Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WMF gets one of these wild hairs every two years or so? I'm baffled, perhaps because I'm not a native speaker. What kind of wild hair? Bishonen | talk 10:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ha, I didn't know that was an uncommon expression! Getting a wild hair = making a sudden, unexpected, and probably unwise decision. (Like a bad haircut, maybe? No clue where it came from...) Not exactly as dramatic as this one, but it seems like a semi-regular occurrence that the WMF either tries to make a decision for the community or tries to foist something on us that wasn't well thought out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Oshwah, that is some impressively wild hair! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The good kind of "wild hair", right?? :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I can't make mine do that! Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How not to catch a wild hare. The phrase is two-fold with the original referring to the skittish behavior of wild rabbits and their breeding ritual. The other is vulgar and has to do with the location of a wild hair, but really doesn't make much sense. ^{Courtesy of Atsme's Rural Dictionary Atsme} _Talk 📧 13:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, blame those wascally wabbits! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Opabinia! Just wondering... did you double the word 'decision' above intentionally? --CiaPan (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Lovely busy cat! :-)

What copy/paste error? Do you see a copy/paste error? Do you see a copy/paste error? ;) Fixed now! Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad Glad Glad to help. :) --CiaPan (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That cat belly looks so soft. It's a trap, isn't it? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the resident cats in a local cafe, who have flirting with customers for table scraps (and sneaking onto tables while one of the others distracts the customers) down to a fine art. He was particularly fluffy that day as he'd just suffered the indignity of a bath. ‑ Iridescent 12:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bath! The horror! Hope he got extras of whatever his favorite treat is. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 July

Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
... about about alienation, unresponsive bureaucracy, the frustration of trying to conduct business with non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems ...

... best on a meadow ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never read that one! Only ever read about the poor roach-man. (Oh come on, being an invertebrate isn't so bad!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and the WMF make arbcom look less arbitrary (than my modest experience made it look like) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I'm not sure that sounds like a good thing! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was possibly too simple ;) - You make arbcom look much better (so less arbitrary) than it used to be when I was forced to look because I was a party, and saw a sitting arb use this diff to support banning a user (and no colleague opposed! - which means that none of them even looked!! - and that vote was making the majority for a ban!!!), and the WMF seems so unresponsive, non-transparent and arbitrary that arbcom looks great in comparison. - I just suggested a ban: for the word "toxic" when applied to living people. I should have done so in 2014. (pictured. not by me) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Better than bad" - I'll take it! :)

I don't know, I'll give them a little credit for moving from toxic "personalities" (which is just a personal insult) to "behaviors". It's just that nobody can seem to agree on what's "toxic", and in any event it seems far too emotive a term for most of the behaviors under discussion. I don't mind calling stuff like doxing "toxic", though I'm not sure what benefit that term really brings. But as a descriptor of normal-but-imperfect behaviors like reverting instead of discussing, phrasing criticism aggressively, being annoying at ANI, etc., it doesn't seem to add anything other than drama. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Perhaps I have another language problem, - I associate it with unhealthy in a way that is potentially irreversible, - and none of the annoying things you mentioned would fall in that category. And yes, there must be better words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say Thank You for your participation. Awilley & JFG helped get my alert up and running on my UTP. If you get a chance, check it out by trying to post a DS alert. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I watched DYK from my very first article on (nominated by someone else), so may possibly know a bit about it. Years ago, every hook got its own "nom template" (which isn't a template, but we have no better name), and all in the review process are transcluded to the "nom page". As that got too long, more recently those already approved got their own page where they stay until promoted to a preparation area, so only noms with no review yet or a review in process are on the nom page. However, changes to the page are only 1) moves of complete nom templates (manually or by bot), or 2) edits within one nom template. The latter usually includes only 2 people, the nominator and the reviewer (example: Template:Did you know nominations/A Clare Benediction). Sometimes there is more than one nominator (example: Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 150), and sometimes more than one person comments (example Template:Did you know nominations/Lilian Benningsen). Any questions? - In a nutshell: while the nom templates are presented in close vicinity on the page, interactions stay within one nom template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like it hasn't really changed all that much since I was last paying attention there, thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I began, it was all on one page, real vicinity, and we had four sets every day ;) - My fastest time from nominating to being in a queue was 10 minutes. Quality improved since, and a great deal of it we owe to TRM. WP has a strange way to restrict those who help the most (Pigsonthewing, Fram, Eric Corbett ...). - My first article was about a composer whom I know (filling a red link), and who wrote a piece about the comet we remember today, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]