User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 114

= May 2016 =

Please comment on Talk:Panini (sandwich)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Panini (sandwich). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Just saying
Sometimes I really wish you'd just raise a question at talk about changes, especially on an article you've never edited, instead of posting a RM or some other drama that is supposed to be used for conflict resolution or when admin tools are needed. Not everything has to be turned into an enormous bandwidth-eating, time-consuming drama-o-rama. Just saying. Sometimes a reasonable compromise can be created in about two seconds. You could have said, "hey, would anyone mind if I used the foundation stock redirect and made it into an article to cover the other critters that aren't horses?" And I for one would have had no problem with it, and probably few other people would have even cared. Montanabw (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * RM is the standard operating procedure for potentially controversial moves; it is not part of WP:Dispute resolution (the DR for move-related disputes is WP:MR, and the principle purpose of RM is having an orderly !vote instead of protracted dispute; it's the opposite of bandwidth- and time-consuming, except when tendentious parties attempt to hijack it into a messy, threaded dispute, which is why RMs now tend to come with second sections for extended discussions, to keep the main comments section concise and orderly). There is no rationale for a back-channel, informal discussion with the handful of editors who created the article in too-narrow terms the first time around. There was no  in doing that (and I've done it myself, e.g. at some articles on billiards terms that actually have broader application and later had to be expanded to include other sports). But when more than one topical interest is involved, an RM is the proper process, since it nets more than one topic's worth of editorial minds. I also have better things to do that argue round-and-round with the same two people, who have long-term personality conflicts with me, over the same article naming questions, when regular RM will settle the question without further involvement from me. I decline to accept a repeat beating from you, for following the very process you beat me into following religiously.  You can't have it both ways. You (with JLaN, in a marriage-of-convenience tagteam at ANI) forcibly ensured that I will use standard RM procedure for any move of any article relating to livestock if I think there's even a faint chance of opposition or objection, unless I have a large raft of RM precedents pre-prepared, and the RM in question is exactly the same pattern as those precedents. In future, perhaps consider what the processy fallout will be if you hound someone into a procedural corner as you did.  I've gotten over that, and the various other trouble with you, and agreed to a truce, which appears to me to have been both productive and mutually stress-reducing. I don't see the point of your post here, especially since you say you'd be okay with the move in the first place. You're raising a pseudo-objection again, just like your opposition – against your own clearly stated position on the matter – to the natural disambiguation moves, back when. It looks like the same combination of "spat"-starting for the entertainment value of being in a fight, and inappropriate defense of the idea of wikiprojects having total, hegemonic authority over "their" articles.  You say you're tired of drama, so don't start any more of it.  I'm actively avoiding it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Avoidance of breed-related drama
Why else do you think I've spent two years dissuading AT/MoS people from trying to decapitalize animal breed names? I remember the drama of WP:BIRDCON as if it happened yesterday. If you're not aware of it, I've headed off at least four RfCs that would have sought that result. The more I can get landrace and other not-really-breed articles decapitalized, with the capitalization limited to the published, formal names of standardized breeds, the more likely they are to remain capitalized and not attract the lower-case-everything-we-possibly-can crowd. The breed articles are tempting "plump and juicy" targets for that treatment, because the current (though progressively decreased, by me) habit of other "breed people" overcapitalizing every damned thing they can that has anything to do with livestock and animal husbandry (and horticulture, for that matter) looks like and a very typical case of the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, while a defensible case for capping formal breed (and cultivar) names is actually fairly easy to muster and distinguish as legitimate. No rational case can be made that the Van cat is a proper noun, but the opposite appears to be the case for standardized Turkish Van. To that end, I've also gone to notable lengths to catalog the pro-caps arguments for standardized breeds, at WP:BREEDCASE. While I'm neutral on the underlying question, I lean in favor of retaining the caps for stability. PS: If your complaint above has been motivated by me minorly disagreeing with you on some article talk page the other day, please don't read into it. It's inevitable as active and independent editors that we'll run into each other here and there and not always agree. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

AGF
Your personalizing of remarks at the RM at Talk:Foundation bloodstock is out of line. Way out of line. And inaccurate. You really need to learn to collaborate with other people and this is not the way to do it. I don't give a flying damn about you personally; it's content that matters, sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree, and I could not care less about "getting even" with you. What I do object to is your creating silly, time-wasting dramafests with unnecessary RM requests when there wasn't even a disagreement. Just suggest a move at the article's talk page, the people who watchlist THAT PAGE discuss it, and the article could have been split a week ago. Just open up the foundation stock redirect, start working on it and move the content. If you do a RM on the article, I'm probably just going to recreate it with the horse-specific content anyway, so why go to all this waste? You do your thing, I'll do mine and with any luck, the encyclopedia as a whole is improved. (I really wish you'd work on your people skills, sometimes you can do good work if you'd just stop going ballistic at anyone who disagrees with you)  Montanabw (talk)  19:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, starting drama that (it's a pattern) does not even represent your actual position on the question at hand, just because you want people to cut personal deals with you instead of use normal WP procedures that subject things to community scrutiny, all while you claim to be avoiding drama, is what is inappropriate and a people-skills problem. The only one "going ballistic" here is, launching multi-page tirades against me for properly using the proper process, then recycling the same complaint after I've already addressed it (see above). You can't have it both ways. Given the extreme lengths you and Jlan went to in forcing me to use formal RM process with any articles relating to breeds (and then attempted to blockade me anyway, at every single step, for months, despite actually agreeing with the disambiguation changes in question, just objecting to the reduction in wikiproject "fiefdom" control over articles), you have no business complaining about it when I do follow that process. RM does not work the way you think it does. It is not part of WP:DR, and is the normal move/rename process, for preventing disputes, not a last-resort process for trying to resolve them.  The "let's just the three or four of us make a deal" approach you want to employ is what  disputes.  We have a policy about this at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.  "Just suggesting a move at the talk page"  what RM is, but done properly.  The entire problem with an article like this is it was created and early-edited with a too-narrow focus and has grown beyond that focus. Its future course should not be discussed only by horse editors with a historical interest in the page, because it is not a horse-specific article.  There are no WP:VESTED editors at any page, so you cannot expect discussions to be limited to people you want to be vested with special authority at them.  Let's be clear that "If you do a RM on the article, I'm probably just going to recreate it" = "I will defy consensus and WP:GAME the system until I get what I want."  And I already opened an RM there, so I'm not sure what the "if" is meant to mean here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Received your message. IF you choose to hat this entire discussion and just focus on content, I shall not further respond here and shall extend the olive branch I think was offered.   Montanabw (talk)  23:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely works for me!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward practically
Let's just drop the he-said-she-said, and look at this practically. The article at hand is only partly about horses (and will be decreasingly about horses as more content is added), so it should not have special horsey naming (actually, it's not even horse-related naming, it's specifically thoroughbred-related naming). If you think it's necessary for the thoroughbred term to have its own article, I doubt anyone cares much whether you content fork it for a while, though it doesn't meet the WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOUT, WP:DICDEF, and WP:NOT criteria, so I expect it would be merged back in later. This is not just a horse-article problem; some other articles started as dog-related and are genericizing over time to include other species, but are misnamed and miscategorized. This is easily resolved by a) using the generic title, b) redirecting species-specific ones to the general article, and c) putting horse, dog, etc., categories on the species-specific (or even breed-specific) redirects. Standard operating procedure, regardless of topic area. It is not "drama". What probably needs to happen in the longer run is a glossary article, or more than one (there's no particular reason to commingle breeding terms and equestrian sporting terms, for example).  We need articles on general notable concepts like foundation stock, not multiple articles at different titles on the same concept just because the terminology slightly differs from subtopic to subtopic.  The only reason that would happen is if separate wikiprojects are trying to act in a WP:OWN manner.  We just don't need or want that.  Various key articles and some hierarchical glossaries – starting with breeding terms in one and animal sport terms in another, and spawning species-specific, more detailed glossaries for horses, dogs, whatever, on an as-needed basis – is probably enough to cover all the encyclopedic needs here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This post is about content and simply must be moved to the article Talk page so that other editors are aware what is being suggested. DrChrissy (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can adapt it for that purpose. [... 2 min. pass ...] Done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

thank you
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do what I can. There could yet be arguments in favor of "Todesbanden", but I think the more obscure and specialized they are, the less WP-relevant they are. We turn to COMMONNAME by default for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There can be no argument for Todesbanden together with a BWV number. When the number was added, it became again Todes Banden, as it was in the beginning (Martin Luther). We have a series of articles, look at the navbox, of: title by NBA and number. It was explained in the lead in a footnote: "The two-word version was Luther's original and has again been adopted by the NBA." until the simplifications. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did Google News and Scholar searches and came to the same conclusion. When the BWV number is used, there are "hits" for "...Todes Banden" with BWV, but zero hits for "...Todesbanden" with the number. Re: "in the beginning" – You make a claim that it was originally "Todes Banden", FS claims it was originally "Todesbanden", and I'm simply working around that conflict, because I don't have all day to figure out who's getting that right.  This is why I looked at things like "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", etc. – what does English usually do with old titles that don't match what the modern usage would be?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * When I said "in the beginning" it was a pun on the doxology, and that Luther who wrote the hymn on which the cantata is based, wrote two words, "todes bande" (pictured). The article here, however, started as "Todesbanden" until I moved it in 2011. this has the strange combination, - the free scores are the old ones, naturally, but they should not use the BWV number. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand; FS's position is that the earliest published versions of the Bach piece use the "Todesbanden" spelling, and he seems to be right about that. So there are multiple arguments at play, and they're more fiddly than I want to deal with.  This should be based on current usage, not what happened several centuries ago. The article prose itself is where to get into the history and nomenclature of the piece over time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

My renaming proposals
If you are opposed to my RMs, besides comma-based discussions and capitalization-based discussions, do you also mean Chinese names, relistings, and other types of discussions? If not, which types of RMs do you mean? --George Ho (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Many of your forays into MoS-related territory appear to be to be ill-founded, time-wasting, and (too often) tendentious nit-picking, and now trying to play one side off the other – listing contradictory RMs so people will keep arguing over a matter that was settled back in already – as if to just try to generate productivity-sucking editorial drama for its own sake. The relistings shouldn't be done by you, either. That's an RM admin job, and the default is that if no one opposes a move, it is deemed to have consensus, like any other edit no one opposes, so you're basically violating standard operating procedure and expected process by relisting things that were unopposed, as if demanding that someone oppose them. You seem to be confusing RMs with RfCs.  I haven't followed your Chinese-related ones, so maybe I'm being critical more broadly than was warranted, in that respect.  I'm hard-pressed, however, to think of a capitalization- or punctuation-related RM you've started that hasn't been pointless and obsessive-seeming, and giving the impression it was designed to generate rather than resolve conflict. Your needless relistings are doing the same thing, even if unintentionally.  In short, you are not really competent in this segment of the project yet, and for at least 5 months you've been causing a lot of headaches.  Please just leave it alone, and work on something else here, something in which your activities are met with consistent praise or at least tacitly approving silence.  I mean, seriously, just go back over your own talk page since the start of the year.  Even aside from my multiple posts there (a mixture of complaint, constructive advice, and encouragement in related but more productive directions in mainspace), I'm hardly alone in raising these concerns.  WP is not a game, and all this productivity drain is expensive to the encyclopedia's progress, at a time when we're at a productivity low-point already.  In fairness, it's not just you, but also Dohn Joe and a few others harping endlessly on the same pet peeves. The lot need to just get over the fact that WP has a house style manual like all other serious publishers, and that all style manuals are compromises.  Accepting that lets us get the real work done. Refusing to accept it means you just "work" on pointless drama, and drag other people into it and away from working on article text (or template coding, or something else useful).  PS: Sorry if this seems "short" in the temperamental sense; I've had a grueling day and it all starts again in a few hours. I'm not trying to be mean. I've already tried hand-holding with you, and it's not worked, and laying out detailed logic- and source-based arguments with you, and it's not worked, so I'm playing the WP:SPADE card and moving on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but you seem well educated to know what you are doing. Me? I don't have a degree yet, but I know I feel shameless on doing things that I would eventually realize that I'm either lucky or unlucky with community. I realize that focusing on very trivial things makes me petty, but I didn't let it bother me unless people unanimously oppose what I was doing. Still, I'm confused about everything that is very inconsistent. As usual, every time I get scolded, my feelings get in the way. I'm trying to feel emotionless, but that do not seem to work much. I wish things are very simple, but I guess I get what I shouldn't get: irritating feelings, discomfort, ostracism, and isolation. If I get praised for leaving things alone while they go out of control, how does that make me feel? For the record, how is my writing overall? George Ho (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have a to retract some of my criticism: Your Talk:Alone Yet Not Alone RM is on the right track, and I think I saw another one in there in the big RM spree I just did. Some of the non-MoS-related RMs of yours I saw over the last couple of hours (posted at various times) I also !voted in support of.  So, maybe what I really should have said is something like "please stick to RMs that aren't style matters, unless you're sure the MOS and/or naming conventions back you on a style matter".  The issue has been pursuit of trivial changes  the guidelines or against stable consensus (or playing both sides to test that consensus, which is never a good idea, because almost all WP consensus is brittle). For me, having a degree has had little to do with it; it's more a matter of being a natural student of language and of literature since an early age. Some people have a knack for such things.  More applicably here, it's been a matter of acquiring and studying a large number of style guides, and working on WP's MOS for over a decade as my primary hobby. I was bad (and disruptive) at it when I first arrived, but wised up quickly.  Like so many, I at first wanted to 'correct" MoS to prefer what I was more used to, and it took a while to realize that its particularly matter much less than its stability (and that academic/formal and mainstream patterns of its particular, vs. "high formal" or base journalistic ones, are more important than the exact specifics.  The more we stick to particular register of usage, the fewer inconsistencies there are. Tony1 and Dicklyon and a handful of others have also been at it this long, and there's a reason we almost always agree by now (on style and titles matters) – virtually all of the imaginable MoS-related discussions have already happened dozens of times, and the consensus that emerges generally doesn't change, unless (as with MOS:JR) the language itself has provably shifted in the interim.  Conflict avoidance: It doesn't take "unanimous" opposition. Just steady, well-reasoned opposition (reasoned as to guideline/policy matters and/or as to the broad totality of source usage, not just narrowly specialized, non-WP:INDY sources).  Yes, I know feelings get in the way. I almost entirely quit WP for a year for that very reason. It goes both ways, too. Every scolding anyone gives is usually motivated by "dammit, not this shit again" exasperation (over rehash of tired things), leading to "dammit, not this shit again" exasperation on the part of the recipient (over being told off by essentially anonymous Internet blowhards like most Wikipedians are).  Heh.  I tend to be slightly more "tell it like it is" than average, both by nature, and because I'm not actually anonymous. If I genuinely piss someone off they can e-mail me, or even go on Facebook and call me an asshat. It also makes me double-check and think hard; I usually get my facts right, because being "that guy who is always wrong on Wikipedia" would be a much more public reputation problem for me than for the average Wikipedian.  Unless you're using a fake name, it's an issue you should consider, too.  This is one reason I've taken the time.  If your username was GH3900X, I probably wouldn't bother.  Dicklyon, Peter_coxhead, and several other AT/MOS regulars are in the same boat, and there's a notable difference between the cogency of our arguments and those of random, pseudonymous posters, on average. If one's username is GrungeRabbit or ChunkyFunky2000, there's really no cost to being wrong a lot, to making an ass of oneself, to endlessly recycling bogus arguments.  I haven't seen enough of your general article prose to know what your overall encyclopedic command of the language is (is there a substantial article of which you've written the majority you can point me at?).  I get the feeling you're not a native speaker, or perhaps a bilingual one from Hong Kong or Singapore or South Korea or something, maybe even a Chinatown or the like in the West, but essentially fluent, just struggling a bit with stylistic nitpicks that even most native speakers struggle with if they are not professional writers. I know you've been around a decade or so too, but you mostly have not been involved in these style discussions much until recently, that I recall.  A less conflict-driven approach to RM (and RfCs, and XfDs): If you agree with where a discussion is going, chime in and help snowball it.  This helps consensus remain stable.  If you disagree, and can formulate a very strong policy-, logic-, and/or source-based argument for why, then post it; if a little "local consensus" is forming that is not actually correct (by standards that matter here), then it needs to be corrected. If you just disagree for personal reasons, and can't beat the prevailing argument with a counter-argument that will actually sway other editors, just ignore it and move on.  If you can just offer a weak and subjective argument, all it does is help "prove" that the other side is "right", and it doesn't actually help anything at all.  Took me a long time to learn that, and my stress level has greatly reduced here since learning it.  Hope that helps.  :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. George Ho (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Diacritics
Hello, do you still float around in the world of diacritics on Wikipedia? Rovingrobert (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More like swim it actively.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'm interested in that sort of thing too. I hate the bastardization of foreign names. Rovingrobert (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP should not do it. The subject can do it (my name's McCandlish, after all, not mac Cuindlis), but WP should not follow lazy sources who do it to names of people who do not themselves diacritics-strip or otherwise over-anglicize their own names. If any English language reliable sources show that the subject prefers the proper spelling (in English), or that third-party source usage (in English) is mixed, that's sufficient for WP to use the proper spelling, not the "dumbed-down for rednecks" version.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And how about the argument that Wikipedia resists fitting into neat little categories, so there is no need for consensus on diacritics? People who use that kind of logic must know they are fighting a losing battle, since they conveniently bypass the fact the vast majority of articles do use diacritics. Rovingrobert (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Another thought: isn't claiming that a given individual prefers the absence of diacritics without concrete evidence WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH? The use of diacritics can be backed up by what one's website or social media account(s) infer. Thus, vice versa is impossible because it actually takes effort to put in diacritics, whereas not doing so could be simply due to negligence. Rovingrobert (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't think there's any debate remaining about any of this.  The WP consensus is to include the appropriate diacritics, except when they can be sources as being used in any English-language RS.  Campaigners against this idea tried to even start a PoV-pushing, "canvassing farm" WikiProject to turn the tide of WP:RM against this consensus (i.e. they wanted to delete diacritics as being "foreign" and "un-English"), and the pseudo-project was deleted at WP:MFD, firmly.  Basically, if we know the subject uses the marks, or some (even if not all) English-language sources do it (absent any evidence about subject preference), WP also uses them.  We drop them only when it's demonstrable that the subject chooses not to use them (as is the case with many American actors with Spanish names that usually include a diacritic in Spanish), or when no sources can be found for the use in English. Has some new anti-diacritics campaigning arisen? If so, where?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been subtle, almost to the point of surreptition; manifested mainly in 'smaller' RMs, but definitely palpable. I would give you names but I'd be accused of canvassing. Rovingrobert (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Full Service (book)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Full Service (book). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chicago 16th
Template:Chicago 16th has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

name article: Arnaldo dell'ira or Arnaldo Dell'Ira ?
- Arnaldo - is the first name of this man, and - Dell'Ira - is his surname, oder the name of is family. In italian is written Dell'Ira as other surname, for example: Dell'Aquila, Dell'Acqua and many other (in english wikipedia: Alessandro Dell'Acqua (born 21 December 1962 in Naples) is a fashion designer; Angelo Dell'Acqua (9 December 1903 – 27 August 1972) was an Italian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church). In italian wikipedia the name is exactly written: Arnaldo Dell'Ira. thanks

triktrak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triktrak (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If the norm in Italian now is to capitalize the de[l[l[a]]] parts of names, so be it, but the RM respondents will expect to see this reliably sourced, as a general matter and for this subject in particular (not everyone with such a name uses the capitalization pattern you're advancing, even if it has become more common). Regardless, it certainly should not be "dell'ira". We know for certain that one is wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I've updated my comment at the RM to say the above. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit War
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Stub shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mike V • Talk 18:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Old news, off-base, and moot. I raised the issue at WP:RFPP. A discussion has been ongoing for an entire month; WP:BRD, which is optional anyway, has already been satisified.  Zero people have provided any rationale whatsoever for the confusing wording in question, and multiple editors object to its inclusion.  It comes out.  The only editwarring going on is by people trying to reinsert that wording, just to be pain-in-ass objectors to change for the sake of objecting to change.  No thanks.  WP does not work that way, as a matter of policy (see WP:NOT and WP:CONSENSUS).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note also that yet another editor has restored the version I put in, since you posted here. This is business as usual. Wording isn't perfect; someone objects, discussion happens, edits are made based on the discussion, there's maybe some back-and-forth about the exact wording and more discussion, and those with no rationale who don't want to accept any answer but their own find themselves reverted by multiple editors who do have rationales, and the no-rationale fist-shakers eventually knock it off.  I'm marking this resolved, as it's basically moot.  If you look at the current state of the discussion, it's clearly a WP:1AM of a single confused editor, Lugnuts, against everyone else, and his noise is distracting from the actual conversation, which is about how to use CSS, etc., to improve the layout.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

List of world eight-ball champions
Hi please can you reply to the last comment here. I still maintain that here is a Chinese 8ball world champs and it's getting more prestigious every year due to marketing and prize money. Lots of overseas pros are regulars on the Chinese tour now. Youtube it if you want! I also added the IPA world champs to that page. Sandman1142 (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making an argument that a game called Chinese eight-ball pool, played with "American" (WPA) equipment except using snooker-style pockets, and the championship for this game, are notable. But that article is still a redlink. There are so few sources that an article probably cannot be written that will survive WP:AFD, because of the WP:Notability problems. ("Chinese eight-ball" is about an American folk game that doesn't actually have anything to do with China, but which has been well-documented for generations, unlike "Chinese eight-ball pool", which is a recent regional variation using hybrid equipment, and meant to be a competitive sport, not a recreational pastime). What I would suggest is first writing a subsection on this variant of eight-ball, with a title of "Chinese eight-ball pool", under Eight-ball. Change the hatnote atop Chinese eight-ball to point to that instead of the redlink. Also cross-reference it, under "See also", at Blackball (pool), to which Eight-ball pool (the folk name, vs. the world-standardised name) redirects.  Then add a "Chinese eight-ball pool" section to the championship article. Adding one first is jumping the gun, since we have no article  about the game itself. I've opened some more formal discussion about this at Talk:Eight-ball.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I guess the ball's back in my hand to create an article on Chinese eight-ball first. The link to the obsolete American version should be diverted somewhere else or merged with another article. I will see when I can get some time for the Chinese eight-ball article. Sandman1142 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , nah, just a section on the variant at Eight-ball. There's insufficient sourcing available to demonstrate enough WP:Notability for a stand-alone article on it.  It would just get deleted at WP:AFD.  A section on it in main article is much more defensible; sections only have to be properly sourced and relevant, not notable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christopher Lloyd
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Lloyd. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)