Temporary retirements demonstrate one of two things: insincerity, or a shortage of self-awareness and self-discipline. Knowing that my first retirement would be my last, I was careful not to make the commitment without thorough consideration. It's done, and I don't care to discuss the reasons. Best wishes to those who remain. ―Mandruss☎23:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just saw this. I'm really sorry to see you go. I know you have already said you will not reconsider and that you are gone for good, but please know that you are always welcome back if for some reason you change your mind. In the few years that I have worked with you, I haven't always agreed with your stance or position in arguments, but I've always known that you were trying your best to write a good quality article. Best of luck in your future endavours, Chief Magistrate.Mgasparin (talk)03:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Starship.paint: Oh hi there. Well I allowed myself to get sucked into one big process-related issue at Trump; otherwise I'm still 99%-retired. This morning I noticed that I was feeling unusually on edge, a little agitated, not quite myself, and I couldn't identify the reason. Then it occurred to me that I've been back at Trump for almost a month. And I haven't even gotten involved in the more stressful, content-related stuff going on there. You're keeping your sanity, I take it?Thanks for the beer, but I need something else and I can't drink the hard stuff. Recreational weed is legal in my state and a number of others, so maybe Wikipedia is almost ready for the option to send some Mary Jane. A doobie for you! ―Mandruss☎12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'mquite sane. I actually took a break from Trump for some time. Not that I was stressed over the article or its editors, just that (a) I got busy, (b) Trump lost and I thought (wrongly) that he was yesterday's news. I'm still skipping a lot of Trump stuff, essentially due to motivation, really. I just can't be bothered or interested. I haven't even read most of the talk page. Yeah the Carroll stuff does interest me, but again I got busy, so I've moved on, and let the pieces fall where they may. If I may suggest, perhaps you should edit something you are actually interested in; that's what I do. Anyway, thanks for the doobie, I shall magically turn it into water, as my own country is notorious for not tolerating Mary Jane, in fact last month there was a kingpin executed over it. But what refreshing water this is - just a little smoky, it seems.starship.paint (exalt)15:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd posit Wikipedia doesn't need yet another example of what a habitual liar he is,and certainly not in that article. The article is already way too long, largely due to inclusion of things that are more significant than height/weight inconsistencies but that don't need to be in the top-level bio. ―Mandruss☎01:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. That was a closure, not an archival, notwithstanding the misleading names of the templates you use to accomplish it (archive top and archive bottom). Anyway I can't explain it any better than I did in my closure statement. When there's clearly no point in further discussion, we try to close the thread so it can be archived after 24 hours per consensus #13. That keeps the table of contents at a minimum so editors can focus on things that do need discussion. It also discourages further comments from editors who don't know any better. We don't imply criminality before conviction, period. ―Mandruss☎02:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm embarrassed to say I don't get the difference between all of these legal terms "indictment, arraigned, arrested, prosecuted, etc". So I thought because he had a mug shot and was arrested he's considered guilty. I appreciate you correcting me.GamerKlim9716 (talk)02:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you've heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"? An arrest proves nothing except that prosecutors believe there's a good chance a jury will convict him. The trial has yet to begin. His lawyers might negotiate a plea deal before it does, in which case he would plead guilty to some of the charges in return for a lighter sentence. ―Mandruss☎03:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how are the Accords not notable enough to include? If you're asking me specifically, I haven't taken a position and don't intend to. I use my semi-retirement as an excuse, but in truth I never got much into such political-content issues anyway. I've had this on my user page since 2018:
The product of 17 years of self-selected self-governance, Wikipedia PAGs are a tangled labyrinth of watered-down and self-contradictory principles. For any proposition A, A and !A can usually be argued with equal PAG support. That renders PAGs useless as a guide. So-called policy-based discussions are in reality nothing more than editor viewpoints, and might as well be democratic voting. We are suffering from mass self-delusion, my friends.
The closer here will (maybe) exclude editors who make no policy claim at all; then they will count votes. They won't attempt to weigh the different policy claims, as (1) that would be very difficult and would require a ton of experience to do well, (2) it would inject their own personal biases, and (3) a close against the majority would almost certainly invite a contentious and time-consuming close review. That's how virtually all closed discussions go. The system has a built-in assumption that most editors will apply policy correctly and objectively, and that's just not the case. Most editors will apply policy to support their political viewpoints. <my opinion>Some lack the self-awareness to know they're doing that, and some others feel that the issues at stake are more important than Wikipedia principles (while giving them lip service for the sake of appearances).</my opinion> (Re the fall of democracy as we know it, I'm not sure I disagree with the latter group; "It's only Wikipedia" is my mantra; but I opted to largely abstain rather than go that route. On the subject of Trump, I doubt Wikipedia changes many minds; I think we overestimate its impact and I've yet to see hard data to the contrary. In the end, this is a stimulating intellectual exercise, more satisfying than social media, not much more.)
The solution? An unbiased, impassive, really smart AI "editor", and good luck with that. Apart from the technical challenges, it would render all human editors mere copy editors, and that's no fun. And we would have to make the PAGs comprehensible to the AI "editor"; even with a hundred years of advancement in AI, it could never be made smart enough to comprehend them as currently written. Software doesn't like vagueness, contradictions, and value judgments, and it would immediately throw up its hands and resign. I didn't say it's apractical solution. Maybequantum computing can help? I dunno, but that would be decades away at best. I don't know about you, but I'll be decomposing like Beethoven by then.
It's 'sometimes' difficult to remember, considering the length of the entire discussion. I don't envy the editor who attempts to close the RFC on the former US president's rhetoric.GoodDay (talk)22:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I always read carefully. You don't always make yourself perfectly clear. For example, you saidI am not arguing against a sub-article. It would've been clearer to sayI am not categorically opposed to a sub-article. [optional elaboration] I can't read your mind or anybody else's. Clear communication requires equal quality in both the receiver and the transmitter. ―Mandruss☎01:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never argued against a sub-article, but you insisted I have. it is false. I seek no conflict with you and I ask you demonstrate reciprocity. that's all I got heresoibangla (talk)01:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, as I tried to say above,argued against a sub-article had multiple possible interpretations. You chose one, I chose the other (and you putzero effort into trying to understand how I might have chosen the other in good faith). The solution: (Try harder to) use language that has only one possible interpretation. If you are misunderstood, clarify your language with AGF and there will be no "conflict". ―Mandruss☎01:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
after stating you had been up 30 hours, you suggested I was drunk
Oh, so now we're resurrecting past conflicts. When I was 8, my sister told my mom I did something that I didn't do.At that time, you seemed unable to construct a complete sentence, which was entirely out of character for you, so I thought there might be some kind of impairment at play. Reasonable enough in my view.What happened tothat's all I got here? ―Mandruss☎02:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you seemed unable to construct a complete sentence ... Reasonable enough in my view says someone who had minutes earlier stated they had been up 30 hours. just stop this trashtalk FFSsoibangla (talk)02:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link the diff to support your statement:you suggested I was drunk onTalk:Donald Trump. It doesn't fucking exist, and you know it (now). Are you capable of acknowledging your errors, let alone learning from them?? You are very close to being the first editor ever banned from this page. ―Mandruss☎03:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was on your talk page, notTalk:Donald Trump, asclearly evident in the diff I linked above. Are you drunk? You are now banned from this page and I'd suggest you respect that ban for your own sake. ―Mandruss☎03:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, why not use your super powers for good like Batman and so forth? Nobody would have objected if you'd scolded all the off-topic, strawman, unreasoned, and chitchat posting on that talk page over the past week or so. Seriously, you could really help out that way. When somebody makes a comment like the one about amending the US constitution or ignoring RS, you could help tamp that stuff down. Then you could get some more barnstars and other internet glory. The Admins have almost completely abdicated their DS/CT role, preferring to sit back like the Supreme Court and scratch their chins at AE like the wisemen and womsen they are. That means that normal people who don't want to waste time prosecuting a complaint with diffs etc. just give up editing those pages. SPECIFICOtalk03:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to self-appoint as Talk Page Sheriff. I save that kind of thing for the few most extreme cases, and that's the main reason I get away with them (sometimes). You trying to set me up for an AE complaint? :) If elected, I might serve, but I don't see that happenin'. ―Mandruss☎05:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, that page is cluttered with hundreds of unconstructive chat room type posts and that user is responsible for many such distractions, including that same punctuation mistake roughly once a week. It actually would make their posts more intelligible if they figured out how to write simple sentences like that. I suspect there are several such commas on the page right now.
Maybe you could counsel that eager editor and help them focus on the use of talk pages for constructive comments. Did you know that on Arb. Palestine/Israel pages unconstructive talk page posts are actually prohibited and are regularly removed by editors and Admins? They should do that for AP too! SPECIFICOtalk
It would have been better if both I and David had used different wording that you found more palatable (and it probably wouldn't take a mind reader to guess in either case that it wouldn't be received well; for my part,mea culpa).
But if you substitute out "weasel" in David Eppstein's post (try "wiggle" or "wriggle", as suits your dialect), and remove "goofy" from mine, the points were valid, or at least remain unrefuted. If you just take a dismissive posture based on the tone of a tiny part of the disagreements, and ignore and refuse to address their substance, then turn tit-for-tat toward the critics of your idea, that isn't "debate... by the strength of our reasoning", to use your words. It's unlikely to improve the discussion in any way or get us closer to resolution. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for caringthat much, at least. I wouldn't feel much better about "wiggle" or "wriggle", as they both imply some level of bad faith (disingenuousness, sneakiness, covert maneuvering, whatevah). Not that "weasel" was the only problem; it's just the only one I opted to highlight (trying to minimize the OT).I was merely presenting an argument as best I knew how. I lived by KISS throughout my 30-year career as a software developer, and no doubt that influenced my particular take on that issue. If I was in over my head, that was no reason to get frustrated and respond in that harsh and overbearing tone.Contrast to my recent behavior atTalk:Donald Trump#Link China trade war in the lead, in which I'm interacting with a far newer editor using a very different style and tone than Eppstein's. (I don't recall being frustrated, much, but my testosterone level is declining in my later years. When I do get frustrated, I generally have enough self-control to keep a hat on it. Grown-ass man and all that.) He hasa ton to learn, but instead of excoriating him for verbosely showing that (which would serve nothing but my ego), I'm doing my best to help him along, without sounding patronizing or condescending, while attending to the discussion topic at the same time. I think he'll be a good editor in a few years, if he sticks it out.It's what I called common respect, which is due every one of us except those who are clearly being disruptive and/or contributing in bad faith (that wasn't me). Yes, I'll continue to check out the minute I see his kind of talk, since there are more important things to me even than MoS issues. I'll do my best to avoid the MoS area in the future (I'm semi-retired anyway, which should largely mean DGAF). ―Mandruss☎07:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying. I think my wiki-skin is just much thicker (being one of the main MoS shepherds will do that to ya;everyone wants to change at least one thing in MoS to suit a personal pet peeve, and they usually get angry and venty at anyone who blockades theirWP:CREEPing change demands). I don't think David was implying any kind of bad faith, he was just using unnecessarily sport-or-war-oriented analogizing with regard to argumentation, e.g. that his masterful logic necessarily imposed a hold or front from which there is no escape. I used to make arguments like that myself in my olden days here, being used to ranty debating on Usenet and other forums. It's a hard habit to break. PS: Good on you for helping hold a new-user hand. For my part, I try do this with user-talk notices when people do something broken. If they're not clearly acting in bad faith (vandalizing, spamming), I try to include helpful instructions after a boilerplate template, like where to ask the question they mis-posted; how to properly format an edit-protected request and that it expects both a "chage X to Y" request and a very clear reason to perform the change; how to do a basic<ref> citation instead of just dumping a URL directly into the article body; etc. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Random editors plural? What, Soibangla and TheCelebrinator? I don't think I've crossed the line in either case, but I will certainly give your comment some thought. Any off-topic can be collapsed with no objection from me, but in my opinion certain things need to be said. The latter editor is sucking up way too much oxygen for his current competence level, and he has been for some time. Imagine being a new arrival to that discussion, or the preceding one. Ick.But that's one of the great things about semi-retirement; I can be a bit more vocal about things like that because there's not a lot left to lose. I no longer fear full retirement, whether voluntary or the other kind. It might actually be fun to just lurk at Trump.I don't want that. Well thanks. I wouldn't want it for you, either. I was highly impressed when you resurrected the section links idea. ―Mandruss☎15:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my references to browbeating, blocks and need to read policies were aimed at the other editor. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.Tarl N. (discuss)23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarl N.: Oh that was crystal clear. I'm pretty good at self-awareness, and reading that it occurred to me that I had been doing exactly that (as to browbeating). My comment was a sort ofmea culpa non culpa. ―Mandruss☎04:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Paper Luigi, and I'm not sure that I agree with your revert on my recent contribution to the articleDonald Trump. It appears to me that the wikilinks I provided do not go againstMOS:EGG, as you suggested. I was not trying to trick people into thinking that, perhaps, "impeachment" in this context referred toImpeachment in the United States or that theFirst impeachment of Donald Trump andSecond impeachment of Donald Trump meant anything other than what they are intended to mean. I feel that my contributions represented portions of the article that would benefit from being wikilinked in the lead section. Could you please elaborate on how these wikilinks do not meet standards? —Paper LuigiT •C05:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paper Luigi: Hi. Oh they definitely "go against MOS:EGG", since a reader seeing "impeached" would expect to go toImpeachment. Your links don't take the reader where they would expect to go, thus EGG. Also, editors at that article have tried hard to minimize links in the lead, so as to avoid "sea of blue", so I'm not sure that reducing the EGGiness of your links would necessarily be accepted, either. I suggest taking this toTalk:Donald Trump if it's important to you. Cheers. ―Mandruss☎05:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the talk page would be a viable place to go, but I'm at odds with your logic on how those terms should appear.Impeachment is a broad article that deals with governments both including and those outside of the United States. I linked to more specific articles, such as Trump's first and second impeachment. Using your expected perceptions of the reader, should we only link to the most vague of terms, or is it preferable to link to specific articles when we find it necessary? Furthermore, if your assertion were true, a revert would not be necessary. Instead, you would change one or more redirects to point to the broadImpeachment article, but you did not do so. I added those wikilinks to Trump's first and second impeachments as a reader, not as a longtime contributor. I added them for my convenience as a reader of WP. As a reader, I do not find wikilinks in the lead section to be inadequate, nor do I find a "sea of blue", as you have asserted. I acknowledge that "sea of blue" article leads can be a problem, but I do not see this as justification for this particular case. Would you please elaborate further? —Paper LuigiT •C05:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paper Luigi: First, I apologize for not reading more carefully. I think your first link would violateMOS:OVERLINK: "... the following are usually not linked: Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river, animation)...". We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.As to the other two links, I'm telling you how editors at that article have always interpreted MOS:EGG, and I've edited there since 2015. We perhaps take it more seriously than most editors.To reduce EGGiness, one might do something like this:Trump is the only American president to have been impeached twice. After he tried to pressure Ukraine in 2019 to investigate Biden,he was impeached by theHouse of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was acquitted by theSenate in February 2020. The Houseimpeached him again in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection.Again, I'm not sure that would be accepted either. In the end, this is not about how you or I feel about it, but about how a larger number feel about it. Hence,Talk:Donald Trump.I agree that the talk page would be a viable place to go So go there. Re-cheers. ―Mandruss☎06:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to 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 deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines.Richard-of-Earth (talk)21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder, to you as well @Space4Time3Continuum2x, thatWikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and that a procedural error made in a proposal or request (like submitting to a "wrong" venue) is not grounds for rejection.
@Mandruss I do agree with your close ofthe thread - that Talk page is bloated enough on a normal day, and especially at the moment. Any discussion like that is better held at the dab page. But a better option would be to open a new discussion there porting over the contents of the previous discussion. Getting shut down with BURO-like reasonings is disheartening.PhotogenicScientist (talk)15:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? It's the wrong venue, as also pointed out by Firefangledfeathers. You're free to start another discussion on the proper Talk page, but you may want to read the closing of the last one first.Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖15:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not for the fact that it should have been a request for move, I would have simply copied the discussion to Talk:Trump. It was not only wrong venue but wrong format. NOTBURO has its limits. ―Mandruss☎15:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on the issue of formatting... I imagine simply copying the discussion over to that page would be met instantly with requests to use the RM format. I guess I agree that NOTBURO has limits - if they had initiated an RM format on the wrong Talk page, or had failed to use the RM format on the right talk page, it'd be a lot easier to gently correct the issue. But I certainly don't expect you to take a new user's malformed RM and fix everything about it for them.
I hadn't even noticed they were 2 edits, or the original edit summary. But the mention of the RM format goes along way toward making the closure feel better.PhotogenicScientist (talk)16:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-right police: as far as I can tell, the image was not a fair use violation under whatever U.S. Code but a violation of WP's own non-free content criteria,WP:GETTY #7. Yay, I'm getting closer to uploading an acceptable non-free image. Now all I need is a published non-opinion source discussing a photo of the bloody ear (definitions 2 and 6). Not holding my breath.Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖11:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admire your dedication and determination. I have never felt like expending the necessary brainpower to learn that crap. ADD? I know we have to avoid lawsuits, even failed lawsuits, but it seems to me WP is way too unnecessarily cautious. Good luck. ―Mandruss☎16:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here, re[3]They had better be an admin or we're going to have a serious problem. I'm unclear on why you think that would matter. Archiving a section requires no technical permissions and admins have no authority in the matter. To be clear I'm colossally and obviously involved so I have no reason to think this "problem" is going to come to fruition.VQuakr (talk)22:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: I didn't mean to imply such a closure would violate a rule; the only applicable rule is that the closer should be uninvolved. But any closure is subject to closure review and I'm saying that I or someone else would definitely take such a closure by a non-admin to closure review; thus a "serious problem" that I hope could be avoided. I fail to see why such a discussion should be preemptively shut down, but I would defer to an admin's judgment. I'll be right back with an answer to your first question. ―Mandruss☎22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Maybe "I would take said closure to closure review, as I believe it would be premature." would have been clearer. No big deal.VQuakr (talk)18:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading the original "Agreed", I realized it could be read as "Agreed that it's no big deal". So I clarified. Whole lotta clarifying going on here. ―Mandruss☎00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I didn't see any surprises in that AN discussion and the closure seemed a foregone conclusion. A list that summarizes previous decisions (especially RfCs, which can be frustrating to find in a long archive after a few years) is purely helpful and I don'tthink any of the extant entries in the list give me concern re LOCALCONSENSUS. Also, I was a little surprised (maybe even "shocked") at the clapback on the DJT talk page, I thought we were discussing something but I didn't realize I was causing frustration. Do feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like me to clarify or expand on something that is frustrating you; I'm not always aware of how I'm coming across. It's always better to address that sort of thing before it boils over.VQuakr (talk)17:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the closure seemed a foregone conclusion. Lol. At AN and similar venues, I don't think there's any such thing as a foregone conclusion. It's a crap shoot, largely dependent on who shows up.The contrast between your tone here and atTalk:Donald Trump#De facto consensus is striking; it's almost like two different editors (who are you, and what have you done with VQuakr?). Here's the rant I privately pre-composed; it's a technique I sometimes use to get something off my chest, to help me think something through, to help me calm down like beating the crap out of a pillow. If you hadn't posted the preceding, it would have remained private. Take it as you will.
One of the main reasons I semi-retired: too many experienced, battleground-mentality editors like yourself, editors who think intimidation and snark are useful and constructive debate tactics, who seem to take a bare-knuckles, "street fight" approach to contentious discussion. Editors who are very cynical (low AGF capacity), who undervalue common respect for fellow humans, who are quick to anger when they perceive a bad opposing argument, and who usually have an overinflated self-concept ("superiority complex").
If not for the physical separation of the internet, I'm certain many of these editors would be throwing actual punches or worse. Would you? Many others would behave very muchbetter without said separation. Would you?
TheDonald Trump article is distinctly different, being dominated by a handful of experienced editors who don't believe in that kind of behavior. More thanenforcing good behavior, we provide a good example for others, who either follow the example or stay away (for the most part, and certainly far more than at most other CT articles). We have some very strong disagreements but—on our worst days—wenever treat each other like you treated me.
That's one of the two main reasons why I've spent about 95% of my time at that article since my semi-retirement (the other main reason being a commitment to process there).
Please take your attitude and tone to venues where they arede rigueur. Better yet, change them. That's the direction the project is evolving, mostly by attrition, even if far too slowly for my liking.
Fair point on the AN closures in general. Suffice to say I agreed with this closure. Sounds like the frustration I caused was much worse than I realized - this emphasizes the importance of not letting stuff build up I believe. But I also recognize the backwardness of having a more positive conversation in user talk and a more heated one in article talk; I'll try to use more care on that. I can honestly say I've never been upset enough with another editor on WP to where fisticuffs would be a remote concern were I to cross paths with them in the physical realm (though choice words and dirty looks might have been on the table a few times).VQuakr (talk)19:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Mandruss. I, for one, appreciate your obvious commitment (along with other editors) to accurate article creation with the proper decorum among the creators. Thank you for not retiring.Buster Seven Talk (UTC)12:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I said to S4T3C2 on his page pertains to you also. Your article management and clear edit summaries provide an idea of the wranglings that go on at "Hot" articles. You, he and others are assuring that our greatgreatgreat grandchildren have a chance to see and read the truth about a very trying time. Thanks for all you do.Buster Seven Talk (UTC)12:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When I haven't commented in an 11-day-old discussion, it's a sign I don't have an opinion. I read the discussion and tried to grow an opinion, and failed. Sorry. But I'm keeping the strawberries. ―Mandruss☎19:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In editing an article about Arlington National Cemetery, I come across a paywalled source (Fox News). I have looked around for WP's policy on paywalls and I am not satisfied as to the explanation given. What do you do when confronted with a Paywall?Buster Seven Talk (UTC)13:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sending me in the right direction. I guess my concern is for the future reader that will accept what is stated and not bother to look under the rug. O Well! What will be will beBuster Seven Talk (UTC)05:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains it. Must have been disappointing that the "far left lunatic" had moved on with the herd to other pastures/discussions and didn’t even notice the personal attack. I noticed Valjean's removal on Tuesday but didn't put 2 and 2 together when I started wondering about the non-archiving.Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖09:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected asEditor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions!(courtesy of theWikipedia Editor Retention Project)
With the American Presidential election right around the corner, the current American political scene is as contentious as ever. Articles about the2024 Presidential campaign and/or anything Trump related are also contentious. As many editors push agendas left and right, article management and protection is extremely important to maintain any chance of acceptable editor decorum. Trump articles are invariably long and lengthy with hundreds of references. Editors can sometimes misrepresent facts. Editors can be innocently wrong. Two editors, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Mandruss, have established a working relationship built on mutual trust and a desire to improve the editing environment. They constantly safeguard the articles for reliance on the truth and Reliable Sources. Both wisely take the time to use the edit summary to explain complicated changes and provide an example of better editing for better results. Without someone (in this case two someones) the articles would be a constant mess. "Fixed" is a common refrain for these two.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
The current American political scene is as contentious as ever. At articles about the2024 Presidential campaign and/or anything Trump related many editors push agendas left and right. Article management and protection becomes extremely important to maintain any chance of acceptable editor decorum. Trump articles are invariably long and lengthy with hundreds of references. Editors can sometimes misrepresent facts. Editors can be innocently wrong. Two editors, Space4Time3Continuum2x and Mandruss, have established a working relationship built on mutual trust and a desire to improve the editing environment. They constantly safeguard the articles(s) for reliance on the truth and reliable sources. Both wisely take the time to use the edit summary to explain complicated changes and provide an example of better editing for better results. Without someone (in this case two someones) the article would be a constant mess. "Fixed" is a common refrain for these two.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in thisanonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on itsMeta page and view itsprivacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Is there a particular reason you feel the need to intervene with my requested preference as to how I am addressed?DN (talk)06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, appreciate Mandruss attempting to smooth over any awkwardness. I don't think anything productive is going to come of litigating this further. I understand you only want to be referred to as 'Darknipples' in future. Case closed.Riposte97 (talk)07:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never held any ill-will towards you, but they made it more awkward than necessary.
"Now you're gettin' me riled. Look, you comment on this page, regardless of the topic, and you open yourself up to replies from anybody. There are no "private" conversations here or almost anywhere else at Wikipedia. You want a "private" conversation, use email. That's how it works, like it or not. End
It appears they are "riled", and they felt the need to share all of that on an article talk page and then made it look as though it was somehow my intention to do so. If this is a personal issue let's make it clear what it ishere, instead of at the article. Is that acceptable to both of you?DN (talk)07:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, after I correct your blatantly false statement on the ATP:You're the one brought it up here. No, the off-topic tangent began withyour comment. We're both guilty of off-topic (which could reasonably be collapsed at this point), but you were guiltyfirst. And, if you don't like me getting riled and saying so on the ATP, don't make ridiculous, newbie-worthy claims about who's entitled to reply to your comments. ―Mandruss☎07:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a casual request, and not the first of it's kind I've had to make there. Are you normally this uncivil, or do you speak to everyone this way over such mundane incidents?DN (talk)07:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you intend to keep commenting on this at the article TP I suggest you take it to AN or speak with an admin first. There is no need for that, and if you continue on about it there, an admin will be requested. This is not like you at all.DN (talk)07:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's the "what's the big hairy deal?" fallback argument, after having been an equal party in making it a big hairy deal. I'm as "uncivil" as I need to be, while stopping short of fully expressing what I really feel, per NPA. Far, far worse is routinely tolerated at Wikipedia (usually in other venues), so countcher blessings.If you intend to keep commenting on this at the article TP I do not, as indicated byThat's fine with me above.This is not like you at all. Thanks. Thankfully, I don't see the need very often on that page. I used to, back when the "clientele" was a lot different from today. Semi-retirement helps, too. And getting old and tired, mellowing a bit in old age, testosterone level in decline. ―Mandruss☎07:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me,...after I correct your blatantly false statement on the ATP
Looking atbold portion the quote above, perhaps you can understand the reasoning behind my suggestion...
"Far, far worse is routinely tolerated at Wikipedia (usually in other venues), so countcher blessings."
I try not to think of that as an excuse, as I've had more than my share. Admins around here work hard enough without dealing with trivial spats from volunteers. That said, if you still think I crossed a line with my request, you should know that it is not an uncommon request coming from me. I try not to make it into a big deal and it hasn't escalated that quickly for some time. Case in point, Riposte97 said it was "case closed". I didn't come here looking for hostility, and I would prefer it didn't follow me around. Agreed?DN (talk)08:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
after I correct your blatantly false statement on the ATP was ambiguous, potentially misleading, and, apparently, misled you. I meant that your statement wason the ATP and I was about tocorrect it on this page. Then I proceeded to do so.I try not to think of that as an excuse As do I. Not an excuse, but food for thought.Admins around here work hard enough without dealing with trivial spats from volunteers. Admins work plenty hard, but they do precious little to make behavior conform with behavior policy (I know, the community ties their hands). They could do a lot more without my being caught in the net, even on my worst day. That community failure is part of why I semi-retired; I had to back away for the sake of my psychological well-being (I'm much better now, thanks). But I'll never be one to believe that full-time Kumbaya is a viable goal in the current WP environment—even outside CTOPs. The world we're stuck with is just not a very friendly place, over all, and Wikipedia can't be expected to be much better. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, with no entry vetting, questionnaire, or exam. The founders and early editors wanted a "populist" site, and that's what they got. They wanted almost total inclusiveness, and that means including the good, the bad, and, presumably, the ugly as well.One can get mighty "unfriendly" without clear violation of policy, let alone enforcement of it—and many editors routinely do exactly that.What you're calling "hostility", I call "directness", and I'd venture a guess you're not in the U.S. where directness is far more accepted/routine than in other cultures. Hell, we spawned Donald Trump!Trust me, nobody wants to read examples of what I would call "hostility", even if I could bring myself to write them. But predominant features would include snark and undeclared sarcasm, both of which I try hard to avoid using, with a large degree of success in my opinion. Snark is just rude and juvenile, high-school-ish; sarcasm is saying the polar opposite of what one means, thereby destroying the communication that is theraison d'être of talk spaces. Both are often used to inflame, provoke, intimidate, and/or diminish one's "opponent(s)". This often succeeds, which is why people do it, and it's far easier than conceiving robust arguments and articulating them. ―Mandruss☎13:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again disagree. (Yeah, I know you weren't addressing me. Too bad, as before.) Am I misusing/abusing the term "gender prefs"? Should it be "pronoun prefs"? I genuinely don't know, being hopelessly stuck in the year 2000. I'm sorry to say that sociocultural change has outpaced my capacity to change with it, including learning all the new concepts and terms. I'm still learning to accept the demise of the team name "Washington Redskins", and that happened four years ago.But feel free to change that to whatever suits you, replacing the signature with yours, provided it adequately describes what's collapsed. "Off-topic" by itself is not sufficient information for users to decide whether to expand and read. Some OTs are more interesting and time-worthy than others, for any given user.Not sure why you opted to go straight to admin ping, seems like knee-jerk to me. But no harm done, aside from wasting a bit of MIDI's time. ―Mandruss☎22:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing all of this after I went off-wiki yesterday. I'm afraid I'm not in a position to read through all of this and draw a conclusion (I'll be on-and-off WP today but real-life has to take priority right now). Please consider if admin intervention is necessary; the final points ofWP:DEALWITHINCIVIL might be appropriate?MIDI (talk)08:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for touching base MIDI. Perhaps we can keep it short and sweet making a call on whetherWP:TALKHEADPOV applies here? ie "Don't address other users in a heading"[4].
I came here to de-escalate an off-topic discussion, and just at the point I thought we agreed not to use the TP as a battleground, they decided to post my name and the grievance in the hat note summary hiding the off-topic portion on the ATP. At the time it came across as a taunting "last word" of a somewhat personal nature for everyone there to see.
They claim I have permission to alter the hat-note...but any good faith I had was diminished, giving their olive branch the appearance of bait for further escalation.
My best options seemed to be to stop engaging entirely and contact admin before making any changes to their edit, but I'll let you be the judge.
I apologize to you, MIDI, and to Mandruss for not handling this better, or on my own, but I'm ready to forgive, forget and move on if that seems appropriate.
In my ~11 years here, this is the first time I've seen someone object to being named in a collapse message. As far as I'm concerned, it's not substantially different from naming someone in a normal comment, which is fairly routine. Seems highly over-sensitive to me, but whatever. I have, never had anyneed to name you there. Apology accepted, if that's important to you, but I haven't seen an apology for the AGF failure which is at the root of this whole mini-trainwreck. You have repeatedly escalated (e.g. admin ping) while begging for de-escalation.This could have and should have gone a different way:Hi. Would you mind removing my username from your collapse message? —DarknipplesDone.[6] —MandrussCase closed. Please. This will be my last comment on this issue unless in reply to a different editor. You're welcome to the last word if you want it. ―Mandruss☎22:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Regarding yourrecent revert, I already took it to the talk page *before* adding the tag, and linked the specific section of the talk page in my edit. If you want to edit war over a template, I'm not going to get involved in that, but if it's possible, could I ask that you please do not tell other editors to take an issue on the talk page when they have already done so? Thanks!NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk)23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: Sorry, could you humor me with a link to the discussion where a consensus was reached to include that banner? I get lost in the chaos and cluuter, but I would happily self-revert. ―Mandruss☎23:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is needed to include a tag? Aren't tags supposed to highlight a problem and generate discussion on the talk page about the problem?
I don't see anything about needing consensus to add a tag atWP:Tagging pages for problems. Could you link me the particular policy or essay page which says that?
I do see however atWP:DETAG, "it is wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal and to identify your action in an appropriately detailed edit summary" when removing a tag.
You didn't respond to my comment on the talk page before or after reverting, and incorrectly indicated in your edit summary that I hadn't taken the issue to the talk page.
@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: Oh, I guess I could've just searched for your username on the TP. My bad. I see the discussion now. Agreement that the lead is too long is not the same as agreement to include the banner. Similarly, there's fairly wide (far from unanimous) agreement that the article is too long, but we nevertheless reached consensus to omit{{Very long}}. The article gets a ton of attention and editors are well aware of the length issues. ―Mandruss☎23:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would've been helpful to search the talk page before telling someone to take an issue to the talk page when they have already done so, I agree. That should be standard procedure for every editor to be honest
Shouldn't consensus be sought to include Template:Lead too long in the current consensus list alongside Template:Very long? That would seem beneficial if it's used as rationale for reversion.
The vast majority of readers aren't editors, so they will notice the overly long lead but won't notice the note on the talk page which is not referenced in mainspace.
The lead also will likely have to cover events during his second term, shouldn't consensus adapt to new developments and thereby trim what existed prior? Wouldn't a tag to address this help generate further discussion?NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk)00:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I'm new to that article and might be confused, but are you now seeking consensus as to whether or not Template:Lead too long is covered by consensus item 64? You already reverted using item 64 as a reasoning, but you had not before attempted to discuss on the talk page to attain consensus that the tag is covered by item 64?
You also mentioned in the edit summary that you were aware the tag had already been added multiple times recently, and say that there's some agreement the lead is too long (presumably this is why multiple editors have added the tag). Instead of continuing an apparent low-scale edit war which you were aware of, why not create a talk page discussion about the tag's relation to item 64 before reverting? As you say, this is a separate issue best handled separately and not specifically covered by the previous talk page discussions.
The tag does not affect the actual content of the article. The edit was not vandalism or any such form of disruptive editing. I still don't understand the hastiness to revert especially when you say that you had not searched the talk page before reverting. I don't personally mind if there's a casual 'oops, my bad' response or not, I just want to say this shouldn't happen again to another editor.
A situation where someone edits in good faith then immediately is reverted with a false edit summary and no talk page response is something which would discourage any normal person from editing Wikipedia (particularly when it's such a convoluted case as this where there's agreement the tag accurately identifies a problem with the article, but a local consensus seemingly exists that the article is exempt from site-wide content policies and guidelines).NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk)18:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I already said I should've searched the page first. Why do you feel it's necessary or constructive to keep harping on that point? I'm not perfect, are you? We admit fault and we move the hell on. Many of us never admit fault about anything. The issue of the banner is now under discussion on the talk page, thanks to me, and I certainly know how to lose if that's how it ends up. I see nothing to be gained by continuing this particular discussion. I'm not going to concede and withdraw the TP discussion based on anything said here. ―Mandruss☎19:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's beyond the matter of that particular tag. It's the rush to revert mentality. This is fine for vandalism, but my edit was in no way vandalism. This is dismissive of other editors and creates an environment where normal people would not find it worthwhile to edit. Maybe this is the first time and I'm the only editor you have reverted in this way. Hopefully that's the case.
And I understand that if someone is actively monitoring a highly-viewed, controversial article like that, there probably are lots of edits that do need to be immediately reverted with little if any discussion, but care needs to be taken too. Unless it's a BLP violation or similar situation, hastily reverting good-faith editors without discussion is far more harmful to the project than allowing the 'wrong version' to temporarily stay. I don't want to keep going on about this, but again it's not about 'losing' or 'conceding' a content dispute, it's about a standard of consideration for other editors.NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk)23:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the rush to revert mentality. It's called routine BRD process. You disagree with a BOLD edit to the article, any edit, you may challenge it by reversion. That's what I did.Maybe this is the first time and I'm the only editor you have reverted in this way. Hardly. ―Mandruss☎23:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This refers back then to the earlier point that you stated in the edit summary you were aware the tag had been added and removed multiple times recently. Why knowingly continue an edit war instead of discussing the issue on the talk page?
Sir, I am past done trying to defend this behavior here. If you can't accept my defense, kindly take this somewhere else. I know I amcompletely within accepted process. If you continue here, you will become the second editor I have banned from this page in 11 years. ―Mandruss☎23:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, we're going in circles at this point. As I said it's beyond the issue of a tag on an article. But you can't claim in the future to have been unaware that you shouldn't hastily revert edits without discussion and while using false edit summaries. Hopefully there won't be another instance in which you do that.NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk)23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mandruss, I understand no one had responded yet, but forthis revision, you rethinking the issue is a contribution to the conversation. I think it's helpful to see not just what ideas are being put forth, but what ideas are rejected, and I wouldn't want other editors who are not following the page history to miss them.Rollinginhisgrave (talk)08:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Then feel free to comment with an external link to that diff. Otherwise I think it would be an unhelpful distraction, and I don't care to be seen making very assertive flawed arguments. ―Mandruss☎08:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Thankyou for your work on this and more. I know I can get on your case a bit about NOTBURO and BITE, but the more I see of this talk page, the more I appreciate your even temperament and willingness to use some elbow grease where needed.Rollinginhisgrave (talk)16:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm missing tons of interesting things. So are you, so is everybody. I'm not going to subscribe for one docuseries and I'm getting my streaming needs met elsewhere (all free). ―Mandruss☎18:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh well see I already know I'm not going to succeed as a wikipedia editor because I'm very poor so I can't spend my time doing something for free because I have to spend my time doing shitty labor for shitty pay so unless someone wants to pay me I won't be doing much editing on wikipedia so no worriesJaneenGingerich (talk)22:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth the trouble of restoring from archive for closure, particularly when the consensus is clear. I have updated the list item and the article. ―Mandruss☎09:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: It was legit paraphrasing in my opinion. "Sentenced to" implies a penalty or punishment, and unconditional discharge is the absence of same. Do a large number of sources say "sentenced to unconditional discharge" exactly? If you can say "sentence(d)" without "sentenced to", have at it. ―Mandruss☎20:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC,NBC,NY Times,WaPo,Reuters (Those delays, together with Trump's victory and looming return to the White House, left Merchan with little choice but to sentence Trump to unconditional discharge, meaning no jail or other legal punishment.), also Rolling Stone, Hill, Fox, Independent, ABC. Remove "an" from "sentenced to an unconditional discharge"?Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖20:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
@JacktheBrown: Hi, I considered closing the former as duplicate, but there has already beena viable claim that the "RFC" (not an RfC) is strictly about the first sentence, nothing more. The "Convicted felon" thread is not about the first sentence, ergo not duplicate or redundant.The edit request will be archived after 08:19 tomorrow UTC, per consensus 13. We allow 24 hours for the OP to see the response. ―Mandruss☎17:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, 24 hours after the response. The response occurred at 00:15, 12 January (UTC), so the archival will occur after 00:15, 13 January (UTC). That's about five hours from this moment. ―Mandruss☎18:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there was a flurry of that just after the election, when we had over 90 level-2 sections at one point. Less aggressive now. ―Mandruss☎19:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's easy compared to the "real editor work" of evaluating sources etc. I believe all editors should stick to what they're good at, and I'm good at janitor work. ―Mandruss☎20:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Not many recently, so I guess I've worn out my welcome. But I'll get started designing theMany Barnstars Barnstar forthwith! ―Mandruss☎04:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adolphus79: Hi. "Does anyone [want] to see if there is any RS?" Clearly, they are proposing an addition to the article, or at least raising the question. That's "related to the improvement to the article". What matters is the intent, not the competence. Outright removal needs a high bar. Even if it were a NOTAFORUM vio,WP:TPO does not authorize outright removal for NOTAFORUM vio. ―Mandruss☎00:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point #3 ofWP:TPO (underExamples of appropriately editing others' comments) states "Removing prohibited material such as libel; legal threats; personal details; content that is illegal under US law; or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies."...WP:LIBEL states "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory."... andWP:BLPRS states "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."... considering especially the subject of the article and their proclivity for filing lawsuits over the least consequential of things, better to be safe than sorry... unsourced gossip has absolutely no place on Wikipedia, better to simply remove it than leave it to be responded to or waste space in an archive... -Adolphus79 (talk)01:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adolphus79: Most of that pertains to article content, not ATP content. When you separate the wheat from the chaff, what remains is whether it's libelous to ask whether something negative found in a "rag" should be added to an article. I think not. This is not a hill I care to die on, but I would and will revert again in a similar circumstance. ―Mandruss☎01:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to start an argument, I apologize if it read like that. I certainly know better than that. I was only trying to point out that it is completely acceptable to remove questionably defamatory personal commentary based on purely unsourced alleged gossip. It was completely unrelated to improving the article, and claimed that something was said by him with zero evidence. The user even outright refused to cite their source. I can't understand what argument there is for that content to remain, it read to me like an IP editor just trying to stir the pot with zero evidence to back up their statement. -Adolphus79 (talk)01:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adolphus79:It was completely unrelated to improving the article - Quite effectively countered in my first reply. That fact that it would not improve the article is not the point and is irrelevant for this purpose.I can't understand what argument there is for that content to remain - The argument is that outright removal is not supported by the PAGs. And you continue to cite NOTAFORUM when I have already pointed out that TPO does not authorize outright removal for NOTAFORUM vio. We have rules and we don't get to just do whatever feels right. Sorry that we ignore the rules at many other articles. ―Mandruss☎01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, feel free to restore the edit... I know better than to disagree with other editors, I just forget sometimes and need to be pointed back into my corner... -Adolphus79 (talk)01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the self-revert; it looks better than if I re-reverted, even with a link to this discussion. Re your editsum, that article has a few retards but you're not one of them. ―Mandruss☎01:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in general, I'm supposed to stay in my corner quietly gnoming away in article space and not interact with other editors, it never works out for me... again, I apologize for disagreeing with you... -Adolphus79 (talk)01:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to keep the new image out of articles pending their deletion on Commons (which a deletion request has been started at this point), but came acrossthis editor who seems to have changed it on all 50 state articles. I'm unsure if reverting en-masse is appropriate or not, but if it is, what the best way to do it is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!09:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: Isn't that what rollback is for? But I don't have the rollback right. Looks like you don't either. So that leaves individual reverts. I don't think a lawsuit is a real risk in this case, so worst case is a lot of redlinks for a short period of time, and that's only if it's deleted. ―Mandruss☎09:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the one(s) that are being noticed have been nominated for deletion on Commonsin this deletion request. If you notice any more being uploaded/added that are not on that list already, please feel free to comment there linking to them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez |me |talk to me!09:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Looks like the Commons deletion request is redundant with the Commons VP thread, but whatever. As forfeel free to comment, my interest ends at theDonald Trump article (part of my semi-retirement self-conditions). ―Mandruss☎10:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Yeah, I was the one who reverted, less than 30 seconds later. Wasn't worth copying the article to the sandbox. No harm was done. Thanks for dropping by. ―Mandruss☎20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to express my appreciation for the work you are doing on the Donald Trump page. You are one of the few editors who I believe are genuinely attempting to abide by Wikipedia policy and do not have a "hidden agenda" that many users have editing such a contentious page. I do not necessarily agree with all your decisions, but you explain them well and base them in policy, which does not happen nearly enough among editors. I see and feel your frustration in several of your comments and edit summaries. Who knew a damn portrait would cause so much trouble?BootsED (talk)04:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BootsED: Thanks much. I am not good at accepting compliments (or giving them!). Honestly I'm not one of the ones doing the heavy lifting there, including yourself. But I'm having a good time (most of the time), and it's a pretty good crowd to work with. Cheers,―Mandruss☎04:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Space4Time3 appears to be reverting against Talk page consensus for trimming the COVID section of the Donald Trump article. There were three of us in agreement about the trimmed section which was added to the article yesterday, and Space4Time3 has declined to participate on the Talk page discussion to which he was pinged and has decided to revert against consensus here:[7]. Could you look at this?ErnestKrause (talk)16:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update to 3-11-2025. Hi Mandruss: Your comment was about dredging the news for random additions to the Trump article. My edit was made on the basis on adding an edit for the top news story of the day, as verified by two or more reliable sources. You have reverted it. If you keep reverting these on a daily basis then there will not be any substance in the second term section from which to summarize the First 100 Days of the second term. Can't you keep these verified top stories from reliable sources until the First Hundred Days, when they will be summarized and then deleted. They are not dredges; they are the top stories of the day according to reliable sources.ErnestKrause (talk)21:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Thetop news story of the day is precisely what we should avoid. The article is not a chronology of Trump's presidencies; that's better suited for the respective presidency articles. Even for the kind of material you're talking about, I think we can and should allow for significantly more "historical perspective" than a mere few days (in this specific case, one day). I'm for taking another look after a few weeks: how does the situation look then? I'm not the only one challenging this kind of addition. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.21:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it came back again this morning from the same editor in the 2nd term presidency secetion. It also looks like that editor was blocked recently last month for one or two weeks. Could you look at this 'stock market crash again'?ErnestKrause (talk)17:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has appointed me Article Sheriff. If you think an edit is inappropriate, revert it per BRD. If you make a mistake, that's the best way to learn. Or you can just leave it for others to look at; there's no hurry on things like this; no need to come here for it to get attention. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.03:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to putthis somewhere else? Regardless, I am not going to adhere so strictly to a suggestion about edit requests if it means alienating good faith users who use that edit request for something that they shouldn't have. If they ask a good-faith question, they should be answered and not just shut down with a templated response.EvergreenFir(talk)21:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: So be it. I prefer to comply withcommunity consensus on the matter. That's not an essay.By the way, the edit request facility is far more trouble than it's worth at well-attended articles. I have raised the idea of making the facility optional at article level, in which case we would turn it off atDonald Trump. What is now the edit request path would then suggest using "New section" instead, or simply start the "New section" path for them. The idea was shot down atWP:VPI, using weak argumentation, by editors whose mission it is to block changes to en-wiki infrastructure. ―Mandruss☎22:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir:not just shut down with a templated response. I already said the response doesn't have to use the template. I'm aware a lot of editors don't like that kind of response. Formoi, it's a significant time-saver and keeps the message consistent with community consensus, while providing some potentially useful wikilinks. ―Mandruss☎23:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Oppose all options I didn't vote for. Obviously. Kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you say Space4T?" — oppose all actions including the words "has been ... since 2025" or "has served as ... since 2025". Not my fault if that's most of them. I can live with the other three, would prefer K which wasn't an option when I !voted. Maybe S Marshall will take pity on us once again and put us out of our misery.Space4TCatHerder🖖14:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: The point was that we don't know how to evaluate consensus with that added element. Without that element, consensus will be determined as follows:
Terminate current voting (my plan: Feb 7).
Select top two proposals based on weighted score.
Run a second round of voting between those two.
We now have a majority supporting the consensus. Without the second round, we very likely have a mere plurality.
So how does the Oppose column fit into that? Do we just subtract some quantity from the weighted score? What quantity? And what prevents editors from doing what I did? Are we going to have a rule about the maximum number of Oppose votes from one editor? What maximum? The maximum would have to be at least (number of options − 4), since that's how many you entered. The devil's in them details, my friend, and I'm currently the only one thinking about the details.If you're one of those who just can't stomach such a mathematical approach, you are more than welcome to suggest a detailed, workable alternative. We already have our fill of vague philosophical arm-waving. ―Mandruss☎15:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could also drop the options that received 0 to 2 votes in the first round. (Doesn't a weighted score require rating each option, i.e., in this case first to tenth?)Space4TCatHerder🖖15:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could also drop the options that received 0 to 2 votes in the first round. Only two options proceed to the second round. So we're dropping all of the others.(Doesn't a weighted score require rating each option, i.e., in this case first to tenth?) Hey I never took statistics. If you did, your definition of weighted score may differ from mine. "Weighted vote" would work, too. I'm just mathematically depreciating second choices, giving them 60% of the weight of first choices. ―Mandruss☎17:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: You're free to remove the Oppose column if I've convinced you here. I'm not doing it. As it stands today, that column will be ignored for consensus assessment. Target date for closure of round 1 voting is Feb 7. ―Mandruss☎14:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rethis edit and others presumably to follow: I'm no expert, but I think someone mentioned that you can't have duplicate headings in an article, i.e., "Early actions" in the first and second presidency sections.Space4TCatHerder🖖18:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<:span> isn't working properly. I made a few edits toDonald_Trump#Personnel_2. When I clickedPreview, Personnel 2 was displayed, but when I then clickedPublish changes, I was looking atDonald_Trump#Personnel every time. Is there a rule against just naming the second one "Personnel 2"? That would also make editing easier for editors wanting to wikilink to the section and either not being aware that there's a prior section or not knowing how to link to the second one. This will probably remain a unique problem — Biden won't run again.Space4TCatHerder🖖16:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a known problem and part of the "least-bad" downside that I think was determined by reasoning in the discussion. The rest of the downside is that the page history and contribs links to second presidency sections won't work; editors will have to get there via the ToC, which does work. These things apply only to second presidency sections that have duplicates in first presidency, which is currently only a few.A heading of "Personnel 2" (and several others) is currently considered a worse downside, as I understand it. I think it's unlikely editors will accept that, feeling that some inconvenience to editors is preferable to a tacky-looking ToC. The discussionhas been archived, so you'd have to start a new one to seek consensus for your suggestion. We didn't get a lot of interest the first time. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.17:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedDonald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageABC News. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)
Yeah, I don't manually archive things just because I think they have reached a conclusion (not that I thought that in this case). I would need clear and uncontroversial evidence that the section is no longer needed on the page. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.18:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... and another thing I don't do is archive before closing and waiting 24 hours, neither of which happened in this case. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.18:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry about that, I wasn't trying to override consensus - sincerely thought it looked like a non-controversial rewording of exactly the same information.Simonm223 (talk)16:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A number of our consensuses mandate specific language. In those cases, the benefits outweigh the extra work required to make a minor change in wording. Especially in the first paragraph, there is no such thing asa non-controversial rewording. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.16:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fine. I have no interest in overturning that particular apple cart. Just wanted to say sorry for misunderstanding the situation.Simonm223 (talk)17:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mandruss. May I ask the rationale for reverting the latest edit to Enola Gay entry? The information was backed by trustworthy journalistic sources. Thank you --Idris.albadufi (talk)17:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale was in my edit summary, but I'll rephrase/elaborate here. Disputed content requires talk page consensus. No such consensus exists at this time. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.18:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think we should give up the goat regardingWP:ELDERS. There is something benign here that the current version isn't tactile enough to tease out. I referred to and discussed it atUser talk:Plumber#Advice, and it ended with a thanks. Something like:
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be esoteric. A legalistic reading of them won't give the reader a solid understanding, and unfamiliarity with the contexts they apply to compound this. Understanding can only come through experience, and thus in some contexts it can make sense to defer to editors more experienced than you. There is also wisdom in convention, and people are not always going to be able to spell it out to you. [softer sentence needed here].
Don't take or use this essay the wrong way. It is never appropriate to cite this policy, only to refer to it in respectful 1:1 conversation, leaving everyone's dignity intact. It may help to mention that this notion would likely apply to the targeted user with regards to IPs and newbies, so they can gauge their place in the community rather than interpreting it as a personal suppression. This is only a general notion, experienced editors can be, and often are, wrong. One of our most important policies isWP:Don't bite the newcomers, which could be said to encapsulate the paternalistic imperative of the community, and it is important this essay is taken in that context, i.e. to help editors along their journey of becoming super-constructive editors who will one day replace today's 'elders'.
Lol. Where were you (and other supporters) when I was being pummeled to death by editors using highly questionable discussion tactics? Simply !voting and disappearing is not enough when it comes closure time. I would be there to support any effort I'm aware of, but I no longer care to be the spearhead. You're welcome to take that abuse and resulting frustration. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.21:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoying the show! They were only like that because they feel so strongly about BITE and the egalitarianism ethos, which I tried to incorporate into this. Can I do some rewriting of what's there? By that I mean copy and paste what's above lolKowal2701 (talk)21:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start a new one in your user space? If it meets with more success than mine, you can have the shortcut. Or you might choose a different shortcut that doesn't get a knee-jerk negative reaction. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.22:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happens all the time, unfortunately. What we need is a pinned general notice near the top of the table of contents. Not that anybody would read it. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.04:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss Trump posting bigly news? Seven or eight editors with accounts that are around or less than 20 hours old, posting about the reliability of Trump social media blatherings or the month-old Croatia reporting.Space4TCatHerder🖖18:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I ventured on toTalk:Donald Trump, a page I rarely have gone to, and saw your work managing the talk page and discussions that was going on. It seems to me that it would be thankless work with a lot of pushback so I wanted to thank you for spending some of your time on the project keeping things tidy. And you still have email enabled which surprised me! You must not get a lot of abuse from politically-minded trolls (on either side). You really could use a co-monitor to help out but I'm not volunteering! Thanks again and remember to take mental health breaks. I'll try to think of a punchline to the joke, "And as far as Croatia goes....ba dum dum!"LizRead!Talk!04:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,Liz. Largely thankless, but not too much pushback.You must not get a lot of abuse from politically-minded trolls (on either side). Assuming you meant "must get", none. Zero.remember to take mental health breaks. My semi-retirement is a permanent mental health break. It makes an enormous difference when you're prepared to go full retired at any time. I haven't felt physically ill at Wikipedia since I semi-retired. Thanks for the kind comments. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.05:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mandruss. I understand the issues you raised in your comments in youredit summary. However I disagree as a former volunteer RfC-closer.Closing the discussion is clear that non-contentious RfCs like this one are best handled in place without calling in a neutral party fromWP:RFCL—where there is a backlog. RFCL is for contentious issues that absolutely require an uninvolved editor. I encourage you to lighten their load and their backlog, and dispense with this layer of bureaucratic red tape. -SusanLesch (talk)22:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you were testing something about my custom signature yesterday on the Donald Trump talk page. Thank you! Did it pass correctly? Do I need to change anything?satkara❈talk14:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never really understood the reasoning for asking people to self-revert clear vios. Do it yourself and you don't have to wait (and remember about it). Much cleaner. And you save them the trouble. ―Mandruss☎ IMO.21:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do notattack other editors, as you did attalk:donald_trump. Comment oncontent, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Pleasestay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Editing-dude144 (talk)18:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done ―Mandruss ☎ IMO.22:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]