User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Wikipedia:Deletion process

I hear you on your dislike for "disclose their status". But "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions should state this fact in the closing decision" is unclear. State what fact? How about something like this: "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions should state this fact in the closing decision, usually by adding (Non-admin closure)"? Or "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions should note, somewhere in the closing decision, that they are not admins" ? Maybe "disclose their status" wasn't so bad after all. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Hmm, "Non-administrators closing deletion discussions should state [the fact that they are non-administrators closing deletion discussions]" seems transparent to me, but maybe not. "Disclose" sounds like someone would otherwise trying to sneak something by, and the substantial majority of uses of the phrase "disclose their/your status" are about personal health (which has its own, unrelated issues).

"When closing deletion discussions, users should indicate in the closing decision that they are not administrators"? Seems clear enough, despite the quantifier wobble. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds perfect. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It didn't say that? Odd. BTW, I don't think I've ever seen a NAC where it wasn't disclosed. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: It did say that, but worded strangely. Before my edit it said Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision, and I thought "disclose their status" was unappealing wording. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edit right after I left this message; the original was so bureaucratic that I guess I didn't even see it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Selective blindness to bureaucratese? I like it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

TFD RFC WDWDN?

As you may have noticed, the TfD RfC was closed in favour of the alternative proposal, which was to have a speedy orphaning mechanism. Would we need to seek further approval - say, at WT:CSD - or should we simply advertise the outcome and proceed with setting up the infrastructure? Paging Dirtlawyer1. Alakzi (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod, figuring out where to start on this was on my to-do list this weekend but I seem to have stuck my fingers in too many wiki-pies. Funny, I thought in the beginning that 'new speedy criterion' would set off more alarms than 'trivial NAC deletes'. The fact that it was closed by a non-admin with no fuss is pretty great though :)

A hypothetical "CSD T4: Templates orphaned for four days, following a TfD with consensus to orphan" needs further discussion in a less backwater place, but that further discussion would benefit from a successful trial phase. There's some holes as constructed, though.

• What should happen when a TfD is closed as 'orphan', the template is duly orphaned and tagged, and then someone adds it to an article? The idea is to allow time for objections (though with most TfDs running well over 7 days, I'm not sure 4 more is worth much) but keeping track of objections may not be as trivial as it sounds.
• Should admins also close discussions heading for deletion as 'orphan' rather than 'delete', and send the templates through the same process? Only if there's more than n transclusions?

I want to say: announce the new 'orphan' outcome as a trial, and then some non-admins should close some easy discussions as 'orphan', orphan them, and list the templates in a new section of the holding cell for four days. Once there's some examples of success we can use them as evidence of the utility of a new CSD criterion, and get a better idea of any needed changes to the workflow.... but oh wait, the first part is basically the original proposal that people didn't like. I suppose it makes sense to move to WT:TFD to flesh out the trial workflow first.

Dirtlawyer, any thoughts? You're the strategist :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also paging RexxS, who has expressed interest in closing TfDs. Alakzi (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if you take it to WT:TFD to start with, you'll eventually end up having to go to WT:CSD if you want to implement the outcome of the the RfC. So the only question remaining is "Is the proposal for CSD T4 sufficiently worked out to carry consensus?". That's a judgement call and you might want to ask some of the regulars at WT:CSD if they have any thoughts on what happened in the RfC. Personally, my interest was mainly in helping clear backlogs, rather than TfD per se, but I must admit that if consensus is that I'm not fit to do an NAC in that area, then I'm much less inclined to want to help out there. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting a little slowly this morning, so I will need a little time to understand and critique the new process that you're proposing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RexxS, there's still a pretty good size backlog at TfD that could use some cleanup ;) But the appeal of the original formulation was minimal change to the existing workflow, whereas (ironically) implementing the alternative is a much bigger process change. I suggested a trial that stops short of actually using the CSD process, as a kind of 'log-only mode' for the 'close as orphan' concept, but there are some gaps to fill first. Amount of effort worth expending on this is probably proportional to likelihood of eventual consensus for a hypothetical T4, which I'm not sure I have a great sense of right now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps after an extended trial, people will come to realise there's no need for the new CSD. What are the gaps? Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the two bullets I posted above are the biggest ones. If there's a 4-day grace period to allow for objections, there has to be some idea of what an objection consists of and how to handle it. And if delete discussions are being closed as 'orphan' by non-admins, it would make sense for admins to do the same, but in some cases that might actually increase the transit time through the process. I'm running out of time now but let me know what you think. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I imagine we'd do what we do now: the objector seeks out the closer, and, either the closer re-evaluates their closure, or the two come to agree; or the objector challenges the closure at WP:DRV. Whether the template remains orphaned during that time seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

Admins can do as they like. Alakzi (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)`

I actually prefer the CSD mechanism for the long term; it's just harder to get there from here. I don't like bureaucracy, but I do like predictability; it seems like a bad idea to make the procedural aspects of a close depend on who happened to have some time to deal with TfDs on any particular day. It either devalues the 'orphan and eventually delete' mechanism to also have a 'delete right now because I can' option, or it introduces an opportunity for anyone who got a 'delete' outcome to complain about not getting their four days of grace.

• Orphan NAC, template is duly orphaned, but someone un-orphans it in the 4-day window: why shouldn't this be treated as an objection? What should the admin who comes along to delete the 'expired' template do upon discovering it still has too many transclusions to fix manually?
• Orphan NAC is disputed but the discussion isn't resolved in the 4-day window: whose responsibility is it to reset the timer or otherwise signal that the template is past its grace period but not ready for deletion?
• Orphan NAC is disputed and the closer stands firm: the template isn't deleted yet, so is DRV the right place? Deleting it just to activate the DRV process would obviously be stupid.

Arguably, listing a bunch of hypotheticals is borrowing trouble, but I think it's worth figuring out in relative peace and quiet what to do with the disputed outcomes that can reasonably be anticipated before seeking further consensus for a larger change. Though given some other ongoing discussions, I may be in the minority in thinking proposals should be at least half-baked before serving. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you're in the minority, then so am I. This whole orphaning window business seems to rest on the premise that non-admins can't really be trusted; it smacks of elitism. If a discussion's run its course, and a consensus has emerged, why must we arbitrarily delay the template's deletion?

All of your points appear to share a common theme - is the deletion of a template to be treated as a speedy deletion, or an XfD deletion? Would one have to contest the original closure or the applicability of the CSD? I'd argue it should always be the former. Would it then be possible for the grace period to be implemented through different means? Would a banner akin to {{Being deleted}} not suffice? Alakzi (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, that RfC is even worse than the one I had in mind. More rules always sound great to people who imagine someone like themselves making all the new rules. How people think about "closing discussions" obviously makes no sense if a non-admin is welcome to close a complex RfC but an XfD with nothing but delete votes requires training wheels, but on the other hand admins are either miniature tyrants or lazy incompetents, so basically we all suck.

You're right, the basic problem is the hybrid XfD/CSD structure and what happens at the awkwardly glued-together interface. I'll have to think about that a little more. I can't think of an example in the short time I've been paying attention of what happens now when a TfD is closed as delete, listed somewhere in the holding cell, and then the result is contested before the template is deleted. Having a better idea of how long/disputatious this tends to be might help. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully you got my mega-ping, but I posted a summary of this discussion here at WT:TFD. If people think I'm crazy for worrying about grace-period edge cases, well, it wouldn't be the first time ;) And if most people aren't really so interested in the actual implementation, that's useful to know before investing time in the infrastructure, since the effect on the backlog might not be that large even if there's still some appeal in kicking a hole in the NAC-snob fence. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Andy closed three as delete here. I wonder how that's going to be received. Alakzi (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the fact that this caused unnecessary arguments led to actually writing an RfC in the first place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It did in my experience. But then again, I did have a red username at the time.... as I do now. Alakzi (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this . . . .

Alakzi, Alex, Andy and Aussie are in need of a good scolding: [1]. Please keep an eye on this, so these hard cases don't get themselves blocked. Appropriate maternal admonitions to the lost of them might be helpful. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If anybody were to come to my talk page to "maternally admonish" me, I'd show them the door. Alakzi (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dirtlawyer1 needs to stop canvassing like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Andy, I love you to death, but you really need to re-read and understand WP:CANVASS. There is no !vote here, and requesting that an administrator who is friendly to both you and Alakzi to knock some sense into both of you before you get blocked by another randomly passing administrator -- who will probably not be so understanding and favorably disposed to the two of you as Opabinia -- is not canvassing. Honestly, guys, I don't know why you've both become such drama-mongers, but there is clearly something about Alex and Aussie which makes the two of you lose your damn minds. And lashing out at me for trying to keep the two of you out of trouble is kinda silly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake. All I did was revert obvious trolling. How's that being a drama-monger? Alakzi (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replied here to your similar denial of your obvious canvassing, And if you want to avoid causing unnecessary drama, please feel free to stay out of any dispute I have with any editors, anywhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Aaah, I've barely even finished my coffee; some of you guys are in the wrong time zones ;) I'll take a look in an hour or two when I get some time.

Andy, I don't follow the canvassing argument. I commented in the last go-around of the TV template debates, I'm familiar with the participants involved, and I am probably not actually going to block anybody. Avoiding the 'weak investigation by whoever happens to see what someone eventually posts on ANI' problem is a good thing, no? Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot see how "in need of a good scolding" and the like are not complaint with "keep the message text neutral", please recuse from further involvement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I read that as intended to be a bit ironic. In any case, you'd have to think I was actually going to scold people because someone told me to, which wouldn't be very effective. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It - and WP:CANVASS - has nothing to do with your response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether Andy needs a scolding -- literally, ironically or otherwise -- is irrelevant. It's not canvassing because requesting administrative action is never "canvassing" within the meaning of WP:CANVASS. I'm not requesting that Opabinia register her !vote or even voice her substantive opinion on the matter. Frankly, I could not care less whether the template tile is moved or not, and I'm pretty sure Opabinia is indifferent, too. I requested that she intervene to reduce the level of rhetorical incivility and outright silliness that was potentially going to get you, Alakzi, Alex and Aussie blocked. In the absence of an attempt to influence the outcome of the substantive discussion, "canvassing" does not exist. Personally, I haven't even expressed an opinion, and I have no intention of doing so. If there's no attempt to influence the outcome, there's no canvassing. Are we on the same page now? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a good use of everybody's time. Alakzi (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a productive use of anyone's time. But there are plenty of editors of good will, including Opabinia and myself, who are determined that you, Alex, Andy and Aussie don't get blocked over the very minor issue of naming a template and its redirect. On your list of 200 productive things to do today, this should be hovering somewhere around 199 or 200. It's not worth fighting or insulting fellow editors, and it's surely not worth getting blocked. That's my point. Honestly, I really don't understand why you're so ready to fight over something like this. At least with the color-contrast-compliance tiff, everyone could see that there was a reason and valid concern behind the argument. This whole template RM discussion is just WP:POINTY. I expect more from you, A -- you are smarter than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Who did I "fight", exactly? I reverted an instance of trolling, which prompted certain individuals to flood my talk page with warning templates. Afterwards, you invited an admin to put me in my place, who - for no apparent reason - move protected the template, which unsurprisingly annoyed me. Alakzi (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you even care what this template title is? Given your and Andy's recent contentious history with Alex, Aussie and WikiProject Television why would you expect anyone would accept your split-vote NAC of a RM proposed by Andy as unbiased? Come on. You're not that naive. If you didn't see the WP:INVOLVED problems, you should have, A. BTW, Ritchie had already locked the template page against moves several minutes before I left my first message above. Ritchie is a big boy, and he can see a problem developing, too. It may be irritating, but it was done to protect the parties, including you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't realised making me out to be problematic is for my benefit; I apologise. I will also not be held accountable for the biases of other people. Ritchie did nothing but exacerbate the situation. This patronising nonsense has got to stop - now. Alakzi (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, enough. I've had it. Alakzi (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't keep up! Sorry, I spent way too much time drama-posting yesterday while procrastinating on doing the very boring things I now really have to get done today. Briefly: 1) I do not care at all about the name of this template; 2) asking someone to pay attention to a dispute is not "canvassing"; 3) even if one wanted to grant Andy's overbroad reading, its conclusion doesn't lead anywhere interesting unless I participate in the RM, which I'm not, because see #1.

On the "it's for your own good" dynamic: making a reasonable but arguably sub-optimal decision now stops some other admin from showing up later wielding fists of ham. You probably already know that Ritchie is well known for being generally averse to blocking people or seeing people get blocked. If anyone is being patronized by this kind of decision, it's not the participants in the dispute, though it does express a certain lack of confidence in the replacement-level admin.

As for all the warnings and templating and whatnot else, doesn't this look more like WP:POKING than trolling? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, and which was that reasonable decision? The template was in no danger of move warring, as I have repeatedly explained. To criticise authority when it is unable to meet its burden of proof is what every moral individual should do. Ritchie did little else but inform us that, he "particularly" wouldn't like to see Andy blocked, because he's exceedingly productive elsewhere - the rest of you be damned. What I referred to as "trolling" was this. If you don't see how the comments made to and about me are patronising, I don't know what to say. It is painful to be portrayed as some sort of miscreant; it is doubly painful when nothing you ever do or say could possibly dispel that picture. No tattling on me to the principal to "save me from myself" - I'll have none of that nonsense, thank you. Alakzi (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"This", if directed at me, would hurt me. - How such personal remarks would help content at all I don't see. (I confess that I don't know what miscreant means, nor tattling nor read the discussion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

Thanks, Gerda. I agree, it's certainly rude. I think the best explanation for the posts in question is immaturity. A miscreant is someone who habitually misbehaves.

Yes, I know there wasn't any move-warring. I don't know if Ritchie would put it quite this way, but: the effect here is to signal somehow that Action Is Being Taken. Which ideally gets the people posting warning templates to stop doing that, and tells other admins who might get involved that they can find something else to do.

You're right, the comment about Andy is unintentionally insensitive. Maybe he meant that threatening Andy with a block was particularly spurious, since it was about "vandalizing" by removing a warning, and it would be particularly stupid to block a productive contributor for something like that. Maybe he just recognized the username. But, I think I'm missing something. Ritchie is not in my experience the kind of guy who labels people irredeemable miscreants - quite the opposite - and I'm not really seeing that in this conversation. In any case, does "portrayal" matter so much? We know you're not a miscreant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

People have wanted to ban Andy for helping me (very shortened version), remember "Please describe what happens in this diff". (Good exercise.) Remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Every time you mention this case it makes me glad I missed out on it ;) My brain might have melted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That was in reference to comments made by others regarding my appetite for "drama"; "issues" I have that need to be addressed; and editors I've befriended. Alakzi (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see. Yes, there is too much talking about people's supposed flaws in the third person in scattered threads here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Reviewers Barnstar
	Yes, my DYK really did sit around for three weeks, not for want of 20 characters, but for want of a reviewer to check that the article had 20 more characters. Thank you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thanks! That's 0.2% of the minimum required length of all the articles, but hey, I guess The Rules Must Be Obeyed ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polykrikaceae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taxonomy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red

	Formal merge proposal
	There is currently a merge discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Formal merge proposal. As you are a member of WiR, this is a courtesy notification in case you want to join in the discussion. Thank you. Rosiestep (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Warnowiaceae

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ocelloid

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Polykrikaceae

Thanks for helping with the main page of Wikipedia Victuallers (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean Bacon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Physical Laboratory. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you

You'll probably get a ping, but just in case you didn't, I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Involved TfD closures. Jenks24 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I posted there. Although I participated in the finger-wagging effort, and the responses were a little point-y, I really would've gone with the 'meh' approach to this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jean Bacon

Thanks for helping Victuallers (talk 23:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

For your calm and rational contributions to the recent Alakzi business. I'm very glad you decided to return to Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Thanks. I was very glad to see Floq's post this morning. The set of articles I intended to fix when I first started editing again remains a mess eight months later, though... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. Did you know that I was convinced I had done it long ago, and was quite ashamed when I realized I hadn't. Now I remember what made me hesitate: I was only 95% sure it would not have been a fourth for the same (two by me, and intentionally so, called hat-trick, - before I took his design) ;) - Now: a user has been blocked for no good reason by five different admins, only two apologized. I know that there is no justice, but could it be a little less so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

:) I think Floq had a good idea - everybody involved here could use a break. We can see about unraveling all of this after some time off. (Not taking my own advice, apparently... :) Opabinia externa (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Saw this too late, commented in the ANI thread, per you ;) - Alakzi keeps helping me with advice per email, but it could be so much easier on a talk page. I am a member of many projects, and freedom of speech is one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice work Gerda :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, precious ;) - can I interest you in the last question: if the instruments playing a composition may be of interest to the infobox. Compare BWV 35 (and the suggestion on the talk which had been reverted in 2013) to BWV 172, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I just don't get what's so terrible about info in an infobox. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Might I be permitted to latch onto Gerda's thanks, Opabinia regalis, by expressing my appreciation for your recent patrolling on my talk which has been the venue of a lot of vandalism recently. I don't quite know what is going on as every time I look, the comments have been revdel'd. Cassianto^Talk 18:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: No problem. Looks like you reported a troll recently, and they're not bored yet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Graph needed

Hi Opabinia. You are so good at this I wonder if I could prevail upon you to update/expand some info based on File:RfA edit count chart.png. What we need is average user edit counts per year rather than per month, since including 2007. There should be logarythmic lines on the same graph (in different colours) for 1. All candidates, 2. Successful candidates, 3. Failed candidates. I'm sure you can see where I'm headed with this info. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I had thought about that, but - while it's trivial to get a user's current edit count, it's less so to retrieve the count at the time of their RfA. (I can think of several bad ways to do it... but since I don't work with tools here or have a labs account, there's probably something I haven't thought of.) Also, while it's tempting to just plot things like 'edit count of successful candidates by year of promotion', this data isn't very meaningful as a time series unless you also look at how the distribution of edit counts is changing among the core community in the same time period, and how that interacts with growing average account tenure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course. It hadn't crossed my mind that this can only be done manually (in most cases users' edit counts at the time of their RfA are posted to their RfA talk page, and if not, their edit count at that time cam be calculated manually from the edit counter. The object of the exercise was to prove/disprove the theory that RfA voters are increasingly demanding candidates to have higher and higher edit counts. Never mind. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly possible to do automatically, with much more consistent results than trying to parse unformatted talk-page stats posts, but if there's a way to do it other than many many API queries or a local database dump, my late-Saturday-night brain isn't thinking of it. You need to know the background distribution for that question in any case: if the successful candidates' edit counts are going up, is that because voters demand more edits, because edit counts in the overall community are increasing, because average tenure has gone up and tenure is correlated with edit count, etc.? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No, and this is what make the difference between me and the WMF for example: I'm not looking for stats to fit what I want to tell the community, I want stats to tell us something for which we don't quite know the answer but have have a couple of theories already. These stats would show if the number of candidates' edits have steadily risen over time. If they have, then we do more forensics: Is it because the candidates think they have to have more edits? Is it because the voters are demanding more edits?

Perhaps the edit count thing isn't so important and maybe there are other ways of proving/disproving that it's getting harder to pass RfA. It's quite odd though really - we've finally convinced the community that RfA is not the snake pit it was when some of us oldies ran the gauntlet, so now they are telling us the bar is too high, and when we tell them it isn't they'll think of something else. At the moment they are telling us that the bar is too high and that it's because it's too difficult to make admins accountable for their behaviour. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The type of analysis I'm talking about is part of what you're calling 'forensics', I think - though I would say the data without the background is uninterpretable, like knowing what the weather was like last week but not what city it was measured in. In response to something WereSpielChequers said in one of these threads, I suggested that the most interesting question here is really where successful candidates fall in the core-community distribution.

The argument that it's too difficult to make admins accountable strikes me as more truthy than true. Arbcom will apparently desysop someone in an hour with sufficiently high levels of ANI drama. (And who doesn't think the unnecessary rush there was related to all the RfA reform/desysopping proposals running around lately?) Introducing more processes that feed that misconception seems backwards to me - you don't get more people willing to join a club by making it easier to kick people out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI

comment comment removed -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I got your ping. It's not as if it's a big mystery what WP:CIVIL says, is it? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have a fucking problem PBS, go and report me at ANI. Until then stop shit stirring and stalking my edits. Cassianto^Talk 21:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For general and, seemingly, unrecognized copyediting excellence. LavaBaron (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Thanks! I should probably do more of that, in fact... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I see you around all the time. Sometimes you agree with me, sometimes you disagree with me. You always do it in a reasonable fashion. I am a big believer that reasonable people can always disagree(and agree) with each other in a reasonable fashion and you help me justify that belief. Chillum 00:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: Thanks! Ha, nothing like a two-barnstar day to say "stop procrastinating on Wikipedia and get back to work! OMG how is the summer almost over already; what happened?? Here's to reasonableness :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Around here the summer has been so nice that I have not been contributing here as often as I like to. No worries, our winter is about to arrive and it will rain for 7 months. Chillum 02:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh hey, I have family in BC! ;) Late summer in academia is a funny exercise in carefully cultivated mutual denial. It's about to rain for seven months, except instead of rain it's email and obligations and complaints. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Being deleted

S(t)ockpile.

I've noticed that you've been leaving a new line between the noincluded {{Being deleted}} and the template, which could be compounded to create a visible (empty) paragraph in articles. To avoid this, the closing tag needs to be placed on the same line as the opening braces. It's probably not worth revising all of the templates you've edited now, propelling their transclusions back to the end of the WP:JQ, but - well - whatever this titbit's worth in your future template endeavours. Also, thanks for the closures. Alakzi (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: D'oh, I did not even notice that. And then copied and pasted to propagate the error all over. I are smrt. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha, next time I have some sort of template problem, do I have to get a sock out of the drawer to post on your talk page? :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A big wooly one. Collective responsibility, collateral damage, and all that. Alakzi (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Indian-languages film templates

Hi! The outcome of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_29#Indian-languages_film_templates has been to merge the two templates. But at the Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Holding_cell#Arts, only one template (of Malayalam language) is listed for merging. Could you also do the needful for the other 3 more templates that were discussed? I would have done it myself. But I am not sure what more places and what what needs to be updated for this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: Well, they're all in the same TfD, so I had only listed them once, but you're right, it is kind of confusing to just have one of the templates shown. For clarity's sake I just added the rest. Listing in the holding cell is just a reminder that the discussion's conclusion needs to be implemented, so there's no need to update anything else. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought maybe some other listings or transclusions are also required at some other places. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership

You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership ← Come and join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015 The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, FFS.

[2]. I'm beginning to empathise with the people who want to see Wikipedia implode. Alakzi (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Rolling all five eyes at once on that one. Meanwhile, you know there's someone on ANI right now complaining that "FFS" is offensive? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made it my duty to unsub from ANI after a report about me has been shut. Though, if the latest trend is to continue, I'd probably have to watchlist ANI permanently. Alakzi (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist ANI? Nope nope nope. Start a dozen threads about how I'm a bad admin and a terrible person and a sock with a COI whose father smelt of elderberries and I still won't do it. That place is crazymaking. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI is the bathhouse in Spirited Away, except it's also been relocated in the Sea of Decay - for good measure. Alakzi (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Great Dismal Swamp, - did you know that you now can have a userbox for the cabal of the outcasts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ps: for context see first of my images, - I just returned from concert pictured last, + you will not surprised to see who created the redirect. Tomorrow is an anniversary, remembered there also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I always feel like I'm missing something that not even Studio Ghibli can make me like anime.

That redirect is great; I'm starting to like this guy ;) But I say it's unfair to the Great Dismal Swamp; the real one is very pretty and peaceful to visit at the right time of year. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You like this guy ;) - the one Alakzi was supposed to revive, - you have good taste. What do you think of the recent Bayreuth Revert Festival? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are a hell of a lot more patient than I am :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The reverter has been told to revert himself, I wait rather impatiently that he does. (Why is it that only women clean up after this man?) - You know that the infobox case was requested because of such reverts, that the arbs didn't look that direction because it was not what they had heard in all these years, and that to suffer the same reverts a second time tries patience a lot. - Anyway, returning from a great concert, Bruckner's Eighth with an orchestra of only young people, conducted by an 88-years-old man, at Eberbach Abbey, RMF!

Well, the arbitrators are reactionaries by nature and infoboxes didn't exist in 1873 England. Therefore, reverting to the status quo praehistoricum is a laudable deed. Alakzi (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

well before the internet then, - 2 years ago I listened to Dvořák Eighth, - both symphonies have in common that they didn't suffer the "laudable deed" permanently (temporarily yes, yes), but the other two pieces I heard that night, see, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Guess who was too impatient to wait a week or two, Alakzi of course, doing another major cleanup job while the others argue, and the reverter - claiming to have no time - performs a GA review for me, - thus Alakzi must be a woman per the logic above, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Willing to put eir time into thankless tasks? Wouldn't be surprised ;) Go anywhere near arbcom and you better bring a Y chromosome along, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The task of completing infoboxes for Wagner's stageworks was not without thanks, nor removing all fixed-size images from the many (!) opera infoboxes. - I miss the female arb, - wonder what she would have said to my simple summary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's nice to see consistency among a big set of wiki articles - so often overlooked.

Your links always go back to so much drama I missed :) You made me curious. I count 9 identifiably female arbs out of 88 (I did probably miss a couple). Well, I guess it's right about in proportion to the editor base... Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Being female is not enough, - I tried to talk to the one we have now, as you know, you didn't miss that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There's actually two female arbitrators now. Alakzi (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, GW blocking Eric feels like it happened a dozen dramas ago. When did we get another female arb? See, you can completely miss things even when you are around to notice them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The second is DeltaQuad. She signs as "Amanda", so it's no secret, I imagine. Alakzi (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for your work at TfD, both generally and specifically for the discussion of {{Doctor Who episode list}}. It is sincerely appreciated. BethNaught (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thanks! Both for the barnstar and for your recent TfD work :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Require feline assistance

"Babou, ocelot and cane"

Could you unfuck my fuck up here? Alakzi (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it! Damn, can't even take a catnap around here... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

C'est la vie....de chat. Alakzi (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

When I tell him someone compared him to Babou, he's going to get even worse! Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Smithsonian APA Center & Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon on APA women

Asian Pacific American Women World Virtual Edit-a-thon

Dates: Friday-Sunday, 4 to 6 September 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual Sponsor: Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center "The Smithsonian APA Center invites you to attend the 2nd annual Wikipedia APA an editathon for cultural presence, which will be held during the month of September 2015. We are thrilled to invite you to Wikipedia APA, an editing event for improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to Asian Pacific American ("APA") experiences. The second Wikipedia editathon dedicated to APA content, this project will occur as physical events during September 2015... as well as remotely, with participants taking part from all throughout the world." Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) Did you Know that 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? Not impressed? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! WiR will be hosting one of this world virtual edit-a-thon. The 3-day event will focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Asian Pacific American women and their works (books, paintings, and so on). For more information and to RSVP: → click here← --Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Long lost family member . . .

. . . or just an old hunting buddy: [3]? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't all families have that one cousin that shows up at Christmas dinner late, empty-handed, and ready to eat some of the guests? We're doing a potluck this year; I'm thinking a lot of lobster mac & cheese. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification ...

Thanks for helping V8rik and me through the user:nuklear copy vio issue. Not sure why my well intentioned if naive comments elicited such wrath, but I have bad days too. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: No problem, I'm pretty sure I've had the same series of thoughts you guys did. He just seems to copy from obscure places and then cites different sources entirely, so it's not obvious what's going on. No clue about the vitriol though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A polite question.

Forgive me, but could you explain "a total bog" ??

I'm afraid I don't have a clue what you mean at the Arbcom request. Thanks.

-Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 21:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Clarified, hopefully. Discretionary sanctions are bureaucratic and I dislike bureaucracy (despite wanting an arbcom case accepted...). Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I saw your explanation at the request. Now I understand what you meant. I don't think I'll comment there, but I am interested. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I forgot I was in this group. I added the right to investigate the Kww situation, but I am not really interested in actively working on edit filters, and I definitely don't need a new source of email. Right removed; Somebody Else's Problem field invoked :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit filter syntax looks fascinatingly arcane. I don't see why anybody wouldn't want to work on edit filters. Alakzi (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

("abusefilter" in user_groups & ( added_lines irlike "mailing|email|invite|subscribe|discuss" & ( ! user_name in article_recent_contributors )))

Action taken when matched: "Fuck that." Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Paid contributor talk page notices

Any thoughts on Template talk:Paid-talk#On behalf of and Template talk:Connected contributor#Adding parameters: employer, client, affiliation? Alakzi (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look later. Hmm, after I figure out why there are two of them. I guess it comes from the top that we have to use "affiliation" in such a weird and unnatural way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two of them because people have been using the first one to list "suspected" connected contributors. Alakzi (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I just looked at this and I'm not sure I have much useful to say there about the details of how the templates should work. It's good to capture this data in a structured format and produce a prominent warning for incomplete disclosures. I don't really expect people to reliably distinguish between when to use the "paid editing" template and when the issue is mere "financial COI", considering that even some of the frequent COIN contributors routinely conflate them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dysidea arenaria

Hello! Your submission of Dysidea arenaria at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kevmin § 23:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

anon:registered editor ratio

Hi again. I just came across your user study from 2007 referenced in WP:IPHUMAN and was wondering if you know if the rations have changed much since then? I'm giving a workshop on wiki editing and wanted to give an idea of the relative proportion of anon to registered editors. Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Argh, people keep citing that; I think my longest-surviving contribution to Wikipedia may end up being the fact that I was bored and looked a few minutes' worth of edits once in 2007 ;) I believe they have changed, IIRC the changes in relative rates were discussed last time someone cited this little "dataset", but I don't remember where these discussions happened. There's this, which is also pretty old. I'm certain the Foundation has some more recent data somewhere on distribution of edits by contributor type. Sorry, I'm pretty much useless; I'll ping you if I think of anything else. Good luck with the workshop! Hope you drag some more science people in :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Opabinia, I've gone over to ask the same question on Metawiki and WP:WPWP. We'll see if there are any takers. It's just for a slide to describe how little hierarchy there is (1300 admins/beuros, 30000 active editors, x Anons). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to highlight low hierarchy, ~30% of those admins take no admin actions in a year and another ~20% take only a handful, so really there are just under 600 active admins at the moment. Flat org charts don't always mean low hierarchy, though... and don't let your poor students go anywhere near anything to do with arbcom :)

Oh, I found this too: AfC processes and productivity. Higher-bureaucracy article creation = lower productivity; who knew? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting ;) - AfC seems needless demanding, - why not write a simple decent stub, supplying links to other articles and to the topic in other languages? I wrote one for Arvo Pärt's 80th birthday yesterday, which may grow, nurtured by me or others. - Tell your students, Evo (or how would you like to be called?), that there's nothing wrong in going to arbcom but you must have taken this to your heart before you go - and then perhaps you don't want to any more, the nutshell of the nutshell: "arbs do not consider", my nutshell: "Because the Committee does not carefully examine the evidence and circumstances leading up to a case, your conduct during the case is of paramount importance. Assume that anything you say can and will be used against you either by the opposing party or by the Committee itself." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the following from an Arbcom member ... "Everything gets considered when we take a case, including action during the case request. And we decide who the parties are. And Salvio is correct, being party conveys no suggestion of wrongdoing. Doug Weller (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)" Thought it worth mentioning. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller wasn't an arb yet when my case happened, the experience telling me to avoid arbcom, period. In the infoboxes case, the arbs failed to understand that it was about the reverts of infoboxes (how would they, used to complaints about additions for years?), and failed to look at the one diff of evidence provided which looked like the addition of an infobox but wasn't. One arb said it concerned him deeply and voted to ban "who did it". NOBODY (but me) informed him that he didn't look closely enough (no idea if the others also didn't look, closely enough). "Who did it" was almost banned, and I lost respect for arbitration. - I admit that arbcom improved, Doug Weller and others had good answers to my question last year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Thanks, that active admin stat is very useful. I always find it amazing how many more wikipediaspace pages there are behind the scenes! Thankfully, I've never had to deal with any of the more hardcore bureaucracy here. I've heard a number of long-time editors and admins unhappy with the complexity of the bureaucracy. If it is so unpopular, why is it not reigned back by popular consensus?

@Gerda Arendt: I tend to respond to most things close to my username. I chose it before I realised how cumbersome long names can be! I actually support the idea of AfC ensuring that new content is of a higher standard, but that's because I think that quality is getting to be more important than quantity of pages. I agree that it does seem out of sync with the standard that other edits are held to though (disclaimer, I know little of what goes on behind the scenes). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You can call me Gerda ;) - I go for quality, at a rate of one GA per week, but still write a stub when I think it's useful, such as this one which evolved to more already, and will keep growing. There's a draft for Dominik Wörner out which should be moved, for the sake of the many links it would fill, but I know too little about AfC to do it myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point, the way AfC is set up tends to favour a single author writing a pretty detailed piece, rather than letting the normal community team-effort build it incrementally. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Everybody agrees the bureaucracy sucks but nobody agrees on why it sucks or what to fix. I think I've been spending way too much time on meta nonsense lately, but hey, if you have ten minutes it's a lot easier to spout off in projectspace about an opinion you already have than to go do new research on a real topic ;)

As for arbcom, I have to admit I'm sort of sympathetic to sloppy reading. Just the case request for GMOs is already a giant pile of wordy bullshit. Being an arb sounds like it sucks too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

NB. I got some interesting info from the Wikimedia Forum (particularly this page). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 03:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks for highlighting that link. The extent of the seasonality in the revert ratio plots is surprising - are schoolkids that bad? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for poking my nose in but so much of what Opabinia says makes sense that I had to take a look. I would be very wary of stating stats about 'active' admins. There's active, and there's active. Of course, the official stat is a load of Quatsch; in fact truly active admins, the ones who are prepared to work in the sewers without a face mask, number only about 25, if that. Gerda also make a lot of sense - most of the time ;) She's either firmly on the same side of the fence as me, and in which case I heartily support her, or we're totally diametrically opposed, in which case I just keep my Klapper closed. I suppose it comes from me being half brought up in the softer heaths of Lower Saxony and half with the grosse Schnauzer of Berlin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I was born in that (not so soft) heath of Lower Saxony. If we disagree, gently tell me, and chances are we don't even. The problem about arbcom is that they are the sky, - if they condemn you you can't appeal unless with the same people who were obviously blind as described (+ remember the line from the afore-mentioned essay: "the Arbitrators would rather gnaw their own limbs off than provide meaningful guidance to the implications of their decisions"). I just proudly didn't appeal until AE calls became unbearable. Now I'm on parole regarding my alleged battleground behaviour. I haven't been in an edit war, ever. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been saying things that make sense? Who would've thought? I'll have to quote that in tomorrow's work meeting ;)

Maybe we need a new admin-activity stat: number of distinct admins willing to wade into ANI threads with word counts over 10k. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Just sending a reminder to complete the survey linked above. (This is the only reminder I'll send, I promise.) Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you!!! Harej (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: cat politics

watching cat politics is hilarious

"Clowder" politics. Have you ever seen a clowder council? I've only managed to see it once, and it freaked me out, Planet of the Apes style. I was looking out my back porch, and I noticed that all of the neighborhood cats were meeting on the lawn in a perfectly formed circle, all sitting sphinx-like, facing each other. I was completely sober, but for some reason, I never saw it again. Still freaks me out until this day. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Clowder? Well, I learned something today :) I always figured cats spent their time secretly plotting when they thought humans weren't looking. Haven't managed to catch them having a meeting, but I think the alley behind my old apartment building was the local cat nightclub. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

TfD

Thanks again for your TfD work. I think you forgot to actually delete Template:WPABMP, though. BethNaught (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Oops, thanks! Got it. If you catch one of these you can also just tag it as G6 ({{Db-xfd|votepage=link to closed deletion discussion}}) and some other admin will eventually come along and clean up after the first one's flakiness :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:TFD/HC now with 100% more edit notices

Feel free to expand Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell with text, diagrams, and photos of adorable little kittens. Alakzi (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

--------------

template

Oh hey, I think there's a lolcat for that!

So tempted to put a kitten in the ANI editnotice. How can you be an asshole when there's a little kitten watching? But then I'd probably have to stop auto-hiding editnotices, because you can't hide kittens, either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, naturally.

Maybe if templates were written in LOLCODE, Wikipedia would be a happier place. Alakzi (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

{{Tfd links}} generates anchors, so you shouldn't have to do that, actually. Alakzi (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh, you're right, as I just learned from doing the test I should've done in the first place. Now I wonder what else I screwed up that made me think otherwise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you know a kitten for me, adventurous to anarchic and demanding respect? I would call her Ala, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If my rollbacker cat weren't already all over my other social media I'd offer him up for consideration! Over to commons:Category:Kittens.... ahem, it is Friday afternoon. It's hard enough to concentrate on getting work done without people tempting me to go spend a bunch of time looking at kitten pictures! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

like this

Thank you for your consideration, - perhaps I'll adopt one ;) - did you see: I returned to the original design by Alarbus on my user page? Until De profundis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

An excellent choice; you have good taste in kittens. And userpage designers apparently ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I choose by character, and this kitten one for crying out loud. The "... our souls" design was not made for a user page (by the one who created more than 40 user pages for himself, some with rotating images because it was still not enough, - and who also created the redirect WP:Great Dismal Swamp) but for the purpose of getting a friend unblocked. Shortly after that was successful weeks later, I used it for himself (if you are interested how the design was developed, there's a small link below). It - or rather tons of emails to arbcom - was also successful - until he had enough and left. (He was banned afterwards, to make things worse.) I was on verge of leaving then but decided not to please the Cabal's enemies (find better word) ;) - One of us is up for admin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your links are always (ahem) rabbit holes ;) Yeah, I saw that RfA but haven't managed to read through it yet; holy crap that's a lot of words. I did notice your question - it made me think that it would surely be useful to ask how admin candidates would handle the kind of baiting and taunting and trolling that seems to be widely tolerated at the moment - but I wonder, if you ask that kind of question again later, maybe it's better to find an example that is a little staler? In this case the blockee not only acknowledged the problem but helped with my accidental DYK ;) Part of the point, after all, is to move on when someone acknowledges they've gone over the line.

I think, also, it would be better to just leave the talk page blank as its owner left it unless he wants to do otherwise. Still too many people around looking to stir pots. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think my RfA question - asked a while ago - was answered well and served the purpose, and I supported. - I agree that the blank page is very becoming, - like mourning to me (yes, that's another one of the 40+ ;) - in that case I didn't restore the user page as for some of the others including Alarbus) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A selection of Wikipedia lolcats

• 
  We need to talk about how you're using the parameters in this infobox.
• 
  Get off my talk page, you asshole!
• 
  An ANI thread.
• 
  Chasing off a nosy admin.
• 
  Why u no unblock?
• 
  The Cabal.

Moar kittehs >>>

Regarding the TfD closure for Template:Sorry

Only now I noticed you closed that discussion as Delete. However, IMO there were arguments in both sides and I will count them because writing them in prose is hard:

• 1 Keep vote saying that 33 transclusions is not wrong, and that 33 means it was 33 times someone decided to use this template.
• 2 Keep votes (including mine) that say that it propagates WP:WIKILOVE.
• 2 Delete votes saying that just saying "Sorry!" in normal text is better.
• 1 Delete vote, made ironically in a box, saying it doesn't serve much purpose.
• 1 Delete vote citing WP:DTTR.
• 1 comment saying that the template should be inline like {{Thank you}} rather than a box.

Maybe a No consensus close would have been prefferable, altrough I get it if it remains closed as Delete. --TL22 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: Just took a look at this. There's always some variation in how people close this kind of discussion, but in my view the balance of arguments here favors deleting this. It's nice to propagate wikilove, but there's nothing specific to this rather bare-bones template that does so - it takes more keystrokes to use it than to just say sorry, after all :) And it's hard to use something for the purpose of wikilove when there is counterbalancing sentiment that it's actually kind of impersonal. The argument that these low-use and often redundant templates clutter the namespace and make it more difficult for users to find what they're looking for has a tendency to attract dispute in individual discussions, but when you look at a lot of TfDs at a time, it becomes clear that this is a real problem collectively. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Almost all of the Delete votes concern the fact that the template was a box and not inline, though, so maybe the template can be recreated to be more inline (like how {{thank you}} works). --TL22 (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: Well, it doesn't do much decluttering to keep templates around based on improvements that someone thinks might be good to do eventually maybe :) But there's no reason you can't be bold and create an inline template if you really think it's useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. --TL22 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Catherine T. Hunt

Hello! Your submission of Catherine T. Hunt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#US miniseries templates

Hi, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion of "no consensus" here, when there is clear support for deletion. 9-3 were in favour of deletion or listifying/categorizing, and the "keep" !votes were little more than WP:USEFUL or WP:INTERESTING. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Robsinden: Participants in this discussion agree that the information contained in these templates should be retained in some form, but do not agree on which form. Most of the delete !voters advocate replacement with categories, but the keep advocates have a good rationale for the inferiority of categories as a navigational system due to the loss of visual grouping by chronology. "It is/isn't useful" is a bad argument for keeping articles, but is a much better argument when discussing navigational elements like navboxes. The templates' creator says he is considering list articles, and most agree that a list article would be a good alternative, so the best way forward would be to create a list article with this information, integrate it into the articles/see also sections/etc., and if there is consensus among editors in the topic area that this is an improvement, move the templates to mainspace and redirect them to the list for the sake of completeness in attribution. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you overturn the close to reflect this then. I don't think anyone will object to listifying AND categorization. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Robsinden: The closing comment already mentions support for creating a list, and I doubt anyone objects to categories as long as they're not the only mechanism of navigation, so be bold and do that :) What form the list takes, whether to then merge the templates into it, and so forth is all normal editorial decision-making that should reflect consensus among the editors working on the new material and doesn't need an Official Closing Statement to justify it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Dysidea arenaria

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Basket of coon cats?

Are those Maine coon cat kittens above? They closely resemble the 25-pound monster who used to be my roommate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I just went looking on commons for some extra cute ones! Maine Coons do make excellent roommates, though. My two are just regular old mutt cats, but they won't let me put them on commons; they're very concerned about their personality rights, after all :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point

Who is this person? Why are they here? Drmies (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Why, this is a person who has from their very first edit cared very deeply about ridding the wiki of badly chosen usernames, and has just recently discovered the importance of protecting the rest of us from months-old talk page posts, and definitely isn't stirring shit as if the rest of us were born yesterday 300 edits ago. Come on, AGF! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought it maybe was someone I knew from way back when, but I doubt that now. Tell you what, their moral imperative is a lot less wishy-washy than mine, citing the requirement to remove edits by a banned user. So clearly they cannot be a sock or something like that, since our policies say that's wrong. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that a grave injustice has been done. Blocking someone who was simply trying to make sure policies were followed? I'll watch for the arbcom case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Stranger than fiction...

Really? This is like watching the emergency vehicles fly past burning buildings in order to respond to a fender-bender.

One of the reasons this is so amusing (sadly) is because it is so true. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha, yep. I think the analogy came to mind because I just saw it in action last week. Witnessed a minor accident with no injuries or major damage, but we better have cops and a fire truck around for two hours! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi! Recently, I've become involved at TfD closing discussions, mostly that are fairly straight-forward. If you have a moment, would you mind reviewing my contributions in that area and providing feedback on the quality of closes, whether there are any closes that you would consider inappropriate for a non-admin, and anything else you notice? Everyone can always get better, and since I plan to be in it for the long haul if the backlog remains anything like it is now, your feedback would be very valuable. If so, let me know, and I can give you a list of pages that I've made closes on. ~ Rob^Talk 03:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Sure, any in particular you want a look at? The ones I've noticed looked fine, but as you can see, I'm not that great at keeping track of which usernames popped up where :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, no particular closes I was concerned about. I was just hoping for a holistic review of how I'm doing to make sure I'm not screwing anything up. TfD can be complicated at times. In no particular order, here are some of the pages I've done closes on. I'm sure some others exist, but this is probably enough for a good review.

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_7
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_8
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_9
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_10
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_11
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_12
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_15
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_16
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_13
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_31
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_18

Thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 18:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for your work on this! The only case I see that's even a little bit debatable is banrevert, since there are varying opinions and the topic deals with administrative work, but the reasoning that the template is redundant is well supported. (Of course, I do have opinions on the substance of the matter... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! I did mull over whether a non-admin should close the banrevert discussion, but I concluded it should be fine given the relative strength of arguments (no counter-argument to redundancy given), the fact that one of the keep votes was by a user who had made almost identical comments about low transclusion counts being insufficient grounds for deletion on multiple noms across a few days without commenting on the actual template itself (somewhat WP:POINTy behavior), and the fairly one-sided raw vote count (2:1 in favor of delete, counting the nominator). ~ Rob^Talk 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just like a real review, it doesn't count if you can't find something to nitpick ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

more festive than combative

Thank you for your thoughtful support. Remember that my friend Andy got almost banned because he uncollapsed an infobox for me? I feel that my friend from Montana might not become an admin because she tried to help me (which I didn't request nor need), and it feels awful. It's the Folantin oppose, and I don't know what to do about it. I don't want to replay the old infoboxes background of 2 years ago which I hoped we had left behind, looking at Verdi operas, Beethoven and this well-considered close (and merciful archive of the discussion from which I took "share ideas and values"). I am afraid that if I say a word of defense it will be regarded as tag-teaming (which we never did, - if I wanted a tag team I could have it but am way too proud), followed by "battleground mentality". - I have to work - for date relation - on One sings with joy of victory of all titles, but at least the music is described as "more festive than combative" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not even half over yet; there's still plenty of time :) I hope you don't feel too bad - while some people are overreading that discussion, and maybe jumping to conclusions because OMG infoboxes!!, the issue for me isn't that it was or looked like tag-teaming, but that there wasn't a lot of apparent consideration of the context. Read in conjunction with Bishonen's comments, and the current GMO stuff, my concern is that this kind of thing can be quite destabilizing on the various 'fringe science' topics inhabited by editors who can be very friendly and pleasant and sincere in their very misguided efforts. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Just before reading this I tried to clarify my view at the oppose, but have no intention to do more in the matter( which is by so far minor than my other concerns, but makes my unhappy nonetheless because it concerns not only me). I think you will understand. - Singing today was good, first choir singing time in public after surgery, another Dona nobis pacem (by J. C. F. Fischer), my Leitmotiv it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Good, hope you're recovering well :) I think you've gotten the point across there, to anyone who's actually willing to read it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, you are both quite kind and quite right, but maybe time to let this one go? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "this one". This one who? or this one what? - It was my answer to Anna. Perhaps I better go to her talk? - I have nothing more to say to the gentleman, and what I tell Alakzi has nothing to do with Wikipedia, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was confusing, I meant the discussion with the gentleman who gets the notification and seems to prefer to move on. Maybe Anna's is a better place. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Alakzi cantata, as I termed it, is on the German main page, today and tomorrow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

:) Article dedications, what a nice idea. Might work better with music than with my stuff though. Something like, I dunno, "I made you an article about plankton guts!" ....uhhh, thanks? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

:) - the all-too-common sequence in missing is dedicate, translate to German, place flowers on the talk (the latter a problem when the talk is protected or redirected). The dedication was from 13 August (call me a prophet), translation 17 September. I said thank you to my first notable conductor, thank goodness before he died, and dedicated my DYK #500 to the user who left over the Bach infobox discussion, - don't miss his last speech. I couldn't translate for the many personalities of Alarbus+ because although he blessed many articles with ref and other improvement (example pictured, often not visible to the reader but helpful to an editor) wrote no articles. Instead, I spread the cremation image around the world. Look for missed in my list, - how can Wikipedia afford to do without all that talent??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's very sweet :) Though there are depressingly many entries. And clicking a couple of links in there, I think this is probably the first time I've ever seen anyone say infoboxes scare women! I've always thought it best to give departing users some space from, well, Wikipedians - overgeneralizing from my own experience having unfairly grouchy reactions to well-meant talk page messages wishing I'd start editing again; just too easy to read as guilt-tripping - but a dedicated article is a nice touch :) I must be getting old and soft or something.

Now, what's this about talent? We don't need any of that; it's disruptive. We just need more people who can recite wikipolicy by heart. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you see that by now (Jaguar question) we have another diff of explosion, taken from my talk page archive, the reaction to my introduction to the no fun of AE (and wasn't that sweet?). No, a person can't be granted permission to move DYK prep sets to queue if she exploded like that two years ago. She also wrote "a LOT of us feel rather frustrated and sick at heart", and many more posts showing a heart. A little later you see the conception of the cabal of the outcasts, and then, under the header "Please stop adding infoboxes to articles in contravention of your Arbcom restriction", the edit in question, struck little later, + got us to ANI by an editor who wasn't even "attacked". There is no end to the kafkaesque side stories of the infoboxes case, I could write a book but prefer to write on Bach's music.

ps: Did you see the comment by an arbitrator, writing as an ordinary editor, on Joseph? Made my day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wish I could reconstruct now which links I clicked from your archive that led to... an ANI thread incorrectly accusing someone of being a Jack sock. I just about laughed out loud on the bus. I mean, it's not funny, but... it kind of is, as an alternative to banging one's head against a wall.

I'm running way behind today, haven't caught up on the latest in Why RfA Sucks yet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the false Jack sock was SchroCat whose former name was Schrodinger's cat is alive which accuser argued was a typical sock name - and which was then and therefore changed. The master was unique. The false one took me to AE and told me not me to post on his talk, because I had laughed loud when he reverted an infobox on an article Andy created, after all this talk that the preference of the one who created an article needs to be respected. "rest - laughter - beauty" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

today on the Main page, the more festive than combative cantata, mentioning joyful songs of victory, - well, there are the small victories like being able to perform a template change (make header variable, leaving a static one as default) without help! What do think of my joyful songs, performed for the 50th birthday of the building? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Very nice, congratulations on all counts ;) Especially the templates; I should like fiddling with those things, but mostly they just give me a headache. Music is better ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid moving DYK nomination subpages

From T:TDYK: How to move a nomination subpage to a new name[edit source] Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

I see that you moved Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine T. Hunt. Please avoid this in the future. Thanks sst^flyer 01:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: Thanks, hadn't noticed that. Which links does it break, though? I see all the expected incoming links at Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine T. Hunt, and nothing of significance linking to the original title, Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Hunt. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

For example, it broke the link on the T:TDYK page, causing problems when I tried to promote the hook. Nothing major though. sst^flyer 05:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I tried to actually understand this, but apparently more than a minute's worth of curiosity would be required to figure out how and why the template stores the original name of the page. Thanks though! Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That particular point is fairly easy to understand, but I'm not sure of your exact question, nor am I a template expert. Have you looked at Help:Magic words? That seems like a good place to start if I haven't misunderstood you. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm an idiot. I think what the instructions mean is "if you move the subpage, fix the nompage parameter too". The "breaking links" comment made me think there was a log out there of newly created DYK subpages for some reason. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) much simpler: just never move a DYK template, which means you can give it a decent recognizable name from the start, which does NOT have to be the article name(s), - I will not forget the one with seven long article names combined and its look on watch lists, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha, even better if you use the 'show all changes' option! I only looked because (well, because I was procrastinating on real work, and...) the DYK "system" is a crazy Rube Goldberg machine that could really use some process streamlining. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Module deletion

It appears I can't nominate Module:CfDdate for speedy deletion because it's a module and templates can't be used on the page. Mind deleting it as per WP:G7 (author request)? It's a failed experiment and contributes no value at the moment. ~ Rob^Talk 09:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: That's a problem I hadn't thought about before. Done. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea what the proper procedure for handling that would be. A post at WP:AN seems most likely but also entirely out of proportion with a non-priority delete. Oh well. Thanks for your help! ~ Rob^Talk 23:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Stick the speedy template on the talk page with an explanation, maybe, and hope whoever's working through CSDs is paying attention? Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, the RfC on whether {{Cite doi}} should remain deprecated has been ongoing for almost a month now, even though the consensus has been pretty clear since the end of the first week. If you're interested, a close at Template_talk:Cite_doi#RfC:_Should_cite_doi_template_be_deprecated.3F would be appreciated. Frankly, I think consensus is so clear that any editor should be fine closing, but this is a topic that has been a bit of a battleground, so having a neutral and level-headed admin step in as probably for the best. If you'd rather not make the close or are busy, I'll take it to WP:ANRFC soon. ~ Rob^Talk 01:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, better take that to the morass of ANRFC then; I can't close it because I commented in it ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Catherine T. Hunt

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we relist?

Hi

I was thinking about something I read in the Admin's instructions about TfDs. Now that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 24 is over, shouldn't we relist its TfD discussion? I mean the discussion has passed its 7 days. And after 7 days, it should be relisted, right?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I listed it at WP:ANRFC in the hopes of attracting a new closer. I think leaving it on its current log subpage is fine, since that way people following links from the DRV will land in the right place and we won't need to update the links in all the templates; the August 24th log is still visible on the main TFD page. (The fact that we currently relist by cut-and-paste is an annoyance that should probably get fixed eventually, but right now the backlog is long enough that it'd be kind of a waste of effort to keep re-churning so many old discussions.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and by the way, what about the general principle? Do you relist discussions after 7 days, if you can do it?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with relisting is that it adds another step for people following old links, so I haven't been doing it for many with high participation. As a rule of thumb I've been relisting smaller ones when:

• a discussion isn't visible on WP:TFD (because we're over the transclusion limit still) but hasn't reached a conclusion, or
• an unfinished discussion is the last one on its daily log and moving it will get the log off WP:TFD

Otherwise the only consequence to being over 7 days old is that the log goes under the Old discussions header; its discussions are still available for comment, and I think most people in discussions that actually need broad input arrive from the notices on the templates themselves rather than from monitoring TfD as a process. In an ideal world TfD would use AfD-like subpages and relisting wouldn't break any links, but that'd be a big change. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hilary Kahn

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Good one, thank you! - One of my better DYK appeared yesterday, our national day of 25 years re-unification: Cantata 119, which was performed in the Nikolaikirche - where the peaceful Monday demonstrations took place which ultimately led to the fall of the wall - in 1728 (or 1729), and again in 2015 to celebrate the millenium of Leipzig and 850 years of the church, - I had not thought of that connection! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Funny how this one got a fair number of views; no one ever clicks on the actual science ones!

Yours is better though, nice timing :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Mine" wasn't mine, expanded the work of others, and "better"? Well, GA, yes. - The wonderful timing is "due" to me being in hospital when I thought timing was good, - such is life ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that I use "keep learning" instead of "per the user whose name is not to be mentioned", as here, meaning "I learned from said user and you might do the same" (and "disregard ... at your peril", quoting User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris in his essay about arbcom which I disregarded too long), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Nobel for DNA repair

Well, now I feel like a jerk for putting off updating and mucking out our DNA repair article, which is an old legacy FA. Congratulations to Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich, and Aziz Sancar! http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2015/10/07/a-nobel-for-dna-repair Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And of course there has been an edit war about Sancar's ethnicity, but not one single edit to DNA repair. Do I have to do everything around here? Facepalm Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC on an Article in Which You've Participated

A RfC on an article in which you've commend on has been opened here. This is a courtesy notification you may ignore if it is of no interest. LavaBaron (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Rommie Amaro

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mary-Lou Pardue

Materialscientist (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Another good one! Did you see our ride to the roots yesterday? No stats for that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Very nice :) I wouldn't have seen it if you hadn't pointed it out; I never actually read the main page! (I secretly think it should be deleted.) BTW, your inbox is full! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

full no more, you can fill it again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Drive by greeting...

Your user name aroused my curiosity so I ventured over to your user page to see where it might have originated. I had some time to read your the blog on your user page this morning and can certainly relate to that young lady on some levels, such as biking, touring off-the-beaten-path, scuba, your her views on women and most certainly on civility. My perception of you based on your comments was that you were much older...it's rare to find such insight and maturity before one reaches mid-life. Anyway, my perception of you based on some of your comments at ArbCom is that you are the kind of editor that helps make collaborative editing on WP a pleasure, and I just wanted to say thank you. Atsme^📞📧 15:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC) ^{Minor peripheral corrections 22:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)}

Hi Atsme, thanks for the compliments but I think some of them belong to someone else! :) The blog I linked to on my userpage isn't mine, just something I thought was interesting. I follow a lot of women-in-STEM discussions online and that post got a fair amount of attention recently. I think the ongoing discussions about the local "culture" of open-source projects have interesting parallels in the Wikipedia community. Sorry to disappoint :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So you actually are older? Atsme^📞📧 19:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC) ^{Nope, you didn't disappoint. You'll have to try harder but I advise against it.} 22:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in, Atsme, but most Wikipedia users prefer not to reveal their age, and it can be considered poor form to ask. However, Opabinia is an exception; she is proud of her age. You see, Opabinia regalis flourished in the Middle Cambrian period, which would make her about 500 million years old. Give or take. For an extinct species, she edits extremely well. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

HI, Melanie - my age question was intended as humor, not as a real question but now that I know Opa r is a primitive species I will be extremely delicate, and will not assume her wisdom is the result of maturation. Atsme^📞📧 00:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You know what a pain typing can be for a soft-bodied invertebrate?? The five eyes are handy, though... :)

I'm kind of surprised anyone noticed anything I said at arbcom - real life got in the way and I completely gave up on the workshop phase. Here's hoping for a sensible decision in the end (I know, I know, arbcom, sensible, same sentence.... :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

iban removal pixelwork

Notify the editors the ban is lifted on their talk pages so there's a record. I took care of this already. NE Ent 02:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, that was fast, thanks NE Ent! Where are you when I have real-life paperwork to do? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Max Birnstiel

Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flippase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dimer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

{{cite isbn|9781103521210}}

Where the ISBNs gone? ({{cite isbn|9781103521210}}) Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 23:51, wikitime= 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip: The {{cite isbn}} template and its relatives have been deprecated because the one-template-per-ID system was becoming unmaintainable; I deleted a large batch of orphaned ISBN templates a few weeks back. The preferred solution is {{cite book}}. If you use the RefToolbar you can enter the ISBN and it'll auto-fill the rest of the bibliographic details. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I was informed some time ago that for pings to work not only do you need to sign (again), but you also need to insert a new line. Alakzi (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Really? Apparently I never noticed that. (No ping from your second edit, but do you get pinged to your own talk page?)

OK, let's try this again: @Unbuttered Parsnip: Either I will finally get this right, or I am now cluttering up your mentions :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A new line is not necessary. The two most important things are that your post must add a link to the other person's user page, and it must also add a new signature. Overtyping an existing signature won't work. So, this edit should notify Alakzi, even though it has no new lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It didn't. (See mw:Manual:Echo.) Alakzi (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Wait, so you're telling me this won't work either, because it splits sections? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ya, that didn't work either. Alakzi (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

RTFM

Reading the manual is for wimps! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your recipe

Very good recipe, they came out delicious! Have some!

I bring you chocolate chip cookies with sprinkles in recognition of your helpful recipe at the AE2 case discussion. Thank you! Bishonen | talk 23:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

Oooh, perfect! It's hard to keep arguing when your mouth is full of cookie. And rainbow sprinkles make everything even better. There we go, solving arbitration problems with things every kindergarten kid has figured out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Cookie

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2 has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. No one cares about kittens when chocolate chip cookies are in play! NE Ent 03:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not even this one? Sad kitten. No one shared any cookies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phytanoyl-CoA dioxygenase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cofactor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)