User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 164

=July 2020=

New check
May I kindly ask you to take a look at Talk:Mustang? We kind of nuked the version you commented on. You follow the taxonomy debates more closely than I do, so checking that is important. I know formatting, linking and punctuation is also important, and hotly debated, so I want to get that right. And we probably need a source check because what cites what may have gotten mixed up in the discussion. Anyway, as you were pinged in the original debate and we now need consensus to unlock the article and fix it, your input will help. Montanabw (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been away for over a week. Dropped in, and commented generally in support of the direction that's going.  Can copy-edit the material later if it has grammar or clarity issues.  I'm more concerned with how much it drills down into nit-picky details. I think it's okay, though it's not exactly how I would have approached it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Martín Insaurralde on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Éomer on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #3


Seven years ago this week, the Editing team made the visual editor available by default to all logged-in editors using the desktop site at the English Wikipedia. Here's what happened since its introduction:


 * The 50 millionth edit using the visual editor on desktop was made this year. More than 10 million edits have been made here at the English Wikipedia.
 * More than 2 million new articles have been created in the visual editor. More than 600,000 of these new articles were created during 2019.
 * Almost 5 million edits on the mobile site have been made with the visual editor. Most of these edits have been made since the Editing team started improving the mobile visual editor in 2018.
 * The proportion of all edits made using the visual editor has been increasing every year.
 * Editors have made more than 7 million edits in the 2017 wikitext editor, including starting 600,000 new articles in it. The 2017 wikitext editor is VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode.  You can enable it in your preferences.
 * On 17 November 2019, the first edit from outer space was made in the mobile visual editor.
 * In 2019, 35% of the edits by newcomers, and half of their first edits, were made using the visual editor. This percentage has been increasing every year since the tool became available.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Neil Oliver on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Battle of the Morannon on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox RfC
I'm proposing a redesign containing visual, technical and other improvements to Infobox radio station and Infobox broadcast. The discussion is located at WikiProject Radio Stations/2020 infobox redesign proposal. As an editor active in editing radio and/or TV station articles, or in recent changes to the templates in question, I wanted to make you aware of this proposal and kindly ask for your feedback. Raymie (t • c) 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:One Ring on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 15:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of cue sports for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of cue sports is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Comparison of cue sports until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 12:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mordor on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 12:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Template for Deletion that looks like it could use your input
I found a TFD discussion that looks right up your alley in terms of having MOS implications. Just thought you could possibly have some good input if it hasn't already shown up on your radar. VanIsaacWScont 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nelson Ludington on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ludington family on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Social sciences and society Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Naoum Mokarzel on a Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 09:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible job
Hi How are you? How do you feel about doing a couple of small jobs? I'm reviewing two articles for GA, at the moment and thought of yourself for the WP:MOS review. I'm not the best at it and generally rely of other people, the Gnomish folk, when I write my own articles. Your input would help greatly. Your ideal for it.  scope_creep Talk  08:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the GA reviews? I'm not sure I have time for this, but we'll see. This is the first time I've been on in over a week. Not sure what your schedule is for this stuff (and whether it'll align with when I might get back on).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . How are you? Thanks for getting back to me. I noticed that after I posted this message and thoughts were flashing through my head, as they do now. Glad to see you back. They are at: Talk:Mitsuharu Misawa/GA1 and Talk:Manned Orbiting Laboratory/GA1 (MOL). They are quite large.   scope_creep Talk  07:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Schedule wise, fairly loose. I can work on the other aspects at the moment, for at least the next two weeks.  scope_creep Talk  07:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt I'm going to have bandwidth for this sort of stuff any time soon. I barely get on here any more.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:char
I was more impressed and concerned by your reference to MOS:ACCESS than any of the other "I just don't like it" bluster. One of my motivations for contributing to the development of the template was a concern that the existing markup (a fairly random collection of code, single and double straight quotes, italics, parentheses and brackets) was disabling to visitors with some sight impairment. So it really annoys me that I failed to spot the implications for screen readers.

So before I do anything about an RFC, I want to resolve this issue first. As far as I am concerned, it is a complete show-stopper: if I can't resolve it, I will vote to delete.

MOS:ACCESS gives some clues: I'm sure you have better things to do than give me a tutorial but if you could point me at something that explains how readers deal with span style tags, where I might find more detail, I would be most grateful. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It just shouldn't rely on color and/or font alone; if it's marked up with  (which indicates keystrokes or other textual input, and is more loosely spec-defined than ), that's a sufficient HTML/CSS handle for anyone with a screen reader to tell their software to do something specific when encountering that element. But if there's no specific element, just some CSS coloring and/or font-family on a span, all screen readers will ignore it as irrelevant visual fluff. That would mostly be a problem when the content coincides with an English word like a or I, though it would probably also affect punctuation characters. We need them to be interpreted in and of themselves in these cases, not as part of the regular flow of the sentence; I think by default most screen readers would just ignore one as mis-placed punctuation (a typo), though some might even do something more wrong, e.g. misinterpret a single-quote or double-quote character being presented as a glyph, as instead indicating the beginning of a quotation.  While not everyone with a screen reader will do something to distinguish  markup, at least they have the option, and it won't be dependent on using a unique-to-WP CSS class, either, so easier to deal with on their end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is really helpful, it gives me a good foundation for further reading. For reasons that needn't bother you, I have decided to walk away from the debate around the char template, so won't be pursuing this particular instance of the question any further. I will however refer to it elsewhere so I trust that you won't object to my copying this to info to my user page. Best wishes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever you need.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS/N
I read your 21:48, 9 July response in WP:RS/N to the 03:59 comment. I think you might want to be made aware that you attributed the "[sic]" comment to the wrong editor. This particular statement in the tag team belongs to 01:10. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 06:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was addressing both of their back-to-back and effectively indistinguishable comments at once; I've made that clearer now. Yesterday, I also left them both (and two others, for essentially the same gender-issues WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, over at ANI) a, in case they're thinking of escalating it. For what I think is the first time in 7 years of Ds/alerts, I have not received a revert notice, angry response on my talk page, "go hate on SMcCandlish" canvassing at a wikiproject talk page, silly attempt to ANI me for "making threats", or any other form of indignant grandstanding in response to a DS notice, despite having left four of them back to back. I take this as a good sign that they know they're not in the right to bring this kind of behavior here, and are going to tone it down. This may be overly optimistic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you did not take offense at my bringing it to your attention. As for Ds/alerts, I've found that some Wikipedia people are quick to point fingers and attack, then bitch and moan when it boomerangs. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 10:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was definitely being over-optimistic in at least one case . It's grounds for seeking a topic- and interaction-ban at AE, but I don't have much stomach for drama right now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment quote: "I hope to never interact with you again." Missing obvious: "..., and again, and again, until I get the last word." Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 10:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he even doubled-down on that, getting the last word on top of his own last word: When he self-reverted that post as unlikely to be productive, he couldn't resist adding another barb in the edit summary while doing so. So, the self-RV was an obviously WP:SANCTIONGAMING (though self-sabotaging) attempt at CYA, not an actual retraction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, the sentiment I expressed in that comment was unduly aggressive, and I unreservedly apologise for calling you a "nasty piece of work" and the interaction comment which was uncalled for and clearly a unjustifiable, unwarranted personal attack. I am unsure why I even made the comment in the first place, which is why I swiftly removed it (even if I apparently did stand by it's sentiment?). However, sending out discretionary sanctions templates because you were upset after being called out was innappropriate (though admittedly much less so than my subsequent comments). The initial comment wasn't meant in a nasty way, I didn't call you transphobic, I simply said that comments had been "widely considered" as such, which was true and ultimately the comment was meant with good intentions about a sensitive topic. I found your reply and discretionary sanctions template to be condescending, which is why I initially replied in the way I did. I wish you well Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It never entered my mind that you were an aggressive editor, Hemiauchenia. I am so disappointed and saddened by this revelation. Please don't ever show us that side of you again. Atsme Talk 📧 00:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hemiauchenia, let there be peace between us then. If I'd thought there was a definite battlegrounding pattern existing or likely to appear, I would have simply gone to AE, since your post in question appeared after the DS notice. But I  actually see evidence that it's a long-term pattern.  See also other thread on this page; I tend to just let matters drop after a week anyway, and clear my memory buffers of who was saying what (if you hadn't posted here today, I would have already forgotten your username). Like various other editors, you seem to misinterpret DS notices as weapons, threats, attacks, or some other form of aggression. They are not. They are simply notices that WP:AC/DS applies to a particular topic and that one should be more mindful of civility and PoV in them, because admins have discretion to impose "drive-by" sanctions if they see something they don't like.  ArbCom insists that these notices be left, in user talk, for anyone who appears to be crossing WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:CIVIL, WP:EDITWAR, or other lines in topics to which AC/DS applies, so that they are not subjected to discretionary sanctions they didn't even know about. To the extent that they have a warning-like "aura" about them, though, it is probably actually a good thing; anyone who becomes aware they can be sanctioned for disruption in the topic and doubles down anyway needs to be removed from the topic; meanwhile, the average editor will actually cool it, and discussion will be better for everyone as a result.  And anyone who leaves a DS notice is automatically "aware" of the DS by doing so; leaving one has the effect of giving one to yourself. So, they are not one-sided.

On cite
Regarding cite, I thought it might be prudent as an aside to point out that the W3C no longer maintains an active fork of the WHATWG spec. (It does create versioned documents e.g. 5.1 5.2 etc., but these are solely for the use of baselining the document for all.) As a result of the great re-merge, it appears that the use of cite allowed by W3C has been swallowed whole and in fact that the WHATWG editor maintaining HTML has doubled-down on deprecating as an element for anything but works. Contrary to the discussion surrounding the removal of the W3C version, as there were to be some amount of discussion related to merging the differences into the WHATWG version, no amount of which I was able to find online. Just to let you know. :) --Izno (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate and stupid, and is unlikely to have any real-world impact, because it's hard-coded in a lot of blog packages, webboard software, and other content-management systems for what WP would call UGC, as the element surrounding all attribution details for reply-quoted material (most often a linked username and a date, sometimes also a # URL to the original post's location, and sometimes other information like the original writer's user level/status on the system, etc.). I've also seen it used for more typical citations in more than one bibliographic software package's HTML output.  So, if the isolated and unresponsive, exclusionary echo chamber at WHATWG cannot convince the producers of all this software and more to change how they use that element, the (apparently now just de facto) use of it for citation information in general is going to continue indefinitely and as the overwhelming majority usage.  It's stupid for other reasons, the most obvious being that not all citations are to works (though they are on WP of course, since what we cite must be "published"), and not all cited works take italic markup, and it breaks backward/forward basic compatibility with HTML 4.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I should probably ping, since you're not likely watchlisting my jabbering page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I watch your talk page :^). I think this is a case of "we want it to match the default styles" rather than "we want it to match how people are using it", which totally defeats the purpose of why we have semantic HTML and not styled HTML and also defeats the purpose of having a living specification (to wit: that it is the use that comes first, not the specification). We should propose a (along with proposing some suggested classes like  just to see what would happen. I'm sure the editor's brain would explode. :^) --Izno (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've written to them about this problem many times over the last 6 or so years, and the one time I got any response, it was extremely testy, and was basically just a defensive rant against W3C. Probably the most childish thing I've ever received from a formal organization other than FSF (lesson: do not put people with a temperament like Stallman's in positions of authority).  I noticed that a lot of people (including some other Wikipedians and colleagues I know from other circles) were regularly updating WHATWG's wiki with various implementation and spec-conflict notes, so I registered to become an editor there, and document this "spec fork" and that actual usage is mostly the broader W3C definition of this element. My registration was blockaded, presumably by the same personage who flamed at me.  So, forget those people.  We all just have to work around them until they are replaced.  If one wanted to change this, it would probably be more constructive to contact the right people at the browser makers, and get them to pressure WHATWG from inside its own little reality tunnel.  It is not really plausible that the browser makers want their software incompatible with actual dominant usage. The spec was originally broad to begin with, so the change to something very narrow (and stylistically wrong and impractical anyway) is an brain-fart they should just undo.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼

2nd opinion
You're more familiar with this issue than I am. I've only looked back the last couple days and tried to fix two recurrences, but was reverted. I'm not willing to get involved any more with it than that at this time. -- Netoholic @ 03:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so you're aware, Netoholic followed me to two articles hed never edited before simply to revert my edits there. I reported this to Bishonen, and I left a message on Netoholic's talk page, where El C warned him again following me around. This is just another piece of WP:HARASSMENT from him.  He comes to you with dirty hands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are not coming across as particularly communicative. Anyway, if you identify a pattern of problems with the edits of an editor who is otherwise in good standing, please just submit an ANI report rather than following them around to different articles. El_C 03:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Without wading deep into this (or applying my own judgement about particular images in particular edits), I have to observe that when an editor is or recently was under a community-imposed restriction, and it appears they are returning to the proscribed behavior, it is actually normal to investigate this behavior and revert it where it appears to be unconstructive. So, I don't not agree that this is ipso facto, necessarily, automatically any form of harassment. (However, using our standard operating procedure as cover for just following someone around and interfering with their editing that doesn't have to do with the restriction or which isn't unconstructive might indeed be harassing/wikistalking/hounding/battlegrounding). Next, given that BMK is or recently was under such a restriction, if one or more editors object to something he's doing that is within the ambit of that restriction, the onus is on him to stop and seek consensus. [I learned this the hard way, with one of the only temporary topic bans I've ever received (a three-month move ban several years ago). It was for failure to hear out objections and use due process to rename articles; the long-format RMs ultimately went they way I said they should, just as they had before the ANI against me. But it was not good enough that I knew I was right and had both policy and RM precedent/patterns on my side; it is not an excuse to ignore the objections of other editors.]  Also, "articles he[']d never edited before" is not any sort of argument. See WP:EDITING, WP:OWN, WP:VESTED, etc.  I routinely (like, nearly ever time I log in and do something in mainspace) edit articles that I have never edited before.  Anyone doing a lot of WP:GNOME work does that. On the other side of the matter, though, it is not Netholic's "job" to solo and subjectively enforce restrictions that BMK is supposedly crossing the line of.  El C is correct that this is probably an ANI matter, if user talk, or discussion at the talk page of the affected articles doesn't resolve it.  And if Netholoic is off-base, then there's boomerang potential.  Again, I have not pored over the specific image placements and the revert warring over them in these instances; I'm just speaking of the principles and procedures.
 * SMcCandlish: All I can say is that it's flawed thinking and bizarre analyses such as this that had prevented you from becoming an admin, and an arbitrator, and that will continue to do so for as long as you edit Wikipedia.  There is, essentially, almost nothing you said here that is appropriate or supported by the facts or the circumstances.  It's really quite, quite amazing to see how wide of the mark you shot.If you reply, please do not ping me, I have no interest in anything you might have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're being so testy about this, other than you apparently didn't read the last part. I'm not taking either side in this. To summarize, in reverse order:  someone is inappropriately reverting constructive edits by you, in a targeted manner, that's an ANI matter.  editors are objecting to something you're doing in relation to image placement (or whatever), you should slow down and hash it out in discussion (learn from my experience!).   you have actually returned to the pattern you were barred from by ANI, then that is also an ANI matter, and unconstructive edits in that vein  actually be undone. Though as I hinted in closing,  someone wants to make an ANI case [either of you!], you'd better have good evidence and present it rationally.  PS: No, my policy and processual analysis and any fault therein aren't why I'm not an admin.  I'm not an admin for three reasons: 1) I was a WP:HOTHEAD in my earlier years, and pissed off a lot of people, then sought adminship too soon. 2) I'm one of the main shepherds of MoS, and everyone (even me) disagrees with multiple things in MoS; consequently, I and the few other custodians of MoS take all blame for thing that  editor ever doesn't like in MoS. (Never underestimate how angry and resentful many people can become over trivial stylistic quibbles they grew up with or got habituated to at work.)  3) I noticed what adminship tended to do to productive editors (make them less productive, more bureaucratic, more cop-like in behavior, having less fun, and doing less to actually build an encyclopedia, while being mired in drama all the time); I decided I did not want that, so I have not run for adminship in something like a decade.  I just act rather like an admin (with a bit more freedom to speak my mind), and that is sufficient. Probably for everyone.  As for ArbCom, I actually received more support votes than some who "were elected". The ArbCom elections have a broken double-vote system, in which you get to vote for who you like  vote against who you don't like.  Pretty much only angry people figure out this loophole and take advantage of it, including lots of people who have been WP:BATTLEGROUNDing against MoS peccadilloes for years.
 * A side comment to both parties: Try cultivating a habit I forced myself to pick up – respond to stuff at face value, and try not to notice or remember the username of the other party/parties. E.g., I recognize "Netoholic" in a vague way just from years of familiarity and a general sense of goodwill (and would likely remember a lot of specific threads if pointed at their diffs). But I had  we had a dispute that went to ANI only about a month ago (archiving old threads from my talk page just now is what reminded me); so, I responded to his post here completely neutrally, not with any "politicking". My wikilife is about 10x less full of drama after I picked up this "selective forgetfulness" technique.  There are many tempers and moods and polarizations and such floating around (especially in these times), but I'm highly unlikely to take any of them personally, or get involved in some kind "enemies" stance with anyone long-term.  It's hard to battleground if you don't remember where the ground is, who is on which side, or what the fight is about, after a week. I think a lot of people would be happier on WP if they took this approach.  I once heard someone say (well, saw someone write) that, similarly, they treat each stretch of WP editing and interaction like playing a MMORPG; one might be competing against this username and that on one today, but at some point you run into them on a different server on a different day and maybe you're allies in the same league/team; having fragged each other 24 hours earlier need not impede that.  So,  to keep content disputes containerized and away from personalizing them into long-term clashes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I completely agree (although often I think my "forgetfulness" is not as intentional). As I recall, SMcCandlish, you and I bump into each other often enough on RMs, and occasionally in RFCs and other similar discussions. I've sought you out for specific feedback before on such issues, and yes had a pretty heated disagreements in the past and on the naming of some haunted lists recently, but that wouldn't stop me from seeking you out in the future (as done here) if I think you have a valuable viewpoint. Ebb and flow. What concerns me is that this sentiment is rare here. -- Netoholic @ 09:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Digging back a bit, I find that BMK and I have both agreed and disagreed (sometimes strenuously in either direction). It would be easy to take one or the other really personally, and it kind of takes some work not to, but once the habit sets in, it's easier.  Just let it all slide after a few days.  Next week is a fresh start.  E.g., I was prepping an AE request last week, but got distracted by arrival of a bunch of my new PC parts, and started my build.  Back on WP now, I consider it both too late and of no actual urgency/necessity.  A week further from now, I probably won't recall the other username.  Interestingly, several folks I once has long-term, repeating disputes with I actually get along with fine now.  Even if they hold onto things longer than I do, it seems hard to perpetuate from one side when the other isn't coming from the "let's wrestle some more" angle.  Maybe this also means I also make fewer "wikifriends", but that's also less enticement toward tagteam/cabal stuff, or anything that could be mistaken for it. I've also backed out of regular involvement in most wikiprojects, due to balkanization / echo-chamber effects they have.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * sigh* Poor Mac. Atsme Talk 📧 23:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And cheese.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this thread because a topic-ban is now involved; while the thread moved on to more general matters, the fact that it started about edits at a page covered by that ban makes the entire thread potentially a hazard for one of the participants. PS:, I know you were not looking to be pinged back into this, but I hope you'll read it and reconsider your take on what I wrote and why.  I was not aware of the now-closed ANI thread (neither of you mentioned it), and approached the entire question from an  viewpoint without siding with either of you.  I apparently did not make that clear enough at first, and you felt I was siding with Netoholic.  Sorry for the confusion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you in July
Thank you for improving articles in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

CSD G10
Just a heads up that I have nominated User talk:SMcCandlish/It for deletion under WP:G10. Best, Darren-M   talk  17:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This CSD has been declined, and I can understand the reasons for doing so (i.e. the talk page itself is not solely concerned with an attack). However, I would urge you to remove this edit which appears to constitute a WP:PERSONALATTACK. Thank you, Darren-M   talk  17:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it is not one, which the declining admin told you in very clear terms ("not an attack page") which you've badly distorted above. No, I will not be self-censoring, and it's a silly idea anyway, since it would remain in edit history.  MfD was declined.  CSD was declined.  It's time to WP:Drop the stick.  The page and its talkpage are moribund, but should be retained because there was considerable disputation about it, which would become meaningless in the absence of the actual material that was the subject of the discussions.  See also Streisand effect; you are simply drawing more attention to something everyone else has moved on from and which you wish didn't have anyone reading it.  Please do not post here again unless it pertains to actually working on the encyclopedia.  My talk page, like the rest of Wikipedia, is not a social-media forum for politicized debate or activism-pressure behavior.  It's ironic that I have to say that, given that this is also the unmistakable message of the post you're out to censor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Just for you, I tweaked the closing text to be less dismissive. That should be sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)