User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 12

=November 2007=

I put in Benford's law of controversy for Afd
regards,Rich 02:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The merge made sense. Thanks for the note. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: what pane does it hide?
Regarding your comment on User talk:Gerbrant/hidePane.js, did you mean to say that there should be some kind of description, or that it doesn't appear to work for you? B.t.w. I'm thinking of redesigning the script, such that the pop-up menu's will be located at the top. I'm not sure how to go about it yet, but ideally all the "interface" shouldn't take up more than one line or so. I think the article is what's important, all that clutter in the left pane may be useful sometimes, but when you're reading an article it just gets in the way. Shinobu 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?
Hi there, are you still interested in becoming an admin? I would be happy to nominate you if you were. Tim Vickers 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so; this is a bad week for me, though. Whole lot going on. I can probably gather some co-nominators next week. And thanks for the support/faith.  I've actually avoided going there for some time (since I think Jan. 2007, when I first tried), to get more and more experience in XfDs, working on policy/guideline pages, etc.  I think I am ready. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are verging on over-qualified! :) Drop me a note next week then. Tim Vickers 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. I actually have been concerned a little about being over-qualified in a sense - I remember an RfA that failed last month.  While it did so because of COI and civility and other issues for the most part, a common oppose comment was along the lines of "anyone with 30K edits who is not an admin yet isn't an admin for a reason".  I guess in my guess the defense is that the reason is my own choice not to ask for the tools. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With IP page creation being re-enabled next week we need as many experienced fingers on the delete button as possible. Tim Vickers 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ick! Where is that being discussed? What a dreadful idea. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This thread - discussed seems to be a misnomer - it appears to have been imposed by fiat, although only as a short "experiment". Tim Vickers 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Albino people
Oxford American Dictionary albino |al?bi-no-| noun ( pl. -nos) a person or animal having a congenital absence of pigment in the skin and hair (which are white) and the eyes (which are typically pink). • informal an abnormally white animal or plant : [as modifier ] an albino tiger.

Is not "genetic disorder" or "medical condition"... IS A "NATURAL CONDITION"

race noun each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics

You are very offensive, and ignorant...

You remember when the homosexuality was a "medical condition"?

Albinistic is very offensive, "person with albinism" is very offensive because you are considering like a disease "person with albinism" is like "person with AIDS"...

why the blondes, brown, homosexual... are "natural"... and the albinos a disorder, a "medical condition"?

"black people" have diseases that "white people" do not have or "Asian people" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.77.181 (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, as I've already said to you, your self-declared position as someone who does not really know English at all and who is relying upon software translation, you are not in a position to lecture anyone about English language usage. Sorry, but that's just a fact.  The socio-political underlying point you are trying to make, which appears to be that in Africa people with albinism are mistreated and misunderstood, is a concern that is well understood by me and by everyone regularly involved in the Albinism article, which actually discusses this problem.  I am very sorry that you cannot understand, in English, the difference between identifying albinism as a medical condition and labelling anyone albinistic as "diseased" - this is the thrust of your argument at that article's talk page.  There's nothing I can personally do to fix this misunderstanding of yours.  Please just trust me when I tell you that the English-language Wikipedia article at Albinism does not imply that albinistic people are "diseased".  If you cannot accept this fact, please at least stop writing to me about this on my talk page.  Much of the rest of what you've said above is complete nonsense. Albinism is nothing whatsoever like an ethnicity or race. You are simply flat-out, dead wrong on that point.  Everyone who is albinistic is also part of some other race/ethnicity, such as Spanish or Tutsi or Japanese or Albanian.  There is no "race" of albinistic people, anywhere on this plant, any time in its known history.  A "congenital absence of pigment" is by definition a "genetic disorder"; the latter phrase you object to and appear to misunderstand is a perfectly accurate and entirely neutral synonym of the former phrasing you appear to prefer for some reason.  Offensive?  Let's not be silly. "Albino" is considered offensive by most people with albinism, as it is used in a mocking way like "nigger" or "faggot", as an epithet.  "Person with albinism" is no more like "person with AIDS" than it is like "person with brown hair".  This is a really key example of your lack of experience with English causing you to internalize false assumptions.  English just does not work the way you seem to think it does.  Please, just get over this, move on, and stop harassing me and the other editors of the Albinism article, which you clearly do not yet have the English language skills to fully comprehend. I do not mean that as an insult, it is simply a clearly observable objective fact. I sympathize, really, with your underlying concerns, but they are very sorely misplaced in this case. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 11:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates as leads
I asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this, but got no response. I am now spamming people whe participate in MOS with this request: would you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football and tell me what you think? - Peregrine Fisher 07:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bearing in mind WP:CANVAS, I did take a look at it, and yes, it is an abomination. I weighed in about it over there. For the record I think you were right to bring this to my and other MOSers' attention.  If MOS is being misinterpreted (or in this case simply uninterpreted) this badly, we may need to say something more explicit about this. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 13:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

United States Professional Poolplayers Association competition?
I have removed an unsourced statement you added :

"The UPA is in competition with the Billiard Congress of America and the International Pool Tour for US market dominance in cue sports."

I know nothing about the subject but there was a help desk complaint and then I didn't want to just tag it as unsourced. PrimeHunter 12:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It should have been tagged as unsourced, since it is a simple statement that can be sourced. It actually needs to be elaborated on, about what roles each organization playes in the market, but I don't have time to do that for now, so I won't revert-and-fact-tag it. Not a big deal really.  FYI, the BCA is the nonprofit WPA affiliate in the US; as such it promotes and holds ranking events for the WPA World Nine-ball Championship and similar events. The UPA and it's WPBA all-women sister organization, which should have been mentioned there too, are long-standing WPA/BCA-independentent professional leagues run by nonprofit player co-ops, and hold directly-competing national and international events.  The upstart IPT is a for-profit corporation that has organized national and international tournaments which again directly compete with all of the above for venues, TV coverage, sponsorship, and professional membership. This can all be trivially documented, by someone with a few hours to do it, but that is not me right now. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: What help desk complaint? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS: Nevermind; I found it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader
Hi SMcCandlish. That large, annoying NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader scoreboard posted at the top of the Chicken Soup Game article now at DRV brought me to this post of yours. Would you mind if I used your post as the reasoning behing my listing that template at TfD? (Or would you consider listing that template at TfD yourself). Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  15:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader
Template:NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jreferee    t / c  06:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey there. NMajdan and I have come up with an alternative infobox to replace this template. We'd appreciate it if you could take a swing by and check it out. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Popups
Thanks for your answer on the manual of style discussion page. I threw up some other points. Could you respond to them if possible? Mrshaba (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again... I've been using your rp template while developing my Solar energy glossary... So far so good... I think I need to add the Notes section back to get full use of your template's power but I'll get to that. I have another question you might be able to help with. Here's the situation. I want to define a field of text as a master "driver text". Then I want to have "passenger links" relate back to this original master field. This has to do with the popup idea I asked you about. When I scroll over a "passenger link" I want to see the popup text from the "driver" field. If the "driver" field is updated I want the "passenger link" popup reflect the changes. I understand this might be too complicated for WP but I'm asking for my own edification. Can HTML do this? I've asked the gurus at work and despite some honest work we haven't been able to get a Word document to accomplish this. Just asking... Thanks again for the template suggestion. Mrshaba (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's possible here. It is something that could be done with Javascript and stuff on a site at which one had access to all of the source code, but we don't have that kind of access here. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hey Stanton,

I see the issue of flagging edits as 'minor' has been brought to your attention before, but it just caught my eye too. This comment on WT:MOS probably shouldn't have been flagged as minor; neither should this removal of an OR item. Maybe these were just mistakes or your interpretation is different; if the latter, at least now you know that I, for one, really don't consider those minor. Use that information however you wish :-)

Regards, Phaunt (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Have to respectfully disagree. I am at liberty, like everyone else, to define for myself what "minor" means in the context of article editing and talk page commentary, within reason. I do take into account comments like this, and they do slightly sway my estimation of minor vs. major, but honestly not very much.  There is nothing non-minor at all about a "yep, me, too, and I'll repeat myself for the 15th time on this issue" chime-in on a talk page.  There is also nothing non-minor about removing something that has been demonstrated without doubt on the talk page to be not only blatant WP:OR, but proven counterfactual OR at that. (If I'd decided in a vacuum that I thought it was OR, different story).  I am aware that some people think that all edits other than fxing tpyos are "major edits"; I just don't happen to concur, and I wish far more editors would flag far more of their edits as minor (basically, anything that is not likely to arouse anyone to revert or challenge it; it would make watchlisting much easier). Occasionally (because I have minor checked by default) I submit something that even I don't think was minor as "minor"; in those cases I make a null edit for comment and note my error in the new edit summary and submit that as non-minor. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)  PS: I'll flag this one as non-minor just for you. :-)  I don't think user talk page chatter is anything but minor in most circumstances, but what the heck. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, it remains your call, but I just noticed you wrote above "I'm unaware of any consensus discussions about what should and shouldn't be minor-flagged"; does this mean you are also unaware of WP:MINOR? I'll cite a few phrases from that page: "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute" and  "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word".  (By the way, there's also a warning template for not properly marking edits as minor.)
 * I'm not sure what the official status of those pages is (the word 'policy' isn't mentioned), and if you choose not to adhere to them, then there's not much sense in discussing this further. If you do, then to me it's pretty clear that the edits I referred to aren't minor, and I believe that's beyond subjectivity; WP:MINOR is quite strict in defining what's minor.  For example, at the very least the person who added the OR point might be inclined to dispute its removal; and I suppose you yourself may have been interested would any other person have removed that point before you did.
 * You said you probably wouldn't be swayed, so I wasn't sure whether I should pursue this further, and after this comment, I don't think I will. I just wanted to point out the guidelines laid down in WP:MINOR.  Cheers, Phaunt (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Had a long, involved reply, and then the browser crashed. Argh. Anyway, the rewrite:
 * Uw- warnings are almost exclusively for noobs. If an editor is doing something you don't agree with and they've been around for two years, chances are it is a good faith conscious decision with reasons behind it.
 * A chatty post to a talk page in which I simply agree with someone and then repeat myself and others (again) is pretty much by definition something requiring no review and not subject to dispute. Someone could conceivably dispute what I'm opining about, but there is no basis on which to dispute the edit, since it contains no personal attacks or other policy violations.  This is one of the reasons I mark most talk page edits "minor" unless they raise something new and substantive, are in fact disputes (e.g. someone is making personal attacks and I'm calling them on it), or some other good reason.
 * The factual correction example in WP:MINOR is about substituting one date for another, but the underlying logic is simple: If we (collectively, by consensus and/or incontrovertible proof) know for a fact that X=Y, and the article says X=Z, correcting this is a minor change. In the example, the correction is a substitution of correct value Y for false value Z, but there isn't any reason to suppose, to my mind, that if the value is X=false, and per WP:V we must delete known-false information (and in the case BLP even maybe-false), without mercy, that the correction in this case is necessarily removal, since there is nothing to substitute for it.  I can't see any reason in WP:MINOR's logic, modulo its warning that deletions are usually non-minor, that its X-correction principle does not remain minor, because the triggering condition has not change (we know for a proven fact the value of X).  The two principles are in some tension, but WP:V is policy, so it trumps most other considerations, and lends more weight to the correction-is-minor principle than the deletion-is-major one.
 * WP:MINOR isn't policy, or even a guideline, but a help page copied over from Meta with some (redundant!) comments in it about Wikipedia. I think it is pretty good (if skeletal) advice, but I surmise that too few Wikipedians consider minor/major edit labeling enough of an issue to really develop and come to consensus on a Wikipedia version.  WP's editing culture is different from that of Meta, which has for most editors orders of magnitude less activity, and concomittantly less watchlist churn.  I've only had other editors raise major/minor concerns with me three time in over two years of editing.  I don't ignore the issues raised; I do consider them, but I think my views on the topic are pretty much equally valid.  My sense of, and behavior with regard to, minor edits does change over time (largely in response to such feedback), but it's more of a drift than a leap.  Will ponder on it further. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to share my point of view—thank you for sharing yours.
 * I think that I myself will stick to WP:MINOR anyhow. The point is, we have this checkbox 'minor edit', and I choose to follow the only documentation provided on how to use it; in fact, there's even a (what's this?) link right beside the checkbox.
 * I understand where you're coming from though; you try to make other editors' lives better by filtering the stuff you know to be superfluous. Perhaps WP:MINOR should be rewritten; or perhaps we should understand it to be a guideline for 'noobs' mostly.  Thanks again for your time and explanations, and happy editing! Phaunt (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here. I just interpret WP:MINOR more loosely than you do, I think. :-) I was quoting it directly (" something requiring no review and not subject to dispute") and indirectly in referencing its example of what consitutes a factual correction that is not a major edit. I perceive the logic in both of WP:MINOR's recommendations there to per more permissive than you do, that's all. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I've been experimenting with bending my "this is minor" meter a little in the opposite direction, and I'm okay with the results so far. (I.e., you had an effect.) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update :-) Chances are my 'meter' will show some deviation in your direction too. Phaunt (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Stanton, long time no speak. Reagarding SMcCandlish/Ithiel de Sola Pool, I was just about to post "Declining speedy deletion. While this was probably meant as a subpage and not for the mainspace, this is an established and trusted user who will do the right thing" but I when I clicked save it had already been deleted.:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries; it was just a missing "User:" typo, and I tried to move it myself, but it got deleted before I could finish the move edit summary. The only content was a copy-paste of a URL (easily recovered) to use as a source, that I can get back any time I want. Oh, and no, it's not about our kind of pool, but a sociologist who happens to be surnamed Pool. :-) I was into him before I was into billiards; random coincidence.  I noticed that his article got deleted for blatant copyvio, so I think I'll work up a real one. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah. I kind of figured it was pool related, just because, and was curious what it was going to be.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it'll turn out he was a player! —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Naming Conventions MOS mess
Further to my previous note, the issue of reconciling this bloated page with WP:MEDMOS is long overdue, and strengthens the case for more centralised coordination. Tony  (talk)  05:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh. I hardly glanced at MEDMOS and I already have a headache. After I replace my medulla, can you remind me what "previous note" and "this bloated page" refer to? Do I need to check my off-WP e-mail? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you meant now. I'm not sure I want to get too deeply into the naming conventions, but I'll stop by. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, a bunch of people with tempers shorter than my pretty much ripped me a new one at WP:NCP, so I don't think I'm going to tresspass on the naming conventions again any time soon. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Female models CfD followup

 * Copied from User talk:BrownHairedGirl to preserve a full record of this debate, since BrownHairedGirl deleted my response to it unilaterally rather than archived it.

Some loose ends, since I &#91;User:SMcCandlish&#93; can't reply at the now closed CfD:

1. Re: "It's a real pity that when there have been several substantive responses here addressing the criteria in the relevant guideline, ... We have here a specific, relevant guideline; please do try to adress the tests which it sets."

I did address them to the extent that I considered them applicable (while you ignored my salient points, simply saying "WP:CATGRS says..." again and again), and I further noted that CATGRS on this matter conflicts with WP:OVERCAT, which I believe to have much broader support. Just because a guideline exists does not mean that it is perfect and always correct in every situation. Others besides me strongly disagreed with your interpretation of CATGRS's permissiveness, including the closer of the CfD. Your mistake is clear in your wording "the relevant guideline" (emphasis added); you seem to think (and regardless what you really think, you advance the argument that) there can be only one, a fallacious position.

2. Re: "...you prefer to make assumptions about my 'beliefs and feelings on gender issues' when I have not discussed them are not at issue."

Um, no. Let's quote you a little:
 * "desist from attaching labels such as "dumb", "lazy" and "ridiculous" to issues involving women"
 * "This sort of language comes across as highly aggressive, and could be interpreted as misogynist" (You repeat this insinuation with "it may indeed be that there was nothing particularly anti-woman about your use of those terms here" - the "it may" implies that the accusation remains on the table as the default assumption. There was a third one in there somewhere, between these two, but I don't have the patience to re-read the entire thing, and the point is already well-made with these two examples.)
 * "The career of a female model is substantially different from that of a male model, and it is a culturally significant subject which routinely achieves massive coverage in the general press, partucularly in regard to the career options open to women and to effects of female modelling on the female self-image and on societal perception of women."

And so on, including a couple of sourcing sprees about the issues surrounding women in modeling, a minilecture about superwaifs, etc., etc. You seem to want to talk about nothing but: a) Your beliefs and feelings on gender issues, which were not actually germane to the discussion at all, and you managed to engage in multiple borderline WP:NPA violations in the process. (if I were a whiney-butt and ran to WP:ANI about it, I have little doubt that others would agree with me on that point; but my skin is thicker than that and I prefer to resolve things personally). And b) your very permissive interpretation of CATGRS (which is in such conflict with OVERCAT that I've now brought the issue up on OVERCAT's talk page), an interpretation others did not seem willing to support (even the keep !votes didn't go that far, and appeared to amount to "I like it" and "it's useful" mis-arguments, per WP:AADD, thus the "no consensus" closure – had the keep rationales not been AADD it would have been an overwhelming keep closure).

3. Re: "if this category is deleted, it is but a small tidyup matter to delete the subcats in a further CfD; the difference with depopulation is that emptying a category removes evidence of what he category was being used for, whereas populating an existing category is a widely-encouraged form of editing."

Not when the category is under deletion discussion! As an admin for a year or so, you must know this already. Well, you do now, since the closer chided you for it.

I'm sorry that we got into such a ruckus; I do not edit Wikipedia for the purpose of getting into verbal fights. But you have to expect one when you repeatedly insinuate that someone is a mysogynist just because they CfD a category that incidentally happens to be related to women in some way, and they express strong feelings that the category is a bad idea because of its uselessness and redundancy (i.e. it is dumb and ridiculous) and it conflicts with consensus and with WP:OVERCAT that F/M split categories should not exist except in exceptional cases, this obviously not being one them.

—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * McCandlish
 * If you don't want fights, don't go dismissing the work of others as "dumb", "lazy" and "ridiculous".
 * Using that sort of aggressive language deters women from participating in online discussions
 * WP:OCAT includes a summary of WP:CATGRS. A summary doesn't override the full guideline
 * I didn't talk about "beliefs and feelings on gender issues", I constantly tried to return the discussion to the tests set out in the guidelines
 * Yet when I illustrate one issue germane to those tests (superwaifs), you didn't discuss sources, you didn't engage in rational debate, you just come here and dismsiss that by labelling it as my "beliefs and feelings".
 * One of those tests is to establish whether an encylopedic head article can be written on the subject, and on wikipedia the main way we establish that is by discussing sources. You could have participated in that discussion, but instead of actually examining the encyclopedic worth of the subject, you preferred to justify all your sneer words


 * (Friendly hint for the future: If you actually want a rational discussion, you'll do best to explain why you think that something is redundant, rather just dismissing it is as "ridiculous". On the other hand, if you want to start a ruckus, just stick with the sneer words. Your call, but don't please don't go doing it with people bigger than you.)


 * Anyway, I am astonished that you now have the cheek to come my talk page and complain because an objection was made to your aggressive language. But I am less astonished than I was, because I can't actually see any evidence in any of this that ever wanted a rational debate on the subject of the category.
 * When others tried assessing the issues, you responded with your aggressive sneer-phrases, and when people tried assessing the viability of an encyclopedic head article the best you coukd do is to dismiss it as "feelings" or "ideology".
 * Dismissing women's arguments as "feelings" or as "feminist ideology" is a classic piece of misogynistic belittlement. I don't buy it, and I don't put up with it.
 * Now get off my talk page and stay off, and go back to discussing things wherever it is that you find it acceptable to dismiss others ideas as "dumb", "lazy" and "ridiculous", and wherever it is that any argument made by a woman can be acceptably sneered at as "feelings" or "ideological". I do not know where those places are, but this talk page is not one of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding your "get off my talk page" edit summary, sorry but this is what talk pages are for. If you are unwilling to resolve disputes via talk pages, then I don't know why you bother participating in Wikipedia at all.  If you would rather resolve it on my talk page, that's fine, or we can mutually agree to just drop it and leave it unresolved, but neither you nor anyone else is in a position to order me not to attempt to resolve a dispute. If you believe that you have this magical right because you are an admin, then you should not be an admin.  And it's grossly unfair of you to respond to my post here with assertions and even questions and then attempt to deny me the ability to respond.


 * To continue the attempt at getting us to see eye to eye: This has nothing whatsoever to do with you being female. Criticizing a category, even harshly, that happens incidentally to have something to do with women is not in any way an intimidation of women editors. By that reasoning, hardly any category could ever be CfD'd; CfDing a category about Pokemon monsters would be an "intimidation" of Pokemon fans, etc.  I also criticized your, individiual, particular, CfD reasoning, which is a completely different matter. I don't understand why you seem unwilling to see past the "any criticism of a woman and how she goes about arguing a feminist position is necessarily a misogynist criticism" logic error.  And I'm sorry if my style has put you on edge.  But, if this debate had been about "Republican models" or "Christian models" everything I have been saying all along would pertain, precisely as I have expressed it, to anyone arguing a position that criticism of a particular category relating to that topic is automatically anti-Republican or anti-Christian, or that criticism of what I see as logically faulty arguments from a defender of such a category is automatically anti-Republican or anti-Christian.  That's all.  And frankly, I find it disturbing that you appear to be saying that any use of "aggressive" language is automatically intimidating to woman.  I don't think I know any women who would agree with such a disempowering opinion. But perhaps I misunderstand you.  Viewed from a distance after a deep breath your meta-argument with regard to this debate (as opposed to with regard to the category) appears to amount to "men aren't allowed to argue with women on any issue relating to women because doing so is automatically mysogynistic and intimidating", and obviously that is an implication that is unacceptable (probably to anyone).


 * There is nothing "cheeky" about objecting to personal attacks, even if they are carefully constructed to give you a margin of plausible deniability. You have again mischaracterized what I am saying. I have no objection at all to you labeling my CfD comments "aggressive", though I do not agree with the characterization, and I have never raised any such objection. I object to being labeled "misogynist" (for the third or fourth time now!) simply because I disagree with you about something that happens to touch on the topic of women, and I disagree with your debate tactics, and you happen to be a woman.


 * Regarding your "friendly hint", I did explain, several times, why the category is redundant, the short version being (again) that all of the articles that could possibly be categorized there already have useful, unambiguous homes in the article categorization system; the category is redundant for the same reason as the two hypothetical ones I just mentioned. Models could be classified by any of thousands of possible intersections, but model (sometimes something more specific like "fashion model", where subcategorization is needed) and nationality suffice just fine, and makes sense in the Wikipedia context, and the rest do not (the very reason that WP:OVERCAT was written was to prevent categorization by random intersections of nondefining character). There are additional points with regard to why the category should be deleted per CfD precedent, but I need not regurgitate the entire CfD thread.


 * I did not label your raising the idea of "superwaif" to be your beliefs, feelings or ideology. Please stop mischaracterizing what I write. I labeled your turning a simple CfD about redundancy and precendent into a bitter flamewar about feminism, despite all attempts to "not go there" by me, and your almost immediate descent into ad homimen character assassation, to be your beliefs, feelings and ideology. I think you confuse me for someone who is dismissive of feminism as belief, feelings and ideology.  As I've already indicated twice, this is not my position at all, and I doubt strongly that you and I would substantively disagree on anything about feminism or gender politics.  I am dismissive of illogical debate tactics that misuse feminism (or any other concept), as beliefs, feelings and ideology.  I hope you can see the distinction I'm making here, whether you agree with my characterization of your arguments or not.  I admit that the characterization is not kind, though I do not believe it to be unfair.


 * I acknowledge your point that in order to determine whether an encyclopedic main article on the topic could be written, one has to look into sources. You seem unwilling to acknowledge my point that whether such an article could be written, regardless of whether that question is the main thrust of CATGRS, is only one of many criteria to consider at CfD (and in my view hardly the most important one). We can rationally disagree on that.  The thrust of the CfD was that the category in question is deficient in other ways, ways that obviate any need to ask and answer that question.  I believe that the closing admin also understand this point, and that this is one of several reasons that it was closed as "no consensus".


 * If you really do not wish to continue this discussion, here or on my talk page, then please simply move it to your archive pages. If you continue to engage in replies, however, then you cannot expect me to not reply back. That's like duct-taping the other party's mouth so they can't respond and then declaring yourself the winner of the argument! :-/


 * PS: I am perfectly comfortable with Wikipedia's informal and formal mediation systems.


 * —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PPS: I am often not excessively polite in XfDs (e.g. "claptrap" in Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 23), but you are the first person in over two years to take this level of offense. It is tempting to think you are just being oversensitive, but for all I know you may represent the opinions of a silent majority, so I honestly will endeavor to use less critical ("aggressive") terimology when characterizing items up for XfD, since I don't really need to take a strident tone to get my point across, and at least in this case doing so clearly backfired.  Hope that helps; your words have had a postive effect amid the negative between us, and I hope mine in some way will as well. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: WP:ANI confirms: A Wikipedian (admin or not) does not have a magical "right" to prevent others from addressing concerns about that editor on his/her talk page, and deletion versus archival of such talk pages posts is strongly deprecated by Wikipedia-wide consensus. (Note: That link will at some point move to Administrators' noticeboard/Archive113.)—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice
If you persist in personally attacking me, in talk or in edit summaries as you did again here, I will escalate this to WP:ANI. Being an admin does not make you magically exempt from WP:NPA, nor does it make you magically immune to having issues with your editing raised on your talk page. Feel free to immediately archive or even delete this (WP:USERPAGE specifically state that warnings may be removed, as tacit acknowledgment that they have been read); I do not intend this one to be a conversation of any kind. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 13:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * &#91;Just for the record, she did it again out of spite here.&#93;

Category talk edits
Thanks for the tips. I'd seen other category talk pages within the parent category that had those and strove for consistency. I was right that consistency was needed, but now that I've researched this further, I see that you're right and a different kind of consistency was what was needed. If I goof on something, I want to learn it quickly, so your remarks are appreciated. We never stop learning. Doczilla (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I like that phrase, "a different kind of consistency was what was needed". :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request an account?
I noticed you requested a doppelganger account at WP:ACC, before removing the request. I almost tried to do something similar a while ago (I wanted to create User:Bameca to prevent impersonation), but then realized that if you can't create the doppelganger yourself, then neither can an impersonator. So you don't need to use WP:ACC for doppelganger account creation. --barneca (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that I already HAVE two impersonators; someone has evidently been able to convince Request an account that their request was legit, since User:SMcClandlsh would have triggered the "too similar" denial, because I already have User:SMcClandlish as a doppelganger. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw your comments at WP:ACC. The world makes sense again, glad it worked out.  I do understand your concern about impersonators; I had one myself a few weeks ago: .  But yes, we definitely check why the software is preventing account creation prior to doing it at WP:ACC. --barneca (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl
I just noticed you're having some trouble with her as well: she also abuses her administrative powers to delete articles about supercentenarians. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of that. The issue between us is a personal matter of civility, disagreement over CfD precedent, and a few other things, but unrelated to admin powers. The issues do not seem related to me. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't talk nonsense, Bart. I have never used my administrative powers to delete any such articles. (Nominating an article at AfD requires no admin powers). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed! We'd be in a world of hurt if it did... —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But still no explanation as to why expecially those articles are being attacked by BrownHairedGirl though. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Boy o boy. Although using the word attacked is quite an interesting way of wording it.. Neal (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Everyone cares more about some issues than others. &lt;shrug&gt; I don't see any problem at all with someone who, say, hates articles on individual minor anime characters having those separate articles devoting a lot of time to AfDing them.  Nothing wrong with that, even if it does reveal a personal bias or peeve.  AfD makes a community decision, after all.  I looked at some of the supercentenarian stuff, and tend to side with BHG; the sources are in fact quite shaky in many cases.  I can't speak at all as to her use of admin powers in this area, since I haven't been watching it.  And I'm not in a position to defend BHG from abuse of the term "attacked", since I'm in a position of defending myself from borderline personal attacks from her, so I have a sort of inverse conflict of interest.  That said, I would like to note that this isn't User talk:BrownHairedGirl and this thread isn't germane to me or my editing, so I'm marking it "Resolved".  If people are upset with BHG, they can take that up with her at her page (good luck!), bring it up at WP:ANI if there is actual admin power abuse, not just someone irritated at her focus on a particular type of article at AfD, or whatever. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments
cite me a wikipedia policy or guideline that states that i must capitalize my sentences or personal pronouns on talk pages, then your unsolicited comments will have some actual substance. otherwise, please find more constructive use of your time here. wikipedia is not an IM or text messaging system, quite correct. talk pages are not encyclopedia articles. you will not find a single instance where my edits of actual encyclopedia articles are less than appropriate. we are here to edit an encyclopedia, not bitch about other user's style on talk pages. i don't recall ever having interacted with you in any manner, why do you feel it appropriate to castigate me as you have? Please try to be more civil. Anastrophe (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied back at your talk page so as to not fork the discussion for no reason. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

MOS matters
Hi SMcC. Just a few small things to raise.


 * A recent comment at Dates and Numbers
 * You wrote:
 * "As for 'non–San Franscisco'/'non – San Franscisco', that's a no-brainer. That should be a hypen not an en-dash, and we don't space hyphens that way. I don't care if one magazine does it. They're simply being goofy."
 * Fair enough to be of that opinion, of course. But it is also well to note that not just "one magazine" would use the en dash in non–San Franscisco (Scientific American, certainly a major publication). CMOS practice appears to require it, in fact:
 * "6.85 In place of a hyphen The en dash is used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements is an open compound or when two or more of its elements are open compounds or hyphenated compounds (see 7.83). As illustrated by the first four examples below, en dashes separate the main elements of the new compounds more clearly than hyphens would (“hospital” versus “nursing home,” “post” versus “World War II,” etc.), thus preventing ambiguity. In the last two examples, however, to have used en dashes between “non” and “English” and between “user” and “designed” would merely have created an awkward asymmetry; the meaning is clear with hyphens. the post–World War II years a hospital–nursing home connection a nursing home–home care policy a quasi-public–quasi-judicial body (or, better, a judicial body that is quasi-public and quasi-judicial) but non-English-speaking peoples a wheelchair-user-designed environment (or, better, an environment designed for wheelchair users)  (Abbreviations for compounds are treated as single words, so a hyphen, not an en dash, is used in such phrases as “U.S.-Canadian relations.”)"
 * The point about the last two examples is ambiguous. It cannot concern non- per se (given the other example), but non- along with a compound that does not include spaces. With its usual maddening carelessness CMOS gives no example of non- before a compound that does include a space. But the spirit of 6.85, along with the detail of the special pleading given for the last two examples, strongly favours non–San Francisco.

–&thinsp; Noetica ??&thinsp;Talk 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where they got that from. I can't find it in any other style guide, and I've only seen it few times in my life.  Since CMoS says it, I guess we should allow for it, but not require it, and I would actually favor deprecating it.  Just because it's in CMoS doesn't make it sensible; that style guide above all tends to say a lot of things that hardly anyone but its editors would agree with, and it often conflicts sharply with other style guides, both US and UK.  I agree with "US–Canadian relations" and "hospital–nursing home connection", but those are not compounds at all but contrasting juxtapositions; the en dash is a stand-in for a word (variable depending upon context: "versus", "to", "and", etc.) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ellipses
 * Some time back we had some discussion of ellipses at WP:MOS. I see that since then you have stayed away from the section. So have I, after I imposed a tag on it calling for work to be done. I'm sure we both are reluctant to revisit that nest of difficulties. My stance is this, as I have made clear more than once: I want that section rendered consistent before I go back to it. At the moment it is not. It is also incomplete and wrongly structured, as a quick reading will show. I know we can avoid acrimony, and I'd rather a peaceful life than a well-written policy on the ellipsis, any day! When you or someone else fixes a few details there, I'll consider sharing in dialogue to move things along. (Sorry if that sounds touchy or petulant: I'm truly not certain that I'll continue with all these MOS wrangles, or much at Wikipedia at all, to be honest.) Note in the meantime that I have surveyed a couple of dozen sources on the topic. More than one calls for a space after the ellipsis and before punctuation that follows – at least one explicitly, and at least two others in examples. The topic is an unholy mess, at Wikipedia and just about everywhere else I have looked.

–&thinsp; Noetica ??&thinsp;Talk 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear ya; I don't want to get acrimonious about this stuff either. I agree the section need works.  Also agree that sources differ on this.  I think that, as with the point about MOS could acknowledge both methods, but prefer one.  However, with regard to both of these points I have told PMAnderson on numerous occasions that the MOS is not a style guide in the normal sense – a document advising the world at random on style matters – but Wikipedia guideline about what to do on Wikipedia, only.  So we do not need to ack. different takes on the issue, simply recommend one and stick to it. On the other hand, I argued strongly for (and got) space-endash-space and nospace-emdash-nospace equally accepted as separators of parentheticals.  I don't think this is hypocritical (the case for this is very strong, while the others seem less so), but it does indicate that I'm not totally hard-core about MOS only advising one thing.  I guess I'll be neutral on the matter for now. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A small change of wording
 * You changed this:
 * "The difficulty does not arise for double quotes, and this is one of the reasons the latter are recommended."
 * to this:
 * "This difficulty does not arise for double quotes, and this is one of the reasons the latter are recommended."
 * Now, the matter is pretty trivial. But I would like you to know that I thought of and rejected this in favour of the for a good reason. It is perfectly clear in the context which difficulty is meant; and the repetition of this in the same sentence but with a different referent is ever-so-slightly disconcerting and disruptive. The only reason I mention this is to let you know what sorts of innumerable minute agonies I endure in editing MOS: comparable, I'm sure, to those you have to put up with.

Finally, I like your work and I hope that we can collaborate on a few fronts. My own push would be for reforms to the editing system itself (you've noted and supported the one concerning the hard space, I see), and for a trimmed, centralised, and coordinated suite of style guidelines for Wikipedia. Tony, you, and I all want these things, I think. But for me the real worry is that none of this will turn out to be feasible. I'm still considering, as I say above, what if anything I want to do, since it may take up too much time, effort, and life. Anyway, best wishes to you – however things work out.

–&thinsp; Noetica ??&thinsp;Talk 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "This" - I hadn't even noticed the repetition. I would rather replace the second "this" with "that" or just rewrite the sentence, though, and lead the sentence with "the". But I don't feel very strongly about it. I.e., won't object at all if you change it back.
 * It is all very time-consuming, and often frustrating. I still plug away at it, but have been largely working on other things. Despite our grumbling a while back, I respect your work as well. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I just re-read some of last month's interpersonal venting, and I'm amazed either of us let it go that far. Yeesh. Let's not do that again. Deal? —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, of course. These things happen, and should be played out on users' talk-pages. Everyone can then move on, with suitably adjusted attitudes. That's what we've done, yes? And now we can communicate productively and cooperatively. All a part of the revised fallible-human-process protocol (see especially §5.894c).
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ??&thinsp;Talk 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please fix Shane Van Boening page
I tried to undo the edit you made yesterday on this page, and I noticed that you changed it back. By my own admission, I am not as good as you with the codes. The reason I changed your edit is because, for some reasons -- and I do not know why -- your edit eliminates Shane Van Boening's name on the American pool player category. Look at the very bottom of Shane Van Boening's page. The edit somehow makes everything else invisible, thereby Shane's inclusion of American pool player category is gone. Could you maybe see what is going on there? I can't fix it other than undo your edit. I know you will make it right! :>) RailbirdJAM (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I fixed it. I had to cut-and-paste the DEFAULT EDIT you inserted and place it elsewhere on the page.  I do not know why, but your DEFAULT EDIT eliminated Shane Van Boening's name completely from the American pool player category.  Please check it and make sure it is okay.  Thanks in advance! :>) RailbirdJAM (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was my error; corrected it. I did not properly close (it said "-&gt;" instead of "--&gt;") the HTML comment asking people not to mess with the DEFAULTSORTing of "Van Boening" vs. "Boening, Van", with the result that everything after the DEFAULTSORT was being treated as part of the comment. D'oh. I should have paid more attention to the edit preview.  Also, fixed a redlinked category there while I was at it. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 13:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Something useful
re: this

Because of my family history, I've spent&mdash; oh, say 47 years, give or take one way or another with one foot in the blue collar world, and the other in professional work (only 23 personally, though just as many helping my Dad in his practice)&mdash;so I hope you'll forgive me if I spoke strongly, for I meant no offense. BUT... in the blue collar world, one of the WORST things one can be accused of, is stealing another man's tools, which neglecting monetary and material costs, almost always means one is also undertaking the ultimate incivil (web) act&mdash; the one of stealing some of his time as well, for having the proper tool to do the job is almost always a big time saver, and time is something none of us have enough of in a busy life.

Around here, things (proposals, actions, etc.) which cost others time, or might do so, tend to be things that get me "hot and bothered", for far too many here are too young to appreciate their impact on others downstream, as it were. It really wears, but only time and experience will cure them, and by then, they'll probably be soo soo soooo frustrated they'll have ceased to put up with the hostile environment such constant changes cause that like far too many editors here have in the past, ''they'll stop... and edit no more.''

SO minimizing unnecessary CHANGES is a good thing... it helps expert retention and learning curves for newbies. Not just confusing activity (with dubious payback) with progress. So, forgive me if I think that sort of proposal is precisely the wrong thing to be doing at Tfd... the time cost is too high far too often when one is converting a generic tool that has long been established. Where is the harm in having a second wrench in the toolkit? Bottom line: Any self-respecting craftsmen would have tens of such, not just one or two.

Were your proposal feasible, the proper way to go about it would be to rewrite the older {'2', '3', ...,'7'} templates to use '8', verify each is working, and perhaps shuffle out the numbers so there were less in the end. [but only if nothing is currently linking the template page. Identify the least used lower number and clear THAT, move '8' there, and then you can proceed with others. But this is conversion work that can go on solely if the syntaxes are fully compatible, or a redirect can be made, etc. I'm sure you know what I mean.]    But the WORK AND TIME COST should be born by YOU... not someone else you victimize unwittingly because you happened to have an impulse one day to "trim fat" or however you rationalize such a deletion package. One thing is certain... were those all to disappear or need special pipetrick coding, someone else will have to PAY A TIMECOST going forward to learn a new syntax, simply because you are insensitive today anticipating the problem you will cost them.

None of that addresses the problems you might be causing in template expansion limits, which are likely enough given that such templates tend to be used solely on long complex list articles, not simple pages.

You want to do something immediately useful, clean up the damn usage in '8' so it's not referring to '7' which has nothing in usage at all. It's a bit hard for someone to know you know what you're talking about when neither usage repeats, and I fought long and hard for decent documentation capability and find unclear 'references' to other pages offensive. If nothing else, consolidate the usage in one page and use Common usage pagename calls. Be well, and have a good day! // Fra nkB 15:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've responded to this at the TfD, where this conversation belongs. Please do not post longwinded and rather incivil rants on the user talk pages of XfD nominators you disagree with; keep the discussion at the XfD, unless there is a personal matter to be discussed with that user (e.g. they have been incivil or attacking in the XfD, etc.) that isn't tied to the XfD issues. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)