Welcome

Hello, Darkfrog24/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Signatures

Hi! Please use ~~~~ to sign your comments. Thanks! — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my question about human cloning! CameoAppearance ^orate 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Darkfrog24 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prom baby

An editor has nominated Prom baby, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prom baby and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that the article has been nominated for deletion. Although one contributor mentioned that the term is widespread "throughout the South," I have only found the one source. As such, I feel no need to contest the deletion notice. Any arguments of mine will take the form of improvements to the article or suggestions on the talk page.

What generated this bot notice? While someone did remove the deletion notice, you may wish to note that it was not me. Darkfrog24 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brethren Court

The page has been nominated for deletion, please join the discussion here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Yarnbus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yarnbus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is a bot, but this is annoying. I've already given a description of the image's copyright issues and asked about it on the image use page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Please reply on the MOS talk page, if interested. rootology/equality 20:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: the MOS page is unprotected, but I strongly advise you to not further any edit warring there. Please review this. Thanks. rootology/equality 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What edit warring? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

I filed an AN/I against you here. Ilkali (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that is an appropriate way to respond when you think someone's doing something wrong. This is much more civilized. Thank you, Ilkali. I feel much better about this whole mess now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can you please use preview instead of continually editing and saving the ANI board? It's distracting -->David Shankbone 18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's more a matter of changing my mind, but I'll take extra care in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's just that it's a heavily trafficked board, and continually editing and saving enhances the possibility of edit conflicts. -->David Shankbone 18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference: [1]

Olive branch

Dear Darkfrog24: It's too bad that we got off to the start that we did with one another. I suspect that we probably agree about many things. For one thing, we are in a small minority that actually cares about punctuation, style, and the like. Finell (Talk) 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in another universe ...we might have been friends. We also seemed to be the only two people who demonstrated an ability to cross what I'll call party lines on the MoS. Don't think I didn't notice when you told Troviatore to express himself differently. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And I noticed, early on, that when Mchavez said that I was being inconsistent, you responded to him that I was being flexible. I've done some academic editing, worked with pre-digital hot-type professional printers, am acquainted with several style manuals, and really appreciate good typography. I was a very early adopter of using proportionally spaced typefaces and professional typographic conventions (typographic quotation marks and apostrophes, em- and en-dashes, italic instead of underline, non-breaking spaces to avoid awkward line breaks, etc.), when most everyone else was using the latest computers and laser printers to emulate Selectric typewriters. To my eye, especially in a serifed typeface, this”, looks butt ugly, and so does this”. (I might have a different opinion if I originally learned and was surrounded by the other style.) On Wikipedia, though, other considerations come into play. Wikipedia pages are never going to approach typeset appearance in a browser. The typeface is sans-serif. MOS prescribes straight quotation marks and apostrophes for valid technical reasons. And, when all is said and done, so-called logical quotation really is less ambiguous: if a period comes before a close quotation mark, you know that the period was in the original quotation, and not something added at the end of a sentence fragment. American style is also a bit harder for editors to master, because extraneous commas and periods get tucked inside the close quotation mark, but not semicolons (an apparent inconsistency). Even more fundamentally, I think that a "house style" should remain relatively stable, and this guideline has been around for a very long time, possibly from the start. If the MOS had historically prescribed what you call American quotation mark style, I would not be clamoring for change to so-called logical quotation style. Finell (Talk) 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Finell, American punctuation does not create the problems you're describing. It's been a non-issue for centuries. If people want to know how the original material was punctuated, they have to look at the source, regardless of what style was used to quote it. In addition, American style is less hard to master because it is simpler: put periods and commas inside and semicolons and colons outside. (The British are as welcome to their complexities as they are to a U in "color.")

I suspect that the reason this guideline has been around from the start is because a disproportionate number of Wikipedia's founders were either professional or amateur programmers. They picked the style that they were used to. However, as more and more non-programmers are taking part in Wikipedia, this is becoming less appropriate. As Tony1 put it, "Look around and see how the culture is changing."

The advantage in permitting American and British styles when appropriate and preferring them where preferable is this: It makes Wikipedia look professional and legitimate. Even people who don't know all the ins and outs of good punctuation still get a good impression when they see it. If Wikipedia were to adopt British and American standards, as it has with spelling, then most readers would think, "Ah, this looks like the real thing. This looks like it didn't get here by accident," because they'd be seeing the same, quality work that they see in the New York Times, Nature, professionally edited magazines and professional academic and literary works. If you ask me, this would be a big step toward getting the public to shake the idea of Wikipedia as "that Internet encyclopedia" and start them toward "the encyclopedia." Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Italic dates

Thanks for the good guidance. How do I participate in a useful conversation? I can't find it if its going on. stilltim (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, check the page history. The last couple of major contribs were this morning.

You don't have to say anything. If you feel that all useful arguments have already been made, then it might be better if you added only a brief "I agree with so-and-so" or even nothing at all. But I figured that since you specifically were one subject of the discussion, someone should let you know that it was going on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Got the MOS, where's the discussion this morning? stilltim (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it and responded. Many, many thanks stilltim (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Chaz Bono, sex and gender

I know that this article is most likely on your watchlist, but I wanted to address you here as well: As I stated on the talk page there, I really did not mean to insult anyone. As someone who understands this topic quite well, I was simply trying to help. It seems that my initial wording somewhat irritated you, but it was a simple explanation in my view. Maybe I should have gone into the thoughts about the brain being one sex while the person's body displays the opposite sex of that, but I was not trying to give a long, detailed lesson and it is not something that is believed to be the case for all transgender individuals.

In any case, I apologize for any offense you feel that I caused. I also appreciate your helping others to understand this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Accepted, but I wasn't offended enough to remember. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MoS unprotect?

Hi Darkfrog. Please see the section at bottom of MoS talk. We need to establish stability and reasonable harmony on the talk page, given that there will be the odd dispute. ArbCom is auditing MoS for stability in just over two months, and if we have no history of stability in the absence of the protection measure, they'll probably walk away and say protect it forever.

If you're prepared to be part of an effort to avoid instability on the MoS page, will you add you voice? Tony (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw your section there and am preparing a response at the moment.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at with regard to instability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkfrog24. You have new messages at WP:MOS.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I doubt you you would be surprised, but I have replies to you on WP:MOS. All good and sensible and so are you. I disagree with you but I know you are an intelligent person who wants to make it better. I hope you know I do too. SimonTrew (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Trew, were you under the impression that you had offended me? Heavens no! I've found you to be nothing but cordial these past few days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

images

You summed it up well in your most recent comment. For some reason the microscopic images issue has passed me by. Perhaps this is another issue where WPians can set preferences that blind them to how our readers see the pages. In any case, I've written a proposal here, which I'd appreciate your feedback on. Please note that I'm no expert on images, even though it's plain to me that we have a serious problem in the current MoS text. Tony (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good one. However, you may have worked on my previous update (I kept tinkering). You might consider changing "that" to "which" in the first para (there are a lot of "thats"), and using the wording for the bullets (does it work better?). Tony (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to close at MOS

Hi Darkfrog, I think it would be best if you close the discussion yourself. The mechanism at {{Archive top}} would solve the issue at hand and then you can continue to seek answers about flagging the passage in the way you describe. I am afraid otherwise it appears to be devolving into a debate over whether to close. If there is no consensus about the tag in the MOS page, if you close debate and contact an administrator or add to my post at WP:AN#MOS move to close re: WP:LQ that issue can be dealt with separately. I think the real point is to have the MOS page unlocked, and I think no admin has acted on my request because this is not a formal debate like deletion or requested move discussions. Sswonk (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting me with an opportunity to ask something: What precisely is a formal closing? Is there something to it other than "okay, this discussion has run its course"? Would it in any way impede other editors from raising the same issues for discussion at a later date?

As for consensus, it seems to me that everyone who has commented so far (LaserBrain/AndyW, yourself, Finell, myself) agrees that the discussion as run its course. The only significant difference of opinion seems to be whether the text should remain in its current form or be reverted to some previous one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As I am using the term, "formal closing" involves an end to debate and an administrative decision such as what happens with WP:AFD, WP:CFD and WP:RM. Those all involve a voting process. I have used the {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} method in the past on MOS pages where things have run their course. Basically it tells latecomers not to bother adding comments or rebutting others, we have moved on. I am suggesting that a third party be contacted regarding the unresolved question about the content of MOS before unlock, so asking that question at WP:AN can't hurt. I may be unavailable after posting this message but will check back here in a few hours. Sswonk (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, yes, it does do something other than archive the thread. I certainly do not support any measure that tells newcomers that their contributions are not wanted. Is there a note we could post telling them to put their concerns in a new section so that the old one may time out into the archive? Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, place the {{Archive top}} tag beneath the headline "Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside" and place {{Archive bottom}} tag after the last comment of the entire section, currently your response to Finell. Then, below the {{Archive bottom}}, put the message you want to convey in a way similar to: Further comments: The section above has been archived, please create a new topic for any concerns about this subject or the discussion itself. (your signature) . This will end the discussion originated by Mchavez but make very clear that anyone who wants to comment about the guideline, the archived discussion or the disposition of the disputed tag on the MOS page can simply create a new thread. You can do this now and post a request for help about the version and tagging of the main project page LQ section, I suggest asking an admin or using the WP:Third opinion process. I hope that helps. Sswonk (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This addresses my concerns about archiving the page. Still not sure what you want from a third opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it isn't anything I want, rather a way for you and Finell to discuss disagreement over your idea of a tag like "Caution: Dangerous waters! Consider discussing even small changes to this section before editing." It might be best to simply run that question by an administrator that you have dealt with before, or ask Finell if he wants to take it to WP:3O. I only suggested that because it seemed that was where you were stuck regarding what happens once the page is unlocked. Rootology (talk · contribs · logs) locked the page but has announced his retirement, maybe you can approach one of the admins from page history that has edited MOS since the lock with questions you have. Sswonk (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But we're not talking about unlocking the page; we're talking about closing the discussion. The page was not locked because of this discussion; it was locked because of an edit war. The two things are not directly connected.

As for stuck, I don't know that we're stuck. Finell has shown himself more than capable of behaving reasonably when dealt with reasonably. He probably just needs to take a closer look at the proposal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(SIIIIIIIIIGH) See, Sswonk? this is why I didn't want to be the one to do this! I would have much preferred to just put the discussion in the archives like Jimp did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Totally not a big deal, either way would have worked. Doing it as you did gives people a day or two to see that the discussion was closed. I've seen it done both ways, and sometimes the process of removing it as was done by Jimp in that diff is controversial. Looked at another way, closing a discussion but keeping it visible gives new folks a heads up that the issue was addressed previously. If you look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)/Archive_3, I surrounded the discussion with archive tags on August 30 2008 and it stayed that way until someone moved it to Archive_3 nearly 11 months later (see the Archive_3 history). By the way, I ended up wishing I had never started that thread. No harm was done here, so now you know that you could have done what Jimp did. It is up to you to decide if that method will be controversial, I just suggested the less controversial of the two. I think in this case the huge size of the section was a motivating factor, removing it helped clear space for other discussions on that very active page. Absolutely nothing to worry about, Jimp finished a job you started and you can relax. Sswonk (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, would you be so kind as to tell me how Jimp did it? I checked the page history and couldn't see any indicators. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimp checked the number of the last archive, Archive_110 and then started a new page, "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive_111" possibly simply by adding "/Archive_111" to the end of the URL and then clicking the link that appears on the subsequent message page. Click this: [2] to see what I mean. Then, Jimp simply opened the old section you tagged and cut- pasted it to the new page he started and saved both pages. The title needs to be exactly as shown i.e. uppercase "A" Archive followed by underscore and the new archive number to maintain consistency and also because archiving bots look for/create pages with that specific title style, see User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo for further details. Jimp knew the way to do it properly so it wouldn't upset the sequence, another reason you can relax. Sswonk (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog. Can we remove the dispute tag? Or are you still toying with the notion of inventing a new tag? --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The dispute has run its course, so it is appropriate to remove the tag. I was not talking about inventing a new tag. I was asking if one already existed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is {{Calm talk}}, but I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for something that would reduce the chances of another big fight. The best way to do that is to prevent users from going, "Hey, this comma policy is wrong! I'd better fix it" without giving other people a chance to let them know what's going on. It seems that the best way to do that would be to ask users to consider going to the talk page before making even small edits. {{Calm talk}} certainly applies to this case as well. Thank you for showing it to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Waaiiiit a second, is this thing designed for talk pages? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, but maybe it can be adapted. All of these templates only exist because someone needed one that didn't exist. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this, then? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions, Andy. I do like learning new things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Film series numbering controversy

You may like to comment here: Talk:Film_series#Requested_move - Robsinden (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Possessives frazzle

Hi Darkfrog. Noetica is being a cranky old man. You can safely ignore his grumpiness, which is less than skin-deep, I think. I've started a new section where people can try to sort out the text amicably. Can we try to harmonise/compromise/whatever on this matter? It's here. Tony (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not taking Noetica personally. I don't think he noticed that I was agreeing with his general point, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Okay, fair enough, will do. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Amongst

I interpret this as your desire to take out that "controversial vocabulary" section in its entirety. That would be my second choice. If this is what you really want please spell out the proposal in a separate subsection, so we have some clear options to !vote on (first/second/... choice ArbComy style). The current mode of threaded discussion does not look like will lead to any obvious consensus. Thanks, Pcap ping 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Actually voting on your proposal there. I agree that our disorganized discussions are not as effective as they could be, but that, too, is a separate issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#WP:Logical quotation

Hey, Darkfrog. Would you not mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. You might want to heads-up Finell or Pi Zero to make sure that the other side is represented. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you still feel that I should? Or just leave the discussion where it is? Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and alerted Finell. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Better Finell than one of the crazy ones, right? Finell at least knows how to be civil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation

Hi, Darkfrog. Regarding what you said here: if I were the slightest bit optimistic, I'd say the discussion really should be at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. I've finally come to terms—for the most part—with punctuating the WP way, but I'm bothered by the inconsistency of it: if periods or commas are to be placed after the quotation marks (aka inverted commas), then shouldn't those quotation marks be single ones, not double? (Sorry for butting into a discussion about an article I've never even read, btw.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not butting in; you're asking a question. The issue of single vs. double quotation marks on Wikipedia is separate from the American vs. British/"logical" punctuation matter. Unlike with banning American punctuation, there was a logical reason for adopting double quotation marks. I'm told that single quotation marks mess with search features. That being the case, the moment the technology advances to the point at which it is no longer an issue—as is the case with some newer web browsers—then the ban should be lifted and articles written in British English should be permitted to use single or double quotation marks, so long as they are consistent. (Because American English does not consider single marks to be correct, they should not be permitted in articles written in American English.)

As to whether the discussion should take place on a user page, article discussion page or WT: MoS, the answer is that if it is about what to write in one specific article, then it should be on that article's talk page. If it is about the rule itself, then it should be on WT: MoS. In my opinion, there should be discussions on both WT: MoS (and there is) and on the tea ceremony article discussion page—the people who are working on that article may have opinions on the matter. If the discussion takes place on a user's page, then that user could be accused, inaccurately, of making controversial edits without discussing them first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting about the technical reason for the double quotation marks. I hadn't heard that before, so thanks.

Concerning the larger topic of WP punctuation, there's yet another potentially relevant issue, this one having to do with on-screen typography: in some instances, at least, some think that readability is enhanced when the period or comma (especially the latter) comes after the quotation marks when rendered in a sans-serif font:

"holistic", "simulated", and "endearing".

looks neater than

"holistic," "simulated," and "endearing."

perhaps because of the way the characters are kerned. If you try that off-wiki in a serif font, the opposite is true, especially when it's printed out.

You're quite right about the proper venues for discussions. I have no stake or particular interest in the article in question but am always intrigued when matters of punctuation arise around here. Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look neater. The British punctuation actually looks quite sloppy. The aesthetic aspect is probably an eye-of-the-beholder matter. Wikipedia should do what is correct rather than what some people think looks better. Some people might think that spelling "harbor" as "harbour" looks funny, but if it's a British English article, then that's the way to do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)None of this matters. The MoS does not call for logical quotation because it "looks better" (a subjective artsy-fartsy notion of no relevance here); nor because it is "more intuitive" (which it almost certainly is for a majority of people, but this too is subjective, and people with a really, really deep-seated preference for the largely American typesetter's quotation style find that more intuitive, as someone keeps browbeating into us as if we didn't already understand this, several years ago; nor because it is "simpler" or "easier" (typing ". when warranted is no in any way less or more complicated that ."; actually the decision is less simple, because in logical quotation the punctuation is placed inside or outside for a reason that requires thinking – because it actually belongs there – not always inside regardless of what the results of doing that might be). We use logical quotation here for a simple, singular, factual, objective reason: It preserves quotations intact, without falsely inserting punctuation into them that wasn't there in the original (or leaving the reader to wonder whether this has been done). Please, all of you, stop mischaracterizing the nature of the debate. The reason for the choice is grounded in WP:V and WP:NOR. Going with typesetters' quotation (there is no "American" or "British" quotation as has already been proven in these recurring debates - there are US publications that use logical quotation and UK ones that use typesetter's) has no basis but subjective WP:ILIKEIT notions as bases. Being used to something does not make it "better" or "right", nor "appropriate for this encyclopedia". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that what looks better should not be high on our list of considerations. It's an eye of the beholder thing.

While there are U.S. publications that use British or LQ and there are British publications that use American punctuation or LQ, this doesn't mean that the American style isn't American and the British style isn't British. If a town in New Jersey has the word "TOWN CENTRE" spelled out on its sign, that doesn't make the town British. It just means that the signmakers decided to use a British form.

If the piece of writing is in American English, then no, the comma does not belong inside the quotation marks. I realize that a lot of people on Wikipedia just don't like that, but that isn't a good enough reason to ban a long-standing punctuation practice.

I realize that you prefer LQ and that there is a Wikipedia consensus to prefer LQ, but the FAQ should not make false claims about what the different styles actually do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, you seem to have violated 3RR on that page. Would you mind reverting yourself, please? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For now, if you like. I found a new source. The 15th edition of the Chicago MoS, as you stipulated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting yourself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. However, when the issue is the source and not the wording, I do not believe that finding a new source constitutes 3RR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You've been continually undoing my edits. Any revert, in whole or in part, for whatever reason (apart from vandalism and BLP) counts toward 3RR. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And you've been undoing mine. We've also been talking it out on the WT like reasonable people.

Do you honestly believe that it isn't American or is this just a super-tough way of seeing that the fact of its being so is less assailable? On the flip side, the British system has its origins in Britain and is used by the overwhelming number of British writers. Calling it "British" seems like a given. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to restore the edits I made this evening, and have been expanding and adding sources, or trying to -- and you've been reverting me. I don't believe it is American, no. It is used by British journalists and British novelists and fiction writers which, let's face it, is jointly most of what most people read. I'm British and British-educated, school and university, and I've always used it. I don't even know how to use logical punctuation. You seem to be the only one who wants to create a rigid nationalist distinction, and I can't see what purpose it serves.

Also, I have to say it's not good form to be making so many edits to the MoS talk page (you're the 4th biggest contributor with 845 edits since just May last year) and yet not to have read the key style books. That's bound to cause confusion. This is why I'd like us all (me too) to start making source-based edits only, and only to use the terms that the sources themselves mostly use. That way, the MoS talk page will be less confusing for its readers, now and in the future. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not creating the distinction between British and American practices. It was there before I was even born. The Chicago MoS and dozens of lesser guides call them "American" and "British." I realize that WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, but the spirit's the same. The article should at least include the names that people actually use for this stuff.

I said that I didn't have the book in front of me, Slim. Don't assume more than that.

I do think that making source-based edits to the MoS would improve things. However, abbreviations are appropriate for the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they mostly don't call them British and American. They note that sometimes others do. Anyway, look, the point is you're causing tremendous confusion, making up terms, making up differences between styles that don't exist. Please go to a library and borrow the books. Or go to Amazon where it's sometimes possible to search them. They all say more or less the same thing. Any differences are the normal differences you find between style guides; they don't signal that different systems are being used. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim, if one system is American, even in general, and the other is British, even in general, then how am I "making things up" by saying so? You ought to be saying that Chicago was making things up. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are saying there are three styles: LQ, BQ, and traditional. There are not. There is logical punctuation, used in the UK (at least); and there is traditional punctuation, used in the UK, the U.S., and Canada (at least). SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No that is not what I am saying.

There is an American punctuation style (puts periods and commas inside the quotation marks most of the time). There is a British punctuation style (puts them inside or outside depending on where they apply). There may also be a third style, called "logical quotation," which treats text like collections of literal strings. I originally thought that British and "logical" were two different names for the same system. But then I hit the MoS talk page and got "No no no. It's not the same. It's not the same! Also, American punctuation is stupid and bad." So I looked around at this source and that source and I dug and dug and dug and found British English guides tended to tell people to put colons and semicolons outside quotation marks, which Wikipedia's WP:LQ did not. They acknowledged words-as-words and short-form work titles as places where the punctuation belonged outside, which WP:LQ did not. I found a page or two in which computer programmers talked about literal strings and their frustration with American standard punctuation. All this together led me to believe that yes, however vehemently anti-American-punctuation the people who'd first told me about it had been, their assertion that LQ and British standard forms were two different systems did seem to be correct.

However, your recent comments on the MoS talk page got me thinking that I should reevaluate that conclusion, that perhaps the differences between WP:LQ and British style guides were the result of oversimplification rather than actual differences in practice.

What seems to be the case to me now is that "logical punctuation" and "typographic punctuation" are "the act of placing periods and commas according to their original position in the source" and "the act of placing periods and commas inside" and that British style and American style are two sets of instructions that tend to include these actions. Because American English standards make exceptions for web entries, etc., they are not exactly the same as TP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion

I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse article

I understand your addition. I believe the original addition was trying to say it is all still sex. For example, the terms "anal sex" and "oral sex" still have the word "sex" in them (whether some people consider them to be sexual intercourse or not). I know people (heterosexual and homosexual) who don't consider those two acts to be sexual intercourse but they still consider them "sex." The original entry was trying to say that the term "sex," in the context of sexual intimacy, does not always mean the same thing as the term sexual intercourse in its usual sense. Either way, I get your addition, since plenty of people would say neither is "real sex". I tweaked it, though. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What that section ought to say is that that specific expert considers "sex" to mean any kind of sexual contact, in her case both intercourse and outercourse, because that is all that the source says. I find that it looks neater and clearer now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mind weighing in on this discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked it over when you first showed it to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured. But what about the recent discussion regarding the Gender article (that I brought up above)? I am sure that Masculinity will have something to say about my reverting him. Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

...are you sure you lined to the right conversation? Your most recent link points to the "Mating" discussion on the "Sexual intercourse" discussion page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Look above, in the Change in lead of the Gender article, and a note about the Biology of gender article section. I addressed a new topic about the lead of the Gender article there. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any such discussion on that page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean above on your talk page (that section is above on your talk page). Why would it be on the Sexual intercourse talk page, LOL? Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that is the link you gave me: "Mind weighing in on this discussion?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I also looked over the gender article a while ago, thinking that you'd meant to send me there. I didn't find anything wrong. I see now that that was because you'd already reverted Masculinity's edits. I agree that these changes were some serious OR, but it's been two weeks and not a peep from him. It looks okay.

If he does it again, you might want to say "removing unsourced material" rather than "returning to consensus version." Editors are allowed to do things that violate consensus so long as they don't edit war. That's how we get a new consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Darkfrog. I was talking about this message, above on your talk page (in the section I was talking about). I sent you that message only a week ago. As for the consensus version issue, I stated what most Wikipedia editors state in their edit summaries when a consensus version is drastically changed. I was basically saying that there is a consensus version, and drastic changes going against it should be discussed first. Either way, I appreciate your help. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understood what you meant, but someone else who had it in for you could have used it against you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Does that message give off any kind of hate vibe? Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing like that. No hate vibe, but then there doesn't need to be one, does there? Look, Masculinity doesn't seem to have come back to gender (an interesting sentence if taken out of context), so I'll take a peek at his (I assume) user history, but right now, things seem stable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Change in lead of the Gender article, and a note about the Biology of gender article

With my change in the lead, I hope that you are pleased with it. When noting "biological and behavioral differences," though, I was unsure of whether to link to Biology of gender or Sexual dimorphism. I mean, the Biology of gender article focuses on humans...and the Sexual dimorphism article focuses more on the form/shape of different species than psychological/social behavior of different sexes. I, as the article currently shows, though, went with linking to Biology of gender. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

...can't we link to both? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I also thought about doing both, but that would separate "biological and behavioral differences" from being one link. The problem I have with that? Well, besides no longer having just one (and simple) link, with the Biology of gender article being pipe-linked as "biological" and the Sexual dimorphism article pipe-linked as "behavior," not only does it look like we are simply linking to the Biology and Behavior articles...but the Sexual dimprphism article does not significantly focus on behavior (as I stated before, it is more about the form/shape). If you mean some other way of doing it, then I am open to that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. I think I've fixed it just now. Take a look. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Weirdest thing. The italics won't take. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Your new lead is fine. Though I might tweak it further. I still feel that we should start off naming that it has a range of definitions first, though. If we do, we could also mention the word genetics in addition to biology. Also, the reason I started off using the World Health Organization (WHO) reference after specifying that the term has a range of definitions is due to WHO being seen as an authorative source, and I have seen many editors here at Wikipedia state that authorative sources should go first. But I am fine with leaving the WHO mention where you put it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

All other things being equal, yes, but we should probably introduce the idea that the word has many definitions and then mention sociology. Otherwise it looks like the WHO's definition is unique rather than shared among the social sciences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By noting that the term has a range of definitions first, I was thinking more of specifying the different ranges right off the bat and then transitioning from that into naming what these ranges are more than I was thinking about being fair (which is what I did). But your changing it to "commonly refers" covers the equal bit, I feel. I mean, the use of "gender" as "the set of characteristics that humans perceive as distinguishing between male and female entities, extending from one's biological sex to, in humans, one's social role or gender identity" is the common usage. I used the common (and traditional) usage of "sexual intercourse" first with the Sexual intercourse article. But do you feel that the paragraph about scientific research should stay last? It might be better placed in the middle. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it has been great working with you on this. I like this new lead better than the one that was there before I started working on it today, that's for sure. Good job. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I separated out the biological paragraph because it deals with the concept of gender rather than the definitions of the term. A fine distinction, I'll grant. I think it does well last, but it could go elsewhere if we reorganize. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are not already aware of the new changes in the lead, you may want to participate in this discussion on my talk page: User talk:Flyer22#Gender. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Darkfrog, I am going to need your help in this discussion regarding the lead. This recent editor to drastically change the lead (Masculinity), though I reverted, can be difficult to work with, and is especially hostile towards what he considers "Western definitions" of things. I would greatly appreciate you weighing in on this discussion when you can. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you watch the the Gender article anymore, and I can understand if you're tired of me bothering you about it, but you're the only other main contributor of that article right now (especially its lead). The lead was drastically changed again (before my revert), by someone else, and I am pretty sure that I am going to need your help keeping it tidy for as long as we are both here at Wikipedia. But if you would rather not deal with it any longer, I understand. Just saying that I still need your help in watching it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you think the Biology of gender and Genetics of gender articles should be merged? Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

1. You are not bothering me. However, I am worried about you getting in trouble for canvassing. I'm not really sure whether you're supposed to be going to userpages and asking for this kind of help. 2. I check in on gender from time to time but not every day or anything. 3. I do not at present have an opinion on whether those two articles should be merged. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I've read the WP:CANVASSING page plenty of times; this is not the type of thing that would get me in trouble. You already watch the article, and contributed heavily to the design of its lead; it is only natural that I ask you for your thoughts on changes to it and help with it. And, as you know, I only asked one editor (MishMich) to help me watch it. With you, it is just a matter of still needing your help watching it. Either way, the matter about the lead currently seems under control. The most recent editor to drastically change the lead (Facts707) has addressed my concerns (on my talk page), and is conversing with me about what changes he or she wants made to it and the article as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

One of your edits to the Gender article's lead is currently being contested on the talk page. Just giving you a heads up. Flyer22 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Chaz Bono article

Just letting you know that the pronoun game regarding this article is still being played. It may need to be semi-protected for some time. Flyer22 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh) Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My most recent comment on your talk page, up until now, was above (in the section about the lead of the Gender article), but I'm sorry to have bothered you. I only felt that you should be alerted...since it is about one of your additions. I will not bother you again about that article. Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your OR claim at gender

Acquaint yourself with the linguistic meaning of the word before claiming WP:OR: Corruption_(linguistics). Tijfo098 (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you meant to write that "bastardization" is from the prescriptivist POV. I've linked to semantic change instead, although in this case bastardization seemed a better choice because the departure is eminently from a prescribed meaning. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

bastardize: To lower in condition or worth, debase.

I am actually a fan of prescriptivism, but the term "bastardization" strongly implies that the change is bad, and such an assertion does not belong in that article unless it is given as the opinion of an expert, obtained from a reliable source. "University of Someplace linguist Dr. Experty Credible considers this to be a bastardization of the word's meaning," etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Manual of style register listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Manual of style register. Since you had some involvement with the Manual of style register redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 05:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Mugging" other languages

Your comment "English is the one that drags other languages into the alley, beats them up and then goes through their pockets for spare vocabulary" brought a chorus of laughter into our household and I have been directed to send it to literate members everywhere. Too bad there's not a "comment of the Month/Year" or whatever in Wikipedia. This would make the top of the charts! :) Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't come up with it myself, though. It was on a t-shirt or something. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Let us eat cheeses" and all that jazz

I had a feeling there was a Shakespeare influence to that. Indeed, I'd expect nothing less from thou. oknazevad (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Think about this

Just step back and think about this comment of yours, in its context, after what I had said and others before me had said:

So you made a post saying, "I'm not making a post." It seems there might have been an easier way to do that.

Now think. Think for sixty seconds. Put yourself in my situation, right there. Imagine what preceded that situation for me, at WT:MOS and elsewhere. Now ask yourself: was that comment likely to contribute to a solution, or to a problem?

I don't want to see your answer. Frankly, I don't care what your answer might be. Even more frankly, I have no interest in talking to you at all. I just want that sixty seconds of your time. Then nothing more.

Noetica^Tea? 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you had no interest in talking to me, you wouldn't have made this post. Just like if you had no interest in continuing the conversation on WT:MoS, you wouldn't have contributed to it. Noetica, you are in no position to criticize people for making posts that "don't help." As for what preceded that comment, it was me pointing out that you were the one who'd brought a source into the discussion and saying that you and PMA could keep talking all you wanted even if the rest of us were done. Your position was being defended by me.

If you don't want to continue a conversation, then just stop and don't make a show of it. You are a drama queen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes

Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC on a subpage structure for the Manual of Style

Hi Darkfrog.

As someone who contributed to discussion when the issue was raised a little while ago, you may like to have your say in the current RFC on subpages, at WT:MOS.

Noetica^Tea? 05:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Been keeping loose tabs on it, actually. It seems six to one half a dozen to the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Voice of moderation

Then feel free to be the voice of moderation. What I should like to do is to leave the page in the hands of the neutrals in the late poll - and remove the bloviators. I don't expect to get what I claim; but it should offer room for others to speak up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Femininity article

Hi. As someone who commented in the RfC, will you help out a little bit more with this article? There is still a lot of POV-pushing going on, as seen at Talk:Femininity#Accusations of POV Pushing. 178.33.105.220 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Answer

In answer to your prematurely archived question (I hate that overaggressive WT:MOS archivebot), the misquotation consisted of the truncation of my comments, terminated in a typesetters'-quoted period that implied that my statement had been a complete sentence. I almost lost my job over the issue, actually. This is relevant here, because it is extremely common for quotations in Wikipedia articles to be truncated in just such a manner. PS: While I can surely agree that "typesetters' quotation" and "logical quotation" are not the only possible names for these types of punctuation, I can't "extend the courtesy" that "American" and "British" are valid names, since they are inaccurate and misleading. That some people use them is of no consequence. A lot of people around here use the term "horny toad" to refer to the horned lizards common in the region. They're not toads, and herpetologists use the accurate name, as encyclopedists should use accurate terms for style matters, not emotive ones that unnecessarily charge the issue as a trans-Atlantic fight of some kind, which it is not. (If we were going to go there, the British would have a bigger bone to pick, e.g. with our use of double quotation marks, the US definition of "billion", etc., etc., etc.) It's about encyclopedic vs. journalistic style, and some level of consistency. (See my most recent comments at WT:MOS for another enc. vs. journo. issue). It's not something personal against you. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 16:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So you said something like, "It's Adam's fault in one respect." The newspaper wrote the equivalent of "It's Adam's fault [period]" and you believe that the newspaper would not have been misquoting you if it had written "It's Adam's fault"[period]. I believe that both are misrepresentations of what you said and that both would have made your bosses mad at you. Think of it this way, if a wikieditor posted something like "It's Adam's fault"[period] in an article, wouldn't you amend or revert it as inaccurate?

You think that the terms "British" and "American" are inaccurate. Show me sources, as I have shown you sources. British punctuation is used by the majority of British writers and endorsed by the majority of British style guides, so calling it "British" isn't inaccurate. The same goes for American style. I was able to find sources supporting this in a ten-minute Google search. If you cannot find any sources saying that you are right, then please accept the possibility that you aren't.

From what I've been able to tell, you and many others just like British style and just don't like American style, so you've convinced yourselves that British provides advantages that it does not really provide and that American creates problems that it does not really create. If you really liked logic as much as you claim to, you would accept that the most logical way to write is the way that will be understood and appreciated by one's readers. In that respect, there's not much difference between American and British punctuation.

It's my understanding that non-Oxford British style prefers double quotation marks. By the way, I would support making double vs. single dependent on ENGVAR if someone can show me that the CTRL-F problem has been resolved.

As long as Wikipedia permits multiple varieties of English, then the differences between those varieties are relevant to the MoS. I call them American and British because that's what they are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about this thread, but am too stressed out to give you the owed reply right now. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at User:SMcCandlish's talk page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Online resources about writing and speaking

Editors can use this link to find online resources about writing and speaking.

• Writing and Speaking | FindHow.com.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did you post this here, Wavelength? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that you, as an editor interested in writing style, would find it to be an interesting and useful reference.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am and it is, but it was odd to see it here out of the blue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion or misunderstanding. There was nothing in particular that motivated me to post it, except that I decided to let other editors know about that link.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead of Gender article yet again

I don't remember if I stated that I would not bother you again about the Gender article or the Chaz Bono article (I can't remember which one it is). But I decided to go ahead and give you a heads up about the recent discussion I started on the Gender talk page about the lead of that article. See this link for my reasons. I know that you object to downplaying biological/genetic influences that may play a part in forming one's gender identity, so yeah. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkfrog24. You have new messages at Talk:World_of_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire.
Message added 08:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yoenit (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Article titles/Category naming

I noticed your comments in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Edit summaries, and you seem to be saying that edits should be regarded on their own merit, even if they don't have an edit summary — that knee-jerk reversion of edits solely because they don't have an edit summary is not a good idea. Thanks.

I'm trying to help new editors choose appropriate article titles, ensure that article titles and category titles are reasonably consistent, and suggest that they do adequate research before large-scale renaming of articles. With that in mind, I made edits to Wikipedia:Article_titles and Wikipedia:Categorization/Naming to make this clearer. However User:Dicklyon immediately reverted my edits, essentially because there was no edit summary and no extensive prior discussion on the talk page. After I rephrased the change to Wikipedia:Article_titles, to make it clear that it was logically connecting the first section to the second section, he again reverted it. I explained the two separate points that I was trying to get across in two sections on the talk page and he combined them into one section. He does not see to understand the point about researching categories, as he himself admits, and is continuing to obstruct any editing for clarity. I'd appreciate your comments on the Talk page. LittleBen (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article naming has to do with the issue of revert-for-sole-reason-of-summary but I'll have a look.

After a very cursory look at the discussions you started on those two talk pages, I'm having trouble telling exactly what your position is. It is entirely possible that Dicklyon is not willfully misunderstanding you. I recommend restarting your discussion with an "I believe that this article should read X. This would improve it in way Y" rather than "I made a change that I think was good but it was reverted." The fewer clicks people have to make to find your point, the better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

TIA. One of my edits was about logically linking the contents of one section with the next. Quoting my addition to Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title, to explain the criteria for Recognizability:

Where there are several possible alternatives, search engines can be used to research which is most frequently used, as discussed in the section below.

The other edit was to expand on the Consistency criteria in the same section: It seems that most editors do not search existing Category names before naming or renaming Articles — most probably because it's not clear how to do this. I was attempting to emphasize that consistency between Article and Category names is generally a good thing, and link to a description of how to search existing Category names. LittleBen (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you have time to also look at the comments here. LittleBen (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: I've spent quite a bit of time improving articles. The Responsive Web Design article was deleted soon after somebody created it, and I had it undeleted and have improved it such that it has gone from under 100 daily pageviews in January, when it was created and promptly deleted, to peaks of nearly 1800 daily pageviews now. For an article of 5,758 bytes, 66,327 pageviews in the past 60 days puts it on a par with the most popular articles on Wikipedia:Short popular vital articles. LittleBen (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles

Hello, Darkfrog24, your vote would be appreciated. Rothorpe (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)---Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

MoS RfC

Hi Darkfrog, Noetica is saying that you also opposed Nathan's closure. Did you? He is using your support to justify his actions, and seems to be saying that we have to start from scratch with an entirely new RfC. Can you clarify whether you still oppose Nathan's closure, and if so why? It is being discussed in this section. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it wasn't an objection to Nathan so much as to the RfC being closed by anyone. It's my understanding that closing an RfC removes the tag that invites new participants, and the discussion was not over. Frankly, although more than half of the people indicate that we should reinsert the contested wording, I'm not sure if that's what's meant by "consensus." Now if we could make it a little clearer that most of the evidence shows that reinserting the wording would be a good thing...

I also told Noetica that he seems to be overestimating the amount of order required in an RfC. I've known some people in my time who thought that nothing was done right unless it was done exactly to their personal preferences. I don't know how people get that way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The bot removes the tag automatically after 30 days; if you want the RfC to continue beyond that (which is unusual), you can change the date that the RfC was launched. Closing the RfC is a separate issue: that is where an uninvolved editor sums up consensus, or (where consensus is very clear and there are no objections) the person who initiates the RfC can do it.

The last comment from a new person was on September 17, so there was no reason to keep it open beyond the 33 days on October 4. People can continue to discuss, but the point of the closure was to address the question: "is there consensus to restore those words?"

As for Noetica's claims, I don't even understand what he's saying. Everything is wikilawyered to death, a pointless waste of time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the whole discussion rather than just the section covered by the tag. As for that discussion, I'd started a new section summing up the evidence on either side, and I'd gotten a response from Mikorado (one of only four editors who even tried to offer evidence; sad). I still have some hope that we might resolve something, but yes, this is WT:MoS and I'm taking said hope with salt.

Noetica loves the sound of his own voice and has been doing the twist with other people's words so hard that he should win a dance competition. Listen to people like Mikorado and Neotarf if you want to see lucid opposition.

Slim, we're in agreement about what the wording of the MoS ought to be, but I've said it to people on the other side of the aisle and it's still true: If you're tired, you can take a break or stop, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to.

Full disclosure? I thought that closing the RfC meant ceasing to request new comments, not that consensus would be declared by an outside party (in our favor). I might have still supported opposing said closure if I had known, but then again I might not have. After all, I'm not 100% that a majority vote is enough to declare consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup

I've been having a rough night computer wise, and I believe there was an edit conflict where I probably did accidentally delete that comment, especially because when I added something it said that the page lost five hundred five characters. Before I could address that, I had to go cleanup another mess that my lousy internet connection started tonight and then I forgot about the ANI page until I saw your edit summary. Long story short, tonight has not been my best night for quality contribution and thanks for assuming good faith and restoring the comment. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's cool. It happens. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, I made a mistake?

I never reverted a thing there; all I did was hat stuff; first the main discussion, and in the latest edit, the recriminations at the top. All the back and forth changes reflecting the status of who closed the RFC and why were done by others. Churn and change (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you exactly what I meant by "just made a mistake." I meant "didn't mean to claim that RegentsPark endorsed Kwami rather than Nathan." I was trying to keep anyone from accusing anyone else of bad faith. I thought that the ACTION: NO CONSENSUS tag at the top was an oversight rather than a claim. So you're saying that the hatting process attached itself to Kwami's statements rather than Nathan's automatically? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Noetica had already reverted, and Kwami's statement was at the top then. I didn't endorse anything, I hatted some stuff which had nothing to do with either Kwami or Nathan. You seem to have missed this revert by Noetica: 01:40, October 14, 2012‎ Noetica (talk | contribs)‎ . . (395,845 bytes) (-953)‎ . . (Again revert "re-closure" of a RFC (corrupt from the start) that was ended (delisted by the bot), then "closed", then "re-opened"(?), then further discussed, then "closed' after substantial new input that was ignored in the last unadvertised "closure")

The only edit after that I did had this edit summary: "‎RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles: Hatting the recriminations at the top; start with RFC statement; This is not an endorsement of any version of this thread, including the latest; it is just a technical edit." It didn't change anything, just hatted some stuff which remains hatted to this minute. Churn and change (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So no, you weren't trying to make it look like RegentsPark had endorsed Kwami instead of Nathan. You were not trying to trick, deceive or act sneaky in any way. It was just a mistake.

I raised the issue of what the hatting text should say on the talk page. I feel that because RegentsPark restored Nathan's closure, it is Nathan's words, not Kwami's, that should appear at the top of the hatted section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we are both using "hatting" to mean different things. By "hatting" I mean the hidden text in green with extended content with them. You can see two such, both are my edits, and they are still there. By "Rfc hatting" you mean the summary text at the top right, and I never changed that part; others did all the back-and-forth reverts. Churn and change (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. The greenification did show up before the edit that you made. For some reason, it looked like it was your doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Darkfrog, in connection with the discussion here please see this section at WP:ANI.
Best wishes,
Noetica^Tea? 07:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on that page on my own, Noetica, and I have been posting there about events on WT:MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#White Privilege". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Darkfrog, thank you for your support and !vote at my RfA. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, but not everyone who opposes your adminiship is what I would call non-collegial. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise, Darkfrog. It's been a while, but I hope to work with you again in the near future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Fingers crossed that all goes well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the RfA did not conclude with the hoped-for result, but I am very grateful for your late-breaking support, Darkfrog. I look forward to working with you again on topics of mutual interest. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And don't worry. This isn't the end. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York

The move discussion at Talk:Theater District, New York was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The unit of consistency on Wikipedia is not the Wikiproject; it is the article.

The article "New York Theater District" isn't written for theater/-re professionals. It's written for general audiences. General English rules should apply.

What you're really saying is that most Wikieditors just happen to like "theatre" more than "theater." But Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about what editors happen to prefer; it's about the sources, and the sources prefer "New York Theater District" more than 2:1. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

While it appears we are not going to agree on a number of issues and I still think you are edit warring (this is not something I like to report, and have no intention of doing) I would like to thank you for the civil back and forth and the RFC. This cannot be between just the two of us...however if no one does make comment or input (something I have seen before) I believe our next step would be a DR/N. However as I am a regular vlunteer there that would not be something I would eb comfortable oing and would have to recuse my self. I thought about participating the other day if it showed up, but I am not willing to create the perception of any conflict of interest. I am stepping away from the discussion for a period to allow other input. I will return to the debate in the near future.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Whatever else can be said, the article is better sourced and more informative now than before you and I started changing it. That's not edit warring. That's Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I would hope someone who has been with Wikipedia as long as you have would be aware that edit warring could be a single edit. I am not sure that the section is exactly better but it has been worked on.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that someone who's been with Wikipedia as long as you can read policies before citing them. WP:V for one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving other editor's comments

Per WP:TPO: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page..--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Moving your comments did not change their meaning. They don't belong in the RfC section, so I moved them. Also, while you were reverting my entirely justified move, you deleted my comments. You have no business on that horse. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologise, but then you should not be attempting to control the discussion and you do not get to alter the meaning of my posts by moving them from the area the reply to. If i did accidently delete your comment with that revert it was not my intention, but you could well be accused of setting that up by moving and commenting at the same time. Please be more careful with such editing in the future.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Then it is fortunate that moving your posts to an appropriate place does not alter their meaning. They were moved intact and unaltered from an RfC section to a non-RfC section. Read WP:TPO again. It is even permitted to move irrelevant posts from one talk page to another. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Resolution copied from page in question: Duke it out on your talk pages. ANI is not a first resort for every tiny bit of wikidrama someone invents on a given day. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You are engaged in an edit war and have passed the 3 Revert Rule. Edit warring is a serious issue and may end in a block. Please do not edit war.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I went to the RfC talk page and asked what previous version of the page should count as the original. The idea that a no-consensus RfC means that the page goes back to your preferred version is no less preposterous than the idea that it should go back to mine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nickname, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 18:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked the link before adding it. I knew it was a disambiguation page. It was entirely intentional. Wikipedia does not have a page on "dork" as in socially inept person, but the disambiguation page does briefly mention its meaning before proceeding to the disambiguation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sex and gender distinction may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your helpful "WP:LQ" warning

How right you are and thanks so much for the note. I've gotten complete wind of this actually. Complete wind of it. It's clear you are well-informed as of relates to the contributors pushing WP:LQ. Honestly though, I kind of sensed everything you were saying even before your note. The difficult behavior, the incivility, the unreason, I totally sensed that the moment the Doniago user and Fantr started squawking about the policy needing to be followed. It seems to spark a domino effect of incivility and obnoxiousness to the point I just feel better off staying off the website altogether. Anyways, I'll only challenge it if I have the help of you though. You just know how certain users like WP:LQ pushers will take every opportunity from which to recruit their numbers and gang attack. If you go through with challenging it, I'll be there to back up. Just send me a note. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we're making at least some progress. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? What looks like that? Heh. Hope springs eternal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog, can this source be used or no on the talk page or no? [3]:

Rule 1

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.

Examples:

The sign changed from "Walk," to "Don't Walk," to "Walk" again within 30 seconds.

She said, "Hurry up."

She said, "He said, 'Hurry up.'" AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This source is The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation. It was written by an American English teacher rather than a grammar/language expert or team of experts. I'd put this as less important than a big-time style guide but more important than a blog, so put it at the bottom of the list for now. Remember: It's fair game for someone to challenge it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened to this discussion on the MOS talk page? I was hoping for change on this policy. Sweetmoniker (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It timed out. They do that. Someone else came in and challenged the rule again today, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC re MOS quotation punctuation practices

Greetings, Darkfrog. As you already know, in order to clarify the meaning of RfC Option C per the request of several editors, the Option C description has been revised at the request of several editors. Because you have already !voted before this clarification, I ask that you confirm your previous !vote to address the concerns raised by Sroc on the MOS talk page. If you confirm your !vote (as I assume you will), please leave a comment here or on the MOS talk page to that effect.

On a happier note, I am pleased with the coalescing of support around the Option B "flexibility" approach. Like you, it was not my first choice, but it is certainly an improvement and will lead to the majority of articles written in American and Canadian English using American style quotation punctuation. At the end of the day, it is a compromise with which I can live. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Already done, DL, already done.

Yes, I agree. This isn't the best solution, but it's one that most parties should be able to live with. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my words "just plain wrong" -- and I mean intrinsically wrong. If you refer to an album like "The Beatles", a comma has no place being put before those close-quotes. You wouldn't put close-brackets there, so don't put a spurious comma there. Oh, I'm fully aware that American practice is still a slave to the past, and the dead hand of dead style guides that nobody dares change. But it's still wrong -- the message just hasn't reached the dinosaur's brain yet. Well I am glad WP is standing up for common sense and putting a crack in this dam, a progressive step forward to challenging and ending this abomination. Kill it with fire. Jheald (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. You might decide that it made more sense to spell "freight" without the g, but you'd be wrong. The real common sense way to write is the way that will communicate effectively with one's readers, and no one's been able to show that American punctuation has any impairments in that respect. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Refactored

I refactored Finell's entry and moved your response with the extended part, to a new discussion subsection, so that the basic schema of numbered entries will be preserved. I hope that's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. I figured Finell would do the moving, actually. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your response at LQ

I believe that your comment should have gone in the discussions section. If nothing else than being against the rules that everyone is happily following, it risks buggering up the numbering and formatting, so I moved it. It's in its own little section so that nobody can miss it but it's "out of harms way", as they say. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You sound well-meaning but I don't agree with this, OhC. SmC told a lie about me while referring to me by name. That gives me the right to respond where I see fit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

NO, there is no such thing as an inherent right. This may be a wiki, where some people can't stop talking, and the only way of making them stop is to have them blocked, but there are still 'local rules', such as where to put responses. So please stop fucking with them and with the collateral damage you re doing to formatting. Also, I notice that this is the nth time you're reverted this change, so please consider this a warning in accordance with WP:3RR. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did this F-bomb-dropping anger come from? You say I don't have the right to respond to someone who tells lies about me, that there's a rule about this somewhere? Post a link to it please.

By "nth" do you mean "second"? Because it was the second. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Alexis_Reich#Requested_move_16_September_2013

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Alexis_Reich#Requested_move_16_September_2013. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Lyme disease

Hi Darkfrog24, thank you for adding the sentence about the white-tailed mouse to our Lyme disease article, and I'd encourage you to go even further. What I understand, even though the ticks are called "deer ticks," is that the mice are the actually most important in the life cycle of the tick. And that for the microbe, that we humans are a reproductive dead end for the Borrelia burgdorferi microbe! Cool Nerd (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I am limited by what is actually stated in the sources that I find. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of asking you to do anything else. I was just hoping you may have read this more recently than I have, and may have a bead on a source. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The source is a Connecticut State web site. It's a few years old. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Manual of style register listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Manual of style register. Since you had some involvement with the Manual of style register redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	I sincerely regret my clumsiness, which triggered needless acrimony. I value your contributions to the encyclopedia and admire your tenacity in the face of opposition. Please accept this barnstar as a gesture of apology and token of my appreciation. —David Levy 21:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. These things can get heated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! DonQuixote (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

4RR

You have violated 3RR: (1, 2, 3, 4). If you self-revert immediately, I will not report you to WP:AN/EW. I am doing this as a courtesy; I could have simply reported you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you because you deleted content for being unsourced without bothering to check the source: Click on the link to the 538 article. Hit CTRL-F "chapter." Then kindly stop complaining. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then. Just so you know, that isn't a defense where 3RR is concerned. I gave you the opportunity to self-revert. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You didn't give anyone anything, Jack, not even the time it took to read the source that you claimed didn't contain the content you reverted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I gave you the opportunity to self-revert and thus not be in violation of 3RR. You chose instead to keep trying to make the same points you keep making. After posting my reply ("Okay then…"), I filed the report. Check the timestamps. You should probably read (or re-read) WP:3RR; your argument that you are defending your revert with isn't considered an exception to the rule. I think you still have time to self-revert before an admin gets to it. I gave you ample warning. You just chose not to heed it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As for "making the same points you keep making," kindly look in a mirror, Jack. And please stop acting like you're deigning to be civil. That's required of you. As for my choices, you are neither privy to them nor entitled to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't understand any of that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"You chose instead to keep trying to make the same points you keep making" -- so do you. If you're going to act like it's wrong for me to do it, you might want to stop doing it yourself. Or don't, but then own up that you don't really think it's wrong.

"stop acting like you're deigning to be civil." -- You have been completely arrogant. You act insulted that I won't take your interpretation of WP:OR over a verbatim read of WP:Primary, as if you had any kind of rank to pull. You act like it's some great favor for you to hear me out, as if I weren't doing the exact same for you. You say "get a secondary source" and then don't bother to read it. You reject all attempts to address your concerns out of hand instead of building on them or suggesting any compromises of your own. You've twice scolded me for being too lazy to find sources but then you don't do any of the work, not finding sources, not developing text, not any finger-lifting that isn't the revert button. You scold people for making changes to the disputed section in the edit summary of the changes you are making to the disputed section. You scold people for acting like the rules don't apply to them while acting like the rules don't apply to you.

And then you have the gall to say you're acting with "courtesy."

As they say, Jack, don't do me any favors. You can't seem to distinguish them from baseline anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Do you feel better now?

Look, once the DRN gets some feedback, you will learn whose "interpretation" is the correct one. It is true that i have been arrogant, but that is because i know with a certainty that i am right, and I'm being big enough to try and help you catch up to the rest of us. That you actively choose not to is equal parts bewildering and frustrating. I've already apologized for accidentally removing the only two good sources you managed to add; in my defense, they were mixed in with all the craptastic Westeros.org and the novel primary source chapter and page nonsense and were easy to miss. I did add them back in, so you can finally cross that great injustice I've done you off your list.

And lastly, I have little in the way of time to seek out sources, so I pretty much wiki-gnome most of the time and add content (when the kid isn't trying to stick their fingers into light sockets or whatever) when I can. My lack of content should not distract you from the message: I know what I am talking about, and am the first to ask/speak up and/or apologize when I don't know something about Wikipedia (which is a lot of the more technical stuff). But OR, SYN and sourcing? Man, I am a whiz at that. More's the pity that you cannot separate the message from the messenger. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess what? Policy states that I'm right and you don't see me acting like the lord of the manor. It's a safe guess that Diego and DQ both think they're right too.

Oh so you have an excuse for not doing the work? Still not a reason to call other people lazy. It's not your lack of content; it's your multi-level hypocrisy.

As for separating the message from the messenger, for the umpteenth time, it's not that I haven't read your opinions on WP:OR. It is that I don't agree with them. Don't keep asking me to take your word for it; at no point have I insisted that you take mine. Cite policy. Find a precedent somewhere. Spend less time huffing that other people aren't kowtowing to you so that you have a spare minute to find a real reason why they should do what you think is right. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding ongoing edit-warring and a possible misuse of sources. The thread is Darkfrog24 - ongoing edit-warring, etc.. Thank you. —Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Please remove the citation to the book tha tyou have improperly (and repeatedly) reverted into in the article, despite requests to desist from such and a consensus to keep them out. I am offering you this short opportunity to do so before I report you for edit-warring. Please do not confuse this notice with a hesitation to file the complaint. Your disruptive editing will stop, or there will be consequences. I will wait approximately two hours and then file the report. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing the citation to the book. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT requires me to say where I found the information and this is where I found the information. The objection to including the book tag was the establishment of significance. Now that that has been dealt with using other sources, there is no further legitimate reason to omit the actual source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Saywhere… is an essayguideline. It is not policy, and policy says, when challenged, you bring a secondary source, or it is out. Period. You have a secondary source (tho' of dubious quality and authorship - more on that in a bit). You cannot use the book citation in that way. Ask an administrator. ANY ADMINISTRATOR. The clock is running, and if you do not remove it, I will file the complaint. There will be no further warnings, miss. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I did bring secondary sources. Repeatedly. I have addressed all legitimate objections. Now knock it off.

You should refrain from calling people "miss" unless you 1. know their gender, marital status and age and 2. any of the three could be construed as your business. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, since Darkfrog24 has not mentioned it, I'll go ahead and mention it: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is a guideline, not an essay; it is a part of the WP:Citing sources guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Flyer - that was my mistake. Fortunately, the point remains a valid one: you can't use a primary source in that way. SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT refers to a source that you've seen yourself. It does not cover using that source in a way that it cannot - especially when secondary sources are required. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Darkfrog24 - are you stating that you are not a female? Not that it matters in terms of editing, but its certainly helpful when addressing people. Indications are that you are female, so if you are a male, please feel free to say so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, WP:PRIMARY says that yes I may use a primary source in this way. You know perfectly well that you and I don't agree on what this policy means, so stop wasting my time and my patience by treating your opinions as a foregone conclusion. You probably also know perfectly well that calling someone "miss," "missy," "boy" or "laddie" is diminutive, patronizing and condescending. Doing so is extremely rude. Knock it off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, you are still wrong, and the consensus disagrees with you. As for calling you Miss, it was certainly not meant as a diminutive, patronizing or condescending. I examined my options for addressing you: 'madam' is out, as it implies either age or a pimping. 'Ms.' is likewise out, as is 'Mrs', because I don't know (or care) what your married status is. As 'Miss' is equal to 'Mr' or 'Sir' where I come from, I figured it was far better than some of the terms I was sorely tempted to use. If you chose to take everything I say wrong, I can't really do anything but pity you, ma'am. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Jack, the equivalent of "sir" is "ma'am." If my gender is ever relevant, I'll tell you about it. It should occur to you that I wouldn't be able to take anything you say wrong if you quit making personal attacks, kept your talk page comments on topic and stayed the eff off my userpage. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll happily unblock you if two things happen: (1) you commit to making no edits to this specific article for the next 24 hours, and also either to discuss the article or to drop the matter entirely, and (2) Jack makes the same commitment. See my comment at the WP:ANI discussion, meanwhile. If you agree to the first condition, let me know by linking my username in your comment. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked Jack after he agreed to what I requested; if you agree, you should be unblocked. Feel free either to let me know by linking my username or to use the {{unblock}} tool. Meanwhile, a week-long block was too long; I've changed it to 24 hours from the original time, or a little more than 17 hours from now. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkfrog24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Agreeing to (another) twenty-four hour break. Not sure further discussion will help, but that's nothing new. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Reason below Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I'm cool with the twenty-four hour thing. I've taken multi-day breaks before to absolutely no effect. It is now 7:37 p.m.

As to further discussion, I'll do it if you think it might help, but I'm pretty sure Jack and I have already talked this to death. He refuses to work with me, to compromise or to accept that his opinions are not themselves policy. He has repeatedly insinuated that I must be lazy and stupid because I don't agree with him. He has referred to me by gender-specific diminutives and continued to do so after being told to stop. He rejects all of my efforts to address his concerns, sometimes without even looking at them first. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the existing participants alone. I've cited WP:policy, shown him other articles that use sources the way I've used them [4] and repeatedly offered compromise phrasing [5]. He's done nothing but repeat that he is right and that "everyone" agrees with him. (This is contradicted by the results of an RfC and request for third opinion.) It's pretty clear that he's not going to listen to me.

In fine, Jack says, "We need a secondary source," I say "I don't agree, but here's a secondary source," and he deletes the content. Rinse and repeat. We have a problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The block was purely because of the edit war (I wasn't even aware of the WP:ANI discussion), and since you agree, I've unblocked you. Note that I said "discuss the article or drop the matter entirely"; far be it from me to try to force you to discuss it if you think further discussion pointless. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If dropping it means that Jack gets to delete whatever sourced content he wants on whatever excuse he wants, then yes I have a problem with dropping it. Why don't you put your $0.02 into the discussion page? We've both already listened to you once. If you don't want to get sucked in, then just put in one comment and leave. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that you were just blocked for your edits with relation to Oathkeeper, I would strongly recommend that you discuss first, then make the edits when you have consensus to do so. If you continue to revert myself and others to force your edits into the article (and your reasons aren't pertinent, at least to me) then I will be forced to assume you are intentionally edit-warring and will take appropriate action. I would like to not feel forced to escalate this matter. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't feel the need to discuss changes first, Don. Follow your own advice or don't expect me to.

You wanted me to find more sources, even though I don't think it's necessary. I did. That's not forcing my will on the article. That's my willingness to take your opinions seriously even though I do not share them.

If you don't want to do something then don't do it. Or do it, but admit that it was your own decision.

I don't want you to feel uncomfortable, Doniago, but look at this from my perspective: I have jumped through every hoop that you guys have put in front of me. Then someone pulls a new hoop out of the hat. The way I see it, I'm doing all the work, suggesting all the compromises, finding all the sources, working out all the wordings. If you want to smooth things out, then work with me. Instead of bulldozing everything that I add to the article, change the wording so that it addresses your concerns. Dig up a source. Then we can triangulate our way to something that we'll all find reasonably acceptable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for long-term edit warring at Oathkeeper against consensus and after previous unblock for the same issue. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkfrog24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

I re-added the disputed text after addressing every objection to it that had been raised on the talk page, and no new objections have been listed. There are no new objections to the content itself on the talk page now.

Specifically, other editors demanded that I find more sources and that these sources be secondary, reliable and specific. I did. Then I re-added the content, rewording it to reflect what those sources said very closely--which, again, is what the other editors said they wanted me to do. Then one of them reported me for edit warring.

When I added the re-sourced, re-worded material, I explained what I was doing and why on the talk page [6]. No one objected to the addition. No one responded in any way, and the article stayed stable for a couple of days. I actually thought we'd found a version of the article that everyone could live with. When an editor reverted, he did so without listing any specific reason for doing so other than that I hadn't gotten his permission first (to my knowledge, there is no rule requiring me to do so). Again, there was nothing about the disputed content itself on the talk page. I thought it was a misunderstanding--that this person had gotten the current source confused with another one from the same news organization. I clarified on the talk page and re-added the material.[7] Again, the material was deleted without the editor saying why he was objecting to it. DonIago's only statement was, "I'm objecting to this." I answered, "Okay, what specifically do you think is wrong with it?" There's been no answer [8]. Don and Jack have made it clear that they don't like that I added the text, but that's pretty much all they have to say. They won't tell me why they are disputing it. Do they not like the new source? Do they not like the wording? We can't do bold-revert-discuss if no one's going to discuss. I have repeatedly tried to work through discussion. I have repeatedly suggested compromise wordings. I have repeatedly found additional sources. I am having trouble understanding what these people want from me.

As for the block request, [9], JACK IS LYING. No I did not say that a block wouldn't affect me. My statement "I've taken multi-day breaks before to no effect" was in response to a suggestion that we take a one-day break. I've taken breaks and it hasn't helped. (As a matter of fact, I took a break today and completely missed the chance to respond to Jack's accusations before this ban went into place. So in this case, a break was detrimental.) No I have not refused to discuss things. No I do not "just revert to my preferred version." I come back with more sources, with policies to cite, with precedents to cite, with further discussion, which is exactly what Jack says that he wants.

Notice where he says I was blocked for edit warring? He should have said, "JackSebastian and Darkfrog24 were blocked for edit warring." [10] Jack has not been honest with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per the discussion and further clarification and discussion I'm unblocking you per the following conditions:

You are subject to WP:1RR per week on Oathkeeper and you must propose any changes which are not covered by these exceptions on the talk page and wait at least 48 hours before implementing them (notwithstanding the 1RR restriction). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I am only responding here, as Darkfrog24 has made it seem as if she is blameless in the matter that resulted in her block, and that we have failed to answer her questions with regards to her problematic sourcing efforts. We had stated our objections to her sources on so many occasions that to link them here would look like the archival box for AN3R; yes, that many times. We even bullet-pointed them for her on several occasions. Her response was to say that we were inflicting upon her our personal interpretations of policy and guidelines.

..She would argue that fake sources still counted and could be used (as dead links) to support primary sources.

..She would argue that blog posts on fansites were reliable sources.

..Or that sources that themselves cited Wikipedia for their material could be used as sources.

..Or that books could be used to note similarities in plot between book and tv episode without secondary sourcing at all. She admits that she still believes this, and that the rest of us are wrong.

Did she find some sources that weren't absolute crap? Sure, but none of those sources went as far as Darkfrog24 wanted - listing all of the chapters that she felt the episode in question drew from. In every single incarnation of her edits, this list remained unchanged. When we kept removing it, she switched tactics and began moving the unproven bits in the the plot summary itself.

It was like someone continually offering a plate of steaming dog crap as a side dish to dinner, and when found inedible by others, instead offering that same crap as seasoning and garnish alongside the meal.

In each of these instances, she re-added the material either before or immediately after posting in discussion that - in essence - we were all wrong, and she was right. And this went on, day after day, week after week and - lastly - month after month.

She has argued that we did not tell her our concerns. I would submit that it wasn't a matter of her not knowing our viewpoints, but rather a matter of her not caring what our viewpoints were, wrong as they were. She said as much on several occasions. There is no possibility of collaborative editing in such an environment. It sheds editors from the article and from the Project.

Lastly, the sole reason why I did not mention that I was also blocked previously for edit-warring was that I stopped edit-warring after the block was lifted. She never did. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just because a source supports material that you don't like doesn't mean that it is fake. As per Wikipedia's policy on dead links, just because the link went dead doesn't mean the Prince Albert page is no longer usable.
• Wikipedia's policy on blogs says that they are allowed if the article is written by a named member of the staff whose credentials are provided. That is the case with the Ana Carol blog article that I brought up on the talk page.[11]
• Yes, I find that WP:Primary supports the use of novels to cite information about their own plots. Yes, I still believe this. Yes I think that I'm right and you're wrong. You forgot the part where I've been abiding by the results of the RfC even though I don't agree with them and have been doing so even before the official word was handed down. I've located over half a dozen secondary sources to use alongside the primary source, as stipulated.
• As for sources citing Wikipedia, the GEOS article doesn't cite Wikipedia. On two occasions, I've told you, "I've checked, and I don't see where this says that it's based on Wikipedia, but I'm human and I might have missed it. Show me." You have never pointed out where you think this source says that it cites Wikipedia.
• No, you didn't tell me your concerns about the new material. For the past few months, you've been saying, "get more sources; I don't like the ones that are already here," and now I'm saying, "okay, try this one with this phrasing." Yes, you have to say what you think of it if you're going to delete it. If you want me to guess at what you're thinking based on previous posts, then here you go: I'm guessing that your real reason for deleting this content is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you don't want to have to admit it. It looks like you thought you were sending me on a wild goose chase with your requests for further sourcing and you don't know what to do now that I've come back with the poultry in hand.

This would go a lot better if you would stop referring to other people's contributions as feces and start working with me. Suggest a wording that would address your concerns. Suggest a compromise as I have suggested compromises. Suggest something that I haven't thought of.

And I did stop edit warring. Addressing other people's concerns is not edit warring. Making changes that have been raised on the talk page to zero objection is not edit warring.

As for why the list of chapters remained unchanged, it's because it's based on 1. both primary sources and 2. several different secondary sources, and they agree with each other. In other words, this list has stayed the same because it's accurate. Nowhere in our discussions has anyone contested that the content was accurate.

At the absolute least, you should go to the talk page and state why you are disputing the content so we can work this out. The i09 source in my last set of revisions specifically lists chapter information, which is what you asked for. The phrasing holds tightly to the wording of the i09 source, which is also what you asked for. You should be saying, "Ah yes! Finally! Thank you." Darkfrog24 (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• The paNow.com source is not simply a dead link. After I became suspicious of the odd wording of the source, I contacted their News desk for that media outlet, and asked them who the contributor of the review was. I was told that the article was created in their free classifieds space by an anonymous source - not a staff writer or paid freelancer. They were kind enough to provide an IP address that geolocates to New York. This information, and the fact that it was created shortly before you used it and disappeared almost immediately after I asked about it seemed more than a little suspicious. Thus, the accusation. Setting aside the authorship of the fake link, the reason we cannot use it is because it was not written by a reliable source. Yes, paNOW is a source itself, but not the free classifieds section of paNOW, where anyone, anonymously, can create content. If my objections to this source wasn't clear to you before, it should be now.
• As has been pointed out to you by more than one other editor, Gameofthronesbr.com is a Brazilian fansite for the series. Those seldom instances where we reference a fansite include when a listed member of the staff interview a recognized member of the series' cast or crew (as per WP:FANSITE). Ana Carol is a harpist music student and a blogger; she is not a member of the cast or crew of GoT or a recognied staff member of the fansite. For numerous reasons, her contributions as an independent one-off blogger to a fansite cannot be cited as a source. It is not just me saying this, but you have been told this by several others.
• Re-adding the same material and arguing the same reasoning that was rejected by the closing RfC comments suggests that you either did not read the comments carefully, or parsed their meaning in such a way that you felt you could get around its intent. You might want to use some of your time to re-read that closing argument. It pointedly rejects your use of primary sources in the way you wish to use them. You are interpreting which sources from the book are being used int he series, which is synthesis. Others have said the same thing. This isn't about me; the sooner you realize this, the easier the process of adjusting your approach is going to be.
• You will have to speak to Doniago (who spoke out on the GEOS link regarding its practice of mirroring Wikipedia), but for myself, as the website is - by their own admission - "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run", it renders itself unusable. Wikipedia doesn't use fansites as sources.
• This is all material which you have been told time and again, Darkfrog24. Anyone looking at the article discussion, or edit summary for the article could see that, as well as your rejection of that. If we had not voiced our objections, you couldn't very well object to them, now could you?
• After several months of you trying to add precisely the same material to the article without success, you then move the material from the Production section to the Plot summary. It doesn't become more palatable just because you move it elsewhere, Darkfrog24. When told by more than one editor that this is unacceptable, you could have chosen to stop reverting the same version in and respected your fellow editors' concerns. You instead chose ignore our disallowance and continued to edit-war it back in while engaging in tendentious editing. For weeks. That is why you are where you are now.

You should use this time to consider accepting the consensus that has already been formed about source use within the article, and this time, actually do that. If you still find that you cannot accept the consensus, then it might be time to follow your bliss to non-GoT related articles, where you seemed to find some level of contentment. You cannot be happy with your views being rejected in Oathkeeper. Tke some time to think about that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In case this wasn't 100% clear before, I want you to stop referring to my or anyone's contributions with swear words or references to feces. It just occurred to me that there was an outside chance that you didn't understand what I meant.

• PaNOW: I've told you this before, but here it is again. I found the PaNOW page by plugging "Oathkeeper" and "Jaime IX" and other phrases from the disputed text into a search engine. That is why its wording was so similar to the disputed text—because that was the search query.
• No one argued that the Ana Carol article wasn't from a blog. But Wikipedia's policy on blogs says that they can be used if the content is made by a staff writer whose credentials are provided and sufficient (WP:NOBLOGS). Considering that Ana Carol is being asked to state "This episode contained the same content as chapters X, Y, and Z," and not provide advanced literary analysis her status as a tertiary student is sufficient (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). You can argue this one, but you don't get to claim, "Darkfrog thinks blogs should be allowed!" as if I meant all blogs at all times and under all circumstances or that I'm offering you "crap."
• I don't know what you're talking about on your third point. I re-added the material, yes, but I provided a fresh secondary source to go with the primary source. That is what the RfC concluded: Don't use the primary source alone. Am I misunderstanding something about your third point?
• Being fan-owned and fan-run doesn't preclude GEOS's use. GEOS has a history of use on Wikipedia for material far more controversial than straight facts supported by primary and other secondary sources. Yes it collects survey responses from anonymous contributors, but none of them were cited for the article; the core episode description was. (In fact, no survey responses had even been submitted for Oathkeeper at the time GEOS was accessed.)
• I don't understand what you're talking about with this point.
• Yes, I moved the material from the Writing section to the Plot Summary section with an additional source that explicitly states "this event happened in chapter X and that event happened in chapter Y. This is a new solution to our problem. YES you have to look at it and acknowledge it and, if you want to delete it, say why it does or does not meet your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules.

If your reason for deleting the material is "This isn't sufficiently sourced" then you don't get to claim tendentious editing about the person who keeps providing more sources. Given your history with the Prince Albert and 538 articles, I have to ask: You did read the i09 source, right? I am not mocking you. I just want you to confirm that you saw that it was there. Hit CTRL-F "Jaime IX" and "Sansa V," etc. and you will see the exact lines that support the disputed text. The only consensus on that page is, if we assume that everyone's acting in good faith and take everything that's been said at face value, is that one reliable secondary source must be provided. Then the material is 100% acceptable. Which part of my actions make you think I disagree with that? Was it all the time I put in digging up secondary sources even though I don't think they're necessary? Six of them, in fact (eight if you count the other i09 article and Slate article). Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Further to your email, let me just clarify something. You weren't blocked for violating 3RR, you were blocked for edit warring which you very obviously did. Also as far as I can tell your ability to edit this talk page hasn't been revoked so you should be able to edit. I'd be happy with an unblock on the following conditions:

You are subject to WP:1RR per week on Oathkeeper and you must propose any changes which are not covered by these exceptions on the talk page and wait at least 48 hours before implementing them (notwithstanding the 1RR restriction).

If you agree to those restrictions I'll unblock you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the it-can-still-be-edit-warring-even-if-3RR-isn't-violated rule. I just wanted to make sure that there was no confusion on that point.

As for 1RR, which I understand to mean one revert per day instead of three, that's what I've already been doing for a while now. So while I of course I don't object to keeping it up until Saturday, I'm a bit confused about the that's-still-edit-warring part. What is it that you want me to do that's different from what I've already been doing with respect to 1RR? This question is not rhetorical. I actually want to know what it is that you're asking me to do. Are you saying, "The timing part is good; just change this other stuff"?

48 hours seems too long.

My ability to edit this talk page is still in place. My ability to edit all other talk pages has been blocked. Otherwise I'd have posted to your talk page instead of sending you that email.

Your "notwithstanding" makes your statement confusing. Please clarify. I want no confusion about what you are and are not asking me to do.

I have a question, and I could really use some commentary from a neutral party: What if, say, I propose a change, and people respond on the talk page, but their responses don't include "Here is why I am objecting to the content"? That's what's been happening. When you say "wait 48 hours," what is it that I'm waiting for?

This might not be 100% relevant, but it's good to hear a voice that's not screaming and cursing at me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If I am not misunderstanding the context, They sare saying that if you propose a change, and no one comments or objects to that change, you should feel free to add that change to the article. I can promise you that if you propose a change in article discussion, no one will ignore that proposal. The problem would arise if you were to propose a change, find resistance to that change, and then edit in the change anyway. That has been one of the larger problems in this matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you're not exactly unbiased in this case. If you are actually trying to help, this is one of those times when you help by staying out of the way. It's become quite clear that you and I don't interpret things the same way. I would like Callanec to tell me what Callanec means so that there is no misunderstanding.

As for "I promise no one will ignore the proposal," yes I'd be glad if you stopped ignoring my request that you tell me what you think is wrong with the text so that it can be addressed. "I don't like this" is not enough of a reason. That's what I've been asking you and DonIago to do for days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Answers to your clarification points:

• It's one revert per week, which is the big change and slows it down considerably.
• That's the idea, it makes you stop and discuss.
• When blocked there are two things you're allowed to do, you your own talk page and use the Email function, that's the only two things admins can turn off and on.
• For example say you reverted an explained removal of content and were reverted. Even if you've proposed adding back the content on the talk page, waited 48 hours and 20 editors agree with your revert you can't do it until 7 days after your initial revert.
• You would need to ask them why they object and not make the change until you have consensus.

I think that's all of the points you raised. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, now it makes sense.
• I can hold to that until Saturday. Okay, I thought it was "leave proposals on the page for 48 hours before taking action," but your fourth point suggests that this is not the case. Please clarify.
• That's odd. Last time, when Jack and I were both blocked, the only thing I couldn't edit was the Oathkeeper page itself. I was still posting on the talk page.
• Let's see if I have this. 1. Removal of content has to have been explained. 2. Then say I revert the removal. 3. Then I go to the talk page and explain why I put the content back in. What is the 48 hours for if I'm not supposed to perform another action for seven days?
• I have been asking them why they object. They haven't been answering. Their reverts have not been accompanied by explanation.

Thanks for answering my questions. I want to make sure that we're on the same page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• They have to be on the talk page for a minimum of 48 hours and you can't make more than 1 revert to the article within a week.
• With a bit more detail: If you see an editor remove a bit of content with an explanation that you don't agree with, you propose on the talk page that it be added back. After 48 hours there is a consensus to add it back, which you then do (your one revert). 30 minutes later that editor comes back an back and removes it again. You already have the 48 hour rule ticked off because you've done that, however 1RR/week prevents you from reverting again so you have to go back to the talk page.

The 48 hour rule is mainly there for content you want to add, but it works for both additions and removals. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's clearer, but it's starting to sound like I should just refrain from editing the article in question until Saturday.
• This looks like it applies to reverts but not to other edits.
• What about reverts for which no explanation is given? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If it meets the conditions at WP:3RRNO (or WP:BANEX) then you can revert it without regard to 1RR. You could do that and only edit the talk page, up to you. I've unblocked you per the above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It is my understanding that these restrictions are in force until one week from the time of blocking, Saturday. If you mean one week from the time of unblocking, just let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

From the original expiry date is all I can enforce, though I'd suggest that a voluntary/unofficial 1RR/week or proposing potentially controversial things on the talk page first would be good practice for you given others were calling for a TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an involved and potentially biased editor, I certainly hope the editing at Oathkeeper will proceed in a more collaborative spirit on behalf of all parties going forward. DonIago (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I was already doing something similar, Callanecc. I don't expect a problem.

Me too, Don, but no one can collaborate alone. At the absolute least, you have to say why you keep deleting the content so that I or one of us can fix it. Don't expect me to read your mind. I can't take your statements on good faith if you don't make any. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I kept deleting it was because you knew the information you were editing was highly controversial and you knew that all editors adding material regarding the subject at hand had been asked to get consensus for their changes before adding material and you persisted in trying to force your material through. There was and is no deadline; it would have shown good faith, eased tensions and likely have kept you from being blocked if you'd shown more active interest in working with your fellow editors instead of editing first and hoping nobody objected when editors had been expressing concerns regarding your additions for months. I go to great lengths to AGF, but when an editor's working on a highly controversial part of an article and has been an active participant in discussions, I consider it eminently reasonable to expect them to get a consensus first. And lastly, what would have been the harm in running the gauntlet of asking editors whether they would approve of your changes before implementing them? None that I can think of.

If you want my support, show me that you want to work with the other involved editors to ensure that further changes to the article have their support instead of striking out unilaterally. I'm willing to give you some leeway at this point, but I sincerely hope I won't see any further instances of you trying to push through controversial edits despite others' concerns and/or opposition. DonIago (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Don, the material is not controversial. The material is a list of which chapters contain the same content as an episode of a TV series. That might be something that you don't happen to like, but that doesn't make it highly controversial.

Don YOU made changes to the writing section without getting consensus first. Do not expect me to go above and beyond Wikipedia's ordinary rules if you aren't willing to do the same.

As for the rules, yes you are required to state your reasons if you want to keep deleting something. No you don't get to say, "Well I don't like this and you ought to know why already." If you leave me to guess at your motives, then the conclusions that I draw may not be favorable to you.

The harm in asking you guys first? Aside from the fact that the readers wouldn't have access to their information in the interim, I've been trying to assume good faith, but 1. you guys asked for secondary sources but 2. providing them—about eight of them now, nine—only seems to make those same people angry. 3. On several separate occasions, Jack deleted material without bothering to read the source first. From this, I conclude that "This just needs more secondary sources" is not the real reason or at least not the only reason why this material is getting deleted, that Jack or you or both are going to delete the content no matter what I do or how many weeks and months I spend finding source after source after source. I don't trust you guys to address the material fairly.

This thing has been sourced in everything from a newspaper to respected news sites to less respected news sites to the actual book itself, way beyond Wikipedia's usual standards for information of this kind. What. Gives? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim that material that resulted in months of discussion is not controversial. Maybe it shouldn't be, but when there's been discussions at DRN, ANI and an RFC? Congratulations, it's now controversial. Treat it accordingly.

The only changes I recall making are reverting your changes which had stirred up dissent on the Talk page. If you believe I did otherwise, provide me with a diff and I'll discuss it.

From what I've seen at the Talk page, the sources you keep trying to insert into the article are not reliable sources and shouldn't be being used. Even now multiple editors are telling you that the sources you're defending aren't appropriate. If you disagree, an endorsement from WP:RSN might go a long way toward helping your case.

Frankly I don't give a damn how much you trust us, because for my money I don't feel you've given us much reason at all to trust you. You keep trying to include sources that other editors don't believe are reliable, you're evidently not doing the legwork to disprove their claims, you've already shown a willingness to edit war rather than make a serious effort to achieve consensus, and even after being blocked you're still being defensive and trying to blame others for your edits being rejected instead of showing even a hint of modesty and a genuine interest in working with your fellow editors.

But in the end, I'm not even the one you have to convince. I don't give a damn about GoT and wouldn't even be aware of this whole situation if the DRN case hadn't been brought to my attention. I have no interest in editing the article, but I will do so if I see an editor trying to force edits through regarding controversial material for which they do not have consensus to include.

I'm this close to simply not speaking with you about this anymore, so if you want to continue this dialog, I might recommend that you take a step back and look at how you're coming across first. Good day. DonIago (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, making a deletion counts as making a change, especially considering that the content had already had four different sources, the only objection to it that had been raised was insufficient sourcing, and that it had been re-added with a new source. Don't tell me "don't touch" unless you're willing to refrain from doing the same.

Remember your context. Is the source reliable for the information being cited? Product information from a newspaper? Yes. The book itself? Yes. A blog post from a named author whose credentials are given? Yes. A fansite on that specific topic for whose use there is great precedent on Wikipedia? Yes.

Again, Don, take your own advice. In this case, if you want to delete something, give a reason. When you don't, it makes it look like you don't think you need to discuss things or that you don't have a good reason for your deletion and prefer to hide it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Riiiiiight. Think I'm done here. DonIago (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper | Script assisted WS removal/wikification

Hi Darkfrog24,

I'm a random administrator who saw a post by Jack Sebastian on WP:AN and offered to assist him. He informed me to explain the dispute you were having on Talk:Oathkeeper, and I have independently reviewed the situation. I do not believe I have interacted with Jack, DonQuixote, or yourself before, and I am not a viewer/reader of the Game of Thrones television/book series. With that said, I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, and I hope you take the advice in the constructive spirit it is offered in:

Jack has asserted that a news website you have cited to support your position was actually a classifieds section authored by yourself. His rationale seems plausible to me, but at this point, largely unprovable. With that said though, you have repeatedly insisted that it and similar types of self-published or non-established sources (unclearly credentialed sites, fan websites, etc.) as appropriate sources for Wikipedia. These websites may be useful in establishing the Truth of content on our site, but there is a reason that the Identifying Reliable Sources guideline is so stringent on matters like these—it helps us determine which details are important to add to an article and which are ephemeral. Respectfully, your proposed additions are beginning to veer to the latter end. I suggest that you take a step back and re-evaluate what you're adding, why, and whether it truly meets the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies.

If you have any questions, please feel to reply back (just please use WP:ECHO notify me!). Best, NW (Talk) 20:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: Jack's lying If we give Jack absolutely every benefit of the doubt, then his claim that I paid a newspaper to publish a source that supports content that he doesn't like is best described as wishful thinking. I plugged "Oathkeeper" and "Jaime IX" into a search engine and the page in the Prince Albert newspaper came up.

If you need another secondary source to confirm that this content isn't trivial, this ought to do it: [12]. There's also a similar article in Slate (two similar articles if you also count the one by Chris Kirk) and another in i09. I've also repeatedly asked if the other participants in this debate had any reasons other than sourcing to object to this material. I keep getting "no."

Jack does not like the content in question and has come up with some excuse for every source I've found. He claims that all he wants are secondary sources, but providing them—about eight or nine at last count, including news sources such as 538, Slate and AV Club [13]—only seems to make him angry—to the point of profanity (scroll up or hit CTRL-F "steaming dog crap" or even just "crap"; he uses that one a lot). He has repeatedly deleted content as unsourced without reading the source [14] [15]. This guy has issues.

Please be advised that these are not "my proposed additions," and as the information has not changed since this dispute started back in April (excepting that a source citing the fifth book in addition to the third was found), they cannot have veered anywhere. The text in question was already in both the Breaker of Chains and Oathkeeper articles. [16] Another author had deleted them as unsourced. I found sources and then restored the text.

As to why I restored the text, "chapters X, Y, and Z," it's because I had come to the Breaker of Chains article looking for that exact information. I've read every page of the books and seen every frame of the show, but I didn't know that sites like Westeros.org existed. I didn't go there; I came here. It seems plausible that others would too.

EDIT: I just reread WP:TRIVIA and it doesn't seem to apply here. It concerns full lists of facts. The disputed text is a single line telling the reader what parts of the book the episode was based on. The content in question is a single sentence, Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX), incorporated in prose into the "Writing/Production" section of the article.

One more thing: It's good to hear a level voice from a neutral party. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, what are you doing?

I am noticing a lot (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least a dozen others) of canvassing going on, and I was wondering if you are aware with how it could be perceived? Posting at the wikiproject should have been enough. I think that - at this point, you have received more than enough responses at "Oathkeeper" from other users to confirm what you have been told for several months. You need to stop before this is escalated back to an admin for action. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What am I doing? Publicizing the RfC. You will note that "talk pages of closely related articles" is specifically listed. If you're going to keep pontificating about Wikipedia policy, you should spend more time reading it.

You should also ask this: From what I posted alone, can a previously uninvolved person tell which side of the issue I'm on? No. From where I posted it, is it more likely to be read by people who agree with me than by people who don't? Again no. (After all, you and DQ both spend time on GoT talk pages.) It's hard to see why you'd consider this canvassing.

You might want to remember that this source was up for review on the RS noticeboard twice without a single comment from anyone not previously involved. What we need is not only people who are interested in WP:RS and WP:USERG but also people who think that a Game of Thrones article is worth their time. J, Scooby and Inedible didn't show up until after I started publicizing. I haven't asked them how they found out about the RfC, but you're certainly free to.

And no, I don't think that three new voices are more than enough, especially since there's only a one-person difference. Your post here smacks of, "Wait! Now that there's a preponderance in my favor, I want the RfC to stop! Nobody else come in!" If I pulled that, you'd be crying foul. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, at what point are you going to accept a consensus? I would like to know, because you've been at this for several months, and over the very same sentence. You have had almost a dozen contributors and visitors say no, and only one other saying yes. I think its a fair question to know when you plan to finally accept a result, because I am seeing nothing but you forum-shopping. Didn't get the answer you wanted? Start another RfC. Didn't get the input you wanted at RSN? Pretend it never happened. Have a half-dozen editors tell you in no uncertain terms that your pet phrasing cannot be in? Ignore it, or ask for re-clarification. This is what we are seeing here.

And you might want to check out that link for canvassing again. I think that sending more than a dozen posts seeking input - and where you are sending them - seems a lot like mass posting and votestacking. But why am I at all surprised? This is your game. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, read the policy on forum shopping. That's about taking the same question to different places hoping for a different result. At the beginning of this issue, DQ requested a third opinion. Diego showed up and said the primary source was enough to support the proposed text. Now if DQ had been the one to start that RfC about using the novel, then that would have been forum shopping (but it wasn't DQ). The previous RfC established that a secondary source was necessary, so I've been bringing in secondary sources. You posted various complaints about those secondary sources, so now we've got another RfC dealing with those questions. As for the RS noticeboard, no one gave us any input at all, not in the postings I wrote, not in the ones you wrote, no approval or disapproval. What is it that I'm supposed to pretend didn't happen? The thing to take away from that is that not all other editors consider Game of Thrones to merit their comments.

"At this"? Right now "this" is an RfC about the Ana Carol source. It's got an official limit of thirty days from the time of posting, but people only started contributing to it after I started promoting it. Let it run its course as our last RfC ran its course, and yes I've seen RfCs change after the first few contributors show up.

The consensus is that a minimum of exactly one secondary source must be found to support this content. I personally think that the primary source is enough, but if by "accept," you mean "agreed to abide by," then I accepted consensus months ago. That's why I keep going out and finding secondary sources. Frankly, considering that we've got eight or nine at this point, the content really should be in the article right now.

"Votestacking" only applies if I'm posting in places where I'm more likely to find people who agree with me than people who disagree with me. I repeat: I ran into you on a Game of Thrones talk page, and you clearly don't agree with me.

It would help if you'd refrain from insulting me, Jack. This is no more "mine" or a "game" than it is "yours." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Wait a second, are you under the impression that I only promoted this RfC on GoT talk pages? I haven't. If that's not enough for you, then go ask Scooby and J how they found out about the RfC. I'd prefer it if you did that before you post here again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry lady, I've already made up my mind onI'm having some trouble giving you the Assumption of Good Faith here; you've said nothing over the course of almost three months that convinces me that you aren't gaming the system to get precisely the edit you have wanted from the beginning. I'm done trying to help you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Tendentious editing unfortunately covers this whole situation rather well. And unless I perceive a genuine interest in changing the course of this discussion I'm pretty sure that's all I'll have to say here, because I have no desire to involve myself further at this point. DonIago (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Going out and finding more sources for material that's been deleted as unsourced is not gaming the system. It is the system. And you'd have to start trying to help before you could stop. The only thing you've done here is foist your own opinion and complain when I don't automatically prefer it to my own assessment of the situation.

Also, quit with the assumptions about my gender. You can call me "sir" if you feel a crushing need, but I really don't see how anyone's XX or XY is relevant here.

Don, I can see why you'd be frustrated, but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm breaking any of Wikipedia's rules. You guys insisted on more sources. I went out and got them. You're still not happy. I don't know what you want from me there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd like you to consider the possibility that you're never going to get the consensus you're evidently hoping for, that maybe you should have reached that conclusion weeks ago, that perhaps it isn't worth continuing to drag this out regardless of whether you're behaving within the rules, and drop the stick and back away from the poor dead horse. DonIago (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Don, the sources support this material. Policy supports this material. There's precedent for content like this in other articles. Have you considered that you might be the one being obstructionist here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should I? I'm not the one who can't find any other editors willing to support my take on the matter. Editing Wikipedia is about working with the community, not just pushing for your preferred version of an article because policy in and of itself supports your changes. DonIago (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Can't find any other editors"? Did you forget about Diego, InedibleHulk, Mjolnir or any of the others? There's more to the community than you, Jack and DQ. Should I forget about DQ because he's not here right now? This dispute has five longstanding participants and others who've chimed in, and both groups have been split. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Asked and answered. I'm neither obligated nor inclined to talk about this with you any further. But you might ask yourself why, if these editors would support you, none of them have been saying anything lately. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the same reason DQ took off. See you later, Don. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning

I would appreciate it is you would leave my posts as is. If you ever refactor a post of mine again, I will seek your immediate block. Consider this your sole warning. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't change your post. I changed the header. The whiny "Again" is not neutral. And let me remind you: You were the one who filed this both times. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am the one who submitted it once before, therefore, using the designator 'again' is both accurate and illuminating. Thank you for acknowledging my warning - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, Jack, it is a complaint. It biases the viewer and poisons the well. If you want this RSN to count you have to commit to conducting it properly. If you don't like "Fan site or expert source" then just delete the "again" and just say "Westeros.org." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this beyond to say that barring exceptional circumstances refactoring others' posts for almost any reason is a serious no-no and very much a blockable offense if it's persistent. The posts people make are a record of what they said, and it's incredibly inappropriate to change that. If you have objections to what they've said then note them in a follow-up, but do not change the original text. DonIago (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's why I didn't touch Jack's post Don. Not one character of the text with his name on it was changed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring

If I am not mistaken, you are restricted to 1RR. Your actions on several articles (1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7, and 8, 9 and 10) suggest that you do not feel that your editing restrictions do not apply. Additionally, you appear to be reverting my edits wholsesale, without actually looking at what I am editing. Please stop edit-warring. Consider that RSN can see edit histories quite clearly. It is our responsibility to edit articles to remove unfit sources. It is not about positioning or tactics to make your preferred edit look pretty. You should know this. Stop, or suffer the consequences. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are indeed mistaken. The 1RR agreement timed out a long time ago and only concerned Oathkeeper.

Westeros.org is not an unfit source. Its use in these GA-rated articles has gone without comment for years and it's practically textbook expert under WP:SPS. If you don't like it, take your concerns to the discussion on talk:Oathkeeper and the RSN noticeboard.

Stop trying to bias the RSN discussion by deleting precedent. You're already up for this on AN/I. At least wait to see what the admins have to say about your edits. I am not the only one reverting you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. You left me no choice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

When the date shows up but not your name

I have encountered that practice when creating certain types of pages, like AfD pages, but it didn't occur to me that that's what I did. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I love being meddlesome and informative. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the rationale. I've been around here since 2005. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I rephrased my response after I checked your user page. It was more along the lines of, "Good God you don't have to tell this person what the eff an RfC is; get it out of there!!" Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown

Hi, good idea on "no known criminal record" If you want to change your "vote" at the RfC to that wording, I will change mine as well and see if we can get others to compromise to your excellent suggestion. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

MOS

I'm taking the discussion offline. The difficulty with your proposal—again I know where you are coming from—is that MOS is not a policy, and is far from an essay, so there is nothing else generally acceptable to call it. Describing in MOS itself the level at which some people guard it would be setting an unwanted battleground tone. It's not entirely hopeless to change MOS; I know of this case at least :-) All the best.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What proposal? "The MoS is a set of rules"/"no it's just a guideline" isn't a proposal; it's just something that comes up a lot. There is nothing to propose. The MoS is called a guideline and it is treated as a set of rules in the article and talk page space. Referring to the MoS as a set of rules does not create a battleground; it acknowledges that the battleground is already there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortuantely, I'm sure that those that created the battleground probably don't know it exists, and would disagree with your characterization. It's safe to assume you have first-hand experience with these "rules". If you ever need an outside opinion or guidance on whatever transpired in the past, I'm willing to listen. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the example I gave you earlier from my own experience, a lot of users on separate Wikiprojects want to use their own, Wikiproject-specific capitalization systems. WP:BIRDS is the most frequent. This is tied in with the specialist-vs-generalist argument. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't claim to know the specifics. However, at a high level, this is not inconceivable. Per WP:CONLIMITED, "limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale ... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right ..." Either the broader community has accepted it, or it has not been contested. In the end, it's all about consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's how things are supposed to work, but it's only sometimes how they do work. For the time being, that's holding for the capitalization of species names, but that hasn't always been the case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (Policy)#Appending the Manual of Style on gender-neutral language

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#Appending the Manual of Style on gender-neutral language. Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)