User talk:Sluzzelin/Archive 15

Could you please review our edits?
Hello, we are the archivists at Lombard Odier in Geneva and wanted to improve the article relating to the bank, which is quite sub-par. We proposed a new version on the talk page, and the editor who replied to us kindly suggested we see with people from the Wikiproject Switzerland, where your user name is listed (we since also made a first round of improvements and fixed some formatting issues): here is the new draft.

Unfortunately the project's talk page sees little activity, and I'd like to come back to the editor with a strong consensus on the Project Switzerland side.

To be clear, the very same text has been posted in other languages (French, Spanish, German, and Italian), with editors there helpfully pitching in/editing afterwards (as you know, German also implements gesichtete Versionen, so this text had to be reviewed by someone before appearing publicly). We're entirely fine with the article living its own life and being edited by anyone, we understand it and actually like the idea that people can research and improve content (we are big readers too!).

So if you have time, would you mind having a look and telling me if you see anyhing of concern, changes to be done, or if you think the new text is ready to go live here as well?

Thanks a lot! Hello at LO (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Hello at LO, I responded directly at Talk:Bank_Lombard_Odier_%26_Co. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Pipes
Hi. Please explain why you mentioned me in your edit summary at African elephant. I didn't add that pipe into the image cation. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, BhagyaMani. I misread one of your edits. You're absolutely right. I apologise for mentioning you and attributing the en.pipe to you. ---Sluzzelin talk  06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well then all clear. I removed the pipe in one img caption, but missed the 2nd one. Cheerio -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments
My bad, I thought they were tweaking someone else's comments, in this case. I have to ask though, in your edit summary, you described yourself as "apathetic" towards infoboxes. Why feel the need to tell me that?  Cassianto Talk  19:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, dear Cassianto. That's a fair question, and the comment in my summary was unnecessary. I guess I just wanted to make sure my edit wasn't seen as partisan, and, truth be told, I'm not 100% apathetic, and my preferences are not entirely disinterested, I've just never commented one way or the other on these long, boring discussions, and intend to keep it that way. Nevertheless, keep up the good fight! ---Sluzzelin talk  19:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, the last sentence, even in the equally badly written context, sounds patronising/sarcastic if it came from an infoboxist—I definitely didn't intend to come across as sarcastic or patronising. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything to add to that.  Cassianto Talk  22:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor can I. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Re this, advice taken, thanks. It is a word that I've heard many times before, know what it means, or at least what context in which to use it, but I didn't know it was a portmanteau. As I've said in many places today, including private email, I apologise for using it.  Cassianto Talk  14:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. (My own impression, here, is that those who are eager to call for sanctions based on grouchy behaviour, no matter how high an editor's net value to the encyclopaedia, are dispersed across the spectrum). ---Sluzzelin talk  16:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I realised a long time ago that the expectations of a content creator is to spend a lot of time and money providing the project with an article, and then to sit back and allow others to pontificate over it. And if you dare to pipe up, well, then be prepared to be taken to ANI or ARC for it. I was always taught that it was healthy to be passionate about something, but around here, it seems like it's an offence punishable by death.    Cassianto Talk  18:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've certainly never experienced a working environment quite like this one, including volunteer work. I have never seen such obsession in getting rid of productive people, based on perceived slights etc. I guess not all volunteers care about the actual product, the encyclopedia, to the same degree. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not saying a collegial or even friendly and kind environment is not important. I believe these qualities should be embraced as they foster collaboration, motivation, creativity, productivity, all good things for an encyclopaedia. And I wish it'd be easier to promote such an atmosphere - but to spend all this energy on following and checking on productive editors with a temper, in order to report their slips to one of our noticeboards, to then spend more time and energy on proving and documenting their infractions, to even wish productive editors be blocked indefinitely, let alone invest time, energy (including other people's time & energy) in order to achieve that result ... that is something I find really hard to reconcile with collegiality, friendliness, kindness. I wish we were better at helping good editors tame their temper, but I wish even more that it didn't matter that much. There are plenty of opinions, even consensuses, and also individual attitudes I dislike here, but I wouldn't dream of trying to chase anyone away (with the obvious exceptions of vandals, attritional POV-pushers etc., but that's not what we're talking about). ---Sluzzelin talk  20:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Re- Assessment request for - Henry Lewis (musician)
Hi Sluzzelin - Just a quick note to thank you for your outstanding editorial assistance in the WikiProject African Diaspora and WikiProject Jazz. When you have some free time you might enjoy assessing the article Henry Lewis (musician) for WikiProject African Diaspora. Lewis was a leading African-American classical musician and conductor who made significant contributions to the development of classical music in America despite the formidable racial barriers which existed during his era. Enjoy the reading as well as the links to his musical performances, and best wishes for your continued editorial success on Wikipedia. Respectfully, 72.69.152.90 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)JJ
 * Thank you, 72.69.152.90, that is very kind. I just read and enjoyed the article, and it looks well-referenced and comprehensive. I'm not experienced in assessing articles. I'll have a look at what that would entail and whether I'm up to the job of grading articles according to quality and importance. I see that WikiProject Classical music doesn't assess articles. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Thank you for the post to my talk, - good timing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not at all, Gerda. I am frequently unsure whether to ping or not (and from what I gather some editors have adjusted the settings to make themselves unpingable). ---Sluzzelin talk  18:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the sapphire! ---Sluzzelin talk  18:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Fishing expedition accomplice
Two days shy of 62 months ago, you tried to reassure me I was not meant and it didn't fit, with my hat below one eye and another watching me go by. It all makes sense now, the way it was, done with mirrors and so on. Thanks for reminding me confidence is comforting! I'd hug you, shake your hand or wave goodbye, but I wouldn't want to infect you with that green-eyed vanity and rampant adventurism that was going around back before "fake news" become a fake news narrative. If you get sick, just get better, OK? Spread the word, and subvert common expectations, anything is possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My dear friend, green or not, I'll always relish your hugs and handshakes, but not your goodbyes. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, not goodbye. Just "good journey". Now cue up Bill Conti's closing theme from Masters of the Universe and remind your local economy's Skeletoresque figurehead that it used to be cool, man, something like human. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gerda, that is sweet of you. And on this day, 238 years ago, Stanzerl married Wolferl! ---Sluzzelin talk  10:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Space, the addition and removal thereof
Hi Sluzzelin, I said I'd reply here, because whether it was addition or removal is arguably a side issue and I didn't want to keep the thread going. This is the first diff. In that, the IP removes space from under the History heading. Where do you see space being added? SarahSV (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the headings, which was quite apparent in the early discussion. Do you not see the blue insertion markers, or are you confused about the meaning of white space? While I'm here, I'll say that this was a classic case of what happens when the community refuses to establish arbitrary "Wikipedia way" standards and conventions for things like this. This was so easily avoidable, as are countless disputes like it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about space under headings, which were added in 2015. They're unnecessary and they're a nuisance in long articles with lots of sub-sections. The IP removed one of those spaces. If you're also talking about ==, then yes, but that counts as a correction. Not that it matters; those spaces make no difference to the output or editing experience. SarahSV (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My latter point is that they're a nuisance in long articles with lots of sub-sections is a matter of editor opinion – at least as many editors feel that the white space improves readability in the edit window – and it need not be one. Even without the countless disputes, the encyclopedia endures continuous pointless slow-burn edit warring between the two factions (an example of what I call "churning"), and this will continue until the end of time or Wikipedia, whichever comes first. And that's only this one issue, one of many like it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , El C contends that those spaces were added in only a few sections which is what made no sense. If someone made the edit because they believe the headers should be designed that way, they ought to have done it throughout, otherwise, since the output doesn't change, what was the point of adding those spaces, breaking the consistency within the article? That's the question El C was asking again and again and never receiving an answer to, and thus concluding the edit was made for disruptive purposes by a bad faith editor (based also on what reaction they received when warning the user) (haven't checked the exchange myself), they issued a block. Eventually, El C withdrew, I read, more likely in frustration, rather than having come around to accepting that they got it wrong. You failed to acknowledge what was the more discussed aspect of the edit, and misrepresented the whole thing in so doing, in your closing statement, I think. So, please reconsider if you find the time. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the comment. The removal of the white space under the heading was a good edit. The addition of those white spaces was a real bone of contention a few years ago. Someone added it to AWB, and a bot was going round adding them too. That and under cosmetic edits led to an ArbCom case. As for the == edits, I can't see what difference that makes. As to why the IP added the space there only, and not elsewhere in the article, I assume he made a section edit; perhaps he'd have edited other sections if he hadn't been reverted. Would an IP land on an article that isn't edited much, then make an edit that a lot of people wouldn't notice, in the hope that it will cause trouble? It sounds too conspiratorial. SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole article body is just the one section that they would have had to have clicked to make the edit they made; otherwise yeah, yours makes sense (they probably went in to remove the white line, and started adding white spaces from personal preference before giving up soon after, it might just be that simple). I guess the fact that El C used rollback explains the IP's reaction and IP's edit and reaction explains El C's reaction. We had all best stopped caring about the whole thing like yesterday, so I am going to go back to ignoring the whole affair, like I was so successfully doing right up until I failed to continue to do so. Best Regards, SarahSV, and many thanks for responding! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * , the IP did not make a section edit, as can be seen in the diff, the edit history of the article or the user's contribs . He edited the entire page, adding spaces between the == and the heading words in only 2 headers/sections out of the 14 sections/subsections of the article. It was a trolling edit, and he then edit-warred over it. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)