Nøkkenbuer

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to today's featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a interesting and wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess, though I only removed one period and added one word. I know this is a mass message and all, but I find that amusing. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Image size

Trying to explain why your edits on Casino Royale were reverted (not by me, I am slow but would have done the same thing.) Fixed image sizes are not good because readers have different devices and different preferences. If you have to change image size, use "upright="multiplier, for example upright=1.2, for an image a bit larger than normal. Exceptions are userboxes and infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I was unaware of that specification. I'm still very new to Wikipedia, so I'm not really versed in these technicalities. I appreciate the revert, and have no problem with it. Your explanation is definitely helpful, and I'll keep that in mind for the future. (That "M" still bothers me, though!) ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Painting of the Muhammad (P.B.U.H)

Thank you for the message, i am trying to remove some disturbing data from the article named Islam, writer should know that there is no concept of painting in photos in ISLAM, By posting such things in the wiki articles can create some serious troubles to the Muslims, and can confuse the readers kindly have a glance on the Painting in the Article.

Sorry, but I think you may have messaged the wrong person. I have done some editing on articles relating to Islam and Muhammad, but I haven't removed any images. If you believe there are some problems with the depiction of Muhammad in one of the articles, I recommend bringing it up on the article's talk page. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored, however, so unless you have some serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the content or the legality of it (such as copyright issues and whatnot), I'm not sure if you'll be able to accomplish much. Good luck, though! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Debate pointless there

Really, I think we could engage in open debate until our star burns out, without changing anyone's mind. As I indicated in my last comment, we will need a tie-breaker in the form of expert opinions or an RfC. If it's RfC, I'd suggest saving your debate for that. Even then, you should state your position clearly one time and keep further comments selective and brief, lest the discussion become so large that no new arrivals have the time to read and comprehend all of it. I write this only because I know you to be receptive to suggestions (most newer editors believe they already know everything they need to know). When I find some time I'll find a good barnstar for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! I was already planning on giving you a barnstar for tolerating me (and for all your hard work, of course), but I was going to keep that a secret. Anyway, I've already stated my position more than enough; I'm not interested in a long, protracted debate right now, nor do I think it would be beneficial at this time. I'll save it for RfC if it comes to that, though I'll probably just be quoting myself, seeing how I've pretty much covered all relevant points I wanted to make in my posts. The only way I could add more would be to expand my argument further to apply to the specification of any extraneous and superfluous information which could be misinterpreted as implying something more. I doubt I'll go there, though, since that only complicates the issue further. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Amazing progress as an editor in only 40 days, eager to learn and to collaborate, keeps a level head in a debate, committed to improving Shooting of Walter Scott. A promising editing future. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

WP:NOCONSENSUS In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. Jim1138 (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Jim1138, but I am a bit confused. Did I do something wrong? Or are you just letting me know about something which may be important to me? If the former, then sorry for the trouble. If the latter, then thanks! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It was sort of an oopsie. I clicked on the wrong editor's talk link. I realized my error later. It does seem to be a good FYI given some of the discussion on talk:sexism. Keep up the good work! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem. Have a great day! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Buer

Greetings Nøkkenbuer! I made some changes with respect to the linking at article Buer. I was wondering if you are familiar with MOS:LINK? Especially the subsections WP:LINKSTYLE and WP:SEAOFBLUE. Anyway, I try to explain in concise :-) See, if we want to link, let's say, a place called "Riverside, California", instead of linking to both [[Riverside]] and [[California]] separately, we should link to either [[Riverside, California]] directly or through a pipelink [[Riverside|Riverside, California]]. That's WP:LINKSTYLE in a nutshell.

According to WP:SEAOFBLUE, we shouldn't place separate wikilinks one next to another, but use a more specific one instead. For example, if we have three locations: "Upper East Side", "Manhattan", and "New York City", instead of linking to all three separately ([[Upper East Side]], [[Manhattan]], [[New York City]]), we should link to the most specific one, which is "Upper East Side" ([[Upper East Side|Upper East Side, Manhattan, New York]]) in this case. I know, that overlaps greatly with WP:LINKSTYLE. That was my own example though, and maybe not the best one. The manual of style uses [[Ireland|Irish]] [[Chess]] [[Champinship]] instead.

Anyway, I think the whole idea of those rules is to help the readers to distinguish between the relevant and the overtly-general ones, and enable carefully selected linking. For example, in the article Buer, [[Blessed are the Sick]] provides lots of information, whereas [[LP record|LP]] doesn't even discuss the theme, Buer. Well, that's just my own pondering though, but... :-)

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have though! Happy weekend and cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I was somewhat aware of it, but I'm not familiar with exactly when to link. There is some information on the WP pages about it, but I see a lot of variety and deviation from these guidelines throughout Wikipedia and on many articles. I was worried that I was overlinking, but I didn't know what was alright. For example, I linked "grimoire" because even though I know what it is, others may not. I see that I did overlink, though, especially regarding the music portion. My bad. I tried to make sure my linking was specific, but that doesn't really help when I'm specifically linking to stuff which shouldn't be linked in the first place. I do notice that many, if not most, articles do link to separate articles adjacent to each other. For example, in the Tome of Magic article, Dungeons & Dragons and role-playing game are linked next to each other. Is this fine, since both links are deemed important and there is not a more specific article to link them both to? Or is this a problem someone should correct? This is my most recent edit to the article. Do you think that's fine? I didn't link Dungeons & Dragons because it is covered in the subsequent link, and isn't directly related to the article. I really appreciate your help, by the way. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott refs

Let's move this here, as we're cluttering a public space with a one-on-one conversation.

Here's why removing all unnecessary spaces from a citation is a bad thing. It's about the number of opportunities for natural line breaks in the edit window. When there are no "extra" spaces, the software is more often forced to split a parameter value at the end of a line. This is usually a URL in |url= or |archiveurl=, because they are very long values with no imbedded spaces. URLs are less likely to be split at the end of a line if they are allowed to begin at the start of a line. A split URL is harder to read and to work with.

Just from observation, it seems many editors don't care about that issue, or about anything regarding coding of citations (or about anything regarding coding, as long as it works from the reader's perspective). This is the Whutever editing philosophy.

Those who care no doubt often come from the programming world, as I do, and they have varying ideas and personal preferences. The one I and some others subscribe to is one extra space before each pipe character, and no others. Thus (1) there will be an opportunity for a line break before each parameter, and (2) no parameter value will be separated from its parameter name. There will never be a line break between a parameter name and its preceding pipe character, which is in keeping with the output of the {{para}} template as in the second paragraph above.

There are other citation-related personal prefs as well, like whether to use |author= versus |first= and |last=. This one falls into the category of things that affect what the reader sees, and therefore should be consistent within an article. For these things, one's personal preference has no bearing except when they create an article and get to choose its local conventions.

Other personal prefs have no effect on what the reader sees, such as the choice between |newspaper=, |work=, and related parameters, and thus any need to go around "fixing" those things is mostly just an anal compulsion that is treatable with medications.

Although many of us have our personal preferences that we use when creating a citation, the experienced among us don't go around "fixing" these things on an article-wide basis, as that would imply that "my personal preferences are better than your personal preferences". I sometimes can't resist doing it with individual citations I'm already fixing, such as in this edit. I was converting |author= to the article's convention of |first= and |last=. But I couldn't help "fixing" some other things while I was at it.

So, in summary and generally speaking, unless something makes a real, practical difference, I try to leave it alone, as we have more than enough other insignificant things to battle over.

I seem to have become more verbose since you showed up. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I was worried that our conversation on the article talk page may be straying out of what should be discussed on the talk page, seeing as a lot of it was you providing me with general help. Should we delete the discussions there, or just leave them? As for the matter of citing articles: shouldn't there be consistency on Wikipedia, though? I mean, I guess that's kind of what VE is trying to establish (and failing, since the numerous bugs and arbitrary formatting changes have led to significant dissent), but at this time there appears to be a lot of inconsistency, even among Featured or Good articles, when it comes to citations and the spacing and/or parameters therein. But perhaps one should not expect consistency in this area.

I would describe your post as informative and detailed, but not verbose. I just call myself "verbose" because I type a lot and usually submit multiparagraph responses—you know, that and almost everyone tells me I'm verbose. But anywho, don't fear "verbosity"! Embrace it, like I have! If you do, I can assure you that the number of users who respond to you will promptly diminish, and probably even cut in half. If you keep at it, you may even achieve the verbose singularity, where the only person reading your drivel is you! Joking aside, thanks for your responses. They have been both helpful and appreciated. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, just leave it and it will be archived in 4-5 days.

Site-wide consistency would be nice, but the community feels that per-article flexibility is important, that the article's editors are the best judges of what's appropriate for that article, and also there's a lot of resistance to being prescriptive about a lot of things. So a lot of the less-important things are "observe the article's existing conventions".

I don't think VE is trying to accomplish consistency in coding, it's just a lot simpler to program VE if you limit it to only one way of coding. VE is just about isolating the user from the code.

Re verbosity, long discussions get completely out of control very quickly, even when people aren't terribly verbose. where the only person reading your drivel is you! Joking aside - That's not a joke; see WP:TLDR. I confess to skipping large swaths of your comments at NPOVN; I seem to have an ADD problem that prevents me from staying focused that long. And many people just don't care to take the time. If you want to be read, try to be more be concise, although I understand it's not a trivial matter to change one's natural tendencies. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's problematic when the conventions of an article are either unclear or itself inconsistent, something I have noticed occur frequently. I don't think an official goal of VE is to establish some sort of consistency in the source code; however, I do think that may be an eventual byproduct of VE if it becomes popular enough (and actually works well without the occasional freezes and other bugs). It may also be an side-goal of the project, but that's just me speculating. On a side note, I highly recommend VE for general copyediting. Whenever you see me change all instances of curly quotes to straight quotes, or capitalize/decapitalize a certain term, or fix em-dash/en-dash consistency within an article, I use VE. Its "Find & Replace" function works great for this—you know, when it actually reads the article properly. In that respect, at least, I think VE is great. It's otherwise a very, very beta extension.

Believe it or not, I considered linking to WP:TL;DR and during my first draft of my response to you, I had linked it twice. Perhaps I should have linked it in my actual response to you, as well. I'm not surprised that you (or anyone else) skipped a lot of what I said on WP:NPOVN. I knew I was being lengthy at times, but I was expanding on my views in order to provide a more cogent argument overall. When reading the entire thread (a big task, but one I've done), I believe I fully covered every worthwhile, relevant point in multiple ways. Hence why I said, near the end, that the final multiparagraph post I made would be my last: I read the entire thread, reviewed my posts, and deemed that at that point, I'd be reiterating my argument, since I've exhausted all pertinent lines of thought. My argument had became "refer above". The problem with that position is that, unfortunately, almost nobody actually "refers above". In any case, I take solace in the fact that I made my argument to its fullest and most rigorously comprehensive extent. Whether anyone actually gives a shit is, well, up to them.

You may find this surprising, but many of my posts are me being as concise as I could. I usually read and reread my responses multiple times before submitting them, changing words to be more (or less) specific, rewording, adding or removing idioms, correcting grammar, removing irrelevant or tangential sentences, and even omitting entire paragraphs and arguments to store as a reserve for a future response, if needed. Sometimes, I delete entire paragraphs for the sake of brevity. For example, I looked over this response a couple times (and even considered showing the numerous changes via underlining and strikethroughs to illustrate my point) to make sure I wasn't being verbose.

The problem for me, I think, is that I am too detailed in my responses out of fear of being misunderstood (noted on WP:TL;DR, by the way). Rather than omitting what I consider to be important or essential information for the sake of brevity, I tend to expand on it. I've been known to break a sentence off from a paragraph to use it as the lead for a new one. I try to always paragraph my responses, however long they may be, and make sure that every paragraph has a leading sentence which summarizes or explains the following paragraph's contents. At least in this respect, I'm not that bad.

You're right, though; I should try to be more concise. I just fear that after reviewing my posts so many times and stripping away all unnecessary content, all that's left is valuable information I wish to convey. Maybe that's the problem, though: I want to convey more information than is necessary.

(TL;DR)  Summary: Following article conventions can be a problem when these conventions are hard to determine, especially when the convention is inconsistently applied in the article itself. I don't necessarily think that an official objective of VE is to establish consistency in the source code; however, this could be a byproduct of VE becomes widely used. As an aside, I really recommend VE for copyediting; it's "Find & Replace" tool is great. Believe it or not, I actually was going to add a link to WP:TL;DR in my original revision. I removed it, though, since I thought it was unnecessary. Perhaps I should have left one link in. I'm not surprised that you (or anyone else) skipped a lot of what I said on WP:NPOVN. I knew I was being lengthy, but I was trying to ensure my argument was as cogent as possible. I believe I achieved that, even at the expense of brevity. I'd like to point out, though, that my posts usually are as concise as I could make them. I do a lot of editing before submitting them. But yes, you're right; I do need to be more concise.

(I tried.) ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent summary! BTW, the wiki editor has find and replace, too. Click Advanced and look for the icon at the right end of the toolbar. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent perhaps, but lackluster to me. If I'm not building, I'm not making my point! As for the S&R, I am surprised that's there. That makes my editing so much easier when editing in source. Before, I've been doing S&R in VE, only to switch to source to finish up the technical work. At least when it comes to. copyediting, either could work for me. Thanks! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you decide not to make links of citation parameters in the Scott article? I've lost touch with that. The last I recall is that I said it shouldn't be done with VE; is that why it was dropped? If you don't do that, I'll probably remove all existing such links, as the article should be consistent in that regard. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I've just been busy, that's all. I can do that now, or in the next day or two, if you want. On the matter of VE: is the only problem here the spacing? if so, I've found it easy to simply do the edits in VE and edit in source afterward, replacing instances of " = " with "=". ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No, VE also appears to stick quotes around the refname for any ref that it touches. And possibly other evil things that I'm not aware of. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I could remove those as well if needed. I personally don't see why that should be a problem, though. Help:Footnotes, in particular WP:REFNAMES, states that it's optional, but the quotes are probably there to make sure nothing breaks. They do serve a purpose, albeit they aren't always used. But eh, I don't mind using source to edit. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ahmadiyya‎

Just wanted to compliment you on your clear and well written response there. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to be submitting some more edits to the article in the hopes of resolving this issue. We'll see if it works. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Soften the notification number

See my proposal and feel free to weigh in. (concisely! ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on Talk:Sexism discussion?

Is there a higher authority? Can I appeal to anyone? I feel like I'm being stonewalled because someone has a personal bias. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I made this its own section and added a title to it, but feel free to change it to whatever you think is most appropriate. As for your comments, not really. An RfC could be used to establish consensus when an ongoing dispute continues. Doing so may backfire, however, since the likely projects which would be alerted would be those listed on the talk page (Sociology, Human Rights, Discrimination, Women's History, and Feminism). If you try to call in support, that would pretty much be meatpuppetry. Of course, using an alternate account to fake consensus is sockpuppetry. The only thing you can do here is present your arguments in as rational, respectful, and cogent a manner as possible. It is up to your interlocutor(s), in this case other editors, to decide whether they're willing to change their minds or consider other opinions. If they do not, there's nothing you can really do. Although bias is a problem which conflicts with the very principles of Wikipedia, it's technically not something you can hold the person accountable for by means of administrative intervention.

We're all biased in our own way. The goal, then, is to work together to weed it out. If some refuse to participate in this sort of collaborative effort, then shame on them. Unless they're breaking a specific rule, police, or guideline, however, there's not much that can be done. The best advice I can give in the matter is to simply seek dispute resolution. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Contrast fail

We regret to inform you that your color nomination, #347BFF/white, failed the WCAG AA contrast test for Normal Text and has been withdrawn. Please reply here if you have any questions. Thank you,―Mandruss ☎ 01:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Requiescat in pace. At least I tried. (I still prefer the green ones anyway!) ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your misinterpretation

Regarding your objection in your edit summary here, please note that my edit summary clearly indicates that I reverted to your edit. I did not revert your edit, nor did I claim to. Please read the edit summary more carefully in future. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was late and I was up for 18 hours, so I was getting very tired. Apologies for that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

hidden comment at Scott

Sorry, I misread your last edit, which was a dummy edit. My revert was unnecessary. Must learn to look closer. I and others generally begin dummy edit editsums with the link: dummy edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually add that tag at the beginning, but I forgot. Apologies! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ping test

Need your help with a test. Did you receive a ping from my talk page just before this? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, Mandruss. At least, I didn't receive any notification about one. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, can you hang around for a few minutes for another test? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sure. I'm up now, and I'll be available for numerous hours. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you just get a ping from my talk page? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see it on your talk page, and I see that it should alert me, but the only notification I received was to your response here. My preferences do allow it so that Mentions alert me, so it's not that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that tells me what I wanted to know, and I'll try to explain. I already knew that a ping doesn't work unless a valid signature is added in the same edit. What I wasn't clear on was whether it could be fixed by re-editing and added only the signature. It appears the answer is no. For the ping to work, (1) The ping has to be formatted correctly and the username has to be exactly correct, including capitalization, and (2) a validly formatted signature has to be added in the same edit as that ping. If either is not the case, the only fix is to add a second valid ping and a second valid signature in the same edit, as if the first attempt didn't happen. Observing other editors' edits, it seems even many quite experienced editors don't understand this, and they're believing they have pinged someone when they have not. In some situations, that can be a non-trivial error. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this was intentional. Even if so, if you think it could and should be fixed, perhaps you should propose it at the village pump (maybe phabricator?). Or is this just you testing to see for your own understanding? Either way, I don't mind. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just me testing to see for my own understanding. I wanted to know what is the easiest fix that works, for my own use. It's a known problem and it's significant enough that it would have been fixed if it was fixable. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. Glad to help! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the rule you were wondering about

WP:Manual_of_Style#Linking "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." Thanks for asking. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but I believe what the sentence is saying is that one should avoid linking within quotes as much as possible if it:

• clutters the quotation;
• violates the principle(s) of leaving quotations unchanged; and/or
• misleads or confuses the reader.

(Note that quotes can be changed for typographical conformity, to correct minor errors, clarify the quote, or omit "extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech".)

Am I incorrect in my interpretation? I was under the impression that linking for clarity is appropriate so long as it satisfies the criteria above, and does not misrepresent the quote. I don't think linking the economist to whom the quote in question is clearly referring is none of this. I see links within quotes frequently, too; It can be found in normal but prominent articles like Racism and Sexism, featured articles like Rosewood massacre and Nature fakers controversy, and lesser known articles like Black Lives Matter. I just chose these at random. Should all links in quotes be removed in these as well?

If I am mistaken, please do correct me. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would stick with putting explanatory use of wikilinking in article text, only, as a general practice, and let quotations be verbatim without wikilinking. That's what is consistently most helpful in the articles I watch most closely. And that's how I read the rule quoted above about quotations from the Manual of style. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What should be done about the other articles, then? Should something be done about them? As precisionist as I may be, I doubt this particular rule qualifies as reasonably deserving inconsistency. On a related note, there appears to be discussion of this in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Perhaps you and I can chime in there, or continue the discussion as a matter of policy and not just personal editing differences? If not, that's fine. I might respond, though, since I'm interested in this matter now. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess the way I would relate this to the precisionist approach is to reserve wikilinks to blocks of text created by Wikipedians, and leave blocks of text created by external authors who are directly quoted without wikilinks. That's what I do as I update articles with high numbers of page views to good article status. I'm glad to be informed of the ongoing Manual of style discussion, although I think I will be busy with other things (including a new Edit-a-thon) that will keep me too busy to join in there. Thanks for your further comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. If you have the time, I recommend checking out the discussion on the talk page, if only to read the comments. There has already been one thoughtful reply, and I've added my opinion in as well. I won't revert your changes to the article, though I really think that economist fellow should be linked somewhere in the article, since he appears to be relevant to the contents. Have a great day! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Red Slash said: "it's been widely reported and everyone will want to know it."

When a closer sees the words "everyone will want to know it", I think he will ignore Red Slash's !vote, as Wikipedia editing has very little to do with giving readers what they want to know. Tabloids give readers what they want to know. know. Besides, people who want to know it will find it in the body, so what does that have to do with the lead? Maybe Red Slash didn't mean it the way it sounded, but I don't see how it could be in any way connected to policy or established editing principles. I'd suggest not adding clutter responding to clearly incompetent !votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, if you say so. Thanks for the advice. Also, I think I may have made a mistake with threading discussions in the !voting area. Should I move all those discussions to the Threaded Discussions section? I can do that real quick. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Matter of opinion, but I'm for allowing some replying to !voting, and moving to Threaded when the number or total length of replies exceeds some threshold that's also a matter of opinion. I think we're fine at this point, but I'm not suggesting I should be the only one making the decisions. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with that suggestion as well. Perhaps over 5 replies from at least two other people qualifies as moving it? If I, for some reason, have to build, I'll immediately take it to the Threaded Discussion section. In any case, I support that decision. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends on length of replies as well as number. One reply could be too much (e.g., one of your essays!), while three could be ok. I think I'd move 5 regardless of length. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that as well. I just usually don't see people post lengthy responses like I do, so I'd assume it'll be an infrequent occurrence. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Ayers Rock

You've already found one supporter at Ayers Rock. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad. I've responded in the talk page already. Although you appear to have given your approval, it doesn't seem that you have explicated your opinion on my suggestions. Do you personally approve and support it? Or do you still have problems with it? If the latter, perhaps I can remedy it in further edits. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Hi, Nøkkenbuer. You asked a couple questions during this discussion on @Guy Macon:'s Talk page which I never got around to answering. I didn't intend to be rude; I was waiting to see if similar discussion would arise at the RfC and didn't want to duplicate the conversation. Anyway, you wondered "why you claim that Christian atheism is considered a religion, since I see no mention of it as such in the Wikipedia article". When I said Christian atheism is indeed categorized as a religion, I was referring to the Wikipedia category link at the bottom of that article: Christianity and other religions. Since the article does explain that Christian atheists still adhere to other 'beliefs', just not the one about the existence of a God (or in some cases, believe that God has died), I think the categorization is valid. It can also be described as a "theological position", but the two definitions are not mutually exclusive. When I referred to your assertion about "irreligious but still otherwise adheres to Christianity" being nonsensical because adherence to Christian beliefs is the definition of religious, you responded: "it's as nonsensical as Christian atheism or Cultural Christian. It simply implies that someone adheres to Christian principles, beliefs, or culture, but rejects the religion and its institution. It's not extremely common, but it occurs." I think, perhaps, the examples you've picked do not support your assertion as well as you have hoped. A Christian atheist is still religious, while a Cultural Christian is not (according to our articles on each). Adherence to Christian beliefs does indeed mean religious, so my point that when you say someone adheres to Christian beliefs "but rejects the religion" is nonsensical, it is rather evident. I think much of the confusion, and the core of the disagreement, stems from your position that atheism is a form of irreligiousness, while my understanding of atheism is that it specifically relates only to belief in deities, and otherwise has no bearing on a person's religiousness. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't take offense at any point. I appreciated your voicing your concerns, even though I didn't completely agree with them. What matters just as much as the intended message is the received one; if my intended message is not properly received, the former is undermined by the latter event.

The reason why I wouldn't categorize Christian atheists as adhering to a religion is because I don't believe Christian atheism fits the definition and criteria of "religion". Religions typically require some component of faith, and entails doctrines or dogma to which followers are expected to adhere. Christian atheism may have a set of common or core beliefs, but it does not operate as a religion. From my understanding, there is no organized institution for Christian atheism, nor are there any qualifying tenets to which must adhere to be accepted as a Christian atheist. There is no recognized body or community of such individuals who identify as a group, either globally or in some spiritual capacity, to do any such accepting, nor are there any churches or community centers wherein Christian atheists gather. Just because a certain ideology or view adheres to a set of discernible beliefs, that doesn't qualify it as a religion. They are as much a religion as is capitalism, in my opinion, and I don't see any reason to consider either a religion. As for the article category, I'd say it is misplaced or at least poorly worded. It should say "Christianity and related beliefs" if it wishes to classify Christian atheism and like groups as categorically related to Christianity.

You're certainly right that "religion" and "theological position" are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact, religion is the organized and codified manifestation of a theological position with accompanying beliefs which explain the world, justify certain conduct, and serve as a guide for future conduct. These in turn can then proliferate into many through schism and reform. I would classify Christian atheism as solely a theological position, however, but not a religion. What defines religiosity, in my opinion, is both adherence to a particular religion's beliefs, doctrines, and tenets; and an identification with, or adherence to, the organizational body which governs the religion. Being an irreligious Christian is basically being a Christian renegade, someone who has alienated themselves from the Church and rejects the authority of the Church. Although it is uncommon from my understanding, irreligious Christians do exist. What defines Christian religiosity is identification with, or adherence, to the Church. This is different from a nonpracticing or nonobservant Christian in that the latter only fails to perform the religious duties expected from their religion; meanwhile, an irreligious Christian rejects these duties altogether and the organized body which perpetuates them.

The current article on Christian atheism does not support the claim that it is religious with the singular exception of its (in my opinion, misplaced) categorization as among "Christianity and other religions". If anything, I'd say that the article indicates that Christian atheists are irreligious, even more so than cultural Christians, the latter of whom still practices certain religious customs out of cultural identification. Even by our article on religion, I don't see how Christian atheism qualifies as a religion. Christian atheism is not a "world view that relates humanity to an order of existence". It possesses no "narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe", nor does it exhibit "organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures". It does not "include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of a deity, gods, or goddesses), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture", nor does it "contain mythology". Christian atheism is a form of atheism with an appended set of beliefs which consider Jesus Christ as a model of virtue, and which may retain some aspects of Christianity. Again, I don't see why you would classify it as a religion.

You are correct that I belief that atheism is a form of irreligiosity. I don't consider it exclusively a form of irreligiosity or type of irreligion, though. Atheism is a theological position which describes a set of beliefs regarding the existence of a deity or deities. Both religious and irreligious people can be atheists; I consider Christian atheism to be in the latter category because I do not believe it qualifies as a religion. In that respect, I coincide with your definition, but you are also incorrect in your understanding of how I define atheism. I apologize for the misunderstanding, however, since I believe it may have been caused by my wording.

If you disagree, feel free to express your disagreement here. I'm glad to continue this discussion, if you so wish it, and I am fully willing to admit to erring if you convince me of my error. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

They are as much a religion as is capitalism ... I'm quite convinced that capitalism is a religion; the state is the Church and Wall Street is its Mecca. We all must follow capitalist teachings dutifully, lest we be consigned to a life of hell on this very earth. Indeed, the Church will actively persecute any and all denouncers of the faith. Come to think of it, capitalism is the only religion with consequences - a supra-religion? [Apologies for the interlude; I'll show myself out.] Alakzi (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, and the Charging Bull is our God, whereas Marx is the Devil. You have irrefutably refuted my audacious claim that capitalism is not a religion, potential stalker, and I admit unconditional defeat. Alas, if only I saw sooner! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

:-) I feel a little sorry for the admin who's gonna have to close that RfC. Alakzi (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey now, I'm not that verbose! I'm just... thorough. Right? But yes, may mercy be upon the admin who must close it, and may integrity be his or her cardinal virtue so that he/she doesn't skip over my responses. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Colon lists and paragraphs

Re your edit summary here (and subsequent edits): That was me. In my summary I linked to pages that hopefully explain why, but it’s because that isn’t paragraph spacing, at least not so far as the wiki software and web browsers are concerned. We use colons to indent replies, but it’s actually a form of list, like * or # lists. Blank lines between items cause them to be rendered as multiple separated lists (rather than multiple items in the same list). For instance, one such break in one of your comments generates the following HTML:

… far more difficult than expected.</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>Similarly, we should specify …

This can be problematic, and particularly disorienting for users of screen readers that read out each list opening and closing. So that’s why I made that edit. Hope that all makes sense! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure if that's an appropriate edit to make, though. And by that I mean I legitimately don't know. Some people may object to it, however, especially since the alternative is such a pain. Should I not be paragraphing in the way I have been, then? Should I not place an empty space between my paragraphs for readability? What do you think? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You could simply begin each indented paragraph with a <p> (paragraph) tag, which should give you the same spacing you’re looking for.

Like so.

But personally, I would use:

::::… blah blah blah. {{pb}} <!--

-->Lorem ipsum …

That’s {{pb}} for the reader’s readability (it does

this), and the commented-out blank line for my own if needed. Both methods produce much cleaner code, but this one also keeps my whole comment in a single list item so it doesn’t read as multiple comments. But really, wikimarkup is just kinda bad for how we’ve come to use Talk pages.

As for appropriateness, WP:TPO says that fixing formatting errors is okay. This is definitely a formatting error, and one that’s potentially disruptive to some users. At any rate, thanks for hearing me out! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I'll be sure to use {{pb}} from hereon out. Have a great day! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Conscription

Please see the draft for conscription I have posted under Alright Then in Talk:Sexism. The working version is available on my sandbox if you want to join us on editing it. There's no reason for multiple people to be working on multiple forks from the same first draft. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I might later, after I've had some sleep. Note that I may make significant edits and delete or reword a lot of stuff. Afterward, you can either revert it if you think you should, or work off it from there. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. Sorry for putting this on your talk. I didn't realize we had also discussed it on Talk:Sexism.

Hello

Sup. From the looks of your userpage, you might be from a scandinavian country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, since my name comes from both Scandinavian and Germanic lore. Sorry to disappoint, but I am unfortunately from neither, though my heritage my be. I actually live in Texas, USA. What's up? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HAH! I thought you are from Norway or Denmark :-D I'm from Finland myself, and it's funny how people usually mistake my country for Scandinavia. Well, we have mingled with the Scandinavians for almost 1 000 years though. Seems there is a own section dedicate to that at Scandinavia#Finland. That's the case also with Iceland, although the Finns have no Scandinavian heritage whereas the Icelanders do. There is also a specific geographic term that covers Finland as well, that is, Fennoscandia. :-P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh how I wish it were so! I've always wanted to live in the Nordic north. Interesting tidbits of information, by the way. Why don't Finns have Scandinavian heritage? That seems strange to me, seeing how close they are to Scandinavia. It appears Finland is considered to be among the Scandinavians as well. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

. JKruger13 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

tl;dr

TL;DR ... [1] maybe you can try and be a bit more concise? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for accomplishing this? Every time I post, I read over what I typed and make numerous edits. A lot of the time, what I post is the concise version. I make sure every response has as much substance per word as possible, and I omit most to all unnecessary material. My response are long, yes, but they're thorough. If you have any specific recommendations I could use, though, I'd appreciate it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As a fellow Wikipedian who has frequently found the elusive teal deer nibbling at the edges of my longer posts (I've lost track of how many of these deer I've attracted thus far), I think you have little about which to worry. I've read some of your longer contributions recently, and I don't think you've been unnecessarily verbose at all — it's just that the subject matter has been, well, complicated. I've found your explanations to be easy to read, your responses methodically structured, and your vocabulary more than adept and suitable for the topics under discussion. I still find myself in disagreement with you on some things (specifically two topics: "Tyson on Philosophy" and "atheism in the Religion: field"), but at least I can be confident that those disagreements are over the substance of our respective positions, and not due to any failure on your part to convey your positions. Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ayers Rock (band)

The article has now been re-edited by me, and I believe its structure is better than it was here when you called attention to its unconventional nature at the article's talkpage. In subsequent discussions there I largely supported your position and agreed with the argument that we should be using FA music articles as our models for improving Ayers Rock (band). I would like to thank you for your contributions to that discussion and hope that you are pleased by its current structure.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate it and apologies for the absence. I've been busy with personal issues and the like. The new structure is an improvement, but since it doesn't conform to how the FA articles do with there being a single History section and the two "eras" falling under their separate own subsections therein, I'm concerned this issue will be raised again sometime in the future once it's scrutinized for GA or FA status. In any case, I think it's better now. Thanks! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dog intelligence

Regarding your recent edit on the lead section of the Dog intelligence page, the sentence that you deleted was neither uncited nor irrelevant - it was in the text of the article with its citation and it was in context with the previous sentences, and it is a direct quote. You might acquaint yourself with WP:CITELEAD as citation is not required in the lead.William Harris • talk • 09:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistake. I was doing some quick editing and didn't see it in the main body. Thanks for reverting it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nøkkenbuer, it is an easy enough mistake to make, I am usually quite harsh on uncited and controversial material myself, Wikipedia's policies are not always easy to find and sometimes I disagree with them. If you can make this error so can others. Therefore, I have rewritten and cited that sentence in the lead paragraph. If I am unhappy with a piece of writing I post this at the end of the sentence: Then I give whoever may have written it a month to either provide a citation or it is deleted, or amended by something with a citation.

Please bear in mind that if you want to talk back to someone from your home page, you must call them using their user name (copy-n-paste it from their signature in edit mode) e.g.(look at this in edit mode):

Hi William Harris,.....

Wikipedia will then deliver them a message telling them where their name was mentioned and provides them with a link back to here. I just happened to drop by to see if you had read my message. Happy editing! William Harris • talk • 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! You too, William Harris! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Got your message - nicely done :-)

FYI: pings

Per WP:Notifications#Triggering events/Mentions and MW:Manual:Echo#Technical details, your edit here probably didn't notify Hgilbert. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Jim1138. I'm still getting used to talk page discussions, so I sometimes forget about these things. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Kind of need a notification sent popup. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie

I have reverted some of your edits to this article, specifically the use of brackets around ellipses. Please see the manual of style. Cheers! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern; however, according to the MoS section on ellipses, bracketed ellipses are "optionally" permitted "for precision", usually "to make it clear that the ellipsis is not itself quoted". There is no recommendation against doing so and, in fact, I think that may have been where I got the idea. For the sake of precision, and especially since ellipses are sometimes used by the author of the text being quoted, I usually bracket any added ellipses I can find in an article (where appropriate) when performing my usual minor cleanups. This is the first time my edits have been reverted for this reason, so I might as well ask you: do you recommend that I cease bracketing ellipses as part of my usual minor cleanups? And if so, should I go back and revert those changes on previous articles I've edited (which may number in the hundreds)? Thanks for your time. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

True, brackets are optional; however, that's prefaced by "An ellipsis does not normally need square brackets around it, because its function is usually obvious—especially if the guidelines above are followed." As for the precision you note above, "this is usually only necessary if the quoted passage also uses three periods in it to indicate a pause or suspension." Would I recommend you not add them any more? Yes. Would I suggest you revert the ones you've done? No. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

While I don't dispute the language of the MoS section, I personally interpret it as merely commentary on when bracketed ellipses is necessary and why it's permissible to not do so, not a style recommendation that editors must follow. Nevertheless, I'm fine with the reversion and it would be incredibly pedantic of me to dispute it. I'm already pedantic enough as it is! Thanks for restoring my other changes I made after reverting my edit, ATinySliver, and have a great rest of the day / night! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

And you as well. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Democratic confederalism

Just letting you know, I have completed the page swap that you requested :) —Frosty ☃ 12:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much appreciated, Frosty! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry, I don't know what kittens are for, but I just wanted to let you know that I really like your comments on Talk:John_A._McDougall ! Well-reasoned, detailed, calm, and professional, even in the face of angry editors!

Sjb0926 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Sjb0926! I have largely discontinued my activities on Wikipedia, especially given how discouraged I was after that whole fiasco. I see little benefit in trying to constructively address what I understand to be issues with Wikipedia articles, Wikipedian culture, and Wikipedia generally if the overwhelming response is hostility, defiance, and libelous impugnations. I am not interesting in power play nor in sheer eristic, but in dialectic synthesis among my peers. My dialectics may be eristic, too, but they are nonetheless predicated on constructive cooperation. That sentiment, particularly the latter, seems to be lacking among many of those with whom I have interacted.

It is disappointing that it seems nothing has changed on that talkpage since then; the same characters are still strong-arming the false consensus. Nonetheless, I appreciate your appreciation! I hope against hope that whatever future experiences you might have on Wikipedia will be nothing like mine have been, which is perhaps the greatest wellness I can wish given the circumstances. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Veganism citation formatting

Moved from Veganism Talk page, as this is not about veganism. --Zefr (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Zefr, I noticed that you did some editing to the NIH reference on Vitamin B12. I was the one who filled out that citation and made the changes you seem to have partially reverted, so I am naturally curious about your rationale. Was my edit, or at least the parts which you reverted, inappropriate and why if so?

Just to clarify, I added the archive as part of my usual citation cleanup to prevent link rot and preserve a snapshot of the cited material to ensure that changes in the source itself do not accidentally undermine the point of its citation in the article. I added the author parameter per my interpretation of the template documentation at Cite web § Authors and § Publisher and because I have never seen the publisher parameter defined in that way in any citation I have encountered. My addition of access-date is for obvious reasons; I understand that it might not be required for this particular source, as may be the case with webpage archival, but I consider it good practice to include anyway. Do you believe I am mistaken about any of the aforementioned? Is there some precedent or policy about which I am not aware?

I am not disputing your edit so much as I am asking for clarification. Of course, I prefer the content of my edit be retained, but I might as well ask for your opinion here rather than just revert it. I also understand that this may seem like a rather minor issue, but this is typical editing behavior on my part, both generally and within this particular article (see my other citation edits). As a result, this minor issue actually has significant importance about the citation style in this article, especially since I have cleaned up and filled out multiple citations in this way and intend to do so with others. If you take issue with such edits, as you seem to have done here, then perhaps you could inform me about why I should change my editing behavior. Thanks for your time. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer: Simply, the cleanup edits I made were 1) the ODS is a non-person department of NIH, and therefore illogical to identify it as the "author", 2) the URL is updated regularly by the ODS-NIH source (most recently as shown, 11 February 2016), so did not seem a link rot issue to me, thereby not needing an archive URL, and 3) the accessdate was fine and could be reinstated. --Zefr (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the input, Zefr. Specifically, my rationale for defining the ODS as the author beyond the aforementioned is because the documentation specifies it is appropriate "to hold the name of a corporate author", which I took to mean that non-person entities are allowed (unless I misunderstand what is meant by "corporate author"). Do you disagree? If so, then given you described it as a "department" (and since this was my second choice), do you think the ODS might be better placed under department, despite being left undefined in the Cite web documentation? There is a brief definition in Cite news § Periodical, which is almost certainly applicable in Cite web, but that doesn't provide much clarity either. Would that be better in your opinion? As for archival, is there any issue with including it anyway despite perhaps not being necessary? I fail to understand why, as a general practice, one should ever exclude archival so long as there are not specific reasons for doing so, especially since WP:LR states that (my emphasis) "[e]ditors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation".

Lastly, more generally, do you take any issue with me otherwise filling the citations in this article as I have been? If so, and you suspect more reversions will be likely, then some attempt at addressing it now might be appropriate. If not, then after whatever decision is made about this particular citation, I will just proceed with my usual editing. Naturally, my questions are not just about this specific citation, but about this issue as a basis for informing better editing practice overall, so I hope you do not take this is just pedantry on my part. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

1) I don't think ODS would be a "corporate author", as that would define an official writing something on behalf of a company - not the case for the unknown ODS author; 2) I removed the archive URL because it is unnecessary when the government source, NIH, is known to update its publications regularly; I felt this was more a matter of keeping the WP code minimized and clean. As this seems to be an area where you work, you should proceed as normal, and I will not interfere. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I anticipated that the discussion would lead to some wonky exposition, and considered just posting on your talkpage instead, Zefr. After reviewing the pertinent policies and guidelines, however, I decided that it technically is about the article, so I might as well start there. In any case, thanks for moving it here.

I don't think ODS would be either, I just conjectured that the statement of "corporate author" would be an example to illustrate that non-person entities are allowed. It's not really important, though; I was just curious about whether you could help clarify this policy for me. I understand now that author is at best a dubious parameter for something like the ODS and that, upon retrospect, department would have been better if it is added anywhere outside publisher at all. I only opted for the former since it was more common, it seemed to qualify, and the latter was even less clearly defined.

As for the archival parameters, I would still retain them in this instance (and almost any other instance) because I consider an archived copy of the exact page that was used for the citation to be more important than excluding the information on the basis of code minimization. Given that you seem to disagree, though, and favor the latter over the former, I will just leave the citation as it currently is (after readding the access-date). I have no interest in disputing this just to make a point and risk it being mistaken as POINTy, and I recognize that this NIH article will probably not be going anywhere for the rest of Wikipedia's life. Whether this particular citation lacks it does not matter much at this time, so I'll just drop it.

Again, I appreciate your input. Have a great day! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Anarchism

I have started the draft here :) Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, EtienneDolet! Sorry about the absence; I have been busy with other matters. Fortunately, there is no rush, so I hope you are okay with my contributions being sporadic and a bit slow. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Like Anarchism, Wikipedia is voluntary labor :) Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick question: do we have to have that long quote for 2nd citation? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary and many Featured Articles do not quote so extensively, Étienne Dolet, but it is something I tend to include anyway just to give some context and provide a relevant excerpt from the article which is pertinent to the article text its citation is intended to support. Moreover, I noticed that some of the text that I omitted from your original draft included content from that exact paragraph. In order to include that content without having it occupy space in the main article, I thought it might be worthwhile to include as quote in the citation. I understand that it may be superfluous; I just add it so that readers understand the context without having to actually read the whole article. If you think it is excessive and do not care to include it, I have no issue with its omission. I will leave it entirely up to you. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Frontier journals

Generally we stay away from these journals as there have been concerns raised about them. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you moving my edit's content to the talk page and informing me here, Doc James. If you don't mind me asking, though, has there been any previous consensus on usage of the Frontiers journals? I assume so, given your comment and edit reversion. For example, are there any policies or guidelines or other such documentation about it? I am asking because I am genuinely curious and would like to be informed about them to better understand the current status of using the Frontiers journals in citations. Moreover, since you are obviously among the most experienced Wikipedians, especially in WP:MEDRS but almost certainly in WP:PG generally, you would probably be the one to ask. I am not aware of any and had I known about any such recommendations, I probably would not have bothered to include the journals at all.

To briefly explain the rationale for my edit: I checked the Asperger syndrome and Autism talk page archives and found almost no mention of the journals nor the "intense world" theory, none of which suggested any consensus nor even significant discussion on the matter. I also checked the WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE talk page archives and even did global advanced searches for both the journals and "intense world", none of which provided much help. Given that the journals have been occasionally cited, and lacking any indication that I am violating any previous consensus on the matter, I decided to proceed with my edit.

Thank you for your time and for any elucidation you can provide me on this matter. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We discuss concerns around predatory journals Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Predatory_journals and than provide a list here. This makes me hesitant.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(TL;DR at bottom) I was aware of Beall's inclusion of the Frontiers journals in his predatory journals list, Doc James, but decided to proceed anyway because:

• the aforementioned citations in other articles;
• the qualifications Beall used to describe his own list were "potential, possible, or probable" and no indication of likelihood was given on any of the listed items, which I found to be unhelpful, especially given the scope of "possible" and "potential";
• the aforementioned list by Beall is the opinion of one person (albeit a scholarly one) whose claims do not appear to be supported by much of any explicated rationale or evidence, especially with regard to Frontiers journals;
• the aforementioned list is also controversial and criticized as unfair, particularly to open-access publishers, of which Beall is a well-known critic;
• my attempts at finding sources describing (or criticizing) the status of Frontiers as "predatory" did not yield much and that yield was rather mixed, overall inconclusive, and primarily consisted of blog posts (1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11);
• despite the alleged problems of Frontiers Media, including with its peer review process and internal policies, I erred on the side of including the content due to the aforementioned factors leading me to conclude that the Frontiers journals are problematic, but I hestitate to consider them predatory;
• those two particular scientific articles have been cited hundreds of times each, including in what appear to be well-established and reputable (or otherwise non-predatory) journals such as Nature, Neuron, Molecular Psychiatry, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Journal of Neurophysiology, Biological Psychiatry, PLoS One, Brain and Cognition, and Cerebral Cortex, among others (many seem to merely be citations, but most are paywalled and thus cannot be checked by me), at least according to Google Scholar; and,
• the "intense worlds" theory is a notable hypothesis for autism and Asperger syndrome that has received significant media coverage (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, and 14, among many others) and thus deserves a duly-weighted inclusion in Wikipedia, albeit not necessarily in the Asperger syndrome article (maybe its own article?).

I agree that there appear to be problems with Frontiers Media, but I would consider it more of a borderline case before I would treat it as an outright predatory publisher. I take the same position with the Hindawi Publishing Corporation, which I understand has similar issues.

Given that you are "hesitant" to include the Frontiers journals as sources, do you therefore discourage citing them on any on Wikipedia articles or just the Asperger syndrome article? If the latter, then is this because the "intense world" theory originates from those journals and their founders, or is this just because a Frontiers journal is the only supporting source for the paragraph under discussion? If the latter, then would you be willing to reconsider inclusion, perhaps excluding those sources, so long as more acceptable sources are found? Moreover, would you oppose the inclusion of the "intense world" theory, including or excluding the Frontiers journals citations, on the Autism article? Lastly, regardless of your opinion of the Frontiers journals, do you oppose inclusion of the two specific citations in question, whether in the Asperger syndrome article or elsewhere?

I understand that I am asking a lot of questions (including conditional ones), but I am trying to ensure I understand your position on this matter so that I know how to best proceed. For example, if you discourage citing Frontiers journals full stop, then I will take that into serious consideration if I ever encounter a situation in which one of the journals would be cited, either in one of my edits or already within an article. If this has more to do with the fact that they are the (only) sources cited, however, then I can search for others. Alternatively, if this has to do with Asperger syndrome being a featured article, or the "intense world" theory being inappropriate for the article, then perhaps I can include the content in another article. Lastly, if you simply object to the citation of the Frontiers journals in general, but accept these two specific citations as exceptions in this circumstance, then I'm not sure what specific issue you have with my edit and would naturally suggest reinstating it.

As a final note, I have no issue with you moving this discussion to the Talk:Asperger syndrome page per WP:TPTHREAD if you so wish. I will leave that up to you. Thank you again for your time.

(TL;DR) I understand that you are probably a very busy person and that I am definitely a very hypergraphic one (casually speaking), so I will try to summarize: I acknowledge that the anonymous continuation of Beall's list includes Frontiers Media as a "potentially predatory publisher" and likewise sympathize with your hestitation about using its journals. Nonetheless, I decided to proceed for a variety of reasons, including my conclusion that Frontiers journals were inconclusively predatory, my concerns with Beall's classification of them as such, the frequency with which those two specific scientific articles were cited in academic research, and the general notability of both the articles in particular and the "intense world" theory overall. Beyond the fact that a Frontiers journal was cited, what are your specific concerns about my edit? Under which conditions would you support its inclusion? Or is this a non-starter? Feel free to move this discussion to Talk:Asperger syndrome at your discretion. Thanks. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably best to get the input of the wider community. Have started a discussion here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this matter with me, the time you have taken to do so, and the patience you have given me in the process, Doc James. I have already replied in that discussion and look forward to that input. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Elaboration from source ;)

Well... I concur ;-)

It is true that increase in intra ocular pressure can cause vision loss. However that is also a "logical" elaboration... Which I did call sophism; sorry about it.

That kind of statement is of nature to instigate fear; and in the case of the given article, it might never happen.

Indeed the intraocular pressure increase is in the range of normal variation [actually it might be variation between individuals, and not variation in time, so I might be wrong on that point, I'm not a doctor].

So, even though I do share the opinion it is a bad thing, I believe it is an overstatement to say it can lead to vision loss in that specific circumstance.

I believe that a specific source, pointing to actual vision loss, in that specific circumstance, would be required: like, does an increase of 2.79 mm Hg, sustained in time, would lead to significant vision reduction. Does the 2.79 mm Hg persist in time? How long? Would several consecutive injection lead to cumulative effect? Those are to be assessed by further investigations IMO.

Feel free to revert my change. I like the idea that gluco-corticoid II injection should be dealt with utter care. However I fear that overstatement could compromise the overall credibility of the article.

Best, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.121.15.217 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Chris, thank you for your message and for informing me about your partial reversion of one of my edits. Just so you know, the reason why I included that clause was because, upon review of the source (PubMed) whose citation was added by another IP, I noticed that it stated the following (emphasis added):

BACKGROUND: Intraarticular steroid injections are a common first-line therapy for severe osteoarthritis, which affects an estimated 27 million people in the United States. Although topical, oral, intranasal, and inhalational steroids are known to increase intraocular pressure in some patients, the effect of intraarticular steroid injections on intraocular pressure has not been investigated, to the best of our knowledge. If elevated intraocular pressure is sustained for long periods of time or is of sufficient magnitude acutely, permanent loss of the visual field can occur.

Since the previous wording (without the clause) in the Osteoarthritis article did not detail the significance of this study nor why it would matter that an association between intra-articular knee injections with triamcinolone and increased intraocular pressure was noted, I decided to include that clause so that the reader would understand its importance from the article text alone. To do so, I simply restated, in different words, what was already in the cited source.

With that said, I have no particular opinion about its inclusion nor even about this topic, about which I personally know little. I had not considered the concerns you have expressed, however, since my focus was on simply explaining the importance of the study with its own claims and not whether the explanation itself might be mistaken as fearmongering. I appreciate you pointing this out, since although I do not personally see that as much of a concern, I see how it might be and understand that the exclusion of that statement might therefore be warranted.

If you still think that the vision loss clause ought to be excluded, then either you or I can also remove it from where I transferred that text and citation in Triamcinolone § Side effects. I will await your input and if you would rather me remove it, just let me know and I will do so. Thank you.

On an unrelated note, I want to say that your edit was obviously constructive and that this talk page message you left me demonstrates a commitment to that constructive approach, at least to me. I appreciate that and invite you to consider creating an account, which provides many benefits that may interest you. Of course, you don't have to do so and can continue to contribute to Wikipedia as an IP address. Naturally, it is entirely up to you; however, especially given the prejudice some users have against unregistered users, I would hate it if your contributions were reverted or prejudged simply because the "account" was an IP address. Regardless, I wish you the best and look forward to whatever further input you may have. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Advanced_article_editing

Thank you for your edit generalizing my mention of the editor NoteTab. David Spector (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to help, David Spector! I'll probably continue working on the essay to clean it up. If you notice any issues with my changes, naturally please do let me know. Have a great rest of the day / night! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Just wanted to let you know that I'm the assistant editor in Chief of The Signpost and read your feedback on the last issue's opinion piece by Hurricanehink. Your detailed explanation of the content you like and want to see more of is appreciated. We are thinking hard about this in the context of improving, reinvigorating and sustaining a great publication, and your input means a lot. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bri! Just to clarify, I did not intend my statements to have any hidden obverse, namely that I want to see less of any particular kind or type of article. It was strictly an attempt at praise and positive reinforcement. Frankly, I am glad to have read about The Signpost's premature "death knell" and the controversy that ensued because it allowed me to rediscover the newspaper. Since then, I have appreciated many of the articles that have been published and look forward to the next issue!

By the way, if any of my edits in The Signpost are problematic, please do let me know so that I can promptly address those issues. I'm not very confident about the boundaries and what is encouraged and discouraged from uninvolved editors at The Signpost, so informing me if I ever transgress them would be appreciated. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if that were an issue I'd have brought it up. Happily there is no issue with your feedback. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

CSS over-compression

You probably saw my revert edit summary, but in case not: Please do not do this. It makes the code extremely difficult to read for humans, for zero benefit of any kind whatsoever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, I did not, SMcCandlish, so thank you for informing me here! I apologize for the faux pas. I assumed (probably wrongly) that such a simple and seemingly complete template would no longer need much tweaking, so I might as well compress the code and reduce some bytes. Anyway, feel free to let me know if you have any further issues with my edits and revert them as you deem appropriate, like you have and likely will. The criticism is appreciated. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of syntax highlighting

This is also not helpful (actually worse than unhelpful). Code syntax highlighting is for making blocks of code easier to parse by visually organizing different code elements by type, e.g. so that variables are distinct from neighboring commands/functions/elements). It has the opposite effect when applied to a single word of code inline in regular text; people wonder "WhyTF is this text green?" The proper markup for inline code is <code>...</code> (or templates that use it like {{tlx}}).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: Lest I sound excessively critical, highlighting can be helpful in "extended" inline cases like this (your edit, combined with my restoration of readable CSS). :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the lengthy reply; I wanted to explain my rationale fully so that you can understand my perspective. A TL;DR is below. Moreover, sorry for the delay; I was typing a response immediately after you posted these messages, but I experienced computer problems and lost hours of unsaved work across multiple pages, including both of my nearly complete replies to you. Unfortunately, I also forgot to save backups. Now, for some recall.

My rationale for adding syntax highlighting even for single inline HTML elements is to cohere the visual display of the syntax highlighting that is either already throughout the documentation or article (such as HTML and HTML element, which previously used inconsistent code syntax highlighting, even within prose) or within nearby code blocks, and to take full advantage of syntax highlighting. I believe this benefits both readers and editors because it provides a consistent and rich formatting that clearly indicates code in text even within code text, beyond what <code> provides. Tangentially, and much less importantly, it beautifies the code in a way that I think is appealing to readers and can even attract those who are otherwise disinterested in coding to the practice. In fact, I think that highlighting code syntax, even within prose, has no downside in virtually any situation, especially when compared with <code>, because the improved visual display provides readers and editors with more readable code that technically decreases ambiguity.

Regarding the potential confusion that inline syntax highlighting might cause for readers, I think that syntax highlighting is both intuitive and obvious even for those completely unfamiliar with coding. The entire purpose of syntax highlighting is to improve human readability by clearly indicating the syntax such that it is distinct from other syntax and from non-code text. I think this is true regardless of whether it is embedded within prose, including where a {{tag}} or <code> might be used. This is especially so since, as mentioned above, the situations in which it is almost always used are either within articles and documentations which are about syntax-highlightable code or otherwise include a nearby syntax-highlighted code block.

When it comes to backend template documentation in particular, I suspect that Wikipedians as a group are much less likely to be confused by syntax highlighting than the average reader, especially those who edit the source and rely on template documentation. This is even more relevant now that wikitext syntax highlighting is already used by a large percentage of Wikipedians, primarily thanks to Syntax highlighter and Wikitext editor syntax highlighting. Since Wikipedians are the ones who are most likely to even find template documentation, particularly those engaged in editing that requires some familiarity in basic coding, I considered inline syntax highlighting in template documentation to be the least controversial changes to boldly make among these sorts of edits.

I am not aware of any policy, guideline, or essay that discourages such syntax highlighting usage; that absence was partly what encouraged me to proceed on what I believed were the merits of my rationale. Are there any of which I am not aware? If not, then is this just your personal recommendation? I value that, too; I am just trying to understand whether this issue had been addressed elsewhere. If you still think I should avoid editing like this in the future, or even to begin self-reverting those kinds of changes throughout Wikipedia (such as in Template:Quote/doc), then I suppose I can. I naturally see these edits as constructive improvements, though, so I am hesitant to do so, especially when it is unclear to me what damage I am doing.

(TL;DR) My rationale for these kinds of edits is to ensure consistent syntax highlighting and to take full advantage of its benefits. I see no downside in doing so; if anything, it can beautify the text and attract people to the beauty of that code while improving the experience for both readers and editors. I think syntax highlighting is intuitive and obvious to understand, especially for Wikipedians but also for those ignorant of basic coding, so I do not think such potential confusion is much of a concern. This is especially so for obscure backend technical articles like template documentations, doubly so because of coding competence and syntax highlighting popularity among Wikipedians. Is there any policy, guideline, or essay that is relevant here? I am aware of none. I can stop or begin self-reverting, but I do not understand what damage I am doing here, since I think these are constructive improvements. Thank you for any further input.

P.S. – Regarding this edit of mine and your subsequent change, the compressed version without the spaces is actually necessary for full <syntaxhighlight> highlighting. I assume that this is because the syntax highlighting makes it human-readable beyond what simple spacing does, so the spacing is superfluous. For example, compare the following:

Markup	Renders as
<syntaxhighlight lang="CSS" inline>margin-top:0;margin-bottom:-0.5em;</syntaxhighlight>	margin-top:0;margin-bottom:-0.5em;
<syntaxhighlight lang="CSS" inline>margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: -0.5em;</syntaxhighlight>	margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: -0.5em;

Although spaced CSS may be appropriate in the actual template code, if the goal is to fully benefit from the syntax highlighting, then the compressed form is probably better for <syntaxhighlight>. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(No hurry, and I "write long" myself. I also feel your pain on the lost work. The chrome extension Lazarus has saved my bacon a couple of times, but it only seems to [sometimes] be able to recover the in-progress text in the main editing window of the most-recently edited page you still had open when it crashed. I have to find a more comprehensive "backup form fields on the fly" extension.)
Wow, it's hard to believe the syntax highlighter is that broken. I'm filing a bug report about it as we e-speak, at Phabricator ticket T198095. Anyway, I tried self-reverting the longer in-documentation example back to your version so the details are highlighted. On a closer inspection, though, it's still wrong; it's mis-parsing "-0.5em" as a separate "-0" (no such thing!) and ".5em" then coloring them differently, which is bizarre and confusing. So, I just ended up going back to plain markup that's not misleading. Even if they fix both problems at some point so syntax highlighting works right for a complex example like that one (where it would be helpful if it did), there really isn't a benefit to doing something like "This template uses <strong>...</strong>". The green of that looks pretty much just like {{bxt}} (which conveys something like "please definitely use this green example material"). We're not trying to tell people what markup to insert and how to format it; we're just trying to tell them the template uses the <strong> element. The syntax highlighting is an actual benefit – when it works properly – in blocks of code (including inline ones with multiple differently-highlighted things in them), but it isn't helpful otherwise, especially when all it does is colorize one thing without a reason that'll be clear to the reader, most especially if it conflicts with other markup we've been using much longer. like the {{xt}} template group. I.e., we already had a coherent approach to code markup before <syntaxhighlight> even existed, and while the latter is useful for some things (when not broken), it's not a hammer for which every potential problem is an identical nail.

That is, hyper-consistency toward syntaxhighlight isn't taking account of a) whether it actually works for a particular example, b) context (including editorial intent and reader interpretation), or c) conflicts with other consistencies implemented for other (sometimes more important) reasons. This kind of "consistency conflict" is one that we encounter frequently in "style" matters more broadly. An important consideration for mainspace in particular is that WP:MOS, like all professional-grade, formal-writing style guides, is dead-set against introducing extraneous stylization of any kind, and is minimalist for good reasons (especially MOS:Accessibility ones, but others as well, including MOS:TONE, WP:NOT#BLOG, and others.) For example, the HTML element article has pretty much forever been using markup like '%block; and %inline; are groups within the HTML DTD that group elements as being either "block-level" or "inline".' It's unobtrusive, helpful, and what W3C and WHATWG actually recommend and intend. We later started marking up the code blocks with the then-new <syntaxhighlight>. As long as it works properly, this is (for the reasons you've written about above) also arguably helpful (honestly, I'd like to see an accessibility analysis of the color choices, but I presume on good faith that one has been done at some point). However, someone since then has done something not helpful at all: they've gone around and put <syntaxhighlight> around every single thing, in mid-sentence, where they can get it to do anything. This is causing "outbursts" of pointless color all over the place, and even producing sentences with grossly inconsistent markup, as in 'Lists with <ul><li> ... are %block; elements ...' Not helpful to any readers, and not an encyclopedic approach. It's just haphazard decoration for its own sake and needs to be undone. (I've raised the issue at that article's talk page.) To the extent someone thinks this is some kind of a consistency/conformity improvement, they're making a mistake; it's a type of hypercorrection that fails to take into account context, intent, and effect. When all of MoS is indicating not to apply extraneous stylization, we don't need to add a special line-item for each imaginable form of extraneous stylization, or MoS would be 10 times longer than it is and no one would read it or remember any of it.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I suspect that the bugs and inconsistencies (both within the extension and in its interactions with other code) are partly due to the fact that <syntaxhighlight> and templates that utilize it, such as {{code}}, are infrequently used and especially rare within prose—at least, properly used and when compared to alternatives like <code>, {{tag}}, and so on. Consequently, there is not much use case history beyond the basics that can discover them, especially in edge cases. This is compounded by the fact that simply using <code> is far more common, both because the extension is new and somewhat more complex and because the latter HTML markup is a decades-old international standard. In my usage of the extension and its implementation in templates like {{code}}, I have noticed various problems, as well. For example:

• the box color is inexplicably different from the gray of <code>, which seems like a pointless inconsistency in the visual display;
• using <ref>...</ref> in {{code}} will create a reference unless <nowiki />s are used break the code, in which case direct <syntaxhighlight> markup with the inline attribute is less complex and verbose;
• I am not aware of any method whereby tagless code (especially attributes) can be highlighted correctly, since it seems that the extension is unable to properly handle code fragments of that kind;
• complex cases of highlighting multiple languages within the same code, either inline or block, is impossible with very few workaround exceptions (and only when syntax highlighting is used within other code), such as with highlighting CSS styling within |style= using {{para}} as shown in Template:Quote/doc § Vanishing quotes (permanent link), though this limitation is at least understandable given how difficult that may be to code; and
• there appears to be no method of inserting <var>...</var> markup into highlighted syntax that is not itself then escaped and highlighted, which makes highlighting code with properly marked variables impossible, but this is again another limitation that I understand may be infeasible to address (especially given this is a limitation with <pre> as well).

Perhaps all the aforementioned—or at least the last three—are known limitations for which there are no feasible solutions, but I have seen no documentation acknowledging these anywhere with the possible exception of the last one indirectly at Extension:SyntaxHighlight § Advanced.

I understand that, at least when it comes to highlighting syntax from some programming languages (like HTML and CSS), the visual display is very similar to the output of templates like {{bxt}} and {{stronggood}}. In the overwhelming majority of situations in which I have seen or used inline syntax highlighting, however, I believe that the context does not leave any reasonable ambiguity about why the code syntax is being highlighted. This is because the syntax highlighting is almost always within documentation or articles about code, nearby a syntax-highlighted code block, and far from any instructive highlighting if it is even present at all. The only instance I know in which this is not the case is at Template:Quote/doc § Reference citations (permanent link), where I added {{stronggood}} in a section that already included HTML syntax highlighting and {{strongbad}}. However, even here, I think the context ensures unambiguous documentation because the syntax highlighting is clearly distinguishable from the instructive highlighting due to the structure of the section itself and due to the box formatting applied to the code. This is reinforced by the {{tick}} and {{cross}} (which I added) and the strikethrough (which was already present).

I think the same argument above applies to my edit at Template:Strongbad/doc § Usage; however, I understand how the context is different, particularly because the documentation is about instructive highlighting, and so it may be an exceptional situation in which such syntax highlighting is inappropriate and ambiguous. I do not think so, but I am the one who added the syntax highlighting on the belief that it was appropriate and do not consider it ambiguous to me, so I may just be confirming my perspective and it is not representative of others.

Regarding the syntax highlighting in the HTML element article, I will address those concerns in the talk page section you started about it (permanent link), since I believe it is more appropriate and visible there.

Lastly, I want to thank you for the time and effort you have given to provide these responses and address this issue. As you have clearly demonstrated, these edits I have been making are more controversial than I initially expected and, although I am not entirely convinced of them, there are substantial reasons for discouraging such generous use of syntax highlighting. I appreciate all this and the outcome of these discussions, whatever it may be, will be instructive for whatever editing I do thereafter. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussions at the article talk page and the MoS one seem to have stalled out in limbo. I'd forgotten we also had this one open, and will try to pick up the thread. "[I]nfrequently used and especially rare within prose" is because it's for a specific contextual purpose, not for décor, and not as general-purpose semantic markup. When it's not differencing two or more contiguous elements of code, in a context that needs this differencing for understandability, it's not serving a reader-facing or information architecture purpose but is just decorative. "[T]he context does not leave any reasonable ambiguity about why the code syntax is being highlighted": That's apt to be true in template documentation, but not in article prose, which is read by all sorts of people, often not very familiar with syntax highlighting (SH). The main issues are that in template docs, we're often trying to highlight something specific in the code example, such as a particular parameter, and applying SH to it impedes the ability to do that. SH exists to make all of a code block more parseable internally, bit by bit; but our goal is often "ignore all this code except this particular sliver".

In an article, we're using color – very sparingly – for a tiny handful of quite specific things, and even this has its detractors. Introducing more of it in main article text is confusing for readers who expect only a very narrow class of directly "actionable" things in the article to be colored text. It's essentially the same UX and usability problem as making icons that look like buttons but which are not. Another way of looking at it: We have lots of color markup templates that we use internally for special purposes, like {{strongbad}} and the {{xt}} family, and {{tq}}, but we do not use them in articles, because it's the wrong output context for such visual gimmicks. (It's actually no possible to use some of them in mainspace, and they probably all need that namespace test installed.)

The "consistency" of having one or two-word bits of source inline in a sentence match the colorful SH layout of a large code block is a consistency we don't need, rather like putting pepperoni on an apple pie because they're both baked round things. It's possible to apply this markup inline it but it usually doesn't serve a useful function, and interferes with more important consistencies and goals. By way of another analogy: there's a real-world fad to arrange bookshelves by the color of the books' spines, to create an interesting decorative effect. But only someone who doesn't actually read these books and just has them as décor would ever do such a thing, since it makes finding a particular volume next to impossible. (I know from experience; I dated someone who did this. It didn't work out.) The in-prose markup and presentation (already marked up with <code> semantically anyway) serves a completely different function from code-block markup, as arranging books by topic or author (or the latter within the former) rather than by color has a different function that arranging them in color patterns to turn one's book wall into an artistic display. (Not a perfect analogy, since the code block SH isn't artistic but functional, just differently functional – yet using it inline is mostly and often entirely decorative not functional).

Sorry if this is repetitive with the above; it's been a while since the discussion was active.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated response, SMcCandlish; I have been busy with creating an article and helping prepare the now-live July issue of The Signpost, and wanted to take some time to contemplate your reply. Although what follows is lengthy (like usual for me), that is because I am attempting to address two main topics, namely (1) replying to your points directly and (2) explaining what I believe to be basis for our differing perspectives here with some elaboration on why I maintain mine rather than yours. I may be competent at some things, but brevity is one skill I have yet to acquire.

Perhaps others have added inline syntax highlighting in this way for decorative purposes, but that was not my intention. I so happen to also prefer the coloration, but the primary justification I have for these changes is that it is a matter of consistency, including visual consistency. This is consistency not for its own sake, but rather consistency for the sake of improving readability and avoiding misunderstanding.

I do not think the analogies you gave accurately represent this justification because the consistency is in the implicit relationship between inline code and block code texts, particularly regarding complexity and coherence, and not merely some generic visual conformity based on a quality shared by both (as with the baked roundness of pepperoni and pie). Specifically, the introduction of syntax highlighting for all code text can reduce complexity for readers by (largely) resolving visual inconsistencies in the text. This removes ambiguity about why some code is highlighted and some is not, which is especially relevant for those who are totally unfamiliar with syntax highlighting and thus may not realize its basic function of improving human readability. Moreover, doing so reinforces the syntax by displaying it uniformly, since otherwise syntax that is displayed differently may be understood differently, as well. After all, if there is no difference between the two displays, then why is there a distinction? Distinction suggests difference, so anyone who does not identify the two with each other as a distinction without any may proceed to identify them as meaningfully different. If nothing else, the ambiguity remains.

As for the book sorting analogy, that seems to be analogous if and only if implementing syntax highlighting in this way enforces a visual theme for the sake of empty decoration to the detriment of functionality. I do not think that is the case at all, since it seems to me that doing so either is a functional improvement for the aforementioned reasons or has no functional effect. If the latter, then functionality is itself not a functional point of consideration and so the merits of the change should be judged on other considerations. How, specifically, is this expanded highlighting of inline code syntax functionally detrimental? Beyond certain edge cases, such as at Template:Strongbad/doc, I do not see how. For example, how was the HTML element article functionally worse or otherwise inferior as an article with expanded inline syntax highlighting than it would be with all that removed?

That seems to be your contention, but I do not understand the problem. For example, I seriously doubt the UX concerns involved with nonfunctional buttons or other misleading visual displays are comparable to expanded inline syntax highlighting. I don't think anyone is mistaking the highlighted syntax for being interactive. I also don't think it is comparable to the various "color markup templates", since their functions are irrelevant for mainspace article contexts. That is not the case for syntax highlighting, especially in articles and documentations that display syntax-highlightable code and particularly in those that already have syntax-highlighted code blocks. So, how specifically is this expanded use of inline syntax highlighting harming user experience or human readability, both of which syntax highlighting is intended to improve?

The best I can tell is that you seem to believe I am using syntax highlighting outside of what you believe to be its proper context. It is upon that conviction that rests the conflict in our perspectives regarding the functionality and value of the expanded (or "misuse[d]") syntax highlighting I had been implementing, since the "context" for syntax highlighting to me is simply any context in which syntax-highlightable code is used (with exceptions) whereas you favor a more restricted context that is generally confined to code blocks and complex code strings (with exceptions). That is why I consider syntax highlighting to be strictly an enrichment of the text that "has no downside in virtually any situation" and why you consider it "a type of hypercorrection that fails to take into account context, intent, and effect". In a sense, I have an "inclusionist" approach to inline syntax highlighting for which exceptions to a highlighted norm require justification and you have an "exclusionist" approach to it for which exceptions to the more restricted norm require justification.

Like I stated before elsewhere, I think I understand your perspective and why you maintain it. For you, the function of syntax highlighting is to improve human readability of code in contexts wherein the code's syntax and structure are sufficiently complex that colorizing them does so. That is an uncontroversial and accepted evaluation of syntax highlighting, one with which I also agree. That was also the extent of my position on syntax highlighting since learning about it years ago, which only recently changed after I considered the relationship between inline and block code and what effects inline syntax highlighting might have. That led to my present position.

For me, the enrichment that syntax highlighting provides in such restricted cases also extends to all inline code, including simple code, and this extension reciprocally reinforces the original enrichment that syntax highlighting provides in complex code. Doing so resolves the contradictions and ambiguities in the relationship between the inline and block code texts, as well, which were introduced by the more restricted use of syntax highlighting. Thus, the primary benefit of this extended and expanded use of syntax highlighting is to address problems in the context itself, in the second-order relationships between first-order components in the texts. That is basically what ensuring consistency as a functional attribute (rather than an aesthetic one, though they are not mutually exclusive) is about.

From the perspective of the casual reader who is unfamiliar with programming or markup of any kind, I think the result of these abstruse contextual alterations is a more intuitive user experience that no longer has needless complexity and lingering ambiguity between inline code and block code texts. That reader may still ask "Why is this text a different color?", but that is a question applicable to all syntax highlighting. With all code syntax highlighted, though, the reader will no longer ask "Why is this code colored while that code is not?".

Syntax highlighting as currently deployed is technically unable to provide such a total syntax highlighting due to some of the limitations described above, but that is why I encourage improving the extension rather than rolling back the expanded inline deployment. The latter just maintains the original state of affairs with the same problems I believe I have identified. Unfortunately, it seems that the latter has occurred given your changes at HTML element (and elsewhere?), despite what appears to have been both implicit consensus at the article (including before I arrived) and no consensus at the now-archived WT:MOS discussion (one user had no specific comment on this issue, but supported your general proposal; the only other uninvolved participant seemed to support the expanded use of syntax highlighting). Nonetheless, I have not returned to that sort of syntax highlighting editing since there is other work to be done, though I still maintain the same position. Moreover, I will not restore any syntax highlighting that has been removed, at least not unless and until this is resolved with consensus-based support for doing so.

Given this sustained disagreement and the lack of input from uninvolved users when informal talk page discussions were initiated about it, an RfC or some other resolution process may be due now. I have explained (and almost certainly overexplained) my position enough at this point, so if any such resolution process is initiated, I will simply refer others to these initial discussions unless summaries are required. Is that acceptable for you?

Lastly, thank you again for your time and willingness to discuss these matters at length. This matter is not urgent, so feel free to take some time before replying, as well, if you decide to do so. Have a great day / night. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I've not had any difficulty following your argument, long or short (and long doesn't both me; I'm notorious for prolixity). The issue here is a conflict between different consistencies. WP has site-wide consistency that a few colors are used inline to do something specific, namely to indicate links and their status, and that color is otherwise avoided (as a matter of coloring text, anyway) except in special applications of tabular data, within MOS:COLOR bounds. Presenting a syntax-highlight code block is such a presentation. So is an SVG showing the color-labeled extents of competing empires, a list or table of operating system comparisons y color-code yes and no for POSIX compliance, though this sort of thing is rarely used. But none of it affects regular inline text in articles (different in WP and talk space – we have stuff like {{!xt}} and {{talk quote}} and {{strongbad}}). Even the limited use of inline color has detractors; the WP:SEAOFBLUE principle has us linking much less than we could (possibly should – people debate this), just to avoid colorizing more of the text.

By contrast, you want there to be consistency within the article (and presumably across articles) such that <cite>...</cite> appears exactly like that, no matter what context in which is appears. I sympathize. I'm legendary around here for "pushing" consistency arguments. "Oh, no, here come that consistency guy again." People in various wikiproject verge on actual hatred of me because I agitate against their WP:CONLEVEL-problematic attempts to fork a "special" naming pattern, layout, spelling, punctuation, etc. away from site wide norms. The difference is that <cite>...</cite> looking like that is just arbitrary. It's not a consistency WP actually needs, that readers want or which will be meaningful to them. The semantic job is done by plain <code><nowiki>...</nowiki></code> markup around code example. Colorizing it further serves no contextual purpose where it found, inline, but it does interfere with the contextual purpose of color we already use inline (especially red and blue).

Conceptually, this entire issue is basically identical to the one that led to the creation of the MOS:ICONS guideline (in any thing like its present form; I would know, since I wrote it [2]!) There was a habit of sticking flag icons before/after country names (or as stand-ins for them) at every opportunity. Fans of the idea were convinced that if it was okay/useful to do it in one context (e.g. an Olympic medals table, a context in which flag icons are consistently used in the real world), then it must be okay to do it at every mention of a country in an infobox, a list, a table, a navbox ... and why not at first occurrence, at least, in the prose itself? What started as the WP:FLAGCRUFT essay was fast tracked into the MOS:FLAGS guideline. Shortly thereafter it became the MOS:ICONS guideline: We found that people were doing things like inserting things like I-35 in mid-sentence in articles to mark up highways, and similar things were being done with railway lines, train stations, and a zillion other things. All for the same iffy rationale: If we're doing it in the junction table in the infobox or some other data-presentation context, why shouldn't we do it everywhere, including in sentences? The community rejected the idea. The guideline was then expanded to cover Unicode/ASCII dingbats and other things that aren't technically icons (unless they are the actual topic of the material, of course, e.g. at Quotation marks or Dagger (typography) we have to illustrate the glyphs under discussion). Then it was extended to include emoji. Now we have an open discussion about extending it again to cover things like BR being used in mid-sentence (that's done entirely with HTML and CSS, an image-free way to simulate a graphical icon).

That's really not any different from <cite>: Use of markup to create extraneous decorative appearance, in the name of being consistent with actually appropriate use of color in presentation of complex data. It's a tiny, pointless consistency that bollixes up the much grander consistency of simple, readable prose, with inline color used for a single, specific, predicable purpose across the whole site.

PS: I'm generally in favor of using {{code}} in inline multi-part code samples; you may have noticed that I preserved this at HTML element to the extent possible despite the trouble it causes in the edit-view wikimarkup syntax highlighter (and my work over there recently was an overhaul [3], not just a "get rid of this coloring" tweak). But people are actually likely to object to even that much of it, when used in mid-sentence that way.
PS: I hope this wasn't very repetitive; we've gone over this "consistency philosophy conflict" or whatever we want to call it at such length and in some many pages I forget exactly what's been said before.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

After over a decade of seeing "teal deers" roaming wherever I wander, often arriving alongside comments that are less than civil (to say the least), I have developed a rather apologetic tone regarding the length and detail of my replies. It seems that most do not take kindly to such elaboration, and some even consider it inconsiderate or disruptive, so prefacing to save face has been my habit. Fortunately, such hostility does not generally appear to be the case here on Wikipedia, but old conditioning from old conditions still tends to persist.

Regarding the primary topic of discussion, SMcCandlish, I still prefer the expanded syntax highlighting of my original position and, at least presently, likely will support it if it were to ever be the subject of an RfC. I think it is not exactly comparable to the pre-MOS:ICONS behaviors of some users, since the syntax highlighting I propose does not insert or include any new glyphs, symbols, or icons that are presented to the reader. It simply colorizes the syntax of certain code that is already present in the text. Moreover, I consider the insertion of icons and their visual equivalents to be more closely comparable to inline code itself rather than the highlighting of its syntax; for example, we can state "HTML line break" instead of displaying "<br />", yet we opt for the latter. I still do not think this is decorative, since syntax highlighting in the way I was adding is more comparable to the functions of syntax highlighting in code blocks or the gray background boxes around <code>s than to the decoration of icons and so on.

Nonetheless, I am only aware of one user attempting to implement syntax highlighting in the way I had been, namely myself, and attempts at attracting more attention to it have thus far been met with little interest. Additionally, regardless of whether this use of syntax highlighting is (exactly) comparable to the issues which led to the development of MOS:ICONS, the similarities between the two are enough that I suspect those who do not maintain my position will find it persuasive. If this issue were to be the subject of an RfC, I now anticipate the response to be generally in opposition even if a more restricted support for it in articles such as HTML and HTML element develops. I prefer explicit consensus here to at least clearly indicate the community's opposition to the less restricted syntax highlighting I had been implementing; however, given the fact that vaguely similar issues in the past have been met with consensus against them, and that I now anticipate consensus against it here as well, it is probably counterproductive to push for any at this time. Anyway, since the technical limitations with <syntaxhighlight> presently render the sort of total syntax highlighting I support infeasible, my case for consistency here is severely weakened. This is especially so when the color scheme and scope used by the extension appear to be largely arbitrary and inconsistent with syntax highlighting implementations used even within Wikipedia (such as wikitext highlighters).

Lastly, this is frankly not a big enough deal. Sure, it's inconsistent to me and not what I prefer, but I don't see either visual display to be obviously confusing or disruptive to the prose (unlike icons). The best-case scenario one can reasonably achieve with the implementation of a more total syntax highlighting is somewhat better site-wide consistency which addresses a marginal second-order concern that, as you noted, neither readers nor even other editors appear to be wanting. My proposal may be a solution, but it is for a problem that is not significantly acknowledged as one (and is even disputed as one), and so probably seems to many as a case of the former in search of the latter.

With that said, I once again appreciate your discussing this with me. In particular, I appreciate your detailed replies, whose explanations have been clear and compelling enough for me to reconsider my position. My proposed syntax highlighting usage is at best a minor stylistic change whose improvement is disputed and whose interest from the community is almost nonexistent. Perhaps that will change and some other editor will have a similar proposal in the future, but until then, this is not worth further consideration. Thank you for your time. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Like all analogies, it breaks down (and even has confusion potential). Yes, technically, icons are more like symbols in the content, at a literal level. However, the reason we have a guideline against using them in mid-sentence is the same reason you're not getting any traction on mid-sentence highlighting: it's an unnecessary visual distraction, which is apt to confuse the reader, but present something that looks like an interactive interface widget (a button to click, in the case of an icon, and a link to click in the case of colored text). You're approaching the question from a form perspective, but the approach that matters for usablity is a function perspective. The end user neither knows nor cares whether something visually popping in their eyes was done with graphics, or Unicode, or CSS, or what. :-) It only going to not be visually disruptive to someone who spends a lot of time dealing with syntax-highlighted code, in an context where "this is colored" != "this is a link". When there's more than one contiguous "word" of code and they're each receiving different highlighting, it becomes clearer that it is syntax highlighting to distinguish different code elements; this cue is not available when a single word of code, like "class" or "<dl>" or "elseif" is highlighted in mid-sentence for no apparent reason. Even so, I would bet good money that many people would resist use of inline syntax highlighting at all, and want to see it reserved for code blocks, or maybe not used in articles at all. The less the "anti-décor police" are triggered by unnecessary use of SH in mid-sentence, they less likely they'll be inspired to try to remove it from articles entirely, even where it's actually helpful (in code blocks).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your diligence in explaining these matters to me, SMcCandlish. I have continued to contemplate this matter and although I still don't disagree with any of my previous arguments, I have come to realize that the problems I perceived and described are intractably difficult to solve due to major technical and normative challenges. Perhaps what I have noticed are some inconsistencies, second-order and otherwise, but they are pervasive ones that are deeply integrated into the code and culture of Wikipedia and the Internet more generally. Resultingly, this just seems like yet another one of those "inconsistencies" that exist because other people do, so attempts at rectifying it are probably futile—at least, until other people in general want to change it. Additionally, many of the points you have made have become increasingly compelling to me.

In any case, at least a bug report resulted from all this. I still have my preferences, but unless others bring this issue up and the <syntaxhighlight> extension is improved, I'll probably just find other stuff to do and not bother with inline syntax highlighting within articles. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That strikes me as an accurate summary. The "because other people exist" idea is a funny way to put it, but relates strongly to observations I frequently make about many on-WP disputes being more a matter of hominid territorial and dominance behavior than logic or substance. It's very difficult to get us "naked apes" to go along, en masse, with changes. I'm also vaguely reminded of Tyrell's lines in Blade Runner about not being able to make changes to genetic coding sequences after they're already set in the organisms, else it could be "so lethal the subject was dead before the left the table". >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Related technical problem

I've noticed a technical problem for some time now. Using the {{code}} template to highlight markup fragments has a strong tendency to break syntax highlighting in the wikieditor. For example:

{{code|lang=html|code=<ul><li> ...}}

does this (it's doing it on this page right now, from mid-way through my 12:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC) post on down), because of the unclosed tags. And it cannot be escaped that I know of; doing this:

{{code|lang=html|code=<ul><li> ...}}

does not actually work, producing this output:

<ul><li> ...

So, the SH stuff needs to be applied only to complete code blocks with valid markup, or it breaks SH 1 (internal editor SH) to supply SH 2 (pretty display in the rendered page). SH on WP is mostly for editors, even in rendered form. While we've started adding it, sometimes, to technical articles in code blocks, it wasn't deployed for that reason but for template documentation, technical talk threads. Readers did not demand it, and they did fine without it for all these years. We shouldn't put it in articles willy-nilly if it breaks what we actually need SH for internally. When we need to illustrate unclosed markup we should do this with regularized templates like {{tag|code|o}} markup (as I just did with that template – self-referential loop!) or by hand tweaking it, e.g. "Using a backslash is invalid markup, a common error by MS Windows users: <code><nowiki><\code></nowiki></code>".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this technical problem, although I am not presently seeing it (are you using a different syntax highlighter?), I suspect this would have to do with the {{code}} itself, the use of a wikified implementation of inline syntax highlighting more generally, or how either or both interact with the wikitext editor syntax highlighting. My guess is that using the <syntaxhighlight> HTML extension itself with an inline attribute would not cause this, since the closing tag must be defined.

As for escaping markup within {{code}}, that seems to be an issue with <syntaxhighlight> itself since escaped characters do not work within any present implementation of the extension, block or inline. As you probably already well-know, characters can be escaped using <pre>s, so it's not like this is an unfixable limitation. Perhaps another phabricator ticket (or two) is due? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It probably is a different highlighter; there are at least three of them. I'm using the one provided at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets,which is the one almost everyone (who is using any of them) will be using, since it's already provided. I did try one of the add-on ones, installed via Special:MyPage/common.js, I think, and didn't care for it (it had at least as many glitches, and they were triggered more frequently, at least by the material I deal with). The problem with {{code}} is that it only accepts raw input; there appears to be no way to escape anything, including as HTML character entities – it just gives you the character entity codes not the character. It's a very "blunt instrument" and even its own documentation suggests other approaches for various situations. The idea that it could become a general standard, for use in mainspace, just isn't viable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to either "Syntax highlighter" or "wikEd". I use "Wikitext editor syntax highlighting", which does not appear to suffer from this technical problem. It does have a number of other issues, though, which hopefully will be fixed soon. Regardless, the fact that this technical problem you have experienced occurs with a popular wikitext highlighter is itself a major disincentive for using {{code}}, at least until the problem is fixed. I will keep that in mind. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I raised a thread about it on the template's talk page, then went on a long wikibreak. Now that I'm back, I see that the thread is still there. I did get a response, but am not entirely sure how to interpret it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

meditation

apologies, copied the ref from the "research on meditation" article; did not realise it did not work here . JCJC777 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC) JCJC777 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, JCJC777! I just wanted to help out, since I was unsure what you were referencing and you would probably know. Were it not for the fact that I had no idea what the sources were and they were not in the article yet, I would have just fixed them myself. Thanks! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Refactoring ellipses

I'd prefer if you didn't refactor Signpost pages just to add square brackets for ellipses. Per MOS:ELLIPSIS, "An ellipsis does not normally need square brackets around it, because its function is usually obvious." There is no other style guidance especially for the publication that I know of. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, Bri. I only do so because ellipses are sometimes in the original text (especially quotes from users) and bracketing appears to be frequently used when modifying quotes in Signpost articles. To ensure consistency and clearly indicate to readers when and whether the ellipses are additions, especially when bracketed modification are already present in the quotation, I include brackets around the ellipses. Without such bracketing, users may mistake the ellipses to be in the original text, which I do not consider to be sufficiently obvious, particularly when other bracketed modifications have been made in the article or quote. I am aware of the MOS:ELLIPSES recommendations and take the language in that subsection, particularly the text immediately following the sentence you quoted, to permit these edits.

Regardless, since you are discouraging such edits within Signpost articles, I will immediately cease to add brackets around any ellipses I encounter therein regardless of the context. You all, who are the official editorial staff of the publication, can determine when and whether to bracket the ellipses. Lastly, if you want me to revert any or all such ellipsis bracketing I have added in any Signpost article, just let me know. Thanks. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a problem, I'd just rather have one consistent style. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: If the quoted material itself contains an ellipsis, then one editorially inserted by the quoter should be in square brackets, to differentiate them. But it needn't be done otherwise (on WP). There are some academic publishers who require it in all cases, but that's an obscure style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, my interest is in editorial consistency so it looks like one whole/integrated publication. I'll raise the issue for inclusion in our style guide. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the style guide discussion page redirects; I made a note at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Ellipses in quotes. Feel free to continue there. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Time saver

There's a much simpler replacement for:

[[Wikipedia:Page name#Section name|Wikipedia:Page name § Section name]]

It's:

{{slink|Wikipedia:Page name#Section name}}

May it serve you well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, SMcCandlish! I think I have used that template once or twice before in a thread already using it, but I never bothered to read the documentation. After doing so, I see that it will definitely make things easier. Since you're here, I was just going to comment my appreciation for your essays here; but after typing it, I decided that I might as well add to your collection. It is been planned for a while now. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the star, and glad the template will help. It used to not be very useful, because it required {{slink|Wikipedia:Page name|Section name}} but I got it fixed so it parses the # syntax.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost

		The Signpost Barnstar
		I would like to thank you on behalf of the editorial team for all the hard work you put in behind the scences for The Signpost. It's very much appreciated.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Research citations

Thanks for your diligent work on the citations in this issue! Be aware that these come from a Zotero library. (As part of the production process for Recent Research/the Wikimedia Research Newsletter, we use Zotero's automated import function to generate an entry from the publications' web pages, and then Zotero's Wikipedia export feature to generate the citation templates you saw.) This library is also used in other ways (e.g. in the past Dario and I have published an annual corpus of all the research publications covered during that year, and together with Masssly we aim to do so again). Unfortunately your improvement work will be lost for that purpose; at least I don't know of an easy way to backport such changes into Zotero again. But if you are interested in working directly at the source instead, we could give you access to the Zotero library - just let me know.

In any case, thanks again!

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to help out, Tbayer (WMF). I'm not sure what you mean by the work being "lost for that purpose", but if you mean that it is not retained during syndication, during publication of the "annual corpus", or it is otherwise only preserved at the Signpost copy, I don't mind since my initial motivation for editing was with the understanding that it only affects that local copy. Only within the past few days, as I learned more about the Meta Research newsletter, did I discover that last month's issue included the changes I made.

Relatedly, on the latter topic, I noticed at its history page that it was cleaned up by you and Masssly. Much of it involved localizing the publication to Meta, particularly the wikilinks and templates. Now that I'm aware of this, I don't mind localizing it at m:Research:Newsletter, as well, especially since it appears that much of it involved code I added or modified. I wouldn't want my changes to produce more need for cleanup and review, which is contrary to the point of those changes.

Regarding access to the Zotero library to edit the source directly, my immediate concern is that it may be well beyond my competence in coding of any kind, which is currently limited to MediaWiki and HTML. I can generally understand what is going on in other markup and programming languages, but I do not consider myself at all skilled at coding with them beyond minor copy-and-paste modifications. Moreover, I am completely unfamiliar with Zotero and only learned about its existence recently. Unless the editing process at Zotero is basically similar to the VisualEditor or Wikidata, wherein there are data fields I can fill and modify without having to directly manipulate any JavaScript or install any software or whatever; or it otherwise accepts MediaWiki markup; I discourage giving me access because I am almost definitely not competent enough to be helpful at this time. Regardless, thanks for the offer. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, editing items in the Zotero online library doesn't involve any coding or markup at all - it's done via a proper web form, indeed a bit like VisualEditor's template editor. (Zotero does offer a standalone program and a browser extension, but you don't need them to edit existing items - they would become relevant for more advanced tasks like auto-importing new items or administrating your own library on your own computer.) Zotero is widely used among academics and BTW also forms the backbone of VisualEditor's feature to autogenerate citations (Citoid).

I'll send you the credentials now just in case you want to try this out. E.g. you could go to this item, click the edit button (with the pencil icon) on top, augment the item with your changes, save it and export it to a Wikipedia citation template again (via the green arrow button on the top right).

And thanks for being considerate about the compatibility with the Meta-wiki export! Don't worry too much about it though - most of the adjustment work needed after the export is inevitable and routine for us, e.g. the fixing of wikilinks and citation templates. That said, it is indeed a rationale for keeping the standard ISBN format, instead of the enwiki-specific template.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and access, Tbayer (WMF). I do not guarantee that I will contribute much if at all in the upcoming days (or longer, depending on what occurs), especially given that I intend to nominate an article for peer review and Good Article review soon (and, if feasible, onward to Featured article), but I will at least explore it a bit and may contribute once I am more available. Feel free to revoke access or whatever whenever, especially if I'm not actively using it. If that occurs, and I do become available to actively contribute there, I will let you know. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Deborah Parker

Hello, Thank you for your message. Having looked more thoroughly at the article it is obviously of high quality and should be rated at least B. The removal of the Americas project is because I assumed that every article in the Indigenous peoples of North America project would not be included in it. That way the two projects could economise on the amount of editing of Talk pages. In practice it seems that this represents what generally happens. The Americas project has less than 4000 articles but the North American one has over 10,200.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(For the record, this is a continuation from this user talk page message [permanent link].)

Thanks for the reply and explanation, Johnsoniensis. Although the scope of WP:WPIPA ostensibly includes WP:WPIPNA, there does appear to be a clear distinction in practice that does not support it if your numbers are any indication. Whether that is simply due to relative popularity or inconsistent application of scope, or because there is implicit consensus for a more segregated scope, is unclear. Regardless, I'll keep such considerations in mind.

Thank you, by the way, for your edit increasing the rating to B-class and adding that rating to the other WikiProjects. Just for clarification, though, I noticed that {{WikiProject Women}}'s rating is still at C-class. Is this intentional? I accept the rating either way and appreciate the time you took to evaluate the article, but I might as well check. Since I am neither a member of that WikiProject nor am I an uninvolved editor at that article, I think it would be inappropriate of me to change that rating, even on the assumption that it is intended to be B-class along with the rest. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC); minor rewording of small-text parenthetic for clarity at 20:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As a quick acknowledgement, thanks for increasing the class rating to "B" for {{WikiProject Women}}, and for your ratings work more generally. I hope you have a great day / night! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Project Harvest Moon

I continued the discussion in the Teahouse, because I didn't know any other way to keep George Van Valkenberg in the loop. His personal information would be original research, but he might suggest other topics or names to use in searching for citations. The notability of Project Harvest Moon (PHM) probably rests on its role as a precursor to private enterprise's role is space exploration. When the project died (July 1972), another initiative, "Mankind One" (also ill-fated), sprang from its ashes. I don't plan to follow "the Committee for the Future" beyond 1972. As it stands at the moment, PHM may prove an orphan. Hope that will change. Anobium625 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the "external link" explanation in the Teahouse. Yes, as a subscriber, I paid for all my sources. I now have enough names and topics to seek external sources. Anobium625 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Anobium625. Discussions can continue at the Teahouse, at least for now. Perhaps anyone reading it will learn something about how articles develop and sources are found. I personally doubt that this subject is much more than marginally notable and may just barely pass general notability criteria, but if there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources, then it might as well be included even if it remains a short article. If nothing else, it can be added or merged into Private spaceflight § History of commercial space transportation, Timeline of private spaceflight § Before 1980, or somewhere comparable.

If you are up for it, since you have access to these sources, you can create the article yourself. I understand that article creation can be a difficult and intimidating task, so I definitely do not blame you if it does not appeal to you, but you seem to be in the best position to do so. There is no rush, especially about such an honestly obscure topic, so you can sit on it for a while if the prospect of creating one now fills you with dread. I doubt anyone other than Valkenburg is clamoring for an article, after all. Regardless, your research on this topic is appreciated. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Greetings Nøkkenbuer,

You've recently posted on my so-called "talk page" and have voiced a few concerns. I've decided to respond to you via this weird goatesque message, because this way I can be sure my message will get across (I think?). If I edited my talk-page I wasn't really sure how exactly would you be notified and I don't know how to create a new topic on your talk page (I could only edit a pre-existing topic and I didn't want to fiddle with your talk page like that). So I guess this will have to do.

Firstly, thank you for the kind but undeserved words. I am evidently not a good editor, my technical/IT skills are abhorrent and (as you have noticed) my manner of communication is sometimes confusing. I am specifically referring to the unreferenced quotation marks here.

In some places where I've used quotations that an author has explicitly said, I cite the work in which they've said it. In other times, I use quotations to emphasize a certain keyword, when I figure that itallics (or just itallics) won't do the trick. This is how I usually proceed with emphasis in personal writings, but I understand that this can be regarded as quite confusing in a wikipedia article. My apologies for this inconvenience, I shall try to adress and re-edit the issues as soon as I am able.

"I noticed that some of your paragraphs lacked any references and it was unclear whether they were supported by any of the references you did include."

A correct observation indeed. My intention was that, by referencing a specific paragraph, the rest would be assumed to be stemming from the same source. I thought that if I referenced the entire text, it could result in larger confusion. But this assumption seems to have been false.

Another reason why I say your compliments are undeserved is because I do not consider myself an expert on the particular topics. I've read a few books that deal specifically with these topics and it just so happened that I noticed that precisely these topics were lacking in information and clarity. This is why I decided to edit them and add some depth into them. If someone does decide to revert/re-edit them before I check the references, I do hope they leave the crucial information or at the very least supply their own proper version of the crucial information.

Once again, thank you for the warm welcome and thank you for your time!

Sinveil (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sinveil (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, this is a continuation from this user talk page section (permanent link).

Hello Sinveil! In order to ping a user, either in a talk page reply or in an edit summary, you can simply link to their user page. For example, [[User:Sinveil]] would ping you. It can also be piped, as with [[User:Sinveil|text]], and it will still work. For discussions, however, many users use a template method, such as {{user link}}, the shortcut of which is {{u}}. (Templates do not work in edit summaries, so using it in one won't ping anyone.) For example, check the text of "Hello Sinveil!" while in edit mode; it uses that template and is technically what notified you in this reply.

Humility is often a result of having developed competence in something, so yours won't fool me. Don't worry or be ashamed of your current unfamiliarity with MediaWiki syntax and Wikipedia editing, or with any of the other potential newbie mistakes you might commit. Your account isn't even a day old! If anything, that not being the case would be cause for suspicion. Be proud that you're learning; you can save feeling embarrassed for when you check your early edits a few years from now.

With that said, on the matter of your edits, I entirely sympathize with your concerns about citing sources at the end of a paragraph when not all of the paragraph is properly sourced. In such situations, however, it's probably better to have at least some reference to support something in the paragraph placed somewhere therein, since sourcing takes precedence over text–source integrity. Anyone wishing to verify the claims can figure out what it supports; they can't do that when there is no source! Additionally, in a way, citing a source at the end of every paragraph at the very least is better text–source integrity than not doing so. There are also some rather technical and obscure templates that can assist there, but that's not important right now; they're almost never used, anyway. If you don't even have a source for any of the other content you're adding in a paragraph, though, then that is probably a good reason to not add that other stuff until you do for the reasons I explained before.

Reading "a few books that deal specifically with these topics" is frankly more than probably most editors in the edit histories of articles have done, especially the minor contributors. Regardless, expertise is something that needs no teacher, and simply being familiar with a subject due to having read literature about it is already very valuable for an editor to have. What's important is that an editor is invested in understanding and improving that which they are editing, which has already been demonstrated by you from your first edit.

On the matter of addressing these sourcing concerns, please don't panic as if the world will end tomorrow. It's good to address these concerns with due haste, but being unduly hasty is not only stressful but may worsen the quality of your attempts to do so! If you are reverted while you are doing so, or if you are regardless, take it in stride and discuss it if you think you should. If you are at an impasse with an editor, there are various ways of achieving dispute resolution. The focus is on improving the encyclopedia, which includes improving one's own edits. So long as you do that, and you make sure to listen, engage, an explain yourself in a civil way (like you have done thus far), I don't think you should be at all concerned about any enforcement coming your way. As for the behavior of other editors, though, well... some do bite.

Lastly, to emphasize it once more, feel free to ask me any time if you want any help, or check out the other venues for asking questions. Wikipedia would be nothing without it's editors, so retaining the good ones can more important than editing itself. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC); edited at 02:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Reply to your message

Thanks for the welcome! I thought I would try my at hand at helping to improve some of the subjects I am knowledgeable in as I use Wikipedia probably every day. So, as they say, leave it better than you found it, right?

I appreciate the heads up on my edits. I will keep practicing on the various Wiki functions and hopefully can become a valuable editor for the community.

Alevings1 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Rosamund Stanhope (from her daughter)

FYI

 – The origin of this discussion can be found here (permanent link). —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nøkkenbuer, thanks for the message. Certainly not overwhelming; but I am genuinely ridiculously busy at the mo, so excuse me if I kiss a couple of points. First, I appreciate your epistemological and pragmatic avoidance of concurring in mt claim to be her daughter; but may I politely point out that googling the two names should confirm this claim, at least to the satisfaction of the pragmatist.

Oddly, I thought I had entered her in Wikipedia; but if as you say I didn't then yes I certainly signed up to eliminate the early inaccuracies. Further to that, I also see that I may be seen as biased (I do like her poetry and consider it under-exposed at the moment). But I would really like to know whence other than from me or my son or cousin you would look for information. Her publishers, John Rolph and Harry Chambers, are both dead; there are no biographies, and the obits were all written by people who called me for the facts. There will be a few ex-colleagues and more ex-pupils; they do not know, for example, her educational history...

As for the Indian perpetration - no, that is not me! I divine as you do that he has fished up a picture online without realising that clicking IMAGES on a Google search gives images that are not all, or most, (or even any) of the person whose name you've input. I am angry about this. Yes, it is a pic of me; yes, I could at some time appear myself in Wikipedia (it is possible given that I am an actor and a writer who have just got into my stride after a few decades of mothering); and yes, it IS copyright; I think it is a headshot or a publicity pic for a local reading. That's the one on the darkish background. I only haven't contacted Wikimedia before because I am so damn busy. The other image is NOT me or my mother, but a complete stranger. At a guess, her forename is Rosamund.

I'd like to know what bits of bio I added you are planning to remove. Seems a shame if you lose hard information. She was at Central in 1952/3 along with Judi Dench; they both did the teachers' course. Vanessa Redgrave was a contemporary too. She never went back into acting; sadly I think as she would have got more joy from it than she did from her marriage. I do not suggest that as an inclusion. As a professional editor myself, chiefly of academic texts, I appreciate the need for care. Please, though, bear in mind my remarks above. As my mother told me just about everything (not always ideal); I do know more about her life than anyone alive now, and nothing is written that has not come from me. If you wish, knock out the point about the three full-time pursuits she had that made it not so easy to write a lot; I can see that as slightly biased, if true and pertinently still characteristic of married female writers. Incidentally, I have just been contacted by an American house wanting to publish a Selected Poems, so she may enjoy a resurgence.Oueeza (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and detailed reply, Oueeza. I entirely understand the busyness; I am, as well! There is no rush on these matters, though. Unless there is anything factually inaccurate in your mother's article, changes to it can wait. That's partly why I corrected the inaccurate "Steinberg" surname to "Sternberg", but I have not yet published the major expansion of the article. If there is, though, then feel free to let me know or mention it in the article's talk page, such as with the {{Request edit}} template. Even if what you state is not verifiable, if the inaccuracy is not sourced in the article, then it can simply be removed.

With that said, please only respond (or even read this!) when it's a good time for you, even if that's in a few days or a week or so. You can also email me if you prefer that or if it's something you'd rather not post publicly here for all to see. I don't intend to be going anywhere anytime soon, and I intend to help improve your mother's article well into the near-future, so I'll probably be available to assist you with these matters from here on out, so long as you're interested in my long-winded assistance. Now, onto the rest of your message...

Part of why I play a bit coy with your identity is because Wikipedia's policy on harassment includes an "outing" section that I am very careful to respect. In engaging in that way, I am technically providing a shred of plausible deniability to protect your privacy and, on the chance that someone is impersonating you, to avoid contributing to that impersonation through validation. I did indeed do some basic research, though.

Where a random editor like me would look to find information about a subject's life is usually in reliable sources that can be cited to verify the information. For example, like I said on your talk page in reply to Graeme Bartlett, I am currently gathering sources to undergo a significant rewrite and expansion of your mother's article. I am doing this with information I found in a variety of sources, mainly obituaries that provide in-depth coverage about her life. I have only done some basic research, so what I have found may just be the tip of it, but thus far I have found some excellent information in a 2005 obituary in The Independent, another 2006 obituary by Alan Brownjohn in The Guardian, yet another 2006 obituary in The Times, a 1992 review of Stanhope's Lapidary in Critical Survey (via JSTOR), and a 1984 mention of Stanhope in Serials Review. That alone is more than sufficient sourcing to confirm Stanhope's Wikipedia-defined notability, provide significant details about her life and legacy, and even provide some information about her poetry in particular. As more sources are found, the article can continue to be expanded to include them.

This is how articles on Wikipedia are created, expanded, and improved, including biographies of people who are no longer living or lived so long ago that anyone who directly knew them is long dead. For example, consider the following Featured articles on poets:

• Edgar Allen Poe, whose article has over 150 citations to dozens of sources;
• Maya Angelou, whose article has nearly 200 citations from dozens of sources; and,
• William Shakespeare, whose article has nearly 300 citations to dozens (perhaps over a hundred?) sources.

Sure, all three of them may be more renowned than your mother (no disrespect intended!), but my point is that all three of these articles contain numerous sources which provide the verifiable support for the claims therein. I frankly doubt that anyone who knew any of those poets or are related to any of them were involved at any point in the development of those articles. Some subject experts may have been, along with some enthusiastic fans of their works, but anyone in the position you are in need not participate in order for a biographic article here to shine.

That doesn't mean people in your position aren't helpful—quite the contrary! A living relative or former colleague of a article subject is an invaluable source. Their role as a source, however, is not in the sense of being a source like those cited in the articles, though, unless their published works are being cited. Rather, their role is as a super-expert of sorts who can provide leads and suggest sources to editors like me that we can then search, find, and cite in the article to verify claims we added to it.

Since the source of those obituaries' information is you, that means you're an excellent aid in helping improve your mother's article. For example, you may know of other obituaries sourced to you or interviews you (or your mother) may have given, which can then be cited in the article. However, we cannot cite you as the source because our readers cannot readily verify that on their own. We can cite you as a source if you produced something that was then published by a reliable source, such as a book biographying your mother or—as you noted above—an obituary someone authored after talking with you. That is one way you can provide additional sourcing for your mother's article: by getting information about her published somewhere reputable elsewhere first.

This all goes back to our sourcing policies and guidelines and the sort of social consensus–based epistemology within which Wikipedia operates. These editorial constraints are why we, as a tertiary source, can summarize what is stated in published secondary and primary sources (Wikipedia's policies about the three can be found here), but we cannot email Beyoncé (or, more likely, her public relations team) and use that emailed correspondence as a source for our articles. The latter constitutes original research, which Wikipedia prohibits and which Wikipedia is not about. Similarly, I can cite Alan Brownjohn's obituary in The Guardian (and will, and it already is in the article), but I cannot cite your own thoughtful remarks to me for anything in your mother's article, even though you are his source and you claim the same things his article did—at least, not unless I want to jeopardize my status as an editor for blatantly violating policy. Ironically, though, if you were to write an article yourself and get it published in some reputable source, then I can cite the article you wrote as a source.

I am confident that you already very familiar with these sort of editorial issues, given you are a professional editor yourself (something I am not). Because you are a professional editor, particularly in academic settings, your experiences and normative expectations are radically different from how it works here on Wikipedia, though. Rather than explaining this myself, however, I strongly recommend you read some of our documentation about expert editors (which you are) and how relationships with academic editors work on Wikipedia (click those links).

We have some academics and professionals on Wikipedia, including some Wikipedians in residence (documentation page here) who are part of Wikipedia's GLAM–Wiki initiative. They are usually some of our best and most resourceful editors; however, they are a small minority. The overwhelming bulk of Wikipedia editors and edits (my guess is over 90%) are not professional, at least not in anything related to the subjects they are editing here. Many do not have college degrees, indeed even high school diplomas! Some are minors, as well. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia almost anyone can edit, after all. As a result of these realities, you are frankly in foreign territory here. That's fine, as we were all newbies here at least once, but it does mean that the expectations and norms you have grown to take as givens throughout the course of your career may not—and often do not—apply here. This is especially the case when it comes to collaboration, sourcing, and article development, as you have probably found jarringly clear by now.

Now, with that bit of orientation on Wikipedia's weird ways out of the way, let me address the matter of your picture. It appears that one of them, the one that isn't you, is of Brenda Blethyn and it is sourced from a BBC article about her. My guess about the filename is that you two look vaguely similar, at least enough in black-and-white that someone from the Hindi Wikipedia either confused images of you two or didn't care enough distinguish them. Regardless, I'll do some searching around to find where the sources of the images may be so I can establish firm evidence that they are copyrighted under a non-free license, which is necessary to get them deleted without much difficulty or debate. If you already know the source(s) and can link to it, however, then that can expedite the process. After that is found, I, you, or another can proceed with getting them deleted from all Wikimedia projects, which will break any links to them and thus render it impossible to embed them in any Wikimedia pages (including that Hindi user page). Assuming nothing unexpected comes up that frustrates the process, this should be a rather easy issue to rectify.

On the matter of your mother's biography, I have thus far not found anything that needs to be removed yet. Almost all the unsourced information currently in the article is supported by the information you provided to the authors of those obituaries. The rewrite I'm working on cites those obituaries to support those claims. By the time I'm done with the rewrite, I doubt much of anything will remain unsupported by a source and thus will be (at risk of being) removed. For example, almost everything you said above about your mother is supported by the obituary sources, including—to my surprise—the assertion that she attended school alongside Judi Dench. So, I wouldn't be concerned about that. Likewise with the comment about her marriage, for which I have been unable to find any source evidence. And, because of the editorial restrictions I described above, I can't cite your published statements here as a source even if I wanted to do so, unless I don't mind a potential block or other sanctions for grossly incompetent editing.

If you are aware of any further publications about your mother, please do mention them, either to me or on the talk page of the article about her! Depending on their contents, they may be worth citing in the article, as well.

I hope the above isn't so verbose as to be intolerable. Again, feel free to take your time to read and respond. Wikipedia is a volunteer service, after all, and—as one of the editors here now—that applies to you, too. Have a great rest of the day / night! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 22:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

As an update, Oueeza, I have filed a {{Copyvio}} (a speedy deletion for copyright violation) on both the first and second images after finding the original sources for both. I also noted on both that they are incorrectly named, so they should be deleted soon enough. In the very unlikely chance that they aren't, they will probably at least be renamed, though I'm very confident they'll be deleted as copyright violations. So, on the matter of the images, that should be considered effectively resolved. Regardless of what occurs, I'll ping you with an update on the results.

On an unrelated note, I noticed that there is a similarly named account, Oueezer (talk · contribs), whose only edits are at the Rosamund Stanhope article, as well. Is this one of your accounts? If so, then it's best if you declare that whenever you reply (again, no rush!). Please keep in mind that alternative accounts are allowed, but under certain restrictions, and generally having multiple active accounts is discouraged. I have my guesses for why the account exists if it is indeed yours, all innocuous, but I might as well ask anyway. Again, have a great day / night and please take your time to respond. Your professional life comes first; I don't mind waiting. Anyway like I said, I'm busy, too! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's that update I promised, Oueeza: both images are now deleted as copyright violations as of about an hour ago, thanks to Túrelio at Commons. So, that's no longer an issue. Again, thanks for letting us know about those image issues; had you not done so, who knows how much longer they might have remained? As always, respond whenever you have the time. This is just a friendly update (and probably the last for now). —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC); edited at —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

On the question as to who wrote the original text in the Rosamund Stanhope article, I created the page, but I did not write the original text. The original text came from here: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-09-29#Rosamund Stanhope, where someone signing as "82.0.173.47 15:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC) " wrote the original text. It was added in this diff: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_creation%2F2006-09-29&type=revision&diff=77543912&oldid=77543057 . This may well have been the same person as User:Oueeza, and Oueeza can check and see if that is what she wrote, and then claim to have written it. But it may be very difficult to prove! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI

[4] (sorry you were dragged into this). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Kudpung. I have no comment about those discussions, not least because it seems to involve matters beyond the scope of the article (and The Signpost altogether). My intent was simply to provide some information to assist understanding the claim, just as it was to help copy-edit and factcheck the articles without participating in opining about them (that's best saved for the comments). Anything beyond that, including the propriety of the claims and stories, is something I'd rather leave to those involved and commenting on the them. I understand that you aren't asking for anything beyond that; I'm just clarifying as much in case anyone reading wants to understand my position on all this. Regardless, I wish the best for all involved. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This is bugging me

In the original NASA caption for File:Cosmic ‘Winter’ Wonderland.jpg, they say "optical data from the SuperCosmos Sky Survey (blue) made by the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope". But UKIRT doesn't appear to have an optical sensor. I think that SuperCosmos Sky Survey's optical data was from scanning plates of other telescopes' surveys. It's described in further detail here. This is probably too detailed to adjust The Signpost's Featured content again, but it bugs me. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, Bri, nothing about our inclusion of the image in the article is technically incorrect. The caption states that the image was "created by NASA Chandra X-ray Observatory and Spitzer Space Telescope, NASA-German Aerospace Center ROSAT telescope, and United Kingdom Infrared Telescope; and nominated by The NMI User", which seems to be the case even if the optical data do not derive from UKIRT; and the alt text states that the image is a "[p]hotograph of nebula NGC 6357 false-colored based on X-ray, infrared, and optical data", which is correct regardless of the optical data source.

Whatever error might exist regarding the source of the optical data, that is a problem for the description page at Commons—and the NASA page from which we got the description (where it explicitly that states the optical data are from UKIRT). It should of course be corrected if indeed erroneous, but it's beyond the scope of The Signpost and we are not republishing anything incorrect here. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC); edited at 15:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion but it bugs me just the same :) ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This 2007 research seems to (almost) imply that UKIRT has "optical" capabilities, as does this page and this patent, all of which are consistent with the (unsourced) statement in United Kingdom Infrared Telescope § Contemporaries on commissioning (permanent link) that "[a]lthough seeing in the infrared, the UKIRT was large for an optical telescope and signaled a coming focus on this part of the spectrum that only grew in the coming decades." Similarly, this 1995 abstract briefly mentions UKIRT being fitted with an experimental adaptive optics system developed by the University of Hawaii in January 1994.

After some consideration, however, perhaps we're just presuming too much of what "optical" means in this context? Optics include infrared wavelengths in its definition, at least according to our article, so "optical" may not necessarily mean the visible spectrum here. Although the wording at the description page and NASA article are ambiguous and unclear, they might mean that the image was produced by UKIRT using the optical data from all sources? I'm not very familiar with these matters, so maybe there are some technical definitions for these terms that I do not know. I also don't have much confidence in this interpretation, but I'm trying to be generous here.

In any case, this is now bugging me, too, Bri. It does not help that my web search results are such that it's almost as if this is a fact that is just too obvious (or minor) to report, so others only make statements that imply or suggest it without explicating UKIRT's relationship to optical observations. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 15:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is an example (in the case of NGC 6834) of UKIRT providing infrared data while other sources are used for the optical data. In particular, the abstract states:

Infrared photometry and spectroscopy from the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT), and optical data from various facilities are combined with archival data to understand the nature of these candidates. High signal-to-noise near-IR spectra obtained from UKIRT have enabled us to study the optical depth effects in the hydrogen emission lines of these stars.

I don't know what this may indicate or clarify in this situation, but it seems sufficiently similar to this that I might as well mention it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC); edited at 16:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm an amateur astronomer only, so what I know is "a little dangerous knowledge", which I'm aware of and it's part of what's bugging me. That said, I noticed that the UKIRT optical system uses dielectric mirrors which I think are tuned for infrared. In other words you could use it for visible wavelengths, but it would suck. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the image sure doesn't, so I'm still perplexed by all this. Maybe UKIRT does have robust optical capabilities, it's just not part of what they usually do, so it's rarely used or reported. If so, though, then why involve UKIRT? Was it already otherwise involved? Regardless, this may be the closest we have to an answer unless someone is interested in contacting NASA or UKIRT for clarification. At least the Signpost article was not republishing anything erroneous. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Incel

Thanks for your cleanup on Incel! I've been a Wikipedian for a while but only learned of {{'"}} because of your edits—thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad to help, GorillaWarfare. Other related helpful templates include:

• {{" '}} for on the left side;
• {{'}} for situations like "...The New York Times' reporting...", nowikis need not apply;
• others listed at {{Quotation mark templates}};
• {{'s}} for kerning possessives used with certain italicized terms to avoid overlap, though {{'}} also works;
• {{shy}} for soft hyphens in special situations with long word wrapping, like in captions;
• {{em}}, {{strong}}, and {{var}} for semantic HTML markup of emphasis, strong emphasis, and variables respectively in prose; and
• {{Italics correction}} if you want to be really pedantic about visual spacing for improving readability.

You may or may not know some or all of these, but I'm mentioning them anyway just in case. Regardless, I appreciate you taking the time to let me know. By the way, thank for your work at the Incel article yourself! It was brought to my attention after seeing a certain report that is now experiencing some declining snow, and checking the talk page to see you saying things that are very unbecoming of the sort who deserve such reports. It was rather confuzzling, admittedly. Less confuzzling, but more surprising, is the fact that Confuzzling has been a redirect with a monthly average of 4 views for nearly a decade. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know about these at all! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The Cam. Opt. stuff

Hey!

I just read Cam. Opt. alleged "last response" and, in all honesty, I am quite surprised by that nasty transphobia, but apart from that it just seems bitter. I'd be willing to apologize for any kind of rudeness, starting with me, and hoping they would as well. Though, my points and criticisms still stand, of course. What are your thoughts on the matter? JulkaK (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (last edit because the paragraph didn't work 18:27)

Hey, JulkaK, I've been busy with off-Wiki matters today and probably will be much less active in the upcoming days (or weeks?) due to an unanticipated major development in my personal life. As a result, I may not respond as quickly or participate as much as I intended in assisting with these matters. My apologies for that.

With that said, I did see the post myself. It's very unfortunate. I don't understand why they didn't just go with "they". It's obvious they saw your user page, so they could have presumed "she" from your stated name, too. That was entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You can request that the user retract uncivil comments as a civility violation, if you at all care to do so, but I doubt that will go over well given how they have responded thus far. That doesn't excuse their behavior (I don't think it's excusable even if understandable), but that seems to be the likely outcome here. As for the rest of their post, it seems that they are very personally invested in their work, and reasonably so. They don't own the page, of course, but they seem to be feeling insulted that their work is being criticized by people they see as uninformed laymen.

This is a difficult situation because I don't want you to feel that you have to tolerate incivility, and you're free to express as much, but the best chances of de-escalation right now is to do as was recommended and focus on content rather than contributors. They may not be returning, anyway, as they said, which may solve the problem itself in its own sad way. I'd rather they work with us, though.

I want to also say that I'm sorry if I have come across as unfair to you. I approached this whole issue from the start with praise and focus on CO's work, and remarks about them being a potential academic and so on, because I wanted to de-escalate, avoid CO feeling unwelcomed or unappreciated for their work, and I strongly suspected them to be an academic who is behaving as some new academic editors do on Wikipedia. I frankly don't disagree with your criticisms of the content and have found them to be reasonable, if blunt at times. I haven't been trying to favor CO here, nor discount your positions on all this; my main goals here have been to ease the tension, provide commentary sympathetic to CO's situation (so they feel they are being understood), avoid losing any potentially productive editors, and shift the issue back toward content. It seems that I have failed in all accounts here, though. I probably should not have gotten involved.

Perhaps the best option now is to simply not respond to CO and focus on the content, but I entirely understand if you want to do otherwise. So do I, and I already had a response typed out. However, I just doubt it will be productive any longer, unfortunately, if it ever was. If they want to participate and have their input be a part of the production process, then they can; if not, so be it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC); edited at 10:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I hope it all goes well in private! It doesn't matter to me that much, really, so there is also nothing to worry about. It was just honestly rather unexpected and kind of showed me what kind of person they were anyway. I do agree, in either case, focusing on the content is the way to go. No, you haven't seemed unfair at all; I have very much appreciated your input always. There's not much more to be said on it, in my opinion. You said it all, essentially. It might also be the fact that I am incredibly sleepy that I can't find any words to comment on this matter any further, though I think the fact that you said it all is the main reason. JulkaK (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Your edits to whatever I come up with for the Signpost have always been an improvement. I need to learn more about formatting from your examples. Please feel free to edit anything that I write. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Barbara! My main concern there, about which I almost pinged you in the edit summary, was that the edit specifically changed signed content, which is generally considered a doubleplusbig no-no with very few exceptions. I also didn't want you to at all take my editing the wrong way, but I'm glad it appears you did not.

Thank you for being among the few who are still providing content for The Signpost! I am pessimistic about its future, but I think at least one more issue is in it. Less pessimistically, there is a possibility that your crossword will enjoy the best cliffhanger you could hope to have. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

COI Notice - Donna Strickland

Hi, I saw you brought over the COI notice from The Optical Society talk page. I just wanted to let you know that User:Jmiller1455 no longer works for The Optical Society. Not sure its necessary to include that account. - Tinynull (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Tinynull. As far as I am aware, {{Connected contributor}} templates and similar documentation indefinitely retain the information wherever a conflict of interest exists unless there is good cause to believe there is no longer a conflict of interest, though I am not sure what the grounds for the latter would be. I have never seen an item removed from such templates unless it was erroneous in the first place, but I do not regularly work with COI matters, either. I have asked for clarification at WT:COI, as you probably know from the ping; however, the infrequent posting there may mean a belated response (if any). In any case, unless the user returns and objects to it, leaving the documentation up probably should not be an issue.

With that said, I am especially glad that you messaged me because I want to personally thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. They have been insightful and encouraging; the image uploads in particular have been invaluable and such content was unlikely to have been available for us to use otherwise. Also, I hope you understand that my COI documentation has exactly nothing to do with judging the quality of your edits. I have seen nothing but good there. My doing so is simply part of a general principle of documenting COIs to ensure transparency and trust within the community. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Glad to help, I wasn't entirely sure so I figured I would mention it. I'm glad people seem happy for the contributions, I was a little worried initially and how it might come across, especially with the historic edits, so I've tried to go out of my way to be as transparent as possible. For that reason I completely understand putting that COI notice up, I frankly would prefer to have that peer review element, even trying to be neutral its hard when you're close to a topic. I'm also somewhat learning as I go so there is a bit of a steep curve, meaning I'm constantly worried I'm doing something wrong. But all of that said it is generating a great internal conversation about how we offer our wealth of historic content and media for consumption. It's a bit of a glacial process but I think its definitely in the spirit of our mission to try to make this sort of important historic media available. - Tinynull (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Change in Wikipedia definitely can be slow, Tinynull, especially when limited to edit requests and dealing with matters more complex than bold editing can adequately address. Regardless, feel free to ask me anytime if you want my help with a matter, whether here or via email. For more general support, I recommend the Teahouse and help desk. Alternatively, you can create a new section on your user talk page describing your issue with {{help me}} at the top of the section and someone should eventually come along to assist you. Again, thanks for your contributions! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I

profusely apologize for the delay but happily, my piece is nearing completion.There's lot more than that meets to the eye and will be jotted in the yet-to-be-written-conclusion.Post that, there will be extensive copyediting and formatting stuff:-) You are invited to chime in.∯WBG^converse 16:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, WBG! I'm just relieved to see that this issue may have detailed coverage of the event, after all. From what I'm seeing, the structured list can be collapsed into prose, so the fact that it is currently in that format does not worry me. The copy-editing is no big issue, either, but finishing the writing will be entirely up to you. If you don't mind me asking, however, is there any reason why you developed it on the Test Wiki?

As for inclusion, I should have clarified that I am not an official member of The Signpost; I have just been active there recently. Nonetheless, I will mention it in the newsroom talk page and see what others think. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, see User:Winged Blades of Godric/The rise and fall of a Wikimedian--Paid editing and Governments. ∯WBG^converse 17:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to edit, to your wishes:-)∯WBG^converse 17:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Once I have copy-edited the other features, I will turn to that, WBG. In the meantime, I recommend reading the post I just made at the newsroom talk page (I forgot to ping you in it). As I said there, I am willing to help this piece get published regardless of what happens. Not only do I think this matter deserves reporting, but I also don't want your work to go to waste, especially given I am the one who initiated all this. If you have any response to my post, you're free to provide it at the newsroom talk page. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Categorization consensus

Regarding [[User talk:SMcCandlish#Categorization consensus|this, I would say that now that we have hidden categories, any category of that sort no longer needs to be relegated to the talk page. Pushing it to talk was what we did before we could hide categories from readers (other than those who create an account and change their prefs to opt-in to seeing these maintenance categories). I would keep the talk page placement for cases of reader-unhelpful maint. categories that have yet to be converted to hidden, though the better solution would be to make them hidden. 2601:643:8300:C96D:CD15:305A:C81B:4798 (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, IP user. Once I have the time, I will probably just hide the categories, leave some brief documentation, and remove the talk page specification. I anticipate that will be fine with McCandlish, whose wikibreak I hope is being enjoyed. There's probably no need to pester about it any further, anyway. The message was mainly a matter of courtesy. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Also

72 hours was right before I created the English Wikiquote. So it seemed a bit like putting my thumb on the scale. GMG^talk 13:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand why you might be concerned there, but if you also participated in the wondrous industrious work you detailed, then why not acknowledge that place? Simply because your work ought to likewise be mentioned, but acknowledging that yourself is too proud a proclamation for others to learn? You earned it! If I were writing your piece, I'd be inclined to mention the English Wikiquote part.

Sleep-deprived bombast aside, I hope you are okay with the changes I made, GMG. About the note on the further language editions, that was just to further emphasize the sustained attention that Strickland has been given by the movement (which does not involve disclosing your participation). It does not really matter, though, since the main point is still made and that detail is superfluous to it. Thanks for contributing the piece; it serves excellently as the open to the op-ed (and could have been the conclusion, too, were it not for the surprising surfeit of content this issue). —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're interested on collaborating on a piece, I did get some overcaffinated time by myself recently and drafted User:GreenMeansGo/sandbox#The_Gap_Gap. I assume they wouldn't want two op-eds in a row from the same contributor, but I don't expect the issue will go away any time soon, so it'll probably be just as relevant any time in the foreseeable future. GMG^talk 14:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly you want me to do, GMG, but I am willing to help out. Naturally, I have no problem with copy-editing whatever. If you want more than that, though, then please let me know. While reading the draft, it thematically reminded me of this thoughtful piece by Indy beetle from the 26 April 2018 issue and the response I provided at its talk page. I don't know if any of that will at all be useful to you, though. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Signpost RSS descriptions

Just so you don't waste time on something that's done automatically: I'm not positive but I think this is unnecessary -- this is copied by the publishing scripts. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I noticed another manually filling the RSS descriptions and went along with it, assuming that perhaps I have been overlooking it. If it is already addressed by the script, then all the better. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Signature change

I have changed the appearance of my signature. Barbara ✐✉ 10:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Since you are already here, Barbara, I can just say here what I considered posting on your user talk page: while searching for an image in Category:Shouting in art at Wikimedia Commons, I came across this and this. I hope they help you get through the day. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Grunya Sukhareva

Bonjour If you want to complete Grunya Sukhareva biography: Other ref: How history forgot the woman who defined autism. https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/history-forgot-woman-defined-autism/

and Sukhareva—Prior to Asperger and Kanner https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274317752_Sukhareva-Prior_to_Asperger_and_Kanner

I don't master the subject to do it myself.

Regards,LaMèreVeille (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nøkkenbuer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi, just checking in to see if you are around and willing to help with The Signpost this issue. We have about a week to wrap up prior to the 2 December publication deadline. Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Steven S. Rosenfeld

Hello Nøkkenbuer - After removing the entry for Steven S. Rosenfeld from List of scientific misconduct incidents because it had no sources, I noted on the revision history for Steven S. Rosenfeld the summary statement that you "might return some day to do some cleanup." I have yet to find any RS on the alleged scientific misconduct, so if that "cleanup" involves AfD, I would be supportive. Although this isn't close to a priority for me (or you either I gather), I thought I'd leave you this note because I certainly do not mean to step on your toes by removing the list entry. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15 § Template:Use shortened footnotes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15 § Template:Use shortened footnotes. Peaceray (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"Degeneration" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Degeneration. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 8#Degeneration until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)