User talk:Mandruss: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome! If you post here, I'll reply here; no point in scattering a conversation across two pages. I may ping you when I reply, or not, depending on how much I want to be sure you see my reply. If you want to be sure you see a reply, please add this page to your watchlist. I don't use Talkback.(Dontcha wish we could agree on one way to do this, and eliminate all the unnecessary confusion? I do.)

18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather than revert you, I refer you to Function and implementation point 3b, which specifically says to not do that ("to keep the ellipsis from wrapping to the next line ("France, Germany, ... and Belgium", not "France, Germany, ... and Belgium")" [emphasis mine]). Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ATinySliver: Sorry, I don't follow. Are we talking about the space on each side, or the use of nbsp for the first one? I'll assume the latter for now, and as I read it that's what the guideline says to do. Otherwise a line could begin with the ellipsis. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The former—and now I have to apologize for being an idiot, because I somehow saw what I was pointing out and, upon checking again, I see you did no such thing. If you have a trout handy, feel free. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I love it when the brain fart isn't mine! ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why moving it out of the article? WP:NFCC#9 says it belongs to article namespace. By the way, I removed it from talk page without knowing that the image was moved. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: It's disputed content, disputed content stays out until consensus is reached to include it. If NFCC#9 precludes having it in the RfC, then so be it. But it should allow a link to it in the RfC, as File:Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer Myspace photo.jpg ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I can't reinsert it again due to WP:3RR, I hope you can undo the removal. Disputed or not, since neither WP:IUP nor WP:NFC mentions removal during dispute, the image should be reinserted. George Ho (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That way, it'll prompt readers into discussing the image at talk page. George Ho (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: The principle applies to all edits, so of course there is no need to refer to it on those pages. It should apply doubly in a case like this, since the RfC is likely to run for quite awhile and the purported damage of having the image in the article would be occurring for that period. Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to do this, and, unless you can provide a better argument than you have so far, I would probably revert any later attempts by you to re-insert it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute has affected editors' ability to omit or insert the photo. I would hope that people would leave the photo alone. Now that the photo is tagged as "orphaned", I was gonna ask Richard27182 to reinsert the image, but I guess I'll request your reconsiderations to see how harmless reinserting the image is. Edit warring is harmful, however. I would hope for truce, but your "truce" would different from mine. George Ho (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention that his mother was African American? The article mentions numerous times about his father being from england and that he was english. I don't understand that logic Crunkus (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crunkus: Hi, I neglected to mention that we decided to mention the ethnicities of both parents in a footnote. It is footnote [b] following the words "mixed race", which you should be able to locate using your browser's Find function. The talk page discussion about this has been archived here. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back with me. Why does that have to be included in a footnote? Why not just mention it in the article itself? If relatives and friends have confirmed and said she was black, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. I won't add it unless you agree with it though. Thanks again for responding. Crunkus (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crunkus: Race is one of several hot-button issues that need to be treated carefully. Most editors feel race should be mentioned only when the preponderance of coverage in reliable published sources has given it actual relevance to the subject of the article (as opposed to simply mentioning it in passing). This happened in Shooting of Michael Brown, for example, but it has not happened in the Umpqua case. One or two editors felt it should be included, others felt it should be omitted completely, and the footnote was a compromise between them. See the above-linked discussion for more information and better insight.
The status quo has consensus, so you can't change this without changing the consensus first. That would be done on the article's talk page, but I doubt you would have any luck. I for one would be there opposing you. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will leave it as is then. I seen what I asked for on certain others wiki page articles that are similar and wasn't sure why the inconsistency. Thanks again fro taking the time to reply. Crunkus (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The race of the shooter's parents seemed notable since he was referred to as having white supremacist leanings, and if that is correct, it would reflect on his mental status. It would seem particularly pertinent since he apparently may have been entirely dependent on his mother for the past ten years or so, save for the five weeks he was in the army. He was an immensely conflicted individual, it appears. I wasn't part of the discussion as to include or not to include their ethnicities. I've appreciated your input on this article. Activist (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, but I'm sure you know this isn't the place. Thanks for the appreciation, which is mutual. We need more cool heads. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mandruss, I just start the sockpuppet investigation on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Versus001, can you please look into this SPI? Thanks!--Infinite0694 (Talk) 03:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might be relevant. Similar circles and whatnot. Good cop, bad cop? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

ADD prevented me from reading and absorbing all that.
I guess one knows they're significant when they start being discussed off-wiki. If it ever happens to me, I won't bother responding, I have enough to worry about right here. If people want to criticize me within a system that includes the possibility of BOOMERANG, I'm happy to respond, of course. Without that, an accuser has zero accountability, and they talk about corruption. I wouldn't validate that with a response.
I still don't get how anyone could concoct those two very different personas, with consistently different writing skills, intelligence levels, personalities, willingnesses to collaborate, etc, etc. Versus had an almost obsessive preoccupation with inter-article consistency on minor details, and repeatedly went on "mass change" forays to create that consistency. WS showed no such inclination. Versus got his feelings hurt and retired when I was overly harsh with him in article talk, WS kept his cool during an extended and heated debate with me about the section redirects. I remain astounded by all this, and I'm staying out of sockpuppet issues from here on out since I clearly can't trust my own judgment on these things.
And I still want to know how Checkuser can know these weren't two people at the same IP address. Maybe they were able to determine that it was either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, and the response is the same; block both. In that case, the name SPI is somewhat misleading. And the moral for two people editing in the same household: edit different articles and even different subject areas. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, it's a bit weird. I just stumbled across that Reddit post a few days ago, innocently Googling myself.

As a pro wrestling fan, I've seen guys turn from Samoan savages to inner-city activists to masked Sultans to dancing asses. Nothing phases me, as far as alter egos go. Rest assured, though, I've only ever been Hulk. I think you've always been Mandruss?

Anyway, if it was all a misunderstanding, it can only become a learning experience, right? I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes, too. Have no idea how checkusers work. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've always been Mandruss, except for the period before I got serious about this, and one interval of a few days where I didn't want to log in (can't remember why). As for where this goes, it's already gone there. Versus001, Warner Sun, and the puppetmaster DisuseKid are all indeffed per this SPI. Done. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what they thought about Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter. They were wrong. Seriously though, maybe it is over now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

• When I saw that WS had reverted a number of my edits that were, I thought, pertinent and properly sourced, I looked at that editor's activity. What I'd gotten from the NYT and LAT appeared to be well sourced regarding CHM's background and behavioral problems. I've run into presumably paid editors/reputation "defenders," before, and wondered if the gun lobby was having an editor remove details about issues that might be politicized regarding background checks, etc. I also suspected sock puppetry, since WS seemed to me to be unusually proficient and active for a "new" (Oct 5) editor. So I looked more closely at WS's edits and noticed that they seemed to be almost entirely focused upon high profile and/or mass shootings, save for some obscure films and anime. Then, I looked at the history of a number of articles where WS posted, to see if some other editor(s) had significantly overlapping prior interests. I thought I might find one blocked, and "reborn" as WS. I found about half a dozen other editors who seemed similarly consumed, even obsessed with mass shootings. (Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Sikh Temple, Ft. Hood, VA Tech, etc.) I noticed further that a number of those editors had Japanese IPNs. Also,"Vs1" and "DzuzKd" stood out. At that point, I chucked my notes into the vast pile of crap on my desk, as I thought it would be unlikely that the gun lobby would reach out to Japanese paid editors. I also couldn't care less about truly neutral editors, even if they are sock puppets, though their motivation might mystify me. I have in the past nine plus years here run on to extremely determined and contentious editors who seemed to me to obviously be paid editors, for whom I thought I could arguably assemble a client list. Some were blocked often, but did not change their behavior and knew how to work the Wikipedia system. Most were posting only on articles that covered active political campaigns, usually for candidates in competitive and expensive races, and/or a few issues, posting positive copy for their or their usually unidentifiable employer's presumptive clients, and likewise scrubbing negative text. The behavior reversed regarding articles about their presumed clients' opponents. I became very frustrated in trying to deal with that behavior, in particular because the majority of persistent and neutral editors posting on those pages, who might otherwise be supportive in the effort, seemed to cling to the naive notion that all edits are made in "good faith," when such is obviously not the case for a very small minority of editors. I don't and have not had the time, energy or interest to fight with the apparent shills, given that lack of what I felt was community support. I did give a little grief to a few editors who could conclusively be identified and shown to have a COI, especially because they were corporate or organizational employees. I'm not an intense editor, and have only averaged about 250 edits a year, though they've been higher than average in the past few years. I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Feel free to erase or archive these comments, of course. You can post a response to my TALK page, if you have time. Activist (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Activist: I prefer to keep a conversation together, and it's not clear whether you have a preference otherwise; so I'll respond here.
Paragraphs help a lot with long posts, especially for folks with attention problems. For the easiest way, see the wikitext for this post.
If you implied bad behavior on an article talk page, they were quite correct to cite WP:AGF and ask you to stop. Article talk pages are not part of the system for dealing with bad faith behavior. This post was inappropriate, although the suspicions apparently turned out to be correct, which is why I removed it. The person should have skipped the accusation in article talk, gathered his SPI evidence, and gone directly to WP:SPI without passing Go.
I don't and have not had the time, energy or interest to fight with the apparent shills, given that lack of what I felt was community support. Me either. I'm not here to be a Wikidetective, any more than I feel compelled to conduct Internet fraud investigations. The way things are going, I think WMF will be forced to provide people doing that full time. I'm not sure whether they would need to pay them or whether they could get enough volunteers. In any case, although a few choose to do so, we're not here to ferret out the socks and the meats. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:C/1980 E1. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you accuse me of edit warring, in an edit summary no less? One revert is not edit warring.- MrX 00:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mrx - Sorry for the delayed response, I did not see this until now. My understanding of edit warring is that the war exists after a few reverts of the same content, regardless of how many editors are involved, and regardless of how many reverts are done by each involved editor. Thus, the war existed when you arrived, and you joined it. If I'm wrong here, I've been refraining from a lot of reverts unnecessarily for years. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. WP:OWN. Be careful to avoid the tendency towards ownership. Being quick to delete sourced material that doesn't meet your personal standards is one of the signs. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wrong about that. Since I doubt you're going to take my word for it, I'd suggest you check out dispute resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, " While the first revert (mine in this case) is routine process, re-reverting is the start of an edit war, which violates Wikipedia policy and can result in sanctions.". Where do we stand now that you've made two reverts? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first revert was routine process per WP:BRD. All subsequents have been one of the following: Attempts to remove the article from its status quo ante, the proper state until consensus is reached for a disputed edit, or (2) attempts to return it to that proper state. Not all reverts are created equal. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's OK to edit war if it's to return an article to the status quo ante? How do we decide how far back that goes? Is it OK for me to revert back to an older version multiple times if I object to some changes since then? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It goes back to the state that was in effect for a certain amount of time. There's no widespread agreement on the specific amount of time, but almost everyone would agree that half an hour is not nearly enough time. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it's cool if I revert your next few changes until you've satisfied me that they're up to my standards. Interesting. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are not my standards, they are community standards. I'm done trying to reason with you, please stay off my talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only posting here because you posted on my page first. Also, you posted a link to dispute resolution. Discussion is right at the top. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party.I'm sorry you don't wish to resolve this dispute. Regarding edit warring - I don't see anything in there about this situation. It's not listed in the exemptions. I won't post here again, now that you've explained your idiosyncratic view of WP:3RR. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you clearly don't have a lot of Wikipedia experience. You cannot post on a user's talk page after they have asked you not to. You had not asked me not to. If you squint your eyes and try really really hard, can you grasp the difference? STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to stay off your page, and then you go post to mine? Weird. Anyway, I'm required to post this:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]