User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 72

=November 2012=

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe

Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012
 * }

Template B

 * Good idea. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Questions/General
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Questions/General. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Term capitalization
Is it possible to make caps and non-caps links work with a simple term, without having to add a manual anchor ?

eg. Glossary of wildfire terms#airtanker vs Glossary of wildfire terms#Airtanker.

I ask because I see quite a few edits like this being made. (placement has been since fixed)

I don't know nearly enough about templates and conditionals to guess, but I'm hoping it's possible. Ta. —Quiddity (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should be .  MediaWiki's parser language isn't smart enough to have some kind of "do X regardless of case" test. Template:Term/doc has been corrected to show use of  with  properly. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics again
Re interpretation/action of your RfC of earlier this year. Talk:Facundo_Argüello_(tennis). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clear comment. Unfortunately someone will have to reopen the RfC and notify all 40 participants in order to have a second attempt to get this editor to comply with it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've said all I can say without crossing lines. I don't think the issue needs to be reopened. The article is at the diacritic name as it should be. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  01:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay, well I've said I'm not going to reopen RfC either, though in fact I think it should be. On the other hand a monument to stupidity left in 100x tennis BLP ledes is very far from a major problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'm following you. I'm unsure what the "monument" is that you're referring to. PS: WP:LEADs are not ledes; they're two different kinds of introductory paragraph, with essentially opposite aims (a journalistic lede is a teaser, a Wikipedia lead is a summary). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:POSTNOM
A couple of days ago I opened this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies. It has to do with unbolding post-nominals in the ledes of biographical articles. I noticed that you have edited the guideline page before and I thought it'd be nice to have your input on the talk page. Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. PS: The lead section of Wikipedia articles is not a lede. Applying "lede" to the WP:LEAD is a misuse of the term. The concepts are completely opposite: A journalistic lede is a teaser that intentionally leaves out crucial details to entice the reader to read the full article, while a WP lead is, when properly written, a complete summary of the article that ensures that the reader does not have to read the full article unless they need details. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  01:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian jiu-jitsu
What about German Ju-Jutsu? --213.196.209.251 (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Haw! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's an imho more difficult one: Krav Maga. The issue was brought up several years back, with one editor responding based on a reasoning which is imho sound, but has since been removed from the applicable guidelines: Naming conventions apparently advised to use proper-name-style capitalization if the term appears in capitalized form in most sources. That does make a lot of sense imho. Krav maga would look terribly wrong to anyone even remotely involved or interested in it. The term always appears as "Krav Maga". But according to current applicable guidelines, it has to be Krav maga. So what to do about that one? --87.79.176.62 (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's capitalized, because it's a trademark. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. Or, to be nitpicky, its Wikipedia article title most likely wasn't originally capitalized "because it's a trademark" so much as for the same reason BJJ and other article titles are/were capitalized. --87.79.108.207 (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems probable. People were wildly capitalizing at random all over WP several years ago, even things like the common names of animals (Pronghorn Antelope, etc.). At any rate, Krav Maga is properly capitalized. Some of the other modern martial arts might also qualify (e.g. jeet kune do, kemp and kajukenbo) if they too are trademarks; I haven't the patience or interest to find out. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  07:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Refactored indentation
I am curious to know how this revision of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, by you at 20:58, 14 November 2012, improves readability. Does the usefulness of " ", " ", " ", and " " vary on different kinds of devices? Does Wikipedia have a page (or pages) explaining these things? —Wavelength (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It helps the readability of the wikitext source code, and even the rendered page for visually-impaired users, to use proper XHTML coding. When you misuse "indentation" (actually list-formatting) markup like you were doing, it makes it hard to tell where one person's comments begin and another ends. Replies on talk pages are marked up with a   (or , etc., to show later indentation) at the beginning of a person's comment. These actually have semantic HTML meaning; each indicates a new, separate entry in the list of posts that the talk page consists of. This can make accessibility more difficult, by making it hard to determine what content is actually part of what post.  Misapplying these list/indent codes to generate line breaks and new paragraphs  comments is messy, and confusing to later editors.  Most of us just figure that over time, which is why most talk pages are formatted pretty well. The lazy way is a bad habit to get into, as it causes problems (requiring a total refactor) if regular   indents or   bullets are converted (e.g. to show a headcount in a poll or whatever) into autonumbering with  's. The proper code   generates a line break, and  delineates a new paragraph (  is a sloppy way to attempt this, and will be converted to a single   by most browsers and devices). The usefulness of these codes does not vary by browser or device; they are basic XHTML, and work on all platforms that can read Wikipedia, from desktop Linux, Mac and Windows boxes to iPhones to Android tablets.  I'm not aware of a page explaining this here, but I have not read the basic Help namespaces files on editing, formatting, etc., in years. They may or may not cover it.  It's not a huge issue, anyway. Just something to be aware of, and which bored WP:GNOMEs like me will tweak when we come across code that needs fixing. PS: I started refactoring the indentation in the first place because someone replied to a   comment with another   comment instead of a  , and everyone else's indentations were off by one after that through the entire thread; only noticed the misuse of indents for linebreaking half-way through. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  07:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a stickler for correct talk page indentation, I am fascinated. Your reply has explained clearly to me something that I have stumbled into only recently. I promise to never again use a   or, if appropriate, multiple colons in the same posting after the initial indentation.  One question, is the position of the space important?  I have been typing only "" which seems to do the job, and never " " ... indeed, is the space always required?  Sincerely,  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 17:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The  style is old 1990s HTML. The correct syntax in modern standards is   (and the space does belong there).  MediaWiki is smart enough to auto-correct ,   and even the completely invalid   to   by the time it hits the reader's browser, but WP content can be reused in any way people see fit, including copy-paste of source code into systems that don't have that feature, so it's always best to use correct, modern XHTML. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  22:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfectly clear. I am most obliged.  It is a constant source of amazement to me how helpful and patient you are to those who have come to computers late in life.  Best wishes,  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 23:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for background, the  style was a mistake by the early developers of HTML.  HTML was an implementation of SGML, and SGML requires that all elements be terminated either in   fashion, if they contain something, or   style, if self-contained.  The HTML developers forgot that in the early versions.  The distinction became more important when XML was developed, and the Web moved to XHTML, a re-do of HTML as an XML implementation. XML, because it is intended to be machine-parsed, is much more strict about syntax than old SGML.  Oh, and the space before the   isn't mandatory in XML, but leaving it off causes older browsers to fail to properly parse the code, so it's effectively required in   constructions. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am so impressed. Your complete understanding makes me feel that I should learn more. Again, thank you. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 23:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just geekery. I'm like the technological inverse of the little old lady who knows how to  bake 47 kinds of cookies and cakes without bothering with the recipes any longer, but can't set the blinking 12:00 on her microwave or remember the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek.  I know a whole lot about a little but only a little about a whole lot.  I have enough brain cells left that I can pick up new topics and figure them out well enough for WP very quickly (lately it's the Meyers Manx dune buggy, for no particular reason other than the awfulness of the article bothered me), but lost enough of them that I drop topics pretty quickly and easily, too (I haven't touched Albinism, Albinism in humans, etc., in years because the once-stupid, wannabe-articles are now so journal-citing rigorous and medical/scientific they're beyond my competence unless I go to grad school.  ;-)   Don't feel you need to learn more HTML; just absorb what you need to know to get the "job" done and not write "blecherous" bad code.  It will all be obsolete eventually when future tools shield us more and more from the "guts" of the code and we write in more and more natural language. I picture a future WP where, if and only if I did not want to use WYSIWYG editing effects/styles buttons & pop-up menus, I could as a "power user" begin an article something like   and not only would that be the equivalent of what we now do as , it would also not be visible as either form of such gobbledygook to anyone else editing unless they turned on a "show me the geeky bits" option (the short or long form, as they prefer), but otherwise render as more natural language  the source code, e.g. as   right in the editing window, much like how a word processor works, and of course would render as "The Decline and Fall of Western Civilization is a film..." in reading mode. I could see it as long-form wikimarkup –   if I chose to view it that way, but with a single click flip it back to the short   version.  I am making up that "shorthand" on the fly as an example of simplified coding, where   would delimit a "New Wiki Markup" code block,  in   format [or somewhat longer   form, when commands might need to be easily severable, but I digress...]. In the example,   meant "bold",   "italic",   "link",   "default meaning, if the link term is ambiguous" (i.e. first entry on the disambiguation page).  At that level of abstraction, a blind user could use voice tone instead of   to indicate when markup began and ended.  The underlying MediaWiki editing engine tech is advanced enough we could implement this in less than a year if there were enough will (i.e. community consensus on details, plus developer willingness to upgrade MediaWiki to do it)!  Blah blah blah, I can ramble sometimes.
 * I feel I have to mention that you have not closed your tag, so must still be blushing ~incoherent giggle~ Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't a tag; different use of angle-brackets (in this case, and old-school Usenet emote). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  13:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank for your reply. I have carefully studied your explanations, and, wanting to be open-minded about opportunities for self-improvement, I have spent extra time in trying to understand your points.  I agree that someone replied with the wrong degree of indentation and that every subsequent reply was off by one degree.  However, I am unable to agree about "misuse" of markup, "misapplying … codes", and the "lazy way" and "a sloppy way" to show line breaks and new paragraphs".  On the rendered page, I saw no difference in line breaks and paragraph starts.  In the source code, I find it more difficult to find source codes in the midst of a "paragraph" of source text, than to see those separations made in the way that I was making them.  Also, I do not expect that colon indentations or asterisk points would be converted to autonumbering with number signs.  When there is a poll, there can be an instruction for respondents to use number signs to facilitate counting.  I am unacquainted with the experience of visually impaired users using screen readers.
 * I am here to improve the encyclopedia, not engage in sport debate for my own entertainment. Life, including WP editing, does not require unanimity, and I do not need your agreement to know I'm right about this. If you want to keep using sloppy code that makes things difficult for other people, go right ahead; I'll continue to feel free to refactor. :-)  I've already clearly explained that it's about the source code, not the rendered page, so this entire attempt at conversation is seeming pointless anyway. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE November 2012 copy edit drive update
Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, you don't know my history with HTML. I've put up with more than enough abuse in this relationship; it's only right that I be able to deal some out once in a while. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 01:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Meyers Manx (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Street-legal


 * Volkswagen Westfalia Campers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Eurovan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

:)
Quite a good laugh I had at your reply here. :D Just thought I'll leave a note. Wifione  Message 17:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't participate in WT:BLP, though. I did post in two earlier threads that are still on that page (a closed RfC and a Disregard-tagged thing that followed it). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  23:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I meant the other thread only; posted the wrong link here. From fishes to sheepes, it's a pleasant moment to read up such brilliant, humorous interactions :) See you around. Wifione  Message 05:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that one. Thanks; I feel sheepesish.  ;-)  The closed RfC thread before that had some potentially amusing stuff in it, too.  I suspect the anon in the "sheepes" thread may even be the same recipient of my attention, LittleBenW, as in the RfC (LittleBenW leapt to the same anon's defense elsewhere, and himself writes in a very "precocious but sloppy, twelve-year-old know-it-all who's actually wrong" style). — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  08:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Version
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Version. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Grimjack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to The Maltese Falcon


 * Manx (cat) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to The Maltese Falcon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for MOS thoughts
I am having a civilised discussion with another editor at Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico where we disagree on certain style issues. I have picked you as the most recent editor to edit WP:MOS (effectively at random) to ask if you would visit the discussion and give an informed opinion there. I am most assuredly not seeking to influence that opinion. Do feel free to invite anyone else you see fit to do the same. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Hope it was helpful. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By definition any new pair of eyes is helpful. You went an extra mile, so most assuredly you were. I never worry if I am wrong, I worry only about good discussions and good articles. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I hope I made clear, I didn't think either party was "wrong". It's not crazy to assume that an article about mayorships in PR should have a list of current holders of these titles, nor is it crazy to be concerned that including such a list in this article makes it partially redundant with the stand-alone list of such people.  It just begs the question "why are these separate articles at all?"  There might even be good answers to that question, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any.  :-)  — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  13:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy. What I wanted to do was make the other editor think. I hope I have. I consider your view runs somewhat counter to mine, and I am happy to accept it :) Very little is black and white here, after all. My sole purpose was to show another editor who appeared combative that there is another way. Additional input of whatever flavour helps enormously with that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

MOS
My original interest in editing this encyclopedia was simply to fix an error, and take pity on anyone reading it without it being fixed. Since then I have made thousands of additions and contributed a hundred articles. As a collaborative media it is essential to discuss the issue, not the conduct of a contributor on article and wikipedia talk pages. The place to discuss content is AN/I and user talk pages. It is never appropriate to name an editor on a guideline talk page, as was done at the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style page. While you and I may have a different opinion on the purpose of the MOS, and I do know that you are a frequent contributor of the MOS, I am not. I am a content contributor, not a guideline writer, but I do not appreciate, and can not tolerate, the MOS giving me or anyone else bad advice, as is currently the case with hyphens being replaced with endashes where hyphens are correctly used. So what is the solution? How is this problem to be fixed? Any suggestions? As I see it the MOS is written by about a dozen editors, who evidently are not very respectful of the wikipedia community as a whole. Apteva (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The three cups of tea is pretentious. Their User page speaks volumes – (NB not a hyphen) – via a UBX to profess outwardly that "This user would like to be an admin. one day". I rest my case, Sincerely,  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 10:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your holier-than-thou "take pity on anyone reading [Wikipedia]" without your magically fantastic input, that is somehow automatically better than everyone else's" attitude is the whole problem. You do not have a collaborative attitude, but a "my way or the highway" stance that is extremely offputting. No one cares that you are certain you are right. WP is not about "winning". It is entirely appropriate, and necessary, to address specific editor behaviors when they become disruptive, as yours consistently have, and to address them at the locus of the disruption initially, without escalating matters further if possible.  You appear to be confused about what WP:AN/I's purpose is.  It is for addressing specific user behaviors, not content, and in particular it is for seeking administrator response to problems for which users can be blocked.  You've been staying clear of those, so there is no reason to take you to AN/I, unlike User:LittleBenW at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, who go blocked last week.  Whether someone "names" you on WT:MOS is moot, since you sign your own posts there. Your opinion that MOS "gives bad advice" has been noted, by everyone within virtual earshot of MOS and various other places you visit with this anti-endash bugbear, like various WP:RM discussions, etc.; you just will not shut up about your obsessive nitpicks that almost no one else agrees with, and it's getting really obnoxious at this point.  This won't be a WP:AN/I matter if you continue; it'll be a WP:ARBCOM issue, and if it goes there it's likely that you, like various other parties before you, will get topic-banned from MOS for incessantly brow-beating disruptive editing, refusal to acknowledge that most other editors just don't agree with you, and your attempts to re-re-re-raise issues again and again after they're already settled, in hopes of incidentally finding a receptive audience if you wear out your opponents.  The "solution" is for you to WP:JUSTDROPIT and remember that you are to work on the encyclopedia, not dictate your style preferences to everyone else.  MOS is written by the Wikipedians who care to write it and with such consensus as can be forged among them, like all other pages here, and has had the direct input of many hundreds of editors.  At any given time there are probably a dozen or so editors paying a lot of attention to it, and this too is true of almost any page on Wikipedia; they change over time as editors come and go, and as editors' individual focuses change.  You should be aware that the assumption of a conspiratorial cabal running Wikipedia or any process on it is generally considered a farcical idea, and widely mocked.  Most people topic-banned from editing MOS, like PMAnderson, have also taken the "it's a conspiracy!" position, and it has not availed them, but instead made them look crazy.  I don't agree with everything MOS says (e.g. I really, really loathe sentence instead of title case for headings – I think it looks completely ridiculous), but I and everyone else but a few cranks, whom your behavior is aligning you with, agree that MOS should be followed, because it is important for WP to be self-consistent.  There is not a grammar and style rule in the world that someone will not take issue with, but it is more important that we settle on such rules, arbitrary as some of them may be, and follow them, than simply have chaos.  PS: Your principal objection seems to be that I took you to task publicly at WT:MOS, and that is very telling. People who are genuinely correct on an issue never fear public criticism, because their critics are self-evidently wrong, and only serve to make the facts they oppose all the clearer. The opposite has been happening in your case. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)  Short version: Nobody cares. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  09:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Friendly Two points ...

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated. If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)