User talk:Darkfrog24/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Signatures
Hi! Please use ~ to sign your comments. Thanks! &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for answering my question about human cloning! CameoAppearance orate 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Darkfrog24 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prom baby
An editor has nominated Prom baby, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that the article has been nominated for deletion. Although one contributor mentioned that the term is widespread "throughout the South," I have only found the one source.  As such, I feel no need to contest the deletion notice.  Any arguments of mine will take the form of improvements to the article or suggestions on the talk page.
 * What generated this bot notice? While someone did remove the deletion notice, you may wish to note that it was not me. Darkfrog24 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brethren Court
The page has been nominated for deletion, please join the discussion here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Yarnbus.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Yarnbus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize this is a bot, but this is annoying. I've already given a description of the image's copyright issues and asked about it on the image use page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Please reply on the MOS talk page, if interested. rootology /equality 20:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: the MOS page is unprotected, but I strongly advise you to not further any edit warring there. Please review this. Thanks. rootology /equality 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What edit warring? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
I filed an AN/I against you here. Ilkali (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is an appropriate way to respond when you think someone's doing something wrong. This is much more civilized.  Thank you, Ilkali.  I feel much better about this whole mess now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please use preview instead of continually editing and saving the ANI board? It's distracting -- >David  Shankbone  18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. It's more a matter of changing my mind, but I'll take extra care in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's just that it's a heavily trafficked board, and continually editing and saving enhances the possibility of edit conflicts. -- >David  Shankbone  18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference:

Olive branch
Dear Darkfrog24: It's too bad that we got off to the start that we did with one another. I suspect that we probably agree about many things. For one thing, we are in a small minority that actually cares about punctuation, style, and the like. Finell (Talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in another universe ...we might have been friends. We also seemed to be the only two people who demonstrated an ability to cross what I'll call party lines on the MoS.  Don't think I didn't notice when you told Troviatore to express himself differently. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I noticed, early on, that when Mchavez said that I was being inconsistent, you responded to him that I was being flexible. I've done some academic editing, worked with pre-digital hot-type professional printers, am acquainted with several style manuals, and really appreciate good typography. I was a very early adopter of using proportionally spaced typefaces and professional typographic conventions (typographic quotation marks and apostrophes, em- and en-dashes, italic instead of underline, non-breaking spaces to avoid awkward line breaks, etc.), when most everyone else was using the latest computers and laser printers to emulate Selectric typewriters. To my eye, especially in a serifed typeface, this”, looks butt ugly, and so does this”. (I might have a different opinion if I originally learned and was surrounded by the other style.) On Wikipedia, though, other considerations come into play. Wikipedia pages are never going to approach typeset appearance in a browser. The typeface is sans-serif. MOS prescribes straight quotation marks and apostrophes for valid technical reasons. And, when all is said and done, so-called logical quotation really is less ambiguous: if a period comes before a close quotation mark, you know that the period was in the original quotation, and not something added at the end of a sentence fragment. American style is also a bit harder for editors to master, because extraneous commas and periods get tucked inside the close quotation mark, but not semicolons (an apparent inconsistency). Even more fundamentally, I think that a "house style" should remain relatively stable, and this guideline has been around for a very long time, possibly from the start. If the MOS had historically prescribed what you call American quotation mark style, I would not be clamoring for change to so-called logical quotation style. Finell (Talk) 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Finell, American punctuation does not create the problems you're describing. It's been a non-issue for centuries.  If people want to know how the original material was punctuated, they have to look at the source, regardless of what style was used to quote it.  In addition, American style is less hard to master because it is simpler: put periods and commas inside and semicolons and colons outside. (The British are as welcome to their complexities as they are to a U in "color.")
 * I suspect that the reason this guideline has been around from the start is because a disproportionate number of Wikipedia's founders were either professional or amateur programmers. They picked the style that they were used to.  However, as more and more non-programmers are taking part in Wikipedia, this is becoming less appropriate.  As Tony1 put it, "Look around and see how the culture is changing."
 * The advantage in permitting American and British styles when appropriate and preferring them where preferable is this: It makes Wikipedia look professional and legitimate. Even people who don't know all the ins and outs of good punctuation still get a good impression when they see it.  If Wikipedia were to adopt British and American standards, as it has with spelling, then most readers would think, "Ah, this looks like the real thing.  This looks like it didn't get here by accident," because they'd be seeing the same, quality work that they see in the New York Times, Nature, professionally edited magazines and professional academic and literary works.  If you ask me, this would be a big step toward getting the public to shake the idea of Wikipedia as "that Internet encyclopedia" and start them toward "the encyclopedia." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Italic dates
Thanks for the good guidance. How do I participate in a useful conversation? I can't find it if its going on. stilltim (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, check the page history. The last couple of major contribs were this morning.
 * You don't have to say anything. If you feel that all useful arguments have already been made, then it might be better if you added only a brief "I agree with so-and-so" or even nothing at all.  But I figured that since you specifically were one subject of the discussion, someone should let you know that it was going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Got the MOS, where's the discussion this morning? stilltim (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Found it and responded. Many, many thanks stilltim (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chaz Bono, sex and gender
I know that this article is most likely on your watchlist, but I wanted to address you here as well: As I stated on the talk page there, I really did not mean to insult anyone. As someone who understands this topic quite well, I was simply trying to help. It seems that my initial wording somewhat irritated you, but it was a simple explanation in my view. Maybe I should have gone into the thoughts about the brain being one sex while the person's body displays the opposite sex of that, but I was not trying to give a long, detailed lesson and it is not something that is believed to be the case for all transgender individuals.

In any case, I apologize for any offense you feel that I caused. I also appreciate your helping others to understand this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Accepted, but I wasn't offended enough to remember. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MoS unprotect?
Hi Darkfrog. Please see the section at bottom of MoS talk. We need to establish stability and reasonable harmony on the talk page, given that there will be the odd dispute. ArbCom is auditing MoS for stability in just over two months, and if we have no history of stability in the absence of the protection measure, they'll probably walk away and say protect it forever.

If you're prepared to be part of an effort to avoid instability on the MoS page, will you add you voice? Tony (talk)  13:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw your section there and am preparing a response at the moment.
 * I don't quite understand what you're getting at with regard to instability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I doubt you you would be surprised, but I have replies to you on WP:MOS. All good and sensible and so are you. I disagree with you but I know you are an intelligent person who wants to make it better. I hope you know I do too. SimonTrew (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Trew, were you under the impression that you had offended me? Heavens no!  I've found you to be nothing but cordial these past few days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

images
You summed it up well in your most recent comment. For some reason the microscopic images issue has passed me by. Perhaps this is another issue where WPians can set preferences that blind them to how our readers see the pages. In any case, I've written a proposal here, which I'd appreciate your feedback on. Please note that I'm no expert on images, even though it's plain to me that we have a serious problem in the current MoS text. Tony (talk)  16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good one. However, you may have worked on my previous update (I kept tinkering). You might consider changing "that" to "which" in the first para (there are a lot of "thats"), and using the wording for the bullets (does it work better?). Tony (talk)  17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to close at MOS
Hi Darkfrog, I think it would be best if you close the discussion yourself. The mechanism at Archive top would solve the issue at hand and then you can continue to seek answers about flagging the passage in the way you describe. I am afraid otherwise it appears to be devolving into a debate over whether to close. If there is no consensus about the tag in the MOS page, if you close debate and contact an administrator or add to my post at WP:AN that issue can be dealt with separately. I think the real point is to have the MOS page unlocked, and I think no admin has acted on my request because this is not a formal debate like deletion or requested move discussions. Sswonk (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for presenting me with an opportunity to ask something: What precisely is a formal closing? Is there something to it other than "okay, this discussion has run its course"?  Would it in any way impede other editors from raising the same issues for discussion at a later date?
 * As for consensus, it seems to me that everyone who has commented so far (LaserBrain/AndyW, yourself, Finell, myself) agrees that the discussion as run its course. The only significant difference of opinion seems to be whether the text should remain in its current form or be reverted to some previous one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I am using the term, "formal closing" involves an end to debate and an administrative decision such as what happens with WP:AFD, WP:CFD and WP:RM. Those all involve a voting process. I have used the Archive top and Archive bottom method in the past on MOS pages where things have run their course. Basically it tells latecomers not to bother adding comments or rebutting others, we have moved on. I am suggesting that a third party be contacted regarding the unresolved question about the content of MOS before unlock, so asking that question at WP:AN can't hurt. I may be unavailable after posting this message but will check back here in a few hours. Sswonk (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, yes, it does do something other than archive the thread. I certainly do not support any measure that tells newcomers that their contributions are not wanted.  Is there a note we could post telling them to put their concerns in a new section so that the old one may time out into the archive? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, place the Archive top tag beneath the headline "Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside" and place Archive bottom tag after the last comment of the entire section, currently your response to Finell. Then, below the Archive bottom, put the message you want to convey in a way similar to: Further comments: The section above has been archived, please create a new topic for any concerns about this subject or the discussion itself. (your signature) . This will end the discussion originated by Mchavez but make very clear that anyone who wants to comment about the guideline, the archived discussion or the disposition of the disputed tag on the MOS page can simply create a new thread. You can do this now and post a request for help about the version and tagging of the main project page LQ section, I suggest asking an admin or using the WP:Third opinion process. I hope that helps. Sswonk (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This addresses my concerns about archiving the page.  Still not sure what you want from a third opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it isn't anything I want, rather a way for you and Finell to discuss disagreement over your idea of a tag like "Caution: Dangerous waters! Consider discussing even small changes to this section before editing." It might be best to simply run that question by an administrator that you have dealt with before, or ask Finell if he wants to take it to WP:3O. I only suggested that because it seemed that was where you were stuck regarding what happens once the page is unlocked.  locked the page but has announced his retirement, maybe you can approach one of the admins from page history that has edited MOS since the lock with questions you have. Sswonk (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But we're not talking about unlocking the page; we're talking about closing the discussion. The page was not locked because of this discussion; it was locked because of an edit war.  The two things are not directly connected.
 * As for stuck, I don't know that we're stuck. Finell has shown himself more than capable of behaving reasonably when dealt with reasonably.  He probably just needs to take a closer look at the proposal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(SIIIIIIIIIGH) See, Sswonk? this is why I didn't want to be the one to do this! I would have much preferred to just put the discussion in the archives like Jimp did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure! Totally not a big deal, either way would have worked. Doing it as you did gives people a day or two to see that the discussion was closed. I've seen it done both ways, and sometimes the process of removing it as was done by Jimp in that diff is controversial. Looked at another way, closing a discussion but keeping it visible gives new folks a heads up that the issue was addressed previously. If you look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)/Archive_3, I surrounded the discussion with archive tags on August 30 2008 and it stayed that way until someone moved it to Archive_3 nearly 11 months later (see the Archive_3 history). By the way, I ended up wishing I had never started that thread. No harm was done here, so now you know that you could have done what Jimp did. It is up to you to decide if that method will be controversial, I just suggested the less controversial of the two. I think in this case the huge size of the section was a motivating factor, removing it helped clear space for other discussions on that very active page. Absolutely nothing to worry about, Jimp finished a job you started and you can relax. Sswonk (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For future reference, would you be so kind as to tell me how Jimp did it? I checked the page history and couldn't see any indicators. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimp checked the number of the last archive, Archive_110 and then started a new page, "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive_111" possibly simply by adding "/Archive_111" to the end of the URL and then clicking the link that appears on the subsequent message page. Click this: to see what I mean. Then, Jimp simply opened the old section you tagged and cut- pasted it to the new page he started and saved both pages. The title needs to be exactly as shown i.e. uppercase "A" Archive followed by underscore and the new archive number to maintain consistency and also because archiving bots look for/create pages with that specific title style, see User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo for further details. Jimp knew the way to do it properly so it wouldn't upset the sequence, another reason you can relax. Sswonk (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog. Can we remove the dispute tag? Or are you still toying with the notion of inventing a new tag? --Andy Walsh (talk)  17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The dispute has run its course, so it is appropriate to remove the tag. I was not talking about inventing a new tag.  I was asking if one already existed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is Calm talk, but I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for. --Andy Walsh (talk)  18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am looking for something that would reduce the chances of another big fight. The best way to do that is to prevent users from going, "Hey, this comma policy is wrong!  I'd better fix it" without giving other people a chance to let them know what's going on.  It seems that the best way to do that would be to ask users to consider going to the talk page before making even small edits.   Calm talk certainly applies to this case as well.  Thank you for showing it to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Waaiiiit a second, is this thing designed for talk pages? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, yeah, but maybe it can be adapted. All of these templates only exist because someone needed one that didn't exist. --Andy Walsh (talk)  19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this, then? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. --<b style="color:purple">Andy Walsh</b> (talk)  19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the instructions, Andy. I do like learning new things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Film series numbering controversy
You may like to comment here: Talk:Film_series - Robsinden (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Possessives frazzle
Hi Darkfrog. Noetica is being a cranky old man. You can safely ignore his grumpiness, which is less than skin-deep, I think. I've started a new section where people can try to sort out the text amicably. Can we try to harmonise/compromise/whatever on this matter? It's here. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, not taking Noetica personally. I don't think he noticed that I was agreeing with his general point, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note
Okay, fair enough, will do. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Amongst
I interpret this as your desire to take out that "controversial vocabulary" section in its entirety. That would be my second choice. If this is what you really want please spell out the proposal in a separate subsection, so we have some clear options to !vote on (first/second/... choice ArbComy style). The current mode of threaded discussion does not look like will lead to any obvious consensus. Thanks, Pcap ping  13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Actually voting on your proposal there.  I agree that our disorganized discussions are not as effective as they could be, but that, too, is a separate issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:New Moon (2009 film)
Hey, Darkfrog. Would you not mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest. You might want to heads-up Finell or Pi Zero to make sure that the other side is represented. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you still feel that I should? Or just leave the discussion where it is? Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went ahead and alerted Finell. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Better Finell than one of the crazy ones, right? Finell at least knows how to be civil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation
Hi, Darkfrog. Regarding what you said here: if I were the slightest bit optimistic, I'd say the discussion really should be at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. I've finally come to terms—for the most part—with punctuating the WP way, but I'm bothered by the inconsistency of it: if periods or commas are to be placed after the quotation marks (aka inverted commas), then shouldn't those quotation marks be single ones, not double? (Sorry for butting into a discussion about an article I've never even read, btw.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not butting in; you're asking a question. The issue of single vs. double quotation marks on Wikipedia is separate from the American vs. British/"logical" punctuation matter.  Unlike with banning American punctuation, there was a logical reason for adopting double quotation marks.  I'm told that single quotation marks mess with search features.  That being the case, the moment the technology advances to the point at which it is no longer an issue&mdash;as is the case with some newer web browsers&mdash;then the ban should be lifted and articles written in British English should be permitted to use single or double quotation marks, so long as they are consistent. (Because American English does not consider single marks to be correct, they should not be permitted in articles written in American English.)
 * As to whether the discussion should take place on a user page, article discussion page or WT: MoS, the answer is that if it is about what to write in one specific article, then it should be on that article's talk page. If it is about the rule itself, then it should be on WT: MoS.  In my opinion, there should be discussions on both WT: MoS (and there is) and on the tea ceremony article discussion page&mdash;the people who are working on that article may have opinions on the matter.  If the discussion takes place on a user's page, then that user could be accused, inaccurately, of making controversial edits without discussing them first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Interesting about the technical reason for the double quotation marks. I hadn't heard that before, so thanks.
 * Concerning the larger topic of WP punctuation, there's yet another potentially relevant issue, this one having to do with on-screen typography: in some instances, at least, some think that readability is enhanced when the period or comma (especially the latter) comes after the quotation marks when rendered in a sans-serif font:"'holistic', 'simulated', and 'endearing'."
 * looks neater than
 * "'holistic,' 'simulated,' and 'endearing.'"
 * perhaps because of the way the characters are kerned. If you try that off-wiki in a serif font, the opposite is true, especially when it's printed out.
 * You're quite right about the proper venues for discussions. I have no stake or particular interest in the article in question but am always intrigued when matters of punctuation arise around here. Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't look neater. The British punctuation actually looks quite sloppy.  The aesthetic aspect is probably an eye-of-the-beholder matter.  Wikipedia should do what is correct rather than what some people think looks better.  Some people might think that spelling "harbor" as "harbour" looks funny, but if it's a British English article, then that's the way to do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)None of this matters. The MoS does not call for logical quotation because it "looks better" (a subjective artsy-fartsy notion of no relevance here); nor because it is "more intuitive" (which it almost certainly is for a majority of people, but this too is subjective, and people with a really, really deep-seated preference for the largely American typesetter's quotation style find that more intuitive, as someone keeps browbeating into us as if we didn't already understand this, several years ago; nor because it is "simpler" or "easier" (typing  when warranted is no in any way less or more complicated that  ; actually the decision is less simple, because in logical quotation the punctuation is placed inside or outside for a reason that requires thinking – because it actually belongs there – not always inside regardless of what the results of doing that might be).  We use logical quotation here for a simple, singular, factual, objective reason: It preserves quotations intact, without falsely inserting punctuation into them that wasn't there in the original (or leaving the reader to wonder whether this has been done). Please, all of you, stop mischaracterizing the nature of the debate. The reason for the choice is grounded in WP:V and WP:NOR. Going with typesetters' quotation (there is no "American" or "British" quotation as has already been proven in these recurring debates - there are US publications that use logical quotation and UK ones that use typesetter's) has no basis but subjective WP:ILIKEIT notions as bases. Being used to something does not make it "better" or "right", nor "appropriate for this encyclopedia". —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 17:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that what looks better should not be high on our list of considerations. It's an eye of the beholder thing.
 * While there are U.S. publications that use British or LQ and there are British publications that use American punctuation or LQ, this doesn't mean that the American style isn't American and the British style isn't British. If a town in New Jersey has the word "TOWN CENTRE" spelled out on its sign, that doesn't make the town British.  It just means that the signmakers decided to use a British form.
 * If the piece of writing is in American English, then no, the comma does not belong inside the quotation marks. I realize that a lot of people on Wikipedia just don't like that, but that isn't a good enough reason to ban a long-standing punctuation practice.
 * I realize that you prefer LQ and that there is a Wikipedia consensus to prefer LQ, but the FAQ should not make false claims about what the different styles actually do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Hi, you seem to have violated 3RR on that page. Would you mind reverting yourself, please? SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For now, if you like. I found a new source.  The 15th edition of the Chicago MoS, as you stipulated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reverting yourself. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. However, when the issue is the source and not the wording, I do not believe that finding a new source constitutes 3RR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been continually undoing my edits. Any revert, in whole or in part, for whatever reason (apart from vandalism and BLP) counts toward 3RR. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And you've been undoing mine. We've also been talking it out on the WT like reasonable people.
 * Do you honestly believe that it isn't American or is this just a super-tough way of seeing that the fact of its being so is less assailable? On the flip side, the British system has its origins in Britain and is used by the overwhelming number of British writers.  Calling it "British" seems like a given. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to restore the edits I made this evening, and have been expanding and adding sources, or trying to -- and you've been reverting me. I don't believe it is American, no. It is used by British journalists and British novelists and fiction writers which, let's face it, is jointly most of what most people read. I'm British and British-educated, school and university, and I've always used it. I don't even know how to use logical punctuation. You seem to be the only one who wants to create a rigid nationalist distinction, and I can't see what purpose it serves.


 * Also, I have to say it's not good form to be making so many edits to the MoS talk page (you're the 4th biggest contributor with 845 edits since just May last year) and yet not to have read the key style books. That's bound to cause confusion. This is why I'd like us all (me too) to start making source-based edits only, and only to use the terms that the sources themselves mostly use. That way, the MoS talk page will be less confusing for its readers, now and in the future. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not creating the distinction between British and American practices. It was there before I was even born.  The Chicago MoS and dozens of lesser guides call them "American" and "British." I realize that WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, but the spirit's the same.  The article should at least include the names that people actually use for this stuff.
 * I said that I didn't have the book in front of me, Slim. Don't assume more than that.
 * I do think that making source-based edits to the MoS would improve things. However, abbreviations are appropriate for the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, they mostly don't call them British and American. They note that sometimes others do. Anyway, look, the point is you're causing tremendous confusion, making up terms, making up differences between styles that don't exist. Please go to a library and borrow the books. Or go to Amazon where it's sometimes possible to search them. They all say more or less the same thing. Any differences are the normal differences you find between style guides; they don't signal that different systems are being used. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Slim, if one system is American, even in general, and the other is British, even in general, then how am I "making things up" by saying so? You ought to be saying that Chicago was making things up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are saying there are three styles: LQ, BQ, and traditional. There are not. There is logical punctuation, used in the UK (at least); and there is traditional punctuation, used in the UK, the U.S., and Canada (at least). SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No that is not what I am saying.
 * There is an American punctuation style (puts periods and commas inside the quotation marks most of the time). There is a British punctuation style (puts them inside or outside depending on where they apply).  There may also be a third style, called "logical quotation," which treats text like collections of literal strings.  I originally thought that British and "logical" were two different names for the same system.  But then I hit the MoS talk page and got "No no no.  It's not the same.  It's not the same! Also, American punctuation is stupid and bad." So I looked around at this source and that source and I dug and dug and dug and found British English guides tended to tell people to put colons and semicolons outside quotation marks, which Wikipedia's WP:LQ did not.  They acknowledged words-as-words and short-form work titles as places where the punctuation belonged outside, which WP:LQ did not.  I found a page or two in which computer programmers talked about literal strings and their frustration with American standard punctuation.  All this together led me to believe that yes, however vehemently anti-American-punctuation the people who'd first told me about it had been, their assertion that LQ and British standard forms were two different systems did seem to be correct.
 * However, your recent comments on the MoS talk page got me thinking that I should reevaluate that conclusion, that perhaps the differences between WP:LQ and British style guides were the result of oversimplification rather than actual differences in practice.
 * What seems to be the case to me now is that "logical punctuation" and "typographic punctuation" are "the act of placing periods and commas according to their original position in the source" and "the act of placing periods and commas inside" and that British style and American style are two sets of instructions that tend to include these actions. Because American English standards make exceptions for web entries, etc., they are not exactly the same as TP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion
I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse article
I understand your addition. I believe the original addition was trying to say it is all still sex. For example, the terms "anal sex" and "oral sex" still have the word "sex" in them (whether some people consider them to be sexual intercourse or not). I know people (heterosexual and homosexual) who don't consider those two acts to be sexual intercourse but they still consider them "sex." The original entry was trying to say that the term "sex," in the context of sexual intimacy, does not always mean the same thing as the term sexual intercourse in its usual sense. Either way, I get your addition, since plenty of people would say neither is "real sex". I tweaked it, though. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What that section ought to say is that that specific expert considers "sex" to mean any kind of sexual contact, in her case both intercourse and outercourse, because that is all that the source says. I find that it looks neater and clearer now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind weighing in on this discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked it over when you first showed it to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured. But what about the recent discussion regarding the Gender article (that I brought up above)? I am sure that Masculinity will have something to say about my reverting him. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...are you sure you lined to the right conversation? Your most recent link points to the "Mating" discussion on the "Sexual intercourse" discussion page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Look above, in the Change in lead of the Gender article, and a note about the Biology of gender article section. I addressed a new topic about the lead of the Gender article there. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be any such discussion on that page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean above on your talk page (that section is above on your talk page). Why would it be on the Sexual intercourse talk page, LOL? Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that is the link you gave me: "Mind weighing in on this discussion?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also looked over the gender article a while ago, thinking that you'd meant to send me there. I didn't find anything wrong.  I see now that that was because you'd already reverted Masculinity's edits.  I agree that these changes were some serious OR, but it's been two weeks and not a peep from him.  It looks okay.
 * If he does it again, you might want to say "removing unsourced material" rather than "returning to consensus version." Editors are allowed to do things that violate consensus so long as they don't edit war. That's how we get a new consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Darkfrog. I was talking about this message, above on your talk page (in the section I was talking about). I sent you that message only a week ago. As for the consensus version issue, I stated what most Wikipedia editors state in their edit summaries when a consensus version is drastically changed. I was basically saying that there is a consensus version, and drastic changes going against it should be discussed first. Either way, I appreciate your help. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood what you meant, but someone else who had it in for you could have used it against you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Does that message give off any kind of hate vibe? Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, nothing like that. No hate vibe, but then there doesn't need to be one, does there?  Look, Masculinity doesn't seem to have come back to gender (an interesting sentence if taken out of context), so I'll take a peek at his (I assume) user history, but right now, things seem stable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Change in lead of the Gender article, and a note about the Biology of gender article
With my change in the lead, I hope that you are pleased with it. When noting "biological and behavioral differences," though, I was unsure of whether to link to Biology of gender or Sexual dimorphism. I mean, the Biology of gender article focuses on humans...and the Sexual dimorphism article focuses more on the form/shape of different species than psychological/social behavior of different sexes. I, as the article currently shows, though, went with linking to Biology of gender. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...can't we link to both? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also thought about doing both, but that would separate "biological and behavioral differences" from being one link. The problem I have with that? Well, besides no longer having just one (and simple) link, with the Biology of gender article being pipe-linked as "biological" and the Sexual dimorphism article pipe-linked as "behavior," not only does it look like we are simply linking to the Biology and Behavior articles...but the Sexual dimprphism article does not significantly focus on behavior (as I stated before, it is more about the form/shape). If you mean some other way of doing it, then I am open to that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. I think I've fixed it just now.  Take a look. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weirdest thing. The italics won't take. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Your new lead is fine. Though I might tweak it further. I still feel that we should start off naming that it has a range of definitions first, though. If we do, we could also mention the word genetics in addition to biology. Also, the reason I started off using the World Health Organization (WHO) reference after specifying that the term has a range of definitions is due to WHO being seen as an authorative source, and I have seen many editors here at Wikipedia state that authorative sources should go first. But I am fine with leaving the WHO mention where you put it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All other things being equal, yes, but we should probably introduce the idea that the word has many definitions and then mention sociology. Otherwise it looks like the WHO's definition is unique rather than shared among the social sciences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By noting that the term has a range of definitions first, I was thinking more of specifying the different ranges right off the bat and then transitioning from that into naming what these ranges are more than I was thinking about being fair (which is what I did). But your changing it to "commonly refers" covers the equal bit, I feel. I mean, the use of "gender" as "the set of characteristics that humans perceive as distinguishing between male and female entities, extending from one's biological sex to, in humans, one's social role or gender identity" is the common usage. I used the common (and traditional) usage of "sexual intercourse" first with the Sexual intercourse article. But do you feel that the paragraph about scientific research should stay last? It might be better placed in the middle. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it has been great working with you on this. I like this new lead better than the one that was there before I started working on it today, that's for sure. Good job. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I separated out the biological paragraph because it deals with the concept of gender rather than the definitions of the term. A fine distinction, I'll grant.  I think it does well last, but it could go elsewhere if we reorganize. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are not already aware of the new changes in the lead, you may want to participate in this discussion on my talk page: User talk:Flyer22. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I am going to need your help in this discussion regarding the lead. This recent editor to drastically change the lead (Masculinity), though I reverted, can be difficult to work with, and is especially hostile towards what he considers "Western definitions" of things. I would greatly appreciate you weighing in on this discussion when you can. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you watch the the Gender article anymore, and I can understand if you're tired of me bothering you about it, but you're the only other main contributor of that article right now (especially its lead). The lead was drastically changed again (before my revert), by someone else, and I am pretty sure that I am going to need your help keeping it tidy for as long as we are both here at Wikipedia. But if you would rather not deal with it any longer, I understand. Just saying that I still need your help in watching it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you think the Biology of gender and Genetics of gender articles should be merged? Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. You are not bothering me. However, I am worried about you getting in trouble for canvassing.  I'm not really sure whether you're supposed to be going to userpages and asking for this kind of help. 2. I check in on gender from time to time but not every day or anything. 3. I do not at present have an opinion on whether those two articles should be merged. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, I've read the WP:CANVASSING page plenty of times; this is not the type of thing that would get me in trouble. You already watch the article, and contributed heavily to the design of its lead; it is only natural that I ask you for your thoughts on changes to it and help with it. And, as you know, I only asked one editor (MishMich) to help me watch it. With you, it is just a matter of still needing your help watching it. Either way, the matter about the lead currently seems under control. The most recent editor to drastically change the lead (Facts707) has addressed my concerns (on my talk page), and is conversing with me about what changes he or she wants made to it and the article as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

One of your edits to the Gender article's lead is currently being contested on the talk page. Just giving you a heads up. Flyer22 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Chaz Bono article
Just letting you know that the pronoun game regarding this article is still being played. It may need to be semi-protected for some time. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh) Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My most recent comment on your talk page, up until now, was above (in the section about the lead of the Gender article), but I'm sorry to have bothered you. I only felt that you should be alerted...since it is about one of your additions. I will not bother you again about that article. Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your OR claim at gender
Acquaint yourself with the linguistic meaning of the word before claiming WP:OR: Corruption_(linguistics). Tijfo098 (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you meant to write that "bastardization" is from the prescriptivist POV. I've linked to semantic change instead, although in this case bastardization seemed a better choice because the departure is eminently from a prescribed meaning. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * bastardize: To lower in condition or worth, debase.
 * I am actually a fan of prescriptivism, but the term "bastardization" strongly implies that the change is bad, and such an assertion does not belong in that article unless it is given as the opinion of an expert, obtained from a reliable source. "University of Someplace linguist Dr. Experty Credible considers this to be a bastardization of the word's meaning," etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Manual of style register listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Manual of style register. Since you had some involvement with the Manual of style register redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 05:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mugging" other languages
Your comment "English is the one that drags other languages into the alley, beats them up and then goes through their pockets for spare vocabulary" brought a chorus of laughter into our household and I have been directed to send it to literate members everywhere. Too bad there's not a "comment of the Month/Year" or whatever in Wikipedia. This would make the top of the charts! :) Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't come up with it myself, though.  It was on a t-shirt or something. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Let us eat cheeses" and all that jazz
I had a feeling there was a Shakespeare influence to that. Indeed, I'd expect nothing less from thou. oknazevad (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Think about this
Just step back and think about this comment of yours, in its context, after what I had said and others before me had said: "So you made a post saying, 'I'm not making a post.' It seems there might have been an easier way to do that." Now think. Think for sixty seconds. Put yourself in my situation, right there. Imagine what preceded that situation for me, at WT:MOS and elsewhere. Now ask yourself: was that comment likely to contribute to a solution, or to a problem?

I don't want to see your answer. Frankly, I don't care what your answer might be. Even more frankly, I have no interest in talking to you at all. I just want that sixty seconds of your time. Then nothing more.

N oetica Tea? 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had no interest in talking to me, you wouldn't have made this post. Just like if you had no interest in continuing the conversation on WT:MoS, you wouldn't have contributed to it.  Noetica, you are in no position to criticize people for making posts that "don't help." As for what preceded that comment, it was me pointing out that you were the one who'd brought a source into the discussion and saying that you and PMA could keep talking all you wanted even if the rest of us were done.  Your position was being defended by me.
 * If you don't want to continue a conversation, then just stop and don't make a show of it. You are a drama queen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC on a subpage structure for the Manual of Style
Hi Darkfrog.

As someone who contributed to discussion when the issue was raised a little while ago, you may like to have your say in the current RFC on subpages, at WT:MOS.

N oetica Tea? 05:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Been keeping loose tabs on it, actually. It seems six to one half a dozen to the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Voice of moderation
Then feel free to be the voice of moderation. What I should like to do is to leave the page in the hands of the neutrals in the late poll - and remove the bloviators. I don't expect to get what I claim; but it should offer room for others to speak up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Femininity article
Hi. As someone who commented in the RfC, will you help out a little bit more with this article? There is still a lot of POV-pushing going on, as seen at Talk:Femininity. 178.33.105.220 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Answer
In answer to your prematurely archived question (I hate that overaggressive WT:MOS archivebot), the misquotation consisted of the truncation of my comments, terminated in a typesetters'-quoted period that implied that my statement had been a complete sentence. I almost lost my job over the issue, actually. This is relevant here, because it is extremely common for quotations in Wikipedia articles to be truncated in just such a manner. PS: While I can surely agree that "typesetters' quotation" and "logical quotation" are not the only possible names for these types of punctuation, I can't "extend the courtesy" that "American" and "British" are valid names, since they are inaccurate and misleading. That some people use them is of no consequence. A lot of people around here use the term "horny toad" to refer to the horned lizards common in the region. They're not toads, and herpetologists use the accurate name, as encyclopedists should use accurate terms for style matters, not emotive ones that unnecessarily charge the issue as a trans-Atlantic fight of some kind, which it is not. (If we were going to go there, the British would have a bigger bone to pick, e.g. with our use of double quotation marks, the US definition of "billion", etc., etc., etc.) It's about encyclopedic vs. journalistic style, and some level of consistency. (See my most recent comments at WT:MOS for another enc. vs. journo. issue). It's not something personal against you. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 16:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So you said something like, "It's Adam's fault in one respect." The newspaper wrote the equivalent of "It's Adam's fault [period]" and you believe that the newspaper would not have been misquoting you if it had written "It's Adam's fault"[period]. I believe that both are misrepresentations of what you said and that both would have made your bosses mad at you.  Think of it this way, if a wikieditor posted something like "It's Adam's fault"[period] in an article, wouldn't you amend or revert it as inaccurate?
 * You think that the terms "British" and "American" are inaccurate. Show me sources, as I have shown you sources.  British punctuation is used by the majority of British writers and endorsed by the majority of British style guides, so calling it "British" isn't inaccurate.  The same goes for American style.  I was able to find sources supporting this in a ten-minute Google search. If you cannot find any sources saying that you are right, then please accept the possibility that you aren't.
 * From what I've been able to tell, you and many others just like British style and just don't like American style, so you've convinced yourselves that British provides advantages that it does not really provide and that American creates problems that it does not really create. If you really liked logic as much as you claim to, you would accept that the most logical way to write is the way that will be understood and appreciated by one's readers.  In that respect, there's not much difference between American and British punctuation.
 * It's my understanding that non-Oxford British style prefers double quotation marks. By the way, I would support making double vs. single dependent on ENGVAR if someone can show me that the CTRL-F problem has been resolved.
 * As long as Wikipedia permits multiple varieties of English, then the differences between those varieties are relevant to the MoS. I call them American and British because that's what they are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot about this thread, but am too stressed out to give you the owed reply right now. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Online resources about writing and speaking
Editors can use this link to find online resources about writing and speaking. —Wavelength (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing and Speaking | FindHow.com.
 * Why did you post this here, Wavelength? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I assumed that you, as an editor interested in writing style, would find it to be an interesting and useful reference.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am and it is, but it was odd to see it here out of the blue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any confusion or misunderstanding. There was nothing in particular that motivated me to post it, except that I decided to let other editors know about that link.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead of Gender article yet again
I don't remember if I stated that I would not bother you again about the Gender article or the Chaz Bono article (I can't remember which one it is). But I decided to go ahead and give you a heads up about the recent discussion I started on the Gender talk page about the lead of that article. See this link for my reasons. I know that you object to downplaying biological/genetic influences that may play a part in forming one's gender identity, so yeah. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Yoenit (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Article titles/Category naming
I noticed your comments in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and you seem to be saying that edits should be regarded on their own merit, even if they don't have an edit summary — that knee-jerk reversion of edits solely because they don't have an edit summary is not a good idea. Thanks.

I'm trying to help new editors choose appropriate article titles, ensure that article titles and category titles are reasonably consistent, and suggest that they do adequate research before large-scale renaming of articles. With that in mind, I made edits to Article_titles and Categorization/Naming to make this clearer. However User:Dicklyon immediately reverted my edits, essentially because there was no edit summary and no extensive prior discussion on the talk page. After I rephrased the change to Article_titles, to make it clear that it was logically connecting the first section to the second section, he again reverted it. I explained the two separate points that I was trying to get across in two sections on the talk page and he combined them into one section. He does not see to understand the point about researching categories, as he himself admits, and is continuing to obstruct any editing for clarity. I'd appreciate your comments on the Talk page. LittleBen (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what article naming has to do with the issue of revert-for-sole-reason-of-summary but I'll have a look.
 * After a very cursory look at the discussions you started on those two talk pages, I'm having trouble telling exactly what your position is. It is entirely possible that Dicklyon is not willfully misunderstanding you.  I recommend restarting your discussion with an "I believe that this article should read X. This would improve it in way Y" rather than "I made a change that I think was good but it was reverted."  The fewer clicks people have to make to find your point, the better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * TIA. One of my edits was about logically linking the contents of one section with the next. Quoting my addition to Article titles, to explain the criteria for Recognizability:
 * Where there are several possible alternatives, search engines can be used to research which is most frequently used, as discussed in the section below.


 * The other edit was to expand on the Consistency criteria in the same section: It seems that most editors do not search existing Category names before naming or renaming Articles — most probably because it's not clear how to do this. I was attempting to emphasize that consistency between Article and Category names is generally a good thing, and link to a description of how to search existing Category names. LittleBen (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate if you have time to also look at the comments here. LittleBen (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * PS: I've spent quite a bit of time improving articles. The Responsive Web Design article was deleted soon after somebody created it, and I had it undeleted and have improved it such that it has gone from under 100 daily pageviews in January, when it was created and promptly deleted, to peaks of nearly 1800 daily pageviews now. For an article of 5,758 bytes, 66,327 pageviews in the past 60 days puts it on a par with the most popular articles on Short popular vital articles. LittleBen (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles
Hello, Darkfrog24, your vote would be appreciated. Rothorpe (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)---Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

MoS RfC
Hi Darkfrog, Noetica is saying that you also opposed Nathan's closure. Did you? He is using your support to justify his actions, and seems to be saying that we have to start from scratch with an entirely new RfC. Can you clarify whether you still oppose Nathan's closure, and if so why? It is being discussed in this section. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it wasn't an objection to Nathan so much as to the RfC being closed by anyone. It's my understanding that closing an RfC removes the tag that invites new participants, and the discussion was not over.  Frankly, although more than half of the people indicate that we should reinsert the contested wording, I'm not sure if that's what's meant by "consensus." Now if we could make it a little clearer that most of the evidence shows that reinserting the wording would be a good thing...
 * I also told Noetica that he seems to be overestimating the amount of order required in an RfC. I've known some people in my time who thought that nothing was done right unless it was done exactly to their personal preferences.  I don't know how people get that way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The bot removes the tag automatically after 30 days; if you want the RfC to continue beyond that (which is unusual), you can change the date that the RfC was launched. Closing the RfC is a separate issue: that is where an uninvolved editor sums up consensus, or (where consensus is very clear and there are no objections) the person who initiates the RfC can do it.


 * The last comment from a new person was on September 17, so there was no reason to keep it open beyond the 33 days on October 4. People can continue to discuss, but the point of the closure was to address the question: "is there consensus to restore those words?"


 * As for Noetica's claims, I don't even understand what he's saying. Everything is wikilawyered to death, a pointless waste of time. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the whole discussion rather than just the section covered by the tag. As for that discussion, I'd started a new section summing up the evidence on either side, and I'd gotten a response from Mikorado (one of only four editors who even tried to offer evidence; sad).  I still have some hope that we might resolve something, but yes, this is WT:MoS and I'm taking said hope with salt.
 * Noetica loves the sound of his own voice and has been doing the twist with other people's words so hard that he should win a dance competition. Listen to people like Mikorado and Neotarf if you want to see lucid opposition.
 * Slim, we're in agreement about what the wording of the MoS ought to be, but I've said it to people on the other side of the aisle and it's still true: If you're tired, you can take a break or stop, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to.
 * Full disclosure? I thought that closing the RfC meant ceasing to request new comments, not that consensus would be declared by an outside party (in our favor).  I might have still supported opposing said closure if I had known, but then again I might not have.  After all, I'm not 100% that a majority vote is enough to declare consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup
I've been having a rough night computer wise, and I believe there was an edit conflict where I probably did accidentally delete that comment, especially because when I added something it said that the page lost five hundred five characters. Before I could address that, I had to go cleanup another mess that my lousy internet connection started tonight and then I forgot about the ANI page until I saw your edit summary. Long story short, tonight has not been my best night for quality contribution and thanks for assuming good faith and restoring the comment. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's cool. It happens. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, I made a mistake?
I never reverted a thing there; all I did was hat stuff; first the main discussion, and in the latest edit, the recriminations at the top. All the back and forth changes reflecting the status of who closed the RFC and why were done by others. Churn and change (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you exactly what I meant by "just made a mistake." I meant "didn't mean to claim that RegentsPark endorsed Kwami rather than Nathan." I was trying to keep anyone from accusing anyone else of bad faith. I thought that the ACTION: NO CONSENSUS tag at the top was an oversight rather than a claim.  So you're saying that the hatting process attached itself to Kwami's statements rather than Nathan's automatically? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Noetica had already reverted, and Kwami's statement was at the top then. I didn't endorse anything, I hatted some stuff which had nothing to do with either Kwami or Nathan. You seem to have missed this revert by Noetica: 01:40, October 14, 2012‎ Noetica  (talk | contribs)‎ . . (395,845 bytes) (-953)‎ . .  (Again revert "re-closure" of a RFC (corrupt from the start) that was ended (delisted by the bot), then "closed", then "re-opened"(?), then further discussed, then "closed' after substantial new input that was ignored in the last unadvertised "closure")
 * The only edit after that I did had this edit summary: "‎RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles: Hatting the recriminations at the top; start with RFC statement; This is not an endorsement of any version of this thread, including the latest; it is just a technical edit." It didn't change anything, just hatted some stuff which remains hatted to this minute. Churn and change (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So no, you weren't trying to make it look like RegentsPark had endorsed Kwami instead of Nathan. You were not trying to trick, deceive or act sneaky in any way.  It was just a mistake.
 * I raised the issue of what the hatting text should say on the talk page. I feel that because RegentsPark restored Nathan's closure, it is Nathan's words, not Kwami's, that should appear at the top of the hatted section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, we are both using "hatting" to mean different things. By "hatting" I mean the hidden text in green with extended content with them. You can see two such, both are my edits, and they are still there. By "Rfc hatting" you mean the summary text at the top right, and I never changed that part; others did all the back-and-forth reverts. Churn and change (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see. The greenification did show up before the edit that you made.  For some reason, it looked like it was your doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Darkfrog, in connection with the discussion here please see this section at WP:ANI. Best wishes, N oetica Tea? 07:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been keeping an eye on that page on my own, Noetica, and I have been posting there about events on WT:MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Dispute resolution noticeboard". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support
Darkfrog, thank you for your support and !vote at my RfA. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but not everyone who opposes your adminiship is what I would call non-collegial. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise, Darkfrog. It's been a while, but I hope to work with you again in the near future.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed that all goes well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the RfA did not conclude with the hoped-for result, but I am very grateful for your late-breaking support, Darkfrog. I look forward to working with you again on topics of mutual interest.  Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And don't worry.  This isn't the end. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York
The move discussion at Talk:Theater District, New York was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The unit of consistency on Wikipedia is not the Wikiproject; it is the article.
 * The article "New York Theater District" isn't written for theater/-re professionals. It's written for general audiences. General English rules should apply.
 * What you're really saying is that most Wikieditors just happen to like "theatre" more than "theater." But Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about what editors happen to prefer; it's about the sources, and the sources prefer "New York Theater District" more than 2:1. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

While it appears we are not going to agree on a number of issues and I still think you are edit warring (this is not something I like to report, and have no intention of doing) I would like to thank you for the civil back and forth and the RFC. This cannot be between just the two of us...however if no one does make comment or input (something I have seen before) I believe our next step would be a DR/N. However as I am a regular vlunteer there that would not be something I would eb comfortable oing and would have to recuse my self. I thought about participating the other day if it showed up, but I am not willing to create the perception of any conflict of interest. I am stepping away from the discussion for a period to allow other input. I will return to the debate in the near future .--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit warring
 * Whatever else can be said, the article is better sourced and more informative now than before you and I started changing it. That's not edit warring.  That's Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would hope someone who has been with Wikipedia as long as you have would be aware that edit warring could be a single edit. I am not sure that the section is exactly better but it has been worked on.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would hope that someone who's been with Wikipedia as long as you can read policies before citing them. WP:V for one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving other editor's comments
Per WP:TPO: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page..--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Moving your comments did not change their meaning. They don't belong in the RfC section, so I moved them.  Also, while you were reverting my entirely justified move, you deleted my comments.  You have no business on that horse.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologise, but then you should not be attempting to control the discussion and you do not get to alter the meaning of my posts by moving them from the area the reply to. If i did accidently delete your comment with that revert it was not my intention, but you could well be accused of setting that up by moving and commenting at the same time. Please be more careful with such editing in the future.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then it is fortunate that moving your posts to an appropriate place does not alter their meaning. They were moved intact and unaltered from an RfC section to a non-RfC section.  Read WP:TPO again.  It is even permitted to move irrelevant posts from one talk page to another. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Resolution copied from page in question: ''Duke it out on your talk pages. ANI is not a first resort for every tiny bit of wikidrama someone invents on a given day. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)''

Edit war warning
You are engaged in an edit war and have passed the 3 Revert Rule. Edit warring is a serious issue and may end in a block. Please do not edit war.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I went to the RfC talk page and asked what previous version of the page should count as the original. The idea that a no-consensus RfC means that the page goes back to your preferred version is no less preposterous than the idea that it should go back to mine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nickname, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked the link before adding it. I knew it was a disambiguation page.  It was entirely intentional.  Wikipedia does not have a page on "dork" as in socially inept person, but the disambiguation page does briefly mention its meaning before proceeding to the disambiguation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=559449659 your edit] to Sex and gender distinction may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your helpful "WP:LQ" warning
How right you are and thanks so much for the note. I've gotten complete wind of this actually. Complete wind of it. It's clear you are well-informed as of relates to the contributors pushing WP:LQ. Honestly though, I kind of sensed everything you were saying even before your note. The difficult behavior, the incivility, the unreason, I totally sensed that the moment the Doniago user and Fantr started squawking about the policy needing to be followed. It seems to spark a domino effect of incivility and obnoxiousness to the point I just feel better off staying off the website altogether. Anyways, I'll only challenge it if I have the help of you though. You just know how certain users like WP:LQ pushers will take every opportunity from which to recruit their numbers and gang attack. If you go through with challenging it, I'll be there to back up. Just send me a note. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we're making at least some progress. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? What looks like that? Heh.  Hope springs eternal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog, can this source be used or no on the talk page or no? :


 * Rule 1


 * Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.


 * Examples:
 * The sign changed from "Walk," to "Don't Walk," to "Walk" again within 30 seconds.


 * She said, "Hurry up."


 * She said, "He said, 'Hurry up.'" AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This source is The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation. It was written by an American English teacher rather than a grammar/language expert or team of experts.  I'd put this as less important than a big-time style guide but more important than a blog, so put it at the bottom of the list for now.  Remember: It's fair game for someone to challenge it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened to this discussion on the MOS talk page? I was hoping for change on this policy. Sweetmoniker (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It timed out. They do that.  Someone else came in and challenged the rule again today, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC re MOS quotation punctuation practices
Greetings, Darkfrog. As you already know, in order to clarify the meaning of RfC Option C per the request of several editors, the Option C description has been revised at the request of several editors. Because you have already !voted before this clarification, I ask that you confirm your previous !vote to address the concerns raised by Sroc on the MOS talk page. If you confirm your !vote (as I assume you will), please leave a comment here or on the MOS talk page to that effect.

On a happier note, I am pleased with the coalescing of support around the Option B "flexibility" approach. Like you, it was not my first choice, but it is certainly an improvement and will lead to the majority of articles written in American and Canadian English using American style quotation punctuation. At the end of the day, it is a compromise with which I can live. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Already done, DL, already done.
 * Yes, I agree. This isn't the best solution, but it's one that most parties should be able to live with. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my words "just plain wrong" -- and I mean intrinsically wrong. If you refer to an album like "The Beatles", a comma has no place being put before those close-quotes. You wouldn't put close-brackets there, so don't put a spurious comma there. Oh, I'm fully aware that American practice is still a slave to the past, and the dead hand of dead style guides that nobody dares change. But it's still wrong -- the message just hasn't reached the dinosaur's brain yet. Well I am glad WP is standing up for common sense and putting a crack in this dam, a progressive step forward to challenging and ending this abomination. Kill it with fire. Jheald (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well then I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. You might decide that it made more sense to spell "freight" without the g, but you'd be wrong.  The real common sense way to write is the way that will communicate effectively with one's readers, and no one's been able to show that American punctuation has any impairments in that respect. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Refactored
I refactored Finell's entry and moved your response with the extended part, to a new discussion subsection, so that the basic schema of numbered entries will be preserved. I hope that's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's fine. I figured Finell would do the moving, actually. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your response at LQ
I believe that your comment should have gone in the discussions section. If nothing else than being against the rules that everyone is happily following, it risks buggering up the numbering and formatting, so I moved it. It's in its own little section so that nobody can miss it but it's "out of harms way", as they say. ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You sound well-meaning but I don't agree with this, OhC. SmC told a lie about me while referring to me by name.  That gives me the right to respond where I see fit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NO, there is no such thing as an inherent right. This may be a wiki, where some people can't stop talking, and the only way of making them stop is to have them blocked, but there are still 'local rules', such as where to put responses. So please stop fucking with them and with the collateral damage you re doing to formatting. Also, I notice that this is the nth time you're reverted this change, so please consider this a warning in accordance with WP:3RR. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did this F-bomb-dropping anger come from? You say I don't have the right to respond to someone who tells lies about me, that there's a rule about this somewhere?  Post a link to it please.
 * By "nth" do you mean "second"? Because it was the second. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Alexis_Reich#Requested_move_16_September_2013
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Alexis_Reich. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Lyme disease
Hi Darkfrog24, thank you for adding the sentence about the white-tailed mouse to our Lyme disease article, and I'd encourage you to go even further. What I understand, even though the ticks are called "deer ticks," is that the mice are the actually most important in the life cycle of the tick. And that for the microbe, that we humans are a reproductive dead end for the Borrelia burgdorferi microbe! Cool Nerd (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am limited by what is actually stated in the sources that I find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dream of asking you to do anything else. I was just hoping you may have read this more recently than I have, and may have a bead on a source. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is a Connecticut State web site. It's a few years old. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Manual of style register listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Manual of style register. Since you had some involvement with the Manual of style register redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Apology accepted. These things can get heated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! DonQuixote (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

4RR
You have violated 3RR: (1, 2, 3, 4). If you self-revert immediately, I will not report you to WP:AN/EW. I am doing this as a courtesy; I could have simply reported you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted you because you deleted content for being unsourced without bothering to check the source: Click on the link to the 538 article. Hit CTRL-F "chapter." Then kindly stop complaining. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. Just so you know, that isn't a defense where 3RR is concerned. I gave you the opportunity to self-revert. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't give anyone anything, Jack, not even the time it took to read the source that you claimed didn't contain the content you reverted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave you the opportunity to self-revert and thus not be in violation of 3RR. You chose instead to keep trying to make the same points you keep making. After posting my reply ("Okay then…"), I filed the report. Check the timestamps. You should probably read (or re-read) WP:3RR; your argument that you are defending your revert with isn't considered an exception to the rule. I think you still have time to self-revert before an admin gets to it. I gave you ample warning. You just chose not to heed it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for "making the same points you keep making," kindly look in a mirror, Jack. And please stop acting like you're deigning to be civil.  That's required of you.  As for my choices, you are neither privy to them nor entitled to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand any of that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "You chose instead to keep trying to make the same points you keep making" -- so do you. If you're going to act like it's wrong for me to do it, you might want to stop doing it yourself.  Or don't, but then own up that you don't really think it's wrong.
 * "stop acting like you're deigning to be civil." -- You have been completely arrogant. You act insulted that I won't take your interpretation of WP:OR over a verbatim read of WP:Primary, as if you had any kind of rank to pull.  You act like it's some great favor for you to hear me out, as if I weren't doing the exact same for you.  You say "get a secondary source" and then don't bother to read it.  You reject all attempts to address your concerns out of hand instead of building on them or suggesting any compromises of your own.  You've twice scolded me for being too lazy to find sources but then you don't do any of the work, not finding sources, not developing text, not any finger-lifting that isn't the revert button.  You scold people for making changes to the disputed section in the edit summary of the changes you are making to the disputed section.  You scold people for acting like the rules don't apply to them while acting like the rules don't apply to you.
 * And then you have the gall to say you're acting with "courtesy."
 * As they say, Jack, don't do me any favors. You can't seem to distinguish them from baseline anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Do you feel better now?
 * Look, once the DRN gets some feedback, you will learn whose "interpretation" is the correct one. It is true that i have been arrogant, but that is because i know with a certainty that i am right, and I'm being big enough to try and help you catch up to the rest of us. That you actively choose not to is equal parts bewildering and frustrating. I've already apologized for accidentally removing the only two good sources you managed to add; in my defense, they were mixed in with all the craptastic Westeros.org and the novel primary source chapter and page nonsense and were easy to miss. I did add them back in, so you can finally cross that great injustice I've done you off your list.
 * And lastly, I have little in the way of time to seek out sources, so I pretty much wiki-gnome most of the time and add content (when the kid isn't trying to stick their fingers into light sockets or whatever) when I can. My lack of content should not distract you from the message: I know what I am talking about, and am the first to ask/speak up and/or apologize when I don't know something about Wikipedia (which is a lot of the more technical stuff). But OR, SYN and sourcing? Man, I am a whiz at that. More's the pity that you cannot separate the message from the messenger. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Guess what? Policy states that I'm right and you don't see me acting like the lord of the manor.  It's a safe guess that Diego and DQ both think they're right too.
 * Oh so you have an excuse for not doing the work? Still not a reason to call other people lazy.  It's not your lack of content; it's your multi-level hypocrisy.
 * As for separating the message from the messenger, for the umpteenth time, it's not that I haven't read your opinions on WP:OR. It is that I don't agree with them.  Don't keep asking me to take your word for it; at no point have I insisted that you take mine.  Cite policy.  Find a precedent somewhere.  Spend less time huffing that other people aren't kowtowing to you so that you have a spare minute to find a real reason why they should do what you think is right. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding ongoing edit-warring and a possible misuse of sources. The thread is Darkfrog24 - ongoing edit-warring, etc.. Thank you. —Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning
Please remove the citation to the book tha tyou have improperly (and repeatedly) reverted into in the article, despite requests to desist from such and a consensus to keep them out. I am offering you this short opportunity to do so before I report you for edit-warring. Please do not confuse this notice with a hesitation to file the complaint. Your disruptive editing will stop, or there will be consequences. I will wait approximately two hours and then file the report. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing the citation to the book. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT requires me to say where I found the information and this is where I found the information.  The objection to including the book tag was the establishment of significance.  Now that that has been dealt with using other sources, there is no further legitimate reason to omit the actual source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Saywhere… is an essay guideline . It is not policy, and policy says, when challenged, you bring a secondary source, or it is out. Period. You have a secondary source (tho' of dubious quality and authorship - more on that in a bit). You cannot use the book citation in that way. Ask an administrator. ANY ADMINISTRATOR.  The clock is running, and if you do not remove it, I will file the complaint. There will be no further warnings, miss. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did bring secondary sources. Repeatedly.  I have addressed all legitimate objections.  Now knock it off.
 * You should refrain from calling people "miss" unless you 1. know their gender, marital status and age and 2. any of the three could be construed as your business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack Sebastian, since Darkfrog24 has not mentioned it, I'll go ahead and mention it: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is a guideline, not an essay; it is a part of the WP:Citing sources guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Flyer - that was my mistake. Fortunately, the point remains a valid one: you can't use a primary source in that way. SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT refers to a source that you've seen yourself. It does not cover using that source in a way that it cannot - especially when secondary sources are required. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Darkfrog24 - are you stating that you are not a female? Not that it matters in terms of editing, but its certainly helpful when addressing people. Indications are that you are female, so if you are a male, please feel free to say so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, WP:PRIMARY says that yes I may use a primary source in this way. You know perfectly well that you and I don't agree on what this policy means, so stop wasting my time and my patience by treating your opinions as a foregone conclusion.  You probably also know perfectly well that calling someone "miss," "missy," "boy" or "laddie" is diminutive, patronizing and condescending.  Doing so is extremely rude.  Knock it off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are still wrong, and the consensus disagrees with you. As for calling you Miss, it was certainly not meant as a diminutive, patronizing or condescending. I examined my options for addressing you: 'madam' is out, as it implies either age or a pimping. 'Ms.' is likewise out, as is 'Mrs', because I don't know (or care) what your married status is. As 'Miss' is equal to 'Mr' or 'Sir' where I come from, I figured it was far better than some of the terms I was sorely tempted to use. If you chose to take everything I say wrong, I can't really do anything but pity you, ma'am. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Jack, the equivalent of "sir" is "ma'am." If my gender is ever relevant, I'll tell you about it. It should occur to you that I wouldn't be able to take anything you say wrong if you quit making personal attacks, kept your talk page comments on topic and stayed the eff off my userpage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll happily unblock you if two things happen: (1) you commit to making no edits to this specific article for the next 24 hours, and also either to discuss the article or to drop the matter entirely, and (2) Jack makes the same commitment. See my comment at the WP:ANI discussion, meanwhile.  If you agree to the first condition, let me know by linking my username in your comment.  Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked Jack after he agreed to what I requested; if you agree, you should be unblocked. Feel free either to let me know by linking my username or to use the unblock tool.  Meanwhile, a week-long block was too long; I've changed it to 24 hours from the original time, or a little more than 17 hours from now.  Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm cool with the twenty-four hour thing. I've taken multi-day breaks before to absolutely no effect.  It is now 7:37 p.m.
 * As to further discussion, I'll do it if you think it might help, but I'm pretty sure Jack and I have already talked this to death. He refuses to work with me, to compromise or to accept that his opinions are not themselves policy.  He has repeatedly insinuated that I must be lazy and stupid because I don't agree with him.  He has referred to me by gender-specific diminutives and continued to do so after being told to stop.  He rejects all of my efforts to address his concerns, sometimes without even looking at them first.  I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the existing participants alone.  I've cited WP:policy, shown him other articles that use sources the way I've used them  and repeatedly offered compromise phrasing .  He's done nothing but repeat that he is right and that "everyone" agrees with him. (This is contradicted by the results of an RfC and request for third opinion.) It's pretty clear that he's not going to listen to me.
 * In fine, Jack says, "We need a secondary source," I say "I don't agree, but here's a secondary source," and he deletes the content. Rinse and repeat.  We have a problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The block was purely because of the edit war (I wasn't even aware of the WP:ANI discussion), and since you agree, I've unblocked you. Note that I said "discuss the article or drop the matter entirely"; far be it from me to try to force you to discuss it if you think further discussion pointless.  Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If dropping it means that Jack gets to delete whatever sourced content he wants on whatever excuse he wants, then yes I have a problem with dropping it. Why don't you put your $0.02 into the discussion page?  We've both already listened to you once.  If you don't want to get sucked in, then just put in one comment and leave. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that you were just blocked for your edits with relation to Oathkeeper, I would strongly recommend that you discuss first, then make the edits when you have consensus to do so. If you continue to revert myself and others to force your edits into the article (and your reasons aren't pertinent, at least to me) then I will be forced to assume you are intentionally edit-warring and will take appropriate action. I would like to not feel forced to escalate this matter. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice that you didn't feel the need to discuss changes first, Don. Follow your own advice or don't expect me to.
 * You wanted me to find more sources, even though I don't think it's necessary. I did.  That's not forcing my will on the article.  That's my willingness to take your opinions seriously even though I do not share them.
 * If you don't want to do something then don't do it. Or do it, but admit that it was your own decision.
 * I don't want you to feel uncomfortable, Doniago, but look at this from my perspective: I have jumped through every hoop that you guys have put in front of me. Then someone pulls a new hoop out of the hat.  The way I see it, I'm doing all the work, suggesting all the compromises, finding all the sources, working out all the wordings.  If you want to smooth things out, then work with me.  Instead of bulldozing everything that I add to the article, change the wording so that it addresses your concerns.  Dig up a source.  Then we can triangulate our way to something that we'll all find reasonably acceptable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for long-term edit warring at Oathkeeper against consensus and after previous unblock for the same issue. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am only responding here, as Darkfrog24 has made it seem as if she is blameless in the matter that resulted in her block, and that we have failed to answer her questions with regards to her problematic sourcing efforts. We had stated our objections to her sources on so many occasions that to link them here would look like the archival box for AN3R; yes, that many times. We even bullet-pointed them for her on several occasions. Her response was to say that we were inflicting upon her our personal interpretations of policy and guidelines.
 * ..She would argue that fake sources still counted and could be used (as dead links) to support primary sources.
 * ..She would argue that blog posts on fansites were reliable sources.
 * ..Or that sources that themselves cited Wikipedia for their material could be used as sources.
 * ..Or that books could be used to note similarities in plot between book and tv episode without secondary sourcing at all. She admits that she still believes this, and that the rest of us are wrong.
 * Did she find some sources that weren't absolute crap? Sure, but none of those sources went as far as Darkfrog24 wanted - listing all of the chapters that she felt the episode in question drew from. In every single incarnation of her edits, this list remained unchanged. When we kept removing it, she switched tactics and began moving the unproven bits in the the plot summary itself.
 * It was like someone continually offering a plate of steaming dog crap as a side dish to dinner, and when found inedible by others, instead offering that same crap as seasoning and garnish alongside the meal.
 * In each of these instances, she re-added the material either before or immediately after posting in discussion that - in essence - we were all wrong, and she was right. And this went on, day after day, week after week and - lastly - month after month.
 * She has argued that we did not tell her our concerns. I would submit that it wasn't a matter of her not knowing our viewpoints, but rather a matter of her not caring what our viewpoints were, wrong as they were. She said as much on several occasions. There is no possibility of collaborative editing in such an environment. It sheds editors from the article and from the Project.
 * Lastly, the sole reason why I did not mention that I was also blocked previously for edit-warring was that I stopped edit-warring after the block was lifted. She never did. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just because a source supports material that you don't like doesn't mean that it is fake. As per Wikipedia's policy on dead links, just because the link went dead doesn't mean the Prince Albert page is no longer usable.
 * Wikipedia's policy on blogs says that they are allowed if the article is written by a named member of the staff whose credentials are provided. That is the case with the Ana Carol blog article that I brought up on the talk page.
 * Yes, I find that WP:Primary supports the use of novels to cite information about their own plots. Yes, I still believe this.  Yes I think that I'm right and you're wrong.  You forgot the part where I've been abiding by the results of the RfC even though I don't agree with them and have been doing so even before the official word was handed down.  I've located over half a dozen secondary sources to use alongside the primary source, as stipulated.
 * As for sources citing Wikipedia, the GEOS article doesn't cite Wikipedia. On two occasions, I've told you, "I've checked, and I don't see where this says that it's based on Wikipedia, but I'm human and I might have missed it.  Show me." You have never pointed out where you think this source says that it cites Wikipedia.
 * No, you didn't tell me your concerns about the new material. For the past few months, you've been saying, "get more sources; I don't like the ones that are already here," and now I'm saying, "okay, try this one with this phrasing." Yes, you have to say what you think of it if you're going to delete it.  If you want me to guess at what you're thinking based on previous posts, then here you go:  I'm guessing that your real reason for deleting this content is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you don't want to have to admit it.  It looks like you thought you were sending me on a wild goose chase with your requests for further sourcing and you don't know what to do now that I've come back with the poultry in hand.
 * This would go a lot better if you would stop referring to other people's contributions as feces and start working with me. Suggest a wording that would address your concerns.  Suggest a compromise as I have suggested compromises.  Suggest something that I haven't thought of.
 * And I did stop edit warring. Addressing other people's concerns is not edit warring.  Making changes that have been raised on the talk page to zero objection is not edit warring.
 * As for why the list of chapters remained unchanged, it's because it's based on 1. both primary sources and 2. several different secondary sources, and they agree with each other. In other words, this list has stayed the same because it's accurate.  Nowhere in our discussions has anyone contested that the content was accurate.
 * At the absolute least, you should go to the talk page and state why you are disputing the content so we can work this out. The i09 source in my last set of revisions specifically lists chapter information, which is what you asked for.  The phrasing holds tightly to the wording of the i09 source, which is also what you asked for.  You should be saying, "Ah yes!  Finally!  Thank you." Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The paNow.com source is not simply a dead link. After I became suspicious of the odd wording of the source, I contacted their News desk for that media outlet, and asked them who the contributor of the review was. I was told that the article was created in their free classifieds space by an anonymous source - not a staff writer or paid freelancer. They were kind enough to provide an IP address that geolocates to New York. This information, and the fact that it was created shortly before you used it and disappeared almost immediately after I asked about it seemed more than a little suspicious. Thus, the accusation. Setting aside the authorship of the fake link, the reason we cannot use it is because it was not written by a reliable source. Yes, paNOW is a source itself, but not the free classifieds section of paNOW, where anyone, anonymously, can create content. If my objections to this source wasn't clear to you before, it should be now.
 * As has been pointed out to you by more than one other editor, Gameofthronesbr.com is a Brazilian fansite for the series. Those seldom instances where we reference a fansite include when a listed member of the staff interview a recognized member of the series' cast or crew (as per WP:FANSITE). Ana Carol is a harpist music student and a blogger; she is not a member of the cast or crew of GoT or a recognied staff member of the fansite. For numerous reasons, her contributions as an independent one-off blogger to a fansite cannot be cited as a source. It is not just me saying this, but you have been told this by several others.
 * Re-adding the same material and arguing the same reasoning that was rejected by the closing RfC comments suggests that you either did not read the comments carefully, or parsed their meaning in such a way that you felt you could get around its intent. You might want to use some of your time to re-read that closing argument. It pointedly rejects your use of primary sources in the way you wish to use them. You are interpreting which sources from the book are being used int he series, which is synthesis. Others have said the same thing. This isn't about me; the sooner you realize this, the easier the process of adjusting your approach is going to be.
 * You will have to speak to Doniago (who spoke out on the GEOS link regarding its practice of mirroring Wikipedia), but for myself, as the website is - by their own admission - "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run", it renders itself unusable. Wikipedia doesn't use fansites as sources.
 * This is all material which you have been told time and again, Darkfrog24. Anyone looking at the article discussion, or edit summary for the article could see that, as well as your rejection of that. If we had not voiced our objections, you couldn't very well object to them, now could you?
 * After several months of you trying to add precisely the same material to the article without success, you then move the material from the Production section to the Plot summary. It doesn't become more palatable just because you move it elsewhere, Darkfrog24. When told by more than one editor that this is unacceptable, you could have chosen to stop reverting the same version in and respected your fellow editors' concerns. You instead chose ignore our disallowance and continued to edit-war it back in while engaging in tendentious editing. For weeks. That is why you are where you are now.
 * You should use this time to consider accepting the consensus that has already been formed about source use within the article, and this time, actually do that. If you still find that you cannot accept the consensus, then it might be time to follow your bliss to non-GoT related articles, where you seemed to find some level of contentment. You cannot be happy with your views being rejected in Oathkeeper. Tke some time to think about that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In case this wasn't 100% clear before, I want you to stop referring to my or anyone's contributions with swear words or references to feces. It just occurred to me that there was an outside chance that you didn't understand what I meant. If your reason for deleting the material is "This isn't sufficiently sourced" then you don't get to claim tendentious editing about the person who keeps providing more sources. Given your history with the Prince Albert and 538 articles, I have to ask: You did read the i09 source, right? I am not mocking you. I just want you to confirm that you saw that it was there. Hit CTRL-F "Jaime IX" and "Sansa V," etc. and you will see the exact lines that support the disputed text. The only consensus on that page is, if we assume that everyone's acting in good faith and take everything that's been said at face value, is that one reliable secondary source must be provided. Then the material is 100% acceptable. Which part of my actions make you think I disagree with that? Was it all the time I put in digging up secondary sources even though I don't think they're necessary? Six of them, in fact (eight if you count the other i09 article and Slate article). Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * PaNOW: I've told you this before, but here it is again. I found the PaNOW page by plugging "Oathkeeper" and "Jaime IX" and other phrases from the disputed text into a search engine. That is why its wording was so similar to the disputed text&mdash;because that was the search query.
 * No one argued that the Ana Carol article wasn't from a blog. But Wikipedia's policy on blogs says that they can be used if the content is made by a staff writer whose credentials are provided and sufficient (WP:NOBLOGS).  Considering  that Ana Carol is being asked to state "This episode contained the same content as chapters X, Y, and Z," and not provide advanced literary analysis her status as a tertiary student is sufficient (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).  You can argue this one, but you don't get to claim, "Darkfrog thinks blogs should be allowed!" as if I meant all blogs at all times and under all circumstances or that I'm offering you "crap."
 * I don't know what you're talking about on your third point. I re-added the material, yes, but I provided a fresh secondary source to go with the primary source.  That is what the RfC concluded: Don't use the primary source alone.  Am I misunderstanding something about your third point?
 * Being fan-owned and fan-run doesn't preclude GEOS's use. GEOS has a history of use on Wikipedia for material far more controversial than straight facts supported by primary and other secondary sources.  Yes it collects survey responses from anonymous contributors, but none of them were cited for the article; the core episode description was. (In fact, no survey responses had even been submitted for Oathkeeper at the time GEOS was accessed.)
 * I don't understand what you're talking about with this point.
 * Yes, I moved the material from the Writing section to the Plot Summary section with an additional source that explicitly states "this event happened in chapter X and that event happened in chapter Y. This is a new solution to our problem.  YES you have to look at it and acknowledge it and, if you want to delete it, say why it does or does not meet your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules.

Further to your email, let me just clarify something. You weren't blocked for violating 3RR, you were blocked for edit warring which you very obviously did. Also as far as I can tell your ability to edit this talk page hasn't been revoked so you should be able to edit. I'd be happy with an unblock on the following conditions:

If you agree to those restrictions I'll unblock you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the it-can-still-be-edit-warring-even-if-3RR-isn't-violated rule. I just wanted to make sure that there was no confusion on that point.
 * As for 1RR, which I understand to mean one revert per day instead of three, that's what I've already been doing for a while now. So while I of course I don't object to keeping it up until Saturday, I'm a bit confused about the that's-still-edit-warring part.  What is it that you want me to do that's different from what I've already been doing with respect to 1RR?  This question is not rhetorical.  I actually want to know what it is that you're asking me to do.  Are you saying, "The timing part is good; just change this other stuff"?
 * 48 hours seems too long.
 * My ability to edit this talk page is still in place. My ability to edit all other talk pages has been blocked.  Otherwise I'd have posted to your talk page instead of sending you that email.
 * Your "notwithstanding" makes your statement confusing. Please clarify.  I want no confusion about what you are and are not asking me to do.
 * I have a question, and I could really use some commentary from a neutral party: What if, say, I propose a change, and people respond on the talk page, but their responses don't include "Here is why I am objecting to the content"? That's what's been happening. When you say "wait 48 hours," what is it that I'm waiting for?
 * This might not be 100% relevant, but it's good to hear a voice that's not screaming and cursing at me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If I am not misunderstanding the context, They sare saying that if you propose a change, and no one comments or objects to that change, you should feel free to add that change to the article. I can promise you that if you propose a change in article discussion, no one will ignore that proposal. The problem would arise if you were to propose a change, find resistance to that change, and then edit in the change anyway. That has been one of the larger problems in this matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, you're not exactly unbiased in this case. If you are actually trying to help, this is one of those times when you help by staying out of the way.  It's become quite clear that you and I don't interpret things the same way.  I would like Callanec to tell me what Callanec means so that there is no misunderstanding.
 * As for "I promise no one will ignore the proposal," yes I'd be glad if you stopped ignoring my request that you tell me what you think is wrong with the text so that it can be addressed. "I don't like this" is not enough of a reason. That's what I've been asking you and DonIago to do for days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Answers to your clarification points:
 * It's one revert per week, which is the big change and slows it down considerably.
 * That's the idea, it makes you stop and discuss.
 * When blocked there are two things you're allowed to do, you your own talk page and use the Email function, that's the only two things admins can turn off and on.
 * For example say you reverted an explained removal of content and were reverted. Even if you've proposed adding back the content on the talk page, waited 48 hours and 20 editors agree with your revert you can't do it until 7 days after your initial revert.
 * You would need to ask them why they object and not make the change until you have consensus.
 * I think that's all of the points you raised. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, now it makes sense.
 * I can hold to that until Saturday. Okay, I thought it was "leave proposals on the page for 48 hours before taking action," but your fourth point suggests that this is not the case. Please clarify.
 * That's odd. Last time, when Jack and I were both blocked, the only thing I couldn't edit was the Oathkeeper page itself.  I was still posting on the talk page.
 * Let's see if I have this. 1. Removal of content has to have been explained. 2. Then say I revert the removal. 3. Then I go to the talk page and explain why I put the content back in. What is the 48 hours for if I'm not supposed to perform another action for seven days?
 * I have been asking them why they object. They haven't been answering.  Their reverts have not been accompanied by explanation.
 * Thanks for answering my questions. I want to make sure that we're on the same page.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They have to be on the talk page for a minimum of 48 hours and you can't make more than 1 revert to the article within a week.
 * With a bit more detail: If you see an editor remove a bit of content with an explanation that you don't agree with, you propose on the talk page that it be added back. After 48 hours there is a consensus to add it back, which you then do (your one revert). 30 minutes later that editor comes back an back and removes it again. You already have the 48 hour rule ticked off because you've done that, however 1RR/week prevents you from reverting again so you have to go back to the talk page.
 * The 48 hour rule is mainly there for content you want to add, but it works for both additions and removals. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's clearer, but it's starting to sound like I should just refrain from editing the article in question until Saturday.
 * This looks like it applies to reverts but not to other edits.
 * What about reverts for which no explanation is given? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it meets the conditions at WP:3RRNO (or WP:BANEX) then you can revert it without regard to 1RR. You could do that and only edit the talk page, up to you. I've unblocked you per the above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is my understanding that these restrictions are in force until one week from the time of blocking, Saturday.  If you mean one week from the time of unblocking, just let me know.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From the original expiry date is all I can enforce, though I'd suggest that a voluntary/unofficial 1RR/week or proposing potentially controversial things on the talk page first would be good practice for you given others were calling for a TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an involved and potentially biased editor, I certainly hope the editing at Oathkeeper will proceed in a more collaborative spirit on behalf of all parties going forward. DonIago (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was already doing something similar, Callanecc. I don't expect a problem.
 * Me too, Don, but no one can collaborate alone. At the absolute least, you have to say why you keep deleting the content so that I or one of us can fix it.  Don't expect me to read your mind.  I can't take your statements on good faith if you don't make any. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why I kept deleting it was because you knew the information you were editing was highly controversial and you knew that all editors adding material regarding the subject at hand had been asked to get consensus for their changes before adding material and you persisted in trying to force your material through. There was and is no deadline; it would have shown good faith, eased tensions and likely have kept you from being blocked if you'd shown more active interest in working with your fellow editors instead of editing first and hoping nobody objected when editors had been expressing concerns regarding your additions for months. I go to great lengths to AGF, but when an editor's working on a highly controversial part of an article and has been an active participant in discussions, I consider it eminently reasonable to expect them to get a consensus first. And lastly, what would have been the harm in running the gauntlet of asking editors whether they would approve of your changes before implementing them? None that I can think of.
 * If you want my support, show me that you want to work with the other involved editors to ensure that further changes to the article have their support instead of striking out unilaterally. I'm willing to give you some leeway at this point, but I sincerely hope I won't see any further instances of you trying to push through controversial edits despite others' concerns and/or opposition. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Don, the material is not controversial. The material is a list of which chapters contain the same content as an episode of a TV series.  That might be something that you don't happen to like, but that doesn't make it highly controversial.
 * Don YOU made changes to the writing section without getting consensus first. Do not expect me to go above and beyond Wikipedia's ordinary rules if you aren't willing to do the same.
 * As for the rules, yes you are required to state your reasons if you want to keep deleting something. No you don't get to say, "Well I don't like this and you ought to know why already." If you leave me to guess at your motives, then the conclusions that I draw may not be favorable to you.
 * The harm in asking you guys first? Aside from the fact that the readers wouldn't have access to their information in the interim, I've been trying to assume good faith, but 1. you guys asked for secondary sources but 2. providing them&mdash;about eight of them now, nine&mdash;only seems to make those same people angry. 3. On several separate occasions, Jack deleted material without bothering to read the source first. From this, I conclude that "This just needs more secondary sources" is not the real reason or at least not the only reason why this material is getting deleted, that Jack or you or both are going to delete the content no matter what I do or how many weeks and months I spend finding source after source after source.  I don't trust you guys to address the material fairly.
 * This thing has been sourced in everything from a newspaper to respected news sites to less respected news sites to the actual book itself, way beyond Wikipedia's usual standards for information of this kind. What.  Gives? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can claim that material that resulted in months of discussion is not controversial. Maybe it shouldn't be, but when there's been discussions at DRN, ANI and an RFC? Congratulations, it's now controversial. Treat it accordingly.
 * The only changes I recall making are reverting your changes which had stirred up dissent on the Talk page. If you believe I did otherwise, provide me with a diff and I'll discuss it.
 * From what I've seen at the Talk page, the sources you keep trying to insert into the article are not reliable sources and shouldn't be being used. Even now multiple editors are telling you that the sources you're defending aren't appropriate. If you disagree, an endorsement from WP:RSN might go a long way toward helping your case.
 * Frankly I don't give a damn how much you trust us, because for my money I don't feel you've given us much reason at all to trust you. You keep trying to include sources that other editors don't believe are reliable, you're evidently not doing the legwork to disprove their claims, you've already shown a willingness to edit war rather than make a serious effort to achieve consensus, and even after being blocked you're still being defensive and trying to blame others for your edits being rejected instead of showing even a hint of modesty and a genuine interest in working with your fellow editors.
 * But in the end, I'm not even the one you have to convince. I don't give a damn about GoT and wouldn't even be aware of this whole situation if the DRN case hadn't been brought to my attention. I have no interest in editing the article, but I will do so if I see an editor trying to force edits through regarding controversial material for which they do not have consensus to include.
 * I'm this close to simply not speaking with you about this anymore, so if you want to continue this dialog, I might recommend that you take a step back and look at how you're coming across first. Good day. DonIago (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, making a deletion counts as making a change, especially considering that the content had already had four different sources, the only objection to it that had been raised was insufficient sourcing, and that it had been re-added with a new source. Don't tell me "don't touch" unless you're willing to refrain from doing the same.
 * Remember your context. Is the source reliable for the information being cited?  Product information from a newspaper?  Yes.  The book itself?  Yes.  A blog post from a named author whose credentials are given?  Yes.  A fansite on that specific topic for whose use there is great precedent on Wikipedia?  Yes.
 * Again, Don, take your own advice. In this case, if you want to delete something, give a reason.  When you don't, it makes it look like you don't think you need to discuss things or that you don't have a good reason for your deletion and prefer to hide it.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Riiiiiight. Think I'm done here. DonIago (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper | Script assisted WS removal/wikification
Hi Darkfrog24,

I'm a random administrator who saw a post by Jack Sebastian on WP:AN and offered to assist him. He informed me to explain the dispute you were having on Talk:Oathkeeper, and I have independently reviewed the situation. I do not believe I have interacted with Jack, DonQuixote, or yourself before, and I am not a viewer/reader of the Game of Thrones television/book series. With that said, I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, and I hope you take the advice in the constructive spirit it is offered in:

Jack has asserted that a news website you have cited to support your position was actually a classifieds section authored by yourself. His rationale seems plausible to me, but at this point, largely unprovable. With that said though, you have repeatedly insisted that it and similar types of self-published or non-established sources (unclearly credentialed sites, fan websites, etc.) as appropriate sources for Wikipedia. These websites may be useful in establishing the Truth of content on our site, but there is a reason that the Identifying Reliable Sources guideline is so stringent on matters like these—it helps us determine which details are important to add to an article and which are ephemeral. Respectfully, your proposed additions are beginning to veer to the latter end. I suggest that you take a step back and re-evaluate what you're adding, why, and whether it truly meets the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies.

If you have any questions, please feel to reply back (just please use WP:ECHO notify me!). Best,  NW  ([[User talk:NuclearWarfare| Talk ) 20:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack's lying If we give Jack absolutely every benefit of the doubt, then his claim that I paid a newspaper to publish a source that supports content that he doesn't like is best described as wishful thinking. I plugged "Oathkeeper" and "Jaime IX" into a search engine and the page in the Prince Albert newspaper came up.
 * If you need another secondary source to confirm that this content isn't trivial, this ought to do it: . There's also a similar article in Slate (two similar articles if you also count the one by Chris Kirk) and another in i09.  I've also repeatedly asked if the other participants in this debate had any reasons other than sourcing to object to this material.  I keep getting "no."
 * Jack does not like the content in question and has come up with some excuse for every source I've found. He claims that all he wants are secondary sources, but providing them&mdash;about eight or nine at last count, including news sources such as 538, Slate and AV Club &mdash;only seems to make him angry&mdash;to the point of profanity (scroll up or hit CTRL-F "steaming dog crap" or even just "crap"; he uses that one a lot).  He has repeatedly deleted content as unsourced without reading the source  .  This guy has issues.
 * Please be advised that these are not "my proposed additions," and as the information has not changed since this dispute started back in April (excepting that a source citing the fifth book in addition to the third was found), they cannot have veered anywhere. The text in question was already in both the Breaker of Chains and Oathkeeper articles.   Another author had deleted them as unsourced.  I found sources and then restored the text.
 * As to why I restored the text, "chapters X, Y, and Z," it's because I had come to the Breaker of Chains article looking for that exact information. I've read every page of the books and seen every frame of the show, but I didn't know that sites like Westeros.org existed.  I didn't go there; I came here.  It seems plausible that others would too.
 * EDIT: I just reread WP:TRIVIA and it doesn't seem to apply here. It concerns full lists of facts.  The disputed text is a single line telling the reader what parts of the book the episode was based on.  The content in question is a single sentence, Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX), incorporated in prose into the "Writing/Production" section of the article.
 * One more thing: It's good to hear a level voice from a neutral party. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, what are you doing?
I am noticing a lot (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least a dozen others) of canvassing going on, and I was wondering if you are aware with how it could be perceived? Posting at the wikiproject should have been enough. I think that - at this point, you have received more than enough responses at "Oathkeeper" from other users to confirm what you have been told for several months. You need to stop before this is escalated back to an admin for action. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What am I doing? Publicizing the RfC.  You will note that "talk pages of closely related articles" is specifically listed.  If you're going to keep pontificating about Wikipedia policy, you should spend more time reading it.
 * You should also ask this: From what I posted alone, can a previously uninvolved person tell which side of the issue I'm on? No.  From where I posted it, is it more likely to be read by people who agree with me than by people who don't?  Again no. (After all, you and DQ both spend time on GoT talk pages.)  It's hard to see why you'd consider this canvassing.
 * You might want to remember that this source was up for review on the RS noticeboard twice without a single comment from anyone not previously involved. What we need is not only people who are interested in WP:RS and WP:USERG but also people who think that a Game of Thrones article is worth their time.  J, Scooby and Inedible didn't show up until after I started publicizing.  I haven't asked them how they found out about the RfC, but you're certainly free to.
 * And no, I don't think that three new voices are more than enough, especially since there's only a one-person difference. Your post here smacks of, "Wait!  Now that there's a preponderance in my favor, I want the RfC to stop!  Nobody else come in!" If I pulled that, you'd be crying foul. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, at what point are you going to accept a consensus? I would like to know, because you've been at this for several months, and over the very same sentence. You have had almost a dozen contributors and visitors say no, and only one other saying yes. I think its a fair question to know when you plan to finally accept a result, because I am seeing nothing but you forum-shopping. Didn't get the answer you wanted? Start another RfC. Didn't get the input you wanted at RSN? Pretend it never happened. Have a half-dozen editors tell you in no uncertain terms that your pet phrasing cannot be in? Ignore it, or ask for re-clarification. This is what we are seeing here.
 * And you might want to check out that link for canvassing again. I think that sending more than a dozen posts seeking input - and where you are sending them - seems a lot like mass posting and votestacking. But why am I at all surprised? This is your game. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, read the policy on forum shopping. That's about taking the same question to different places hoping for a different result.  At the beginning of this issue, DQ requested a third opinion.  Diego showed up and said the primary source was enough to support the proposed text.  Now if DQ had been the one to start that RfC about using the novel, then that would have been forum shopping (but it wasn't DQ).  The previous RfC established that a secondary source was necessary, so I've been bringing in secondary sources.  You posted various complaints about those secondary sources, so now we've got another RfC dealing with those questions.  As for the RS noticeboard, no one gave us any input at all, not in the postings I wrote, not in the ones you wrote, no approval or disapproval.  What is it that I'm supposed to pretend didn't happen?  The thing to take away from that is that not all other editors consider Game of Thrones to merit their comments.
 * "At this"? Right now "this" is an RfC about the Ana Carol source.  It's got an official limit of thirty days from the time of posting, but people only started contributing to it after I started promoting it.  Let it run its course as our last RfC ran its course, and yes I've seen RfCs change after the first few contributors show up.
 * The consensus is that a minimum of exactly one secondary source must be found to support this content. I personally think that the primary source is enough, but if by "accept," you mean "agreed to abide by," then I accepted consensus months ago.  That's why I keep going out and finding secondary sources.  Frankly, considering that we've got eight or nine at this point, the content really should be in the article right now.
 * "Votestacking" only applies if I'm posting in places where I'm more likely to find people who agree with me than people who disagree with me. I repeat: I ran into you on a Game of Thrones talk page, and you clearly don't agree with me.
 * It would help if you'd refrain from insulting me, Jack. This is no more "mine" or a "game" than it is "yours." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Wait a second, are you under the impression that I only promoted this RfC on GoT talk pages? I haven't.  If that's not enough for you, then go ask Scooby and J how they found out about the RfC.  I'd prefer it if you did that before you post here again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry lady, I've already made up my mind on I'm having some trouble giving you the Assumption of Good Faith here; you've said nothing over the course of almost three months that convinces me that you aren't gaming the system to get precisely the edit you have wanted from the beginning. I'm done trying to help you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Tendentious editing unfortunately covers this whole situation rather well. And unless I perceive a genuine interest in changing the course of this discussion I'm pretty sure that's all I'll have to say here, because I have no desire to involve myself further at this point. DonIago (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Going out and finding more sources for material that's been deleted as unsourced is not gaming the system. It is the system.  And you'd have to start trying to help before you could stop.  The only thing you've done here is foist your own opinion and complain when I don't automatically prefer it to my own assessment of the situation.
 * Also, quit with the assumptions about my gender. You can call me "sir" if you feel a crushing need, but I really don't see how anyone's XX or XY is relevant here.
 * Don, I can see why you'd be frustrated, but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm breaking any of Wikipedia's rules. You guys insisted on more sources.  I went out and got them.  You're still not happy.  I don't know what you want from me there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd like you to consider the possibility that you're never going to get the consensus you're evidently hoping for, that maybe you should have reached that conclusion weeks ago, that perhaps it isn't worth continuing to drag this out regardless of whether you're behaving within the rules, and drop the stick and back away from the poor dead horse. DonIago (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don, the sources support this material. Policy supports this material.  There's precedent for content like this in other articles.  Have you considered that you might be the one being obstructionist here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should I? I'm not the one who can't find any other editors willing to support my take on the matter. Editing Wikipedia is about working with the community, not just pushing for your preferred version of an article because policy in and of itself supports your changes. DonIago (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Can't find any other editors"? Did you forget about Diego, InedibleHulk, Mjolnir or any of the others?  There's more to the community than you, Jack and DQ.  Should I forget about DQ because he's not here right now?  This dispute has five longstanding participants and others who've chimed in, and both groups have been split. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. I'm neither obligated nor inclined to talk about this with you any further. But you might ask yourself why, if these editors would support you, none of them have been saying anything lately. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly the same reason DQ took off. See you later, Don. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning
I would appreciate it is you would leave my posts as is. If you ever refactor a post of mine again, I will seek your immediate block. Consider this your sole warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't change your post. I changed the header.  The whiny "Again" is not neutral.  And let me remind you: You were the one who filed this both times. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am the one who submitted it once before, therefore, using the designator 'again' is both accurate and illuminating. Thank you for acknowledging my warning - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Jack, it is a complaint. It biases the viewer and poisons the well.  If you want this RSN to count you have to commit to conducting it properly.  If you don't like "Fan site or expert source" then just delete the "again" and just say "Westeros.org." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into this beyond to say that barring exceptional circumstances refactoring others' posts for almost any reason is a serious no-no and very much a blockable offense if it's persistent. The posts people make are a record of what they said, and it's incredibly inappropriate to change that. If you have objections to what they've said then note them in a follow-up, but do not change the original text. DonIago (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't touch Jack's post Don. Not one character of the text with his name on it was changed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring
If I am not mistaken, you are restricted to 1RR. Your actions on several articles (1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7, and 8, 9 and 10) suggest that you do not feel that your editing restrictions do not apply. Additionally, you appear to be reverting my edits wholsesale, without actually looking at what I am editing. Please stop edit-warring. Consider that RSN can see edit histories quite clearly. It is our responsibility to edit articles to remove unfit sources. It is not about positioning or tactics to make your preferred edit look pretty. You should know this. Stop, or suffer the consequences. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are indeed mistaken. The 1RR agreement timed out a long time ago and only concerned Oathkeeper.
 * Westeros.org is not an unfit source. Its use in these GA-rated articles has gone without comment for years and it's practically textbook expert under WP:SPS.  If you don't like it, take your concerns to the discussion on talk:Oathkeeper and the RSN noticeboard.
 * Stop trying to bias the RSN discussion by deleting precedent. You're already up for this on AN/I.  At least wait to see what the admins have to say about your edits.  I am not the only one reverting you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. You left me no choice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

When the date shows up but not your name
I have encountered that practice when creating certain types of pages, like AfD pages, but it didn't occur to me that that's what I did. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. I love being meddlesome and informative. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm familiar with the rationale. I've been around here since 2005. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. I rephrased my response after I checked your user page.  It was more along the lines of, "Good God you don't have to tell this person what the eff an RfC is; get it out of there!!" Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown
Hi, good idea on "no known criminal record" If you want to change your "vote" at the RfC to that wording, I will change mine as well and see if we can get others to compromise to your excellent suggestion. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll
There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

MOS
I'm taking the discussion offline. The difficulty with your proposal—again I know where you are coming from—is that MOS is not a policy, and is far from an essay, so there is nothing else generally acceptable to call it. Describing in MOS itself the level at which some people guard it would be setting an unwanted battleground tone. It's not entirely hopeless to change MOS; I know of this case at least :-) All the best.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What proposal? "The MoS is a set of rules"/"no it's just a guideline" isn't a proposal; it's just something that comes up a lot. There is nothing to propose.  The MoS is called a guideline and it is treated as a set of rules in the article and talk page space.  Referring to the MoS as a set of rules does not create a battleground; it acknowledges that the battleground is already there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortuantely, I'm sure that those that created the battleground probably don't know it exists, and would disagree with your characterization. It's safe to assume you have first-hand experience with these "rules".  If you ever need an outside opinion or guidance on whatever transpired in the past, I'm willing to listen.  Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from the example I gave you earlier from my own experience, a lot of users on separate Wikiprojects want to use their own, Wikiproject-specific capitalization systems. WP:BIRDS is the most frequent.  This is tied in with the specialist-vs-generalist argument. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to know the specifics. However, at a high level, this is not inconceivable.  Per WP:CONLIMITED, "limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale ... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right ..."  Either the broader community has accepted it, or it has not been contested.  In the end, it's all about consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how things are supposed to work, but it's only sometimes how they do work. For the time being, that's holding for the capitalization of species names, but that hasn't always been the case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (Policy)#Appending the Manual of Style on gender-neutral language
You are invited to join the discussion at Village pump (policy)/Archive 118. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Writing style help - somewhere
Regarding Village pump (proposals) and now Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: What can I say, but keep up the good work. What we're talking about seems transparently obvious and harmless to me, but it is equally obvious that some others see something completely different. I haven't the energy to give right now, but know that I think you are on the right track and you've got my support. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  03:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . That's a big help.  Dank says he believes in working with others and addressing their concerns.  I think if we can get him to understand he might support the idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Critic Summary, Re: Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think WP:Fringe applies in this case for several reasons. First, the author's view as a whole is part of the much repeated criticism of the disparity of outrage at sexual assault depending on the plot relevance and gender of other characters. Second, the author's opinion does not appear to be getting upset about the rape of a female character infantilizes women in of itself. Rather that the disparity between reactions according to the gender of the character which is a victim of sexual assault represents a reflection of patriarchal values depicting women as more delicate and inherently more pure than their male counterparts. Third, the point itself is not the main view in of itself, but critical context of their two wider points regarding the differences in perceived outrage and as part of the broader feminist critique, neither of which are fringe points of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.113.197 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is in reference to this quote: "The contrast between the outrage on behalf of female victims and the blasé attitude toward violence (even sexual violence) toward males ironically replicates a quintessentially patriarchal trope: the assumption that women are fragile creatures who deserve special protection and greater sympathy if they are mistreated." Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
I just wanted to thank you for your very professional edit summaries. -120.149.113.197 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I try.  Also, if you're being sarcastic I have no idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have to ask, does that suggest you might think someone would have grounds to think your summaries were anything otherwise?

-120.149.113.197 (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. It suggests that someone forgot that I can't hear their tone of voice online.  I've gotten both compliments and complaints about the way I operate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is policy for a reason. LOL. Sarcasm is usually more obvious.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Common ground
Wish we could find some common ground on MOS stuff. Your gist in the more recent message, about MOS's value as a "strict" (I read: consistent and well-reasoned) set of rules to be "enforced" (I read: agreed to be followed, and not rebelled against by wikiprojects and other WP:FACTIONs who can't be bothered to try to change MOS to get what they want and accept it and move on if consensus doesn't agree with them). And I agree with your take that people can't just say "MOS is stupid", "We don't need rules about dumb grammar crap", etc., and expect to be taken seriously in the debate. But this view of MOS, its importance, and its role seems sharply at odds with much of what you say and do in relation to MOS. I find it puzzling, and am not sure how to arrive at mutually more useful approach and compromise (not just with me, but the rest of the more frequent MOS editors). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "at odds with what I say and do"? If you're talking about WP:LQ, I've made it quite clear that I think it's wrong and should be changed.  I don't see how this contradicts the idea that the MoS should trump other style guidelines.  My take on this is that the MoS will get more respect if its contents are based on reliable sources rather than on whims and personal preferences.  This is the case for most of its contents. WP:LQ is a glaring exception. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not based on "whims and personal preferences", though. You just think it is because it's not agreeing with yours.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think that because it directly contradicts all the sources and because we have no non-arbitrary support for it. A lot of people like it because it appeals to them + absence of other reasons = based on personal preferences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: you say things like, "I already explained this" and I have no idea what you're talking about – Exactly. You just don't. Again and again you raise the very same questions/points in a cyclical pattern in the same debate, miring it until it dies, or people just ignore you. You exhibit this same pattern in multiple debates. It's a clear indication that you are not paying attention to what you are reading, or just not reading it. That's the civil assumption; there are others. Regardless of the reason, it's disruptive. From my point of view, the most anti-disruptive way to address it is by refusing to enable it. If a point has already been addressed, then neither I nor anyone else should repeat it (then re-repeat it for you later, then re-re-repeat it later, ad infinitum). Go back and read it when it as posted the first time. As just one example among many: You asked me four times in the last discussion about the requester of one of my changes and where that was, when the very first line I posted in the thread says where it was, and the rationale of the changes says what it was about and I even told you which line of the rationale contained this information. It means that even if you are reading this stuff it's going "in one eye and out the other", or is indicative of any of a number of other issues, none of which are my problem and none of which are Wikipedia's problem. WP:COMPETENCE is required. If you cannot even policy debates, you should not be involved in them.

If you can't understand something, then ask for a clarification of what you don't understand, don't simply start over with the same assertions or questions that have already been answered, or you'll either just get the same answers you didn't understand the first time, or you'll be (increasingly) ignored. I'm skeptical that failure to understand something about the answer that was already provided is the issue, though. It's more that you seem to not just recognize the very existence of responses half the time. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * the reason I don't always understand you is because the ideas that are in your head don't always make it through your fingers to the keyboard to the screen where I can read them. You say, "The national connection to [British and American punctuation] has been debunked." I say, "What?  When?!" you say "So many times." I say "What are you talking about?" and it's only when you finally explain in detail that I realize, for you, finding exceptions is enough to consider it debunked.  It's not that I'm not reading your posts.  It's that your thought process (exceptions=debunked) is so different from mine (exceptions=non-universality) that I couldn't tell that you thought we were talking about the same thing.
 * No, your first like doesn't say anything about the requestor. (First overall: "I've made the following tweaks"/First rationale:"The second sentence was awkward in several ways"/First reply to me:"Interested in the clarity problems.") Same deal with non-hypothetical examples. Your bullet point talks about "sloppy partials" but that doesn't tell me whether you've actually seen any or are merely supposing that they exist.  I did reread your posts, repeatedly, and I didn't find anything until the fourth reread of one of your subsequent posts.  As for your second bullet point, "Someone pointed out" doesn't tell me anything about who or where or what they said.
 * In fairness, in part because of your, your wall-of-text writing style, sometimes I do miss a few things, especially if the answer comes in a way I don't expect. I ask for information and expect a diff; instead you answer with a vague sentence buried in twenty others.  When I asked about non-hypothetical problems or whether anyone had asked you for the changes, I was expecting a diff.  Now you can't read my mind either, but your "ask for clarification" advice could easily go both ways.
 * Don't cry "disruption" when you really mean "something I don't happen to like." Don't say "abuse of BRD" when the discussion did not involve me automatically agreeing with you. Of all things, you complain that my posts are too long?  I made one short comment and planned to leave it at that, but then you asked me to elaborate.  You have no grounds to complain whatsoever.
 * I do ask you for clarification. I guess you miss things from me too.  As for "repeating" yourself.  If you give an answer, and it doesn't get you the result you want&mdash;in this case because it might not have been recognizably related to the question&mdash;then change the way you phrase the answer.  Look at what I did with TL/DR.  You didn't understand me so I kept saying it in different ways until you did.  It worked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You do ask for clarifications, but then you don't understand the clarifications, even when they respond to you point-by-point. See your WT:MOS post beginning "I don't have a problem comprehending issues".  Too often you don't ask for clarifications, but just ignore the responses and restate your refuted premise, or say that the responses just aren't understandable, and restate your refuted premise.
 * Are we going to get into LQ/TQ again? OK. This is actually a really good example of precisely what I'm talking about, the WP:IDHT problem. At least twice in the related thread at WT:MOS I've pointed out to you that it's than the fact that many counter examples have been found. Yet you ignore tha, and the huge collapse-box pile of material covering all this, and the references to previous discussions and RfC and stuff, and go immediately back to exactly what your position was before it was refuted, that no one has any refutation other than some counter examples. And if we resolved that, you'd go back to demanding "proof" even after you've already been told it's in previous discussions you can go read for yourself. Then you'd simply not see the proof in it, and return to demanding proof. If it was re-researched point by point, you'd ignore the proof and go back to restating your premise as if no one had ever challenged it. You've been doing this, on at least this one issue, for years. Seven years, I think. If you keep it up another year, you'll beat the WP:BIRDS record for most tendentious campaign against a MOS rule in WP history. I don't think there's a barnstar for that.
 * Yet another example of this circularity, you just posted recently. I pointed out you were filibustering, by contesting my edit and refusing to yield unless you get something you can't have (source citations for an MOS point). Your response to this was "WP:FILIBUSTER is inappropriate. The only thing I've withheld from you is my own approval, and I gave you some easy instructions for how to get it if you want it." That's the very definition of WP:IDHT and self-contradictory circular reasoning. You actually  precisely what I said you were doing to filibuster, in your denial of filibustering!
 * "Requester": The first line say so: "I made the following tweaks (to my own examples, and )...", emphasis added.   This is referred to again in line 2 and line 5 (or 3.2, depending on how you want to count nested lists) of "Detailed rationale". And ? This gets back to the AGF thing. Just accept that someone else's request inspired me to return to this section if I say it did, otherwise you're basically calling me a liar.  It doesn't even matter if it's true, anyway. The edit's content is what matters.
 * "Wall of text": You're simultaneously complaining that I post too much for you to go through, and that I don't post enough for you to understand ("ideas that are in your head don't always make it through your fingers to the keyboard to the screen where I can read them" ... "it's only when you finally explain in detail"). You also have a wall-of-text style, which I'm imitating here. Yours is just differently formatted from mine, consisting of points you feel are separate each on their own line preceded by ":" while I use  markup instead, because the spacing between paragraphs is a little bigger, so it's easier to read.
 * "I don't get it, reexplain" "I still don't get it, reexplain" "I STILL don't get it, reexplain". It is disruptive, and it is filibuster-abuse of BRD. Your excessive use of it has actually singlehandedly destroyed my faith in BRD remaining a WP tool. And yet I'm sure you mean well and just think I'm being mean to you and unreasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SmC, requiring that people all think the way you do is unreasonable. I am not a magical telepathic Betazoid from Star Trek.  You have as much trouble understanding me, and you don't see me complaining about having to re-explain myself.
 * You seem to think that I didn't listen to you when what really happened was that I didn't agree with you. I used to think this way, "Well I'm right and my reasoning is sound, so everyone who disagrees with me must not have listened to me," but that's not how people work.  For example, a while ago, you complained that I hadn't "gotten the point" about WP:LQ&mdash;which I am using here as an EXAMPLE of our communication issues.  It's not that I didn't read your posts about "debunking" the national split.  It's that I find your arguments unconvincing or at least less convincing than those made elsewhere.  The reverse is also true: I've repeatedly shown you sources that prove that my position is right.  Did you not hear that?  Are you ignoring me?  Or is it the more benign reality that you simply don't agree with the conclusions I've drawn? (There's my assumption of good faith.)
 * I READ YOUR RATIONALE. REPEATEDLY.  I DID NOT SEE THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS THERE.  That's why I asked for more information.
 * As for "wall of text," it's that you are, from my perspective, spending a lot of space on things that don't matter and skimping on the things that do. Example: In your rationale, you mention your "requester" but don't give the name, the diff, or say exactly what was requested.  You spend a lot more time on other things.  The points that I'd find convincing are hidden in a soup of things I find only minimally relevant.  However, considering that I'm only one of many people with whom you're trying to communicate, you should consult others before making any serious changes to your posting style.
 * Whoa whoa whoa... (leaving example town) You say you pointed out that your WP:LQ was "more than examples." When? What was your argument?  Again, your approach to this issue is so different from mine that I might not have realized that that was what you were talking about. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and per your accusation? WP:FILIBUSTER: "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected" I didn't do that.  I only re-explained my own position to the sole other editor in the discussion.  So saying that I violated it is inappropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea that WP:POLICY pages should be cited to external sources clearly qualifies, and you are definitely repeatedly pushing it. I rest my case. Not going to respond to the rest of this. It's clearly having no effect other than increasing resistance. Haranguing you isn't the point. A cessation of circular time-wasting patterns is the point, so engaging in one here will be counter-productive.  Peace.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SmC, what I said was, "If you want to convince me to support your addition, show me a source or a problem that it solves because that is what I find convincing." I assure you, that idea has never been discredited. This is what I mean when I say you misunderstand me as well.  Even if the community had rejected the idea of sourcing the MoS&mdash;and it hasn't&mdash;there is nothing that says I can't use it as a personal criterion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And right back to restating your original assertion as if it was never addressed, just as I predicted. I'm done with this conversation. 17:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With things like WP:LQ and the specialist vs generalist issues, we've had discussions and even RfCs that are specifically about that issue. We haven't had any of those with the issue of whether the MoS should be sourced.  That's what I mean by not addressed: We never actually sat down and talked about whether or not we should do it.  If I'm wrong, and there's a conversation about this in the archive go ahead and point it out to me.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment
An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 07:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Register
I noticed your edits at Manual of Style/Register. Can you expand the gender identity section to include the actual reasons people are entitled to their point of view?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could but in general I prefer to stick to the facts on MOS:REGISTER and MOS:FAQ. "These guys say this" and "These guys say that" seems less likely to cause fights. The register should report, not advocate.  But if you have something that you think is an improvement in mind, why not expand the section yourself? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentor
I'm going camping for the weekend and won't be back until Sun/Monday. Saw you mention mentoring, have never heard of that before (but can guess based on the name). If it's what I think it is, I'm okay with that. Will look it up when I'm back (if I'm able to - time'll tell).Cebr1979 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MENTOR I've never done it; I've never talked to anyone who's done it about it; I don't know if it really works the way I think it will, but at least two of the problems people have had with you are clearly due to you not knowing what was expected of you.  The biggest thing I can say is that if multiple editors who don't know each other keep telling you the same thing, there's probably something to it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.
 * Good thing for me that preferring sourced facts to your opinions is not a blockable offense. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning
I have just imposed a topic-ban from WP:MOS on User:SMcCandlish in the context of your mutual feud over quotation conventions. I have to say that I would have imposed the same on you for your edit-warring, if it hadn't been for the purely procedural reason that I can't find evidence you have been formally notified of the discretionary sanctions regime for WP:MOS (and, for the record, I strongly disagree with the Arbcom's insistence on this kind of bureaucratic red tape). For the record, and since Arbcom forces me to do this, you'll find the standard "alert" blurb below.

I'll probably just shut down those recent threads at WT:MOS, seeing as no other editor apart from you two seems to have taken any interest in them, and strongly advise you to give the matter a rest.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Comma page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681070090 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F681070090%7CComma%5D%5D Ask for help])

Clarification on new rule you put on WP:MOS on gender identity
I see that you added a new rule to WP:MOS. It's saying that in general, we still refer to trans women as she/her. However, we refer to a trans woman as he/him in an article involving an event related specifically to an event involving her life before she was known to be a trans woman. Any corrections to what I said?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I wouldn't say that I added it, . If you'll see the talk page, there was an official close to the earlier MoS:Identity discussion, and Francis S moved the discussion of gender identity from a bullet point within MOS:IDENTITY to a dedicated subsection.
 * The part that I added was the stipulation that the person's previous name only be used if it is relevant., which was the finding of the policy discussion: we are to say "Bruce Jenner" when discussing the 1976 Olympics specifically because her role as a man was found to be relevant to a men's athletic event. My interpretation is that we would still say "Caitlyn Jenner," possibly but not necessarily with "(then Bruce)," when discussing other events in 1976. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't miss my reply (it got buried)
Hi Darkfrog24. &emsp;I posted a reply to your recent message on the MOS talk page; but it kind of got buried among other messages. You may have to hunt for it. (It begins "My gut feeling........".) Rich Richard27182 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing
I see your canvassing. If you do not remove those messages, I will take you to AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 00:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Why do you think this is canvassing? Read WP:Canvassing.  I have no reason to think that people who frequent Wikipedia's noticeboards are any more or less likely to support the creation of a new board than anyone else.  I do have reason to think that they will know firsthand whether the opponents' concerns about drama and forum shopping are merited or not.
 * 2) Why are you objecting to promotion of awareness of your proposal, which you have seen that I support?
 * 3) On the off-chance that you did remember and are messaging me because you're being extra-careful that everything about your proposal is above-board and rule-compliant, is it that you think my message is not neutral enough? I am willing to hear any constructive criticism that you might have and would consider any reasonable changes.  Here's a rule of thumb: If you cover up my name and only look at the text I added to those talk pages, can you tell what side I'm on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is selective canvassing. You chose to canvas noticeboards with regular participants, as it is likely that those who have engaged frequently with such noticeboards will support their use. None of the pages you put notifications on are directly related to the proposal. That's clear canvassing. I've seen you do this before, and I see that other users have raised similar concerns. If you will not remove the notices, AN/I it is. I never consent to underhanded tactics or general politicking. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Doing what before?  What users?  Before this, the only comments I've had on my publicization of RfCs have been "good job" and "thanks." EDIT: Now that I recall my opponent in one debate did object to my "canvassing" by promoting an RfC on the exact kind of talk page where I'd met him, so I consider his complaints unfounded.
 * It seems we have a legitimate difference of opinion about what is and is not canvassing. This sounds like an appropriate issue for a third opinion.  I have requested one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. If your concern is that you think this is canvassing, then why don't we just also promote this proposal somewhere else too, like WT:FORUMSHOPPING or something?  I've temporarily withdrawn my request for a third opinion but I will reinstate it if you think we can't work this out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You must promise never to canvass again. The RfC was already advertised at the appropriate place. The other notifications were clearly selective, and had no relevance to actual proposal. I repeat: do not canvas again. Do not post advertisements for RfCs in places where they don't belong. If an RfC is on a page, and that page is tagged by Wikiprojects, you can notify only the projects that have tagged the page (and you must notify all or none). If it is on an MoS matter, it is acceptable to place a notice at the main MoS page. If it is a matter that is encylopaedia-wide, like this RfC, it should only be advertised in the centralised discussion box.  RGloucester  — ☎ 05:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not canvassing now. 2) Demanding promises from me is inappropriate. 3) WP:CANVASSING is actually a lot looser than what you've laid out here; no we are not limited to promoting RfCs and proposals only at places that have tagged the page.  I've promoted RfCs far more widely than this before and I got "thank you" for my efforts.  I think you might be reading too much into things. 4) I've restored my request for a third opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The first item listed under "appropriate notification" is, verbatim, "The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion." Noticeboards are directly related to noticeboards, so WT:RSN is an appropriate place to publicize the proposed creation of a noticeboard directly modeled off of RSN. Do you see where I'm coming from now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Noticeboards are most definitely "NOT" related to this proposal. I will filing an AN/I request by the time the day is through. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's premature. If you don't want to wait for the 3O we could ask about this at WT:CANVASSING.  I'm confident the regulars there could put your mind at ease. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we can't. Behaviour issues are dealt with at AN/I, and since you are content to run around to various outlets to forumshop to inappropriate venues for "help", that doesn't really ensure me about your behaviour. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * RG, you think that my posts violate under WP:CANVASSING and I don't. We have both read the policy and are interpreting it differently.  The thing to do next is consult consensus and find out which of us is right. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what an AN/I is for. If my grievances are proven right at AN/I, you'll receive admonishment for your behaviour. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I clearly can't change your mind. But AN/I is premature.  3O isn't forumshopping.  It's one of Wikipedia's official ways of resolving conflicts of this kind.  You don't have to take my word for it: If you ask at the 3O or AN/I talk pages, they'll tell you the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "3O" is only for content disputes, which this isn't. Your request was already removed. The fact that you even issued a 3O request demonstrates the problem. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there certainly is a problem, but the problem is that we disagree about how to interpret policy. Consulting consensus to determine which one of us is correct is the solution.
 * I don't think I've been clear enough: If my posts are found to violate the consensus interpretation of WP:CANVASSING then I'll remove them, but I'm confident that they do not. I've now asked about this as WT:CANVASSING. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is something else going on here, RG? Do you just not like that someone else took it upon themselves to publicize a proposal that you filed?  I'll grant it's unusual but it's not actually against the rules.  You're allowed to feel however you feel about it but I honestly figure that most people would take it as a compliment and sign of support. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Corruption, whether in favour of my proposal or against it, is not something that I ever tolerate. I am as pure of heart as a lily. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you're being very inappropriate. "Corruption"? That's not civil.  Wikipedia's policies not only permit the promotion of proposals and RfCs on related talk pages; they encourage it.  If you don't want to take the lesson from me, you don't have to: ask around, ask the admins, look for precedents, but if you want me to remove my posts, it's on you to make the case for why I should.  Don't give orders; you have no right to.  Don't swag in like you own the place; you don't.  Actually read the rules before you accuse other people of breaking them:
 * If you look under WP:Canvassing, it lists not one but four appropriate places. "Central location" isn't "the appropriate place"; it's one of four appropriate places, listed below "talk pages of articles, projects and collaborations directly related to the proposal." You covered the second option and I covered part of the first.
 * And for context, I had been planning to publicize this proposal still further on a few more relevant pages, maybe hit up the feedback request list a bit. I like to stagger the work a bit.  I've paused so that we could have our discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look under WP:Canvassing, it lists not one but four appropriate places. "Central location" isn't "the appropriate place"; it's one of four appropriate places, listed below "talk pages of articles, projects and collaborations directly related to the proposal." You covered the second option and I covered part of the first.
 * And for context, I had been planning to publicize this proposal still further on a few more relevant pages, maybe hit up the feedback request list a bit. I like to stagger the work a bit.  I've paused so that we could have our discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

RG, if this is still bothering you, you could always ask about it at the WP:administrator's noticeboard. They'll tell you that my actions are consistent with the consensus on appropriate notification and that your concerns are not necessary. Considering that one of the objections to the proposal is that MoS regulars like drama too much, double-checking the rules before bringing an official complaint against another editor might be a good thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not canvassing as long as the messages weren't promoting one side over the other. It's routine to notify talk pages likely to have various people on multiple sides of an issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that you placed a notification of a discussion at User talk:RGloucester. Special:Contributions/RGloucester shows that he/she has an indefinite block. So do not expect him/her to contribute.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, . I notified everyone involved in that discussion and did not check anyone's block status. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol
This edit summary made me laugh :) Cheers. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I try to amuse. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WT:MOS
I'm hoping not to scrape open a scab here, but I have to suggest that it's questionably appropriate for one of the most active editors at MoS to cast WP:KETTLE aspersions about it being "based on the whims and arbitrary personal preferences of a clique" that one is here to do something about. That sounds an awful lot like an accusation of mass bad faith, topped off with a battlegrounding pledge, which are not permitted in MOS talk per discretionary sanctions rules about which you were recently given a Ds/alert and administrative warning, while I got even worse. Some of us have strong feelings about these matters, but we're going to have to restrain the impulse to negatively characterize other editors and their motivations. It has become clear that certain admins appear to be actively seeking to punish people for raising their voices too sharply in MoS/AT discussions, and it casts an expression-chilling pall over the entire WP:ARBATC scope when it is targeted in this way. I'm making a strong effort to avoid doing things like that myself, henceforth, and hope you will as well. I'm sure we'll continue to disagree on some things, but I've found it constructive in the past (with Noetica several years ago, and more recently with Montanabw on livestock topics) to propose a mutual, explicit truce on hostile wording, and to seek ways and topics on which to collaborate. (To that end, I'm open to similar concerns being raised directly on my talk page, and will endeavor to accept them at face value.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: I noted and appreciate the sourcing kudos. I also self-reverted some LQ-related murmuring on my part. While I don't agree with your position on it, have done a huge sourcing run on this matter the results of which I haven't even arranged and done anything with yet, and was a bit miffed that after the Sept. dispute and warning you're still pursuing that matter, including into this /Supports page, I needn't inject my own views on that at every opportunity, since it can seem like picking a fight. We'll hash it out at some point, but it should be over what the sources say, not what our views are or why we hold them. :-) Other debates may be looming, like what to do about breed names.  Coxhead and several others are convinced they should be lower-cased except where they contain a proper name; most of the pet/livestock regulars feel the opposite (and some have tended toward BATTLEGROUND/OWN on the matter); meanwhile I've settled into a firmly neutral position on it, because there are interesting arguments on both sides, and sources are divided.  There's a thread on it at WT:MOSCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Wait, is this about my comment "MOS:SUPPORTS proves that the MoS isn't entirely based on arbitrary whims made up by a clique"? SmC, the MoS regulars have been accused of being a clique.  It's in the archive.  I was pointing out that MOS:SUPPORTS refutes this accusation.
 * If it's about my comment that parts of the MoS are whims, well that's just true. WP:LQ is based on whims and arbitrary personal preferences.  I know this because it directly contradicts established sources and because no non-arbitrary reason to have it there exists.  I know you don't believe this but you know that I do.  This isn't new business.
 * As for truces on hostile wording, I think it's a good idea, but remember that "hostile" does not mean "anything that SmC personally doesn't like." You have a history of conflating the two. Case in point: Remember when I asked you to stop complaining about my referring to British style punctuation as "British"? I showed you sources proving that that's just the predominant name of the practice, that I'm not making it up just to mess with you, and you don't seem to have accepted that.  The flip side of that is that you like to call American style "typesetters" even though, among other issues, it frames the practice as more old-fashioned than it really is, but I put up with it because I know what you mean and because they're just your own, signed talk page posts.  Call it a "painter" if that feels natural to you&mdash;it's rare but it's not as if you made it up&mdash;but don't insist that I stop saying "mountain lion."
 * As for your LQ sourcing, whenever you feel like posting them, I'll take a look. No one can say you don't do the work.  If by "still pursuing the matter," it would help if you said exactly what you're talking about.  We've known each other long enough that I'll explain my reasoning to you if you wish, but I'm not going to sit here and guess at what I might have done to disturb you.
 * On the Supports page, I added sources that describe British style. They prove that you guys didn't make it up out of whole cloth.  That doesn't undermine WP:LQ; it supports it.  It's not like I added sources proving that British style is incorrect in American English, and you know that I have access to many.
 * As long as you don't think "the admins are watching, so let's try to get along" means "Darkfrog, let me have my way all the time," then this can work. I'd be delighted, in fact. I get that you think you're right about a lot of these things, but you're going to have to accept that I disagree with you and take my views in stride the way I've taken yours in stride. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A Technical Question
Hi Darkfrog24. I see that the Gender Identity RfCs' closing dates have been extended. Please understand I have absolutely no objection to this; but I am curious about something. I'd always thought that the normal way to extend the run of an RfC was to simply manually change the first date stamp (normally the date stamp generated  by the first "~" signature) to a later date: But in this case, a much more complex technique seems to have been used: Does this technique have any advantages over the simpler one? And if it does, I'd like to learn how it works. Could you explain it to me (or even just provide a  link to where I could learn it)? Thanks. I appreciate your help. Richard27182 (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't extend the RfC date; I extended the archive date. There is a slight difference.
 * The RfC tags will disappear on schedule, after 30 days. The threads just won't go into the archive right away.  The purpose of this is that I have requested formal closure of both threads, but this can take time.  I don't want the threads archived until after an admin has had a chance to read and close them.  But as to whether the RfCs need to stay active past the usual 30-day period, I don't see why they would.  Of course, people can still comment if they want to, and it will still count, but the threads won't still appear on lists of active RfCs elsewhere on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I personally prefer not to retroactively change dates. All these concerns we've seen about rewriting history. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Darkfrog24.
 * &emsp;Thank you for clarifying that for me.  I think I understand now: the RfCs' normal running time of 30 days is not affected; it's how long they remain unarchived afterward that's affected.
 * &emsp;I do understand what you mean about not liking to retroactively change dates.  I was quite surprised when I first read in "Wikipedia:Requests for comment" that an editor may extend an RfC's running time by going back and altering that first date stamp.  It almost sounds kind of sneaky.  But apparently it's not only allowed but, under certain circumstances, an appropriate procedure.
 * &emsp;Anyway all this does lead me to a couple more questions:
 * When an RfC has its "" template automatically removed after 30 days, under normal circumstances, how long until it is automatically archived?
 * If an RfC has had its template automatically removed, and the participants have not declared consensus, and the RfC has not yet been archived, and no uninvolved editor has performed a formal closure; under those circumstances is it appropriate for editors to continue casting "!votes" and posting opinions and having discussions?  Or does the removal of the "" template basically close it to further comments, etc.?
 * I really appreciate your help and advice.  (In the six months I've been learning how Wikipedia works, I would say about 80&#8209;90 percent of what I've learned has been from asking experienced editors questions.)  Thanks again for your help. Richard27182 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It depends on the archive settings for that particular page.
 * Yes, people can continue to post in the thread even if the RfC tag has expired, though if the conversation is still active, they're allowed to put the tag back. Our two threads appear to have wound down naturally. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * &emsp;I see that not only have the RfCs on gender identifiction had their time run out, but a request has been made for formal closure by an administrator.  Based on your past experience, how long might it take for an uninvolved administrator to accept?
 * &emsp;Also I sort of have a list (not a real list; just a mental one) of experienced editors I turn to for help and advice when I'm confused or have a question.  Would it be OK if I add you to the "list"?
 * Richard27182 (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the request for formal closure last week. It is not at all unusual for it to take more than two weeks for someone to respond, especially if the answer looks complicated. (Also, there are lots of requests for closure that do not specify closure by admin, and anyone is allowed to come and close them, so if you want to get a fix for Wikidrama or Wikiprocedure without getting involved with it, go on and close someone else's discussion (just maybe sandbox your first draft).)
 * I would be incredibly flattered, but I think you may have overestimated my knowledge base. Until this VPP discussion, I didn't know how to prevent thread archiving, and I messed it up when I tried it!     Francis S and PaleAqua had to fix it for us. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Darkfrog24.  I suppose it's possible I may have slightly overestimated your knowledge base, but I'm sure you know tons more about Wikipedia than I do.  (I've only been editing for six months).  I look forward to your future assistance in certain areas where I may be needing help and advice. Richard27182 (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'd be delighted to provide it. I love meddling in other people's business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in
Hi Darkfrog24. I just wanted to check with you what the current status is concerning the two MOS gender identity RfC's. Richard27182 (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Status is that formal closure has been requested, and the ball is in the admins' court. It's not unusual for it to take more than a week to get a response.  It is unusual for it to take more than a month, but given the importance and level of complexity of the two threads, I'm not at all surprised.  I've extended the DNAU for another stretch.  You can keep yourself updated by checking on the closure request thread at WP:ANRFC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Darkfrog24. I wholeheartedly agree with you that these two RfC's have a very high level of importance and complexity, and as such, they deserve formal closure by an actual administrator.  However if no administrator comes forward to accept that responsibility, does there eventually come a time when you would consider asking any experienced uninvolved editor to do the close?  (The RfC's will serve no purpose if they never get evaluated and closed.)  Please don't take this the wrong way; it's just a suggestion.  And not even that really; more of a simple, honest, and sincere question. Richard27182 (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're at perfect liberty to make that suggestion yourself. Don't overestimate my authority.  All I did was start the request thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Darkfrog24. Thank you for clarifying that.  But since you are the one who started the thread, I feel you would be the most appropriate person to make such a decision.  I would only intervene and formally suggest accepting closure by a non-administrator if it ever gets to the point where it is clear that no administrator will ever accept that responsibility.  And we're certainly not at that point yet. Richard27182 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is such a controversial point, I happen to think an admin would be better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Darkfrog24. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression that I'm about to request closure by any uninvolved editor: I'm not.  I agree with you completely that something this important should be formally closed by an actual administrator.  But I also feel (and hope you would agree) that having it formally closed by a non-admistrator would be better than having it remain forever unclosed.  Also, if it remains unclosed long enough (I'm not talking weeks but rather months), then many would see the whole discussion as "stale" and no longer necessarily reflecting the current opinion of editors.  I'm not suggesting setting any particular deadline at this time; but I do think we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that the year will end with the RfC still unclosed.  If it comes to that, then I do believe it would be time to consider alternatives to formal closure by an administrator.  (Again I'm sorry if my previous message was misleading.) Richard27182 (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's the impression I had. Go ahead and say this in the closure thread if you want. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . ..
Merry Christmas, Darkfrog, and may your holidays be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You too . Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Manual of style talk page
I appreciate your eloquent and well-rendered comments at the Manual of style talk page. Before you registered those comments, I felt out-gunned a million-to-one and that other editors were viewing me as crazy to bring up the topic of commas and quotation marks (on a "settled" topic). You have made me feel less crazy, particularly in light of your command of the subject, which is far greater than mine. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LQ has a long history of controversy. The others told the truth when they said it's been talked about a lot but they failed to mention that that's because it is the single most frequently challenged part of the MoS.  At least once a year, someone shows up and points out that it doesn't match U.S. English rules.  It's a lot easier to try to bully challengers into shutting up than it is to repeat the same arguments ...and sit through the explanation of why those arguments don't hold water. (Example: Tony1 cited a science style guide, and you pointed out that it's not for the kind of writing we do on Wikipedia.)
 * You see, lots of computer programmers like British style because computers treat words and punctuation as literal strings (the human visual system doesn't). That means a lot of early Wikipedians really really preferred British style because it's what they were used to from work.  This rule got stuck in the MoS early and it's hard as heck to get it out again.  The last time we had an RfC, one of the editors wrote such a biased text that it was hard to tell what we were talking about.
 * If you choose to start an RfC, you'll have my support. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How would I be able to do that? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The instructions are at WP:RFC. However, I have to warn you, these things can get really nasty.  There's no rule saying you have to stick around for the whole thing, but it can get pretty bad.  You might also want to look at MOS:REGISTER before deciding whether or not you think it's a good idea to file one.  Under "inside or outside," it has a list of a lot of previous discussions.  Some of them are RfCs and some are not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In the last week I had to fend off a rabid deletionist who was singling out and targeting articles I'd written--luckily that individual has had no success at it--but it has been stressful. If venturing into that Rfc would be like jumping into a snake pit, then maybe I should wait until the clouds clear--I could take that issue up at a later time.  I desperately need peace of mind right now to be able to work on articles without a lot of drama. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S.: But hey, on a lighter note, I write a lot about a lot of 60s music--much of it obscure garage bands, so that may be of some interest. Of course, everybody has their own tastes--I don't know if the music of that that era is your cup of tea, but if you like that period, then you'd love to read some of the articles I've worked on. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) There's no time limit on improving Wikipedia. 2) No one owes it their blood pressure. Ah, band articles!  So many song titles!  So much urge to tuck those commas inside the quotation marks just a little bit...  Heh.  One of my first experiences on Wikipedia was correcting punctuation in that exact way.  And it was my first run-in with WP:LQ.  Back then, I didn't even know the Brits had their own system. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When they did the GA review for the Garage rock article (it recently went GA!), they canged the commas at the top to be in "Wiki" style, but after the first couple of sections, just left all of the commas "tucked" the way we had them--even the British editors were "tucking" the little commas--proof that even in Britain you can do it both ways! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Maybe it is just a matter or aesthetics, but I think the little "tucked" commas look better! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too but in my experience people prefer the look of whatever system they're more used to.
 * Even featured articles routine ignore WP:LQ. The only real effect of this rule is to annoy people who want to use correct American punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog24, if we take you and you alone out of the equation, LQ is rarely challenged by anyone, and when they're informed why WP uses it, they get it and drop the matter. When a single editor campaigns incessantly on the same issue for 6.5 years, I don't think it's everyone else at WT:MOS who's being "bullies", but that additional attack has been noted. So has this "grooming" of new editors with false information like "featured articles routine[ly] ignore WP:LQ". A ratio of only 24 out of 303 featured articles using typesetters' or what you call "American" quotation style (versus 221 for logical quotation, and 54 mixed) is nothing like a "routine"; compliance with LQ is the routine part.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't started a thread challenging WP:LQ in years. The last time I brought up LQ at all without someone else challenging it first was when I suggested that we might have an incorrect comma in the wording and that we should fix it.  I don't campaign incessantly.  I cease all the time. But when you guys circle around someone with some sense and claim that there's no support in the sources for what they believe, you're darn right I'm going to reply with some links so that they don't have to think that they're crazy or being a pest or breaking the rules.  They're not.
 * Like I explained to you at WT:MoS, the fact that only 60-odd percent of even featured articles use British style means that changing the rule would not disrupt Wikipedia's operations.
 * Don't post here again unless you have something new to say. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your edits since these comments qualify as "incessant". Moving your argument to various obscure subpages that you control, hammering on it excessively, trying to set the stage for an ENGVAR-like challenge to the currently recommended style, is obnoxious in the extreme.  Just let it go.  The current scheme works well, and is most appropriate for a world-wide encyclopedia.  Your American exceptionalist approach just mucks things up.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your selective removal of SMcC's correction of your lies here is also staggering. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, if you feel that you are being "hammered" when someone supplies sources that show that the terminology that you're inserting into Wikipedia's pages is wrong, then you are on the wrong site. If you think someone's lying just because they don't agree with you, and the sources that I've provided prove that I'm not lying they you need a very large adjustment.
 * I'll repeat your own words to you: Back off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard
An issue in which you are involved has been raised at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=700215059 your edit] to Quotation marks in English may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Please do be careful not to give editors the impression that you are canvassing. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I notified people in two rounds. The second is more straightforward: You will notice that I notified all the participants in the conversation that Dicklyon mentioned, including the ones who do not agree with me, excepting only those who were already participating or who had already been pinged. Izno and Giraffedata sided with Dicklyon and SmC in that conversation, and Peter agreed with neither of us.  Per neutrality rules, I left them the same message that I left Slim.  Regarding the first, please note this:  (Archive link: )  I asked whether I was allowed to call witnesses at the AN noticeboard.  When I say that I got no answer, I mean my request was closed with no answer.  The pages on AE and discretionary say nothing about this issue and time was ticking, so I made my best guess. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My name
It may save you typing trouble if you refer to me as KC or the puppy or Puppy - I answer to all. You can also refer to me as KillerChihuahua, or KillerC. I'd prefer you not use KillerChi or Killer Chi. Thank you so much! Killer Chihuahua 22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Easily fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I do appreciate it. :-) Killer Chihuahua 22:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. At least something in this whole mess was easy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

AE
Please see this thread at the arbitration enforcement page. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a proposal in the AE discussion that mentions your name. Can you make a voluntary offer that is enough to convince the admins this battle won't continue? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * RG is overreacting, EdJohnston, to put it kindly. Dicklyon and I continued working while this thread was going on and the text has been stable for days.  It's done.
 * Now for another matter. From what you posted on the thread, it seems you have a problem with me in some way.  If I'm wrong about that, fine, no action required.  If not, the thing to do next is to be specific about what you think I did and then listen to my response.  I'm saying this because SMcCandlish does have a problem with me, and if all you do is read his screeds, you're not going to get an accurate picture.  He does not like that I don't agree with him and he is not good with WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL.  He doesn't believe me when I offer to work with him; he doesn't hold back with the invective; he accuses me of cherry-picking even when I quote sources that he brought to the table.  Even though I've shown him sources that support my position, and I was not kidding any of the times that I told him, "but if you have better sources that prove these wrong, please do show them," he still accuses me of making things up.  I don't know what else to do with him.
 * Any response to his accusations would have to be almost as long as his post itself, and I've noticed a too-long-didn't-read problem with that. And, frankly, I'd also have to say some things that aren't very flattering about another editor, and I'd rather not do that unless it's specifically necessary.  So just tell me what exactly you think is wrong, and we'll deal with that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually don't have a problem with you at all, only with particular behavior patterns you engage in when it comes to style disputes (more than one, but especially this quotation marks thing). The problem here is a recurrent one with you: Apparent unwillingness (I don't believe it's inability) to distinguish between criticism of behavioral, logical, and sourcing problems on the one hand, and some kind of personal vendetta on the other. "I don't agree with your tactics and approach to this matter" is not equivalent to "I don't like you". After almost 7 years, no, I'm not going to waste hours or days yet again providing you the same source citations you always ignore (plus lots of new ones!). Any sourcing work I do on style and usage matters will be done to improve our mainspace articles on these topics (where any further PoV and OR can be addressed as WP:CORE content disputes by noticeboards that will not touch purely-MoS disputes). NB: Yes, it is still cherry-picking and OR if you take what you like from a source, contort it to seem to mean what it doesn't actually say, and ignore the rest of it. No, it is not a "screed" to provide 200+ diffs of evidence (just the tip of the iceberg; I skipped about 5 intervening years of similar disruption on the same topic, and almost 7 years of similar disruption on other WP:ARBATC-scope topics).  You keep psychologically projecting this "He does not like that I don't agree with him and he is not good with WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL" stuff, which is transparently hypocritical. All you are doing in uncivilly casting bad-faith personal aspersions on my motivations for getting in the way of you getting your way. Meanwhile, I've never even theorized about your motivations. I honestly have no idea why this punctuation matter is something you won't let go of, or why so many other style matters are.  I  at all whether you agree with me, and refuting your arguments is a dispute against those arguments, not a personality problem I have with you. Again, you as a person are distinct from the reasoning and behaviors you present to the project. For all I know, we'd get along famously in some other context.  What I  care about is abuse of WP and its policies to pursue (for unknown motivations) a personal agenda at the expense of the project, the community and the individuals who make it up. You had multiple opportunities, from  and others, at this AE to get why your patterns have been disruptive, but you "mooned the jury" and basically made a TB inevitable, then sealed the deal with a bunch of canvassing and more IDHT, like continuing to cast unsupported personal aspersions in a venue the primary purpose of which is imposing sanctions on people who cast such aspersions. If I'd long wanted that kind of TB result, I would have pursued an ArbCom action against you years ago. The main reason I had all this evidence piled up was I've written that RFARB several times, and  to file it, giving you further assumption of good faith that you'd come around. But you just don't. This latest "MOS:SUPPORTS" thing, back-to-back with more editwarring at Quotation marks in English, and labeling everyone who disagrees with you at WT:MOS to be a bunch of "bullies" is just too much.  Take your year off this topic. Everyone will be glad to have you back if you return with an attitude something like [a more concise version of]: "I see that I should live with WP having a house style I don't personally prefer, just as I would not try to impose my own on Nature if I submitted an article to that journal. I will henceforth work collaboratively to have MoS be stable and serve the encyclopedia's needs as determined by consensus, while resisting temptation to try to reshape it to suit my subjective preferences. I understand that WP guidelines are based on internal consensus, which does not always agree with the most common external approaches to everything, that WP:POLICY is distinct from mainspace, and that consensus is something to work within, not against. It is more important that WP have a 'playbook' we agree on and do the work under than that everyone be 100% satisfied with every line item in the playbook, repeated argumentation over which is a waste of editorial time and patience." A WP:STANDARDOFFER post along these lines would undoubtedly succeed, including with my and others' support. PS: I actually recommend a near-total break from WP for a year. I've done it, and it was very useful, both off-WP and on, and I take 1-3 months breaks periodically for a refresh. If you instead use this time to shift your anti-consensus disruption to some other pet peeve, I think we all know what the result will be, since it will demonstrate a WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE problem that can't be ignored any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * SmC, does Wikipedia have a word for when you accuse others of the thing that you yourself are doing? Maybe you think you don't have a problem with me but you clearly do.
 * You accuse me of ignoring sources, when you refuse to acknowledge the ones I've shown you. (You've also accused me of doing this immediately after I made a post discussing sources that you'd mentioned by name.)
 * You call me a liar and delusional and say that I'm making things up. I call you uncivil because you are not even trying to get along.  I have used euphemism after euphemism to describe what you do.
 * You accuse me of OR even when I have provided sources that explicitly state the things that I am saying. It's one thing to not agree with me, but OR is out of line in these cases.  And you keep insisting that your conclusions are not only right but so right that anyone who disagrees but me a troublemaker even though you don't source them.
 * You insist that I use your preferred terminology even when I can show that the terminology that I use is more common.
 * You refactor other people's posts but complain when they do it.
 * Any time that anyone mistakes your meaning by so much as a hair, you accuse them of lying or deliberately misrepresenting you, but you have zero qualms about doing that with other people's posts. When someone asks you questions, you're fine with answering just the ones you want to, but you complain when other people do that."I note that you dodged virtually everything I said"  You need a pretty big attitude adjustment.
 * Basically, you need to learn how to accept that other people don't agree with you. The thread started by Garagepunk66 was pretty much over before you recharged it with your big diva act.  When you are that confrontational, don't complain when people confront you.
 * It's possible that you just have a big problem with AGF. When I typed out the contents of those sources you'd named and asked you questions about them, did you think that was an act?  It wasn't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone else wants to read this, so I'll box it, since people may have AE-related business to deal with here in the next day or so.


 * Right back to the IDHT / "proof by assertion" route. This seems to be only debate tactic you have. 'Someone disagreed with me?  Just say they're wrong and restate exactly what I said last time.'  This has a lot to do with why things are going the way they are.  Your set of diffs relating to the "Let's line up the sources on British/logical" thread are not actually "proof" of what you say they are but quite the opposite (this habit also has a lot to do with why you're being TBed.)  What they actually show is you providing and misinterpreting a set of cherry-picked sources, excluding all those that aren't convenient for you, and me observing this is the case and that it's more circular reasoning on your part. That is nothing at all like your claim that "You accuse me of ignoring sources, when you refuse to acknowledge the ones I've shown you."  I rely on the very same sources among many others that you avoid; I simply take t hem at what they say without trying to contort them into supporting a fantasy. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between "Doesn't agree with my interpretation and use of sources" and "ignores sources".  Meanwhile, you .  An enormous percentage of the volume of these debates if you repeatedly asserting that no sources have ever been provided in opposition to your viewpoint and demanding them over and over again, after they've already been provided for years, and people telling you are they are not falling for this bait and will not enable this disruptive behavior by re-re-re-resourcing everything for you on-demand, in discussions which are not WP:CORE matters to begin with.  The OR you deny or can't see yourself engaging in?  This is really, really simple:  LQ is the "do not change any punctuation inside quotations" style.  BQ is a range of styles, in which punctuation may be changed inside quotations to suit the sense of the quoting (not quoted) sentence. You can argue and handwave and OR your heart out for another 7 years, and nothing will  change the fact that the British style guides (the sources actually reliable about British style), from Oxford/Hart, to Guardian, to Telegraph, to Economist, and more, do not define a style that is consistent with each other, or even faintly compatible with logical quotation, and we have The Guardian 's own editor telling us we got it wrong on this point. You even see him say so and then you repeatedly say he isn't saying so. This is not a rational response to a source, it's OR in furtherance of wishful thinking. The  "sourcing" you have is the fact that some American style guides and blog writers and such confuse and conflate the two styles, i.e. fail to distinguish between them. That's not sourcing that they are the same style, it's just poor-quality sources on the issue in question, like a cookbook that cannot tell the difference between oregano and Mexican oregano (similar name, not even in the same genus). Even 10,000 crappy cookbooks that think they're the same herb will never in a million years make them the same species.  We've been over this 100 times already, and you've never even addressed much less disproven this flaw in your argument, you just ignore the objection, wait a few beats, and start right back with the same argument you used last time. I hope you see now that this tactic is a  and that using it to battleground here will not be productive. The rest of your points above can be dispensed with quickly in series. Dick_lyon called you a liar (and retracted it); I've never done so, though you frequently imply that I am one, and that everyone at MoS who disagrees with you is. I don't think you're a liar. For all I know, you believe every word you say, or are convinced that winning on this matter is of more importance than any other concern, or that you're just very, very confused about it (too confused to understand the correct explanation of these quotation styles and the sources about them), or being so emotional on this issue that it interferes with your ability to view much of anything about it objectively, or this is a pedagogical, even ideological matter of faith for you, or any of several other issues, maybe more than one at once, and none of them require outright dishonesty or bad faith (or delusion, another term I've never to my recollection used toward you, and you provide no diff).  WP:ARBATC strongly discourages me from offering my personal theory of what's going on in your head, and I agree with that guidance; none of us are psychic and we should not be trying to mind-read. Observing that an argument presented is irrational does not equate to questioning the other's sanity or ethics. None of us are Spock, and we all do and say illogical things sometimes.  We've already been over some of what your OR is and you just ignore all of that too. The basic part of it is you can't prove a negative the way you keep trying to. No amount of American sources that fail to observe the distinction between LQ and the various forms of BQ can ever trump the very sources that define all those styles not defining the same style.  But there are many other OR problems in what you present.  I don't need to re-argue them with you, which will be about as effective as arguing with my cat or the floor. There's no point trying to have a reasoned discussion with someone who cannot or will not follow the reasoning.  what terminology you use. I care that our articles, guidelines and related pages, which do not belong to you, are not misleading; and if you use misleading, confusing, incorrect terminology in debates that may be important to other editors or affect content or policy, I will correct it, as anyone else would with any other editor. Your quest to make this personal is a waste of time.  Refactoring: Apples and oranges. I refactor to make discussions easier to follow and more likely to proceed constructively. You and SV refactored me in ways that controlled the debates in question to favor your own position and minimize mine. (Next time I see someone do that to an RfC, I'll simply take the matter directly to ANI, which will shut down that disruption with out ado.) Your diff of me objecting to people only addressing the points they feel like, doesn't support your accusation that I only address the points I feel like, which is self-evidently nonsense. People's typical complaint with me is my post length, which is caused be me almost always attempting to address every single point they raised, exactly as I'm doing with you now. So your accusation is auto-self-disproving.  Objecting to straw-man arguments, as I frequently do, is not accusing people of lying; engagement in logical fallacies is a reasoning problem, not an honesty problem. I have no problem with people disagreeing; you do. I have not engaged in a 7-year campaign to get my way at all costs; you have. See psychological projection. Next, Garagepunk66 has not confronted me in any way; his responses to me in talk (off your talk page) have been entirely reasonable, and he appreciated my input. You're just fantasizing/confabulating again.  This is a "gaslighting" pattern with you that I've not heretofore done much to diff, but I'm going to start, since I strongly suspect that it will come up again and that the current noticeboard action will not be the last.  The funny thing is, even if your misperception were all actually correct, and LQ was entirely British, and none of the American style guides, organizations, and publishers that use it existed, and all British quotation was consistent and was identical with LQ (none of which is true), it wouldn't matter anyway.  Consensus is consensus, and ten years of WP agreeing to use LQ is what it is.  Style is arbitrary and has to come from somewhere; various of MoS's "rules" are American and various of them are British, and no one turns this into a holy war. Except one editor on one point they won't let go of until administratively forced to do so.


 * Even your diffs are a waste of time, as they don't support the claims you make, only the innocuous background behind the claims, which have no support at all but your own imagination. Using CYA language like "It's possible that ..." doesn't make a personal attack less of a personal attack. See WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Repeatedly casting WP:ASPERSIONS] by accusing me of [[WP:AGF problems without evidence (that's three times in one day, including inside AE itself, and after asked to stop) is a pattern of AGF/CIVIL/NPA-problematic verbal abuse itself, that WP:ANI will act on independently of your ongoing AE case.  Given the numerous times over the last 4 months that you've been politely asked to stop engaging in this particular hostile, dispute-personalizing behavior, this will the the last such request. People can disagree about rationales, sources, and editing behavior patterns without imputing mental problems and nefarious motives to other editors, but you appear unwilling to comply with WP's behavioral guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't read most of this. Here's what stood out to me.
 * "Cherry picked"? Let's let Google Books do the picking: "American" + "quotation mark"   Out of the first five, four say some version of "American is this and British is that" and the other one doesn't discuss the matter. "British" + "quotation mark"  gives us roughly the same. "Typesetter" + "quotation mark"  gets us #1 a mention of actual typesetters (not relevant), #2 a source that uses the term to mean "curly quotes," #3&mdash;5 inclusive, more references to typesetters (not relevant).
 * The idea that "logical" does X and "British" does Y is your opinion. Some of the sources say that "logical" is placement by position  and others say that it's placement by grammatical sense .  Still others use the term "logical" descriptively but don't specify anything else.  The Chicago Manual of Style uses the term "British" for both rationales.  This is not OR, at least not on my part.
 * "Diffs that don't support the claims"? I added "Use caution when challenging this rule" and you claimed I was trying to encourage people to challenge it.  You are really making me wonder what is wrong with you.  I mean, are you annoyed that you got yourself boomeranged last year?  I would be too but it's not like I did that to you.  You did it to yourself.
 * You need a mirror, you need a serious attitude adjustment, and you need to stop posting here. I'm going to give you far more benefit of the doubt than you deserve and assume that you actually don't understand what you're doing wrong.  It's time for you stay away from me.  I am sick of trying to be nice to you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, rats. I'd written up a "let's try a different approach" and "put it all on the table" or "full disclosure on my thinking and why we're disagreeing" thing, with an explicit eye to dispute reduction, which I think would have been appropriate as an alternative to just buggering off, but the TB dropped before I could post it. I've moved it to User talk:SMcCandlish/LQ open letter to Darkfrog24, and while you can't yet respond to it here, maybe it will provide cogitation material (and I'm always open to an e-mail discussion). Anyway, I don't have any problem staying away, if that's what you want, unless something comes up that seems like it "must" be posted here. I guess with the ping system, that's hardly ever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
In reply to the questions you asked on my talk page:
 * Regarding the longstanding MoS rule, you just have to accept that consensus is not with you and you need to move on, even if you disagree with it. Do not bring it up anywhere, and do not contribute to discussions about it brought up by others - doing so would be a breach of your topic ban and could see you blocked. The reason you have been topic banned is that you have not learned to let it go or to drop the stick.
 * The offers of a voluntary restriction all missed the point, SMcCandlish explained it well - the problem is not excessive reverting so 1RR would not solve the problem. One comment a day would very likely lead to you making a comment every single day, this would not be dropping the subject. You have had your say, very, very, very extensively. Everybody has heard your arguments, but they are not convinced by them. At this point your continued participation is disruptive to the topic area. The only voluntary restriction that would have been accepted would have been one where you promised to stay away from the subject completely.
 * What you can do over the next six months is demonstrate that you can constructively contribute to completely unrelated areas of the encyclopaedia without engaging in the behaviour (edit warring, excessive repetitive discussion, etc) that you have exhibited in relation to quotation styles. I very strongly recommend that you unwatch the pages related to quotation marks and quotation styles and ignore any changes you see to them otherwise.
 * Your topic ban does cover everything to do with quotation marks and quotation styles anywhere on Wikipedia - articles space, talk pages, MoS and other project space pages, templates, user talk pages, categories, etc. Everything.
 * No you are not allowed to notify someone about changes to the articles, as that would be discussing quotation marks or quotation styles and in breach of your topic ban. I repeat my earlier advice to just unwatch all the pages and stay completely away from the subject for at least six months. If people see your actions as testing the edges of your topic ban then they are less likely to accept any appeal (which will not be decided by me, btw) than if you have stayed completely clear. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Slight misunderstanding: I wasn't talking about discussing WP:LQ during the topic ban. I meant afterward.  Whether the first appeal is successful or not, it will be lifted sooner or later, and I'd like your input on how to handle the matter then.  You clearly don't see my support-but-don't-initiate policy as sufficient for a non-banned Wikieditor, so what would you see as sufficient?  WP:LQ tends to be independently challenged once or twice a year.
 * SMcCandlish was not honest with you. By this I mean that he would say  when the line I actually added to the FAQ was  Almost everything he said was like that.  I have to guess that he was betting that if he made his posts long enough no one would bother to look at what he was saying thoroughly.
 * Regarding voluntary restriction, why didn't you just say that that was what you had in mind? This is not a rhetorical question: Was that a test of some kind?
 * recommend that you unwatch I did that as soon as I was notified of your post this morning. We're on the same page there.
 * I believe that Full stop and its talk pages are a good example of the way I operate in the article space. I think this is closely consistent with what you mean by editing without disruption or excessive talk page activity. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no intent to perpetuate any further dispute on this matter; I'm just responding to what I'm being challenged on/accused of, and will move on (I'm not watchlisting this talk page, and never have). I'm also hoping that DF24 and I can collaborate constructively on this issue when they can return it to and have had time to formulate a distinctly different editorial approach to the topic, that satisfies WP:STANDARDOFFER.  To get to the points: The MOS FAQ exists to answer frequently asked questions about MOS, not to plant WP:BEANS up people's noses about issuing challenges to WP guidelines and making sure they gear up tough for them. This faux-warning style, which comes across as a "Do  have what it takes to win this badass combat game!?" challenge – closely mirrors the interaction with the new editor further up this page, paraphrasable as 'I'll support if you if you RfC this. There're all a bunch of bullies and you and I are right. Here's where the RfC instructions are. You'll need to be tough and resolute, though; this isn't for wimps.' It's transparent reverse psychology that will appeal immediately to newcomers used to "Internet debate" and unfamiliar with our behavioral policies and guidelines. I firmly stick by calling it out for what it is. Next, I'm  on people looking at what I'm saying (and diffing) in detail, or I wouldn't bother writing it all so precisely. It's noteworthy that not a single person appears to have bought any of DF24's "that's not really what happened, that's not really what I meant, SMcCandlish is lying to you" antics. The difference between my sometimes lengthy posts and DF's own text walls is that mine are responsive and on-point, not distracting handwaves and circular restatement of what's already been refuted. Finally, Full stop and its talk page are rife with DF24's same nationalism-based campaigning, and multiple editors' negative reaction to it.  I absolutely agree with DF24's self-assessment that "Full stop and its talk pages are a good example of the way I operate in the article space." It simply doesn't lead to the conclusion that immediately followed that statement, and I predict that the TB will be extended if DF24 doesn't avoid all of these style, usage and punctuation topics, because the temptation to engage in the same behavior will be very high.  But, I guess that's not my business/problem. [shrug].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT CONFLICT: But that wasn't what you said about me, was it, SmC? You said I was out for "satisfaction" and trying to get people to rally and challenge WP:LQ.  That's not true and you have more than enough information to know it.
 * Yes, please do scroll up on this page and look at what I actually said to Garagepunk66 about whether he should run an RfC. Yes please do look at Full stop.  And if you like you can pick any of SmC's claims about me at random.  I'll show you how it falls apart. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, DF24 should not be discussing quotation marks anywhere on Wikipedia, including on DF24's own user talk. So I'd recommend people stop leaving them messages that mention Full stop and other such pages. Also I recommend that DF24 not respond to editors who have opposed them in the quotation mark debate, unless there is a brand new topic that needs attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I have already asked SmC to stop posting on this talk page. However, since he is responding to some negative things that I've said about him, I'd see an exception as reasonable.  But yes, he did behave dishonestly.  It's possible that his perception of this matter is so skewed that he doesn't realize how much he's twisted things, but that's as much benefit of the doubt as I'm willing to give this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This needs to be the end of this. Darkfrog24, you are actually still trying to continue the dispute, in violation of your topic ban. SMcCandlish is probably responding because you impugned his character across multiple talk pages under the guise of clarifying the terms of your topic ban. If you make any further posts referring to the subject of your topic ban or to the dispute, you may receive a block per the terms of your ban. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No guise. I'm quite serious, both in my requests for information and advice and in what I have to say about SMcCandlish. He characterized neutral and anti-disruptive posts as disruptive and made false claims about both my motives and activities.  He's flat-out called me a liar.  If impugning people's character is an issue, the solution has to go both ways.  He has said things about me that are not true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I for one feel that one has pretty much carte blanche to reply on their own talk page to anything posted there, so Laser Brain, don't be threatening to interpret these as ban violations. Her words hang her well enough without help. Now I will drop the interaction with DF, and advise SMcCandlish to do the same. Dicklyon (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Message
Hi,

Thank you for your message. I understand your concern about topic bans.

In my opinion, it is bad when users don't understand admin actions because it undermines trust in the community. However, I am not very familiar with your case. If there is some big picture they see, it should be explained as well. For example, by linking to an appropriate essay that contains nonfallacious relevant reasoning with the explicit statement of goals such behavior is meant to achieve. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My own case is complicated. Short version: It started when I was targeted by a liar with a grudge who wrote a statement so big that the admins didn't feel up to checking whether his descriptions of my actions matched my actual diffs (case in point: they do not).  I also might have actually done something but trying to get a clear statement about what it was is slow going.  I hate guessing about what other people are thinking, especially when there's no reason why they can't just tell me or point to a diff in which someone else did if they think I've already been told.
 * I did start writing a FAQ about AE procedures, like topic bans. The open invitation to participate includes you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI: Help desk --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Neat. The best thing, though, is to just write that down in WP:TBAN.  An admin saying something is one thing.  I had an admin tell me I was required to inform anyone who asked that I was under a topic ban.  Then I got a one-week block for doing that.  I think.  It's not clear why I got that block. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am purposely not expressing an opinion on [A] whether your topic ban was correct, [B] whether attempts at enforcement of same were correct, or [C] whether TBAN or related pages need to be changed/clarified. Nobody cares what I think about those issues. What I am concerned about is that you (Darkfrog24) seem to have emailed Asterixf2 (and possible others) apparently for no reason other than the fact that Asterixf2 was recently topic banned from the topic of witchcraft. I still have a lot of hope that Asterixf2 will get over his recent problems, return to productive editing, and eventually get the ban lifted, but he really needs to start editing in other areas, not getting into discussions about how unfair topic bans are with you. Could you please not drag other topic-banned editors into this fight? All that you are likely to accomplish is sanctions against them. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not why I emailed him. I emailed him to thank him for his efforts toward clarifying WP:TBAN.  I didn't even know that he'd been topic-banned.  I didn't drag him into anything.  And you're quite wrong: I care what you think.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration enforcement request involving you
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion on "Are articles or documents hosted in the Wikisource project valid source material for Wikipedia articles?" - where is it?
I noticed you deleted my request for a WP:Third Opinion on the Active Disagreement "Are articles or documents hosted in the Wikisource project valid source material for Wikipedia articles?" - but you didn't actually leave a Third Opinion, simply deleted the Active Disagreement and supporting cites.

Do you intend to enter a Third Opinion? loupgarous (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I entered it several minutes ago. Here it is:  Is it on the wrong page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was looking in the wrong place, I guess - WP:Third Opinion. Thinking about it, I don't see any guidance as to where the Third Opinion should appear, so your choice was as reasonable as any.  Thanks for your opinion,  and I appreciate your work toward helping us improve wikipedia. loupgarous (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The 3O is customarily placed on the talk page indicated by the person who places the request. You're welcome.  It took a but of rundown. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bones (season 11)
Hi Darkfrog24, first, please forgive me for coming to your talk page and deviating from the discussion on the noticeboard, but some of my comments were getting lost in the mess, some just wanted to clarify my points here. Regarding DISQUS, people do not go to www.disqus.com and type on the website, that just doesn't happen. People go to the actual website and comment on the page, and the collection of comments are stored on the DISQUS site. So in essence they function as comments, not a forum. Let me briefly explain the difference between the two in my view: (capitalization isn't being rude, it's just pointing out the important parts).

In a forum, the discussions and comments THEMSELVES ARE THE CONTENT. The entire point of a forum is to talk and discuss various topics, so the discussion is the purpose to go to a forum. A comment section greatly differs from this because they THEMSELVES ARE NOT THE CONTENT. Comments are IN RESPONSE to an article or informational piece of which IS THE CONTENT. The comments on the DISQUS page are IN RESPONSE to an informational article and the person providing information found in the comments IS THE SAME person who wrote the initial information in the original article. This bring me to my point that these comments actually function AS AN EXTENSION to the article, and not a stand alone entity.

I understand that is may be difficult for some editors or even some readers to understand this concept (as evidenced by the noticeboard), but that's just how it works. When I originally put the Disqus URL in the page as a source, it was for convenience. At that time, TV Media Insights still existed, but since the information that was being cited was in the comments below the article, I thought it would be more convenient to have the link go straight to where the information was, rather than trying to have the readers struggle to find it on their own.

If the website still existed, this would be a simple matter of using a different URL, but the simple fact that the website is gone, presents a challenge. DISQUS is unique in that even though the website where the comments were originally hosted is gone, the comments themselves are still available. The only alternative to using the DISQUS link as the URL is to find cached versions of all of the links, but that is next to impossible to do. I will try to find as many as I can, as that seems to be the only way to resolve this situation.

Please let me know if you have any questions, or if there is anything j can clarify. Thank you again for your time. Rswallis10 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean you felt like your voice was drowned out so you came somewhere quieter instead of screaming? I think we're good on that.  If you're concerned about capitalization, you can use italics by leaving two apostrophes like this on either side of the word.
 * It can be very annoying when people call a source a forum when it's not. I get that DISQUS is not a forum.  The source in question, however, is a comment and not an article.  Wikipedia does have a separate policy for comments under WP:NEWSBLOG.  It says "Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources," which I personally interpret as covering comments and replies.  Now if the comment is left by the author that might be another matter.  It is my understanding that SonoftheBronx has been concretely identified as the author of the article in question, Douglas Pucci, and that this fact is not in doubt.  The way I see it, if this author meets Wikipedia's expert criteria, then he's usable per common sense.
 * Your choice of convenience link seems entirely apt.
 * The issues that have to be addressed are whether Pucci is himself a reliable source. If he is, then I personally don't see why we can't use information that he provided in a comment, but the issue does seem to be in the gray.
 * Remember, I don't get to decide this issue, at least not by myself. This isn't formal mediation or anything and I'm not an admin.  I'm just one Wikieditor who lucked out on a content dispute and got familiar with the RS rules.  Right now, I'm not sure which way I'd cast my support in an RfC on whether Pucci is reliable and my own best solution to this would be to just find a less controversial source.  Rswallis10, do you think that if you took the time and energy that you're using at RSN and invested it in searching for other sources, that anything would turn up or do you believe you have exhausted all other possibilities? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I found some information that suggests that the SotB figures may not be accurate. While the issue is verifiability, not truth, if we have reason to believe they're not true, then finding out which side of the line Pucci is on may not be worth our time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me what info you've found that shows his figures are not accurate? He's been quoted on TV by the Numbers, The Futon Critic, and is a regular contributor to AwfulAnnouncing.com as well as the station Y100.1. All of his numbers match up with the numbers on other reliable sources such as TVBTN, but he answers reader requests, which TVBTN does not. Another site, ShowBuzzDaily, also answers reader requests in the comments (but those comments are not DISQUS, so there has never been a reliability issue). A big part of getting Nielsen information is trust; we have to trust that we are getting reliable information since we ourselves do not possess the data. Only a select few have privy to that information, and that is something we have to understand. There is no reason for people like Douglas Pucci, (or Mitch Metcalf at ShowBuzzDaily, or Rick Porter at TVBTN, or Rick Kissell at Variety, or even Joe Adalian at Vulture) to make up the information. They are simply reporting the information they have, because they are passionate about ratings.


 * Believe me, I'm searching and searching to try to find another source for the numbers. I think the main reason they were requested to begin with is simply because they couldn't be found elsewhere. I firmly believe (and I thought that we all believed) that SonOfTheBronx is a reliable source, so I thought the issue here was the fact that they came from DISQUS, not the fact that they came from Douglas. If the issue is with DISQUS, then there is a fix for that: I am trying to find cached versions of all of the pages that the ratings were on because those still contain the comments on the actual page. If the issue is with Douglas himself, then there really isn't much I can do for that. TVBTN is the only site that regularly posts Live +7 data, so I'm quite certain that there is no other place the data can be found, but I will keep looking through press releases, and on other sites.


 * If you look here, you will see a list of all shows that I've found viewership information for, and I've spent hours/days/weeks/months trying to fill in some of the blanks, so I will continue to keep looking. This is mainly what I do on Wikipedia, and I've leaned quite a lot about ratings over the past 2 years, so when someone like AussieLegend brings forth a claim of using an unreliable source, I take that very seriously. Someone once told me that I would never be able to find any of the ratings for the second season of Dexter and I ended up finding 10/12 of them (& I'm still actively searching for the other 2). If I find any other sources, I will replace them on the Bones page, but I'm fairly certain it's a long shot. Rswallis10 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you've certainly done your due diligence. I posted the info that I found to the RSN thread so that Aussie could see it as well.  Basically, I found other sub-RS that reported numbers different from those reported by SotBronx.  Even an expert can make a mistake, but if he did, then whether or not he is an expert is moot in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I left my refutation on the main noticeboard page. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Answers to clarifications requested on my talk page: I am inferring that the previous stipulation that the topic ban does not cover editing under normal rules is still in effect. Is this correct? This would mean that I may, for example, correct a miscapitalized word, replace the generic he or remove an unnecessary "that" and write an edit summary per normal rules but that I may not explain or discuss any such change on the talk page. You may edit in all areas that are unrelated to the manual of style. For example you may correct capitalisations, fix typos, replace "he" with "they" (if appropriate to the situation, obviously), etc on articles that are not related to the manual of style. For example you may do these things on the megabat article but not on the singular they article.

I am inferring that the topic ban does cover issues not related to quotation marks such as the MoS's rules on the generic he and the MoS's rules on gender identity. Is this correct? This topic ban covers issues related to all manual of style topics, not just quotation marks.

I am inferring that the topic ban does not cover articles not covering issues not related to quotation marks, such as articles on the generic he or articles on gender identity. This topic ban covers articles related to all manual of style topics, including but not limited to quotation marks.

If I am working on an article such as Caster Semenya, am I permitted to discuss gender identity and to what extent? You are permitted to discuss gender identity, and any other topic, as long as it is not related to the manual of style.

I am inferring that the essay on WP:LQ that I have been working on for a few years has to wait until after the topic ban is over. Is that correct? Yes.

I am inferring that I am not banned from discussions of other users' behaviour, such as the one I had with Curly Turkey about SMcCandlish. Is this correct? You may discuss other users behaviour as long as the behaviour being discussed is unrelated to the manual of style. For example, you may not discuss another users opinions of MoS topics, nor their editing on MoS pages or topics. There was some support for an interaction ban prohibiting you discussing SMcCandlish though, so I would think twice before doing so and make sure that you are not harassing them.

I do not believe that the duration of the topic ban should have been extended and I do not follow your reasoning on this. I'd like it if you explained. The duration of the topic ban remains the same - indefinite. The time before you may appeal was lengthened for the reasons given in the AE thread, i.e. you completely missed the point of why the topic ban was placed and the extended time before appeal is indented to encourage you to actually move on from MoS related topics completely.

I'd also like it if you said that you had read my rebuttal of SMcCandlish's accusations. I'm not saying that you didn't. I'm saying that I'd feel better if you affirmed that you had. I read everything in the AE thread.

What can I do over the next twelve months to give you the confidence that I can be allowed back to work? Stay completely away from all manual of style related topics (the phrasing of this questions shows you still haven't done this). Don't attempt to skirt the edge of your ban, or see how close you can get without breaking it. Demonstrate that you are able to contribute to other areas of the encyclopaedia without engaging in the behaviour that got you topic banned here - crusading, not dropping the stick, battleground approaches, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Took a few days to think over your answers. The biggest one is this: You keep saying that I missed the point.  From your perspective, what did I miss?  I have several guesses, but guessing at other people's thought processes is hit or miss.
 * You say that the topic ban allows me to discuss gender identity. Are you aware of this passage in the manual of style, MOS:IDENTITY?  That's why I brought it up specifically. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can discuss the gender identity of a person, in terms of what they identify as, but not how gender identity should be represented. You should not though be looking for edge cases or to find the exact boundary of where the topic ban is (it's almost impossible to frame a restriction without grey areas, and context can matter) you should be staying completely away from it so there is no question.
 * I'm not sure I can explain how you missed the point any differently to how it has already been explained in the discussion, but I will keep thinking. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. One way to do this would be to say exactly when you think it was explained: by which person, in which post, with which words.  The admins involved were extremely taciturn.  Do you mean someone else?
 * From a strictly practical standpoint, I can't avoid the edges if I don't know where they are. Under my own interpretation, the original topic ban did not cover asking involved admins for constructive criticism, but under yours it did.  Under my own interpretation, the original topic ban covered the entire MoS, but under EdJohnston's it did not.  I cannot read anyone's mind.  However, I do plan on hanging out on AE to work on my FAQ draft.  Perhaps a pattern will emerge. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Habits (Tove Lo song)
Can you check any unreliable sources (WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES) 123.136.106.174 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The customary thing to do is to begin a discussion of these matters on the article's talk page so that other people who've worked on it may learn of your concerns. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

AE regarding naming the original filer and principal complainant
Please see WP:AE. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC) <p style="line-height: 90%;"> Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * Except it would be best to not mention me, too. I am not under any topic ban, and nobody has asked me to not contribute to such discussions of style.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "this is not an unblock request." I read the guide to appealing blocks, and it seems to be in order. What did I miss?  You're not saying that I should re-file in a different format or venue, are you?
 * I assure you that the idea that I am not allowed to say who filed the topic ban was not at all obvious to me. The AE thread was also closed much earlier than I've seen other threads close.  I was expecting another admin to show up and contradict the others or for someone to make a request of me the way they've made requests of other editors.  As for ignoring the comment entirely, I've been told that I have to inform people who ask that I'm under a topic ban.  I'll see if I can find you the link to the diff.
 * I am guessing that your "float new policy language" comment refers to the FAQ suggestion, that it solely concerns venue and that it does not have bearing on your decision to decline the block. Is this correct?
 * Dicklyon, it is my understanding that you are indeed under a ban, a voluntary one. I said "I am not confident that Dicklyon is either" and not "and Dicklyon isn't either" because the specifics of what you are and aren't allowed to do are not my immediate business.  The point of posting the link was for SmokeyJoe to see that for himself.  However, if you don't want me to talk about you at all, that's certainly reasonable.  You're more than capable of giving your own alerts.
 * Also, I have to wonder: Why are you here? You said you were going to avoid interacting with me.  I'm not mad, but I'm a little surprised you even found out about this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unblock requests should be short and to the point, addressing the behavior that led to the block. Instead, this is an argument for an FAQ and an obfuscation of an attempt to discuss MoS without (in your view) discussing MoS. Since it is primarily a digression into more lengthy litigation of the kind that was on display at AE, it is declined.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response. I thought that offering a solution that would prevent problems like this from re-curring was a good idea.  So I should re-file with something that looks more like this? I am willing to refrain from identifying the filers in the future.  I did not offer to do so in the AE thread because it closed before the subject could be raised and before I could confirm that naming my accuser is in actually against the rules.
 * One correction, though, at some point, one of the admins told me that I have to tell people who ask me to participate that I am under a topic ban. I can try to find you the diff if you think it's relevant.  If that is the case, then no I wasn't allowed to ignore the ping.
 * I would also like any constructive criticism you have on finding out what I'm not allowed to do. Guessing is not working well.  I've watchlisted the AE page so that I can observe any patterns, but it will take months for me to discern any patterns. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not convinced that you or any other editor are obligated to respond to anything. However, "I can't respond as you may wish because I'm under a current sanction" is always a good choice when there is any doubt. Short answer on what you can do is ... go write some content on a topic that interests you. MoS is pretty broad, you'll want to avoid discussions on GA and FA content, for instance, except on a strictly content-related (as opposed to style) basis. This is supposed to be fun, you seem to be falling down the rabbithole of bureaucracy-wrangling. Far too often we end up in passionate arguments about things like "The Beatles/"the Beatles." Let's have fun helping people understand things that they want to know about.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty close to what I've already been doing. Like I said in the unblock request, I hit 3O and RSN, in part to demonstrate that I can be trusted in contentious situations but also because they cover a wide range of topics and I might come across something that might interest me.  No luck so far but it's not even been a month.  I've participated in part of WP:TELEVISION in previous years, but for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia, I don't expect to have access to the source material this year.  I realize this might be hard for most people to believe, but the history of punctuation is interesting to me.
 * It's interesting that you say to avoid GA and FA, because one of the admins in the initial complaint expressly suggested that I work on that. Although, that was before the ban was modified.
 * I wouldn't say I've fallen into bureaucracy as fallen victim to it. I think part of the reason these complaints keep getting filed is because I do not know what is expected of me.  That's why one of the projects I'm working on for the duration of the ban is a FAQ.  I don't want anyone else to get stuck like this.
 * But gotta get this block taken care of first. I don't want to waste anyone's time with an unblock request that isn't properly formatted.  Do you think this version is all right?
 * I believe I should be unblocked because 1) I am willing to refrain from identifying filers in future alerts; 2) I was never given any indication, direct or indirect, that I was not allowed to identify filers. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Found it. It was admin Killer Chuhuahua: "if directly asked, you must respond, 'I'm sorry, I'm under AE sanctions and cannot respond to that question'" Note that KC says "must respond," not "may respond." No comment on naming or not naming the accuser or posting a link to the AE thread.  Here's the thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While I've got you here, I understand that it's against the rules to bait or mock a topicbanned editor, but where does telling lies about me come in? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Re-filing unblock request, incorporating Acroterion's comments on structure and content. As things stand, I do not plan to make a third request. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you've utterly missed the point of why you were blocked, and as such, this unblock notice doesn't address the behavior at all. You've repeatedly claimed that you were merely "identifying your accuser" and that is a plainly misleading statement. You were attempting to draw attention to the identity of the accuser(s) (and their positions) for the purpose of editorializing on the issue and making your opinions known on both the filing and filers. You were blocked because you had already been repeatedly and clearly warning not to engage in this behavior. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Point of fact, Laser brain, no I was never told about this, not repeatedly, not once. I was told not to talk about the MoS, not not to talk about the topic ban.
 * I think it would be more constructive if instead of continually saying that I missed the point, you guys would be more responsive in talking about what the point is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can claim ignorance all day long, but the diffs are out there for everyone to see. Here Thryduulf wrote to you "For example, you may not discuss another users opinions of MoS topics, nor their editing on MoS pages or topics." Here you wrote "Please note the identities of the filer and principal complainant&mdash;and the degree to which other MoS regulars do and do not agree with them&mdash;and make of this what you will." You were warned, and you did it anyway. Now you're blocked. You will see additional blocks of increasing length if you continue to violate your topic ban. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * LB, you are coming too close to calling me a liar, and that is not proper of you.
 * "RG filed a complaint against me" and "note the identity of the filer" are not a discussion of a user's opinion of the MoS, and it is not obvious that you or anyone would think that they were.
 * As for "degree to which others agree and disagree," I reverted that the same minute, and even then, it was only because I thought it might come close. Even then, they're talking about the complaint and not the MoS itself.  I was deliberately trying to avoid skirting the ban.
 * The thing that you did not say was that "talking about the topic ban is equivalent to talking about the banned topic." That is what I didn't know. For you to claim I violated the ban is one thing, but it is not right for you to claim that I already knew your highly specific definition of violation.  Do you understand now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, no. I'm merely illustrating that your claim of not having been warned is without merit, and that you are not accurately describing your action as "identifying the filer". I've observed throughout this process that you have continued the behavior that got you into hot water to begin with: personalizing issues, fixating on "winning", and endlessly litigating issues until the people around you get frustrated. You've asked in several places (including my Talk page) for feedback on how you can improve and how you should behave during your topic ban. If you'd like my frank feedback, I'd suggest that you rethink your approach to conflict here. Better yet, stay away from conflict. WP:3O and WP:RSN would not be my first choice of venues to drift into after getting topic banned after conflicts in another area. I'm not sure why you can't just find a quiet corner to edit in and be at peace for a few months. But, feel free to ignore my feedback and advice. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Laser brain, we are clearly not thinking of things the same way. When you say "focus on winning," what do you mean?  What action did I perform that you see this way?  What action do you see as "personalizing issues"?
 * As for finding a quiet corner to edit, 3O and RSN have been going well so far. My goal here is to prove that I can handle conflicts well.  But then admins are the people I'm trying to impress, so your take on that is relevant.  As for being at peace, it is very hard to be at peace when I'm topic banned in large part because someone lied about me and is continuing to say things that aren't true about me in forums in which I'm not allowed to respond.  And I don't use the word "lie" without proof.
 * I was asked to participate in this discussion and under the impression that I was not allowed to leave SmokeyJoe hanging. In fact, both the second and third complaints were about cases in which someone else pinged me and asked for my input and I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to give it.  I'm actually still not clear about what was wrong in the second complaint.
 * While I've got you here, while I've been blocked I've been writing up an essay that I'd been meaning to write for a while. It describes a dispute resolution technique that I came up with at WT:MOS, but I've also used it in other places.  I'm inferring that I'm going to have to confirm that it has been sufficiently de-MOS-ified before posting it to my userspace.  What would be the process for that? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Only your own edits were taken into account during your AE cases. You are not topic banned because someone allegedly lied about you or because of anything else anyone did. That's probably the most off-base remark I've seen you make during this period and it shows a focus on others' behavior instead of your own. You're topic banned (and now blocked) because of what you did. Regarding your essay, I'd say that if you even have to ask whether it's "sufficiently de-MOS-ified" it's probably something you should not considering posting anywhere. -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a good rule of thumb is that if you have to ask whether something would breach your topic ban then it more than likely does. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT CONFLICT: Even if you don't think the things SmC said about me affected your decision, they definitely affected what I did and didn't write in my defense, and that almost certainly affected the decision. When SmC posted those links about me, each one was accompanied by a malicious and false description that would have colored the conclusions drawn about those diffs by at least some of the admins. "Use judgement if you are considering challenging this rule; consult previous discussions to see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction" is an innocuous edit, but someone who's just been primed with "She's trying to 'challenge' the MoS and get 'satisfaction'" might not think so.  As for out-and-out lies (by which I mean things that couldn't be considered honest mistakes by any stretch of AGF), for just one example, he claimed that I removed a dispute tag "without doing anything to resolve the dispute" but left out the fact that I'd replaced what I'd believed to be a contested source and the fact that he and I had discussed it on the talk page.  That's not even the only problem.
 * For some perspective: Before SmCandlish chimed in, Guy was talking about three months. After, I've got twelve months to appeal and the scope was expanded.  That's how much I think he affected things.  SmC's lies weren't the only thing in play&mdash;I can go into more detail if you want&mdash;but they are a huge problem.
 * In its current form, this essay doesn't mention the MoS or MoS issues at all. The best example of this technique wasn't on WT:MoS; it was elsewhere.  Remember, I didn't think there was anything wrong with indicating that RG was the one who filed the complaint against me, to the point where I left that information in when reverting content that I considered merely close to borderline.  I'm asking that someone check it even though I do think it's within bounds.  I am being extra cautious because regular erring on the side of caution didn't work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, I think, at most, you might tell me to remove a line or two. The core of the essay isn't about MoS issues.  It's just a technique I came up with.
 * It just occurred to me this moment: I am allowed to draft that FAQ I brought up on the talk page, right? AE itself isn't covered is it?  Not rhetorical. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I admit, I watch out of sort of sordid amusement; Shadenfreude perhaps. It really is pretty common, almost typical, for blocked or banned users to try to analyze and criticize the system that blocked them, as that's easier than understanding their own behavior that got them into trouble with that system. See User:Brews_ohare for a sad example. Do what I did when I was indef blocked: forget about it for a few months. Come back much later and try to do something different. Mainly, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, you'll understand if I don't consider you unbiased. After all, now you don't have me around to insist that you find sources for the content you want to add.  As for dropping the stick, I was working on something else, I was asked to participate, I did exactly what I was told to do and got blocked for something that I could not have known was not allowed because the issue never came up despite my wide-ranging and proactive efforts to find out what is and is not expected of me&mdash;and four previously uninvolved editors agreed, with three of them saying that the complaint was so ridiculous that the filer should have been sanctioned.  You'll forgive me if I don't think inadequate self-reflection is the problem here.
 * Going to the admins to find out what I could do differently was the first thing I did. It really didn't go over well.
 * While we're doing not entirely unfriendly heads-ups, if you haven't read the AE thread that led to this block, you should. If you don't want me to include you in any future alerts, fine, that's a reasonable request, but your name did come up there.  There are a few things you should drop yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

VWS essay draft
Like I said, I'm pretty sure I removed anything having to do with the MoS, and there wasn't much to begin with. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Although most RfCs allow Wikieditors to run polls and list supporting and opposing votes, Wikipedia is not intended to be a democracy. Consensus is not supposed to be established using the number of editors who favor each option but using the facts available in published, reliable sources, the policies cited, and the logical arguments presented. However, sometimes a large number of editors favor one side of an argument even though it may not be supportable and other times the conversation becomes repetitive and no one can tell who said what any more. While many Wikipedians are willing to change their minds if given a good reason, long discussions can make those reasons hard to see.

One way to address refocus contentious discussions in a constructive and non-confrontational manner is to line up reliable sources quantitatively to show how many support each view.

Method
Start a new sub-thread with a clear title, like "Voting with sources" or "Source breakdown," and explain the process.


 * A lot of good arguments have been presented that Harry Houdini was the first person to fly an airplane in Australia but a number of others support Colin Defries, and the discussion has begun to go in circles. I think we could benefit from building a source list to show how many RS support each position.


 * We could start with people adding the sources that they've used to support the arguments they've already made. Please place them in the list with the most important or most reliable sources on top (even if that means putting your New York Times source in between someone else's History of Flight in Australia and PlaneBlogger Forums, etc.)

Create further sub-threads for each principal position. Be clear and neutral. You will not convince anyone to change their mind if they do not feel that their positions are being presented accurately. Hashtags (#) create a numbered list, making the sources easier to count. It may also help to start the list for the opposing discussion yourself, ideally by adding a source already cited in the existing discussion.

Sources that support Harry Houdini
 * 1) Monash University
 * 2) Smithsonian

Sources that support Colin Defries
 * 1) Aircraft by Harry Cobby (1938)

Sources that support other first flyers
 * 1) Sydney Morning Herald, names Fred Custance

Treat entries in these lists the way you would treat headers under WP:TPO. Do not sign the posts; do not consider them to belong to any one particular editor. Allow other editors to modify them when appropriate. Do not place any limit on the number of sources that can be added by each participant; it's not about how many people there are. Don't over-curate the list. Let the other editors place things as they like. This is as much about sharing control as it is about proving a point.

Decide whether to include sub-reliable sources, such as blogs, based on the needs of your specific discussion. Sometimes a source that would not be sufficient for use the article space can still provide useful perspective in talk page discussions.

Applications, advantages and disadvantages
This technique is relatively non-confrontational. By focusing on list-building rather than on refuting arguments one by one, editors direct their energy at a shared project rather than at each other. Undecided editors can participate without joining either camp. This technique works best with yes/no and either/or questions that do not have any middle ground, but it can also be used to address issues of undue weight and balance.

Sometimes this exercise reveals previously unnoticed distinctions. For example, all professional-audience sources may give one answer while all general-audience sources give another. There may be divisions along national lines or by publication date. ("All the sources published after the episode aired name the special guest actor and the ones published ahead of time don't. Maybe they were worried about spoilers.") Assumed or expected patterns may fail to appear. ("I thought only Americans would support Houdini, but there are a lot of Australian universities on this list.")

Voting with sources can also prevent the discussion from being reopened unnecessarily. It's one thing to tell a challenger "We established consensus on this last year" but far better to say "We established consensus on this and we found that reliable sources supported the current version 2:1. Here's a thread where you can see for yourself." If the challenger does decide to go through with a new discussion or RfC, he or she is more likely to show up with strong sources to support the proposal. If a significant number of new sources have been published since the last discussion, reexamination is probably a good idea anyway.

Articles in which this technique has contributed to resolution
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken

There's still some formatting and phrasing to modify, maybe switch out Houdini for another example or else look up the actual names of the other candidates, dress it up with a few images, etc. Now here's why I want your input: The acutal-use examples. Of course I didn't mention any of the times I've used this technique at WT:MoS, but the single clearest case was Theater District, Manhattan, which would be placed right above "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken," formatted identically. The ambiguity is this: The terms of the topic ban do not mention WP:TITLE but the link to the original ArbCom decision that placed the MoS under discretionary sanctions does. Last week, I wouldn't have blinked at including this link in the essay, but it's become clear that we process these matters differently. Where does this link fit in? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hadesarchaea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anerobic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Credited accusations leading to the topic ban
Sorry for the length of time it's taken for me to get back to you regarding the questions you left on my talk page, my life has been busier than expected over the past few days.
 * Regarding the complaints that were the most significant, I don't keep it all in in mind, but from rereading the following stand out as being supported by the provided evidence - battleground editing, refusing to drop the stick, editwarring, "making a bogus ENGVAR case so that Darkfrog24 can do whatever Darkfrog24 wants", "This campaign against MOS consensus has been going on for 6.5 years", "DF24 jumps in with the pattern of pumping up discontent", "It's an impermissible behavioral problem to spend years pushing a point of view about the matter, tendentiously against consensus, across both projectspace and mainspace.", "[your response] doesn't address the problem, in my opinion. It looks like they are planning to keep on beating the dead horse forever on the topic of logical quotes.". And that is just from the first discussion - many of these individually would result in a topic ban being justified. Basically everything was evaluated if evidence was given for the claim, and if the evidence presented backed up the claim then it was taken into consideration. Regarding your second question, asking anything about the subject of a topic ban other than a clarification about it's scope is a violation. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, topic bans apply to everything related to the topic on every page on Wikipedia. They last until they expire or are successfully appealed. The way to successfully demonstrate compliance with a topic ban is to leave the subject alone entirely without attempting to find the edges. If after your first ban you had stayed completely away from quotation styles then you could have, in the following six months, demonstrated that you have the ability to work with other editors on other MoS topics in a collaborative and constructive manner. However you didn't, you chose to continue talking about quotation marks, asking how to resume the battle that got you topic banned, etc.
 * Topic bans last as long as they need to. The goal is to remove someone from a topic area where they are actively harming the encyclopaedia and/or preventing others from improving it. If that means the topic ban has to last permanently so be it, but we always hope that it doesn't have to. However the onus is on the topic banned person to demonstrate that it is no longer needed and that if it is lifted they will not go right back to doing whatever it was that got them topic banned in the first place.
 * I have been on Wikipedia over 11 years and I've never seen anyone need so much clarification of a topic ban and still fail to understand it. I am not sure that asking further questions of me will be productive as I have about run out of ways to explain the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I asked because this isn't the answer I was expecting. If I'm going to be topic-banned, it should be for things that actually happened.  There are a few factual clarifications that you need to see.
 * I did not make bogus claims: If one of the problems here is that you think the ENGVAR issue is my own invention, we can clear that up easily: The overwhelming majority of sources from both sides of the puddle agree that American style is part of American English and British style is part of British English. They're not low-quality sources either (though most of those concur).  We're talking Oxford Dictionaries, Webster's New World Punctuation, Chicago Manual of Style versions 14, 15, and 16 and online,  Columbia Journalism Review and guides for many kinds of specialists, including scientists and lawyers.  I could literally cite dozens more.  That's not even counting the American and British style guides that don't give names for either system but clearly fall along American and British lines.  In the years I've been at WT:MoS, no one has ever brought in a reliable source that said flat-out "This isn't really American and that isn't really British" the way that these sources say that they are.  The idea that American style is not really American is the fringe view. The way I see it, if anyone wants to disagree with the conclusion I've drawn, that's one thing, but the assertion that I'm somehow making all this up isn't valid.
 * I am not campaigning in the article space: The way I see it, I'm not campaigning at all, but it's easiest to prove for the article space. You see my position on quotation marks in the article space because the sources support it.  For further evidence that I am not campaigning, look not only at what I've done but at what I haven't done: I don't remove terminology that hurts my position from articles.  I don't like that "logical" is also a name for British style, but it's verifiable and common enough, so I didn't remove it, even before I knew what WP:BIASED was.  Same for the descriptions of national crossover and exceptions  .  I've even found additional sources for these facts .  Both original research noticeboard and the findings of a small RfC have found in favor of keeping the "American" and "British" terminology and excluding the claim that they're misnomers.  Short version: I'm not the one pushing POV in the article space; I'm the one who's been stopping it.  You may notice who the other person in these two disputes is.
 * SMcCandlish is not reliable on this matter: It looks like you're copying SMcCandlish verbatim on these issues, and you shouldn't. Not only is he probably very annoyed that I stopped him from putting his opinions in the article, but he's repeatedly taken it as a personal insult that I don't agree with him, to the point of ranting at me for using the terms "British" and "American" in my own, signed talk page posts.  I've repeatedly told him that I'll look at any source he wants to show me, but all he does is repeat his opinion at me over and over.  When I show him sources, it just seems to make him angry.  He's probably still mad for last September when he got himself boomeranged .  He also might be upset about last summer when I asked him if he was all right, but that's speculation on my part.  Everything he said about me should be disregarded.  I'll assume that you did look at the actual diffs, but he handed you a dirty lens.
 * I am not the one who keeps bringing up WP:LQ: Most of the rest of these claims are more subjective, so I'll keep it short: I haven't started a thread against WP:LQ in years. People who don't know me or each other keep doing it on their own&mdash;because this rule is inconsistent with what they've learned in school and seen in RS.  Then I bring in sources and evidence to support.  The way I see it, breaking or unduly undermining WP:LQ is against the rules, but I haven't been doing either of those things.  I guess what I'm saying that because opposition to WP:LQ is common and topic bans are not, there must be a Wikipedia-compliant way of opposing WP:LQ and it would be acceptable for me to return to WT:MoS so long as I kept to that MO.
 * So what you're saying is that you expanded the scope because asking questions about how to deal with WP:LQ in the future is a topic ban violation, even if I'm asking involved admins? Am I correct in thinking that you did disregard SmC's claims of casting aspersions?
 * As to why I need this much clarification, I figured that asking questions about what to do would be interpreted as a sign of good faith. I really don't know why you thought the opposite.  The way I see it, I did stay completely away from quotation styles.  I didn't talk about quotation marks; I talked about a person, and the things I said to Curly would have been no different if SmC had been topic-banned for sourcing or harassment.  I did consider saying, "SMcCandlish, do you think that you are a quotation mark?"  The way I see it, you said "Stay out of the park and don't even touch the fence" and then I got sanctioned for walking down the sidewalk on the other side of the street from the park.  I can only speculate about why other people haven't asked you this many questions, but for my case, the fact that I was accused of twenty different things at once and that no one proactively stated which ones were given credence left me very much in the dark.  Did other people have such a wide variety of accusations made against them in one complaint?
 * Patterns: I have been watching AE, and I have noticed something. Accused users tend to see the administrative process as separate from the rest of Wikipedia.  For example, Hijiri thought it would be okay to report Catflap for violating a topic ban because AE itself is not the same kind of page as articles and talk pages.  Hijiri's punishment is that he or she cannot affect the content of that page or speak his or her mind on this issue, and reporting someone doesn't affect it or express Hijiri's opinion.  I was seeing the talk pages of involved admins the same way, a separate space.  From what's been posted at talk:BANEX, people also tend to assume that their own user pages and sandboxes are out of bounds of the ban.  That was one of the first things I asked you about, whether the WP:LQ essay that I have in my sandbox is off-limits.
 * Edit warring: What I am seeing here is the claim of edit warring. I have a higher tolerance to conflict than a lot of people, and if someone bothers me I tend to talk to them about it.  Per MOS:SUPPORTS, I just didn't see what Dicklyon and I were doing as an edit war because we weren't just reverting back and forth but rather changing each new version of the text in ways that we thought the other would find more palatable and because this was taking place alongside talk page discussions.  If that's against the rules then I can certainly spend the next eleven months developing and practicing alternatives.  Were there any other cases of edit warring that you considered relevant? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't got time to read all this in detail now, but from a quick read it looks very like you are discussing quotation styles and your opinion of them and of sources regarding them - if so then you are breaching your topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You will find that I have spoken of quotation marks strictly within the context of the enforcing admin's interpretation of the accusations made against me. I asked you exactly what I did that inspired you to issue the ban, and you cited two things, arguably more than two, that I didn't actually do.  Then I provided proof.  I'm confident that this is within the spirit and letter of the rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree and believe it violates both the letter and the spirit, so I have initiated a request for enforcement at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. This will obviously be decided by other administrators not me. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
It appears that you intend to persist in relitigating your block and discussing other editors despite numerous editors telling this is a vio and disruptive. If you are genuinely incapable of understanding the ban than you cannot be allowed to edit. If, as I suspect, this is some kind of performance art, I would be willing to unblock you in a couple if weeks if you confirm that this tiresome behavior will cease. You have been blocked before and know the drill. For the sake of clarity, this is an arbitration enforcement block. Spartaz Humbug! 23:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not performance art.
 * I've come to think that it's not the ban itself that I don't understand. It's the people.  The admins keep doing the opposite of what I expect them to do.
 * When I was first topic-banned, I went to the admins who made the decision and asked for constructive criticism and advice on how to make the best of things as a sign of good faith, to prove that I was interested and committed to working on whatever underlying issue inspired the ban. It was taken as bad faith instead.
 * When I found out that Thryduulf based part of his or her decision on something that I was able to prove wasn't real, I was expecting the reaction to that proof to be more like, "Oh! I see what you were talking about now.  I still believe that complaints 27, 42 and 50 are valid but I now see that complaints 1 through 4 were not.  Concentrate your efforts on issues 27, 42 and 50; disregard 1 through 4." What am I supposed to make of this?
 * When I just now cited the policy that I was following, I expected the next comment to be, "Oh, that's right. Darkfrog is allowed to do that.  It says so right there." As we can see, you didn't react that way, and I don't know why not.
 * Laser brain and others, including yourself just now, have made it clear that they think that the fact that I don't understand what's going on is a problem. I was expecting, "Well at least Darkfrog24 is putting effort into figuring it out.  That shows good faith." If this really is a problem, then why would my attempts to solve it upset you?
 * When you say "discussing other editors," what do you mean? The replies to Liz and the others or something else?
 * Here's one core issue that I've noticed about AE: People are expected to not only follow unwritten rules but to disregard written ones. You yourself have complained about expectations of telepathy.  The 500-word limit is the most obvious of these, but I was also expressly told to ask questions if anything was unclear and that legitimate and necessary issues were an exception to the topic ban.  That's three written rules that, at least according to the events of the past few weeks, aren't meant to be taken literally.  That's a problem.
 * There is definitely something going on here that I'm not seeing, no question there. Is there something that people aren't saying?  Maybe something that you think is too obvious to bother mentioning?
 * As to editing the encyclopedia, I've been doing that with no problems. I've written two new articles, helped out at RSN, resolved disputes at 3O, gnomed a couple of pages.  The only times the topic ban has been an issue, other than yesterday, have been when someone else has pinged me to participate in a conversation.  With Curly, I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to talk about people, and with Smokey, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to name my accuser.  Neither of these issues were covered in the questions I asked, so I couldn't have known about them.  That's a problem too.  I'll say what I said earlier: I followed every rule that I found out about. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The admins keep doing the opposite of what I expect them to do I think you have an explanation of your frustration right there. MULTIPLE admins are telling you the exact same thing and yet you have expectations that they will devote endless amounts of time to discussing every little edit of yours and what is and isn't permitted. Like I said, the time for discussing the imposition of the topic ban was when it was imposed upon you. Admins have taken the time to further answer your questions but they seem neverending. Admins are busy people, there is always a backlog of work for admins to do and I don't think you can expect an admin to walk you through your edit history (any more than they already have) and tell you what you did right and what you did wrong.
 * Bottom line, your demands for attention have tested the patience of the admins who've encountered you and they have said "No more". Until you agree--with no qualifications or questions--to abide by your topic ban, you will not be unblocked. That is, the burden isn't on the admins to explain things to you any more, the burden is on you now to persuade an admin that you can live and abide by your topic ban. And I think they will require some convincing you can do this. Liz  Read! Talk! 00:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, are you telling me that I just got blocked for asking questions?
 * If you're too busy, then why not just say "I'm too busy"? I kept telling Thryduulf that he could take his time, after all, there was minimum eleven months involved.
 * We seem to have a disconnect here. I didn't want Thryduulf or you or anyone to go through my edit history and say what I did wrong.  I want you to go through the accusation or even just your thought process.  I'm surprised Thryduulf was as thorough as he was.  I was expecting something like, "I thought you were battlegrounding but didn't care about anything else, so focus on that" or "I consider the events at MOS:SUPPORTS an edit war and X and Y on the talk page need to change." I realize the compliant is over 9000 words long and a lot of work to go through, but I'm not the one who made it that way.  That's not an exaggeration, by the way.  I copypasted it into Word unhatted.  It clocks in at 18 pages, 1769 words in-thread + 8121 in the linked section, and that's just the first complaint. (And that's just its length, never mind its other problems.)
 * As for why I couldn't have responded at the time, a full-length response to that would take minimum 10K, probably closer to twice that. Even if I had known back then that I didn't need to wait for permission to post something like that at AE, it would have taken me days to write it.  The process would have been over before it was ready. (I asked at AE if I was allowed to ask for time to compose a response; no answer.) That is why I kept asking you guys to say specifically what you were objecting to (three times, four if you count EdJ on usertalk), so that I could focus on just the parts you cared about.  I didn't get that information until yesterday.
 * Let me give you an example: SmC accused me of casting aspersions against his mental health. I know that I didn't and the accusation looks ridiculous, but maybe it looks different to you.  As for yesterday's conversation, I was actually pretty surprised to find out that Thryduulf gave the "bogus ENGVAR claim" accusation any credence. I'd put it in the "The admins probably don't mean this one" column because it seemed obvious to me that SmC was just giving his opinion.  Thryduulf not only mistook it for fact but considered it important enough for it to be the first thing on his list.  If I hadn't asked, I never would have found out.
 * Let me see if I can explain this another way: Have you ever worked in or read about marketing? They sit in the meeting and talk about what they think the customers want, but then the results of the market research come in and they find the customers don't care about the things they thought they would and do care about the things they thought they wouldn't.  Even professionals who have spent years studying certain groups of people can't always predict how they'll think.  You have to actually ask people what they want.  Never trust a guess.
 * I have been doing my best to abide by the topic ban, but I can't read anyone's mind. It seemed obvious to me that answering Curly's question about SMcCandlish wasn't covered.  After all, SMcCandlish isn't a quotation mark.  It seemed obvious to me that I would be allowed to name my accuser and post a link to the discussion.  After all, I'd been told I was required to.  All I can say is what I've already said: I've followed every rule that I found out about.  I've watchlisted WP:AE so that I can observe the process and look for patterns.  This has produced some results.  I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to report another user for violating the same ban and had in fact been considering doing so, but when I saw Hijiri warned for that, well, it saved us all some time.  But learning by observation is not an instant process.  I cannot promise you that I won't step on another unmarked mine.  They're unmarked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And now you are still relitigating, I suggest you cease or I'll turn off your talk page.
 * By the way, you were not blocked for asking questions. You were blocked because you appear incapable of understanding the topic ban. If you cannot parse what is allowed after all the explanations you have had than you will continue to infringe. I have never seen an editor so fixated in testing the edges of a ban and so unable to understand the concept of if in doubt don't post. If this is genuine then there is no hope that you will be able edit under the terms of the ban and it is disruptive if you are not banned. The only solution is to remove you until you can understand and comply with the ban. The reasoning cannot be made any clearer. Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand and to get you to understand.  How, other than talking to you, would I get that to happen?  I have no mind-reading powers.
 * That's just it&mdash;I wasn't in doubt. I wasn't testing the edges.  I thought I was well away from them.  The complaints I'm getting are for things that looked like they were clearly not covered by the ban.  "Don't talk about quotation marks." Okay, I didn't.  I got another complaint anyway.  Why would talking to the admins who issued the ban be covered?  Why would telling someone who filed the ban against me be covered?  These all came as surprises.  That's why I didn't ask about them&mdash;I didn't know I needed to.
 * Same in this case. BANEX says flat-out that I'm allowed to address legitimate concerns in an appropriate forum.  Why wouldn't "Wait a second, I didn't actually do one of the things that inspired the block" be a legitimate concern and why wouldn't talking to the enforcing admin be an appropriate forum?  I'm serious.  I want to know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly we parse legitimate in a different way and there has to be an underlying presumption that a banned user is capable of understanding the terms of the ban and working within it without constantly relitigating the ban through asking questions about what it means. If you still do not understand then there is nothing more anyone can say that will help you get it and that leaves a presumption that you will never be able to independently function within its terms without asking an admin to check every edit. That's too time consuming to be tolerated - which is what has led to your block. I remain mystified how an otherwise literate and competent editor is unable to deal with this and this inevitably raises concerns about how genuine this problem is and my earlier comments about performance art. Perhaps it would help you to reflect that other editors seems able to get what the issue is and that the problem with understanding and parsing is sitting at your end. I'm honestly unable to think of any way I can explain matters more clearly to you. Spartaz Humbug! 14:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you do want a response to that.
 * For one, I haven't been asking about every edit. I've been editing almost entirely without trouble, in areas far from the MoS, since January.  New articles Hadesarchaea and Helicase, POLQ-like, renovating Robb Stark, helping out at RSN and 3O, gnoming some GoT material.  Generally, I've been roaming Wikipedia looking for something that isn't style issues to do, with no violations.  I trip over the topic ban only when topic bans and their surrounding etiquette are the subject of discussion. 1) Didn't know I wasn't supposed to ask involved admins about the underlying issue. 2) Knew that, when asked to participate in a MoS discussion, I was allowed to tell the asker that I was under a topic ban, but did not know I wasn't allowed to provide any details.  3) It really does look like BANEX allows me to talk to the enforcing admin about exactly this kind of issue.
 * You know the concept "degrees of separation"? Well it was obvious that I wasn't suppose to talk about quotation marks, but it wasn't obvious that I wasn't supposed to talk about a Wikiedtior [sep] who was dealing with administrative processes [sep] that originated at WP:LQ.  Do you see it now?
 * The time I've spent watching WP:AE has left me with some ideas of why other editors aren't asking so many questions, though of course you would have to ask them to be sure: 1) I went into this extremely unfamiliar with AE procedures and etiquette. Example: I didn't know the 500 word rule wasn't real.  When EdJ suggested a discretionary sanction, I asked "What do you have in mind?" not knowing that I was supposed to make them an offer and already know what kind of offer they wanted. 2) The complaints against other editors are clearer.  I don't see anyone else dealing with 8000+ words of highly variegated accusations and left to wonder which ones were recognized as unmerited and which weren't. 3) The fact that the accuser outright lied in several parts of his statement, as in not-just-an-opinion, knew-it-wasn't-true-when-he-said-it, more-than-mischaracterization lied, and that that hasn't been acknowledged, definitely isn't helping. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * From all I read, Spartaz understands, you can be assured of that. So you trying to get Spartaz understand whatever is sheer presumptuousness. The kind of presumptuousness Wikipedia can do well without.
 * You don't understand: your failure to try to understand is what led to your block. Now live with it. You no longer need to try to understand. If you continue trying: that's your good right, but do so without bothering other Wikipedia editors. The only way you'll ever be allowed to return here is when you have shown to understand, and haven't annoyed too many people in the process. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Spartaz clearly thinks I was testing the block, and I wasn't, so no he does not understand. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You were testing the block, please don't talk nonsense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Francis, I am telling you right now, I was not testing the block, and you're approaching uncivil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So an editor who draws an AE is genuinely taken aback that it was for something that seemed legit according to the written rules, and so asks questions that amount to "what did I do wrong?" And the response they get amounts to "you know what you did wrong" which is clearly a load of bunk. And for some reason it annoys people when that editor continues to question that dismissive and unhelpful attitude, so they are accused of talking nonsense. Seems to me that there's a level of prejudicial though regarding anything to do with Darkfrog here that frankly is insulting and unworthy of an admin. No, she doesn't get it, because no one has really tried to help he get it because instead of collaborating to find a solution, it's just extend the block until Darkfrog shuts up. That's the true nonsense here. oknazevad (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tell me, what was your excuse for not answering any question asked by Darkfrog? Not an admin? Neither am I... and have been answering many of Darkfrog's questions in the past. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, Oknazevad. To be fair to Thryduulf, he did answer my question about what I did.  It's just that the list included a bunch of things that I didn't actually do.  And Francis, Oknazevad didn't answer any of my questions because I didn't ask him any.  Not sure what you're going for there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog24. You probably remember me. We worked on an RfC or two together. And you are also one of the editors with whom I "celebrated" (on my talk page) my 1000th edit. I'm sorry to see that you are currently blocked. I've been following the situation for some time and it makes me sad because, as long as you're blocked, it's a loss to Wikipedia as well as to you personally. I think I can understand how you feel that there were issues raised about you that need to be addressed; and also how you feel that there are questions you need to ask in order to clarify the details of the ban. But, pragmatically speaking, it looks like the only way they're going to let you back in is if you can put all that aside and move ahead with things clearly not covered by the ban (and that don't require asking whether or not the ban applies). Things like the Hadesarchaea and Helicase, POLQ-like articles for example. Please note that I'm neither siding with them nor siding with you. I'm just expressing my opinion that you're a very talented editor and both you and Wikipedia will be better off with you once again editing. But, rightly or wrongly, the only way that's going to happen is if you can stop looking back and look only ahead. I hope to be able to edit with you again soon. Best wishes. Richard27182 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's very nice of you to say, Richard, but the way I see it, that's exactly what I was trying to do, but the problem won't be fixed unless I find out what it is and deal with it directly. If it turns out the problem wasn't real, then that should be acknowledged.  Also, I realize it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but writing about punctuation is more interesting to me than writing about proteins. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Possible attitudes include:
 * I have to find out (whatever the consequences)
 * I'll try to find out (without annoying people too much)
 * Where the first attitude leads to is clear: it got you landed here. But more importantly: the attitude doesn't lead to "finding out" whatever...
 * Whether there's a law about it or not: annoying people is as real in Wikipedia as in whatever other setup of human interaction. Eventually people don't take too well to it, even after giving a lot of latitude (and you have geen given a lot of latitude in this sense). So I repeat the invitation (much more nicely put by Richard but essentially the same): when you feel compelled to find out, please do so without annoying people too much. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well Francis, if you actually read what I said to Thryduulf, you'll find I was exceedingly polite. When he expressed concerns about time, I told him to take as long as he needed.  You're making assumptions about my motives that you shouldn't be making. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention "being polite" did I? Polite people can be very annoying. You asked a truckload of polite questions. In return, you got a truckload of polite answers (including Thryduulf's). Then things still went belly-up. Your never-ending polite questions & other niceties had become a nuisance: more nuisance than net benefit for the encyclopedia. My post above addresses how that works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If they felt overwhelmed, they were at perfect liberty not to answer. I hate to break it to you but "being a nuisance" isn't a block-worthy offense around here.  I didn't disrupt the encyclopedia in any way.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "If they felt overwhelmed, they were at perfect liberty not to answer" – they were also at perfect liberty to tell you, politely, that they felt overwhelmed. Which they did, multiple times, multiple people. You played WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which in extreme cases is something one can get blocked for.
 * Re. "... "being a nuisance" isn't a block-worthy offense... " – two posts above I said "Whether there's a law about it or not... (etc.)": as you see, I was very definite in what I was trying to communicate; Being a nuisance ultimately kicks in and can get you blocked. Afaics it did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Francis, at this point, the two of us are starting to talk in circles, and since you're really not directly affected by this in any way, I have to wonder why you're here. There was no IDIDNTHEARTHAT, just "I don't understand." Finding out that I got blocked at least partially for something I didn't do is more than enough reason to ask the questions that I asked and provide the proof that I provided.  If in the future you should think of something new that you want to say, then consider posting here again, but I think we've come to "Have a nice day." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

To make myself clear: I'd prefer to welcome you back as a well-behaving Wikipedia editor, also on style-related topics. Since your leaving some editors in these realms have become even more cocky than before... that is my stake in this: I liked the counter-balance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you to say, Francis S. I haven't been watching WT:MoS much recently.  Is something going on? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog, asking what's going on at WT:MoS is a violation of your topic ban. I ask that this exchange be terminated immediately, lest you risk losing the ability to post to your Talk page. Your involvement here is not helping, and I ask that you disengage. -- Laser brain   (talk)  15:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Involvement
So you just didn't remember this, right? I found it in February. I know it was a long time ago, but it was cited in the complaint. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't say I have any recollection of why I considered myself involved in that discussion, or have any memory of interacting with you. I don't let things weigh me down that much over the years. I have to say I'm impressed that you've kept that same argument going since at least 2009, though. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That event was included in the complaint against me. Damage done, but consider yourself reminded.
 * It's more like this argument keeps coming up, just like it did before I joined Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked for ARCA
Hi Darkfrog,

You have been unblocked so that you can file an appeal of arbitration enforcement actions at WP:ARCA, on the condition that you edit your talk page and the ARCA page only. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood. Thank you for your consideration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived
Hi Darkfrog24. The Article titles and capitalisation arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined and archived to the case talk page, with a consensus among the arbitrators to decline any modification to your ban or block. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition – putting it here so that this isn't covered by the "For the Arbitration Committee" – a couple arbs have asked for you to be explained what you can and cannot do while topic banned. Here it is, as succinctly as I can. While you are topic banned "from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics", you can: You cannot, in any edit on this Wikipedia: Under WP:BANEX, you may also [r]evert[] obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons and [e]ngag[e] in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, such as asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban and appealing the ban. Let me or an administrator know if you have further questions. If any of this conflicts with anything an administrator has told you, please listen to them instead of me. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit most pages and normally, and
 * Use quotation marks and other stylistic tools without reference to the manual of style.
 * Discuss any aspect of the Manual of Style on any page;
 * Edit the Wikipedia Manual of Style or any closely related page or talk page, whatsoever; or
 * Push or try to test the boundaries in any way.


 * Thanks for this, but this is what I've been doing since January. The problem is not that I haven't seen these rules but rather that not everyone is interpreting them the same way.  For example, on February 28 (see above), I engaged in what appears to be textbook legitimate and necessary dispute resolution with the enforcing admin, but others see that differently.
 * I can promise to continue doing my best, and I can participate at AE to see if any patterns emerge. What I can't do is read minds. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My advice to you, if you're under a topic ban, is simply to stay as far away from any editing whatsoever in the area. This includes reverting vandalism and other things that are technically "allowed"; that way there's no potential for differing interpretations to cause you trouble.  Staying away from the problem area entirely and making positive contributions elsewhere are also usually pluses when it comes time to review the topic ban.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC).
 * I agree and I appreciate your coming over here to help, but, again, that's what I've been doing since day one. I didn't touch the MoS, any of its subpages, or any articles related to punctuation or style at any point.  I was blocked anyway.  So I agree with the strategy, but I'm afraid there is indeed still potential for differing interpretations to cause trouble.
 * As for positive contributions elsewhere, how do 3O, RSN, ORN, gnoming, WP:COPYEDIT, Robb Stark and two new science articles sound? It's not that I don't agree with you.  It's that I already tried it and it didn't work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am guessing from your edit summary that you think you are being subjected to undue punishment, Darkfrog24. Maybe you could explain to us all what you think you have done wrong, and what wrongs you think have been done to you. I think (for me at least) that the issue is that you are don't understand what people want you to change about your editing behavior, or you don't think that your editing behavior should be criticized. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who's "us"? Does this matter concern you in some way that I don't see, Jack? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Us, as in the community, and of course this concerns the community. Is there a substantial reason why you didn't answer the opportunity to address the elephant int he room. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you specifically are not the community, Jack. If you want to know what happened, I can post you a link to my appeal.  If the committee approves my request to archive the full-length rebuttal to the complaint that was made against me, I can point you to that.  Otherwise, you have no further business here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you are playing semantical games, DF24. I (and clearly, others) want to know what your thinking is, in clear and unfettered terms. I've read the gawd-awful long complaint and rebuttal, including links. The point that I am trying to distill for you here is that no one is sure if you actually think you did anything wrong, or that you do not understand what myself and others within the community think you can do to correct these perceived faults. Understanding your thinking can help everyone adjust how to approach a course in addressing it without block after block. It's a time suck, and one you can greatly reduce through explaining in no uncertain terms your views on it. It is a legitimate ask, and I am here because you have acted the same way in pages we have edited together. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, two years ago. You kept saying "everyone thinks so" when you really meant "I think so" a lot back then too. (Unless a whole bunch of people came to you and asked you to speak for them, in which case just point me to the conversation in which they did so.) Okay, I'll humor you.  I am bad at figuring out what people are thinking but not saying.  I assume not only good faith but also straightforwardness and complete information.  For example, back then, you kept saying, over and over "This content isn't sourced well enough" so I'd go out and find more and better sources, and then you would get angry that I'd done that.  Now if you had said, "I don't think this content is sourced well enough but I have no intention of tolerating it no matter how it is sourced because I also don't like it for other reasons," then things might have gone quite differently.  You weren't exactly lying.  I've got no reason to think you didn't also care about sources, and you did mention your general dislike for the content a time or two, but because you spent a lot of time talking about sources and only a little about other things, I believed that sources were your primary concern and focused my efforts there.
 * You'll recall that once Protonk pointed out that the real issue was the subjective editorial decision of whether or not the content improved the article, we held an RfC that addressed the matter directly, and the issue was resolved without further fuss.
 * I've often thought it would be great if there were a Protonk for this situation. There's a lot about this that doesn't add up, the way your actions and reactions didn't add up.  There's probably something that people aren't saying.  The biggest difference is that you were just one person and the admins are a group.  So while your issue was, I infer, that you felt better about arguing your case from the concrete angle of WP:V and not from the much fuzzier angle of your subjective opinion, the issue with the admins might be something like etiquette or unwritten rules that they don't know not everyone knows about.  And while I'd love to address this issue specifically rather than use our conflict as a metaphor, I also consider it possible that you're trying to trick me into violating the topic ban because you're still holding a grudge about not getting your way about a single-sentence content issue from 2014.  While BANEX does state that I may engage in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution with the enforcing admin, that does not include you.  If this isn't a trick, then go to AE or ArbCom and get special permission for us to discuss this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am in no way at all trying to trick you, nor is my question wine of the sour grapes that you say I have. Are you in fact banned from answering my question about what you think the AE's proposed prescription for rehabilitation is, and whether you think it is fair of them to ask it of you? I just thought you were banned from arguing MOS stuff on the relevant pages, but not on your own talk page. I ask because I don't want to presume you are gaming the system, a la DE; like you said, its 2 years later. Just because I am seeing some of the same characteristics here doesn't mean they are. Thus offering you the opportunity to clarify matters without a lot of verbiage and semantics - which is what happens a lot with protracted discussions. I am not trying to trick or trap you. I am seeing people here trying to clarify matters, but I don't see your understanding of those clarifications. I am trying to help you, Darkfrog24. Sometimes help comes from where you least expect it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at the beginning of this I was only banned from talking about quotation marks and I keep getting censured for talking about things that aren't quotation marks, and BANEX does say I'm allowed to talk about the banned topic under specific circumstances that don't include these, so I'm going to wild guess that yes I'm not allowed to answer your question. If you genuinely don't understand this about topic bans, I don't blame you.  There's a lot of guesswork involved.  For example, I've seen at AE that a lot of people think t-bans don't apply to their own user space (WP:TBAN doesn't say one way or the other), but they do.
 * Well let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that's true. I'm not allowed for you to help me.  However, we can work on you.  I see you're still doing the same things you were in 2014: I don't know what's keeping you from accepting that your opinion is just as valid as everyone else's, but if you found a way past it, you might not feel the need to speak as though it were more than an opinion.  For example, I don't think "the community" did ask you to come talk to me.  I think you came on your own.  The issue is that you don't seem to think that speaking in your own name is enough.  But why wouldn't it be?  Francis and Lankiveil didn't feel the need to claim authority past their own, and if you scroll up you'll see them express themselves with great confidence.  I didn't treat either of them as if they weren't important just because they were individuals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

IP making weird changes to user page
Some IP has been making weird changes to my user page and either claiming to be me or being very confused about whose page is whose. Not sure if it counts as "mocking or baiting a topic-banned editor" or just vandalism, but to whom do I talk about that? Hey, anon 217. If you're just on the wrong page, knock it off. If you're messing with me, also please knock it off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the IP for impersonating you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Up to one year in duration"
I recently found out that the maximum block allowable as an AE action is one year. You were very specific when you said that this block was an AE action, so it should be changed from indefinite to expiring no later than February 29, 2017. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clearer because I realise the above response was rather terse. The arbitration committee has endorsed my actions so the block has been reviewed and accepted by a body that has no limits. Secondly, because the time binding is around your own understanding of the restriction and willingness to drop the stick. Indefinite is not infinite unless you fail to work out how you can edit without touching on anything to do with your topic ban. Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, ArbCom does have limits. Only the community can issue community site bans, and this is a de facto site ban.  ArbCom was dealing with a lot of material that day (the fact that I had a 1000 word limit to defend against a 10,000 word complaint definitely muddied the waters), and they might just not have noticed that you put the wrong time limit in.  It would probably be best to ask them.
 * Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of hiding this from me or anything&mdash;you did mark it "arbitration" and it's not your fault that I didn't know the implications of that at the time&mdash;but this is really making me feel like I need a lawyer (I mean for Wikipedia's internal laws; this is not a legal threat) . I keep getting sideswiped by rules that I've never heard of before.  I'm not done looking, but I'm pretty sure the definition of "broadly construed" isn't written down anywhere.  I've found nothing on the voluntary ban system.
 * Providing my enforcing admin with evidence that some of the allegations against me were false is not failure to drop the stick. It is an attempt to climb out from under the bus.  I don't have to spend the rest of my life under the rear axle because the sound of my digging annoys people.  Truth be told, I was entirely expecting Thryduulf to say "Oh.  I guess those particular accusations aren't true then.  Huh." That's pretty consistent with what I've since read about his history at ArbCom.
 * Per understanding topic bans, I came across this rule while I was reading old cases and going through old edits to see how the topic ban rules have been interpreted in the past. So far, I'm not finding anything that says providing exonerating evidence to the enforcing admin violates BANEX, and I've found a few cases similar to mine that closed with no action.  Yes, I've read OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if I'm not allowed to ask questions, what's left?
 * On that matter, you say you want me to understand the way you and the other AE admins are interpreting topic ban, but you don't want me to ask questions about how you guys interpret things. In my experience, when someone objects to a problem and to that problem's solution, then there is some other factor in play.  It might be something that you think goes without saying but that I nonetheless don't know about.  I was in a content dispute with this guy once.  He kept saying "This is improperly sourced!  We can't have it without better sources!" so I went out and found more sources. "NO!" he said "Not these!" (comments not drawn to scale).  So I found more.  And more.  And he complained about tendentious editing.  I didn't get it.  I was addressing the problem he'd presented to me, so why was he so angry?  Turns out, this guy also cared about sources; but he also had other concerns about the content that he wasn't as comfortable talking about.  I'm inferring that he thought that if I never found approved sources, he wouldn't have to talk about them.  It feels like something similar is going on here.  If performing evil action Q is a problem, then why wouldn't you or Thryduulf or anyone be happy to find out that it didn't happen? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * tl;dr. If you don't like the answer I gave you then email arbcom and ask them. I'm retired and don't want to be sucked back into this cesspit. Don't ping me again. Goodbye. Spartaz Humbug! 09:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You may want to peruse Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log, where all sanctions are logged. You will see that indef blocks have been handed out plenty over the years. Whether that's at odds with the guidelines you quoted is a useful discussion, but probably not one for your Talk page. As Spartaz noted, you should email ArbCom and ask for their thoughts on the matter. I'm not dealing with you any further from an administrative capacity, but I do think you have positive contributions to offer this project and have gotten caught in somewhat of a vicious cycle. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did send ArbCom a short email, but it seemed best to just ask Spartaz first.
 * I checked the AE archive before bringing this up. I hadn't noticed before, but AE admins issue blocks as both "administration action" and "normal action," which is allowed to be indefinite (but the unblock conditions are different).  It seemed likely that a lot of those older blocks would have been normal blocks.  Also, if some of these were AE indefs, it's possible that the admins in question just didn't know they weren't supposed to be doing it.  Or it's like the 500-word limit and BANEX; the practical use of the rule has shifted away from its literal interpretation, in which case the thing to do would be to update the text of the rule so that it explicitly states that AE blocks can be indefinite.
 * That's very kind of you to say, LB. I think so too.  I am committed to continuing to find a way to untangle this mess within Wikipedia's rules and etiquette.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you got the ping but I asked at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee whether blocks of more than a year are supported. The consensus of those replying (including Arbs and clerks) is that the first year is supported under DS but the remainder of the indef would be considered a normal admin action. It seems that you are still left with trying to get unblocked through normal channels, as it won't be automatically expiring any time. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did get the ping and have been watching the conversation. I am indeed under the impression that as of February 29 I would be allowed to take this through the usual unblock process if not already unblocked.
 * You guys should hold an RfC to change the text of Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions so that it says this explicitly. There are probably at least a few blocked Wikipedians who don't know that they have the right to pursue this avenue, and it would head off anyone else asking questions like this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Re your email
Hello Darkfrog

I have received your email, and in response to your question whether there is anything about your case that I am uncomfortable talking about on-wiki, the answer is "no".

Please though do not take this an invitation to involve me in discussions regarding your case on- or off-wiki. I have a limited amount of time for Wikipedia and I've already given you as much (if not more) of that as I am interested in doing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Then officially pass the baton and name someone else the enforcing admin of my topic ban. You're the one who enacted it, so you're the only one who's allowed to change it without an act of ArbCom or AE consensus.  Since Spartaz is retired, I need the same for the block.
 * Consider not entertaining any more 10K complaints. They seem to be more work than you're interested in doing.
 * I was going to wait until I'd read more of ArbCom 2015, but since we're not likely to speak again... I was going through the archives to learn enough to meet the unblock conditions and I saw this, in which it looks like you're saying that POV pushing depends on what the sources say.  Fourteen months is certainly long enough for a person to change his mind about something like this, but I was still surprised to see it.  From my perspective, that's almost exactly what I showed you in February.
 * Goodbye and good luck, Thryduulf. What I've read of your user history really makes you seem like a decent and fair-minded guy.  The idea that someone like that could think I would be so evil as to gaslight someone has been one of the worst parts of this.  I hope we get on the same page one day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also got a message from you. You say that you're blocked for doing something that the DS rules explicitly and affirmatively state that you're allowed to do. I guess by that you mean ask questions of administrators on the topic from which you were banned. Is that what you mean? I.e. the DS rules say you an, but the block said you couldn't? -- Elvey (t•c) 20:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. WP:BANEX says that a topic-banned user may engage in "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" with the enforcing admin and gives appealing the ban as an example. I see "here is proof that I did not do some of the things that you have listed as reasons for topic-banning me" as legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.  At least some Wikipedia admins do not.  The specific post for which I was blocked from Wikipedia is further up on this page.  I can give you more details if you want, but I have to warn you this case has had a lot of twists and turns.
 * If it matters, I didn't expect Thryduulf to remove all of the topic ban at that time because I had not provided proof that all of his concerns were unwarranted (I can make a good case for it and some proof exists, but I did not list it in that particular post). I did expect him to at least acknowledge "Oh, I see now that not everything that your accuser said was true.  You don't eat babies!" regardless of whether he thought said accuser was lying or just mistaken. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a lot of twists and turns indeed. I sensed, after spending way too much time reading a ridiculous number of old threads, that (if I'm not mistaken) this is at its root a fight over WP:LQ.  Punctuation.  My head damn near exploded!  In that light, User:Spartaz, User:Thryduulf, User:TenOfAllTrades, etc. seem to be extraordinarily patient, rather than harsh, given that is the context.


 * I read, above, and the section above that, and tried to find the discussion that led to the account block, and instead came across TWO OTHER discussions at AE about Darkfrog24 - 26 mentions of Darkfrog24 in the collapsed Archive189 alone. I found these closes (the third is in Archive188):


 * Darkfrog24's existing topic ban is replaced with a topic ban from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016). Thryduulf


 * Pursuant to the unanimous consensus of administrators commenting on this request, Darkfrog24 is blocked for one week. He is strongly advised not to further test the bounds of his topic ban. TenOfAllTrades on 13 February 2016


 * Darkfrog24 indefinitely topic banned from quotation marks and quotation styles, this may be appealed in 6 months. Thryduulf, 22 January 2016
 * Yes, I can see that it was a close call at times whether you were violating a topic ban. But enough is enough.  Sometimes admins make tough calls and are influenced by the bigger picture and the bigger goal of trying to keep the peace so we can build an encyclopedia.  Consider writing a post in which you recognize that you at least waded into a grey area with respect to your topic ban and that admins were quite (or better yet "very") patient with you.  Consider that admins are often far less patient.  -- Elvey (t•c) 20:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as your suggestion goes, asking the admins what they thought I should change was the first thing I did after getting sanctioned.
 * As far as "enough is enough" is concerned, yes, I get what you're saying about limited patience, but you also say you saw the archive with SMCCandlish's post. When it's unhatted, with the in-thread text, that thing clocks in at just under 10,000 words.  The cutoff is 500.  That thing was twenty times the size limit and I was accused of literally dozens of different things, with no way to tell which ones the admins were looking at.  I didn't even get to finish reading it before I was sentenced.  I'm talking more than usual because it wasn't a usual complaint.
 * And when I did finish reading it? You're not the enforcing admin, so BANEX doesn't allow me to discuss what's wrong with that thing with you the way it at least seems to allow me to do so with Thryduulf.  But the worst thing that he said about me doesn't concern the MoS, though: In the second complaint, he said I tried to gaslight him.  Do you know what that word means?  It's one of the worst things a human being can do to another, and the admins won't tell me whether or not they think I did it.  Did you look at the actual diff?  I asked him if he was okay because he'd been acting weird.  That's poison if I say it?  That's the worst kind of cruelty if it comes from me?  Do I need to explain why I need to know whether the admins or anyone actually thinks I did something that vile?
 * I'm actually up for appeal, and I do plan to ask the committee how they think complaints twenty times the length limit should be handled, but if showing exonerating diffs to the enforcing admin isn't it, then WP:BANEX needs a rewrite.
 * I'd feel better about this whole thing if the admins would just acknowledge "Yes, the complaint is much, much longer than usual and was prepared at the accuser's leisure" even if they followed up with "all accused editors are still expected to deal with it in the normal amount of time, using no more than X words themselves." Even if they said "Darkfrog, you are an evil gaslighting bastard," it would show beyond any doubt that they saw that I was accused of something that extreme.
 * Let me end this with a question for you: Do you think I did it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Again: Sometimes admins make tough calls and are influenced by the bigger picture and the bigger goal of trying to keep the peace so we can build an encyclopedia. When they do this, there is no remedy for the person who gets sanctioned and thereby mistreated (because it's not clear they violated policy), because the norm is that when there's consensus for a sanction to be in place, editors (including admins) don't care whether the rationale for placing the sanction is fair or not.  I've seen numerous cases of this and can't recall seeing a counterexample.   You've been told by admins to stop relitigating, and yet you keep relitigating (as with pretty much your entire reply, immediately above).  You should stop doing that.  It bites that the initial impression an editor gets when welcomed, is that things are fair here, only to learn after they become invested, that they aren't.   But like life, Wikipedia ain't fair.  There's even an essay: WP:TANJ.  And this is the last time I intend to post here.-- Elvey (t•c) 08:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at WP:TANJ. But the idea that I have to be punished because someone else broke the rules doesn't work for me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Per email instructions.
Now that the requisite time has passed, I request unblock for the purpose of ARCA appeal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Committee ping attempt #2, per instructions given by email. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * After your first post, Drmies unblocked you for the purposes of participating at ARCA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski discussion
Thank you for notifying me of the RS discussion, but I am not at the moment at liberty to respond for reasons not related to the Kurowski issue. Good luck with your GA article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Same. Trying to get this disciplinary issue cleared up. Good luck with the article. Hopefully, I'll be at liberty to comment in a day or two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that the issue is still on-going; hope it gets cleared up! K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Caution
Hi Darkfrog, I support your efforts to get unblocked through the ARCA system, and I've even spoken out on your behalf that you should have some avenue of getting another chance. However, you have gone quite far across the line of what's allowed under the terms of your temporary unblock. You made your statement at ARCA, but now you are carrying on correspondence here with a number of editors and have even made a personal attack with your "liar with a grudge" statement. I recommend that you promptly retract and archive your correspondence here and limit your interactions with other editors to email. If you continue down this path, you are likely to have your talk page access revoked. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There wasn't so much as a "Don't do it again" from you or anyone when he called me that and worse. If you want proof that he's a liar, I'll show you proof. The only retraction necessary is "he's either a liar or not competent to distinguish truth from falsehood."
 * To the best of my knowledge, what I do and do not say on my talk page has nothing to do with whether I'm blocked, unblocked for ARCA or regular unblocked. Being topic-banned from a specific subject does not mean that I'm not allowed to talk about the topic ban itself or the process by which it was enacted. Or is this guy wrong?  Would be great if WP:TBAN itself weighed in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just offering a piece of friendly advice that carrying on your dispute with McCandlish here while you're actively trying to get unblocked/unbanned is unlikely to lead anywhere good. You are, of course, free to ignore me and keep doing whatever you want. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm just pointing out that when everything from friendly advice to thundering condemnation is delivered solely to me, I find myself asking what the heck's going on. Go ahead and tell him to clean up his act.  It would be rude of me to hog it all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it, and here's where I'm coming from. Months ago, you defended his right to be pissed off by saying that I'd just "impugned his integrity" by using the expression "not being honest." But here you are scolding me for being pissed off when he called me a gaslighter and a nutcase and a liar and did so at great length.  Do you see how I might think you're not being impartial when you act that way? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Breach of unblock conditions
You were unblocked to participate at ARCA not to post elsewhere. Please stop or the reblock will happen sooner than you might like. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. I thought J. Wales' talk page was within bounds because of that "users may also appeal to Wales" thing, but I'll take your word on the matter.  The request for a translator's been made and maybe someone will show up to help us work this out.
 * I hope you're enjoying your semi-retirement. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your request on JW's talk page

 * "Would someone fluent in both Admin and Very Literal please come translate?"

I'll say up front, I'm not interested in debate, or a re-hearing of what you feel your greivances are. Arbcom would appear to be assessing your situation at the moment. But in reading everything, I'm going to go out on a limb of WP:AGF because I think (and please forgive me if I am incorrect) this very possibly could simply be a massive set of miscommunications, combined with what appears to be that you are used to communicating with concrete language. And so to others this is being seen as wikilawyering.

So, let me try to help make a few things clear:

1.) You were unblocked for the sole purpose to allow you to appeal this block. Do not edit anywhere but this talk page and ARCA. If you edit anywhere else, you risk losing this opportunity for an unblock and you will likely be re-blocked indefinitely.

2.) Regardless if arbcom institutes an interaction ban between you and SMcCandlish, you, as an editor, have the ability to self impose one upon yourself, by not interacting with them.

3.) My understanding, based upon reading what each of you said, is that, how SMcCandlish meant to use the word gaslighting, is apparently not how you understood it. This type of misunderstanding of what a word is intended to mean, is not uncommon on Wikipedia. This is a typewritten environment, after all.  If in doubt, assume the best, and if still in doubt, ask for clarification. This is always better than becoming upset over a perceived slight. And if you feel you have been maligned, there are places to report that, to bring other eyes upon it, as well. (The appropriate location can vary based upon the issue.)

4.) A topic ban is intended to reduce disruption. If you are asked to avoid a topic, then do not type on Wikipedia concerning that topic. Period. Avoid everything that arbcom tells you to avoid. Otherwise you will face further sanction. (I'm not going to try to re-clarify your topic ban, that's up to arbcom to clarify if they deem so necessary.)

5.) To be clear: This is all merely my opinion as an uninvolved admin, and of course whatever arbcom says trumps anything I've said here. I've written all of this in the hope of helping you to become a positively contributing editor, instead of being indefinitely blocked.

What you do now, is up to you.

With all that in mind, is the following text something you can agree to?


 * a.) I fully accept and agree to the imposed restrictions (including topic bans) that arbcom has already applied to me, and fully intend to follow those restrictions until released from them by arbcom.


 * b.) Because at least part of the topic involves the manual of style (MOS), the breadth of which appears to be unclear to me, would arbcom please succinctly and concretely show some examples of what "broadly construed" may mean in my case? I understand that arbcom obviously cannot show me every possible example, and I understand that the topic ban would not be limited to only these examples, but that this will help me be more clear of my footing when editing and discussing.


 * c.) I agree to either a one-sided or mutual interaction ban with SMcCandlish (at arbcom's discretion), and even if arbcom does not impose such an interaction ban, I am willing to self impose one, and ask SMcCandlish to please respect this. I understand that this means I will not engage in discussion with SMcCandlish in any way on any page.

I hope this helps. - jc37 00:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my request and please accept my personal gratitude for your good faith.

1) I have already been informed not to comment further on Wales' talk page, or else I would have thanked CaJames2 for his help and told the others that further discussion was not necessary for my sake.  I think CaJames probably has it right and I've asked the Committee to confirm that what he's stipulated is indeed what they want from me.

2) I think that's a good idea. I've also been deleting the posts he's made to my userspace.  He was told by the AE admins to leave me alone but probably needs to be told again.

3) I agree that it's a good idea to ask for clarification. That's why I did. I asked "do you really think I tried to gaslight anyone?" with a link to gaslighting.  More than once.  Of the admin who, to all appearances, acted on the accusation, and to a member of ArbCom.  They did not answer me, and it's been eating me alive for ten months.  This is less about SMcCandlish saying something extreme and more about other people believing it and officially endorsing it by meting out punishment.

4) Again, I did. I keep getting re-sanctioned for talking about things other than the MoS, except on one occasion when I offered exonerating evidence to the enforcing admin (which looks like it's allowed per WP:BANEX). (I am not topic banned from anything but the MoS and style issues.)


 * a) I already said yes to the Committee this three or four times. That's why I think this is a communication issue. Either I'm saying it wrong or there's some additional thing that they want me to do.  Again, I think CaJames might have got it and have copied his comment to ARCA.
 * b) This is the only suggestion of yours that I think is a bad idea. Drmies specifically told me that asking about how topic bans work would not be tolerated.  I've asked for similar clarifications before, proposed additions to the text of WP:TBAN based on the abovementioned trial and error, and things like this only seem to make people angry.  The biggest issue is that I want to know whether talking about the topic ban itself even if the banned topic is not being discussed is tantamount to violating it.  There seems to be at least some difference of opinion on this matter.
 * c) I actually think Robert hit this one on the head. We could do with something as mild as "Don't talk about anything either party did before this date, December 2016, for the next three years." As for mutual interaction bans, I said back in February that I'd be willing to do one, and that stands.  Mostly, I want to still be allowed to do something like this.  (A diff-by-diff analysis of an accusation SMcCandlish made about another user about a conversation that I had witnessed.) At the time, it didn't even occur to me that SMcCandlish might have been trying to do anything fishy.  I just thought he was mistaken.  I think if someone had done this for me back in January, we wouldn't be having all these proceedings.

I would say "remain a positively contributing editor," but thank you. I think I know what you mean.

I hope it helps too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Appeal declined
Hi Darkfrog - since the motion to decline your appeal has passed, I've reblocked your account. As described in the motion, you'll be eligible to appeal after the one-year anniversary of your original AE block. Please do carefully consider the advice you've received regarding the best approach for future appeals. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I always have. I did notice something, though.  You said that the only thing that I am supposed to infer from a sanction is that at least one of my actions was considered disruptive and that I should not make any assumptions about which one.  But then you also seem to think that I am supposed to know which of my actions were considered disruptive without being told.  This places me in an impossible position.  If nothing else, the committee should state clearly which of my actions are considered non-Wiki-compliant so that I can work on them and so that the committee won't have to deal with a defense against charges that they don't care about in the firs place.  You can always change your minds later.  There's not much wrong with that so long as everyone acknowledges that it's happened.
 * You also seem surprised that I am angry about the way I have been treated. I reiterate: This didn't happen ten months ago.  It has been happening for ten months, and you have told me that I must endure at least three more of daily and very public humiliation.  Healing comes after the knife is removed, not before.  If you want me to forgive something, acknowledge that thing and ask me to.
 * While we are talking of advice, I hope that your decision to block me does not mean that you will not address the problem regarding the lack of clear guidelines for dealing with extremely long complaints. That would be best for everyone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, why take this back to ArbCom? You guys clearly don't like being put on the spot, and you're the one who said that standard practice would be to use the regular unblock system. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Grand jury stage
preapproved as something half legitimate

1) It is inappropriate for you to say that my appeal was not legitimate. 2) Other than that, though, I wouldn't mind an official preapproval stage so long as anything dismissed is dismissed without prejudice. This entire process has left me feeling like I need a lawyer (talking about Wikipedia's internal rules; this is not a legal threat). Half this problem is that I didn't know any of the AE etiquette back in January. An on-Wiki lawyer would have been able to tell me what the heck a voluntary ban was, whether I was allowed to ask for more time, that "1RR" doesn't mean "one talk page post per day," and what ArbCom does and does not consider a serious procedural problem. If you guys want to set up some kind of grand jury stage in which experienced editors advise the accused regarding what's expected of them, I think that would be fantastic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources for AEFAQ answers
Thanks for the ping and good luck with the FAQ. Just remember that I haven't been able to update it since February, and I've picked up a few more things since then. I'll be glad to help out once my block is over. You might also want to check the talk page for the original draft. It's a source list in a way. "I got this answer when admin Liz said this. I got that answer when User Hijiri was punished for that," with links provided. If your version is flagged as a duplicate, go ahead and work on the one in my userspace. Any user who has not been told to stay away from me is welcome there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I stole the entire thing, with attribution to you, by pasting a copy to my own userspace, just in case for whatever reason you were to request misc delete here. When I saw you were indeffed I figured you had vamoosed forever.  There's talk of AE imprvement efforts elsehwere too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Zero intention of vamoosing. Work from whichever page you prefer.  Will answer any questions you might have for me here.  Will contribute when sancitons lifted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Terminology
Please remove the gendered pronoun from the official listing of the case against me at the administrators' noticeboard. I don't mind either "he" or "she" when people are just talking, but they do not belong in official documents. I decided a long time ago that I would disclose my gender if it were ever relevant, but it never has been. Thank you.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why it's "disruptive relitigation" if I'm appealing exactly when I have been told and exactly to whom I have been told. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You've disclosed in previous conversations that your gender was female. It doesn't matter, but I imagine that no one is inclined to refer to you as 'it'. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I used "it" last time she objected to a gendered pronoun, and that didn't get met with acceptance either. I tried to phrase my remarks such that "it" referred to the account, which seemed like it might be OK, not no. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, done. I can't imagine why you'd go out of your way to complain on a blocked editor's talk page when they ask that we use their preferred pronouns, but it's inappropriate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To a busy clerk at a time of year when there's plenty going on IRL, it's a bit annoying since it's easy enough to tweak in one's preferences; for years I went by "they", until I decided it was time to stand up and be counted. All the best,  Mini  apolis  14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well Mini I'd gladly have fixed it myself, but all things considered I'll just say I hope your December goes well. Though for the record I'll add that Dicklyon stopped using "it" at me immediately after I told him I thought it was rude. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Right; and I wasn't complaining, just giving some background on the difficulty of choosing a pronoun for you, esp. for one like me who can't stand to use "they" for singular. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't much care for it either, really. But I have to echo Opabinia on this one: What the heck are you doing here?  You really shouldn't be watchlisting this page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This page will stay on my watchlist. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's Wikistalking and generally creepy and you should stop. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * LIke this one? I prefer to let a member of Wikiproject Amphibians and Reptiles place the tag on new species articles.  Right now, I'm not sure how to evaluate their status and importance.  I only placed the one on FrogWatch because I wasn't sure anyone on the Wikiproject knew it was there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Darkfrog24

Thank you for creating Yenakha Paotapi.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Darkfrog24

Thank you for creating Khuman Pokpa.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It was a translation of a page by user Haoreima.  H has just returned to en.wiki and I'm sure you will see some fine work from them as well in the subject of Meitei mythology and folklore. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Darkfrog24

Thank you for creating Sphaenorhynchus canga.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   15:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Darkfrog24

Thank you for creating Sphaenorhynchus cammaeus.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   14:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi Darkfrog24, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ADarkfrog24 added] the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed' and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned prolific creators of articles where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I don't anticipate a problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sierra de los Cuchumatanes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chuj.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello buddy
Hello buddy! It's been a very long time we have not talked. I hope you are doing well! Do you have any information of any upcoming editathons in Simple English or anywhere? I saw last year's September had Wiki Loves Women South Asia, where we two, worked together. But this year, it seems like it is not organised. Today, I just remembered those days. :-) Nowadays, I used to create a lot of articles here in this wiki, alongside Simple English wiki. All this is possible because of your kindness in caring for my contributions to Wikipedia. :-) --Haoreima (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about WLW and how much I'd like to do it again this year (moderately). I've not heard a peep.  I am glad I could help you with your contribs.  Right now, the truth is behind a paywall but lies are free and I'd like to think we're all helping with that in some way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hyloscirtus albopunctulatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arroyo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the Amazon Women in the Mood plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. 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. DonIago (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Doniago, I am aware that plots must not be unnecessarily detailed. However, if you look at my contributions to the critical review section made that same day, you will find that there has been a recent wave of criticism of issues of consent in the episode.  As such, I believe the episode plot summary should include the events that critics have interpreted as consent, withdrawl of consent, and Kif's possible escape as these are necessary to the reader understanding why the episode is notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there less important parts of the summary that can be trimmed in order to keep the length under the 400 word maximum guideline, then? Your version wasn't that far over the limit, IIRC.
 * If you don't feel there's a way to include everything you wish to include while keeping the summary under 400 words, I'd ask that you raise the question at the article's Talk page, as I feel exemptions to plot summary guidelines should be done by consensus. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm already preparing a response on the article's talk page. Let's continue there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Bea Arthur
Regarding your addition of the mention of Bea Arthur to the plot section, it raised my eyebrow because I know for film articles we almost never include the names of the actors in the plot section...however, I did check MOS:TV and I don't see any similar stipulations. I still think it's a bit redundant as she's listed elsewhere, but I'll leave it as-is for the time-being. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets challenged at some point in the future though. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, things change. That's the whole reason I added a new bit to the criticism section&mdash;this episode has stayed relevant but the reason for that has shifted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Need to deprecate
saw your question that you removed. If you go through OPs edit history, you should see a series of edits reverted around when the topic was posted. Think it was ten or so articles. Slywriter (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They actually did say which article they meant, just not exactly where I expected them to. I removed my question right after I saw it. But I didn't know about the nine other articles, so thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

What is SEWP?
For example, in. Also, and probably related, what wiki is the oldid from (can you link the full URL here)? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "SEWP" is the Simple English Wikipedia, also called SimpleWiki. As you can seen on the talk page, there's also a translation template explaining this and linking to the original article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! (https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=8882791 for the lazy/future reference).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Janitor (Scrubs)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Janitor (Scrubs), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Darkfrog24&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1174519340 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janitor_(Scrubs)&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1174519340%7CJanitor%20(Scrubs)%5D%5D Ask for help])