User talk:Stfg/Archive 12

Am I adding my drive word counts properly?
Hi Simon, I'd like to ask whether I'm adding my drive word counts properly. I've installed the script and have been reviewing my March c/es on the archive page. My interpretation of the instructions here is to a) get the starting word count from the article history, b) get the closing word count and c) subtract the closing word count from the starting word count. I'm asking because I haven't been involved with the drives before (I'm not the competitive type!) and thought this would be a good time to learn the process—being a coordinator and all. Also, I think the instruction page needs clarifying somewhat, so I may do that when I'm more familiar with the process. Also also, what happens if there's a minus word count? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Baffle, nice to see you on a drive page :) Actually, you only need to do step (a), and that's the number to use. So, before you started Aim for the Ace!, it was at this version, for which the tool gives 1468 words, so that's the number to use. The theory, I think, is that it's not how much you change the word count by, but how big a piece of prose you're undertaking to think about. One more thing: bullet points and tables aren't seen by the tool. It's quite legit to get a word count for them by pasting them into a word processor and using its tool. Finally, since all three you've listed are from the requests page, you should append *R to each entry, as this flags that you're entitled to the bonus. It's late now, but I'll look at the instructions tomorrow and we can consider how to clarify them. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see; thank you for taking the time at this late hour to explain the system to me. :-D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Baffle gab1978. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Imogen Holst FAC
Just letting the faithful peer-reviewers know that I've nominated IH at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March 2014 barnstar

 * Thanks Dianna :) --Stfg (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Need opinion
Hello Stfg, I need some opinion. Does this username is against Wikipedia policy ??. J i m Carter  (talk ) 02:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see it violating anything in there. What are you concerned about? --Stfg (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No...nothing. Sorry for disturbing you.  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 02:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help again

 * Hello Stfg, I know you are an expert copyeditor so I was wondering if you can do some copyediting here. Actually the things you have to do is, you have to copyedit and change the bullets into paragraphs. See there are sections with bullet points change atleast three sections into paragraphs. Please help me here. Thank you.  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 01:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jim. I don't accept direct requests for copy editing. I know I did one for you, but you didn't request it, I just chose to help that one time. You may like to try the GOCE requests page. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * :'(   J i m Carter  ( talk ) 08:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  careful reading

Thank you for quality copy-editing, reading carefully, unafraid of long articles, tireless, and for using the phase "" in 2013 (found a typo), - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 455th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda! --Stfg (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Implementation of the consensus about species name
I think that I do not really understand your message on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Indeed, what is the difference between the templates you suggest and the ticks that I used? And why should one need to watch the history in order to see if the article title is improperly capitalised? Thanks in advance for your help and do not hesitate if you have ideas on how to implement the consensus more efficiently. Coreyemotela (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Hi . As I understand it, the ticks you placed on your listing indicate that the requested move has been carried out. They certainly don't indicate whether the article text has been updated. For example, in the first RM we find that Waitaha Penguin has been moved to Waitaha penguin, but it still opens with "The Waitaha Penguin (Megadyptes waitaha) is ...", and in the second paragraph we still have mention of "Yellow-eyed Penguin", capitalized. In the Plea subsection on the talk page, people are saying that they want to get the whole job done. Checking the history of that article, I can see that you've edited the templates at the bottom, but haven't edited the text (although you have done so with some other articles).


 * All I'm suggesting is a mechanism for editors editing article texts to indicate which articles they've done, so that other editors don't have to check the same articles over and over. The templates I'm proposing wouldn't replace the ones you've placed, but would be in addition to yours.


 * By the way, although that first RM is ticked off, Black Robin hasn't actually been moved. The mechanism I've proposed would give us the useful side effect that such accidents would be spotted. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these details. It is a good idea but it would be better to have a process that take into account all articles, including the ones moves without request and the ones not moved. Do you have ideas how to do that? Coreyemotela (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * That would indeed be better. A possible way might be to make a list based on List of birds divided up mostly by superorder, but sometimes (especially for the Tyranni and the Passeri) further subdivided down to, say, family level, or even genus if necessary. Then editors can adopt some section by placing a Working tag on it, and announce completion with a Done tag. The Guild of Copy Editors has run blitzes in a similar way. What do you think of that idea? Also, before we go too far along any one line, do you think the idea of bot assistance as suggested in the close is likely to happen, or that it's feasible to implement a bot that would be useful? I have doubts about that, but ... --Stfg (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I am not sure that bots are able to do that, but I don't know them well. You are right that it would be nice to have a list to monitor the progress and remaining work. Maybe we should suggest this on WT:MOS? Coreyemotela (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC).
 * One would have to be written, but comments on the MOS talk page make it clear that this might be very difficult. I'm not counting on getting one. I think the discussion on WT:MOS is now on the right lines. --Stfg (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

re: WP:3O
Thank you for your kind attention. This is the first time I have resorted to the WP:3O process, so if I go that route again, then I will pay closer attention. I was a little perplexed because it seemed at once to be an instruction page as well as a place to enter details of the issue. In this case, I did not bother to raise an issue on the subject talk page because I quickly realized that the individual editor was doing the same thing on a great number of pages and, obviously, it would be pointless to create a "talk" topic on all of these pages, especially since the subject actions have absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of the pages. Quite frankly, he seems to be on a one-man mission to eradicate usage of the ISO 8601 date format anywhere he can find it.

This is a class issue and not at all related to the content of any of the pages he has been letting his script run on. I have no intention of indulging in a petty war with someone who is set on using automated scripts to purge Wikipedia of ISO 8601. Please advise what forum or process this should be discussed in. Note particularly, that my comments refer solely to citation templates. As I understand Help:Citation_Style_1 should either be ISO 8601 or else the short date version of the date in the subject cited publication. However, this individual is totally disregarding this and applying d MMMM yy format regardless (month in full). Since he is unwilling to discuss this rationally, I seek your guidance. Enquire (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks for explaining that. The purpose of WP:3O is to get another pair of eyes on a specific content issue where two people have reached deadlock in their discussion concerning one particular article. The "man on a mission" scenario you describe isn't well suited to the third-opinion route, and if what you say is true, it may be a conduct issue. If there is an administrator you regularly discuss with, they might be able to advise you on what to do. Otherwise, I see two possible courses. If you see a possibility of dealing with this as a technical issue, you might start a discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1. That might be the best way to avoid undue drama. The other way is to raise a report at WP:ANI. I would only do that if I thought it was a clear conduct issue that couldn't be dealt with any other way. Either way, you need to pop a note on the other editor's talk page letting them know where you've raised the issue. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * well, I've looked into it further, and I'm afraid I believe you are the one at fault. The article was consistently using the 13 May 2014 date format in citations until you started adding citations with dates in yyyy-mm-dd format with (as far as I can see) this edit. The article's talk page shows that you had not sought consensus for this change. Help:Citation Style 1 states "Acceptable date formats are shown in the "Acceptable date formats" table of the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, Dates and years section", and the linked section clearly allows dates in the format that was in use there. CS1#Dates also calls for added citations to be "in the same format as other dates in citations in the same article". So I believe you were acting contrary both to the help page and to WP:CITEVAR. I recommend that you drop this. --Stfg (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, I am aware of these. If you refer to MOS:DATEFORMAT, then I believe the middle column applies for citations, per: Only where brevity is required (references, tables, lists, etc.).  This is consistent with Help:Citation_Style_1.  At least these are the style guides I have been applying for some years now without incident.  On plain reading both seem to clearly suggest that citations are generally short format dates, not long format dates, regardless of whether ymd, dmy or mdy.  As I understand it, long date formats are fine in the narrative, but it seems clear on my reading that short date formats are preferred in citations.  I was curious to read your comment on the Talk page.  I have also contributed to the Talk page on this article a few times, but never saw any discussion on this issue.  Just in case, I check just now, and even though I dug through several archives, but did not find any discussion on this matter.  If you can find it, do please let me know where.  ::Enquire (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The middle column at MOS:DATEFORMAT says "Only where brevity is required"; it doesn't say "Mandatory where brevity is required". The left-hand column states "General use", which includes use in citations. Help:Citation Style 1 even gives examples of citations with archivedate in a long form. You are trying to turn a permission into a demand.


 * That there was no discussion of the issue on the article talk page is precisely my point. WP:CITEVAR states: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." (my emphasis) That puts the burden on you to ask on the talk page before making such changes. It doesn't matter how long you've been doing this. It violates WP:CITEVAR. --Stfg (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If the issue is seeking consensus, then I would assume that should apply equally to all? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?  Although I did not start a chat on the article Talk page, I did initiate chat on the editor's talk page; but made little headway in engaging rational discussion.  If I had been asked by the editor then to revert discussion to the article Talk page, I would have done so.


 * If you look at the past history here: Special:Contributions/Ohconfucius; then you will see long lists of edits applying the same script bot to strings of disparate and often unrelated articles. I did not check all, but I did check several.  I did not find one instance where the editor first discussed replacing ISO 8601 dates (YYYY-MM-DD) in citations with d mmmm yyyy dates.  Maybe I missed such discussions, but I did not find one instance of such discussion.  Maybe I am wrong, but it does seem that this individual is using his script to indiscriminately exorcise ISO 8601 dates in citations, without any preceding discussion on any of the subject pages where this bot script is, apparently, used to systematically purge ISO 8601 dates.


 * With due respect, this does not seem to be an issue about gaining consensus among editors on any particular page ... and I am the first to initiate and/or respond rationally on matters of style and substance and with respect to other editors with the aim of finding consensus. However, it does rather look like this is a system-wide effort to purge ISO 8601 dates with no apparent discussion on any of the subject pages.  I do not want to labour the point; but I do feel that there should be a forum where systemic issues, such as blanket editing for style issues should be discussed, rather than on each of the, copious, pages. Let me be clear, I  am  open to discuss this issue.  In fact, for the record, I initially sought to discuss this issue, on the editor's talk page (if not the article talk page).  I do agree there should be a discussion, but where?
 * Enquire (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "With due respect", your WP:3O submission specifically referenced Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. In that article, you committed a violation of WP:CITEVAR. I'm not saying it was intentional, but it was a violation nonetheless, because the burden for seeking consensus is on the editor who wants to change the style in the article, and you failed to do that. If you want to challenge the behaviour of another editor, I recommend you remember that "those seeking equity must do equity", and that you do so in the proper forum. WP:3O is simply to get another pair of eyes on a content issue affecting an article. Are you familiar with WP:BOOMERANG? --Stfg (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, my original complaint did relate specifically to edits on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. But, as I think we can agree, we have moved beyond this initial incident.  I have lost interest in the subject article, at least for the time being.  Now, I want to understand if there is a policy in place to discourage or eliminate ISO 8601 dates, whether from articles, or from citations.  For the record, I am not in favour of using ISO 8601 date formats in the narrative of articles generally, it looks odd and would be jarring to most.  In general, I tend to prefer the dmy format, simply because the middle endian custom used commonly in the USA is unconventional in numbering systems and can lead to ambiguity if the month is numeric.  Actually, all common numeric date formats can be ambiguous, except ISO 8601 date format.  I do, however, feel that the ISO 8601 date format is appropriate for use in tables, citations and other places where information is compiled with attached dates.


 * Where I want to move to is a discussion on Wikipedia date format policy as is now and as it evolves going forward. I am sure that there is a forum for this discussion, do you know where that is?
 * Enquire (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Friendly advise
Thanks for handling WP:3O, but kindly don't comment on the things that you don't know about. Because there are no five sects in Hinduism, and if multiple reliable sources explicitly refers "narayana" to be supreme god, it cannot be "POV", until there's no other name for supreme god, for the whole religion. Next time, read the article and the meaning behind the sentences carefully, contrary to your claim that article contains "There is no other name for Supreme God", it never happened. Thank you. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied there. As did other good editors, who also know more than you give them credit for. Please discuss the matter there, not here. --Stfg (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong really, especially after your clarification. Have a good day. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:Pather Panchali
Thanks a lot for your constant guidance and advice during the development of the article Pather Panchali. Even after the formal copy edit, you continued to provide expertise, and I am thankful for that. I read the article recently again, and found the language to be quite tight and good. This is quite difficult to achieve in india related articles! Again, thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dwaipayan, that's very nice of you. I'm delighted that the article was promoted, and you deserve a big pat on the back for it. Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you seen other films of the Trilogy, or, other films by Ray?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. If I did, it was a very long time ago. --Stfg (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Person-first language

 * Thank you, . I especially value this from you as your comments at Talk:Autism particularly impressed me. You'd be welcome to quote me outside WP. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 12:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . --Stfg (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Face-wink.svg|48px]]-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 12:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Quote
The toxicity at RfA is caused by people, not process, and this won't solve it. - this is the best quote I ever found. Can I add it to my userpage??  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 15:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim. Sure, if you like. I'm honoured! --Stfg (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks you Simon,   J i m Carter  ( talk ) 16:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

your 3o response
Sir,

What was this? You state that you were responding to a 3O opinion about the page, but that is not correct. I asked for a response about a section title, and you responded in the subsection entitled, "Dispute about the section title". The dispute about the refimprove tag has been escalated to at least two other webpages, WT:V and Template talk:Refimprove, which means that more than two editors are involved. Not sure what I did wrong here, or how I could have been more clear. Can you now respond to the request? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can see that the first sentence of the subsection states, "...also created a dispute about what is a neutral title for this section." Unscintillating (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. To ensure there's no suspicion of involvement, I've struck my opinion and restored your request at WP:30, asking that another volunteer take it on. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous to squabble over the title of a section on a talk page, and imo you shouldn't have refactored it. But we'll see what a new volunteer says. --Stfg (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Einstein RfC
Is your support comment in the right section? --Light show (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, it wasn't. Thank you, thank you, thank you! --Stfg (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation
Stfg, I would like to take this moment and thank you for taking part in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

My songs
Thank you for your helpful comments in the FA review of my songs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda. I'm glad it passed. Best, --Stfg (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds nice on the Main page, together with one of its hymns in the DYK section, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yay, thanks for mentioning that. (I normally enter through a direct link to my watch list and don't usually see the main page.) Great to see it there on the right day. Congratulations! --Stfg (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like it, - went to Weimar yesterday ;) - In the morning, it came with I will sing with the spirit, also inspired, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Somehow I had missed that one, but have just listened to it on YouTube. Nice. --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

3rd opinion on operation defensive shield
I submitted it to 3O after submitting it to rfc because it's been more than a week since I submitted it to rfc and nothing has come of it. What should I do? Close the rfc and reopen the 3O?TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'd just leave it open for now. RfCs often get off to a slow start. Perhaps people are thinking about it, or hoping that someone else will make the first comment. It's too soon to try something else, I think. --Stfg (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Saybrook University. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Einstein
It didn't surprise me that an admin would have come to a "no Consensus" conclusion, despite the strong evidence in favor of MDY. Admins usually try and play it safe, and despite the policy stating that consensus is not a vote, it usually comes down to numbers. Despite this, since the admin declared "no Consensus" and not in favor of one way or the other, there is still the option of formal mediation via the Mediation Committee. Another option that has already been opened at MOS:DATE, is to rewrite, or at least amend WP:STRONGNAT and make it clear that "Citizenship to an English speaking country denotes a strong national tie over a non-English speaking country". That basically gets rid of the confusion and wikilawyering that some people had in the past discussion. Either way, there are still options and as always, consensus can change. My only regret is that we didn't get a chance to nip this in the bud several years ago. I am also planning on getting a bit more clarification from the closing admin, because some of what was written was a bit vague and I'm curious to see how that admin interprets STRONGNAT.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  18:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi JOJ. It didn't surprise me either, and I agree with his "no consensus" close, because quite obviously there isn't a consensus there. I have to say that I cannot feel as strongly about this queestion as you seem to. I commented there on the basis of my reading of the current policies and guidelines, but I said right from the start that I wasn't sure about that reading, and I'm certainly not going to push it further. Frankly, I think this whole thing is basically a childish squabble over who owns more of Einstein, and a massive waste of time. What I really believe is that STRONGNAT is garbage. We shouldn't say anything about tying date formats to country, and 's example of the Belgian Congo shows rather well why limiting it to English-speaking is silly, and a recipe for confusion. In my view, STRONGNAT would be better ditched and replaced by something that says that either date format is acceptable in any article, and edit warring over it is not allowed. Like we do for serial commas. This whole thing about "strong" ties is a semantic quibble, as I've said right from the start, and prolonging it by taking it to the Mediation Committee or trying to get STRONGNAT amended to emphasise English-speaking only would just waste more time of more people and probably still fail to achieve consensus. I certainly don't intend to take any further part in this. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point and understand why you feel the way you do. The problem is that unlike other Wikipedia projects, such as the French, Spanish, Ect, the English Wikipedia is the only "shared" project that has this "date format" issue. As such, there really needed to be some basic standard criteria as to when and where to use one date format over another. Most of the time its fairly clear cut, but this is one of those times when the subject of a biography lived in multiple countries. But only one of those countries was an English speaking country, which is what the "Strong ties to a particular English Speaking country" was to suppose to address. Unfortunately some people don't read it STRONGNAT the way that it was intended. And I don't fall for the argument that since a none English speaking countries date format should trump an English speaking countries date format as in the Congo example. If that was the case then every other Wikipedia project would use MDY for American biographies, which they do not. We use both MDY and DMY on the English Wikipedia because the prevalent number of readers from English speaking countries use both date formats, not because those other countries do. I literally feel that this is a slippery slope and the problem can and will get worse, especially using the non policy based arguments that the DMY proponents were using. In addition, I have a hunch that the closing admin may have had a bias, based on some of the information that OI was reading on that users page. JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  21:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What?! If you want to accuse the closing admin of bias, you'd better have evidence. I see nothing to make me suspect anything of the sort.


 * I see how your premise that "there really needed to be some basic standard criteria as to when and where to use one date format over another" might seem to lead to some conclusions such as you draw, but I dispute the premise. Anyway, look, I'm not going to rerun the whole RFC on my talk page. The matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. --Stfg (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that wasn't a full "accusal", but there are certain things written on the users page that at least begs the question.
 * Otherwise, thanks for trying anyway. Since, according to the closing admin, there wasn't any consensus, there's no harm in continuing to discuss and trying to achieve consensus. JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  23:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks, . It's kind of you to say that. --Stfg (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * , thanks for joining in, it's most welcome. You're improving it, and many cooks makes better consensus. --Stfg (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Apology
I'd like to apologize for coming off as hostile in the oil spill talk page. Looking over your user page and talk page, I see that you've done your best to provide advice and guidance for difficult situations. I hope you don't consider my arguments illogical or unduly partisan. I'm merely frustrated over the length of an ongoing debate that I was already exhausted by a month ago, and which I thought was over. I appreciate your effort to resolve the matter, even though I doubt things will work out in my favour should the argument drag out long enough. I've been through enough long debates to realize that there comes a time when my resources and patience won't stretch far enough to continue. But I'm glad that there are editors who do what they can to mediate disputes and suggest productive ways of dealing with difficult issues. Thank you for your participation. P Aculeius (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that very kind message, . I do understand the frustration these long-drawn-out debates can have. Very often it's mainly a question of personal perspective. The oil spill page has 158 watchers, so maybe an RfC would get to a broader consensus on the issue. Or if there proves to be no consensus, at least that gets recorded and reduces the scope for future tendentiousness. Best,

There is a mop reserved in your name

 * Hello Stfg. I have often noticed that whenever you comment at a discussion, yours is timely, thoughtful, and rather complete regarding the issue at hand. I have wondered on several occasions why you were not an administrator yourself. I am certain your reasons are sound, but equally certain that I wanted to tell you myself; that I believe you would be well suited for the role, and that I think you are quite remarkable. We are very fortunate as a community to have a benefactor like you. Thank you for selflessly giving the finest of your gifts, and for bettering this encyclopedia with every edit you have so kindly saved. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * John, thank you!! I really appreciate the encouragement. I've thought carefully about this since you wrote, and I feel it probably isn't right for me to ask for a mop, at least not right now. Maybe in future, if Wikipedia became desperately in need of more admins, I might step up. For now, there are several admin areas where I have no experience at all, and several more where I have some, but not really as much as many people are looking for at RfA these days. I don't have any of the noticeboards on my watch list, for example. So there's quite a good chance I might fail anyway. Last but not least, I can do most of what I want to do (writing, copy editing, giving third opinions, commenting on community matters) without those tools, and I probably wouldn't use them very often at all. But sincerely, thank you for suggesting it and for the wonderfully encouraging feedback. Best wishes, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:San Ysidro McDonald massacre 3O
This was probably one of the most well-thought of 3Os I've ever seen: Talk:San Ysidro McDonald massacre. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you, ! I appreciate the encouragement. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion Service Award

 * Thank you, . I think 3O is a very useful idea, and I'm glad to be involved. The atmosphere there is most supportive, thanks especially to you and . Cheers, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The sonata
Not to clutter the RfA further: it wasn't me who brought the criticism of the close in the discussion, - I supported it in one line, still remember the relief after weeks of arguments. (And after all, it turned out that Kauffner was surprised to see "Moonlight" in the template, - I am afraid he had no idea what a redirect is ...) - However, after M. has the decency not to respond to opposes, I felt that I had to defend him - up to certain point, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ps: in case you follow John (above), you have my support, not only for QAI solidarity ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sorry if I came over a bit strong in your case. I'm more irritated by other editors who speculate on what the literature would call the Moonlight, without ever bothering to look it up, and apparently in one case not even knowing what Grove is. Your wish to defend M when he won't defend himself is admirable. --Stfg (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Misjudged 3rd opinion validity
Hello again, I actually re-added Talk:Android L without reading into it much, won't do that again. Now that I see it, the third editor's participation, whether he left it or not, makes it invalid for 3O. Sorry I recommended it for you but anyway, everyone took you as a new uninvolved editor. I have edited the main page further to reflect how flexible 3O is, and linked the FAQ. Warm regards, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Please don't worry about that incident. I thought of mentioning WP:IAR, but avoided it because doing so can provoke further wikilawyering. What's going on there is pretty obvious anyway. The revision to the 3O page needs correction, as I'm sure you didn't mean "baring". I though of changing it to "barring", but that may not be what you meant either. "Allowing", perhaps? Keep well, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Done and thanks Mr. Copyeditor Smile.png. You too, Joel. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Revisions and WP:BIRDCON
Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds (version of 19:08, 18 August 2014) and make any appropriate changes to User:Stfg/Sandbox4, remembering the exceptions that I mentioned, and also "Yellow-billed Kite", which I was unable to move. If no such changes are needed, that is fine; I am not looking for recognition. Generally, I did not revise letter case in sections "References" and "External links". Also, I was unsure about how to manage categories using capitalized inverted names of birds after a pipe symbol, so I did not make revisions there. (I am adding this page and User:Stfg/Sandbox4 to my watchlist.) —Wavelength (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC) and 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . When we want to move a page and there already exists a redirect from the desired name, if the redirect has had an edit since its creation, only administrators can perform the move. We request this by placing the db-move template on the redirect page. For the yellow-billed kite, I've done that with this edit.


 * I agree with you about References and External links, at least when the name is part of the title of something we're linking to. I wouldn't worry about the categories. The important thing is consistency in what readers see, as opposed to Wikipedia editors.


 * User:Stfg/Sandbox4 was created to help people keep track of which articles were done and which were still to do, but I'm not monitoring the exercise, and I'm no longer doing updates myself. You are most welcome to edit that page yourself as other people are doing, marking any order/family/genus/species you are working on with the working template and changing that to done when you've finished. Although the page is in my user space, I welcome anyone contributing to the exercise to edit it.


 * Yes, the people who advised using Sandbox4 rather than the categories are right, because categorization hasn't always been done consistently, whereas the order/family/genus articles for birds are mostly rather complete, as far as I know.


 * All the best, --Stfg (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)