User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 90

=May 2014=

code vs. tt
I could say that insisting on the use of ->   is considered objectionable by some. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: no longer exists in HTML5.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgot to update this item: The non-blockquote block indenter is at . Turns out to be pretty useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Adminship?
I see contradictory like/would never like to be an admin userboxes on your userpage. (I'm thinking of applying myself, but don't want to self-induce skitzophrenia.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, ha ha. I'd meant to remove the "would like" one.  Now that they've spun off the template editor bit, the only thing I'd ever want admin ability for is moving over redirects, and only for cleanup purposes.  Going to RM for trivial moves, or tagging such redirects with SD templates and twidding one's thumbs until an admin notices and fixes it, is an annoying time waste.  For my part, I have zero interest in blocking people, protecting pages from editing, handing out dire warnings, digging into dirt in deleted edits, or any other administrative power trips. I only ever wanted adminship for efficiency reasons.  Personally, I think it should be automatic after 1 year + 10,000 edits + clean block log.  WP's culture would change for the better overnight if everyone who could be trusted to edit constructively here was actually trusted to edit constructively here. The increasing "sekret brotherhood" aspect of adminship, and the extreme difficulty of passing RFA have done more to drive people away from WP than any other factor other than perhaps the complexity of the rules and procedures.  WP is like a MMORPG that takes months to learn how to play without being kicked off the server.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea about the automatic "pass go, collect $200" idea. We could apply, get the gun & holster, and have a mentor assigned who'd ride shotgun. As I've commented on the possibilities with others about applying, I hear more & more about the rigors.  – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything you've done or said that can possibly be spun in a negative way will be, and if you've made any kind of "enemy" and they notice your RfA, they may canvass off-Wikipedia through e-mail to get people to show up and vote against you, and may even get sockpuppets to manufacture disputes and lie about them. I'd rather eat my own feet than put up with that crap again (I've been through it twice).  I'm content in my role as a logic-minded curmudgeon who gets stuff done.  It's probably a shame for some backlogged process like editprotected requests that I didn't make admin, since my patience for doing stuff like that is near limitless, but c'est la vie.  Some other even more obsessive-compulsive geek will show up eventually willing to do that stuff, I guess.  Heh.  Anyway, good luck with your pursuit, and I hope you'll be one of the good ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Clean block log", heh. That's always the litmus test, isn't it, no matter the quality of the blocks. But at least you seem to have found a uniquely useful role.  —Neotarf (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Updating of Wikipedia guidelines and essays
I saw the discussion and thank you for your help through Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Would you also like to update (check consistency with the consensus) the guidelines and essays related to the discussion (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style)? Thanks in advance! Selai Poisvre (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Working on it. I've already taken the first step of removing the "local consensus" stuff that suggests capitalization of birds, but don't know if I'll get resistance on this.  Just because one RfC is closed doesn't mean everyone in favor of the capitalization will accept the result.  This isn't the first such RfC.  Assuming acceptance comes this time, we'd need to get the taxobox changed to support the parameters I added (they're just in a sandboxed version), and then add mention of how to use them to the relevant guidelines (maybe; that part might not be needed, and might even be objected to, since not everyone agrees all articles should have infoboxes).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Things seem to be in order now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Red-tailed hawk page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=606993073 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F606993073%7CRed-tailed hawk%5D%5D Ask for help])

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Other uses-section
A tag has been placed on Template:Other uses-section requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes ( ).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Steel1943 (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. I recently performed some edits on Template:About that integrated the functionality of Template:Other uses-section, including converting all transclusions of Template:Other uses-section to Template:About (while using a new  parameter I had added.)  Steel1943  (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to challenge the speedy, but now see what you've been doing and it makes sense. For future ref, it would probably be good to include a note like that along with the speedy notice, since it only takes seconds to remove a speedy deletion template.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized ... basically immediately ... that it would probably be VERY HELPFUL if I explained what I did to improve Template:About.  Steel1943  (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

SSME title change
For various reasons this move poll is being redone, and I'm notifying anyone that voted or commented since then. Please could you !vote again at Talk:Space_Shuttle_main_engine? Many thanks.GliderMaven (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added some ngram data.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for comment; but I wasn't aware this editor was on a topic ban?, does that explain the sudden flurry of pointy RM activity yesterday/today? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He'd recently been on a very curious, year-long limited topic ban, which ended in Feb., wherein he was "sort of" banned from style-related RM and similar discussions, where it was left to admin discretion whether his participation in any particular RM was "too pointy" or not. Weirdest ANI result I've ever seen.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jodie Foster
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jodie Foster. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral language at WP:AN/RFC
Please remove the non-neutral language you posted at WP:AN/RFC. Asking delay because discussions are still active is fine for me, stating that the discussion contains errors is however not a neutral way to formulate that question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue. I didn't "formulate a question" there; I requested that the closure request be disregarded because the issue is still under discussion and a one-sided FAQ was making it seem more resolved than it was.  That's a neutral statement; it does not argue in favor of the proposal/issue one way or the other (in fact I'm in favor of some version of the proposal; I'm not in favor of the discussion being shut down by an admin from AN/RFC.  Actually, I revised it anyway, because the FAQ problems aren't really relevant any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding an article
If I have an article to write and add -- RADtrek: a published and minimally used mountain bike trail route through Colorado's high country along the Continental Divide. How would I go about including it in Wikipedia? Note my website and the information provided therein: RADtrek.com. Thanx, Gjjmtnus (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Gjjmtnus


 * First, see WP:What Wikipedia is not; this is not the place for something like a Yellow Pages entry or a profile/review of a company or its services (including a private trail). Companies and services  be notable enough for an article here (e.g. Apple Computer, Disneyland), but that's entirely dependent upon coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.  In particular, see WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (web).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My position on diacritics
Hi, please don't assume I'm somehow "anti-diacritics". I don't want to make these personal points on the AT talk page, but I spent many years teaching computational linguistics and being frustrated by the commonly used US-origin textbooks that assumed that their version of English was English as a whole, and which almost entirely ignored other languages. I also served on an ISO subcommittee on transliteration/transcription standards. I'm all for the maximum clarity and lack of ambiguity in representing languages in writing. However, I'm also aware from WP discussions in other places of a substantial number of editors who are very hostile to what they seem to see as a threat to the "Englishness" of the English Wikipedia. There have been some very nasty threads discussing how to disambiguate Chinese names, for example. I think we need a carefully worked-out, reasoned set of principles which don't lean too far either way. It's not at all clear to me what a widely advertised, full scale RfC would result in; I fear that it would lead to decisions neither of us would be happy with. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted! As for the an RfC, don't you think we'll need one eventually, so the issue doesn't just keep coming up (just keep being manufactured by the same people, mostly), indefinitely?  Seems to me the question is how to frame the RfC so it's likely to arrive at the carefully worked-out reasoned result. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello - I was stopping by on the issue of diacritics, and saw that User:Peter coxhead had already opened a thread, so rather than start a new one.... First off, I think a well-framed RfC is a critical, long-overdue step here; as I noted on the now very messy WT:AT page, WP has never had a site-wide comprehensive discussion on diacritics, which I think has led in part to the ongoing simmering situation that occasionally boils over in mutual rants like the current one at AT. If either of the two of you would like to start working on one, count me in - I'd love to help. It may not be able to survive the shouting and hyperbole from some corners, but as they say in España, vale la pena. Dohn joe (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think a full RfC is a good idea and is needed. That's one of the reasons why, although somewhat pro-diacritics myself, I think the arguments need to be carefully tested to see how they fly. As I've tried to indicate, I think that there's a spectrum of "modified Roman alphabets" – modified by the addition of diacritics and/or the use of additional modified letters. Although it can only be a somewhat fuzzy line, we will need to draw a line somewhere, and then be clear that the slippery slope fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Uses to one side of the "line" will then ok as titles (and hence of course in running text); uses to the other will not. There's also the slightly different issue of the use of diacritics/modified Roman alphabets in the transcription/transliteration of other alphabets. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur and concur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Diacritics: for the birds?
On a separate note, SMC (so much for no new threads...), I'm having some trouble reconciling your positions on bird orthography and diacritics. Maybe it's because I don't understand fully where you're coming from, but it seems to me that you spoke at great length about following usual English-language practice and eschewing specialist usage on bird species. Don't those same principles likely point to less, not more, usage of diacritics on en.wp? Dohn joe (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's important that we don't re-start old arguments but I too have great difficulty in understanding why the "specialist style fallacy" doesn't apply to diacritics, and the argument that it does is certainly going to be used by "anti-diacritics" editors (of whom there are many in my experience elsewhere). In particular consider this bit: "The Wikipedia community supports specialist publications' stylistic recommendations when they do not conflict with widespread general usage, grammar and other expectations. We side with general, not specialist, practice when there is a conflict, because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia with the most general audience in the entire world, and is not a specialist publication or collection of specialist publications." It will be said, with lots of supporting sources, that "widespread general usage" and "expectations" are not to have (too many) diacritics. Style manuals like Chicago that provide advice for both generalist and specialist publications can be cited either way. SMcCandlish needs to sharpen his arguments on this one! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * for example, you've just rubbished Blueboar's reference to the NYT style guide in the diacritics discussion, but you've used such style guides in the species name capitalization debate (e.g. they are listed at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names – note this is just an example, I can point out other places where you've used the non-use of capitals in such sources as evidence). They are not "knock-down" examples, I agree, but the styles adopted by quality newspapers and magazines are relevant to style debates, and you have used them as part of your arguments in the past. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What specialist sources, though? No one has made any argument that depends upon a specialist source for diacritics, and there is no camp of specialists pushing for them; it's misc. editors of all sorts. The two issues are not really comparable in any way other than being English language styles issues in the broadest sense. Speaking a language isn't an occupational, academic or avocation specialization, it's just something people do, either because of their upbringing, the later socialization, or because they took some classes. Capitalizing bird names doesn't involve changing fonts or using character picker applications or weird keyboard shortcuts, or anything else that's a speed impediment (i.e., costs money and delays publication). Far more people have a "WTF?" reaction to "the American Crow" and other capitalized common names of species than they do to diacritics in Spanish, Vietnamese, whatever, names, unless maybe they live in a tiny, technology-free, all-white Amish community or something. Actually, even then, they'd be perfectly familiar with German diacritics. Meanwhile nearly no one but birders, and British gardeners, and butterfly collectors capitalize common names of species. Journalistic sources like NYT disprove the idea that no reliable publications fail to capitalize birds; I don't recall making a claim that they demonstrated anything else, and there are very close to zero such publications that do capitalize that way. The far more important examples were peer-reviewed biology and general science journals like Nature and Science, even some actual ornithology journals, also not doing it, and general-audience works like dictionaries and encyclopedias not, either. NYT and other news sources often not using diacritics in personal and place names doesn't prove or disprove anything other than that some such sources don't bother with diacritics, a fact no one has challenged, and for which various non-mutually-exclusive reasons are pretty obvious and have been discussed at length. The diacritics thing isn't a "specialist vs. general sources" debate at all. The only things that could be called specialist sources for, say, Vietnamese diacritics would be linguistics journal articles on the language, and Vietnamese-as-a-second-language manuals, but no one is citing them in this debate; they're not relevant, because they reflect a particularized register of writing that isn't encyclopedic. I'm sure it incidentally also uses the diacritics, but that's not important to the "what should WP do and why?" discussion. The bird capitalization was originally done in field guides and picked up later by IOC, etc. The birds wikiproject people who were boosters for capitalization inverted that relationship, and claimed that the capitalization in field guides was proof of IOC style's wide acceptance, a blatant falsehood. An organized WP:FACTION were pushing a convention they imported to Wikipedia from an external organization, falsifying its history and its level of real-world acceptance, and falsely promoting their WP:PROJPAGE as a formal WP guideline. Nothing like this is happening with diacritics. There is no International Diacritics Union, no WikiProject Diacritics acting as an advocacy club for it, no fait accompli to revertwar diacritics into every article title that could plausibly have them, etc., etc. It's simply that Wikipedians of all sorts are increasingly accustomed to diacritics here because Unicode makes them much easier, and they matter enough to enough people that they get done (usually correctly) in more articles, so as a matter of day-to-day practice, WP is (in RMs and elsewhere) increasingly moving toward broad tolerance of diacritics, despite the fact that journalistic sources still tend to elide them (especially the more right-wing they are and less likely so the larger and more diverse and urban their audience). Higher quality publications use diacritics more and more. WP is reflecting what people see in the real-world every time they drive down the street or look in the Yellow Pages, or whatever. I cannot remember any time in the last 15 years that I've seen a Vietnamese restaurant offering "pho" rather than phở (and not just in San Francisco and Toronto, but even in Albuquerque). The diacritics debate is much closer to the hyphens vs. en-dashes debate, in which journalistic and lower-quality sources (corporate logos and brochures, government documents, etc.), and sources that are high-quality but ignore style rules (other than their own) with impunity, like so many academic journals, do everything with hyphens because they're right there on the keyboard and it's expedient. But higher quality, carefully edited sources like big-publisher non-fiction understand the difference, and are more likely to use dashes properly. Note that there is no "expert/specialist sources engaging in fallacious attempts to impose a style that doesn't make sense here" issue in either case. Even if you hate diacritics and hate dashes, there's no club of academics (or, far worse, obsessive hobbyists) trying to stuff either of them down your throat based on what some academic organization demands. The similarity between the dashes and diacritics cases doesn't go terribly deep, though, since dashes are closer to a "pure style" issue, while diacritics are both style and more importantly content. [Before anyone has a cow about me referring to obsessive hobbyists, I'm saying that as an obsessive hobbyist, just one who's learned not to obsess about my hobbies on WP. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think several editors now have raised the issue of sources which are aimed at specialists versus generalists: at least User:Peter coxhead and User:Whatamidoing. And you can add me to the list. From my review, it seems that it is a fairly typical question that sources with a general audience explicitly address. Many authors and publications seem to recognize that unfamiliar diacritics can interfere with the delivery of content: * “recognizing that nonspecialists may find the diacritics difficult to manage, I have omitted them from terms that are familiar to an English-speaking audience. Widely known toponyms (for example, Vietnam, Hanoi, Haiphong, Hue, Saigon, and so forth) appear without diacritical marks, as do proper names such as Ho Chi Minh, Ngo Dinh Diem, and Vo Nguyen Giap.” * “To simplify matters this book will use common English spellings for large cities like Warsaw, Lodz, and Krakow. Lwow will remain Lwow while Wilno will be called Vilna. Smaller cities will receive proper Polish spellings with diacritics.” * “Because this text is global in scope, I have kept the transliterations and transcriptions as simple as possible. In general, I have retained diacritics only if they are essential to indicate the correct pronunciation of an unfamiliar term or if a diacritic appears in the common English rendition of a word (as in Baha'i or Brother André). I would have included all relevant diacritics if this work were a specialized treatise on, for example, Tibetan Buddhism. I assume, however, that most readers of this actual work would not find such diacritics useful and that specialists on Tibetan Buddhism will recognize relevant terms even without diacritics.” As a global, generalist source, I think that WP should at least consider accessibility issues without being accused of "dumbing down" the encyclopedia. Drawing lines that maximize the overall reader experience is important, wouldn't you agree? Dohn joe (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is long again, but not to drown anyone out. These quotes just raise multiple questions that need to be looked at separately. To clarify, I"m not suggesting that no one has  more specialist sources; rather, no one is advocating inclusion of diacritics  that the specialist sources do so, that they're better sources on style questions relating to the topic of the specialty, and "therefore" WP must do so as well, which is what the WP:Specialist style fallacy is.  No one's citing Vietnamese linguistic works as evidence for what WP should do.  The arguments made in favor of diacritics here are not that argument.  It doesn't strike me as terrifically interesting that three cases can be dug up where someone is intentionally dropping diacritics for reasons they believe are reader-friendly; no one has denied that this is sometimes done.  The question is "why, in the age of Unicode and globalism, would Wikipedia do this, too?"  Taking your quotes in order: The first is one writer/editor's approach, and something closely related to that rationale has been a common one at WP, too, for a long time (it's related to why Pho has that article title instead of the one with diacritics, and I expect anti-diacritics WP:COMMONNAME arguments to continue to require excessive anglicization on a lot of article titles for years to come).  But our practice, and our reliance upon this idea, is clearly shifting, mostly because there's no actual proof that article titles (or running text) with the diacritics does actually have any negative effect at all (other than drawing out ranty "This is the fucking  Wikipedia!!!" psycho behavior from a usual suspect or two).  It turns out they don't actually interfere with delivery of content into brains.  They used to interfere with generation of content, the supply side of delivery, but even that's not really true any more (especially here - if you can't just copy-paste the Unicode stuff, you can simply ignore it and someone else will add the marks later). The second quote indicates the same rather haphazard "maybe, maybe not" use of diacritics we've been struggling with. "Lwow will remain Lwow while Wilno will be called Vilna", but why?  What line is being drawn other than an arbitrary one in the writer's head?  There's no clear principle at work there, much less one that we could codify, less still in a way that wouldn't be controversial and liable to be perceived as blatantly racist.  The third is making the "it aids pronunciation" argument that was strawman-dogpiled at WT:AT two days ago; no one  is actually positing that unfamiliar diacritics help people ignorant of their meaning to pronounce anything.  That's not why we use them. We use them because they're factually correct according to reliable sources that bother to address the question. (Similarly, we don't drop the h in Lhasa apso just because it doesn't tell anything useful to most English speakers.)  A secondary reason is that they do actually mean something useful to readers not ignorant of the language in question; this varies by language (more English speakers are familiar with Spanish and French than with Vietnamese or Irish), but so what?  This is the sort of thing that requires a consistent general rule, or it will never be accepted.  Diacritics incidentally also signal to unfamiliar readers that the pronunciation might be complicated and worth a look if they're interested, but that's tertiary concern at best, and not even worth trying to drum up an argument against.  With regard to diacritics, the COMMONNAME case is frequently overstated, or given too much weight even when not overstated.  If a name isn't  in English, as it is not for most Vietnamese notable figures and placenames, there really is no common name in English at all, and an argument for no diacritics on the basis of what English sources have been doing is bogus, even aside from pre-Unicode ones, for the publication speed and cost reasons that have already been covered.  For cases like Ho Chi Minh where there really is common name in English, we have to ask why leave the diacritics off, with no result other than it being inconsistent with treatment of other Vietnamese names?  More broadly, would Wikipedia leave the acute accent off of Jules Grévy just because lots of English-language periodicals and books did?  Another problem with the third quote, when applied generally, is it boils down to "assume ... that ... specialists ... will recognize relevant terms even without diacritics", but WP is not written for specialists, and even if it were, that assumption is often false (depending upon the language[s] and context) because diacritics very frequently determine the distinction between one word/name and another within a language or between languages (the Irish surname Moran and the Spanish one Morán are not variants of the same name, or even cognates).  Next,  accessibility issue?  "I hate them damn' squiggly marks" isn't an accessibility issue.  Severe visual impairment is, but screen readers ignore diacritics anyway, mostly if not entirely, though future ones will surely be  diacritics, to actually alter the pronunciation to be more accurate based on their presence. (Maybe this is already happening; I haven't looked in years, other than to note that JAWS still does an enormous number of boneheaded things that must make the Web a very confusing and monotonous place for the blind.)  I'm not trying to be contrary just for sport argument.  All the cases against diacritics seem very weak to me.  It's actually a somewhat inverted SSF; the specialist literature here, in a sense, is the sort of material being quoted above, forming an editorial specialization of "protecting" reader eyes from diacritics.  Socio-psychologically, it's almost identical to the case  rather than against the capitalization of common names of species: It's the idea that reading anything even slightly complicated is, and that we have to do something typographical to keep people from running away, like capitalize to make vernaculars stand out, or strip out unfamiliar marks (that the reader's Vietnamese or French or whatever neighbor actually finds useful and which are provably part of the real name of the subject).  Our readers generally are not feebleminded or borderline-illiterate.  And they're not bitching about diacritics.  Only a handful of activistic editors are.  I may be a little biased in the sense that I grew up in different places, many of them multicultural and metropolitan, so I'm more used to diacritics than someone who has only lived in rural Idaho or the Cotswolds might be. I don't think we can write for such an audience in particular, and have to err on the side of being factually correct, not reflexively anglicizing out of overly dramatic concerns about what our readers can handle.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of your points; it's certainly not a "common name" issue per se. However, I'm not as sure as you seem to be whether the quantity of diacritics used in writing Vietnamese or Maltese are a problem for readers. They're not a problem for you; mostly they're not a problem for me. But we aren't typical. I know that significant numbers of editors (mostly IP editors) do regularly "bitch" about scientific names (along the lines of "write in English not Latin", "I don't know how to pronounce these so why are they here?"), so I'd be very surprised if some aren't unhappy about major uses of diacritics. My concern remains as to whether editors writing articles about Malta or Vietnam have reached a local consensus based on a style that is primarily specialist (yes, I read your arguments above, but you've allowed your history over species name capitalization to affect your logic, just as I've probably allowed my history of resisting endless attempts to move plant articles to so-called "English names" to affect my logic).
 * The only question we should be asking is "Is this style acceptable to the wider community for use on a routine basis?" I don't know the answer, but we should find out. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that's the most important question. Unfortunately I think it will raise other ones, and will be extremely controversial for reasons I've already hinted at if some preponderance of "ick, I don't like diacritics" people outvote more tolerant responses, and the result is used to suppress diacritics for a handful of languages. Incidentally but not necessarily coincidentally those are mostly going to be Asian ones, a variation of Arabic in the case of Maltese, and very likely a number of languages that have little in common other than that their speakers have been historically subjected to British (or other European) colonialism and exploitation. I think it would open a can of worms to draw some arbitrary line between European languages like Polish, and other not-European ones like Vietnamese, Mohawk, Tłįchǫ Yatiì (Dogrib), etc. As for local consensus, I would probably agree except that it's not just Vietnamese.  Upon closer examination, we don't have here a situation in which Turkish, Polish, French, Irish, Spanish, etc., names and terms are not using diacritics, but some die-hard camp of Vietnamese POV pushers is trying to force them on everyone, for Vietnamese and Vietnamese alone.  This situation isn't a typical "wikiproject rebellion" case, in open revolt to carve out an exception to a WP norm they don't like.  Rather, we have organically evolved to a post-Unicode WP norm of permissiveness with regard to diacritics, but others are trying to carve Vietnamese and a few other languages out of that inclusive realm. It's the exact opposite of the "bird caps" kind of case (or, so as not to pick on that camp in particular, the "capitalize government job titles", "don't hyphenate medical compound adjectives", "italicize climbing trails", etc., types of cases, where some insular camp wants special treatment).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since people keep wanting to bring up journalistic sources and what they do, here's the New York Times being candid about how frankly pretty racist their approach is (in the third of three segments; just search for "Vietnamese" to skip to it). "The Times stylebook entry speaks quite directly to [the reader's] question, but in a way that is very unlikely to satisfy [that reader] or those who feel as he does."
 * Quoting the NYT 's style guide:
 * After that quote, it quotes the stuyle guide's editor saying "We feel that it’s not practical to use these marks in less familiar languages. It’s likely to be confusing to most readers and would lead to many more errors and misspellings. It’s hard enough for us to get French words right." These rationales can be lampooned as "our readers are stupid" and "our editors are stupid".  Neither of these apply here.  Editors who care about diacritics on WP are very apt to get them right, and when they don't they'll be corrected soon enough.  And the readers who do complain about diacritics are probably of the same class and frequency as those who vent about scientific names in plant articles. They're people looking to complain about something, but who did not  have any trouble reading the article.  If anything, the plant people have a more reasonable case, since Quercus alba in place of "white oak" actually is more unfamiliar and confusing than Hồ Chí Minh for "Ho Chi Minh".  If the various rationales for using scientific names for plants are considered to have won out over WP:COMMONNAME and all other concerns (there are several others), the case for properly using Hồ Chí Minh and avoiding a shit-storm of Eurocentric racism accusations seems like a no-brainer.  :-)  PS: Note that WP's own diacritics acceptance level is already far beyond NYT 's. Their "we allow the marks for this very short list of languages because of their alleged familiarity" [to whom? New Yorkers?] reason is already out of the picture here.  We really are contemplating drawing a line that only excludes a minority of languages just for being diacritics-heavier than others.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you can sensibly call it "racist"; there's no "race" issue involved. It's simply a fact that it's reasonable to assume that many educated readers of the NYT have some familiarity with some major European languages, just as it would once have been assumed that educated readers could cope with Latin, if not Greek. (Mind you, as one who has travelled to Ottawa via Newark, NJ, and found that at least one member of there wasn't sure if Ottawa was in the US or not, I'm not inclined to assume much!) As you know, I'm all in favour of respecting the expertise of WikiProjects, but ultimately there has to be community acceptance and this requires a MOS-level RfC. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know there's no race; I'm simply predicting leftist American arguments. Living a stone's throw from San Francisco and Berkeley, and a short walk from Fruitvale Station, I'm surrounded by these sorts of arguments daily.  We don't have a word "ethnicist", so everything that smacks of The White Man doing or saying anything that can be spun as critical or restrictive of anyone else is lumped into the "racism" category and attacked as such.  Whether it's reasonable to do so rarely figures into it. Agreed it needs an RfC, but how to have one without it being an ill-informed popularity contest is unclear.  Most people with an opinion to share are going to have no linguistic background, nor even a background in general English writing above the collegiate paper-writing level, if even that.  In the interests of exploring the issue not "trying to win", I've been looking for devil's advocate arguments against Vietnamese here, and the pickings are poor. One is that tone marks aren't really diacritics, but something different. It's a hard sell, and it would also be a rationale for getting rid of eth, thorn, okina and other things that aren't really diacritics (in those three cases, they're actually full characters, but whatever).  For Tłı̨chǫ language, it's a mixture: The nasal marker is a diacritic as we usually mean (a mark indicating a sound change to a regular letter of the language's alphabet), but several of the marked up characters are actually alphabet letters, and the under-letter marker is tone indicator.  The case for excluding tone marks would leave Tłı̨chǫ/Dogrib partially marked-up. Next, I figured that tone marks are not useful in written language, but it turns out they actually make for a meaningful distinction between words; the NYT link gave a specific case of a well-known Vietnamese surname being mistaken for the word for 'manure', in writing, without the marks.  I can't find any evidence that the marks are optional recentism; they really are the way the language is written, and it's not some upper-class affectation (the way diacritics in French and Spanish originated).  I'm running out of arguments to look at.  Maybe an RfC will surprise me with some new ones?  PS: My point about NYC was that depending where you live there and one's own background, one might actually be way more likely to have familiarity with Vietnamese than French, Spanish or Italian.  I've lived near military bases several times, and there's always (in the US) a significant Vietnamese presence near them, and thus increased familiarity with how that language works, even if it's just "yes, it uses diacritics, and I know the soup is pronounced "fuh" not "foh".  That's even in mostly-rural places like Curry County, New Mexico, where Spanish is also pretty familiar, but not French or Italian.  The point being that the NYT 's aggregate assumptions about the readers they're selling to and writing for, can't be generalized to Wikipedians.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "race" – ah, right, I misunderstood what you were saying. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm refactoring the rest of your comment into a new one (User talk:SMcCandlish) as a non-arbitrary break.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:24, 14 May 2014 (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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malakia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Malakia. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane
Hey SMcCandlish, thanks for applying for Cochrane access. Could you please fill out this form so I can process your request? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comfort women
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comfort women. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Other uses-section
. Template:Other uses-section has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Even though you did not oppose the speedy tag I put on the template, an administrator denied the speedy, so I must now take the TFD venue. Rationale shall be explained at the nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tlxi
What do you mean by "it doesn't currently behave sanely when no parameters are given"? Looks fine to me: "Some text Some text" → "Some text  Some text". -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of the template in that case has no effect at all that isn't provided by some other template. I copy-pasted that imprecise wording from another template's /doc; will clarify both of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gun control
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun control. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Idle edit
this is a trivial edit that was not needed. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't, but this note by you on my talk page was. Please do not leave another; I thought WP:SHUN was pretty clear. As for the edit at Template:Hatnote, WP page names begin with a capital letter, and code is more readable when it uses that convention, especially when the function name is the same as the page name.  The edit was made after over a week of consideration.  So, cf. also WP:AGF again.  Good day, and please stay away.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Bohemian Club members
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Bohemian Club members. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You might like to comment
...at WT:MOS where some editors seem to think that LQ is different for different ENGVARs. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Vulgar Slang
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Vulgar Slang. 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. — Legobot (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on winning your years long war on editors who had the temerity to do things differently to they way you would. No doubt the triumph of making everything the way it should be will be worth the bad blood caused by your campaign. At any rate, it was nice coming back from a long wikibreak to see that the whole matter had been resolved and that the bird people had been put firmly in their place. Your hostility and contempt towards WP:BIRD in the RfC, and your magnanimity in victory and self portrayal as the victim of the piece on their message board was a nice touch, a reminder of the quality human interactions I've so missed being away from here. Hopefully now that you've managed to kill this particular White Whale (and you certainly seemed almost religious in your fever to kill capitalisation in the RfC) you'll find some peace. There's clearly nothing left for me to do here now that this problem has been fixed, so I'll go back to having nothing to do with this place.

Seriously though, thanks for reminding me why I've come to hate this place. I look forward to coming back when people remember we're supposed to be writing... Oh, who am I kidding? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  05:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Barking up the wrong tree, or more like scapegoating. I was gone for nearly a year. , not even MOS "regulars", took this matter repeatedly to RM, etc., and swayed opinions. Upon my return, I chimed in of course, but the debate was already long re-started (the mass RM was not only already over by the time I came back, but already at WP:MR).  Admins closing that RM and related discussions leaned in favor of lower case (not by their preferences but on the strengths of the arguments).  WP:BIRDS people wanted to have an RFC about this; I thought it wouldn't actually go well or resolve anything.  An editor I have more than one disagreement with started that proposal/RfC process and "managed" it, over my own objections (note that I had a entire subsection pointing out why the RfC/proposal was not a good idea).  Attempts to launch a concurrent second RfC happened, again over my objections (which this time had an effect); meanwhile the original proceeded vociferously, and was clearly  in favor of the capitalization you prefer, not just by the numbers, but by the reasoning and the evidence. I and everyone else who cared on either side presented arguments, counterarguments, evidence and refutations of evidence.  An admin in favor of capitalization personally closed the RfC as in favor of lower case, in one of the most detailed and carefully reasoned RfC closures I've ever seen (which nonetheless didn't even address the two strongest reasons for lower case – if the closure were to be procedurally challenged, it could theoretically be overturned on some technicality without actually changing the outcome, because a re-examination that included those missing considerations would conclude even more strongly in favor of lower case).  I'm not going to be angry with you for blaming me; I have a thick skin, and I'm already used to being all but demonized by other members of the birds wikiproject. Bad blood?  That existed for 4 or 5 years before I ever even touched the issue; this debate has been going on since at least 2004, and I first even commented on it in 2008.  A review of the terrible mess created by activist capitalizers from that project pushing bird conventions in other areas like mammals is a (negative) wonder to behold, that we're still cleaning up after. Even until early-mid 2013, almost all rodent and primate were capitalized throughout like that, and well into 2014, many ungulate articles were still riddled with capitalization of species common names, all traceable to a handful of WP:BIRDS editors and a few entomologist "allies" aggressively pushing the idea, article after article, project after project, for years. See archives of Talk:Cougar for how intellectually questionable that endeavor became.  Sorry to see you feel like leaving again.  I left for a long (unrelated) spell, too.  I don't know the nature and extent of your other grievances with WP and its process/community that make you feel this way, but I won't insult you by pretending to suppose that you left and are leaving again over some style matter.  Despite my disagreements with her, I never made that claim about KvdL, either; she, too, had strong objections to WP more generally, and wanted to start a bird wiki separately. I think that's actually a very good idea.  There are numerous wikis out there for broader-and-more-specialized-than-WP coverage of all sorts of subjects.  PS: I don't know what "self portrayal as the victim of the piece" refers to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:The_Transhumanist (eom)

 * Thx.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Diacritics: Moving forward
I too have no very clear idea about how to word an RfC, other than that it should be in relation to specific proposed changes to the MOS and not something vaguer. I also think it's very important to keep to the issue of diacritical marks in the original orthography of the language, and not stray into either additional letters (like eth or thorn) or the use of diacritical marks in transcription/transliteration (like retaining accents when going from πότε to póte or marking long vowels by macrons in transliterating a number of languages, including Greek and Japanese). These are separate issues.

The problems, for me, are primarily in the first paragraph of WP:DIACRITICS, which is evasive, muddled and inconsistent: Is it possible to re-write this paragraph to achieve consensus? I don't know. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged – this is just evasion. Their use or non-use should be motivated, and hence should be encouraged or discouraged according to the strength of the motivation.
 * when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works) – this encouragement to count "hits" just results in muddled policy, apart from the problem of the weasel word "general". However, this bit seems clear that the "modifications" are to the same word, i.e. can be treated as stylistic modifications.
 * The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources. This seems to me not to be consistent with the sentence before: is "the common name" here supposed to be with or without the added diacritical marks? "[V]ersions of word" above should mean that "the common " is the same with or without the diacritical marks.


 * Agreed those are separate issues Agreed the first quoted passage is evasive, but motivating use or avoidance of diacritics seems to be the sticking point. Did you have some particular direction in mind?  My take has been that if reliable sources show that their use is normal for the names in question that they should be used here, except where particular subjects eschew them. E.g. for a baseball player named Eddie Sandoval we'd give him as Eddie Sándoval if some reliable sources did (it can't be based on a majority of English language sources, since majority of them ignore diacritics entirely, as a matter of editorial/publishing convenience). It's the same principle that we can cite a single source for Eddie's birth date and place even if most sources don't mention them.  A fact does not have to be provided by every single source to be considered reliable.  And it's not a matter of sources conflicting (analogous to giving two different birth dates); some giving only Sandoval without the diacritics is like some sources giving a birth year but not a full birth date; it is incomplete information, not conflicting information.  On the other hand, if Eddie himself is quoted saying he doesn't use the diacritic that should be a trumping factor (unless WP totally ditches subject preference in all areas, which seems unlikely given the number of discussions going on to make more allowances for subject preference all over the place).  This can apply to geography, too (Santa Fe, New Mexico is "Santa Fe" not "Santa Fé" despite the popularity of the diacritic in certain circles; the official name of both the city and the county are "Santa Fe" with no accent. People frequently cite WP:OFFICIALNAME as if it were a policy, but it's actually just an essay, it may not accurately reflect the nuances in cases like this, and people often cite it without actually understanding what it says to begin with (it's frequently misinterpreted as being against use of official names, when it's really only against using them when they're directly unhelpful to readers, while otherwise we would almost certainly use the official name)  I'm not sure "general" in the second passage is actually a weasel word, rather than just lack of clarity.  It's not clear if it means the predominant use in reliable sources generally, the predominant use in general-audience sources, or both.  The inclusion of "and reference works" strongly suggests the former.  Regardless, the "hit-counting" aspect is a problem because of the aforementioned facts that a) English-language sources tend to ignore diacritics for their own convenience (and sometimes for socio-political reasons - you'll find that right-wing sources in English virtually never use them), and b) it only takes one reliable source to establish a fact, for WP purposes.  Yes, the third passage means that the name for WP:COMMONNAME purposes is the same and that the diacritics are just a style matter. But I'm not sure we care what this passage says since it's just an interpretation of "the policy [sic] on using common names and on foreign names".  An interpretation of policy doesn't trump actual policy and can be rewritten to more clearly reflect it.  The location of this material at Naming conventions (use English) (WP:DIACRITICS) seems a bit problematic, and it should mostly be merged (in whatever form) into MOS:DIACRITICS: Manual of Style.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * To take the last point first, absolutely; this (now) has nothing to do with titles per se.
 * My gut feeling is that the policy should be that personal or place names originally in a language that uses the Latin alphabet extended by diacritics should be written in their original orthography, unless there is evidence that the name has been assimilated into English. Sources are then relevant for two purposes: to determine whether the name is assimilated (including sources showing the preference of people for their own names), and if it is not assimilated, to determine how the word is written in its original orthography. Placing the onus on editors to show that a name has been assimilated seems to me likely to work better than being neutral and asking what sources do. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. Even moving the stuff from the NC guideline to the MOS proper shouldn't be hard, since they're both guideline-level. It'd be nice if both the WP and MOS shortcuts went to the same text.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) You've been silent on this for a while. What's your take?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: Diacritics no longer seem to be much of an issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Cite4Wiki development
During the time you were not editing Wikipedia I sent you a request to be added to the list of developers at Mozilla for Cite4Wiki. That request did not pan out because I had changed my user name there between when I made the request and when you were able to work on it. I replied to the email you sent me, providing my changed Mozilla user name. However, I did not hear anything more from you on the subject. It is quite possible that my email did not reach you.

I would again like to request to be added as a developer so I can release a new version of Cite4Wiki that is compatible with the current version of Firefox, includes automatic and semi-automatic archiving, etc. I also desire to put up an alpha/beta version with page scraping for more parameter values (authors, identifiers, etc.).

My user name on Mozilla is the same as my user name here: Makyen

Thanks. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After making this request I realized that the position I was coming from was still that you were not participating in Wikipedia, or that you would stop doing so. In that situation, there was a need for an active developer able to post updates to Cite4Wiki to Mozilla. Given that you are back there is not a need for me to have this access. Convenient, yes, but not a need. It would also be possible for me to put a package somewhere where you could download it, review, make changes, and then upload to Mozilla if your choose. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I do need to give everyone access who needs it; I don't have any further development interest in that little project, but it's a needed tool. Keep pinging me about it, if I don't get around to it in short order. (I have a lot on my plate right now, so I've been dawdling on it.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It has been several months since my original request and closing on two months since my request here. It is clear that this is not a high priority for you. That's fine. Given that, it looks like the most appropriate thing for me to do is create a new extension name, something like "Cite4Wiki Phoenix". I will proceed with doing so. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)