User talk:Mandruss/Archive 4

Orlando shooting revert

Mandruss, can you please explain to me why you deleted the name of the speaker Daniel Gilroy? The instant I saw those weighty quotes attributed to an anonymous "former coworker," a journalism red flag went up. He's not a confidential source; he's quoted by name in the footnoted RS. In U.S. journalism, unattributed quotations are viewed as suspect unless attributed to a confidential source, who usually is known to a responsible editor at the news outlet. (And keep in mind, this article is about a U.S. event.) Sca (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussing in article talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's another "List" for 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting - would appreciate your thoughts

List of people killed

Stanley Almodovar III, 23 Amanda Alvear, 25 Oscar A. Aracena-Montero, 26 Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala, 33 Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21 Martin Benitez Torres, 33 Antonio D. Brown, 29 Darryl R. Burt II, 29 Jonathan A. Camuy Vega, 24 Angel L. Candelario-Padro, 28 Simon A. Carrillo Fernandez, 31 Juan Chevez-Martinez, 25 Luis D. Conde, 39 Cory J. Connell, 21 Tevin E. Crosby, 25 Franky J. Dejesus Velazquez, 50 Deonka D. Drayton, 32 Mercedez M. Flores, 26 Juan R. Guerrero, 22 Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz, 22 Paul T. Henry, 41 Frank Hernandez, 27 Miguel A. Honorato, 30 Javier Jorge-Reyes, 40 Jason B. Josaphat, 19 Eddie J. Justice, 30 Anthony L. Laureano Disla, 25 Christopher A. Leinonen, 32 Brenda L. Marquez McCool, 49 Jean C. Mendez Perez, 35 Akyra Monet Murray, 18 Kimberly Morris, 37 Jean C. Nives Rodriguez, 27 Luis O. Ocasio-Capo, 20 Geraldo A. Ortiz-Jimenez, 25 Eric I. Ortiz-Rivera, 36 Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32 Enrique L. Rios Jr., 25 Juan P. Rivera Velazquez, 37 Yilmary Rodriguez Solivan, 24 Christopher J. Sanfeliz, 24 Xavier E. Serrano Rosado, 35 Gilberto R. Silva Menendez, 25 Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34 Shane E. Tomlinson, 33 Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25 Luis S. Vielma, 22 Luis D. Wilson-Leon, 37 Jerald A. Wright, 31 Perpetrator Omar Mateen

Would appreciate your thoughts. I dummied up the article with my 'List' and didn't like where the box ended up...right next to the Mateen's section ((shudder)) not appropriate at all. I took some of what you had done and some of what I had done. Was thinking we could collaborate a bit here, hate to add additional possible clutter to the talk page. The columns could even be put into 3 or 4, so article text won't bunch up against the Box in an inappropriate way. Shearonink (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally could go with the bolding or without. I thought it was cool to visually separate the name from the age, but that's minor. As background, I stole the code from 2014 Isla Vista killings#Victims. It's not like I actually know anything about the coding involved. I see the text butted up against the table here, but that doesn't happen when the table is floated right. That's a start. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, now I see different font sizes for the two columns, which is not good. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I lifted the code too. Just fixed the diff sizes. Shearonink (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned about the List (whatever it is) abutting Mateen's section when it is placed in the article.

And that was a concern only with the single-column list? I think we have wide agreement that two columns is preferable (so far). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been experimenting with different placements, adjusting the internal coding, putting your 2-column version into 3-columns (still working on that), etc. So far I can't get the Box away from Mateen's section. I did like the single column List in theory because it's off to the side and not smack-dab in the middle of the article, but the placement when put into the article sucks. Shearonink (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Yeah, it may not be possible to keep it short. The length of the list is record-setting, after all. I think we need to consider that a wider box (wider than 2 columns) wouldn't work well with certain smaller screen sizes. This is going to be viewed on tablets and even phones, as I understand it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

List of people killed

Stanley Almodovar III, 23 Amanda Alvear, 25 Oscar A. Aracena-Montero, 26 Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala, 33 Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21 Martin Benitez Torres, 33 Antonio D. Brown, 29 Darryl R. Burt II, 29 Jonathan A. Camuy Vega, 24 Angel L. Candelario-Padro, 28 Simon A. Carrillo Fernandez', 31 Juan Chevez-Martinez, 25 Luis D. Conde, 39 Cory J. Connell, 21 Tevin E. Crosby, 25 Franky J. Dejesus Velazquez, 50 Deonka D. Drayton, 32 Mercedez M. Flores, 26 Juan R. Guerrero, 22 Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz, 22 Paul T. Henry, 41 Frank Hernandez, 27 Miguel A. Honorato, 30 Javier Jorge-Reyes, 40 Jason B. Josaphat, 19 Eddie J. Justice, 30 Anthony L. Laureano Disla, 25 Christopher A. Leinonen, 32 Brenda L. Marquez McCool, 49 Jean C. Mendez Perez, 35 Akyra Monet Murray, 18 Kimberly Morris, 37 Jean C. Nives Rodriguez, 27 Luis O. Ocasio-Capo, 20 Geraldo A. Ortiz-Jimenez, 25 Eric I. Ortiz-Rivera, 36 Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32 Enrique L. Rios Jr., 25 Juan P. Rivera Velazquez, 37 Yilmary Rodriguez Solivan, 24 Christopher J. Sanfeliz, 24 Xavier E. Serrano Rosado, 35 Gilberto R. Silva Menendez, 25 Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34 Shane E. Tomlinson, 33 Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25 Luis S. Vielma, 22 Luis D. Wilson-Leon, 37 Jerald A. Wright, 31 Perpetrator Omar Mateen

Above is the latest one. Yeah, I know multiple columns but otherwise the List is inappropriately placed within the article and abuts Mateen's section & photo. Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think others will agree that that is completely unworkable, for the reason I stated above. BTW, you don't need these References subsections, and they get in the way. You just need one {{reflist-talk}} for an entire level 2 section. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I put the references & references section there just to dummy up the edit and keep them from going to the bottom of your page. This particular ref list is standing in for the article's References section & ref list.

That's my point. Reflist-talk keeps it from going to the bottom of the page, and was created for precisely this purpose. We don't need to simulate the article's References section, as most editors understand how references work in an article. I modified this section since It's My Talk Page. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 21:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so more than two columns are unworkable because of screen-size etc? 2 columns might look odd within the body of the article, but I'll give it a whirl. Shearonink (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

List of people killed

Stanley Almodovar III, 23 Amanda Alvear, 25 Oscar A. Aracena-Montero, 26 Rodolfo Ayala-Ayala, 33 Alejandro Barrios Martinez, 21 Martin Benitez Torres, 33 Antonio D. Brown, 29 Darryl R. Burt II, 29 Jonathan A. Camuy Vega, 24 Angel L. Candelario-Padro, 28 Simon A. Carrillo Fernandez', 31 Juan Chevez-Martinez, 25 Luis D. Conde, 39 Cory J. Connell, 21 Tevin E. Crosby, 25 Franky J. Dejesus Velazquez, 50 Deonka D. Drayton, 32 Mercedez M. Flores, 26 Juan R. Guerrero, 22 Peter O. Gonzalez-Cruz, 22 Paul T. Henry, 41 Frank Hernandez, 27 Miguel A. Honorato, 30 Javier Jorge-Reyes, 40 Jason B. Josaphat, 19 Eddie J. Justice, 30 Anthony L. Laureano Disla, 25 Christopher A. Leinonen, 32 Brenda L. Marquez McCool, 49 Jean C. Mendez Perez, 35 Akyra Monet Murray, 18 Kimberly Morris, 37 Jean C. Nives Rodriguez, 27 Luis O. Ocasio-Capo, 20 Geraldo A. Ortiz-Jimenez, 25 Eric I. Ortiz-Rivera, 36 Joel Rayon Paniagua, 32 Enrique L. Rios Jr., 25 Juan P. Rivera Velazquez, 37 Yilmary Rodriguez Solivan, 24 Christopher J. Sanfeliz, 24 Xavier E. Serrano Rosado, 35 Gilberto R. Silva Menendez, 25 Edward Sotomayor Jr., 34 Shane E. Tomlinson, 33 Leroy Valentin Fernandez, 25 Luis S. Vielma, 22 Luis D. Wilson-Leon, 37 Jerald A. Wright, 31 Perpetrator Omar Mateen

References

When these List-boxes are placed within the article-text.

• The centered version with 4 columns works best visually on a laptop but that disregards mobile platform access.
• If the centered 2-column Box is used then that creates a different issue of the box sitting in the middle of the article.
• If the 2-columnTable/Box is used (with no coding instructions) then Mateen's section is right up against it.
• If it is right justified then the same thing happens - the Mateen section is right up against it.

I went into the article and tried all of the variations above in editing mode.

At this point, when any of our various Table/Boxes are placed within the article text...none of them work seem to work well enough. Anyway, all this work... ugh. Well, maybe other people have some ideas - Life interferes with Wikipidea-ing for me at the moment. Hope you don't mind me cluttering up your talkpage with this discussion. The present List-text in the article might actually be the best solution for a difficult problem. Shearonink (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I see encroachment-on-Perpetrator as a relatively minor consideration (about as important as bolding the names or not), and elimination of that simplifies things considerably. I haven't checked the article talk again, but AFAIK you're the only editor who feels that's a big issue.
The box should be floated right, not centered; I floated it left in my article talk post only because of the encroachment by your single-column list.
"Clutter" my talk page all you like, that's what it's for. Consider this a subcommittee of article talk.
I removed the first Reflist-talk, as you only need one per level 2 section. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason I am the only editor who has brought this up is that (so far as I know) I am the only editor who has taken a look at what the various Tables look like when they are placed within the article text. Having the large photo of the perpetrator and his section next to the Table will be a problem - from being around Wikipedia I can almost guarantee it. I'll take a look at what your Table looks like when it is floated right. Shearonink (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: If you think people lack the experience to imagine what it would look like, then copy the sections (or the article) to your sandbox and show us. If you copy the article, you have to remove the categories at the bottom. Mateen's photo can be floated left if necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The right-float of your Table works the best of all of them but Mateen's photo is SO close...((shudder)). Maybe you could take a look in an editing window? The problem with everyone commenting on the article talk is that - as I realized - it's all done in a vacuum, we don't have any way to judge how any of them would look on the actual article page. Heh, I realized that myself when I looked at my Table. It looks just-fine floating over there on the right of article talk but GACK, does not work at all within the actual article... Shearonink (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't think people lack the experience - it's just something I've come up against myself, I like to have things all laid-out. Theory is fine but reality is something different. Good idea about a sandbox version. I'll dummy one up. Shearonink (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Go to User:Shearonink/Orlando Shooting Draft and see what you think. I did fiddle with the left float but that variation didn't seem to be an improvement to me. Shearonink (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Made some changes. BTW, you created a draft page instead of using your sandbox as I suggested. The page will now be there forever unless you request a technical delete, even if you blank it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

My misunderstanding (facepalm). Yeah, I'll have to request a technical delete when we're done. Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the best yet. Shearonink (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the Orlando shooting talk page

I haven't been able to get on my computer recently to send this, and trying to edit that discussion on my phone was annoying, so I'll say here that I still stand by my decision in the RfC. Apologies if this is the wrong place, as well as for the long wait! --PatientZero ^talk 13:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually (imo) there was no real need to state one way or the other, although some did. Your !vote will be counted the same either way. But thanks! 16:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know what happened to your signature above but something went wrong. --PatientZero ^talk 10:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like WP:5TILDES "happened". ―Mandruss ☎ 10:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that explains! --PatientZero ^talk 13:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

We probably need an admin. Requests for page protection looks dormant. I'm trying to find someone online. It looks an awful lot like a full on edit war. TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I didn't go to RFPP. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Tone

Since you asked me to bring the discussion of the way you speak to your fellow Wikipedians to your Talk page, instead of on the Talk page of Islamic Terror attacks, here I am.

• "Right, we're all just ISIL sleeper agents, placed in the West and raised as Westerners to represent jihadism at en-Wikipedia. Or, just maybe, we have a different viewpoint from you as to the proper use of a list that is devoid of explanation or context."

• "Must everything be placed into a nice, simple category? Is that what we're here for, to encourage simple-minded worldviews, sort of like Hollywood movies? I hope not. "

• "Thank you. You have created a separate section for your argument, it being obviously more important than the rest. Can the rest of us do that, resulting in over a hundred !vote subsections? "

Why must everything be wrapped in a snarky, passive aggressive tone? Why did you not WP:AGF about me or Titanium Dragon? There is a reason why I stated your comment was the most ironic I had ever seen. Because you were lecturing me about WP:AGF, and yet you did not assume good faith in me, as evidenced by your ISIL sleeper agent comments.

I have one request. Be nicer. I don't care if Wikipedia manages to redact Orlando and Turkey from being on the list, because of ideological politics, even if it clearly should be on, based on sources from the FBI to CBS. Just be nicer in the future. R00b07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@R00b07: It's one thing to accuse someone of being intentionally dishonest, quite another to state an opinion that another's action is out of order and give an argument supporting that opinion. I am careful not to make things personal, WP:AGF is not about being nice, and Wikipedia is not a particularly nice place all around. If you are not convinced, no further comments from me will convince you. Actually my suggestion to bring this here was probably not that useful; my main goal was to stop the addition of more clutter in the already-bloated article talk. There are places to get other input about this, for example WP:VPP, but article talk is not one of them. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly confident you would get similar comments at VPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I never accused you of being intentionally dishonest so I don't know how you got to that conclusion. I said "anyone who suggests anything other than Islamic terror is being intelectually (not intentionally, there is a difference) dishonest".

• A) That post was made wayyy before I ever talked to you

• B) That post was vague and not specifically targeting anyone, especially not you, because of the reason I gave in point A.

• C) I removed it and learned not to say things like "intellectual dishonesty" on WP

I still stand by my post, too. I will subserviantly comply to the rules of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean anything about my opinion.

My last and most important point; why I made my comment. When Omar shoots 50 gay people and calls 9-1-1 shouting "Allahu Akbar" (what is shouted in almost every Islamic terror attack, 9/11 being the most notable) and starts pledging allegience to ISIS, ( this fact is backed up by EVERY major news outlet, which I believe are reliable sources according to Wikipedia) but somehow we get to the conclusion that it WASNT Islamic Terror, but some other unknown factor, well, you can see why I believe why that belief is the very definiton of anti-intellectual.

If certain people can convince themselves that Orlando, despite all the evidence, isn't an attack caused by radical jihad, then I can understand why those same people could also convince themselves that the Fort Hood shooting was just "workplace violence" and that the Boston Bombings were "2 Stupid Misfit Kids that were totally not motivated by Islam".

I really want a government agency to come out and state the obvious Just so we know that 2+2=4 and that Orlando was the result of Islamic Terror. R00b07 (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC).

Ok, I'll be more blunt. If you feel that I'm in violation of behavior policy or guideline, open a complaint against me at WP:ANI. If you don't, this whole discussion is a pointless waste of your time and mine. I do not expect anything more of myself than compliance with those policies and guidelines, nor does anyone else (except you). I'm through discussing behavioral issues here, and this is the wrong place for content discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: "If you feel that I'm in violation of behavior policy or guideline, open a complaint against me at WP:ANI. If you don't, this whole discussion is a pointless waste of your time and mine."

• I'm not sure how this is a waste of time ->(exchanging ideas to better the article on Islamic terror and remove political bias) and (exchanging ideas on how to better treat your fellow Wikipedians), but okay. I have no intention of writing a complaint against you, per WP:ANI. There was never an intention to make you feel scared or threatened. I just wanted you to act nicer. It seems like that isn't possible at the moment, and it seems you want me out ASAP, so I'll leave you alone. R00b07 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Supersonic error at WP:RD/C

I have remonstrated with Akid guy [1] about his abrupt dismissal of your comment [2]. It's clear from his deletion that Akid guy stubbornly continues to imply that we need to reproduce the supersonic frequencies if we are to "appreciate" true sound reproduction, and I fear he will come back to the Ref. Desk with more links to amplifier advertisements to promote this claim. There is no WP:RS for it that I know of. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC) @Akid guy:

I had forgotten about that thread, but thanks. I'm far from expert on the subject, but reason is reason. If there is any difference at all, it's so vanishingly insignificant that it might as well be nothing. I certainly wouldn't pay an extra nickel for it. One good thing about capitalism is that we're free to waste our money any way we want, until we run out of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Contentious Editing Style

Please AGF and stop edit warring. Thanks. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. I am not edit warring. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Calling someone a "black man" instead of "African American" is like using the word "nigger" to describe him. Just a suggestion. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but it is not the absolute indisputable fact that you make it out to be. This has been debated countless times at Wikipedia and many, many editors disagree with your assertion. That's why we have article talk pages, discussion, and consensus. The current consensus is for "black man", but you are free to try to change it on the article talk page. If you just re-revert, you are edit warring. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You should AGF. I don't edit war, but when I run across a contentious editor, I just stay far, far away from them. They always eventually get blocked. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I prefer kittens myself.

Diego (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I like cats and dogs equally, although I have owned cats for 30 years because dogs need more of you than I'm prepared to give to a pet. I just had my 14-year-old extra-longhair Maine Coon shaved, the first time I've had a cat shaved, and now I'll be living with a very odd looking giant rat for the next several months. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Title of Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co.

Hey there -- I noticed that you recently moved the title of Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co. to remove the comma before and after the "Jr." in the name of the case. I understand that MOS:JR says that omission of the comma before "Jr." is preferred, but I think that provision of the MOS applies to names rather than titles. In fact, MOS:LAW provides the relevant guideline for titles of articles about legal cases -- the guideline explains that "Articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." If you look at the title that is printed in the United States Reports (see this volume at p. 214), you will find that the official case title actually places a comma before and after the "Jr." in the name of the case. Any chance you move the page back to its previous title? Thanks in advance for your consideration. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Hi and thanks for your comments.
The prevailing community view is that the comma before Jr. is a style element, not an essential part of a name (a name of anything, not just a person). Thus there is no "correct" as to the comma, only one "house style" versus another, both legitimate and not inconsistent. English Wikipedia recently chose no-comma as our "house style" on the basis of a demonstrated trend away from the comma among authoritative style sources.
I note that the guideline you cited does not say anything specifically about that comma or any other punctuation, that is your interpretation of it. I can point you to some of the many request-for-move discussions where reasoning similar to yours has been argued for a U.S. national historic site, a library, a street, and so on, and has failed every time. Unless and until the community approves specific exception language for legal cases (at WT:MOSBIO), I don't think a move-back is the right move. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read through the full discussion, but it looks like the the recent RfC that eliminated comma usage before "Jr." only applied to MOS:JR, which itself applies to names, rather than titles of books, movies, legal cases, etc-. Can you direct me to a discussion that shows the community has applied this rule (or intends for the rule to be applied) to titles, rather than names? I also think that the removal of commas before "Jr." in titles of legal cases, books, etc- likely conflicts with the express policy that article titles should be "based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Would you also delete the comma in the title of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.? I should also note that MOS:BIO applies to articles about people, while MOS:LAW provides the relevant style guidelines about legal cases. Thanks again, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Again, the community's (non-unanimous) view is that this comma is a style element and, as such, doesn't automatically fall under general statements about references in reliable sources; i.e. we are not bound by anyone else's MOS. The guideline does make an exception for when the reliable sources clearly and consistently prefer the comma for a particular subject, but I think one would have to somehow show that the sources are not simply complying with their manuals of style. That question has not come up because we've yet to find a case where reliable sources did in fact "clearly and consistently" agree on the comma. I personally think that clause generates more heat than light.
No, I know of nothing that specifically includes any category from the guideline, nor do I know of anything that excludes any category. What I do know is that all attempts to establish such exceptions have failed. (These were all at article level, which in my opinion was the wrong place to do that.) The consensus ended years of heated debate about what many saw as a trivial matter (bikeshed), and I'm guessing people were suffering from comma-before-Jr fatigue and had had enough for awhile. It's entirely possible there is some work yet to be done as to the finer points.
I've been deliberately avoiding titles of copyrighted works because I can see a potential issue there, but I don't think legal cases are copyrighted. I expect the copyrighted-works issue to be raised at MOSBIO eventually.
Given the shift in community thinking on the matter, MOSBIO is probably the wrong place for the guideline, strictly speaking, and it will need to be moved elsewhere before long. For the time being, WT:MOSBIO is the place to discuss this. If you feel strongly about it, I encourage you to raise it there—ideally as a specific and concise proposal that can be !voted up or down—and we'll all of course go along with any change to the guideline that you are able to get there. Absent that, I remain unconvinced. Or, you could just go test the water on this question and, depending on how that went, possibly follow with the specific proposal (similar to how WP:VPI and WP:VPR are (intended to be) used). ―Mandruss ☎ 18:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Update after sleep. The first sentence at WP:MOSBIO begins: "This page sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles...". Emphasis added. Given that, there is less need to move MOS:JR. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that MOS:LAW has precedence for the case/article title, saying "Articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." Within the article, however, I'd follow MOS:JR for the person name. Dicklyon (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Ok, then my response is that article level is the wrong place to decide these questions. It just makes no sense from an efficiency standpoint, requiring people to repeatedly show community consensus via a list of links to local consensuses, as you've done. Someone should take this to WT:MOSBIO, try to get a consensus, update WP:JR with the consensus (or not, depending on the consensus), and be done with it forever. Since I'm not the one advocating for the exception, I don't think that should be me. Put differently, differences of opinion in interpretation of guidelines should be addressed by clarifying the guidelines, not by re-arguing them again and again at article level. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

A discussion of the relationship between MOS:BIO and MOS:LAW and such would make sense, at WT:MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful responses to these issues. However, I still don't think that a title of a work should be considered "biographical information." Indeed, there are many titles on Wikipedia that don't comply with relevant style elements, but we usually defer to the conventions of the person, group, or institution that created that title. See, for example, Aaahh!!! Real Monsters, Ooooooohhh... On the TLC Tip, is 5, anyone lived in a pretty how town, etc-. I also don't understand why you are distinguishing between titles of copyrighted works and non-copyrighted works, though I agree that there should be a larger discussion to reconcile these various issues. In any event, I very much appreciate your willingness to take the time to engage in a dialogue about this and your measured, considerate responses. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: FYI, I have opened a discussion about the applicability of MOS:JR to the titles of non-biographical articles at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question about applicability of MOS:JR to non-biographical article titles. I am also pinging Dicklyon, who also contributed to this discussion. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I'll be watching with interest, but silently for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the constructive criticism. My wording was not succinct enough i'm guessing. Anyway just as a thanks for that, cheers! RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Umpqua shooting edit

Hi, there. I wonder if you would share your thoughts on my edit you reverted (and which I was correcting as you reverted it). Also, I have been quite struck by the shooter's mom's virtual disappearance within a few days of the shootings. I would have expected reporters to track her down. Any thoughts about that? Thanks. Activist (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

https://www.bing.com/search?q=pregnant%20mother%20reading%20to%20child&pc=cosp&ptag=A0E8C88C5FC&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127 I doubt the "findings" of the study, the only one I found mentioned, that babies "learn" when they're in the womb. That proposition suggests a capacity for analysis, though there's no proof of same. What it did show, is that children can recognize and become familiar with sounds that their mothers' make, an entirely different thing. The fetus may respond to soothing music, for instance, but it doesn't mean that they learn anything anything about harmony, or counterpoint, or instrumentation. I'll add your TALK page to my watchlist. Thanks again. Activist (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That is very much original research, unless multiple reliable sources make such a connection in this specific case, and show relevance to the shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Your AIV report

41.137.59.0/25 blocked three days. If they're edit warring on any articles, put a note in your edit summary pointing to a talk page where you've mentioned WP:JR and tell them to respond there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: - Block expired, behavior resumed, as expected, e.g. [3][4]. Between those two examples, they IP-hopped within less than 3 hours, and their frequent hopping makes it quite difficult to find all of the edits. Your suggestion as to editsums is not particularly useful, as they are unlikely to look at page histories if they even know how to do so. Note that they don't even use correct syntax, consistently placing the comma in the wrong place, as Joseph P. Kennedy ,Sr. I honestly lack the time to chase this person all over Wikipedia, for who knows how long. They are a clear net negative, all but vandalism-only, and I'm requesting a much longer rangeblock.
One of the many serious problems caused by unregistered editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Now a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Access dates

Hello, while I agree that access dates should be there, I assumed that because the Hillary Clinton article was an FA there must have been a decision taken by the nominator (and one in-line with the guidelines) to not include them. If it is the case, I believe we're bound to follow that style? Regards, —JennKR | ☎ 21:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The FA nom made that decision here. —JennKR | ☎ 22:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

One editor, no response. Consensus by default? FA nom has no more weight than anyone else. As I said, no benefit to consistent badness. But I won't make an issue of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mdriscoll03. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mdriscoll03: Far from being gratuitous, my language (which I would never use in other contexts) was to the point and had a purpose. Please let more experienced editors make that call. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case on TRM

I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man. You might be an involved party. --George Ho (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Anyone who has ever had any contact with TRM could be called an "involved party". Are you notifying those who you believe would support TRM, or only those who you believe would criticize him? If the latter, you are WP:Canvassing, and you should stop it.
I haven't completely decided, but at this point I don't plan to comment in that case. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already made it clear he needs to stop. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear

"Cassianto No, that's not okay, if that's actually true here. I haven't looked into it, and I don't care to." Do you mean to tell me that your comments were made without being in full view of the facts? That doesn't altogether surprise me, if I'm honest. But you had Jimbo to impress, I know, I understand. However, if you did care to look into it, you'll find that RAN stalked my edits to revert some DISINFOBOXES, knowing that such reverts, without discussion, would poke me into reacting. I did react, and then he templated me, again, knowing it would upset me. And here we have the results; here, there, and bloody everywhere. Delete if you want, I suspect you will. Cassianto^Talk 21:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't remove comments that are somewhat civil. You miss my point, which was about effective ways of dealing with the kind of bad behavior you describe. To make that point, I don't need to know anything about your dispute, let alone take a side in it.
Bad behavior is not effectively addressed by angry, aggressive, hostile attempts to intimidate the offender into submission.
This is not a revolutionary new concept. WP:BATTLEGROUND says: Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. That is part of a Wikipedia policy, and there is no exemption clause for extreme circumstances. There are well documented ways to deal with bad behavior, and your way is not one of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't expect nor want you to take "my side", you have no fear in that. You most certainly do need to know about my dispute, if you intend to comment about "my behaviour". If you still retain the belief that you don't need to know, then you must wholly concur with my point to which you commented (in green) above. By the way, I reverted you on Jimbo's page as the thread was archived no less than 19 minutes before you posted; hence why I have come here. Cassianto^Talk 22:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion closed per WP:IDHT. In other other thread, you have twice revmoed my reply to you on grounds that are both purely legalistic and incorrect. I could have quite legitimately reverted that close per BRD, but I chose not to do so. And no close is set in stone anyway. You continue to exhibit your habitual battleground behavior, and I'm not going to enable you by reverting you again. Someone else will do so, or not. I'll ask you to stay off my talk page as long as you persist in this kind of behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Black Lives Matter

I'm sorry that you don't see a personal attack. An editor made an unfounded allegation and two editors (MrX and I) asked them for sources. A month and a half later, Dbachmann came along and wrote that sources wouldn't make any difference to me because I have a blatant COI. Sorry, but that's very much a personal attack, and I can only wonder whether you would feel the same if somebody wrote the same about you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz:

1. They didn't say the COI was yours, you're reading that into it. You should have asked for clarification rather than jumping to that conclusion.
2. In any case, WP:COI says: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity." The latter would be a PA. So you're twice wrong.
3. WP:TPO: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." You have an objection, and from an uninvolved party. I have no dog in that fight, and I have nothing personal against any of those who do, so I'm likely to be the most objective of the four of us.
4. I think your best move at this point is to self-revert. There is no requirement to keep arguing with them. If they attempt their suggested major changes without consensus, they will be clearly guilty of WP:DE, and you could take action then.
5. But I'm otherwise out of it, the choice is yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've self-reverted, but actually, Dbachmann did say the COI was mine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, point 1 retracted. Thank you for the self-rv. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Image

Thanks for your house keeping effort. It is now orderly, clear and concise. Buster Seven Talk 16:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

Sometimes all ya need is a decent clerk. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought the vote section was only for voting and not discussion? There's multiple people using it as a discussion section notably Winkelvi commenting on one post unsolicited in order to try to make an argument to sway someone's vote. Calibrador (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What would you like me to do? I have no authority there, or anywhere. I made a request, it was ignored by some, and I'm not going to fan the flames by scolding people for not observing my request (especially when I have commented twice outside my vote myself). I see nothing egregiously unethical there, and I took two chill pills two hours ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Just saying you laid out rules and someone is intentionally breaking them. What's the point of the rules if they aren't followed? Calibrador (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I made a request. I don't have the authority to lay out rules. And I'm thankful for that, since that would mean that others would, too, and I might not like their rules. The only rules are in policy, and even they are often breakable under WP:IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW...I stepped out of this discussion early because my "I like it" vote was considered inadequate (not by you). Your recent comment about "his tie is between his lapels" kind of explains why an "I just like it" vote is just as valid as a paragraph long reason...especially when its a photo-to-photo comparison. The voting editor may not be able to clearly describe why he likes it...he just does. And that should be good enough. Thanks, Buster Seven Talk 18:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well your rationale, "Flag. No smirk.", is more than IJLI. When there is no closer to serve as judge, these things are pure vote (not !vote), I don't care what anybody says. I fail to see any point in challenging the quality of someone else's argument; the challenge is unlikely to cause them to withdraw it, and we're certainly not going to start a separate discussion to seek consensus on the quality of an argument. Even when there's a closer, they very rarely close against the numbers. Especially on something almost completely subjective like an infobox image, the rationales are essentially nothing more than tradition, window dressing, maintaining the illusion that "Wikipedia is not a democracy". I seriously doubt they change people's minds to any significant degree, so they could be dispensed with with no effect on the outcome. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I wanted to get your take on this argument made by MelanieN and WV.? Chase (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: I respect MelanieN's judgment, so I won't second-guess her. But at this point Calibrador is not "determining the outcome of the discussion", "taking it upon himself to put his picture into the article", or "presuming to judge the outcome of the discussions". They have simply cast one vote in a poll, a vote that will be very unlikely to affect the outcome by itself. To my knowledge only one editor has read Melanie's comments and interpreted them to mean that Calibrador shouldn't be voting in that poll, an interpretation that is both battleground mentality/pot-stirring and completely without basis. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, since you asked for clarification of my comment to him: When you say "They (Calibrador) have simply cast one vote in a poll," I take it you haven't really been following that situation. Actually he has twice [5] [6] taken it upon himself to add his own picture to the article, claiming "most people" preferred it even though the discussion was still ongoing and there was no clear consensus. (He was reverted both times.) And in the discussion he has done much more than "cast one vote"; he has promoted his own picture repeatedly, and argued with people who vote for the other one. I am not sure if his arguing is to the point of badgering yet but IMO it is getting close. As for my warning, it was advisory only and carried no force; I was not speaking as an admin, nor would I have been entitled to unilaterally order him what to do in any case. He chose to delete my message and ignore it; that is his privilege. --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I wasn't addressing the entire Calibrador situation, only their participation in that voting and the one editor's attempt to strike it. I may have misunderstood the question, but I thought that's what CCamp2013 was referring to. Little interest in the rest and it seems others including you have a good handle on it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. No reason for you to get involved in that huge controversy. I agree that the other editor should not have struck the comment and have told them so. But that was not a one-off !vote from Calibrador. Just FYI, as of right now Calibrador has made 47 edits to the Trump talk page since September 2. All but one or two of them are about the pictures. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I for one, being apart of this discussion from the beginning, think that Calibrador has been pushing and forcing his opinion onto other users to get his photo on an article. I also think the name of the photo is clear WP:PROMO. I think both @Calibrador and Winkelvi: have been engaged in severe WP:HARASS and both need to apologize for their behavior. Chase (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I am mentioned and was pinged, I will comment: One editor already cited the !vote reasoning of Calibrador/Gage Skidmore/the photographer as the reason behind his !vote. I know that at least one other !vote was cast because of the photographer's preference. Considering such, it's not at all pot stirring or having a battleground mentality to point out said influence. Such a COI is important to note and because of that COI, there is a basis for my comments following Gage's vote and the influence is has already brought/will bring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I agree, I just do not agree and think you went about it in the correct and civil manner. Chase (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, WV, one editor said "per Calibrador". This means their reasoning/rationale is the same as Calibrador's, not that Calibrador's vote was the reason for theirs. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The word 'per' means, "as directed by" and "by the means or agency of". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Not in Wikipedia !voting. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Then, where, within Wikipedia guidelines, does this difference in word definition exist? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it is not written anywhere. Likewise, it is not written anywhere that WP:BRD is a widely accepted essay, but widely accepted it is nevertheless. All I know is that I have never used "per X" to mean that I am voting this way because X did, and I never seen anything to suggest that anyone else uses it that way either. Regardless, we are not going to vote him off the island on this page, so this is more than a little pointless. If you feel strongly about it, and you feel it might change the choice of a silly photo in a silly infobox, take it to a venue where you might have some effect. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I get it. You're just making stuff up about "Wikipedia !voting". Thanks for clarifying. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I've always taken "per Editor X" to mean "for the same reason"...like when supporting a candidate for administrator. If you come later to the party, you use the "Readers Digest" version...short for "what they said..." but never BECAUSE they said. Buster Seven Talk 21:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: That attitude is exactly what i was reffering to regarding you civality, but you are not the only one as i said above. Everyone is not against you. We all are just trying to inforce are interpretations of policy. Chase (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Something really needs to be done about Winkelvi's behavior. For days he has been WP:Gaming the system singling out a user to serve his own preferences. Now he is sending me bullshit warnings on my talk page for simply correcting the time of some else's posts! One even thanked me for it. He clearly wants to continue a feud with me which I am frankly tired of. TL565 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@TL565: You are being biased if you do not see both Calibrador and WV have been engaging in this type of behavior. Note: WV has now messaged me on my talk page and told me my comments are innapropriate, which I have made zero negative comments towards him. Chase (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I always have to shake my head in wonder when arguments like this happen in a venue where they can have no beneficial effect. But I'll act like Jimbo: Carry on, it's only my talk page. Although I reserve the right to remove anything I consider too incivil for this page, per the notice at the top. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when I say per _________ I always mean that I am !voting that way because I agree with their rationale. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Good observations. @Calibrador: Just remember the point you made three months ago. ("His campaign actually attributed me... Many people assumed from this that I was a supporter of his or worked for him..." Creative Commons.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: There is a discussion relevant to these issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Self-promotion by User:Calibrador. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 altered the run-off voting section you authored by adding the number of people supporting each photo. As there is potential, and in one or two cases thus far, for someone to support both photos with less than 6 votes, I'd suggest the removal of these indications of support to prevent confusion. Calibrador (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted with a different rationale. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo voting

I hesitate to recommend this case as precedent for anywhere else. For one thing, since pure voting is so rarely used, holding a binding pure vote would be a very bad idea without a lot of discussion establishing that a situation really does need a pure vote. Moreover, since votes without rationales are nearly always unhelpful, since WP:ILIKEIT is almost always a bad idea, we nearly never have reason to get rid of rationales and make ourselves vulnerable to ILIKEIT influence if we don't consider whether a vote is in line with policy.

So basically, the only reason why I consider a pure vote appropriate here is (1) the discussion established that a pure vote was seemingly needed, and (2) in this case, the choice of one image over the other is not a matter of policy (neither one is derogatory, neither one has copyright issues, etc.), so personal preference is basically the only route, and how else can we decide efficiently when none of the normal benefits of discussion are helpful in this specific situation? Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

CS1 maint message

Re "rework autopsy ref per CS1 maint message and tracking category" – could you help me out and give me a link to the CS1 maint message? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Look at this rev and search for "cs1 maint". If not found, it's because you haven't turned on the class of messages that are deemed to be too minor to show to non-editing readers. There is also a related tracking category, which shows up at the bottom if you have hidden cats turned on. I don't recall the specifics on how to turn that stuff on, but I could probably hunt them down if you like.

The CS1 maint message was: CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link), the link going to Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No luck. Anyhow, I wanted to talk to you regarding an edit of mine diff and its modification by an edit or yours diff .

One of the problems that faced me when I was working on my edit was that the titles of each report didn't seem to work in our article. So I decided to use the titles of the contributions to DocumentCloud. In a way, I was treating the contributions to DocumentCloud somewhat, but far from entirely, as articles about each report. In that sense I used the titles of the contributions, and included the names and/or affiliations of the contributors to DocumentCloud to bolster credibility that these were true copies of the reports.

Since no persons were named as authors for each report, I treated the county and federal organizations, whose staff wrote the reports, as the respective authors. I didn't know how to handle the private report in this regard so I left the author blank. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: - I don't fully understand the issue (yet), but let's start with this. In my view DocumentCloud is merely a repository and should not play a part in the cite beyond the |via= parameter and, necessarily, |url=. They had nothing to do with the content of the document.
If I've sold you on that concept, we can regroup with that change and take it from there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It didn't seem that you responded to the points of my message. But in any case, I'm interested in what you have to say, so continue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: It wouldn't surprise me if I didn't respond to the points of your message, since I don't fully understand the issue (yet). More succinctly, I didn't understand many of the points of your message. My question was, if you accept what I said about DocumentCloud, does that change the issue? Seems like it would, since DocumentCloud was part of the issue. If it does, can you restate the issue with that taken into account? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There were several points in my message. One of them was, " In that sense I used the titles of the contributions, and included the names and/or affiliations of the contributors to DocumentCloud to bolster credibility that these were true copies of the reports." This relates to the removal of the DocumentCloud contributor by your edit. I wouldn't call it an issue, i.e. something to debate and argue which I don't intend to do, but maybe we have different notions of what "issue" means. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: - Then you're referring to the removal of The Guardian from the cite? I tried hard to find a logical place to put that, but in the end I decided that fully documenting the provenance of the document was less important than (1) fixing the CS1 maint error and (2) removing the article from the tracking category. Anyway, the originator of the document is what should be in |publisher=, no? So moving DOD to |publisher= killed three birds with one stone.
Looking at it again, moving DocumentCloud from |website= to |via= was a separate issue, and I did that simply because I'm used to using |via= for DocumentCloud and other cloud services. I just looked at the doc for the first time in many moons, and it does not appear to support that as strongly as I thought. So I'd give on that question per give-and-take and all that. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Re "Then you're referring to the removal of The Guardian from the cite?" – Yes. Would it be OK to put it back in by changing in the cite from "via=DocumentCloud" to "via=DocumentCloud contribution by News desk, The Guardian" ? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: I could live with that. Thanx for the conversation. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Re "I just looked at the doc for the first time in many moons..." – I presume you were referring to the CS1 maint message. So that I could have it for future reference, could you give me the links that you clicked on in order to get to it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: - No, I was referring to the doc for |via= at Template:Cite web. The doc for the message is at the category I linked above. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to give that link Template:Cite web a careful read for what we are working on. I think the CS1 maint message links you are referring to are [7] and [8] (or similar) and I'll look there too.

In the meantime, I just went over to make the change re contributor and I noticed something else, which I touched on in a previous message. First, here's what the cite currently looks like.

"Michael Brown – report of federal government autopsy". Department of Defense, Armed Forces Medical Examiner System, Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner. Retrieved September 13, 2016 – via DocumentCloud.

In this form it looks like "Michael Brown – report of federal government autopsy" is the title of the government report, which it isn't. The given title is that of the DocumentCloud contribution. Maybe there's a way to clear that up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: - To my mind, DocumentCloud should have no say in the |title= parameter. The title should come from within the document itself, and, as I see it, the main thing is to choose something that will be useful to the reader. No rigid rules as to how to choose that. I start at the top of the document, and there is nothing meaningful in the cover letter. I scroll down to the autopsy report itself, and I see AUTOPSY REPORT. That alone wouldn't be very meaningful to the reader, so I look for more. I think |title=Autopsy Report – Autopsy Number ME14-0240 – Brown, Michael would be optimal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Along the same lines, the titles for the county and independent autopsies could be respectively,

Post-Mortem Examination — Exam Case 2104–5143 — Brown, Michael

and

Autopsy Report — Michael Brown

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: - Those should be endashes, not emdashes, retaining the one space on each side. Aside from that, werks 4 me. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is what the note would look like with the changes we discussed.

County autopsy report:

"Post-Mortem Examination – Exam Case 2104–5143 – Brown, Michael". St. Louis County Health, Office of the Medical Examiner. Retrieved September 13, 2016 – via DocumentCloud contribution by Eyder Peralta, NPR.

Independent autopsy report:

"Autopsy Report – Michael Brown". Retrieved September 13, 2016 – via DocumentCloud contribution by CNN Digital.

Federal autopsy report:

"Autopsy Report – Autopsy Number ME14-0240 – Brown, Michael". Department of Defense, Armed Forces Medical Examiner System, Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner. Retrieved September 13, 2016 – via DocumentCloud contribution by News desk, The Guardian.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump run-off

There are two people that voiced their support for a photo in the wrong thread after we started the run-off voting and before I closed the thread. I tried contacting them to move it, but otherwise what can we do about this? Chase (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: If you posted on their user talk pages, I don't know what else we could do. Doesn't seem proper to cast votes on their behalf. They still have three days to respond. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Just making sure, I did all I could think of, thanks! Chase (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: Just FYI - Complicating matters, discussion at VPP suggests that we may have to request a closer if the vote is close. So far admins have declined to say how close is close. If we request a closer, it could be a few days before one arrives, and I assume the voting would remain open during that time. So those people may end having more than three days to respond. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The way I was reading the discussion was that it was at our discretion on whether to close and accept the decision or not? Chase (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: Ok I re-read it. If the minority concedes, no closer is necessary. What, are we going to have voting among the minority to determine whether they concede? Even admins are capable of overcomplicating things, imo. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that does make things complicated. I personally support whatever outcome of our voting results in. I am sure other people would respect that as well. Mostly the people that are really against Gage Skidmore photos, which I would say I am one of those people (Just the naming aspect), would oppose to the results heavily. Chase (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: - If E ends up with even a tiny majority, that's easy. No change. If C ends up with 50.1% or more, I think I'll just install it. Then, if someone reverts because it was too close, we'll request a closer. And I'll explain this in my editsum. How dat be? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

unequivocally agree. Chase (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Mandruss, I suggest requesting a close either on AN, or simply pick an uninvolved admin or experienced user to close the runoff vote. The post at WP:ANRFC may not be looked at for days or weeks, meanwhile the discussion about this relatively unimportant matter will continue to fill the talk page.- MrX 14:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Sigh. I'll move it to AN and update the link to it in the voting. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• • @MrX: - I suggest requesting a close either on AN, or simply pick an uninvolved admin or experienced user to close the runoff vote. - It would appear I made the wrong choice, thinking it would be easier and/or faster. Live and learn. While you're here, can you interpret this comment I saw elsewhere? The system is rigged, believe me folks. You've never ever ever seen anything like this before in history. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I gave you bad advice, not expecting that so many bureaucrats and uninformed editors would show up. The "rigged" comment is a Trump allusion (illusion?).- MrX 12:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: - Maybe you could explain this cultural thing where admins give informed opinions and then aren't prepared to defend them much (Nyttend) or at all (NeilN). Non-admins challenge their peers routinely, that's part of the process, and the process wouldn't work without it. Somehow things are different at admin level. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's riot and take over wikipedia. Chase (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss that by email. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chase: Rabble rouser. You will be dealt with accordingly!!!!!- MrX 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: For the answer to that, I refer you the talk page of some of the more visible admins. They are often inundated with requests, complaints, trolling, badgering, and all variety of questions. I'm sure that their patience runs out eventually. Also, no one is obligated to satisfy you. Although WP:ADMINACCT requires admins to explain their admin actions, as far as I know, they don't have to explain their inaction nor their opinions. In some cases, some admins probably feel that their position of authority comes with the privilege of not having to explain themselves.- MrX 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems I have some reading to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Village pump & Donald Trump

Just to offer an alternative thought for what consolation it may be -- while there's no support for such, some of the effect occurs anyway by natural processes, of his nature and volunteer editors tendencies.

e.g. At Donald Trump, I was in recent debate whether the header wording about his statements "controversial" becoming "controversial or false". (personally I was at "controversial" is the predominant phrase, though I think "controversial or offensive" also common and reasonable ... and I thought leave it rather than edits in election cycle just sniffs like advocacy. But ....

e.g. See Donald Grump within the list at Grouches

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"dummy edit"

Thanks, smartass. I'm well aware that in American English a roommate can mean someone sharing a living area other than a room, but could we possibly come up with a more specific term? --81.151.133.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Why would we need a more specific term than one that accurately describes the reality per the American dictionary definition? But (1) I have given it a good-faith attempt to no avail, and (2) I think the sources say roommate but you could look into that. I could agree to anything that has some meaningful degree of source support. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, "dummy edit" is not a reference to a person, as in "you dummy". See dummy edit. Not sure you understood that, given the title of this section. If you did, never mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The side conversation feature I was thinking of...

In [9] I started on about how we could have a way to invite people into asides that are beside but not entirely dominating a main conversation. I've done a bit of work toward that idea at Template:Aside. See the talk page for a stupid example of what it looks like, at least, and a list of the parameters so far. It's still not "stable" at this time, so I'm not encouraging you to use it for anything important. I should admit though that I still don't really know where and how this would best be applied, so I thought I'd ask if you have any thoughts after seeing what I have. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: - IIRC our little discussion was about ways to increase signal-to-noise ratio in high-level discussions, see [10]. I don't see how this does that. Those disrupting the main discussion would simply jump in and disrupt the aside, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of ways this could be used, but one example would be that a user sets this up on one of his talk subpages. That basically makes the user the "admin" of the side thread, and he can get rid of stuff he doesn't want, effectively limiting who can join in. I'm not really that fond of doing it, but I think the customs might go in the direction that this rarely needs to be done explicitly; i.e. you could have an aside that is basically invite-only and people might respect that. But that's only one of many possiblities... and I don't think I will be accurate in predicting what people would really do with the feature. Still... it seems interesting to test the idea. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: I think I can already set the parameters of a discussion on my talk page, and ask anybody to leave with no requirement to justify or defend my request. I could do it simply because I don't like the person and that wouldn't violate any policy I'm aware of. If they didn't respect that request, they wouldn't respect the conditions of an Aside either. I think failure to respect the request to stay off a user talk page would be grounds for an ANI complaint for disruption or something. Maybe we already have the answer, then, in the form of user talk pages? We would just learn not to start that kind of discussion in a "public" space, or to take it to user talk as soon as the disruption started. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, user talk pages are way out of sight. This allows the conversation to be reported back to the main forum while remaining a user talk page conversation. That allows people to sort of see something is being discussed without being overwhelmed by it. I'm looking to bridge this gap with some kind of hybrid phenomenon, I guess. Wnt (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: Then a separate page in user space that is transcluded onto the main page? Or a simple template to point from the main page to the user talk? "See related user-moderated discussion here." I don't see anything gaiined by conducting the side discussion inside a template. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to extract the conversation and make it smaller, so that instead of being a giant section, you just see who was talking about what recently. Wnt (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: - Still not seeing how this would work in practice. For starters, useful discussions generally consist of comments of more than 100 words, often as high as 800 or even more. Fit that into your little box. It seems "useful" and "smaller" are in conflict. I don't think we're on the same page here (so to speak). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the little box could grow, but I wanted to at least shoot for small. It's not supposed to be a straight transclusion of the whole thing (that is easy to do anyway); just enough to help you decide, while browsing the base forum, do you want to read this? Wnt (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: - Ok I was missing that piece, that this provides a small window into the actual discussion occurring in user space. Thus saving a user one click of a link that would show them the whole thing, which they would have to click anyway if they chose to participate. I'm not sure that's worth it. My main goal was to exclude disrupters, and it seems we already have that without the Aside template. Which is not to say that I would oppose trialing it. It rarely hurts to try something. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ref Desk Talk Closure

Mandruss, you have been around long enough to know that this sort of thread is not productive. It started out hostile, it is a hostile title, and currently ends with the subject being mocked. Please take a second look at this thread, and leave it open if you seriously think that anything productive will result in this discussion. 72.21.225.66 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's probably not productive. That doesn't necessarily make it a proper close, especially after it has been dispuuted by at least one very experienced editor. These closes should be done by uninvolved editors and the fact that the IP has all of one edit in their history does not serve to convince me they are uninvolved. To my mind, little harm is done by allowing unproductive nonsense to continue on that particular page. On an article talk page, I might feel differently. My suggestion is to just relax and let things play out, rather than going around trying to control what others talk about. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll let AN/I make the call on abuse of a long term editor. Thanks for your time on this matter. 72.21.225.66 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

So show me where the sources says he makes false claims? It is not just applicable to him and is a smear statement.  — Calvin999 08:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999: The problem is that you are missing all the context around that sentence. There recently has been a very large amount of discussion among editors about it on the article's talk page, and the current sentence represents the current consensus. In controversial articles like this one, it's best not to jump in and make controversial edits without first understanding the context. Many editors make the same kind of mistake by removing the words "black" and "white" from the leads of articles that have racial components established by reliable sources. One of the discussions about his statements is at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_Donald_Trump.27s_false_campaign_statements, and there are probably more. You're free to open a new discussion challenging the existing consensus, but I think it would be a waste of your time and probably somewhat painful for you. Happy editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I read the whole sentence, I understand the context and I agree that everything up until "and false" should be included. It's an ambiguous term that is baseless, and by the same rule of thumb should be included in all political article, but I doubt it would be.  — Calvin999 09:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I don't have an opinion on that question, and I have stayed out of the discussions related to it. I do know that we don't make consensus-free edits of content that has recently been hotly debated and is therefore known to be very controversial among editors. Actually the latest discussion about it was started just yesterday and is in progress, why not join it? That's at Talk:Donald_Trump#Quick_straw_poll_.28false_statements.29. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I might do. Thanks.  — Calvin999 09:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Good clean up on the article. Mentioning it here because I ran out of 'thanks.' Didn't know they had a limit. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Hi,

I've found some sources that I've posted at my sandbox. For the moment, I'll make some edits to reduce some of the content. I think it would be interesting to add a bit from the Washington Post article, told from a guy's perspective with a sociological bent. I think all the derogatory comments should be removed - there's more salient points to make. And, there's another perspective from Judge Jeanine that may be good to introduce.

I just saw that you've made some edits, so I'll chime in reducing / eliminating text for the short run. Let me know, though, please if you have concerns or comments so we're on the same track.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I'm really not that good at that part of the editing business, so I'd prefer to leave it to your judgment. But while you're here, how do you feel about my first Comment in the proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean about "tangential content"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Yes. Actually it's my only bolded Comment in the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's fine. You removed something like that from the "Natasha Stoynoff" section that I had added. I get your point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Awesome. Could you say something to that effect following the Comment, then? I'm concerned some will view that as a significant modification after !voting, rather than a reasonable clarification of the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at the revised section, do you mind taking a look? I'm going to read the Harper article again, but it would be good to get your thoughts about where it's at.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Looks fine to my incompetent eye. There is nothing tabloid, which was my main concern. You're at four sentences, which still leaves us one sentence of breathing room per the proposal. That's where my competence ends. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I was just going to the talk page to see how to talk about what to do with the new development when I realized on my last save that the source was Hollywood Reporter. I should have stopped and posted on the Talk page first. I didn't see you break in so I just kept on rolling... I let you down.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully, I have no idea what you're referring to, so I can't feel let down. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I was in the midst of posting:

I have reverted the edits, posted an explanation on the talk page, and would like to remove the template that you added. I am sorry, you did such a great job coordinating a decision. I hope you'll accept my apology, but I'll understand if you don't.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I considered that agreement voided by the new content, since it is completely encyclopedic. I see it as apples and oranges. That's why I collapsed that talk sectoin. I thought you were of the same mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Hi,

I've found some sources that I've posted at my sandbox. For the moment, I'll make some edits to reduce some of the content. I think it would be interesting to add a bit from the Washington Post article, told from a guy's perspective with a sociological bent. I think all the derogatory comments should be removed - there's more salient points to make. And, there's another perspective from Judge Jeanine that may be good to introduce.

I just saw that you've made some edits, so I'll chime in reducing / eliminating text for the short run. Let me know, though, please if you have concerns or comments so we're on the same track.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I'm really not that good at that part of the editing business, so I'd prefer to leave it to your judgment. But while you're here, how do you feel about my first Comment in the proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean about "tangential content"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Yes. Actually it's my only bolded Comment in the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's fine. You removed something like that from the "Natasha Stoynoff" section that I had added. I get your point.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Awesome. Could you say something to that effect following the Comment, then? I'm concerned some will view that as a significant modification after !voting, rather than a reasonable clarification of the proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at the revised section, do you mind taking a look? I'm going to read the Harper article again, but it would be good to get your thoughts about where it's at.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Looks fine to my incompetent eye. There is nothing tabloid, which was my main concern. You're at four sentences, which still leaves us one sentence of breathing room per the proposal. That's where my competence ends. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I was just going to the talk page to see how to talk about what to do with the new development when I realized on my last save that the source was Hollywood Reporter. I should have stopped and posted on the Talk page first. I didn't see you break in so I just kept on rolling... I let you down.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully, I have no idea what you're referring to, so I can't feel let down. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I was in the midst of posting:

I have reverted the edits, posted an explanation on the talk page, and would like to remove the template that you added. I am sorry, you did such a great job coordinating a decision. I hope you'll accept my apology, but I'll understand if you don't.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I considered that agreement voided by the new content, since it is completely encyclopedic. I see it as apples and oranges. That's why I collapsed that talk sectoin. I thought you were of the same mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Is my "exclude" clearer now?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: - LOL. Not really, but I'm not the one who has to understand it. I'm of the opinion that, given a binary choice like this, one should !vote one way or other and not complicate things. If I dislike both options, I !vote for the one I dislike the least. I can't imagine how a closer can ever discern any kind of consensus when everybody has their own personal tweak or modification to the proposal. It would drive me to drink to try. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to vote one way or the other. Wasn't the proposal to include a separate dedicated paragraph about this subject in the lead? I oppose that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Well I consider it a faux pas to essentially say, "I know where you live," especially to a woman, even if it's only "I have narrowed down where you live to three states." Many editors value their anonymity and privacy. Clearly you have no problem telling everybody your name, if that's your name, but that's relatively uncommon at Wikipedia. It could be that my imagined experience with you had something to do with my forming that view. But I avoid comments about anything that might encroach on privacy.
I agree, this is fun. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

{ping|CaroleHenson}} Much of this page just disappeared, no explanation in history. A new experience. I think I need an Adopt-a-user mentor to explain this to me. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: ―Mandruss ☎ 08:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get the pings that you sent to me. I think it's better to talk on the other page. Did you get my pings?--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the group?

I don't know if you see it this way, but the past two days there's been forward movement on the quality of the article. There was nothing major that I had to fix. I was thinking it might be nice to have a message on the talk page thanking everyone for such a great job. You'd be chief quality officer (CQO).

Is that it's applicable and appropriate?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming no ulterior motive, and I'm sure there isn't in this case, compliments to other editors are never inappropriate. All too rare, actually, as there is a cultural aversion to compliments. It's one of the things that make you Model Editor. As for applicable, if you think it's applicable, it's applicable. All compliments are a matter of the giver's opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do it! Like knowing you're CQO?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Well I might object because it suggests that I'm "in charge of" all areas of article quality. I'm certainly not that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I'm curious, do you remember being my Adopt-a-user mentor for a couple of weeks or so? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry I don't. I recognized your username because I've come across your edits when viewing my watchlist items and have been impressed by your work. How did it go? Was I helpful?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Yes, you were very helpful.
I made some comment about deducing your region of the country, based on (1) some comment you made about an approaching thunderstorm and (2) weather.com's national radar map (somehow I already knew you were in the U.S., apparently). The mentoring abruptly ended without explanation or further contact, so I concluded that I had spooked you. We crossed paths much later in a thread having something to do with coordinates (I think at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. I mentioned there that you had been my mentor, and you didn't respond to that either, so that reinforced my conclusion. It was kind of weird, apparently being seen as a potential threat when I'm anything but that. It nagged at me for awhile, as I tend to turn such things inward and take them personally. I wouldn't make such a comment today, especially to a woman, but I was relatively new and committed a Wikipedia faux pas. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)r

Oh! Yes, I remember a conversation!

Oh, my goodness no!!! I have a disability and have times where I'm just down for awhile and I don't write. It does come on unexpectedly and I do fall away. There is noone that I can think of that I've been spooked by. There's noone that I intentionally broken off contact. Which means to me that if that happened, I was going through a difficult time or way overextended with too many irons in the fire. I apologize, it was absolutely unintended.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Ok, glad we cleared that up! I guess you just missed the later comment on the coordinates page. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have a ton in my watchlist, so that's possible. I'm guessing before we had notifications. Did it have anything to do with Google maps? Well, I know that I stopped by several times when I couldn't figure out how to format something. And, then I did something with Google maps, Earth something. How odd that it happened twice! I feel really bad.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Check this out. There were 68 hits, I think. I'm looking....--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Here it is, that comment near the bottom of the thread, 25 minutes after your last comment. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates/Archive_29#Coordinate_precision ―Mandruss ☎ 07:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's funny! I'm reading it and I don't even understand what I wrote - and it did talk long before I thought WOW, I'm way in over my head - and then I typed it on that page. I absolutely remember the part about precision. I have played that over in my head so many times!!!! You explained it very well - for a moment I wasn't lost!!!! Birds sang! And a lightbulb went on in my head.

I found User:CaroleHenson/CM workspace - that was a very difficult time for me. There were some things that happened quickly, unexpectedly and it was absolutely the worst time of my life. I had not seen your posting until just now. Hey, I'll respond to it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How strange. Your departure wasn't as abrupt as I remembered. You edited that I think 10 times in the 3 days after my faux pas (which I later deleted, which is why it isn't still there). My memory was that it was zero. This is partly my fault, then, my own "issues". Probably the stress of being a Wikipedia newbie had something to do with my misperception. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about a faux pas. I am not quite getting what you're saying.

Looking at the CM page, I definitely remember working with you... and you said you were taking a break. You seemed kind of light-hearted to me. I remember making the comment about it snowing in May. (And, now, I've had my air conditioning is on a little bit every day. It's October.)

Then, the next you seemed different somehow - very technical, accomplished. I mean I knew that you were really smart to begin with - but I hadn't seen that side of yourself until I got on the project talk pages, etc. But, I am sure I worked with you longer than anyone else. Anyway... What fun this is!!! I knew two of you!!!

It's so funny that I instantly knew who you were and the quality of work but needed to see the things we worked on to connect the two ways I've known you before this. I have some brain and memory issues... so this really nice, having the memories that were tucked away come back.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

{ping|CaroleHenson}} Well I consider it a faux pas to essentially say, "I know where you live," especially to a woman, even if it's only "I have narrowed down where you live to three states." Many editors value their anonymity and privacy. Clearly you have no problem telling everybody your name, if that's your name, but that's relatively uncommon at Wikipedia. It could be that my imagined experience with you had something to do with my forming that view. But I avoid comments about anything that might encroach on privacy.
I agree, this is fun. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

{ping|CaroleHenson}} Much of this page just disappeared, no explanation in history. A new experience. I think I need an Adopt-a-user mentor to explain this to me. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: ―Mandruss ☎ 08:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get the pings that you sent to me. I think it's better to talk on the other page. Did you get my pings?--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump RfC

Because you commented in the straw poll !vote, I invite you to comment on the new RfC on Talk:Donald Trump. I apologize for any inconvenience in "re-voting". Your past input is appreciated. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Diversity of sources

Hi Mandruss. I just want to mention that I'm very leery of discarding reliable sources for not being the best of the best. It sounds nice at first, but actually it reduces the diversity of what we provide to readers. Per WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (emphasis added).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I don't think they mean different views as to whether that lawsuit is newsworthy. But actually, we could use the blue chips to decide whether it passes DUE and EXCEPTIONAL and, if yes, I wouldn't have a problem with including some other reliable sources for the content.
I just think the only halfway objective way to judge DUE is 1. "what percent of the whole has reported it"? and 2. "what percent is enough?" If you include the less-than-blue-chips, you have to enlarge the "whole" accrodingly to include all sources at that level of RS that chose not to report. Your new percentage might well be below the current 16.6. As well as being very difficult and time-consuming to decide who should be included in that tier, as well as probably making the number too large to manage anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC

Jane Doe

I am confused about your last two points about Jane Doe. Did you change your mind since you said there is widespread coverage and it should stay? I may be missing something, but its sounded contradictory to another recent post.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I did a complete reversal when that other user showed that 16.6% of the "blue chips" I had previously listed have reported this. That 16.6% does not come close to justifying content about accusations of repeated rape of a 13-year-old girl. I demonstrated that my mind is always completely open, that my position is determined by the arguments, rather than clinging to my position at whatever cost to prove that I was right when the debate started. See my mini-essay, User:Mandruss#Changing your mind, changing your !vote. I live by that, among other things. So please don't be surprised or confused when you see me appear to reverse my position. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course that's fine. It is absolutely ok to disagree and I try to remain open. You may want to post something to that affect, unless you did and I missed it, But surely we don't have to eliminate the section, we could say sexual misconduct and that there is a trial. I see what you are saying, but I don't agree with you. It seemed such a reversal that I wondered if it was you. There was just the Springer conversation that only had the Guardian and Daily Beast in what was a potential character assassination. It does sound like your written voice though.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time for me to take a break. I will check back later and see how it is shaking out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

How about if we post a question on the talk page of the most applicable guideline - or maybe two talk pages? I asked the question on the DRama page but thought we might sort out which pages etc. If you think that makes sense.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Since WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV, maybe WP:NPOVN. Otherwise I'd be clueless. But I notice a strong tendency among very experienced editors to oppose something because it's a new approach, not so much because it's a bad approach. If it's new, they seem to go out of their way to find reasons to say it's a bad one. One of many things that have nurtured my sense of resignation as to editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Yes!

I have debated giving up on the article - maybe "Thankfulness" was posted too soon. I'm definitely going to be working on a few other things that have been in my queue.

Thanks for the noticeboard input! That's where the people on the Help Chat line told me to go for there for that issue + the recent additions about Trump and his lawyer commented about the unattractiveness of the accusers. I'll take the Jane Doe issue there and wait to see if anyone comments in the talk page sections about the recent additions.

I don't know if you noticed, but based on the conversation and the analysis - I went ahead and made some edits to the article to soften the story, while it gets worked out. I left "rape" in her section, til we get it worked out based on two other votes to Keep and to Keep but reduce.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for my contribution to your frustration. If you think it's better if I drop out of this page entirely, I am cool with that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't quite reached that point. At least we haven't descended into the usual juvenile petty bickering there. You have never contributed a whit to my frustration. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Traction - Jane Doe on NPOVN

I think we're stuck on the number of sources / multiple criteria issue - I agree that in the case the percentage of sources that reported/didn't report is relevant - but it also seems we're swirling around it. I am just trying to figure how how to move this forward. Do you have a suggestion to help us come to a resolution? Find people who have addressed and sought resolution on the previous X number of NPOV conversations and ask for their input? Do we need to allow more time for others who watch this page to comment? Something else?

I truly don't care if my suggestion is ignored, I just feel like we're swirling and not making progress from the article talk page discussion. I had thought that perhaps by limiting the sources to those that reported on the Doe case and not the long list of accusers might be a way to look at it. That's all.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - In my experience the only way to break such an impasse is RfC. That is not to say that it necessarily produces a good result, but it at least lets us move on. (I would hope that the result of a "no clear consensus" RfC would be no content at all, especially under these circumstances.) As I've said previously, the problem with RfC is getting a close early enough to have any significant effect on the election, and this will become far less important (although not unimportant) after the election. In summary, no very good answer to your question, which is not unusual at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

How about we see where this goes in the next 12 hours and then try something you mentioned earlier - Village Pump? Or, bring it to RfC and mention the timeliness issue for quicker resolution? If either of those seem viable, I'll post something back on the article talk page - or feel free if you'd like.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - The latter is not a bad idea. We would need to spend some time carefully formulating the RfC question, or it will be a waste of time. I think you and I could handle that in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, do we start with the post made to NPOVN? Or, start from scratch mentioning the talk page discussion and NPOVN attempt?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

{ping|CaroleHenson}} Neither, exactly. Simply state the concise and neutral question, follow it by more information about the situation, and finish with links to the various precursor discussions, which no one will have the time to read. The RfC itself wouldn't say anything about my argument, that would be confined to my !vote and people can agree or disagree with it. I'm pretty good at formatting RfCs, so I could do the actual edit to create it, but I still need your input on how to frame the question. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - Retry botched ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: - We can build the RfC in one of my sandboxes, polishing it to a high luster. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Start of draft:

There is an ongoing dispute at the article's talk page and more recently at the NPOV noticeboard about whether to include content about a claim by a woman, called "Jane Doe", who says that at the age of 13 she was raped by Donald Trump on multiple occasions. In October 2016, she filed her third civil lawsuit in New York to litigate the case.

The dispute is centered this being an unusual situation - a claim of rape during a presidential campaign - that does have reliable sources that have reported the allegation, but it is not widely reported. There are also a few articles that claim that the plaintiff is making these claims unjustly. One article came out in June from The Guardian and another was released on October 21 stating that the reason it has not been picked up is that there are serious concerns about the validity of the claim.

One one side, there are people that believe that since she is covered by the mainstream media as an accuser, there should be a section in the article that speaks to that claim. That section includes the questions about the claim and comments from Trump and his attorney.

And there are others that believe that due to the questions about the claim and that it had not received widespread coverage by the mainstream media, it should not be included in the article's content.

There's a start.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, want to move it wherever you'd like?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: See User:Mandruss/sandbox5. I created a talk page there and we can continue this there. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am totally lost! How about if I let you continue for awhile and then when it's clearer to me where I can step in, I'll do that then.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the RfC is ready to receive votes on the DTSMA page. Where do the votes go - under vote options? at the bottom of the section under JD content discussion? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I worked out an approach to add a subsection for the votes and cast my vote - please feel free to move it, etc. as necessary. I also created an RfC section on the NPOVN page so that it doesn't get lost in all the discussion. There was a posting - about neutrality after your posting about the RfC - that looked like it was a response to your RfC.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)