant of IP editors. They are not all vandals or trolls. This person happened to have a valid point and caught a mistake on the page, even if he didn't express it in a "100% civil" manner. There is no evidence he was making "a weak attempt to screw with people". You're the one "fighting incivility with incivility", not me.
 * There is a good reason for our Talk page etiquette guideline on editing others' comments.
 * Whether you use Google or not, if you just say "convert 126 degrees F to C" then Google doesn't know you don't mean temperature difference and it makes the same error. I don't believe for a minute that an "average reader" would run to Google after reading that phrase in the article.
 * If you don't understand the difference between temperature and temperature difference, then the phrase "xxx°F (xx°C) temperature difference" is meaningless, and you have no business second-guessing a conversion. Understanding the difference doesn't make you a "math wonk" or "science wonk"; it just means you understand what the Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature scales are and how they work.

WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. JustinTime55 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * My fellow old grump (I'm 63), I generally have a thick skin. The relentless condescension the rest of the world likes to heap on Americans because it isn't mandated by the government that we use only metric does get under my skin. It's like their weakest and simultaneously most common idiotic refrain. The IP editor was - obviously to anyone who can grok the context - saying we are 'stupid americans'.
 * Now, to your points.
 * 1. I am generally tolerant of IP editors. Occasionally there are decent edits, or edit requests from them. I do not assume they are vandals or trolls; if you doubt it, please review my edit history. I've had fruitful conversations with a handful of IP editors over the years (rare, because most don't have a static or persistent IP, so 'conversation' is typically not possible). You said I was being a jerk. That's a personal attack on an editor, not their edits. Yeah, I get it, you feel I overreacted, and in fact I did. I was making a point, and yeah, I know, you're not supposed to make a WP:POINT, but that's largely in edits in article space.
 * 2. You're conflating 'editing other's comments' with deleting an uncivil comment by an IP editor with only the barest of explanations for what they were getting at.
 * 3. Well, duh. Converted temperature difference isn't something I do on the daily. An average reader - of the talk page comment in question - would do just what I did. How can I say that emphatically? Because I did it, ha!
 * 4. I don't (didn't) understand the difference. I do have business second-guessing a snarky IP editor who gives no meaningful rationale (meaningful to someone who doesn't spend their day doing temperature conversions). Note: His statement gave no direct evidence that it was a conversion template that was in play. Again, with such a terse "explanation" as 'Don’t consider the difference in the zero point' - uh, what? How am I to know he was referring to a template? Again - consider the full schema here - IP editor, one drive-by edit, insulting snark as first words, terse explanation. It had all the earmarks of 'stupid americans, i'll fool them with my explanation and now they'll edit in the wrong number!'.
 * You are welcome to being astonished that I've been here over 17 years. I am a general reader; I have my realm of specialization (unix/linux server administration for 26 years, recently retired). Temperature difference conversions? Not my bailiwick. With over 17,000 edits, and a not insignificant number of them spending time cleaning up after relentless vandals here, yes, I reacted quickly and without diving into WTF he was trying to say, because life is short. Again, consider the earmarks. I am fallible, and I made a mistake with my quick reaction. I don't think that bristling at his characterization, and your in-turn decision to say the uncivil then couch it delightfully in how you are granting AGF - nice dodge! - is quite human, and fallible.
 * As for your 'reference' chiding me for my user page - be a dear and click the 'Show' button beneath the main user page. There you go. I put it there because it kind of ruins the effect of tweaking the knee-jerk naïve interpretation. Oops, you fell for it!
 * And finally - yes, finally! - I can type a lot. I'm aware of that disability. I have no ill-will for you or even the douchy IP. Sometimes I'm more touchy than other times. I'm sure you are too, being a similar old-fart. I'll repeat, I'm fallible. I should have asked IP editor to rephrase his section title (oops, good luck asking a drive-by single-edit IP to do any followup). You reverted, we had a talk page tiff, it's over, I'm good. Are you good? I assume so. It's cool as hell that you're an aerospace engineer - are now still, or have you retired yet? Now I know what Lebanon bologna is, so I am further indebted. I love learning little things like that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)