User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 109

= December 2015 =

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox language
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox language. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political correctness
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political correctness. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Still at it
I see that you are still in the thick of MOS debates and other controversies about the project's operation. I admire your stamina and determination.—Finell 00:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To a minor extent. I have a lot of real work keeping me busy these days.  Pointing out that consensus, not someone's cherry-picked idea of external sourcing, is what determines WP's guidelines isn't really much of a "controversy", though. Six years is more than long enough for everyone to come to accept that WP works on a consensus basis, and agree to work within that framework. This constant rehash of the same proposals to require internal guidelines to be subject to WP:CORE, as if they're articles, is disruptive.  We just went through the same pseudo-issue with regard to Help:IPA for English last month.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

ALERT
This notification is complete towards the explanation of the Alert. If you need help with questions, please don't hesitate. Or you can find them at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#aware.aware Mystery Wolff (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I was a party to the case. You don't need to leave these for anyone who was actually in the case; they're already aware of the discretionary sanctions in that topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

BA article
Hi SMcCandlish, taking into consideration my temporary ban front he BA, I'd like to highlight the serious flaws in how user Faustian along with "other" editors changed the "Wrongful Accusations section". They basically flipped everything upside down — they took the views of Hagen which were marginal and "fringe" along with the established arrival date of the army in Poland and simply flipped it. Now the new section is titled "Date of arrival in Poland" — there really is no controversy when the BA arrived, only if you skew the the issue to base it on Hagen's "fringe" claims. I'm actually very taken aback that this is allowed to happen. The article should have received a lock to prevent user Faustian from imposing this views on it. --E-960 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm swamped. I'll defer to on this, and said as much at the Talk:Blue Army page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. First, have let know that the terms of the topic ban also include not taking part in the discussion of the specific topic elsewhere on Wikipedia. Appreciate this has been an inadvertent breach to date. In the issue - I have very little familiarity with the Blue Army, and thanks to you all for the opportunity to read the article. I have to say the discussion on the talk page, while vigorous, is not at present a disruptive one. I don't know who is actually correct on the content question, but the tone of  the debate seems fine. Feel free to correct my perception with appropriate diffs if required.


 * In passing, e-cigs and Eastern Europe? What next, UK-Ireland? Israel-Palestine? Infoboxes? -- Euryalus (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Who, me? It's an "occupational hazard" of subscribing to a big WP:FRS stream (and actually participating in the RfCs it invites people to); eventually you hit pretty much every topic unless you exclude specific categories of stuff.  I have a pretty neutral stance on both the e-cigs debates and the Blue Army thing. I've been commenting in favor of balance, and of following the sourcing policies and guidelines closely so reduce topical strife. I've already been involved in both UK–Ireland and infobox debates. I've probably missed Israel–Palestine by dumb luck.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization of institutions
Hello. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style as it relates to style guidance you recently helped clarify. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ásatrú
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ásatrú. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced
Hi there. You (boldly) made this edit to Template:Unreferenced, then in the subsequent discussion said "I'd suggest we just go with 'sources'". I agree. I think the sentence should read, "This article does not cite any sources." Would you be willing to boldly make that as a further change. Alternatively, would you be willing to revert your change and let a fresh round of discussion start with a view, I suggest, to change the wording to "This article does not cite any sources." cheers Nurg (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion already appears to be happening, and has been ongoing for a while. I don't think I should change it to "any sources", since what it should read is still under discussion. I don't see any utility to changing it to the old "any references or sources" since that's redundant and there are objections to it (including from me). In short, I don't think it should be reworded until there's a consensus on what to reword it to. I don't have any objection to someone reverting it to status quo ante, but I do have a slight WP:COMMONSENSE one. I think doing so would be silly and borderline WP:POINTy, because consensus will almost certainly not arrive at "any references or sources". There's no reason to pick one definitely crappy option over the current perhaps crappy one, when we'll probably arrive at a non-crappy one like "sources", which agrees with the wording used in WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOR; there is no requirement anywhere that things be "referenced"; it's just  that they be, per WP:CITE (which also uses "sources" in its title).   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This arises from a discussion we are having at User_talk:331dot on how to best proceed regarding the debacle at Template_talk:Unreferenced. I have identified three issues, the first being whether your Bold edit should be Reverted pending BRD, or whether we should just move ahead towards a consensual wording. While I am not a particular fan of the prior wording, I think that to avoid undermining BRD, and to remove one issue from any subsequent discussion, it would be useful if you were to revert. I think it is not excessively "pointy" to revert, but quite the opposite: that it is a very important point to respect WP:BRD as process regardless of our sentiments regarding any particular content, that BRD is not something to invoke when we like it, and otherwise not. Which form is less crappy is really a minor issue, and quite transient if we can formulate a better version. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My enthusiasm regarding this idea is still at a nadir. BRD is bold-revert-discuss, not bold–self-revert–discuss, so it does not have anything to do with BRD process at all, much less "respect" for it; BRD has not in fact been invoked. No one likes "any references or sources" enough to revert it themselves (if anyone even likes it at all). I'm not going to self-revert it to the worst possible option just because the present text isn't 100% perfect. Commentary so far appears to favor just "any sources", as I do myself, so it's hard to see any eventual outcome other than "any sources". We're all adults here and can carry on a simple conversation about what the wording of a template should be (which will ultimately probably determine what its name is) without anyone's head exploding. Ultimately, I WP:DGAF. I made a common-sense edit (kinda-resolving a redundancy, by turning a run-on into an explanatory parenthetical while retaining both "references" and "sources" in the same order), that was less bold than it should have been (i.e., simply changing it to "any sources"). I've chimed in on the proposals to resolve the matter, and even launched one of them myself. This is already too much time spent on a trivial matter. If people want to revert me, go for it. This is not important to the encyclopedia and shouldn't be this important to anyone working on it. If it's still unresolved in a week, I'd suggesting taking the matter to WP:TFD (the D stands for discussion not deletion), to get a WP-wide view on the matter, or do what the RM closer said, and make it an RfC at WT:V or WT:RS. Either way, the discussion would not be relegated to the same 5 or whatever people talking about it on the template talk page for a month. It like arguing about what kind of roadkill that was twenty miles back. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to revert your edit because it might be taken as confrontational, and most likely would be taken as a comment on the content rather than on the process. I think it is a small distraction either way, but, unfortunately, some of these nominal adults are easily distracted, as illustrated by the disjointed discussions, which do tend to explode. For sure it is a relatively trivial matter, but if we can't work out trivial matters we will never be able to handle substantial matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I say, I don't care if someone else reverts. I just don't want to personally make any changes to it while the discussion is ongoing (my general default is to leave stuff alone if it's under discussion, unless something serious is triggered like a BLP concern or copyvio, that mandates an "err on the safe side" approach).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:VPIL
I started the discussion, so I invite you to it. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I commented there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA for English
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA for English. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

American snooker draft
Hello. And I would say welcome to Wikipedia, but you appear to be reasonably experienced. I have declined your WP:RM/TR request to move User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/American snooker into mainspace. This is because we generally don't move any user's drafts without their agreement first – in the past I have seen this cause numerous issues when they author did not feel it was ready, but others kept moving. I'd suggest you contact (who I have now pinged) and have a discussion with him about moving the draft into article space. If he agrees, he should be able to make the move himself, but please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if the admin tools are needed. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've sat on it long enough; anyone should feel free to work on it. It needs more development, but I frankly forgot about it. The game and its rules are standardized (for several generations) by the Billiard Congress of America.  There should be enough sources to write a proper article on it.  It's not a popular game, so I'm not 100% certain it would pass WP:GNG, but worth a shot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: I've found some additional sources on this, will try to find time to integrate them over the weekend. It might be enough. The main bit of help I could use is someone working from the BCA rulebook and summarizing the A.S. rules, then also summarizing the differences from IBSF/WPBSA snooker's rules. I did find a (non-authoritative) page that outlined these differences (from 1997), but also saw a webboard comment about it saying that some of the World Snooker rules had changed in ways that invalidated some of the observations made in that summary, so it can't be used as a "checklist" without re-checking each item on it. Still, it might be a good starting point. That page also suggests that BCA stopped publishing the A.S. rules in 1993, and only includes the IBSF ones; I'm skeptical this is true, and am pretty sure that recent editions have included both, but this bears investigating. Some stuff I've dug up are: a photo we can use after cropping ; a non-trivial mention in a non-rule book (enough to establish notability), The Bank Shot by Rudolf "Minnesota Fats" Wanderone & Tom Fox ; an entry in Michael Ian Shamos's New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards ; source that it's been played outside the US (local tournaments in Rabat-Salé, Morocco, ca. 1999 ); historical info on the game in "Origins of Snooker" by Norman Clare (notable and reputable source), from his "Days of Old" article series, reprinted by Billiard & Snooker Heritage Collection  (this is a good source for our other snooker articles, including History of snooker); another image we can use after cropping ; photorealistic 3D models of American snooker equipment even exist .  That's all from first 10 or so pages of Google hits.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

 * As I predicted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello SMcCandlish: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 19:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Please comment on Talk:Taqiya
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taqiya. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Articles containing overly long summaries"
Greetings SMcCandlish, you recently created a category for "Articles containing overly long summaries," but as the word "overly" has a somewhat questionable usage in English, shouldn't the two words simply be replaced with the non-contested "overlong"? Thanks, Jg2904 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Overlong" isn't uncontested, as it is fairly often hyphenated. And Fowler, writing near a century ago in agreement with 19th-century prescriptive grammarians, doesn't constitute modern conflict. As our own article notes, most major American dictionaries, including the excessively conservative and prescriptive American Heritage, "accept the word ['overly'] without comment". MoS (which doesn't apply to internal material anyway) doesn't proscribe usage that's attested in formal writing as acceptable, especially if the usage has a strong national tie (which critics of "overly" suggest), absent a clear encyclopedia-writing rationale against it. That said, this N-gram  would appear to support such a rename. "Overlong" is the term most often used (or "oft-used" if you prefer), though neither "over-long" nor "overly long" are .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Snooker tournament naming
As one of the few active members of the snooker project would you take a look at Talk:List_of_snooker_tournaments please. It involves two different tournaments which unfortunately have the same name. Currently we use the sponsor's name to identify one of them but this is being challenged. It is difficult to describe the dispute in neutral terms but if you look at the recent editing history and the discussion you will get the gist. Observations/suggestions would be welcome. Betty Logan (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

 * And you!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 * You too! Could be a  Brown Christmas.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elagabalus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elagabalus. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colony (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extraterrestrial. 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) 09:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for spirited discussion but you should probably retract the "falsely" comment
There are lots of things in your posts on WT:MoS that I don't happen to like, but there is one of them that crosses a line:


 * (i.e. everyone but those who insist on falsely nationalizing quotation punctuation styles and those who don't care)

No one is falsely nationalizing anything. Please retract.

Whether you'd describe this as "Stop calling me a liar," "Stop implying that I'm making things up," or in some other way, you must stop claiming that I am doing something wrong. This violates WP:CIVIL and probably some other rules too.

I have provided sources that show that these two punctuation styles are indeed part of American practice and British practice. You are allowed to have your own opinion. You are allowed to think that you are right and CMoS, Oxford, AMA, APA, and the other sources that I have cited and I are wrong, but the fact that these reliable sources say "This is American and that is British," proves that I personally am not imagining or inventing the national ties involved in this issue, and neither is anyone else who has come to this conclusion by consulting these or concurring sources.

You do not have to agree with the conclusions I've drawn. You do have to stop acting like I am behaving unreasonably for having drawn them, at least in your Wikipedia posts (what you do in private is your business). You hold many beliefs that I consider unsupported and I don't talk about you this way.

Repeat: There are lots of things in your posts that I don't like, but this is where you've done something that you should retract. This comment that I am leaving on your talk page does not pertain to any other part of the posts you have made in this thread at WT:MOS; it pertains solely to this specific issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's just air this out and get it over with (constructively, I hope). There is nothing to "retract".  "Falsely" in modern English is synonymous with "counterfactually", not "with misleading intent", and usage that has been obsolete for generations (though most of us probably understood what Gollum meant when he referred to " Hobbitses").


 * The incorrectness of your selectively blind research on this micro-subject has been demonstrated, repeatedly and by multiple parties, for over half a decade now (never mind that it doesn't really matter – guidelines are not articles, and are based on consensus about what's best for WP, not on selective source-thumping, even if much content editing seems to work that way by default). Even other editors who agree with you in principle that quotation style could be left to editorial discretion as long as it were consistent within the same article [a view that has been disputed for entirely separate reasons] are telling you that your nationalistic approach is demonstrably untenable, and why. It's not my problem that, to date, you simply will not listen to anyone at all on this matter (you were willing, back around 2009 or so, but reversed yourself amid your own highly idiosyncratic interpretations, and have never budged even slightly since then). This has led you to take criticism of your arguments as criticism of your person, and to demand "retractions" of things that are objective factual matters not subjective slights. "That's a bad argument" ≠ "you're a bad person". "I don't accept that reasoning" ≠ "I don't like you". "That approach isn't helpful" ≠ "you should quit the project". "That isn't actually true" ≠ "you are a liar". Evidence and debate simply don't work that way, and WP is not about your personality, feelings, or honor.  See WP:5P and "mercilessly edited".  WP guidelines and policies are not even about evidence but about consensus; the only role evidence plays there is in helping to establish and maintain consensus. There is no threat to the consensus to use LQ on WP, so it's a waste of time for me to keep repeatedly sourcing the matter in WT:MOS threads. The consensus is already there, you are never satisfied no matter what the sourcing is, so it's just pointless. You've said multiple times in various ways that you believe it is  for any American English writing to use any punctuation other than TQ, that you consider LQ to be some kind of censorship or suppression of Americans (a.k.a. forcing of British style), and that you're campaigning against this and will not change your view on it.  Ergo, this is exactly as futile, from my perspective, as trying to argue logic and science against the ingrained dogma of a devout practitioner of some religion. They're both faith-based positions that will not be swayed by reason. If I'm mistaken about the depth of your conviction on this matter, you have a lot of convincing to do. In the interim, my only interest in pursuing further argument on the matter in WT namespace is the same that Richard Dawkins has in publishing books about atheism: Convincing those on the fence, because convincing those on the other side will never happen.  This LQ-related issue has nothing to do with what I think/believe (on most MoS matters, I've never actually stated my own personal, subjective preferences; I strongly compartmentalize them from what the WP rationales are pro and con any particular style question, and my own off-WP writing bears little resemblance to what I write here).  You're engaging in yet another of a long string of straw man arguments in suggesting that I "think CMoS, Oxford, AMA, and other sources that [you] have cited ... are wrong".  They're sources I cite myself. You're simply misreading them, both by injecting your own unsupported OR about what is meant by the parts of them you acknowledge, and by the PoV-injection technique of ignoring the parts of them (as well as entire other sources) that aren't convenient for your own argument. I don't read minds, so I don't know if this is a deliberate, conscious process or simply a perceptual blind spot like we all have, but the effect is objectively observable.  I have precisely zero interest in demonstrating these things for the umpteenth time in either WT or User talk namespace with yet another pile of redundant source citations. I will point out (for definitely at least the dozenth time) that the existence of some sources that don't bother to distinguish between A and B does not erase the existence of those that do, and your perpetual ignoring of those that do (and ignoring when those that don't seem to actually do so) is a classic fallacious debate tactic (conscious or not), which isn't working, or you would have got your way 6.5 years ago.  Moving on: It is simply not the case, in any form of rational discourse or documentary research, that party A has to accept that every conclusion party B can draw is reasonable, even if party B has explained why they think it is (if you feel otherwise, stay very far away from academia, because your critical peers with crush you without mercy; the main reason WP has a civility issue is because of the habitual nastiness of academics toward rival "colleagues").  It's anti-intellectual to take the view that feeling good / being heard is more important than getting things correct. It's closely related to the "every child is a winner" concept, which has proven to be a predictable and terrible pedagogical and socializing failure.  I'm wary of engaging in straw men myself, and I'm not sure how far your you-must-accept-my-views-as-valid stance actually goes, but there's clearly a socio-politico-philosophical difference between us, and one variant works well in an encyclopedic context while the other does not (that said, the policy-formation process and the content production processes are not identical, and there's more wiggle room in the former for it). I will say that it's not my intent to simply piss you off or make you look bad or engage in sport-debate with you, and I'm sorry if you feel this is going on. I'm trying to not allow this to become personal. And it can't reasonably get very personal, since we don't know each other except by our interaction here.  If you feel that some conclusion I draw about anything is unsupported, then show how. (Isn't that what we're already doing, anyway?)  I'm pretty good at disproving such challenges, not because I'm the world's most badass researcher, I simply avoid taking positions without well-researched reasons to begin with. But I'm entirely willing to change my mind, and I have done so more than once (even made 180-degree self-reversals) about MoS matters, when people have a made a good case and my own was weaker than I thought it was (and am prepared to do so again, e.g. on curly quotes if it turns out that the technical issues with them have been obviated). Same goes for policy matters more generally.  You are simply not persuasive on this one, because the evidence you insist on is (aside from often not really being relevant to the consensus formation process) being used selectively by you, and being ignored by you when presented by others.  I have some further thoughts about our interaction problems, but as some of them are critical (and inviting of criticism), constructively, I think it would be better done off-site. Too often, persons (especially admins grinding axes) are too apt to take anything critical as "uncivil" and overreact. I've had good results in the past (including with other MoS editors) just having a candid but not nasty discussion about perceptions, triggers, conflicts, goals, and the reasons for them, just off of WP itself (e-mail, Skype, whatever; I can be e-mailed directly from this page).


 * PS: I've largely left this alone, other than the recent argument that I'm already pulling out of, because it's been my studied observation that these issues tend to become more resolvable when both sides drop them for 3–12 months and try to find common ground again later. Hard to do if the other side re-pushes their angle on it at every opportunity, since it tends to necessitate a countering response. :-/  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Poland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poland. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

TheJack15
See Sockpuppet investigations/TheJack15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggerjay (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 December 2015‎
 * Oh great. Well, it's just an investigation/allegation at this stage, and the reasons to undo this personage's closures are a long checklist, so I expect the right thing will be done either way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Gosh I forgot to sign another post, ugh... Anyways, a bit more than just an allegation since the same SUL login was blocked on Commons for sockpuppery, but anyways, it looks like a few experienced RM editors are jumping into clean things up. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Allegation: I mean "wiki-legally" speaking; the SSP hasn't closed, so WP:AGF technically mandates that we be seen to presume innocence publicly. I have a years-long history of being targeted by a cadre of particular admins for singleminded, undue sanctioning any time I say anything that they suppose in their own heads means that I'm assuming bad faith (i.e. they get to assume my bad faith and punish me for it, because they're infallible mind-readers and above the policy they enforce, obviously). The fact that ARBCOM has overturned one of them, and AN another doesn't seem to have much effect on the zeal in certain quarters to pillory me, so I'm hedging my bets.  Sig: It happens!  MR: Just in case, since both of the editors doing the post-TheJack15 cleanup are not admins and might be overruled by an admin on procedural grounds, I've pre-filled an MR template for one of TheJack15's more egregious bad closes, and primed with the necessary argument. It's a commented-out subsection below the multi-MR now open, so it can be uncommented and made "live" without my having to be there (I'm pretty busy lately, and won't be watching the page. I used one or two of your own arguments, I think.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace
Thank you, cabal member, for inspiration, with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a great year, too! :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)