User talk:Curly Turkey/Archive/2017

Happy New Year 2017![edit]

To you and yours! May you have a happy, prosperous and joyous one! God bless! — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Happy new year, Turkey, and thanks for keeping an eye out.

Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo National Museum image search[edit]

Tokyo National Museum image search

Waseda University image search

Composers[edit]

Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Verdi, Max Reger, Philip Glass and countless unnoticed others, such as Oskar Gottlieb Blarr, DYK yesterday, 12k+ hits, - and no READER ever protested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I'm not taking a position, I'm just pointing out poor reasoning. I'm in two minds about infoboxes—I'd rather have them (to serve different audiences with different purposes and contexts), but I don't trust the people in control of them, forcing info into them that shouldn't be there. I ran into those problems with the fascists controlling WP:NOVELS, then again with the people implementing the template code. I decided I'd had enough and stopped using them, but I still disagree entirely with WP:DISINFOBOX. I also get sick of the disinfoboxers' overinflated regard for their own prose. Of course, I write mainly articles nobody reads in the first place, so I don't have to worry about an infobox "distracting" from my beautiful prose Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pleasantly surpised when one of my obscurities went from an average of 36 pageviews a day to being my fourth highest-viewed TFA, despite not having a graphic with the mainpage summary. I have to wonder what drew 40K people to this one that day. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Congrats for the stats, more to the attention the article deserves. - You are not the only one disagreeing with the dated "Disinfobox", - see? - Would you have time for a FAC, with an infobox, naturally? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine (character)[edit]

I recently saw the AfD for Joker (character) and I remember we had a lengthy exchange about Wolverine (character). However after looking over Joker (character), I actually don't mind it and was wondering if we could do the same thing to Wolverine (character). That is: move the article back to Wolverine (comics) and create a separate set index linking to various adaptions of the character in other media at Wolverine (character). Thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with the idea of two such articles per se, but (comics) as a disambiguator is problematic. For one, "Wolverine IS-A comics" doesn't work, and for another, it would get confused with Wolverine (comic book). I think you'll find resistance to having an index as a base article, though. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, you should be sure it warrants multiple articles in the first place. If everything would fit in one comprehensive article, then it probably should. I'm not familiar enough with the character to say (I read Wolverine for maybe a year and a half in my tweens, and haven't seen any of his "other media" appearances). The "Fictional character biography" looks pretty crufty. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking directly to TriiipleThreat, it would be wise to wait for the result at Joker (character) before taking that into serious consideration. Dark Knight 2149 01:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the article[edit]

About the Abduction of Kamiyah Mobley.BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

玄諦[edit]

How would you transliterate 玄諦? Happy new year from freezing Saijo!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's a name? If it is, it looks like it can read Gentei, but I wouldn't put any money on guessing the reading of a name. Happy New Year from the colder-than-usual Shizuoka! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 20[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

Partner resource expansions
New search tool for finding TWL resources
#1lib1ref 2017
Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headaches on the way ...[edit]

Darkknight2149's not taking things well ... [1][2] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up two weeks later and laughing at the idea that anyone could have thought he hadn't dropped the stick is ... actually kinda funny, but for the wrong reason. He reverted his own comment on my talk page, which I would try to assume he realized it was inappropriate, except that he claimed it was because it was not "necessary". I asked him for clarificafion, which I hope will lead to his apologizing and properly strikingnthe comment rather than just laiming it isn't "necessary", but if he doubles down ... well, I don't really care. He can think I've got some beef with him if he likes; I don't, and that's all that matters to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From his performance at Talk:Joker (comics), the AfD, and at ANI, I expect him to double down. He's going to be a major roadblock in cleaning up the mess at WP:COMICS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you need someone to back up your claims that he dismissed or downplayed non-comics influence on Batman characters, canvassed, and engaged in some pretty blatant IDHT behaviour, you know who to call. I'm gonna be focusing on Chinese poetry for the next while, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion'll end up being more general than what's happening on any particular character's page, and will probably end up at the Village Pump. I'm expecting more along the lines of endless IDHT nonsense drowning the conversation, and repeated insistence that characters are subsests of their appearances in comics. The wider community won't go for it, but it'll be time-consuming and obnoxious nonetheless.

Hey, do you actually read Chinese? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I know about as much classical Chinese as the average Japanese university student who isn't majoring in Japanese literature or anything to do with China, and I took a colloquial Mandarin class for a semester in college. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nothing's gonna get better. Now I've supposedly called for him to be blocked. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. But per these two edits he appears to be at least capable of claiming that he's dropped the stick without in the same comment obviously indicating that he hasn't dropped the stick. I think it would be best for all of us to just forget about it at this point. If you bring something up at the village pump, don't mention the previous canvassing incident unless he canvasses again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be me taking it to the Village Pump—it'll be someone like SMcCandlish who knowns more about the wider community & MoS issues. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And threats to pick up the stick again at ANI. Good luck with that, DarkKnight (who's obviously watching)! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the diff above, I think he's finally calmed down and is sincerely interested in dropping the stick. If he takes anything to ANI at this point, no one will take it seriously, especially if you explicitly state as I am now doing that you're not interested in talking about this anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just keeping this stuff on the record. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Good luck, Darkknight!" - Oh, just drop it already. "One more question" was intended to be my last dog in this flamewar. Why, do I need to take this to ANI? Right now, I don't plan on doing so, unless my hand is somehow forced. Dark Knight 2149 18:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Drop it", he says two days after the last comment. I'm documenting behavioural issues that are obviously going to play in interfering with attampts to clean up a problem we've had for years. Please, take it to ANI. It'll be more documentation on how disruptive you intend to be. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't edit yesterday (sarcasm). And you pretty much just admitted again that the only reason you're making false claims is because you disagree with me in a discussion (or rather, you're continuing to assume that WP:COMICS opinions are my opinions).

Do I need to take this to WP:ANI? Because you're incriminating yourself at this point. And the fact that you're continuing to keep this going after the argument between me and Hijiri88 wrapped shows the hypocrisy in your statement. Dark Knight 2149 22:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn the difference between disruptive behaviour (AKA what you're doing) and people simply disagreeing with you. Dark Knight 2149 22:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So fucking well take it to ANI already. Fucking Christ ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More dramah. *sigh* Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gobble, gobble. Dark Knight 2149 03:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know you're WP:NOTHERE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sfnm[edit]

Hey, I liked the work you did cleaning up the refs in our Narihira article last year. I've been trying to format new refs in articles I write in a similar way, but it's hard work, and I'm wondering if I'm doing it wrong; is there some shortcut or something that I'm missing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you trying to do it? If you're replacing another reffing system with it, yeah, it'll be hard work, and probably not worth the effort if you're not planning on expanding or otherwise thoroughly reworking the article (or unless you're seriously OCD). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the template is very sensitive to spelling. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can spot these errors easily if you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to your /common.js. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, except in unusual circumstances, you don't need to do "|ref = {{SfnRef|Turkey|2017}}"—you can do just "|ref = harv" and the template will automagically spit out the link based on the author's surname and publication date. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the Chinese and Japanese articles conflict on the birth & death dates. Is this maybe a Julian vs Gregorian thing? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. If it was known that he was born/died in, say, January/February of one year in the Gregorian calendar but the previous year in the Chinese calendar, at least one of the sources would give the month, and scholars wouldn't need to speculate that because he referred to himself as a horse he was probably born in 790. More likely the early sources (which are relatively abundant) contradict each other. Brief biographical notes are given in both the 旧唐書 and the 新唐書, his near-contemporary wrote something called 李賀小伝, and there are probably others I'm missing (I don't know if the Song anthologies give any biographical data). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea if it's possible to italicize titles of encyclopedias with no named author?[3] I actually didn't notice it until now, but the Narihira article actually has this problem too. Also, if I did the "ref=harv" trick, how would it locate the bibliography entry to link to? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never figured out how to do that. It might be worth bringing up to the template editors—everything I've tried has turned out funny. If you do "ref=harv", then you just use the author name(s) and the date of publication: {{sfn|Turkey|2017|p=12345}} or {{sfn|Turkey|Scout|2017|pp=123–456}}. The template^[1] generates the links^[2] itself. If you have two books from the same author in the same year, you can set "|year=2017a" and "|year=2017b".

Turkey, Curly (2017a). Ratfucking for fucking rats. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Turkey, Curly (2017b). Pigfucking for fucking pigs. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

^ Turkey 2017a, p. 123.
^ Turkey 2017b, pp. 42–43.

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cross (wordless novel) scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Southern Cross (wordless novel) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 18, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 18, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I just had a wordless novel run on 1 January. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kabukidō Enkyō[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kabukidō Enkyō you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Kabukidō Enkyō page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kabukidō Enkyō[edit]

The article Kabukidō Enkyō you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kabukidō Enkyō for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Kōmei Bijin Rokkasen page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help) and a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 9 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Utamakura (Utamaro) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ChesterBrownLouisRielElectionWon.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ChesterBrownLouisRielElectionWon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:JoeMattMeetsChesterBrownForTheFirstTimeInPeepshow.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JoeMattMeetsChesterBrownForTheFirstTimeInPeepshow.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Civility Barnstar
	For being able to stay civil against such raving lunacy, I hereby award you this barnstar. Display it with pride. Twitbook space tube 23:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Twitbookspacetube: I think it would be a good idea not to use the phrase "raving lunacy". To elaborate, under the circumstances, would be inappropriate, but you, CT and I all know why questioning other users' sanity is generally unacceptable. You should just say "nonsense". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Twitbookspacetube: @Hijiri88: At this point, I don't even mind TBH. I'm not holding any grudges. After a ban appeal, I'm moving on. Hopefully, this will soon be nothing more than a bad memory for all of us. Dark Knight 2149 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd common ground[edit]

Do you watch Game of Thrones, CT? I've complained a few times about our growing number of articles on characters from the show, which claim to be about characters from the original books but flagrantly conflate the two, and overemphasize the popular TV adaptation. This is actually, ironically enough, the opposite problem of the comics articles, which overemphasize the less-popular source material. (Another difference is that WP:ASOIAF seems to by-and-large agree with me, at least in theory.)

If there is a discussion of fictional characters in general, I might point out the GOT problem, but I'm not really interested in the superheroes issue and probably won't follow it until then.

If you want to notify me when the main discussion starts, it would be appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And right before saving, I got a massive deja vu spasm. Did I post this here before? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've alluded to GOT enough times, but not this issue. I haven't read the books or watched the show. I don't watch a lot of TV. Maybe I'll get around to it, though—we just got Netflix a month or two ago.

You may want to bring it up as part of the larger character discussion, wherever it ends up taking place. But if WP:ASOIAF agrees with you, then what's the problem? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that—for some reason I thought GOT was a Netflix show. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GOT (or at least the first three seasons) is pretty awesome. I bought the DVDs of the first season based on rumour, but it's at least worth a rental. Living in Japan I appreciate how much of a financial investment it is to buy DVD box sets of TV shows.

And just because I brought the SYNTH issue to WP:ASOIAF and they agreed with me it was a problem, I don't necessarily think they would all support solving the problem with AFDs (although the fact that apparently one new account is responsible for virtually all of the articles makes it a toss-up), and then there's the whole Keep I found a bunch of semi-reliable sources that kinda cover this topic in detail if one squints and pretends they aren't just plot summaries with weight problems. The topic clearly meets GNG. crowd, who present the same GNG argument in response to every AFD regardless of what the nominator's rationale was, post only once before ignoring rebuttals, and seem to represent a majority of the users who comment in AFDs.

By the way ... I didn't notice this until just now, but ... The Joker (The Dark Knight) is its own article. I mean ... really!? The hell?! It was a good actor playing a good character in a good movie, but that really shouldn't merit its own article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested enough in the topic to read it through (haven't even seen the movie), but I'm not going to hold it against anyone who wants to write up a fully-sourced article (the sources look legit, anyways). Just consider how obscure some of my articles are. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries and GA[edit]

I posted these without reading your comment very closely, and I didn't want to annoy Drmies with a third reply to you in a row on his talk page, which is the main reason I'm posting this here but ... wow. Coincidence of coincidences, we were talking about the same phenomenon. I wonder if part of the reason the article I linked passed GA review was because of its shittily sourced plot summary section. It's a pure coincidence that I posted another GAR on an unrelated topic today, but ... that's a serious concern, if articles on fictional works and characters are expected to engage in a mild form of OR in order to pass the GA bar, especially given that one of the "official" criteria is that the articles can't includer OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries might be worth a Village Pump discussion, though I'm not sure I'm interested in joining in. I have to wonder about the value of 700-word plot summaries in a lot of articles that could do with a line or two. Have you ever read One Hundred Years of Solitude? There's a book whose summary could easily get out of hand (even sourced), but probably would be best with a single paragraph, followed by a whack of analysis. I mean, if you really want that much detail of the plot, wouldn't you just read the book rather than Wikipedia? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, material that can be cited to secondary sources at least in theory has some encyclopedic value. "Analysis" might not make any sense without the relevant plot details also being explained, which is why sources give those details. Material that can only be found in the book itself might well be irrelevant. That's not to say plot summaries cited exclusively to secondary literature by top scholars can't still wind up looking like shit (see my fr.wiki article on the Matsuranomiya monogatari; or, heck, the English first draft). But yeah, if you see such a discussion happening somewhere, I'd appreciate a ping. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't arguing against the idea they should be cited. I was going off on a tangent on the way Wikipedia's come to expect plot summaries—kind of a Procrustes Bed approach. I have to wonder how many readers actually want 700-word summaries for every book (I'm talking articles that would legitimately pass GA). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cross (wordless novel)[edit]

Nice little article on a rather curious subject—congratulations on reaching the main page :) —Deckiller (t-c-l) 05:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article about an expression in art of "of indignation against the nuclear tests ..."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stats[edit]

I'm sure there's some rationale explanation for it, but Southern Cross (wordless novel) is now my second highest-viewed TFA. What surprised me more is that somebody seems to be reading it every day—the lowest number of pageviews in its entire history has been 2. Puts faith in my long tail POV of Wikipedia's value—it was the obscure articles that brought me here in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ブルゾンちえみ Blouson Chiemi[edit]

New project if/when you're game-there is no English article on her, do you think it worthwhile?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Googling turns up what looks like enough RSes to make something. If you don't see a new article on her in the next few days, remind me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Kintetsubuffalo: the more I look into it, the more it looks like this'll be a tough one. She's in the news a lot, but it looks mostly like stuff announcing appearances in whatever ... she basically passes WP:NOTABILITY, but it's hard to find non-promotional info that's really encyclopaedic. I can't even find her birthdate and birthplace anywhere but at her agency's site ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pen ...[edit]

[4]

I don't know what exactly my mistake was, but thanks for fixing it. Have an apple!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri 88: You'd better use that pen to fix {{sfnm|1a1=Graham|1p=75|1y=568}} The year should be 1971 or 1977, but I don't know which number the page should be. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- thanks for pointing that out! I already fixed it, but in my defense... If you look at the page numbers given in the bibliography, it's pretty obvious what my mistake was. I got the "year" and "page" parameters mixed up (for whatever reason I seem to have been putting the year after the page and getting away with it) and misprinted "1971" as "71" as "75". It's a pretty ridiculous mistake for me to make, but given that 1977 doesn't have page numbers (I haven't read it and should probably remove it from the bibliography; it was there when I got there, but I removed all the text that might have been sourced to it) and 1971 was "560–570", it's ... well, sorry for the mistake, anyway. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was the 75, but you know what they say when you assume things ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Love and Rockets X[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Love and Rockets X you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wayback Machine doesn't like message boards (or just reddit)?[edit]

Hey CT, you've used the Internet Archive a lot, right? Have you ever encountered this? The archived page appears to just display the reddit loading screen... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a bot that's archived it, there's no guarantee it's archived correctly. For example, for paywalled pages it often archives the paywall screen. If you use the site by hand, you always have to double-check that the page has archived correctly—it'll tell you if it can't archive due to robots.txt, but it won't tell you if it otherwise hasn't archived it properly.

As for Reddit, I don't know, but maybe the pages are "dynamic" in such a way as that makes them hard to archive correctly. Have you seen other archived Reddit pages load correctly? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sept haï-kaïs[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sept haï-kaïs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curly Turkey! I've finished the review and have noted a number of mostly small issues. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Love and Rockets X[edit]

The article Love and Rockets X you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Love and Rockets X for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sept haï-kaïs[edit]

The article Sept haï-kaïs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sept haï-kaïs for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moisejp -- Moisejp (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling someone can't accept that the Marvel Cinematic Universe isn't flawless[edit]

Iron Fist (TV series)#Critical response

I know you don't necessarily follow superhero media, but ... wow. Marvel finally made a film/TV series that most people agree is terrible. When I noticed this I could kinda anticipate that the Wikipedia "Critical response" discussion would be an almost unreadable wall of text that (without having sunk more time into actually trying to read it; I haven't finished watching the show yet, so I'm not going to read through the Wikipedia article) I get the distinct feeling some editors (read: Marvel zombies) went over the top trying to "nuance".

I'm not asking you to do anything to the article (I might take a stab at it in a few days). I just thought you might get a larf out of what apparently happened, and what Wikipedia is up against trying to get decent coverage of this shit when our DC-focused mutual friend was only the tip of the iceberg and his TBAN is already a third of the way to expiring automatically.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? If we can source it, we have to allow it, right?

You probably know I don't think highly of superheroes. Comic books hit their sales peak in the early 1950s just as superhero sales were bottoming out, then saw a decline right up through the 1980s—a decline that saw superheroes come to dominate—and, I suspect, drive out the non-superhero fans. My evidence? Japanese and European sales continued to grow massively throughout the same period, despite the advent of TV, video games, etc. that we've been taught to be the real culprit behind the decline in the Anglosphere. It was always a massive embarrassment even for nerdy ol' me to walk into a comics dungeon to get my fix, having to wade through the gargantuan muscles, titties, and ultraviolent revenge-fantasy fulfillment to get to the back corner of the shop to get a copy of something I wanted (say, Little Orphan Annie), nestled on the bottom shelf ... under the porn. Every so often I'd run into someone who wasn't grossed out by my comics collecting, someone seemingly sympathetic to the possiblities of the medium ... and then they'd say something like "Comics is a form of literature. Take, for example, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns ..." Comics is not a form of literature (it's primarily a visual medium) and Frank Miller is not even an example of literacy, let alone literature.

The kind of comics articles I deal with suffer the opposite problem—a dearth of sources. This includes works that ended up on The Comics Journal's best of the 20th century list. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Mentor[edit]

I think that the Garage rock article may finally be ready for FAC. I noticed that there is a mentorship program for new FAC nominees and your name on the list of mentors. You have also been helpful in your edits and advice regarding the article. I was wondering if you would like to be my mentor during the FAC process? Gobble Gobble. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I keep on promising to give the article a full copyedit. Let me get on that first. And, yeah, I'll try to "mentor" you through FAC. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all of your assistance and look forward to your mentorship. I'll be happy to wait and give you a chance to finish the copyedit. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question[edit]

Did you get this ping just now? I didn't want to do my usual "make a separate post just to ping and sign", but I didn't want to change my previous signature, so I just used five tildes to date the "edit", and I'm curious if that was enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Note 7[edit]

"The" is not required; names do not take definite article if they are referring to an entire class of something. Having "the" implies it is only about one phone, period. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurb. Where do you even get this shit? "Already definite" is gibberish. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct in Liancourt Rocks[edit]

This comment Please don't feed the nationalists, of which Chunbum Park is clearly one is way over any line and unsurprisingly led to some nationalist bickering. So discuss the edits not the edit. Don't label other editors. Do it again and you won't be allowed to contribute further to the discussion. Ta. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Led to some nationalist bickering"? Give me a fucking break. There's one nationalist in the entire fucking discussion, and he's now blocked as a sock of the nationalist Wikimachine who was subject to a site ban determined at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. It does the discussion and project no good to avoid labelling disruptive and deceptive editors like this as what they are. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could ping a guy, Only in death, when you're tattling on them. Labelling a nationalist is apparently much more harmful to the project than the nationalist himself? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging you would indicate I wanted your input. Since your edit consisted solely of personal attacks (specifically: accusing an editor of being a nationalist, saying an editor doesnt care about NPOV, accusing them of 'poisoning' an encyclopedia) frankly after being warned in advance that the page was being watched by administrators, it should come as no surprise when your personal attacks get removed and reported. If it makes you feel better, it was to alert Spartaz to the general tone the page was taking, which while you are not the sole problem, you are largely responsible for creating and the above edit was a prime example of the toxic environment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"consisted solely of personal attacks"—pointing out a seriously problematic editor threatening to derail a serious discussion is "solely ... personal attacks". What horseshit. No wonder nationalists are so difficult to deal with in this place. Shades of History of Japan and Korean influence on Japanese culture—the people labelling the nationalists were the "bad guys" until—after years—they finally managed to get the nationalists banned. Meanwhile, editor after editor disappeared due to burnout dealing withthe nationalists, and none of them have returned to finally clean up those articles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 21[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

#1lib1ref 2017
Wikipedia Library User Group
Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind creating a redirect?[edit]

ArbCom told me that I'm allowed mention vaguely Japan-linked stuff when talking about my own biography in discussion of non-Japanese topics, and I just did so at Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal linking Assistant language teacher without realizing that English Wikipedia had up to now failed to create that as a redirect to Assistant Language Teacher. I'm gonna appeal the TBAN soon enough, but the discussion in question might be closed by then, I'd rather not change the direction of my own redlink when it really should exist as a redirect, and doing so might actually violate WP:POINT when, as I said, it really should exist, and not asking someone else to make the redirect could come across as a poor-taste satire on how unconstructive my TBAN is to the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising it's not an automatic redirect. I mean, you get automatically redirected when you search for a term with different capitalization. Don't think I want to click through to the discussion itself ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nemo (1911 film) scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Little Nemo (1911 film) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 29, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I wonder if a certain someone will try to goad me into an edit war again. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful: "While it lacks anything resembling a story, it more than makes up for it with McCay's magically instant mastery of a medium in which he had no choice but be self-taught", - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review at Garage rock[edit]

I just noticed that your specific peer review comments on the Garage rock talk page. I'm sorry that I didn't notice them earlier, but I kept looking at the bottom of the page, rather than higher where you had them. Maybe we could put some of the older threads on the page into the archive to it make it easier to see the things that are specific to the here and now (the page has become hard to navigate). And, I've been really busy lately, so I've been in a rush--I haven't had time to be as thorough I should be--I've just been really busy and exhausted with a lot of things going on. I'll start tending to the issues you mentioned right away. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There's no rush—there're no deadlines around here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate the time you have put into helping out. You'll see I've made some changes. I have a lot more to make, but I'll be working on them. Oh, incidentally, please be sure to ping me for any response comments you wish to add in the Peer Review sections--that way you can alert me and help direct me to them. I want to be able to address all of your concerns. Happy Easter! Gobble, Gobble Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji and kana?[edit]

So there's an argument for removing Japanese writing at Talk:Soka Gakkai and I'm afraid this will spread to other articles. They say it's not relevant to an English encyclopedia to include any of it. What are your thoughts? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Soka Gakkai[edit]

Please stop. There's no valid reason to be arguing there any longer. If you have a dispute, take it to the other editor's talk page. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nihonjoe: sorry, my last comment edit-conflicted with your collapse. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There's just no need to continue the discussion there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iceman-related[edit]

I heard you renamed "Iceman (comics)" to "Iceman (character)" because it talked more about the character. He did have a four part solo comic series upon looking it up if you want to do to his page something similar to what was done with Wolverine. Just making a suggestion here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rtkat3: If sources warrant it and someone's motivated to do it, a separate article would make sense. I won't be the one to do it, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nemo[edit]

In response to this

It's pretty funny to watch you act all self-righteous in edit summaries and talk page comments about this article, a Featured Article no less, and yet, you can't seem to process that you have a "4000" and a "4,000" in prose just paragraphs apart. Reverting someone trying to make the article follow a consistent format is the real "horseshit" to me. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y2Kcrazyjoker4: You now claim you were trying to make the article "consistent"? That's hardly consistent with your edit comment rationale: "because this is the way numbers should be rendered". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should paste the entire edit summary next time instead of selectively responding to part of it? because this is the way numbers should be rendered, and because the same number is literally written this way earlier in the article Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y2Kcrazyjoker4 You think that makes you look better? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how it makes me look. I made a point, you ignored it, then made a borderline personal attack on my talk page. Pretty lousy attitude, if you ask me. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fuck? You were editwarring over bullshit, and I told you to knock it the fuck off. "Personal attack" my assflaps. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You waited six days to pollute my talkpage with this horseshit? How about next time you don't take to editwarring over your irrelevant prejudices? Otherwise you'll be whimpering about WP:CIVIL all through your well-deserved block. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 30, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 30, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's like someone's bent on using up all my remaining FAs ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "an important overlooked work in its field, far more influential than it was ever popular—the story of Kurtzman's life"! - I wonder if they matched Requiem für einen jungen Dichter intentionally? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to say thanks for writing such a likeable article. Also nice to see an FA from outside the usual fields. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garage rock article peer review[edit]

Curly Turkey, I've finished most of the issues you put in bullet points for text sections. Look over the changes I've made in those sections and let me know what you think.

I need to go back and address the concerns about pictures, but I want to do everything else first.
The issues about the compilations are still pending, because I want to create a new section (or sections) for that topic--I'll eventually move those statements there.
I want to add some statements (in Origins) about music between 1958 and 1962. Other than, Link Wray, there is kind of a hole there. There is not much mention of instrumental rock and surf, so I want to address that deficiency.
I'll soon be ready to start working on citations. You'll notice I've set off the comments you made about citations into their own thread (and created a new thread for the non-related comments right below--called "A quick look (so far)"). That way we can concentrate on the citations and references in their own thread. I'll start by working on the bullet points you mentioned there soon, and, of course,you can add any other "to do's" for the citations. perhaps you could help me while I work on the citations (I'm not an expert on citation format). Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66: I'll take a look at things, but maybe not in the next couple days. I'd been planning to fix up the refs myself, but haven't gotten to them—feel free to do it yourself. Re: the compilations. Putting them in their own section or something was just one suggestion—all that needs to be done is somehow contextualize them so the reader understands why they're being mentioned. They way they were introduced made them seem (a) contemporary with the music on them; and (b) somewhat arbitrary, possibly WP:UNDUE. You should give some thought to what purpose they're serving being doing anything. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could try and do some of it, but I'm not an expert in ref. format. Perhaps it would be best if you take the lead. I'd love if you could work on it (I'm finally beginning to suffer from "Garage rock article fatigue"--the whole expansion project has become never-ending in a way I never could have anticipated). However, if you want me to do some of it, I could--you could provide me with some specific pointers. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're feeling that way, it might be a good idea to leave the article alone for a while and work on some less intense ones, like band or song articles. You could come back in a few weeks or months with a fresh perspective. I'll handle the refs. Ping me if you notice I'm neglecting to do it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be super-kind. But, I don't want to burden anyone. I'll observe how you correct the citations, so I can learn for future projects. If you want me to come in and do some of them, let me know. I will have a little more time on my hands after the next couple of weeks. I'm hoping that we can have it ready for FAC some time this summer. I hope we're not too far off. I'll be so glad when the train finally reaches its destination. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, I see that you've been making some improvements to the citations. Thanks a lot. I made a couple of similar changes.

I noticed that you left some of the book references in the old citations--I'm guessing that it is OK to have non-sfn (non-Harvard) citations in for book references where there are additional drop-down citations underneath--I'm guessing that would be so?
I think that the lead section does not look quite right yet--it has all of the right information, but needs a couple of slight tweaks in ordering--it does not guide the reader into the topic well-enough. I was wondering: Does the ordering of statements in a lead section have to follow the exact order they will appear in the main body text? I'd like to make a couple of ever-so-slight changes in ordering the lead section--the content would remain exactly the same. In the first paragraph of the heading section, I think that we could mention the sound and musical style of the form first before discussing the terminology. So, I was thinking we could take the first sentence in the second paragraph (describing the musical style) and move it to go in front of the sentence about the terminology (the sentence about terminology would still end the first paragraph as it does now). I also think that we should move the thing about "precursor to acid rock" down to the part of the heading discussing psychedelic. I want to make sure that the reader gets the right introduction--that we draw them in and also guide them with clarity and precision. What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to convert all the citations—I just haven't gotten around to it yet, mainly because I haven't been spending much time on Wikipedia recently. When I was going through the citations the other day, I especially skipped the "Source 1", "Source 2" ones, because they're a bit more involved to sort out, but I'll be getting to them, too. On that note, would you object to me bundling multiple refs into {{sfnm}}s? I know some people don't like them.

As for the lead: no, it does not have to follow the structure of the body, which is often a bad idea. Unless there's some serious issue you want to sort out with it, though, I'd leave futzing with the lead until you're satisfied with the body. Otherwise, you might find yourself re-futzing with it if you end up making substantial changes to the body.

Oh, and just so you know—you don't have to ping me on my talk page. I get pinged automatically whenever anyone edits it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. You are more than welcome to do multiple sources-sfn's. That would be a perfect solution (the citations could go into multiple sfn's and any additional side-notes could go into nb notes). I'd love to see how you do the multiple-source sfn's. I had put all that detail in because there are certain areas that might be otherwise controversial or unclear (yet I wanted to avoid what might look like cite overkill). I'm glad that the lead section doesn't have have to be arranged in the same order as the text. I might go ahead and make that minor change there, but later, after we finish all of the other stuff, I would like to go back later and find richer wording in a couple of places in the lead. But, first things first. Sorry about the pings--they were just a precaution. Thanks for everything. Gobble gobble! Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation overkill is a problem to different people for different reasons. For me, it's only an issue of cluttering up the text, which is why I like bundling—you can load up the article with as many cites as you like. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I like the way you've converted a lot of the notes to the efn format--it's much better. I liked it so much in fact, that I converted some of the statements for the Troggs (at the beginning of the international section) into the efn format. Let me know if you like the way the citations there look now. I hope there aren't too many there (there are now three citations, along with the notes). I'm trying to avoid cite overkill, but I want to make sure we get good source coverage--in many people's minds, garage is a strictly North American thing, when if fact, it reached way beyond our shores. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66: about those {{efn}}s—it's embarrassing, actually. I often edit using an external editor. There was something wonky happening with one of the endnotes. I'd fix it in the external editor, and then refresh the page in my browser to see if it fixed it. Problem was, the page I had open was a diff page—so I just kept refereshing the same diff over and over. I was tearing my hair out over not being able to fix the formatting error! The {{efn}}s were just one of my attempts to fix what was probably already fixed ... but if you like them, I'll leave them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either format is fine with me, but one advantage I thing the efn notes have over the nb notes is that the entry (the blue thing next to the citations) is smaller and takes up less space than the nb method. I also like the way the efn notes are in letters, not numbers, and that gives a better way for the reader to differentiate between the notes and citations. However, I leave it up to you--whatever method you think is best. Would either way be fine to FAC reviewers? I'd imagine that either would be fine. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any citation format is fine, as long as it's consistent. Browse through a few FAs and you'll see quite a few different styles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to take a look. By the way, I'd be happy to make any fixes/improvements in the notes about the Kennedy assassination/Beatles first visit. I was using the same citations in two different sections appearing at almost opposite ends of the article (Beatles and later Psychedelia), so I put a lot of info in there to cover both bases (you'll notice that those same refs replicate in the later Psychedelic section). But, it is a good thing that you are changing the citations--we can now better tailor references and notes to specific places. I just made a couple of edits there, but I kept the notes exactly the way they are currently--I fixed a couple of brackets and ref/tags. We can make further changes later. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I've been working on the citations. I was wondering how you think the citations are coming along--do you think we're getting near to the goal in getting them converted to the new format? Gobble gobble! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely getting there. I'll probably have time to get some serious work in on Tuesday. I'm thinking I might comment out some of the endnotes, just to get the refs sorted, and then we can decide which ones should be kept or whatever afterwards. You were talking about adding some more material—how's that coming along? I'd like to do another thorough copyedit of the article, but I'd prefer to wait until you're done adding stuff. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had recommended the idea of a separate section for compilations. So, I'd like to take all of the statements in the current sections mentioning compilations and transfer them into the newly created section (you'll notice I have all of the comp. issues temporarily "pending"). I was thinking that we could put the new Comp. section after Decline. That way we will give readers sufficient foreknowledge. While it might seem attractive to put the Comp. section early in the article, it may be problematic there--readers might get vexed when we mention compilations about garage movements in other counties and female garage collections, etc. They'll be thinking "What is that all about?" Whereas, if we put the new Comp. section later in the article (after we have already introduced female garage and international garage counterparts), then the discussion of all of the different types of compilations will seem palpable in readers' minds. I think that right after Decline would be a good place to put the new Comp. section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I've also thought about putting a Legacy section at the end, but there may not yet be enough things right now in sources. I have plenty of positive testimonies, but I wouldn't want the section to be all glowing accolades. While I would want a Legacy section to reflect a mostly positive consensus of about the genre, it should also include criticisms--weighing its pros and cons, offering different perspectives, ultimately underlying the genre's strength and enduring appeal (but also pointing out the criticisms). Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just noticed that I'm having some difficulty with the sfnm notes for Bangs/Bhatia/Marks & McIntyre. I tried to put the three authors into a 3-way sfnm citation, but I have run into trouble. You might check to see if I did the sfnm format correctly. Thanks for your help. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God! I finally found the problem. Whew! I had a url address shown in the efn notes, and it was causing the notes to not register. So, I took it out and moved it to the Bibliography. Amen! Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I never would have guessed that. I was trying to work it out and it magically went away—I didn't realize you were editing at the same time. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like a tag-team effort. Yeah, I was struggling to find a solution to the problem there--I tried a bunch of things and none of 'em worked. I finally decided to take the url thing out of the notes (thinking "this won't work, but I'll try anyway)--and Bingo! It worked! Amen. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the statement by Jake Berger (in the Psychedelic socio-cultural section) that used to be in notes has been bracketed out. It is a direct testimony by a former member of a 60s garage band (Berger was in a band called the Ajents) about the whole socio-cultural backdrop (television, Vietnam, etc.). I had originally wanted to quote it, but didn't want to waste space, so I put it in notes. I feel that his quote is highly illuminating--it draws the readers into the firsthand experience of musicians and the whole drama of the era--and gives the article resonance. I wanted for people to see that the issues addressed in the section are corroborated by direct testemeony of musicians. Shouldn't we put the Berger statements in efn notes? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented it out rather than deleting it to let you decide whether to keep it—it's your article, not mine—but I'm not a fan of these asides. "Interesting" is not the same as "encyclopaedic", and putting it in an endnote kind of misses the point of what an endnote's for. Take a look at Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki#Notes for an example of how I typically use them. There's no rule against what you're doing, though, so I'll leave the decision to you—but most of these things seem like clutter to me. My goal is to keep the text easy to read and to the point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's everybody's article--I'm just here to contribute in my best capacity in an topic which I am familiar. So, if I have an issue, I want to consult and talk it over with others. I want this article to be something that we can all enthusiastically embrace. One of the reasons I put in the side notes is that the garage genre is not something most people are generally familiar with. I worry that certain future editors are going to find even the some of the most basic (and accurate statements) here to be vexing and may try to challenge them. Future editors may not have sufficient knowledge of the topic or may not have access to the books we've listed--they may not be able to look up pages listed here the way they can for articles on better-known genres. Current web links may one day become one day dead-links. I know that rock music topics can be controversial, and because this topic is not as well known, it could potentially become vulnerable--we're dealing with a genre that was not known as a genre in its time--so much of how it is appreciated and defined is based on retrospect--and terminologies have shifted over the years. It can be confusing. We may know better, but what will people think years from now? So, I felt a need to put in side notes to clarify certain things that might be unclear or controversial. Also, some of the side notes used to be in the text, but another editor and I moved many of the old statements into side notes when we were trying to reduce the size of the article (to keep the information available). Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe some of this stuff deserves to be back in the main text again. We'll look at more ways to compress the text and then see what else can reasonably be fit in.

Oh, and by "your article", I didn't mean it in an WP:OWN sense, but in the sense that editorial decisions of primary editors get priority of drivebys and copyeditors, as with WP:ENGVAR and date formatting—I shouldn't have final say over this stuff, as I haven't contributed content. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Still, your thoughts and feedback mean a lot to me. Regarding the side notes, there may be some things we could put back in text. For the side notes we keep as notes, we could find ways to trim them in size, making them more brief and succinct when possible. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you should look into what you can do with that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of trimming the notes down. I eliminated several unnecessary efn's and reduced the amount f commentary in others. In the Beatles'/JFK section, I brought some of the notes there back in, but made them a lot shorter and fixed some of the problems with the previous versions. I'll see if there are any more improvements I can make. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GR Peer Review (Part II)[edit]

I just added a new Compilations section as you recommended, so I removed prior statements about comps that were in regular sections. For the new section, I did the notes in sfn/sfnm Harvard style. Then, I went the bottom and added the bibliographical entries. I think that's how you want it, but you might go back and check to see that I did the citations properly. You could read over the new section and let me know if I need to change anything in the wording. Also, you'll notice that I added some things to Decline and made a few improvements in other places. Thanks. Gobble gobble! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to finish up the refs before looking at the text again—it's taking a lot more effort than I thought it would. Until then, can you go through the rest of the stuff that I brought up? There's still a lot of unaddressed stuff in there. Also, we're going to have to weed out more of the refs—blogs and music stores and stuff. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I know that this article is a difficult and time-consuming thing. I appreciate the time you've put in to it. I'm guessing that you'd like to see us convert all of the citations from < ref > format to sfn/sfnm Harvard style. To make it easier, I could help out with that. I'm trying to work on the bundle of citations at the beginning of the International section--I'm trying to figure out how to get it right. I listed a lot of citations there, because I'm aware that there is going to be an assumption amongst some editors that garage was strictly an American thing--when it was actually a lot more global in scope--we have a lot of sources testifying to garage outside of the US--even whole books written about it. Right now I relegated a bunch of the citations to efn notes--perhaps I could convert them to Harvard? I'm guessing that we should convert all of the citations (even for websites) to sfn/sfnm Harvard, is that correct? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I converting some of the citations to sfn/sfnm Harvard--perhaps you could look to see that everything is looking right--I hope that I'm on the right track. But, let me ask you a question: do we have to convert all of the website citations to Harfard or can we leave the non-book ones in < ref > format? Is Harvard only necessary for book citations? I noticed that there are approx 240 < ref > citations left. Do we have to convert all of them--or just for ones that are for books? What is expected for FAC? Please get back to me, so I know how to best proceed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule—you can leave things as mixed as you please—but (and this is experience talking) keeping everything in the same (and predictable) format will save you headaches in the long run. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are approx 240 citations left, perhaps we could work on them little by little. Would people mind if there are over 200 more entries added tothe Bibliography? I'd like to start the FAC process soon (if you think the article is approaching readiness). We could maybe start the FAC process, then continue to covert citations little-by-little as we go (and of course eliminate/replace weak citations as you earlier mentioned). What do you think would be best? Do you think the article is close to being ready for FAC? Should I go ahead and nominate it soon? Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no—that'll never fly, not because of the refs (although there are still other issues with the refs aside form reformatting). You should never nominate an FAC until you're fairly sure all the issues have been worked out, including copyediting and double-checking refs. Those AllMusic refs will have to be checked, for instance, for the reasons I've given on the talk page. Don't rush an FAC, because, if enough issues pop up quickly, they'll just archive it. Get the kinks worked out first. I mean, look at the issues I've brought up with the refs on the talk page—blogs and things like that need to be purged from the article.

There are other issues I wanted to brign up, too, and one of them was the sheer number of refs. I think I might have brought this up before. The fact that there are so many referencing such small details raises flags as to their appropriateness and WP:WEIGHT. Are these details not covered in any of the general sources? If not, why? Some of this stuff could be accused of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, which would not only autofail the FAC, but also likely strip it of its GA status. The more I've been going through the sources, the more I've come across this stuff—which is one more reason it's good I'm going through the sources, regardless of formatting issues. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a bit fanatical--I tend to err on the side of too many refs rather than too few. Keep in mind that, while expanding the article, it was hard for me to be objective--my focus was on growing the thing. But, now is the time to go back and fix things. I could cut out a lot of refs at the beginning of the International section and elsewhere. I think that the better references in the International into say enough to suffice, without lot of extras, so I could cut the rest out. but, for there and elsewhere--could you point out all specific places in the article where I need to eliminate refs? If there is any statement/over-cite issue, please let me know--you can bring each issue to may attention, and I can address each one individually. I'm perfectly willing to make necessary changes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the number of refs—it's (a) the quality (blogs are simply not acceptable); and (b) how they're used (Billboard is certainly an WP:RS, but the way it's used is not acceptable in those places I pointed out on the talk page). Don't focus on throwing out refs—focus on reviewing them, and evaluating how they're being used. If the only source you have for a single hitting No. 5 on the charts is the Billboard chart itself, then it's probably not notable enough for the article—the Billboard chart doesn't give us context or establish notability.

(Having said that, there's no problem with including the Billboard charts in addition to a source that contextualizes the fact given, but the Billboard chart alone is not sufficient.) Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that--I've always thought of Billboard as the closest thing to "the Bible" when it comes to national chart action for hits. I'm going to need your help in that section. You may need to go line-by-line with me and show me what I need to change or fix or ask me questions--we may need to both go in and read the sources. If there is something that I checked off as "fixed", but you don't think it's fixed, please tell me. Incidentally, if you'd like to change anything in there, then go right ahead--you may have better sources or come up with better expiations. I have to admit that chart action is not my forte. If there are any issues in the other sections the you see that need correction, please let me know just the way you did in the review (you can put it here or there)--there may be some things that I think I fixed that may not yet be good enough--let me know (I love specifics). I am thankful for all of the time you've put into helping me, but I have to admit--I need your help. This whole thing with doing the G.R. article has finally become heartbreaking, a never-ending struggle, I have to admit. I've given up doing so many easier projects for this. But, I don't want to escape it, but rather see it through to its destination. It's too late to stop now, and I have some time on my hands right now. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let it get to you. There's defeintely a lot of work to do, but the article's most of the way there. Part of what makes it time consuming is that it's such a big article to begin with.

Re: Billboard: the problem is that the significance of a single going to No. 5 (say) is something that needs to be contextualized. why is this such an important thing that it needs to be mentioned? Why should the reader care? If a source tells us that for some reason, "Blop Blop Blop" by the Blop-De-Blops hitting No. 5 signified the extent garage rock had reached the mainstream consciousness as of 1966 (for example), that gives us some context. But hitting No. 5 in and of itself is just a statistic, and to the reader trying to work out the development of the genre, it's just noise. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to see if there is a good explanation in one of the sources. Please give me feedback as I go along. Incidentally, so I don't overload the section with too much wording, perhaps you could point out which songs you think need better statements. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some improvements in the "Success and airplay" section. Give me some feedback if you see anything more I need to do there. I also worked on some of the issues in the "Refs" section of the peer review--sorry I had overlooked the issues there (I got tied up with everything else). Incidentally, I added tertiary references after all of the Billboard refs in the "Success and airplay". If you want me to remove the Billboard refs, I can. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have some time to devote to the article the day after tomorrow. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garage rock article peer review (Pt. III)[edit]

I'm beginning to address some of the additional issues you have brought up in the Reformatting refs section on the article talk page. To make it easier to navigate, I have broken the Reformatting refs section into four sections. I just finished addressing the Billboard issues--I removed all of the Billboard website refs. in the article. I posed some questions for issues where I might need feedback or assistance. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I got frustrated yesterday--it has nothing to do with anyone personally. I just felt that I wasn't coming up with adequate solutions in that section. I appreciate all of your help. I don't want to burden you in any way. I shouldn't put pressure and deadlines on myself. I'll try to ease off on the article for a week or two. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I bring up some concerns about the article here, Turkey? If not, I can move to the talk page after this comment. Let me just say this first: If we measured this article by its content up to "Success and airplay", I'd it is damn-near close to a FAC -- it's that solid. However, from there the article suffers from undue WP:WEIGHT for bands and songs that are not essential for a reader to understand the fundamentals of the subject. At this point, I don't know how you are going to go about fixing it (more "trimming", restructuring the article, whatever else) but it's an issue that I apologize in advance for mentioning if it has been discussed.

The same issues will be found in the "1960s compilations"; the whole section itself would probably be more fitting for the "Later developments" section. Nuggets, Pebbles, and Back from the Grave were the "Big 3" of the garage rock compilation series responsible for helping revive the genre and are well-documented for doing so. For some odd reason, other random compilation albums are name-dropped as well, possibly because they all share a similar author.

I would like to jump in to address the problems I see but I am afraid my way of going about it (slimming down and focusing on the essentials) would not be popular for both of you. Best of luck to you guys.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick, I'm not against slimming down, as long as it does not go overboard. Keep in mind that the article is now much smaller than it was early November. In fact, I did some trimming yesterday--I removed the Harbinger Complex from the California section (if you want me to put them back in I will).

I could remove more things there and elsewhere. But, there is soon going to come a point where the article will become irreducible--we don't want to accidently cut out too much--that could have a damaging effect. The article probably cannot go much less than 175,000KB and still do justice to its topic. In order to properly represent the article, we have to cover local and regional areas (60s garage was essentially a regional movement which consisted--by its very nature and genre definition--of smaller groups). The original intention of the regions section was to go into most of the major regions and discuss at select number of the most popular/noted bands in each. I have already removed not only countless bands, but whole regions in the process of trimming. We used to have the Southwest (New Mexico, Arizona, etc.). The article used to cover more parts of the south. The article covered mountain states, etc. Most of that is now gone. But that's OK--we needed to make the article smaller, and I definitely agree that we had too much then. We could still trim some more--as long as we're careful.
There is the issue of proportion--the US Regions section should always be at least slightly larger than the International (never smaller), so when I remove US bands, I also have to go in and remove things from the international to make it balance out.
GracefulSlick, my best recommendation is to go the article talk page (or my talk page) and tell me what individual acts should be removed--please do not go overboard with requests--keep requests measured. Be specific--tell me what bands and why. I may not necessarily always agree, but I'll try to remove them if need be. I'd actually like to expand commentary for some of the bands we keep, so if there are certain bands you'd like for me to say more about, let me know. If you want me to add any bands that need to be there, let me know.
Compilations: I put the Compilations section after Decline, because they feature only 1960s music. If I put the section later, readers may expect music from later eras, but I could consider the request to move it. I actually thought about that and weighed it in mind. My mind is not yet made up.
Compilations: As for general US acts, I put in the "big three" along with only one more, Uptight Tonight. Uptight is mentioned in Aaron's book, along with those three, as one of the most prominent collections. It is a popular one-disc comp on a prominent label that includes a lot of better known songs. I could have mentioned Garage Beat 66, but I do not think it has yet gained the stature of the other four. As for more specialized applications, I put the comps that are most prominent within those contexts. Within the context female bands, I mentioned the ones the best known. As for international acts, we have include that. British Empire Nuggets is essential, of course. There should be coverage of the Australian comps., so I put the two best-known. We probably should include sets from Latin America and continental Europe as well. Los Nuggetz and Trans World Punk are the best known--there aren't many more for Latin America and Europe. Since the article has an India section, I included Simla Beat, which used to be mentioned there. I could take certain compilations out, however. Keep in mind that most of them used to be mentioned in other sections and Curly Turkey asked my to create a Compilations section. If all it had was three comps. included there, then it wouldn't really be a worthy section to stand on its own. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"cannot go much less than 175,000KB"—gotta point out that the important number is the readable prose size, which is currently 63KB, not 175KB. The latter number includes references, formatting, etc, and there's no limit set on that stuff. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point there. I was thinking... I could work on some other projects--I really do want to get back to some GA projects I've had laying around in my sandboxes--one of which is the article on the producer/engineer, Glyn Johns, whose work I've always enjoyed, and there is a movie article in there as well. Of course, I'd still continue to work on the GR article--the reality is that my mind is on it, so the best way I can deal with that is to work constructively there to make it better. But, I could put the whole FAC thing off for awhile. I don't need to have a deadlines for that. No hurry. But, I was wondering... If I put the FAC thing off for another time, could you still help me in the meantime with the peer review there? I've actually enjoyed the work we've done on it the last moth or so--actually most of it has been surprisingly relaxing, considering that the article is long. It was only the Success and airplay section that got me snagged. Luckily, yesterday, when flipping through Markesich's book , I found a few pages that discuss some of the hits (how could I have overlooked that?). So, I went in and cited all of the songs in the Success and airplay section that are mentioned on those pages--so we now have a glue that binds most of the statements together in the section. I also improved some of the text--I hope that you like what you see there now. I also want to go in and trim some of the Regions sections--I could extricate a few bands in each section, but then add additional commentary for some of the bands that we keep. I just want to do it carefully in layers. But, I might ask you about particular bands and acts that could possibly be removed. You made a good point that a big article has to evolve in increments--what you called "accretions". So we could exfoliate it bit- by- bit, yet also enhance it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to keep at the article, too. I agree with TheGracefulSlick about scope issues—it's one of the reasons I suggested spinning off a lot of the material into sub-articles back when you first solicited feedback. It was one of the things I wanted to approach after giving the article another thorough read-through, but it's the kind of feedback that would take a big chunk of time at once, rather the the five or ten minutes here and there I've been able to give the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all against taking a lot of the material that has now been removed and putting it into sub-articles, but not on the kind of timetable that was proposed last November. Anyone at any time can create spinoff articles, but lets get this one finished first and not violate its integrity. My main problems with the Split proposal then was that:

a) It was advocating breaking the article into three different parts in a way that was unrealistic and would have been damaging to the article, and
b) That in order to satisfy the demands of such a split, it would have necessitated the creation of anywhere from ten to twenty sub-articles on a short-span time-table, which would have been very difficult to achieve and would have required the work of literally an army to accomplish--and would have taken our efforts off of improving the GR article, which should be our primary goal.
What was proposed would have been extremely messy and complicated. The US sections in GR article were devised along the lines of wider regions, not local scenes
To make each of the sub articles comprehensible, they would have each had to be organized according to specific local scenes (such as Bosstown Sound). It would have involved not using a lot of the bands that were mentioned in the GR--then having to add a lot of new ones that were part of those local scenes.
Nor did we achieve the kind of consensus to orchestrate that kind of split, and I don't think I remember you at the time being for that kind of proposal.
However, there was indeed a consensus that the article needed to be trimmed--in fact I fully agreed 100%. I had actually thought that myself earlier. After I looked over the expansions I had done in July/August 2016 I was like "maybe I put too much in there, and at some point I'm going to have to go back and take things out if people don't mind." I was planning to make trims as soon as the workload at my job subsided. roundabout that time, I had been taking a break from the article for couple of months to focus on my job and smaller Wiki Projects (for instance I did a GA thing for the Wrecking Crew, which was a piece of cake compared to the GR article). I can't say that the November controversy came at the best of times, but I acknowledge that it brought up necessary issues and prompted me to get to work on trimming the article down. Since then I have cut over a half of the article out. Compare then [[5]] to now. [[6]] I think that the article has come a long way.

Anyone is welcome to create a spinoff article any time--just do it on your own time please don't break this article to bits.
Even the most vocal spit-proponents in November did not advocate doing away with Regions sections, just making them smaller (which I have now done)--and spinning off removed material into sub-articles (but under the pressure of a Split where it has to all be done at once--that would have ended up becoming a real hassle for everyone). The idea proposed then was to remove the whole international section and create a new Article out of it. The problem with that is that:

Though garage existed outside of the US in the 60s, and that a good article should include the international aspects...
The US is still the central locus of 60s garage, and without that connection, having an article about garage outside of the US becomes incomprehensible.

So let me express what I think is essential to this article:

1) It has to have regional coverage--there should be at least a handful of acts covered in each region. When we talk about scope, we are dealing with the genre that had the widest scope in terms of acts that participated and recorded. We cannot do the topic justice by simply focusing on 15-20 of its best known acts irrespective of region. I need you to please read the comments on my talk page where I went into specifics about why. But, we can be selective about what we put in each region.
2) The article should cover the international aspects of the movement as well. I think that the article currently does a pretty good job of that and that it gets the international scope just about right.

But, the international section should not outweigh the US/Canada. If reduce the US section to becoming nothing more than a short summary of 15-20 acts, then we would have to do the same of the international. The problem is that we cannot really take international things out and put them somewhere else and still be able to represent them as garage.

If you look at the punk rock article, which is FA, its text is a good bit longer than the GR article. But, 1960s garage was much a larger phenomenon in scope. Yet, the US Second wave section in the punk article, alone, discusses more bands (over 50) than the GR US section does--and a lot of the bands mentioned in the Second Wave section are equally or more obscure than the ones in the GR and many do not even have band articles written. Whereas, many of the bands currently in the US section of the GR had local/regional/even sometimes national hits and had regional/sometimes national followings (and so did a lot of the bands I've removed) that exceed the followings of a lot of the artists mentioned in that Second wave US punk.
I'm not saying that we can't remove some more bands. And, I'd also like to actually add more discussion about some of the better-known bands. But I think we still need to have Regions sections here. We have to show that way the 60s garage movement spread all over the country and cover it in its true dimensions. 1960s garage rock is not a genre about a few elite pace-setting artists who achieved great fame and made long albums. Its a genre about kids that started bands by the thousands all over the country and cut singles--often memorable and classic songs. We do not have to list all of those bands (and we can focus on the better known ones), but we do need to convey the scope of the movement geographically. I ask that people please be understanding with me, and see that I am not making unrealistic requests. I have put blood sweat and tears into building this article. Yet I have dutifully cut it in half in the last few months, and I can cut more. I have sincerely tried to do everything that has ever been asked of me, as long as it is fair and does not go too far. Also, I ask that people please not judge me about where the article was in November, but to see how far I've trimmed it. I've really tried to do the right thing. This is a step-by-step process. I (like I hope everyone else) have be able to evolve--just as the article has to evolve. Let's move carefully. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to most of this here—I'm going to work up a better assessment of the article sometime in the future—but I wouldn't compare too closely to the Punk rock article. It was promoted bak in 2004 and hasn't been re-assessed since January 2007, before the current FA standards were developed: here's what it looked like at its last assessment: 38 kB of readable prose, compared to 84 kB now, after literally thousands of edits since. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I realize you have to look though it thoroughly before you make those kinds of determinations and recommendations. I'll do what I can to furnish my constructive part. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight I took most of the bands that had been discussed in the Psychedelic (music) section, and moved them up into Regions--that way we have more high-profile acts mentioned there, along with discussion of albums, etc. Making those additions also allowed me to remove other bands that had been there. Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garage rock article peer review (Pt. IV)[edit]

I created a separate Websites section right below the Bibliography. I noticed that done on other recent FA articles. I was thinking that a subdivision might make the bibliographical entries easier to navigate. However, if you want it back to old way, I can revert it to tis former state. Also, I removed a bunch of bands tonight, so I also took out their refs. Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of preference—if you like it that way, then do it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm 216.235.231.28. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

It was constructive, but somehow the edit ended up blanking a bunch of text somehow at the same time. More work needs to be done on the mobile editing interface. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles about books[edit]

Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit your feedback regarding a handout Wiki Ed is developing for students who want to work on articles about books: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Books. It will be a print guide that supplements other resources and materials for student editors, like the interactive training and brochures that address broader aspects of editing, like etiquette, NPOV, citing sources, working in sandboxes, using the talk page, etc. This guide focuses only on aspects of editing required for contributing to articles about books in classroom settings. We're hoping to get some feedback from the community by the end of Monday, so we can send it off to the printer before the end of the month. I realize that's not a lot of time so no worries if you don't get to it. There's one other draft we're looking for feedback on, for editing articles about films, if that's also/more of interest. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in, but you may be interested in this, which is an essay I wrote with some input from others. It's purely a user essay and has no guideline status. A couple of examples of reception section rewrites on those lines are True Detective (season 1) (here's the "before" version, and Make Me Like You (proposed new version here). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks. This looks useful (for me, as an editor, too). I'd be curious to hear if there are specific elements from this that you would like to see added to the guide, or if maybe the best thing would be to add a tag at the end of the reception section of the guide to say something like "reception sections can be tricky. for more guidance on how to write a good one, see...". Can I ask if it's in your userspace (as opposed to projectspace) for a reason? If we link to it, I'd prefer to link to projectspace (with a shortcut -- I see WP:RECEPTION is currently redlinked), whether it be its own essay or a subpage of a WikiProject. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie: I've only skimmed it so far, but the essay's an interesting-looking read. I hate writing reception sections ... they can get so dull, but for many works it's hard to write something sufficiently generalized to make for interesting reading without violating WP:SYNTH or something. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; they're troublesome to write. Ryan, I've never thought about moving it to projectspace, and don't recall whether there are any requirements for doing so -- for me it was just a user essay, but of course I'd be glad to see it more widely read and used. You're welcome to give a link to it in the guide, either way. I don't have a particular opinion about which elements of it should be added to the guide, if any; your call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ukiyo-e scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the ukiyo-e article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 25 June 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 25, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Ukiyo-e, "the J-Pop boom of the 19th century"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TV show "good articles" that contain out-of-date, inaccurate, unsourced, and simply bizarre information[edit]

You wanna bet that someone won't auto-revert all of this without actually addressing any of the concerns I raised? :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way -- the video essay I mentioned in this tag rationale is the latest work of my favourite YouTuber, whose videos I watch religiously. I noticed him making the (accurate) claim that no main characters have been killed off in the last three seasons of a show that is supposedly famous for killing off its main characters, and remembered seeing something ridiculous in our article some time back. I "Ctrl+F"ed a bunch of key words (you still haven't seen it right? I won't spoil it by telling you what those key words were) and editing as I went along, before finding what I was looking for and making this edit.

I'm just clarifying exactly how I "came across" the page (the article on my favourite TV show since 2012...) at this exact time (the video was uploaded today or yesterday), since I've seen quite a few weird "hounding" claims, against me and others, of late.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't I tell you? I binge-watched the whole motherfucking in nine days. My kids are still picking on me for it months later. July 16th, motherfucker! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Then you probably have a fairly unique perspective on it. In case you weren't aware, the broader popular culture treats the first season as the most "iconic" to the point that most parodies and references ignored everything past the tenth episode. The closest comparison I can think of would be Power Rangers, although technically the same is true of Pokemon, and ... well these all millennial references because of my age -- sorry...

Spoiler warning. But also TLDR.

Anyway, I "Ctrl+F"ed "Ned" and "Eddard" because as late as 2013 Wikipedia was treating him as though he was the main character of the show, with apparently the only reason for the change being that our photo of Sean Bean got deleted. (If the image was there because of fair use, and I don't know if there's any way to check that, it was a pretty shitty rationale.)

It also seems to be primarily the death of Ned that has cemented the "any main character can die" misconception about the show in the public's minds. The first three seasons, which stayed largely close to the books (where any main character can die) did this, but since then it has only been "villains" (Joffrey, Tywin, Ramsey), people the fan community thinks are heroes but who make sudden heel turns and are then quickly killed off by the "real" heroes (Stannis), characters the show disproportionately played up but who were essentially always disposable since they are much less prominent in the books (all of the Tyrells), and characters who are important in the books but who are not favourites among fans (including the show's writers) and so had their storylines largely cut (Doran, Barristan). POV characters who are still alive as of the end of the fifth book and are also considered main characters in the show -- especially Arya -- have magically escaped death and even maiming countless times in seasons 5 and 6, largely because of their plot armour.

I'm not really interested in WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS on this matter just yet (why I tagged the claim as needing a newer source rather than outright blanking it), but is somewhat amusing how fast my tag was removed with the claim that "YouTube is not a reliable source".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking Millenials ... betcha didn't shed a tear when Chris Cornell kicked it. I was just singing "Pretty Noose" to myself about 20 minutes ago ...

Spoilers?
Probably unsurprising, but all the seasons kind of blend together for me ... but didn't half the fucking city die at the end of the sixth season? The Canadian who introduced the show to me, I just read your comments to him (he's read the books), and he doesn't agree with your analysis. Maybe we're misunderstanding your point?

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'll admit I haven't read very much of the books myself, but my understanding is that a lot of book readers have blind spots (heck, editing Wikipedia has convinced me that most humans are not careful readers). A lot of what I know comes from Preston Jacobs, who is considered somewhat fringe-y and has been covered this way in RSes like Esquire (even though he's read more of GRRM's work than most ASOIAF fans), and he's the one who got me on my recent "Rhaegar Targaryen is basically the worst aspects of Hikaru Genji that modern/western critics attack the latter for, without the excuse that he's a fictional character written in a time and place with different morals" kick. And the ages do match up with what Preston says. If your friend is a book reader, I'd say there's a fairly good chance he buys into the R+L=J, Rhaegar/Lyanna star-crossed romance theory, despite the indisputable facts that (1) Rhaegar was in his early twenties while Lyanna was in her early teens, (2) Rhaegar was already married, and (3) he sired at least one more child with his wife after beginning his star-crossed romance with teenage Lyanna. I'm not saying that these kind of things are not generally considered more acceptable in ASOIAF than in the modern real world, just that it's kind of amusing that a lot of (most?) westerners and moderns who read Genji hone in on "Genji as kidnapper/pedophile/womanizer", even in jest, but pointing out the same thing about a character in a modern novel written by a self-avowed feminist puts one on the remote fringe of fandom.

And whether Preston is right or wrong on any of this, it was definitely out of line for Wikipedia to treat R+L=J as "confirmed" for the book based on a genealogy chart HBO posted on their website last year. This actually happened.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More spoilers

Also, virtually everyone killed in that incident you refer to in the last episode of season six falls into one or more of the four categories I list, or they are simply minor characters to whom the "anyone can die" claim doesn't really apply, since minor characters get killed off in all sorts of shows. Lancel Lannister would fall into this last category (in the show if not the books). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all that just went way over my head. I've read only the first several chapters of Genji in English (both Waley and Seidensticker), but stopped myself because I promised myself to read it in the original—and then totally neglected my koten studies ...

I don't doubt the articles include a lot of crap—genre fiction articles attract this shit, as I know you're aware—but I'm probably the wrong one to talk to about getting it set right. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this remind you of someone?[edit]

Removing maintenance templates[7][8]
Adding sources that say the opposite of the article content[9][10]
Listing GA noms on user page[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
Gross IDHT[22][23]

Now, we kinda have to accept lower standards for sourcing for articles on popular American television shows and fictional characters, it seems, but unlike our old friend a significant number of these "Good Articles" are BLPs, so ... yeah, not exactly sure what to do. Just ignore it? Tell someone with more ability or inclination to do something about it than you?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into this editor before. They also seem to have serious social interaction issues.[24][25] Then look at Talk:Peter Dinklage#Unexplained revert. Notice the last comment, which comes a month and a half after the penultimate one. Here's the edit in question, reverting my "vandalism", which and IP kindly fixed. AffeL is a problem, and quite しつこい about it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if he had anything to do with adding the BLP-violating SYNTH claim that a certain GOT actor had "confirmed" rumours that he been in an on-and-off relationship with his co-star in real life for four years, but I can almost guarantee that he will auto-remove these tags without attempting to address the issue. Fortunately, WP:TPO prevents him from blanking this GAN comment. So in this case either the concern will be properly addressed or the article will not be promoted. Then again, the reviewer might another User:Sturmvogel 66-level "Of course I know the sourcing might be garbage, but I can't read the sources and AGF says I have to assume the article meets GA criterion #2 because the nominator said it does"-type reviewer, but still... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: If I'm going to explicitly defend your edit as "not vandalism" I think it would be good if I fully understood your rationale. It didn't seem to do any damage, so calling it a "vandal edit" is unacceptable regardless, but I'm curious what the difference between using the template and not is. If there actually is no difference then changing it was technically out of line, so the "why on earth not?" edit summary would not have been obvious trolling. I'm not agreeing with "why on earth not?", just curious as to what your rationale for the original edit was. I'm shit at infoboxes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without the template, the infobox does the metric conversion automatically and in centimetres (135 cm). The template is thus redundant and puzzlingly outputs the metric in metres (1.35 m). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to uphold terms of STANDARDOFFER to an indeffed user?[edit]

Jesus. I hadn't noticed, but he was actually indef-blocked for almost a year for "disruptive editing", then issued a WP:STANDARDOFFER based on the assurance that his behaviour would change. If the disruptive editing in 2013 was anything like his more recent disruptive editing, then this is a serious issue and maybe the original blocking/unblocking admins should be notified. I'm going to check into exactly what that was about shortly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so here's what I've learned so far. He was originally tempo-blocked for adding unsourced material to a BLP (see here and here), then indef-blocked for edit-warring (see here and here). He also socked multiple times during his block (see here). Note that he untagged an unsourced claim on the Davos article last November, he appeared to want to edit-war with me on the GOT article (I didn't give him the chance), and his last block, though brief, was for edit-warring last November.

Now, it would be really nice if the rest of the project shared my opinion that a claim with a citation attached that doesn't verify the claim (or even says the opposite) is the same as an unsourced claim), but I don't think other users would necessarily take his recent edits as constituting the same kind of edits for which he was originally blocked. I'll check the specific edits STATicVapor reported him for shortly to see of they were "of a kind" with the claims about a writer's favourite characters and the claims about whether an actor has formally confirmed the rumours about his relationship status.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interestingly enough all four of the reverts that led to the indef were marked as "minor" (still apparently a problem per the diff you cite above) and he was apparently splitting his revert up into four separate edits to avoid giving the impression of edit-warring (he did this while reverting some edits I made last week, although when I asked I was specifically told that this didn't technically constitute a 3RR-violation). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed he was just a dick, but his last comment about me and this shit above makes it clear there's more to it. Best to keep an eye on them, because they'll slip up eventually. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is kinda interesting. Someone should Ctrl+F his contribs for the word "vandal" and maybe "if you revert". After he was reported for that incident, User:Softlavender read it as being about edit-warring (the OP should have been clearer, I'll admit), formally warned them, and NACced. Then AffeL did essentially the exact same thing to you (even calling you a vandal) nine months later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This too. Having the opinion that a 2013 photo from Comic-Con is better than a 2014 photo in which the subject is squinting while staring into some kind of light source is "vandalism", it seems. And here he is calling the fixing of a misprint "vandalism" because said misprint is between quotation marks. And here ... well, honestly the long-term "constructive editor" he reverted is actually more guilty of the same thing (in fact regularly uses bad-faith "vandalism" claims to justify violating 3RR), but the fact that someone else makes bad-faith vandalism claims doesn't justify making bad-faith vandalism claims against them; no edit from a long-term contributor that claims to have a policy-based rationale can be called vandalism. Here he is calling a user who replaced "pending" with "nominated" a "vandal"; the user might have been wrong on the substance, but only technically (apparently on that article "nominated" means "nominated but didn't win", while "pending" means "nominated"). Ditto. Ditto again (also not the exclamation mark). And again. And again. And again. And again. (Note that the last two edit summaries implied the "vandalism" took place following a warning even though AffeL had warned them after all the good-faith non-vandalism had taken place. Here he reverts an unsourced BLP claim that McHale (whose surname is Gaelic) is of Irish descent on his father's side beside an equally unsourced claim that his mother is of Croatian descent -- theoretically no problem with reverting unsourced BLP, but calling it "vandalism" is out of line. (If I were really paranoid, I would read his citing of British government-affiliated sources engaging in some arguably dismissive commentary about the Welsh, Scottish and Irish language in combination with this edit as some kind of Anglocentric, anti-Celtic bias, but of course I recognize that he just doesn't understand proper encyclopedic writing and it's just a coincidence.) This could well have been vandalism, but no reason given.. vandal is really interesting given how wont he is to make potentially controversial edits without giving any rationale (his edit summary rate is actually quite low, and if we didn't include automatically generated ones it would probably be at less than 10%). Ditto this -- he has inserted his fair share of unsourced material, and in fact restoring an unsourced claim that was changed without a source solely because no source was provided is ... not good. This may or may not have been bona fide vandalism, but equating "removal of sourced content" in and of itself with vandalism is atrocious. Clearly this is a recurring problem. He should be formally warned about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ping John Reaves (the blocking admin) and JamesBWatson (the unblocking admin) and ask for advice, especially given the disruption AffeL's now causing on your talk page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GOT actors' salaries[edit]

Apparently the top 5 GoT actors are going to get £2 million an episode each next season. Odd, given that the show's budget is in $USD. I can't find a source that gives the number in dollars, though—excluding those that convert from pounds. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't really understand actor salaries (why do we know them -- people don't know my salary unless my employer tells them or I do). Most of the main cast are British, so I could understand if they think of their own salaries in terms of the sterling and disclosed a pound figure to the media. Is there a particular place on Wikipedia we make that claim? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinklage's page (even in the lead). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Googling "peter dinklage salary for game of thrones" brought up this as the first hit, and though I'm not sure of the reliability of cheatsheet.com, it attributes the claim of $1.1m/episode for "Tier A" actors, including Dinklage, to The Hollywood Reporter. Googling "peter dinklage salary hollywood reporter" brought up this, which is older but says the same actors would earn earn upward of $500,000 per episode of season seven. The Telegraph (ironically a British publication) was the first recent hit on that search, and it says A few weeks ago The Hollywood Reporter claimed that these five – known as Tier A – had negotiated to earn $1.1 million per episode for seasons 7 and 8. It also states, though with an awkward misprint, that £2m figure comes from The Express (here). I really wish they gave a link for THR as they do for The Express, but searching a bit brought up this from last November (not exactly "a few weeks" before the end of April): The five "A-tier" stars of HBO's Game of Thrones — Peter Dinklage, Kit Harington, Emilia Clarke, Lena Headey and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau — banded together and recently concluded a renegotiation that will pay them each $1.1 million per episode for seven episodes of season seven and six episodes of season eight.

All this said, unless this article had some information on upward of $500,000 per episode of season seven removed after the fact, it seems that THR writers like Goldberg have been engaged in some pretty poor readings of their coworkers' writings -- the linked article doesn't appear to make any reference to actors' salaries. If it did, though, it might have put their high salaries in a different light: seasons 7 and 8 are going to have fewer episodes, meaning that the budget for each episode is higher, and so the actors would need a salary increase to continue being paid the same portion of the budget.

All in all, it looks like Dinklage's per-episode salary is $1.1m, not £2m.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the $1.1m figure thrown around, but I thought that was for last season. I'm not sure about concluding each episode will have a larger budget because there are fewer episodes ... it's not like they can squeeze more money out of each epsisode because there're fewer of them. Oh, and have you seen the news that season 8 is probably going to be a year late? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. You may well be right, but The Telegraph disagrees, seeing it as conflicting sources. If you are right, eventually an American RS will cite the correct figure in USD. Dinklage is the only American actor of the five, isn't he? (I just checked, and had had no idea one of the others was Danish.)

I had just kinda assumed the budget was set for a season rather than for an episode, no? HBO are making enough money off the show anyway to spend 40% more per episode. We'll see though: I'm not saying I will like this season 40% more than last year just because it cost more to produce.

I could actually wait an extra year if it meant TWOW came out early enough for them to use it for source material for season eight. I may not have read all the books, but I know that I vastly preferred the first four seasons to the latest two, and I have it on good authority that those are the two that fall more under the "licensed fan-fiction" label than "adaptation" (they're also the ones GRRM had no involvement in). Heck, maybe if they waited long enough to start writing season eiht, GRRM could come back and write an episode or two. (Have you heard some of the shit his fans have put him through? I'll never understand how people can claim they like some fictional property but viciously attack the creative people behind said property, solely because they are impatient and don't like the idea of said creative people taking a holiday or doing something else. Cf the outlandish demonization of the original creator of Star Wars just because some fans thought the prequel trilogy were significantly worse than Return of the Jedi, rather than one of the prequels being about as good as it and the other two being somewhat worse but still not abominations.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember enjoying the fifth season less than the first four at first, but I thought it picked up again after a few episodes. I really liked the sixth season. Except the Hodor episode—it seems to be a fan favourite, but I didn't like it at all. That and Arya in Braavos I found some of the boringest parts of the series. A couple GRRM-scripted episodes would certainly be welcome, though (apparently they haven't started scripting the eighth season yet, so perhaps there's hope?).

I follow what you're saying about "creative people", but you'll probably hate me to hear this: I thought (and think) the Star Wars prequels were shit through-and-through, and watching them several times with my kids has not improved them for me. I've long fallen out of love with the originals, though, so my opinion probably doesn't count. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added another item to the list at the top of this thread. I got more deja-vu when I said "Hey, could you please read and make sure you have understood other editors' edit summaries before auto-reverting?" and he responded with "I understand all edits I revert. You are wrong." It's eery how a random GOT-focused editor could have so many things in common with that other user. The fact that we both encountered him independently is another. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Wikipedia's chock-full of these personalities. We'd "eerily" run across the same types more often if I was more interested in editing movie and TV-show articles. One more reason to stay to the obscure corners like I normally do. You should get around to getting your TBAN lifted so you can focus on Heian poet articles. It'll bring your blood pressure down. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh. You went there. See, right now I've got this mental block keeping me from immediately appealing. I've been a good boy for almost the entire time since the ban and am fairly certain any appeal I make that isn't TLDR would be easily accepted, but I also haven't got nearly as much work on Tang poets done as I would have liked. I was hoping a "Japanese culture" TBAN would allow me to improve our coverage of certain specific other topics in the mean time, and I have definitely done that, just not to the extent I was hoping. So I keep telling myself I'll appeal once I've made three GAs, but... The ironic thing is, I know my TBAN had nothing to do with article content or me supposedly not being WP:HERE, but I have this complex about proving I am HERE regardless.

Anyway, I would have thought the more visible articles would be the ones that should be held to a higher standard and editors who are very active in editing them would be more familiar with our policies and guidelines. Remember, Curtis and Catflap were the first two users I encountered who had this problem, and both of them were obscure niche editors like you and (up until 2015) me. I guess I'm being rid of this misconception gradually, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standards editors are held to depend on the editors who watchlist these pages. Thus the problems with WP:COMICS pages—some can be very "visible", but the people watchlisting them ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but we're talking about article content here. Editors flagrantly edit-warring and being dicks to each other on the talk page is one thing, but one would have thought that our articles on the highest grossing film of 2016 and the second-highest grossing non-Star Wars film of 2015 would be required to have their leads be readable and not describe two-minute cameos as being in the lead cast before the article passes GA review. You and I (and the majority of the Wikipedia community) may not like it when problem editors edit-war and engage in IDHT, but the general public won't notice that behind-the-scenes stuff. Bullshit OR and claiming that this or that real-world living person "confirmed" something about which they have been very carefully tight-lipped, which was ultimately the real problem with Catflap and Curtis's edits. We are all supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, and those who disrupt the encyclopedia's basic operations are worse than those who build good encyclopedic content but are generally unpleasant. I'm speaking in idealistic terms, of course -- in reality CIVIL and NPA are treated wi far more value than our content policies. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict -- sorry, will read the above later.) It just occurred to me that just about every edit he has made to his own talk page where the total number of bytes has gone down could be a diff on the "IDHT" bullet point. It actually seems incredibly likely that he didn't read my request before blanking it. Elsewhere he just referred to a 68-word, 565-byte comment as "long" and "saying nothing" despite it saying quite a lot for its small word count. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the admins I pinged above will get around to responding. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that. The odds of either of them having any recollection of something that happened four years ago are pretty slim, and actually John Reaves appears to have made less than 500 edits in the last three years (even if he is not technically inactive). If no one shows up and helps, we might as well just put up with the guy for a bit longer to see if things improve, then report him where reports like that normally go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, Widr should definitely have responded to my pings. His blocking the new user Jojocc based on a bogus "vandalism" report by AffeL, without explicitly telling AffeL off for the bad-faith vandalism accusation and the edit-warring to reinsert poorly-sourced claims, appears to have emboldened him, so it seems pretty irresponsible not to have at least stated the opinion that AIV was the wrong place for the report. If I were an admin, I probably would have just rejected the bogus "vandalism" claim from the start, or blocked both the reporter and the reportee for edit-warring. I'm a bit afraid to directly ask Widr on his talk page because, after having been pinged twice and ignored it, I kinda get the impression he might just like AffeL for whatever reason, and not want to tell him off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna get a timely response from an admin? Goad AffeL into saying "fuck". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What! Somebody dropped an F-bomb? Scandalous! I shall deal with it immediately.

In all seriousness, give me a bit of time to take a look at this and I'll assist if I think I can. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of god... were you two in off-wiki contact to coordinate the above for humorous purposes? We waiting for someone to comment for like a week, and then CT dropped the bomb and within seven minutes Yunshui showed up. That's frickin' hilarious.

Anyway, it's getting a little annoying now that I am receiving "warnings"[26] for placing a template on an article on a fictional character that contains essentially nothing but in-universe plot summary (in a manner that looks kind of like original comparison of source and adaptation). Someone with teeth needs to tell AffeL to knock this stuff off. I get the impression that he's acting in good faith and sincerely believes policy is on his side, only because no one has ever told him not to. At least, not since he was unblocked in 2014.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All admins are give a Fuck-O-Matic™ along with the tools, which alerts us instantly whenever someone types the word "fuck" anywhere on the site.

With regards to the user in question: I've spent a fun half-hour looking through their edits, history and logs, and at this point in time I don't think there's quite enough to warrant administrative action. Despite having handed out my fair share of blocks (something close to 5,000, IIRC), I'm disinclined to dole them out without a clear smoking gun, and whilst there is an overall tendency towards non-collegiate editing here, there's no one edit I can point to and say, "that was a step too far".

That said, I will be leaving a message on AffeL's talkpage shortly highlighting some of the issues that I've seen with their recent edits, and I would suggest that if this behaviour continues one or other of you heads towards ANI or ANEW, so that a wider audience can chime in (not every admin has a working Fuck-O-Matic™, they tend to explode from overuse). Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how's that for service? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reverting an edit?[edit]

He did it again and blanked a talk page message while completely ignoring the actual content.[27]

The source cited for this edit doesn't talk about the two books by name -- it just mentions the ending of the story. We don't even know that the book after next won't be split in two like A Feast for Crows/A Dance with Dragons was, and like the entire series has been expanded massively since GRRM originally pitched it as a trilogy. This means that naming the books specifically when the source just talks about how GRRM famously sketched out a very rough plan of how he intends to end his saga in the books is a WP:CRYSTAL violation.

And as you know, the edit itself was clearly just a revenge-edit meant to undermine my previous edit. It didn't restore the completely bogus claim that season eight will "adapt material" from a book that isn't written yet, but it came damn close. I don't think anyone would accuse me of canvassing you here, as you were aware of the problem before it even started -- I opened User talk:Curly Turkey#TV show "good articles" that contain out-of-date, inaccurate, unsourced, and simply bizarre information before his first revert of me, based on my assumption that someone would revert me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at this point I could probably make a decent case for reverts by me of his edits being exceptions to 1RR. I wouldn't be successful in the short term, but ... they really should be. Someone who has all but admitted that he doesn't even read edit summaries before reverting the edits should really be treated as a vandal for 3RR/1RR purposes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the names of the novels. AffeL's been here long enough—and has run into enough trouble—that they can't claim ignorance of the policies and guidelines at this point. Disappointing that neither of the pinged admins can bother to even respond, but I doubt AffeL would get far at ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More bad sourcing[edit]

[28]

I actually think the claim should be easily verifiable for someone who reads a lot of pop culture news, and yet somehow the first three sources he came across (in an incredibly short time frame -- another similarity to our old friend) all had the exact same problem as the one that was already there.

Have you seen the claim made somewhere other than Wikipedia? I thought I had, but the amount of trouble that is apparently being had trying to find such a source is making me have second thoughts...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently telling someone that they are still making the same basic sourcing mistakes they were when I said the same thing to them five days ago is "off-topic". I also can't help but feel that the use of "my talk page" is a not-so-subtle attempt to justify continuing to blank messages he'd rather not read, but ironically reinforces what I said here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AffeL's been here long enough and has run into enough trouble that there's no excuse for this horseshit anymore. There's not going to be any reform—that "vandalism" comment made that obvious. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katakana spelling of Japanese-Americans' English names?[edit]

メイジー・ヒロノ Meijī Hirono

Really?

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with Japanese culture (it's a silly quirk of English Wikipedia that is apparently a holdover from the bad old days), so I'm almost certain I could "get away with" removing it myself, but I don't wanna risk it.

Can you think of any reason not to just remove it? Note that on the talk page a couple of IPs and a near-SPA back in 2009 admitted that they were basing it on Japanese Wikipedia, which seems uniformly to use katakana for the English names of Nikkei.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would just be a pronunciation guide at ja.wp—there's no reason on earth for it to be on en.wp, even if she were active in Japan. I'll remove it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe read the work!"[edit]

"Maybe read the work!"—I'll try that next time before taking an an article on a book to FA again. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CurtisNaito/Catflap flashbacks keep coming...[edit]

[29]

Yet more refusal to use the talk page while demanding "consensus" for edits supported by everyone but him.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this had been worked out already? The numbers in pounds is suspicious given that all other numbers related to the show (including salaries disclosed in the past) are in dollars. Then AffeL goes and converts that back to dollars? You can't do that—the rates are in constant flux. Why not jsut report them? AffeL's obviously not going to talk it through. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I don't report this is because the correct place to report a user conduct issue that extends beyond simple edit-warring is ANI, but Archive 956 is still at just over 700,000 bytes so my self-imposed exile from ANI is technically still in effect. Sure, at this point I could essentially guarantee that any discussion of AffeL's behaviour I opened would not be archived until the current archive page is full, but the spirit of the exile was to stay off of ANI until after Archive 957 had been created. I could probably just message Yunshui, but in my experience pinging annoys a lot of people who I don't have specific reason to believe don't want anything to do with these kind of drahms. Sorry for the poorly constructed sentence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the sentences—apologize for your spelling! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it right after clicking save, but I've been so good this week I didn't want to make an unnecessary talk page edit over a misprint. It's fixed now, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, hey—did you know that Japan's capital was named after a miniscule western African empire? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking iPad! I need a new computer. (My laptop's keyboard is even worse than the iPad at the moment; several keys are slightly jammed, but in a manner that I won't notice unless I'm watching the screen carefully.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have that problem if you kept a sock ready. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another commonality[edit]

Huh. I really didn't think he'd do it, but he did.[30][31] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I did think he'd do it, because he had done it, or rather something very similar, before.[32] That's why I told him not to.[33] What I meant by the above was that I didn't think he'd do it after I had already told him not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When's your exile up? There's seriously not gonna be any end to this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably within the next few days. The biggest ANI archive in the last six months is like 820kB, and 956 was at about 730kB when I checked this morning. But someone else could very well beat me to the punch. You and all your talk-page stalkers (and my contribs stalkers, if I still have those) have already seen the worst of it. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way -- although it's not a curticism (as much as you and I may wish it had been), I did find this amusing.[34][35][36] And yes, I am using your talk page as a sounding board for a forthcoming ANI thread again. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another[edit]

Remember how Curtis would constantly revert back to his version of an article, with the edit summary "no consensus to remove this"? Well, AffeL does pretty much the same thing, demanding prior consensus for others' edits, and not actually providing any rationale for undoing them except for the lack of prior consensus. The ironic thing is that (again like Curtis) he freely makes massive, bold edits without any prior discussion, and in one case he actually overruled a previously established talk page consensus that he had already admitted he was aware of. Now, granted, I haven't actually read through the RFC, and the consensus was evaluated by another old friend of ours whose RFC closes probably shouldn't be trusted, but still... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yick! Why did you point me to that name? That's like a goatse rickroll ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's not getting it[edit]

Doesn't he realize that the more he reverts and the more he dodges questions about why he is reverting, the more obvious he is making it that he is revenge-reverting the edit because I made it? I mean, he didn't even make the original addition because of some personal POV or anything -- Midnightblueowl told him to, and he did it. But MBO still hasn't withdrawn their support for the FAC even though the original edit they suggested is now unrecognizeable and I notified them of this fact some time ago. So there's really no explanation for his devoting so much time and energy to this except to annoy you and me. I kinda wanna wait to see how this plays out (all but two of the RFC commenters I pinged are still fairly active) before opening the ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right—I'd forgotten this is an FAC. "Stability" is a requirement for the article, so the editwarring should be an autofail right there. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MBO identifies as female, by the way (so you don't have to fret about pronouns). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? I hadn't noticed. ~~I was careful to use singular "they" most of the time, but must have slipped up.~~ Shit. I'm accidentally skipping the ends of everyone's posts lately. First I don't notice that I've been accused of sockpuppetry until several hours after responding to the accusation, and now I miss that you were not telling me off for accidentally calling an editor of whose gender I wasn't certain "him". I think I need to sleep more.

Anyway, the problem is that he only started edit-warring when I showed up, and it's clear he only reverted my edits because he doesn't like me. His accepting the exact same edits when made by Crystallizedcarbon made that abundantly clear. But "the nominator doesn't like Hijiri88" is not an autofail factor for FAC, and (ironically) the fact that he accepted the same edits when made by someone else would actually help the argument that it's a personal problem with AffeL and not an indicator that the article is unstable. You and I know it's really both, but at present it's my word against his from the point of view of the FAC closer, and I worry they might not actually read those words when three other external third parties have supported the nomination based on a largely-superficial examination that didn't look at sources.

(Yes, Mymis did call the Pixels sentence out for OR, but they later explicitly stated that they supported the nomination regardless of the fact that OR of the same type is still endemic. It seems more like they clicked on the link to our article on the film and saw that it directly contradicted the FA candidate, than that they first went to the source and noticed that it didn't directly support the content.)

He reverted your edits around the time he first nominated the page, but he also proclaimed them to be "vandalism", which unless challenged is likely to be taken by an FAC closer in good faith (and thus an automatic "not a real edit war"). I have already stated that your edits were not vandalism and so saying they were was not an excuse, but your weighing in as well would probably help. Unless the closer knows you by username, they will probably just assume that AffeL is accusing some random new accounts of vandalism and Hijiri88 is saying this is inappropriate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"he only started edit-warring when I showed up"—he was editwarring with someone else at the "highest salaries" page. I don't doubt he's targeting you, but this is not new behaviour for him. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're giving the FAC coords enough credit—in my experience, they tend to do the right thing. If there are doubts about the article that are actionable, they'll archive until they're dealt with, even if there are lots of "supports". (and after 25 FACs, I'm pretty sure the coords recognize my name) Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere as RS[edit]

Hi. I meant to post something at Talk:Garage rock about this, but things have been moving so fast there, it was practically redundant by the time I thought of it … While I agree about the other sources being non-RS, I think Elsewhere can be considered reliable, because of its creator Graham Reid's credentials. It appears to be self-published but my thinking is that that's countered by Reid's standing, per the exceptions identified at WP:RS/SPS#Exceptions. My interest comes from having written the Wikipedia article on Reid/Elsewhere, during which I came across mention of how influential Elsewhere's annual list of best albums was to organisations such as Independent Music New Zealand. (Admittedly, I didn't include that point in the article; probably should've done.) At the time, I ran the issue of Reid's notability by the NZ Wikipedians' notice board and was given the impression that he is one of New Zealand's most important music journalists.

Anyway, that's my take on the issue. Perhaps you disagree. I also wanted to say a big thanks, btw, for your thoroughness at Garage rock – in my experience, it's extraordinary to see such dedication to improving an article, from a reviewer. Fantastic. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that "credentials" alone doesn't give a source a WP:RS pass. Probably best to get some eyes on it, like at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 22[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

New and expanded research accounts
Global branches update
Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: trolling with a straight face[edit]

Replying here since Talk:Peter Dinklage has already played host to far too much of this bullshit.

I know that, but I have learned the hard way that we all must observe the mercy rule without explicitly stating why. I've kinda committed myself to waiting for Yunshui's word on the matter before doing what I probably should have done a long time ago.

I am roughly 80% certain that Yunshui's response will essentially consist of You are right, and I will have a word with him, but what really needs to be done is a block, and I am already too INVOLVED to do that. But wouldn't it be better for your sanity to just step away rather than going to the trouble of ANI? You have done some good edits to Chinese poetry articles, and this GOT mess seems like a pointless distraction. (Plus repeating some other stuff that he already told me some months ago off-wiki but I don't want to elaborate here for that reason.) The problem with that solution in this case would be that accepting a self-imposed TBAN just so I don't have to deal with the problem would likely make the problem worse.

If I voluntarily withdrew from all GOT-related articles just so I wouldn't have to put up with this nonsense anymore, you and I both know how that user would take it ([37]). That would not bode well for the next editor who notices the problem, let alone all the articles he would continue messing up until that point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to avoid piping up at the FAC, but I just keep running into prose and formatting issues that simply should not be there after so many reviews. FAC's really gone downhill ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Blind Leading the Blind[edit]

Well, I never thought I'd find myself here being civil, but I must offer praise were praise is due. I came across the above, quite by chance, today, and read it from top to bottom with much enjoyment. This is a fantastic article and one for which you should be immensely proud. It is engrossing, pretty, informative a damned interesting. Oh, by the way, there's a bare URL within the article (ref 6, I think) which may've escaped your notice. Thank you very much. Cassianto ^Talk 19:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job[edit]

I have only read about half of it so far, but ukiyo-e is an amazing article. It is fascinating how it depicts the lives of the common folk, as it were. Also, you see what the Japanese government seems to love—censorship! Thanks for getting it to featured article status though. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 15:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on[edit]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail on ancestry theories for the article body?[edit]

Hey, as the guy who first encouraged me to start using footnotes on the Narihira article (if I recall correctly), what do you think of this? Would the different theories on the identity of 鄭王 be better addressed in a footnote?

You got Narihira through GAN with nine instances of "speculat-" in the article body and none in the notes, but I'm wondering if in this case I'm subconsciously trying to right great wrongs because I was frustrated with most of my sources just regurgitating that he was a cousin of the emperors without any further detail on what the primary sources actually say.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's short. I think it's fine in the body, but I think you've got too many short subsections. I'd merged some of them, and maybe even "Ancestry" with "Birth and early life". I did that at Kanae Yamamoto (artist), though probably it could have a better heading.

Having said that, I wouldn't futz around with the sectioning much until you've reached the point where you're fairly confident you won't be adding significantly more content.

Something should be done about "speculat-", I suppose, but you also don't want to get carried away with elegant variation. "It has been speculated that ..." is quite a mouthful, though ... something more concise would be muchly welcome. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. With Narihira, the section is called "Birth and ancestry", but we don't really know as much about Narihira's childhood as we do about Li He's. I don't know. I really think that if the section were simply called "Birth and early life", devoting half the word count to a scholarly debate about his ancestry would be a WEIGHT problem. But as you say, I'll leave the section divisions until I'm done writing, and the weeds and thorns can burn in hell. (The weeds and thorns are the bits that no longer fit in the body, and hell is the footnotes section.) I thought I was nearly done writing the biography, and then I found some other stuff in some books at the RItsumeikan library. Then again, none of this stuff appears in other general encyclopedia entries on the topic, so I suspect I'm already moving past the "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" GACR and into the "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" territory of FACR. I probably should have just stopped writing a while ago, deleted some of the poems that have been stumbling blocks requiring translation pushed it through GAN, and worried about comprehensiveness later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse length with WP:WEIGHT—sometimes you just need more words to say what needs to be said. Another thing I've done (so you don't have to worry about section titles) is to begin the section without a title until it makes sense to start subdividing, thus:

For example

Biography[edit]

His family were of distant royal descent (from the Li family who were the ruling dynastic family of the Tang Dynasty), but his branch's fortunes had declined early on, and by Li He's time they were of low rank. Both the Tang state histories refer to him as a "descendant of Zheng Wang", but there are two major theories as to whom Zheng Wang was. The first (and the one with more support among scholars) is that it refers to Zheng Xiao Wang Liang [zh], an uncle of Li Yuan; the other is that it refers to the thirteenth son of Li Yuan, Zheng Wang Yuan Yi [zh].

He was born in 790 or 791. It seems likely that he was born in the year of the Horse, as some twenty-three of his surviving poems use the horse as a symbol for the poet.

He was a native of Fuchang County (west of modern-day Yiyang County, Henan Province).

He started composing poetry at the age of 7, and by around 15 he was being compared to the yuefu master Li Yi.

Political career[edit]

When Li was 20, he attempted to take the Imperial Examination, but was forbidden from doing so because of a naming taboo: the first character (晉 jin) of his father's given name (晉肅 Jinsu) was a homonym of the first character (進) of Jinshi (進士), the name of the degree that would have been conferred on him had he passed. Ueki et al. (1999) speculate that this was a pretext devised by rivals who were jealous of his poetic skill to prevent him from sitting the examination.

Han Yu, who admired his poetry, wrote Hui Bian (諱弁) to encourage him to take the exam, but Li was ultimately unsuccessful. He served only three years, in the low-ranking office of Fenglilang (奉禮郎) before returning to his hometown.

Sickness and death[edit]

He is described as having a very sickly appearance: he was supposedly very thin, had a unibrow, and let his fingernails grow long. Li He died a low-ranking and poor official in 816 or 817, at the age of 26 or 27.

The Short Biography of Li He reports that at the hour of his death he was visited by a figure in scarlet who told him that Shangdi had summoned him to heaven to write poetry.

— A couple tips: some of us (I'm one) have an allergy to paragraphs beginning with pronouns; and many reviewers will have a problem with one-sentence paragraphs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some levity[edit]

Hey, remember all that moaning you and I did about monster plot summaries? Well, I found something even more cringe-inducing: Blind (2016 film) contains no plot summary but includes a list of meaningless character names with no context. Pretty hilarious.

(No idea how this could improve the encyclopedia. I don't know if sources exist yet. I just thought it was pretty funny, and had a good larf when I noticed what I was reading. And then I got kinda depressed when I realized that a film starring Alec Baldwin and Demi Moore apparently premiered last October but has been unable to find wide release until about two weeks from now.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You ever see What About Bob??[edit]

He's not gone -- he's never gone!

AffeL's article edits -- let alone his talk page blanking that represented about the worst IDHT yet, and whose edit summary seemed to be deliberate trolling -- since coming back seem to be even worse than the ones he was making right before his block. He reverted someone who had blanked unsourced BLP content (as well as some dubiously sourced content attributed to mutuall contradictory sources, which wasn't even useful information for the encyclopedia because it was outdated speculation). He created a mainspace page on an upcoming film at includes the sentence "Principal photography on the film has begun", attributed to a source that did not apparently say anything of the source.

He's a bit more prolific than before too, it seems, and some help cleaning up his messes (or at least tagging them for someone else -- preferably him, but I'm not holding my breath -- to clean up) would be appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed Nikkimaria about the revert (she's the one who deleted that stuff). She's been around a long time and knows a thing or three about these things. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Sorry, again, for my coyness. I was talking about the Lena Headey content that I had already removed/tagged. It was removed by a new account with a suspicious username, without explicit citation of the unsourced or BLP-violating nature of the content, but it still should not have been re-added without a source. I re-removed some of it (which was sourced but was outdated and irrelevant) and tagged the rest. Honestly, I was posting here to get you to look into the rest, as I don't have the energy at the moment, so I guess your misunderstanding me and going off to deal with an unrelated issue was probably for the best anyway, but apologies anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや)

At least he doesn't do this[edit]

Hey, I know some editors' constant blanking of their talk page can be annoying in itself, but have you seen User talk:Paolo.dL? The guy set his talk page up as a "case study" a decade ago (it's Easter Egg linked in the "See also" section of WP:BITE) and has archived every message that doesn't fit in the "case study" ever since. I mean, if he was completely retired then expecting his talk page to be left in statis indefinitely might have been reasonable, but he still occssionally edits, and as late as 2013 was actually active.

I dunno ... I feel like an essay that was thrown in my face three times in a week by people who clearly hadn't read it, and is probably one of the more widely-cited, shouldn't be linking so prominently to one semi-retired drahma-queen's historical revisionism vanity page, but on the other hand I might be misreading something (it does happen quite often) and that "white people problems" userfication RM a few months ago kinda soured me on the idea of Wikipedia-space essays fairly representing widely held community norms.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, what do you think is the over-under on these edits being auto-reverted despite my getting prior unanimous agreement from somewhere between two and five editors? Eight hours? Three? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably say at least 24 hours... Huggums537 (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huggums537: You are somewhat late to the party on this one ... and so you already know that you are wrong, as it happened within 12 hours. Good job stalking my contribs from more than a week ago, by the way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Jesus—not more superhero horseshittery. Can we just page-move all the superhero articles to 4chan so I never have to hear about them again? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hisashiburi![edit]

Can you make out the first kanji?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Kintetsubuffalo: Right-to-left? I'm pretty sure that's 團 (the old 団). That said, the word makes more sense if read left-to-right as 童子團: A group of children? A quick Googling implies this is a Chinese name for the boys scouts (as in this case, although it doesn't appear to specifically relate to Manchukuo, which is why I am confident I'm not violating my TBAN by posting this). But if read left-to-right, that means the first character is either 童 (which I'm 90% you either know how to read or could quickly figure out without asking anyone) or the single vertical line slightly visible on the far-left. If that's the case, I'd say there's a fairly good chance that the character that has been mostly cut off was 國, and there were two characters before that being 滿洲. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it has to do with the Boy Scouts, then that's likely what Kintetsubuffalo is looking for. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember who told AffeL, when and where to stop wikilawyering?[edit]

I can't for the life of me remember when AffeL was told that carefully staying within the lines of 3RR could still be edit-warring, and I kinda need it now.

On a related note, do you have any idea what I did wrong here? I filled out the template with the following, but it's all disappeared:

Extended content

== [[User:AffeL]] reported by [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]] (Result: ) == '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Rickon Stark}} <br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AffeL}} {{subst:void|In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to.}} Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rickon_Stark&oldid=790235877] {{subst:void|In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.}} Diffs of the user's reverts: # [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rickon_Stark&diff=790322401&oldid=790316923] # [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rickon_Stark&diff=790375395&oldid=790374405] {{subst:void|For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary}} {{subst:void|Warn the user if you have not already done so.}} Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AffeL&diff=790329878&oldid=789899818] {{subst:void|You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too}} Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rickon_Stark&diff=prev&oldid=790316923][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rickon_Stark&diff=prev&oldid=790326535] <u>Comments:</u> <br /> {{subst:void|OPTIONAL: AffeL has a history of edit-warring, and he's been brought to this noticeboard enough times to know that he is required to use the talk page rather than continuously revert, and that technically staying within 3RR can still be edit-warring. In his relatively brief interactions with me, I've seen him receive one direct notice about edit-warring[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AffeL&diff=786513159&oldid=786112891] and one admin notice that cautioned him against edit-warring[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AffeL&diff=784273231&oldid=784267109] in addition to the above "Stop restoring inappropriate content" warning. Searching [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AffeL&action=history his talk page history] for the terms "edit warring" and "three-revert rule" indicates that he has received at least ten total warnings in the last eight months, but has managed to avoid being blocked for more than ten minutes (for edit-warring). He seems to think that his first revert doesn't count, and that every talk page reply allows him to revert one more time, even though his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rickon_Stark&diff=prev&oldid=790375513 one talk page reply] made no sense. ~~~~}}

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it at the list of highest-paid actors? I can't remember the name of the article now, or I'd hunt up the diffs for you. Whatever you think's happened to the template, it's seems to be appearing properly now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season 7 has started...[edit]

...so be prepared for a flood of disruptive edits from you-know-who. So far we've got:

adding the phrase "universal praise" based on fourteen early reviews on RT;[38]

adding the claim that season seven has received 100% critical approval based on the same fourteen early reviews of the first episode;[39]

!voting to remove the disambiguator from the title an article on a single episode of a TV show named for a prominent/iconic location in said TV show, based in part on page view statistics within hours of the original airdate of the episode[40]
- (ironically, he seems to be "dissing" the early seasons of the show with this move since the most iconic scene of The North Remembers took place at the same location, and fans of earlier seasons might be somewhat surprised to get redirected to the latest episode of season 7);

removing a citation (albeit a messy one to a messy one to a primary source) based on his preference for plot summaries not to have inline citations;[41]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about watchilisting a bunch of those pages ... then the thought of what would happen jsut depressed me. I checked the Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) page before and a minute after I watched the episode, and it was already filled up with several (uncited) sections of plot.

I'm having fun with the other Canadian at work—life got in the way and he wasn't able to watch it yesterday.

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That "universal praise" has already (predictably) dropped to 95. It'd be nice if there were a guideline that put a moratorium on this shit—I don't know what a resanalble wait would be, though, for Rotten Tomatoes ratings. A week? Longer? Sure as fuck not the same day. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm pretty sure I've recommended him to you before, but this guy is easily my favourite YouTuber. He's so snarky, but ... well, honestly my experience of much of the GOT fanbase makes me basically agree with his "Chad Summerchild" caricature completely. I came back here after watching to make sure that our ever-growing plot summary had not made the claim that during the Cersei/Jaime scene Cersei was standing in the Neck. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reverting this? I'm at 1RR until tomorrow morning. It's more immature refactoring of my edits just because I'm the one who made them, without regard for what the source actually says/means; "the hour" as used in the source very obviously refers to the hour of television (i.e., it's a synonym for "the episode"). Honestly, I think bringing him back to ANEW for this kind of childish refactoring of my edits would probably not be beyond the pale, but maybe we should give him one more last chance.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shitty, WP:POINTy edit, but it's probably best to leave it for now but save it as evidence of his bulshittery. Then give the article a copyedit later on. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, there's far worse going on in the article—look at the "Writing" section. Three paragraphs of fluff cited to an HBO "Inside the Episode" segment. That's primary sourcing to puff up the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I already blanked the worst of it (attributed to a source that predates the writing of the episode by at least around six months), and the third paragraph has nothing whatsoever to do with the "writing" of the episode (as a stage in the "production" process) and I've already brought it to the talk page. The rest at least looks peripherally like it's the writers of the episode talking about what they did while writing the episode, as opposed to analyzing the contents of the episode as it relates to past and future episodes. Honestly, I think Wikipedia's coverage of pop culture suffers a lot from this (recent) trend in the media to talk about "criticism" as though it were simply a question of "Does critic X think it would be a good idea for me to spend my time/money on this media or not?" There's no room for critical analysis as the article is structured now, as the "critical reception" subsection is purely about the number of thumbs up it got versus the number of thumbs down (without regard, for example, for what the critics whom RT says "liked" it thought didn't work and why). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pretty hilarious non-response to your request for secondary sources. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus fucking Christ. I'm just going to blank the section. And what load of horseshit going on on the talk page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Inanimate whose[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Inanimate whose you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit! That took just over an hour to get picked up! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dragonstone (Game of Thrones). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - AffeL (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Inanimate whose[edit]

The article Inanimate whose you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Inanimate whose for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "and hopefully that'll be that"[edit]

Hey, I saw this, and felt I needed to warn you ahead of time that you may be overestimating the power of SPI.

When you open the SPI, be careful not to request CU, as CUs never identify an IP with a named account.

At best, you will convince an admin that AffeL logged out and edited via proxy IPs to (a) evade scrutiny and (b) get around 3RR, and he will be temporarily blocked. Technically speaking, editing while logged out is not a violation of the sockpuppetry policy in and of itself, so if the evidence is compelling enough what will happen is an admin will block AffeL for breaking 3RR, and perhaps be a little harsher than EW blocks normally tend to be because of the scrutiny-evasion and wikilawyering.

You and I may find it absurd that AffeL hasn't been indeffed yet given that he's technically still under the terms of a standard offer and has been violating his unblock conditions on a near-daily basis (edit warring, personal attacks, OR, BLP-violation...), but apparently Dennis Brown (whose administrative choices can be baffling from time to time but whose good faith I don't doubt) and Yunshui (who clearly agrees with us to a point, but not "enough" that he's willing to do the dirty himself) have not found this evidence compelling enough to do anything beyond a two-day block that was ignored, so I wouldn't get my hopes up about an SPI closer blocking him for more than a few days.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already reported it, and I didn't request a CU, since he's hopping from one country to the next. I don't doubt I've muffed something (it's my first SPI report). Do you see anything? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any major formatting problems, but...

"sitebanned for a year for socking" is wrong. He was blocked (not sitebanned) indefinitely and was unblocked after eleven months (not a year), and the reason for the block was his edit-warring, BLP-violation and insertion/re-insertion of unsourced content. He started socking after he was blocked. This is extremely minor nitpicking, but you know as well as I do that some Wikipedia editors will shoot down your entire argument based on your having made a single good-faith error in a peripheral side-comment.

I'd clarify that AffeL didn't completely ignore your initial talk page comment. He added the IGN source, which entirely missed the point (the IGN source was literally a mirror of the primary source), and you only removed the material after this happened. I don't actually know why you chose to blank it when you did, but if I were you I'd have eone so because AffeL clearly went hunting for sources and couldn't find any.

You should specify why "A mere half hour later" is significant. Yes, SPI clerks know that users without accounts (who are the only ones allowed revert others without specifying the names of their accounts) don't have watchlists, but I've seen some prety disastrous failures to read between the lines over the years.

I'd add this link[42] as evidence that AffeL made no edits to the page from after my warning to him until two minutes after the page was protected. Again, it's an easily verifiable factual claim, but you never know who's gonna come after you for making accusations of misbehaviour without evidence.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that comment the "Russian" left on the talk page would be evidence that it wasn't simply AffeL loggin out, but pretending to be someone else. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's important. You linked the diff in a different context anyway, so it's not "required". And, more importantly, speculating on whether this or that sock edit was made to throw SPI off the scent is dangerous when dealing with IPs who can't be CU-confirmed. Personally, I think the timing of the edits, particularly the "Russian" ones, don't quite gel with AffeL's normal routine (he normally makes most of his edits between 12:00 and 23:59, and rarely edits between 04:00 and 08:00), but I'm convinced he deliberately did that to throw us off the scent. I have a bitch of a commute at the moment and have been waking up at 04:30 Japanese time all week, so AffeL making edits at 02:31 and 07:59 Croatian time is not beyond belief. But without the possibility of CU evidence, you have to be careful not to overemphasize evidence that could be interpreted as contradicting your claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was obviously awake and editing when the UK IP was fucking around—there's only 4 minutes between their edits. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I hadn't noticed that. Yeah, the UK one is definitely AffeL. I'm a little iffier on the Russian one, since it made one of its edits at a time that I'm pretty sure AffeL is usually asleep (the last time he edited between 03:00 and 08:00 was April 4, before that not since January 12, and the closest he's ever come to that timeslot was this and this). But if the Russian one is a different person, they're a random IP vandal or maybe a real-world friend/meatpuppet of AffeL (they explicitly claimed to be vacationing in Russia, which means we don't have any idea where they are normally based), and the UK one was a disruptive edit-warrior who was already on probation, logging out in order to get around 3RR, so at least now we can be certain you won't be blocked -- the SPI is proof that at least you thought, in good faith, you reverting someone who was socking in order to get around their own final warning about edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not iffy about the Russian one at all. The tone of that bizarre non sequitur of a comment sounds exactly like the bullshit AffeL spits out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The comment didn't refer to Game of Thrones as a "ground-breaking" or "record-setting" show, or make any out-of-place claims about the show being better than the books even though we were not discussing the books. Lots of editors make bizarre non sequitur comments. Then again, CU proved that a certain other editor was not AffeL, and we were both certain that was him because he had used those AffeLisms. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A failed CU isn't proof there wasn't socking, it's only lack of proof. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, once in a while. But CU also checks for sleepers (though presumably those that have been active in the last three months) so if AffeL was actively using other accounts in the previous three months I would imagine he would have been blocked. Then again, CU is completely inscrutable (deliberately so), and the ... well, some recent events have convinced me that several CU-enabled users are doing the bare minimum check on whether this account is related to that one and trying to get through the process without blocking anyone. I may be wrong, and CU evidence was very much against the idea that there was sockpuppetry afoot, but again it's all high-fallutin' mumbo-jumbo magick to me.

Anyway, the "unrelated" CU took place before the recent mess on the Dragonstone article, so that's immaterial. The behavioural evidence that the UK-based IP is AffeL is compelling; here's hoping someone others agree.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know who is at it again[edit]

Guess who was responsible for virtually all of this crap?

We have two plot recaps by people who like the show but were not paid to write to write objective reviews, being quoted as though they were high praise for the episode, one mixed review being quoted as though it was nothing but praise, and one review being misattributed to the wrong magazine.

Another day, another string of messy AffeLisms that the rest of us have to clean up -- how long do you think it'll be before someone other than me and you tells him to knock it off?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this gem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the transformation of a mixed review into an overwhelmingly positive one. I wonder what would happen if we scanned all reviews of the episode we could find for any reference to "Littlefinger", "Petyr", "Baelish" and "Gillan" -- I find it highly unlikely that the critical consensus of that scene/character was as overwhelmingly positive as AffeL's "summary" makes it seem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He either doesn't "get it" and never will, or he just doesn't give a shit. Regardless, he's never going to stop this shit, and anyone who cleans up after him is going to be the one who looks like the troublemaker. Déjà vu all over again.

How long does it take for someone to pick up an SPI? It's been ten days since I filed it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. It's been about four years since I last filed an SPI where I wasn't requesting CU. The CU requests usually go through pretty quickly (actually faster than they used to), but since it's really "not clear what you're asking", it was probably doomed to take a while. I actually think it's very clear whay you're requesting, but most admins wouldn't be willing to do that and would sooner just claim they don't understand your request than act on it one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone say something wasn't clear somewhere? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, really what both you and I want (AffeL to be indef-blocked until he can convince the community that he won't keep this disruption up) is unlikely to come of an SPI where, even if the evidence were airtight and indisputable, the EWLO behaviour would only be about as bad as all the other stuff. Basically, what you are asking is for a random SPI clerk to do what only two or three ANI-denizen admins are willing to do. Even a short block would help, but at this point it's long enough ago that it's like edit-warring from six months ago. ArbCom might sanction him for that, but few admins would be willing to block for it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying I should explicitly call for another siteban, since his last one obviously didn't teach him anything? Given the long list of socks, he's obviously not interested in giving this shit up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This cakes the take.

Seriously? He took in the Dragonstone scenes, Clarke and Harington mostly served to bring out each other’s most wooden line readings and transformed it into Alyssa Rosenberg of The Washington Post praised Emilia Clarke and Kit Haringtons scenes togheter.

Seriously?

I've been telling him to be careful about making sources say the opposite of what they actually say since like two days after my first interaction with him, and he still isn't learning...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's not going to. I lost any hope that he was working in good faith with that "I have reverted the vandal edit made by User:Curly "JFC" Turkey, fixing the issues made" horseshit (and that was April). It's not that he doesn't get it—he's fucking with us all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think he actually read the source, understood it, and posted that to troll the Encyclopedia? I mean, I don't that he's been trolling around with you and me and personally, but ... meh. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's trolling with this case (he defintely was with that "vandalism" shit, though). He's obsessed with painting the Greatest Show Evar in a positive light and doesn't give half a shit about text—source integrity. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth hasn't he been blocked yet?[edit]

Seriously? At this point I'm really struggling to figure out why no one has stepped in and blocked him already. Well, actually Yunshui did block him. But that did exactly nothing, and he even blanked the block notice with an IDHT edit summary after the block expired. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because he hasn't said "fuck" yet. You've been around long enough to know that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, ironically he's not even the worst offender on that page. We've got one user who should have been UN-blocked as soon as his account was registered and actively refused to change his name when I requested it, an IP that clearly has an account but logs out in order to edit "controversial" topic areas like recent episodes of Game of Thrones, and another user whose mainspace:talkspace contribs ratio is at 90:2 accusing me of "edit-warring" over content that literally no one has posted anything substantial on the talk page except me. Yeah, AffeL is doing essentially the same thing as this last one (and was probably doing the same thing as the middle one, and is essentially in the same boat as the first but for other reasons), but by now he's more amusing than annoying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glyn Johns article expainsion[edit]

I'm working on an expansion of the Glyn Johns article (see my sandbox #1). I was wondering... I recently read his autobiography, Sound Man, which contains a trove of helpful information. I realize that it is an autobiography, and that some may debate whether it is a primary and or secondary source—I guess it depends on how different people look at it (I would consider it a first person secondary source—and it certainly has the advantage of retrospect). I'm using the book mainly to get straight-ahead objective facts, although there will be a few quotes here and there. I also want to use the text as a reference in a section describing his approach to recording. Though he has strong beliefs on the topic, I'll try to keep the section objective—as simple a recitation of his methods and approach. So, I was wondering, I guess using the autobiography would be OK? I could try to corroborate it with third party secondary sources whenever possible, but I'll admit that there is a lot of vital information in the autobiography that may not be show up elsewhere. And, I'd imagine that Johns would be the most reliable person to tell the story of his life and career. What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay for straight facts, but if you can ge tthose straight facts elsewhere, it's best to rely on those sources. Personally, I try to avoid that stuff entirely because it's too easy to cross the line, but it's definitely allowed if you're careful. You should be asking yourself not whether it would add to the article, but whether leaving the info out would hurt the article (like, say, leaving out a birthdate or birthplace, or if leaving it out would leave the reader wondering about something they'd expect to be there). If he says that he used a particular techinique or setup or whatever, be sure to attribute those facts to him rather than simply state them as bare facts. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to bring in as many third party sources as I can. I'll see if I can find some accurate external sources about his techniques (for any bare facts) and then for the statements tied to his autobiography, I could say things like "According to Johns, he prefers to..." "Johns has stated a preference for..." (etc.) or use quotes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That'd work ... though (personal preference) I'd keep the quotes to the barest minimum (if any at all). That stuff gets tedious quick and can be hard to fit smoothly into running text, especially with pronouns and verb tenses switching back and forth. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're rewriting the article from scratch, you can request it to be moved over the current article, rather than copy-pasting. That way, you'll get the edit history moved over there, too. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Large blocks of text cited to WP:PRIMARY sources?[edit]

Hey, you're better versed in entertainment articles than I am -- have you looked at The Queen's Justice#References? It seems like the first four sources (collectively accounting for every single cite in the article outside of the "Reception" section) are Entertainment Weekly interviews with the cast and crew. It's not technically the same thing as the problem you noted on Dragonstone (Game of Thrones), as EW is itself published independently of the production company, but the article feels very much like a quote mine at the moment, with all of the quotes in the "Production" section coming from those involved in the show (and the majority of the text in the "Critical reception" section consisting of quotations as well, although not from primary sources). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews count as WP:PRIMARY—see Wikipedia:No original research#cite_note-3—that's a WP:POLICY page, not a guideline. They should make that more explicit and put it right in the body. Regardless, quotemining is a horrible way to write an article—these people are not writing for readers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CT, woukd you mind reverting this nonsense? As I've said a dozen times before, I think any ANI or ANEW discussion of a 1RR-violation on my part would probably conclude that the edits I was reverting were either "unambiguous vandalism" or were edits made in violation of a formal sanction (AffeL's unblock conditions were about this same problem) and so were unsanctionable, but I don't want to risk it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emir of Wikipedia reverted it. AffeL's finally been blocked for socking, but not the ones I reported him for—that's been closed as "stale" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean). They sure as fuck weren't "stale" when I reported them. So apparently there's a (very, very short) statute of limitations on premablockable offenses? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means that whether or not the IPs were him, they probably aren't anymore. It's really obvious that they were AffeL (and everyone seems to be in basic agreement on that point), and that he hadn't learned his lesson about socking even after User:TAnthony specifically cautioned him about editing logged out. And IPs are never permablocked, especially when, as in this case, they were throwaway IPs to begin with (you recognized that he was probably editing via proxy, hence the radically divergent geolocations). I of course don't know for certain what is on User:Vanjagenije's mind, but I imagine all they meant was that Yunshui's block was good and there's nothing more to be done with it. I think you told me about FACs a little while ago that closers usually don't write lengthy explanations for their decisions. In my experience of SPIs (which is less than your experience of FACs, but still) they are quite similar. That's why, when an SPI doesn't go the way one wants, it can be really difficult to get clarification. AffeL's not getting unblocked any time soon, anyway -- he all but copy-pasted his last appeal, in which he also expressed false contrition, and no admin's gonna fall for that this time after a former Arb already didn't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: At the moment I was reviewing the said SPI case (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AffeL), AffeL was already indefinitely blocked. Reported IPs have not being used for more that 2 weeks at that moment. That means they are "stale". Because those are dynamic IPs they were probably assigned to different person in the meantime. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Disappointing nonetheless—the evidence is thus being discarded. AffeL's been such a headache. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence of Family Guy[edit]

I've made a proposal to have "adult" removed from the opening sentence of Family Guy at Talk:Family Guy#RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About discussions with other editors[edit]

Greetings!

I am another editor who became aware of the small discussion related to the usage of the word "adult" in the Family Guy article, due to your posting of the RfC. After reading more into the situation some, there's something that I felt might be worth a mention.

If I'm being fully honest, I feel the resolution we seem to be headed towards could've been reached without even doing a RfC, although I suppose we never know how things will play out by doing "woulda, coulda, shoulda"'s lol. The discussion you had with AussieLegend before you went and did the RfC seemed like it could've been something cordial and well on its way to resolving this situation all on its own. It honestly seems like you were a bit upset with AussieLegend for disputing your edit, and decided to blow them off and try another avenue for what you want to do. As an outsider to the conversation, I feel that if I were in AussieLegend's shoes, my reaction would've been "Okay, I'm willing to talk with this person because we've had this disagreement, but he isn't even trying to discuss with me. What the heck?"

I just wanna suggest that perhaps, if/when you run into a similar situation again in the future, it isn't a bad idea to take a few hours away from the situation to make sure you have a level head before giving a response. There's no urgency, and I think this encyclopedia is always better when everyone has a level head and is open to discussing with one another.

I know what it feels like to make an edit/addition and have it be disputed and removed multiple times by another person. It actually happened to me not all too recently. I was definitely upset with the other person too, I was thinking "why is he not getting what I'm doing here? this really does help the article!". However, after he and I discussed for a bit, and I spent some time away from the keyboard and the situation, I was able to understand where he was coming from, and a suitable compromise was made.

I'm not trying to start a debate or anything like that, and I also don't mean to come off as feeling anything negative towards you. I also also don't disapprove of your proposed change; I've given my comments and support in the RfC poll. I've never interacted with you nor AussieLegend before this point, I'm a bystander who perhaps stuck in his head where it wasn't necessarily needed. Obviously, it seems the discussion is going well now towards a resolution, so what I'm saying here may be kind of moot lol. At least, I just wanted to offer a tiny something for you to keep in the back of your mind, and at most, it's something you already know and my writing this is doing nothing but just adding clutter to your talk page.

But yeah. Cheers! :) JaykeBird (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JaykeBird. I appreciate what you're saying, but unfortunately you've missed half the story.

After reverting his misunderstanding of my removal, (with the clarification "please read MOS:EGG"), AssieLegend reverted me for a second time with an edit comment both rejecting my clarification ("Your reason was that it reads like porn") and personally attacking me ("that's your personal issue"). I then gave a fuller clarification of the edit on AssieLegend's talk page,, to which he accused me of "changing" my reason, then immediately closed the discussion, and then immediately made the same accusation at Talk:Family Guy.

By this point, AussieLegend had (a) accused me of having psychological issues (b) accused me of "moving the goalposts" by "changin" my rationale for the removal (c) shut down a conversation with me (d) refused to retract his personal attacks on me after I'd pointed them out. I've dealt with this sort of personality before, and have learned not to waste my time pretending to have a conversation with someone who has no intention of engaging honestly in the conversation. My suspicions have been born out in the RfC: he refuses to retract his several personal remarks about me, after I invited him to do so once again (and despite being surprisingly thin-skinned about such remarks himself); he refuses to acknowledge the point I made, simply repeating the refrain "Curly Turkey thinks adult=porn" (even after several clarifications); and he refuses to respond to the proposed alternate wording I made, despite demanding I provide one. I pinged him, and he's taken part in the discussion elsewhere since, so he's simply ignoring it.

So ... where is the evidence that AussieLegend was ever interested in "discussing" any of this? All I see is personal attacks, accusations, and a steadfast refusal to "discuss" anything (look at him reject the proposals of everyone else, as well). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Poison River[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Poison River you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 23[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

Library card
User Group update
Global branches update
Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the frying pan[edit]

Hey, it's nice that tagging articles with clear problems is no longer being called "vandalism" and getting autoreverted, but things don't look likely to get good anytime soon. Have you watched The Dragon and the Wolf yet? Best episode this season, IMO. But of course our article quotes the critics as saying much better things than that (even when they don't). I seriously don't know how the community tolerates this in such prominent articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree it was the best episode ... a bunch of things felt clumsy to me (but that goes for the whole season). But whatever. "The community" (of fanbois) probably doesn't have the sense to see what's even wrong. If you really want to see it improved, I'd wait until the initial activity calms down, sift through the sources, and fix it when the fanbois aren't actively circling it. Try it with some earlier episode and see what happens. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right.

BTW, I didn't want to say until I was sure you had seen it, but you can bet it'll be years, if that, before "reliable" sources start pointing out how creepy/wrong the whole "My aunt wasn't kidnapped or raped -- she was in love!" thing is. Yeah, a fifteen/sixteen-year-old girl marrying a prince seven years her senior, with no witnesses other than a priest who was clearly on the pedophile prince's payroll and perhaps a few of the pedophile prince's loyal bodyguards/friends, is just so romantic. Let alone the fact that Rhaegar was already married and had two children (who I guess were retroactively bastardized -- the showed specifically said "annulled") and apparently chose to give his child by Lyanna the same name as his other son. And even when sources show up, they probably won't name this episode in particular (because, y'know, years ago) and so we will only be able to add it to the "character" or "season" articles. (How redundant...)

I tell ya, if Wikipedia hadn't arbitrarily decided that every episode of GOT must automatically get its own article even if the only secondary sources are superficial episode recaps, this would be a textbook case of us not having enough sources to write an accurate, neutral article. The Samuell Benta and Banned from the Bible articles got deleted for essentially this reason.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point—season-by-season would probably make for better articles. I think you'd have to produce a well-formed example to convince people it was the way to go, though. Maybe a project to tackle a couple years from now? Write a complete one in a sandbox and then just put it out, dodging the quotefarmers et al. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out my favourite YouTuber hit the nail mostly on the head. This postscript is pretty hilarious. (And no, it doesn't make more sense if you've seen his other videos. That's the whole point: there was an annulment.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion needed[edit]

If you have time, would you mind to look over the source review here and let me know what you think? I've never been through one quite this rigorous, and I can't tell if there's a misunderstanding of how comic news/review sites work or if my "But comics!" goggles are on. You can just reply here either way. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It's an interview" won't fly, as interviews (a) count as WP:PRIMARY under Wikipedia:No original research#cite_note-3; and (b) a lot of the interviews are from blogs, which are rarely acceptable sources at Wikipedia. If the interviews are published in high-quality sources, they should still be used with great care—I usually avoid them entirely.

What she's looking for is a certain amount of rigour in the sources—a level of rigour you'll rarely find in comics literature: editorial oversight and fact-checking. Writings on comics are rarely much more rigourous than what you'd find in tabloid journalism—and tabloid articles are generally rejected outright, even though they're published by big coroporations with an editorial staff. CBR and Newsrama should be acceptable, but I can see her concerns with them—they should be used with care. Retailer sites, blogs, and sites such as sktchd.com and womenwriteaboutcomics.com should be dropped. I know, it's frustrating—there are a lot of articles I'd like to write, but the only sources I can find are this sort, so I skip it. It's especially hard with something as recent as Revival, because the sources you'll find will tend to be hype-y—blogs, promos, fanboi reviews, etc.

I doubt this'll be helpful in this case, but the kinds of comics sources that would easily pass at FAC include ImageTexT, Image & Narrative, The International Journal of Comic Art, books from academic publishers such as the University of Mississippi Press (they do a lot of comics-related stuff) ... not that sources have to be actual academic journals or whatever, but those are the kinds of sources that would get pretty much an automatic pass, not because of their "prestige", but because they're expected to go through a certain process before publication to ensure a level of quality and veracity. A blog or retailer site does not.

I haven't looked closely at the article, but don't worry if cutting some of this will result in a short article (as long as it's still "comprehensive")—look how short this FA is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Poison River[edit]

The article Poison River you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Poison River for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gods' Man scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Gods' Man article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 28, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 28, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the article, and the intro: "Note the sinister placement of the apostrophe—according to a reliable source with his own Wikipedia article, this book will hurt your children, and is the "the darkest, ugliest book [he has] ever seen". It is a Faustian tale of an aspiring artist who sells his soul for a magic paintbrush." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow—you actually jumped into the sources!

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the FAC ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I'd forgotten who the brilliant author of that quote was! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamanaka Scout Camp[edit]

I have started this, but my Japanese skills are poor and I can't seem to bold the name. Please give this the professional eye, eh?Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the name in the parentheses? Is there some reason you want it bolded? And is "Scout Association of Japan Yamanaka Facility)" meant to be a gloss, or is it some official name? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You fixed it, thanks! Please also look at Takahagi Scoutfield--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And grrr-Seno Station has no human toilet, except the handicapped, which was locked by 8pm, so I was forced to violate their standup... second time in Japan. #HeyJapanHumansPoopSittingDown --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What—you don't mean literally? Or are you saying they only have squatters? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying they only have squatters-wa-wa-wa-waaaah--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh ... my last workplace had nothing but ... they've torn the building down now, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The gaman often gets to me...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite students shared with me that today is her Dad's birthday, we got to talking about zodiac signs and I asked what hers was. She said, "ne, ushi, tora, I'm... beef!"--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Drug War articles[edit]

Hi, thank you for your updates on Mexican Drug War! Would you be able to include an edit summary for your changes? It would facilitate all the watchers, and prevent any reverts. Thanks, MX (✉ • ✎) 23:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MX—yeah, sorry, I'm not very good about that, especially when it's lots of little fixes like I've been making. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist changes[edit]

Per Template:Reflist#Obsolete parameters

"Colwidth is obsolete"

and "30em" or "40em" is no longer necessary because "reflist" on its own will not make auto-columns. This is a semi-recent change in a [[Template talk:Reflist#Using to manage number of columns|discussion on the Reflist template talk page]]. It's apart of my general clean-up to an article. It isn't unjustified so I'd appreciate you not revert my edits. But now you know. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 23:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennica: if you don't want to see it reverted, then don't go around removing whitespace—it only makes the source more difficult for those of us maintaining these pages to parse and navigate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should turn on Syntax highlighter in Preferences under Gadgets>Editing to easily navigate the article coding better. I wasn't aware that you were being so anal about the whitespace. I thought you were upset over the colwidth removal. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennica: Sorry to hear you find article maintenance "anal". Not all of us are interested in using the WikiMedia tools—I get far more done in Emacs. Just quit fucking with the whitespace, already—it doesn't improve anything. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be hostile... because I wasn't. It was a friendly suggestion. I first thought this whole thing was over the colwidth thing. I was first informing you that it was obsolete [not whitespace, as your seemingly hostile edit summary said], since a lot of people don't know. BTW, I think you constant "need" to have all that white space in an article is obnoxious - but that's not what this whole thing was about. bye! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No need to be hostile", indeed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blade (comics) move discussion[edit]

Considering what a huge proponent you have been or not using the (comics) disambiguation on article maybe you'd be interested in this debate.★Trekker (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC closed[edit]

I have closed a RFC that you initiated at Talk:Family_Guy#RfC:_Remove_.22adult.22_as_a_descriptor_from_the_opening_sentence. The result was that "adult animated sitcom" is unacceptably ambiguous. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tazerdadog: thanks, but you should have left the actual wording alone, as there was no consensus as to how to handle it. For example, more than one brought up the fact that teenagers make up a significant portion of the target audience (with cites), and there was no consensus that any wording regarding demographics belonged in the opening sentence, as opposed to elsewhere in the lead. Changing the opening sentence the way you did gives the impression that there was a consensus for it, which there clearly wasn't. The wording should have been left or deleted until a consensus on how to handle it was worked out on the talk page. Could you thus please revert? It's more serious than you might assume—people can force the current wording to be retained by stonewalling a discussion and then claiming "no consensus" which would result in "keeping the status quo" (meaning the current, newborn wording). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wording I introduced was not done so in an administrative role of closer implementing consensus, but rather as an ordinary editor providing a starting point. I tried to make this clear in both my close, and in the edit summary accompanying the edit. I'd be happy to further clarify this point if you feel that these two methods are not sufficiently clear. If you feel that teenagers should be included, or that the treatment on demographics should be done further down in the lede, please be bold and make the change. Ultimately, there was a clear consensus against using the word adult in a manner that could be ambiguous with pornography, but there also was a consensus that a better treatment of demographics should be included in the opening sentences than simply deleting the word adult would provide. The compromise I installed had by far the best support, and for that reason, I'm going to decline to revert my change. If stonewalling becomes an issue, the community can handle it. I hope that this addresses your concerns. Feel free to talk to me if you have further questions, or to start a discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard if you would like to appeal my closure to the community. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tazerdadog: You've missed the point, and I don't have the patience to re-explain. Please avoid doing things like this in future closes. I'll be reverting your edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe I've screwed up the close that badly, then we should bring it to the community for review. The proper way to do that is to start a new section at WP:AN per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Would you like to start this review, or shall I? Tazerdadog (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tazerdadog I didn't say you screwed up the close. Why the aggression? Do you react to every disagreement with threats to take it to WP:ANI? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I think we can both agree that the dramaboards are a huge timesink. However, they are the way to resolve a contested RFC close. Let me try one more time to understand. You object to my inclusion of a wording in that article that did not have a solid consensus behind it because it could be enshrined there if further discussions fail to reach consensus. This is an absolutely valid point. However, while my solution is not perfect, I don't see a better one. Leaving in place a wording that was rejected by consensus (adult animated...) has to be worse than putting in place one that had broad support that stopped short of a consensus. Additionally, a lot of the voices in that discussion had explicitly proposed different phrasings. All of these phrasings included language on the show's targeted demographic, making it clear that it was something that the community wanted. If I need to provide a more detailed closing rationale at the RFC to make this point clear, I'd be glad to do so. I'd further ask that you either self-revert, or take a stab at a compromise wordsmithing yourself. My intention with my close was to place the language that I installed and you reverted as the baseline for the BRD process. I hope this clears up some confusion. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tazerdadog: A close doesn't include making changes to the article itself. All I said was to leave the article itself be until those of us involved suss it out. I assumed that was good general advice. I've already opened a discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saijō Sake Matsuri[edit]

If you get a chance, could you take a gander? (get it, turkey, gander...?) :) --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sqauwk! Biggest problem with the article is that its only source is WP:PRIMARY, making it an easy target for deletionists. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsubuffalo: you certainly have more sources now, but none of them look to me like they'd pass WP:RS. Can you find a newspaper source or anything? If you find something you can't read, point it my way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best. But not this weekend. Sake Matsuri ;) then I'm going to Kagawa.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun! Never been out that far (actually, never been off of Honshū). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima _is_ Honshu, ya turkey! Have you not? Lived on Shikoku 7 years (JFC!) and really like Kyushu.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Kagawa

But I've been to neither—never been past Kyoto that way. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe we have been putting up with this for so long[edit]

Virtually all of our articles on the ancient and medieval Japanese emperors are heavily dependant on an Edo-period work, which we attribute to Isaac Titsingh as its author but of which he was apparently an uncritical translator; he naturally, given the time in which he lived, had access to hardly any reliable information on Japan, let alone the abundance of post-Enlightenment scholarship that has come to question so much of what he might have thought he knew.

I've been drafting an article off-wiki for WAM purposes for the last hour or so, and checking some related material on Wikipedia, and ... well, there was a fourteenth-century imperial consort (later nun, best remembered as a poet), whose true name and origins are unknown and a matter of dispute, but who was apparently referred to as 勝子 (Shōshi? Katsuko? Masako?) in Edo sources (three centuries later!) and may have been the daughter of ja:阿野師基, a remote descendant of the Fujiwaras. As a result, our article on her husband calls her "Fujiwara Shōshi", our article on her one confirmed son calls her "Fujiwara Katsuko", and our article on another possible son called her "Fujiwara Masako" until a few moments ago. None of them referred to her by the name our only early sources call her.

The user principally responsible for this mess got blocked back in 2013, but no one's ever got around to cleaning the mess up. It's almost enough to make one wish it came before ArbCom like the Wikicology case that "encouraged editors" to fix the messes that had been created. Tagging all of them with Template:Primary sources would be a start, but I get the feeling a mass tagging of 99+ articles would draw more negative attention and POINT accusations than positive attempts to fix the Encyclopedia.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

99 seemed like a really small number so I checked a random article. 415 more format the title slightly differently. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl+F both the above for "Emperor ". One is List of Emperors of Japan, and one is a Chinese Emperor: the other 108 are individual articles in Japanese emperors. Given that the work was apparently composed during the reign of the 110th emperor, even allowing for the six Northern Court emperors, that's 108/116. Let alone the 406 other articles that apparently cite it. Then there's this related mess that also still hasn't been cleared up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titsingh's used all over the place—I come across that source all the time. For example, in articles about eras. That's an awful lot of tedious work to do—it's not surprising nobody's done it. Apply for a grant!

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page histories some time. I guarantee you every last one of them was edited by Enkyo2 or one of his socks (Ansei, Horeki, perhaps some other one that no one ever bothered to hunt down...) and they were the one who added the Titsingh citations.

Honestly, I think the "article creation" editathon model is harmful to efforts to fix problems like this. I could definitely fix almost all of those articles if WAM didn't give a specific incentive not to improve articles that already exist. Like maybe be able to claim a postcard for creation of four articles, and a second postcard for significant expansion of ten articles, or something. (I know bots wouldn't be able to automatically check if one has fixed problems like the bad sourcing, but that's usually a given when one totally rewrites and expands an article that already happened exist.

...Speaking of which, have you heard anything about WAM? We're a week into October, WP:WAM still shows last year's info, and only one (User:Rosiestep) of last year's five organizers has shown much activity on en.wiki in the last few months (User:AddisWang, who seemed to be running at least the WAM talk page last November, has barely logged in all year).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's probably the problem—the volunteers running it just aren't around. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katsudô Shashin[edit]

Hi Curly Turkey,
if you're still interested in "Katsudô Shashin" and early animation in Japan, my book "Animated Film in Japan until 1919" is now out in English and also available on Amazon Japan (ISBN: 978-3-7448-3052-2).
F. Litten 2003:EC:93D2:1CCA:AD2D:4665:624B:6D43 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's even got Katsudô Shashin on the cover! Thanks for the heads up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a PD translation of Ise[edit]

Hey, you contacted me a while back (I forget if it was by email or on my talk page) about the possibility of quoting a full public-domain translation of one of the Tales of Ise on an article, and I figured either way I'd provide the update in public since it's no longer a TBAN-violation.

I seem to recall replying to you that I was not sure if one existed, but I was digging around for something else and came across this. Apparently the first translation into English ever of the whole work was produced in 1957, and the only previous translation into any European language was a 1923 translation into Russian. While it's possible the particular passage you wanted to quote was individually translated earlier for some reason, and may have slipped into the public domain, it seems like it would be pretty difficult to locate something like that (it would have appeared in the context of a larger work that was not a full translation of the Ise), so I guess the only possibility for a public domain translation is that someone voluntarily released their translation or waiting for one of the post-1957 to become PD by themselves. Dr. Vos apparently "starb am 19. Januar 2000", which would mean that McCullough is still earlier.

The Hyakunin Isshu and Tosa Diary, and even the Genji, as well as "historical" works that were translated back in Meiji, are much easier to deal with...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. It was just one of those "wouldn't it be nice" scenarios, anyways, as far as I can recall (can't recall which article I wanted it for, but I'm pretty sure it was for an Utamaro picture). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On an only very loosely related front (or, rather, on two or three separate loosely related fronts), I'm pretty sure the "Nijo no Tsubone" at the bottom of our Ariwara no Narihira article is wrong. The image itself definitely appeara to have 局 rather than the correct 后 in Yoshitoshi's hand, but it's not clear if he meant that as a deliberate anachronism or if it was a misprint. A cursory googling indicated that 二条局 refers to one or two separate women from three or four hundred years after Narihira's time, and Narihira's love was 二条后.

Of course, I'm not going to change it without a reliable source when the print itself says "Tsubone", but if it turned out it was a mistake (or a deliberate anachronism) that would nearly be worth noting by itself.

It's actually pretty hilarious how similar those two separate letters can look and how it can create confusion between several different historical characters all with essentially the same "name".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no scholar, but I come across alternate spellings like that all the time. Are you sure it's "incorrect", as in not an acceptable variant? I mean, it's a title rather than a name, right? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear I'm not "sure" about anything. But Narihira's lover is pretty frequently referred to as "kisaki" and "tsubone" apparently isn't. I guess she is a tsubone either way, which makes the "pun" theory just as viable as the "mistake" theory. It doesn't really matter anyway; by the end of next month one or more of the women in question will have their own articles, and the problem can be addressed in headnotes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 24[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

User Group update
Global branches update
- Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious five years![edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Wikipedia Asian Month 2017: Invitation to Participate[edit]

Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.

I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!

Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!

If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.

Thank you!

- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team

This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.

Hijiri88: here's what you were waiting for! I don't think I'll be signing up this time, though—I'm going to be pretty busy for November (and maybe the following couple months), and my motivation has been fairly low the last few months regardless (no particular reason, I've just been wanting to do other things with my free time). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki[edit]

The article Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mustapha Ourrad for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mustapha Ourrad is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustapha Ourrad until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civil disruption[edit]

Hey, Hijiri88, do you remember the name of that essay about people being civilly disruptive? I thought I'd pinned it to my talk page somewhere, but I can't find it now. I'm banging my head against the wall with one of "those" types at the moment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought you had too. It's Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome—thanks a lot! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki[edit]

The article Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Shinagawa no Tsuki, Yoshiwara no Hana, and Fukagawa no Yuki for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA Mentor[edit]

Hi Curly Turkey, hope you do not mind me picking you from the list of FA mentors to aid in an FA nomination. First time dabble at an FA for both ManKnowsInfinity and myself who are looking to joint-nominate Alfred Hitchcock for FA (to replace the current GA nomination that does not seem to have gone anywhere). The article was an old FA in January 2004 but was demoted in December 2004 and failed GA in 2010. I think that since then the article has progressed and looks like it would meet the FA criteria. ManKnowsInfinity is handling the content details and I am looking at the MOS/consistency side of things. Regards Keith D (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'll have the time to "mentor", but I'll try to take a look at it. It won't happen today, or probably even this weekend, though. Feel free to ping me now and again—real life's keeping me busy these days, and I'm likely to forget even when I do have the time. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking a look. If you feel that you cannot spend the time on this then may be you could point us in the direction of someone who could handle it. Keith D (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keith D: I'm not really a film person, but if you posted a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, I imagine you'd find someone interested in helping out with such a high-profile article. You might also want to try out WP:PR. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I have expanded the article about Rikard Wolff. A very well known Swedish singer who sadly died today. Could you please take a look at that article. Any help is appreciated. Cheers.BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More "comics" nonsense[edit]

Hey, it never occurred to me during that whole mess about whether Mr. Freeze originated in the comics or the 1960s TV series to check how the same PTB on Wikipedia had written articles on characters who unambiguously originated in other media and whose comics appearances are relatively minor. The first paragraph of this was a pretty hilarious mess until I tried to fix it, and I guess puts to bed the idea that the way these articles have always been written has always "worked". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just what I'd expect from that corner of Wikipedia. Shall I re-rant what I think of said corner? I mean, there's nothing new I could add that wouldn't get me blocked. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And people wonder what the appeal of classical Japanese literature is...[edit]

I made one foray into writing about modern proletarian literature (tomorrow being Labor Thanksgiving Day and all), and literally one hour later this happens. I have no idea what it means, but I'm fairly certain that as a result of my publishing an unfinished stub I've been accused of either whitewashing the dubious legacy a red propaganda outlet or engaging in reactionary "appropriation" of the work of the great proletarian movement in the name of some benign "literary magazine" conception.

And yes, I am mostly kidding. But it is pretty creepy how fast things get political when one is no longer writing about Narihira and Hitomaro.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been using the internet?

I keep having this broken-record conversation with this guy at work whenever we dive into Japanese comment sections online—we drown so quickly in this neto-uyo horseshit that it briefly paints our whole perception of Japan. Then we wake up to reality and realize that hardly anyway we come in contact with has these bizarre worldviews. These online freaks are so prolific, they make it seem like all of Japan is making these comments.

I don't know what this particular editor's hang-up is, though. They're not even Japanese. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note: naming order for modern Japanese people primarily known by "SURNAME GIVENNAME"[edit]

Hey, it just came to my attention that @SMcCandlish:, you, and perhaps a coupla others apparently had a weird hard-to-follow discussion that led to the overhauling of one of our most long-standing and ridiculous guidelines shortly after my TBAN took away my reason for caring. I sincerely think naming modern writers, scholars and the like according to the name they are most widely known under in English sources, or under plain romanized forms if they are not known in English sources is the right move, but I find it really weird that I didn't notice this until now. My recent article on Sunao Tokunaga would need to be moved according to the new system, and the names of the writers of sources in several dozen other articles I've written in the past two months as well. (Heck, technically it applies to the Japanese sources I cited in my Chinese articles even before my TBAN was suspended.) Am I missing something here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically just a matter of WP:COMMONNAME ("prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"), but for living subjects, WP:ABOUTSELF is also a strong factor. E.g., if Utada Hikaru prefers her family-first order (and we demonstrated at RM that she does, despite a short period of her label publishing her work in Hikaru Utada order for the English-language market), it really doesn't matter how many Western journalists still keep using H. U. order. No one knows what someone's name is better than the subject. We've had similar discussions about sportsfigures; e.g. we have Pan Xiaoting and many other such articles, for Asian sportspersonages, in family-first order because of their own websites and such, and because today only a decreasing number of Western publishers stubbornly persist in a house style of forcing Western name order. The ABOUTSELF effect would probably be countermanded by WP:OFFICIALNAME's deference to COMMONNAME, except WP:BLP and MOS:IDENTITY effectively intervene on ABOUTSELF's behalf. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 07:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Thing is, my main concern at the moment is people who have been dead for years (so BLP doesn't apply) or even decades (so establishing an "official" order based on websites and such is useless) but who were still born after 1868 so under the old guideline would have been covered by Wikipedia's house style as having their names in western order. Unlike the macrons issue, I was never really bothered by this house style, although I did find it unusual, arbitrary and "quirky". I'm happy to work with the new system, but hardly anything in your above comment necessarily applies to articles like Sunao Tokunaga (which I wrote before I noticed the updated MOS) and Hayashi Fusao (which someone else wrote in accordance with the updated MOS nine years before said update took place, and forgot to create a redirect). COMMONNAME would, given the prominence of works like Keene's History overshadowing any possible early translations of the works of such writers into English, probably support the "SURNAME-GIVENNAME" order, but then ... well, I dunno. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the hand-wringing. It's just a standard COMMONNAME analysis, and easy to do, especially for subjects of historical and academic interest: Hayashi Fusao beats Fusao Hayashi, by a landslide since the early 1960s, though Westernized name order was common for him in English in the 1940s. [43]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 08:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but what do we do about the hundreds of similar articles that were named in accordance with the previous MOS? And let's face it: WP:COMMONNAME is clearly meant to apply to people like Chiang Kai-shek (who if I recall used to be listed as an example) more than obscure figures who are unknown to 99.99999% of English Wikipedia's readership. If Dan Brown name-dropped Hayashi in his next book for some reason, that book would automatically, and overwhelmingly, outsell every single one of the miniscule number of books analyzed in the ngram you link, so whatever way Brown decided (arbitrarily?) to write the name would then arguably become the "COMMONNAME" if we assumed that COMMONNAME applied to such figures at all. And this isn't a bogus hypothetical: Donald Keene's book probably already fills a similar role, and if Keene arbitrarily decided to write it "Fusao Hayashi" that would overrule your ngram results. He doesn't, but he does have arbitrary formatting quirks like that in other places. (I was going to link this ngram to show where he is in the minority, but Google appears to have screwed something up as it bizarrely says Keene's idiosyncratic "Fujiwara Teika" is more common; it does the same with his father, though, and Keene refers to the latter as "Fujiwara no Shunzei"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri 88: are you sure something in the guidelines changed? I thought the discussion was just about how existing guidelines were applied. I hate the current guidelines, but I don't know the solution to them given the facts are, in real life (a) the names of older Japanese figures (e.g. Tokugawa Ieyasu) are usually given surname first; (b) modern figures (e.g. Shinzō Abe) are normally given surname last; (c) most Japanese are rarely talked about in English, therefore COMMONNAME rarely is appropriate. The 1868 cutoff is (almost) entirely arbitrary, basically because nobody has a better solution. The guidelines give no guidance on how to deal with, say, Kanae Yamamoto (artist), where I ran into a cross-1868 situation with a mother & son—should they both be surname first, both surname last, or the oldest surname first and the younger surname last? I brought it up at MOS:JAPAN and the response was basically "who cares?"

For the record, COMMONNAME is far too often whipped out when it's inappropriate. It was intended to avoid having articles such as Ringo Starr titled Richard Starkey—COMMONNAME should never be invoked when there's any amount of grey area (say, where one version of a name shows up 55% of the time and the other 45%—both are "common"). Not that I'm saying that happened with Utada Hikaru, I'm just saying in general.

Other problems with relying on COMMONNAME for name order:

It makes article titles less predictable (we can't guess name order without checking).
It makes article text more of a mess, with some contemporary figures surname-first and others surname-last (virtually everyone else in Utada's article, include her husband, are named surname-last).
It results in more frequent page moves.

Like I've said before, I hate macrons, but I like the fact that we have a clear rule to follow and don't have to click through to every fucking article we're linking to when generating text to make sure we've got the "right" rendering of the name, which could change whenever anyone wants to start a new page move discussion because they've found their favoured rendering has inched above the current one by 1%. Nobody benefits from this shit. Look at this: I can follow MOS:JAPAN and link to the two longest-serving prime ministers like this: Jun'ichirō Koizumi and Shinzō Abe. Only one goes straight to the correct article, due to this bullshit misapplication of COMMONNAME, and it wouldn't surprise me if five years from now, the one that's "correct" and the one that isn't become reversed, using the exact same arguments that got them the way they are right now.

Sorry this was a bit rambling—I'm a bit under under the weather and have a busy day to look forward to. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure something in the guidelines changed? Question asked ... The 1868 cutoff ... question answered. Ctrl+F MOS:JAPAN right now and you'll find that neither "1868" nor apparently any equivalent appears anywhere on that page. All I can see is Follow the usage of academic texts or a widely used reference such as a published encyclopedia in matters of spelling, macron usage, and name order. Such sources generally give Japanese names family name first. This definitely was not the case in 2015, as I distinctly remember there being an 1868 cut-off date, as apparently do you. I'm lazy when it comes to checking exactly when and by whom such changes were made, so I Ctrl+Fed the talk archives for "order" and found only the above-linked discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It must of been changed fairly recently. The last time it came up, I could have sworn there was no consensus to change. I guess the change gives us leeway in cases like the Yamamoto Kanae article, without really solving the problem. It's probably best it's gone, as it was a strictly arbitrary Wikipedia-only rule, but now we're left with no better advice than misguided application of COMMONNAME, which really doesn't apply in almost all cases—and leaves us with a mess of name orders and arbitrary move requests. I don't know a good solution, though my preference would be universal surname-first except in cases (e.g. Yoko Ono) where surname-last usage is demonstrated to be virtually universal. That'd never fly, though, and I wouldn't waste my time pushing for it—Wikipedia has reached a consensus on leaving things a shitty, unstable, unpredictable mess. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where the change was made, based on this discussion. I'm not sure it reflects any consensus that was actually reached in the discussion, but I don't get the feeling anyone would kick up a fuss about it, either. I have a lot of sympathy for Margin1522's statement: "If we are going to say that the default name order is family-name-first, then I don't see any way around this difficulty except the academic approach -- ignore the person's own preferences in English-language materials, and always use family-name-first."—but I doubt it'd gain consensus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that basically works. I just wish we could stop framing everything as "the person's own preferences". I've literally never met a Japanese person who was deeply invested in whether their name was written in East Asian or western order in English. In ES and JHS every English textbook I've used in my classes tells the kids that they should use Japanese order, and I guess that is reversed in SHS which is why we get most adults seeming to prefer western order (?). When people talk about "the person's own preferences" in these contexts I get JoshuSasori/Kauffner flashbacks, and those guys very transparently meant "my own preferences" when they said it. I guess people who don't know anything about Japan might think an "English name" is something a lot of people have and consider an integral part of their identity, but for most of the people I've talked to it's an arbitrary romanization of their actual, Japanese, name. (In my old job I used to come in contact with passport office people on a regular basis, and they told me as much -- they used an unrevised Hepburn 50onzu for the 80% of people who didn't give a preference.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SHS texts do the same thing. Apparently it's a change that was made at a national level in the early 2000s (if I remember right), but the J-English teachers I've asked said they all ignore it. I don't think many people have strongly held convictions about it—it seems to be a gut-level "this is how it's done it English" thing. Except they don't reverse foreign names—I continue to be called "Curly Turkey" in Japanese, even though my whole family is "Turkey XXX"—nobody addresses my kids surname-last—and my hanko is officially registered as "Turkey Curly". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What am I gonna do...[edit]

I honestly can't believe this guy hasn't been blocked for some of the mud he's slung at me (and apparently other people who "think they are better than him") over the past few days, let alone the non-stop edit-warring, unexplained removal of maintenance tags, unapologetic violation of V and NOR, etc. over multiple years.

Remember I said on ANI that our mutual "friend" was actually one of the less disruptive editors in the area of "movies/television based on DC and Marvel comics"? (On a loosely related note, you really should archive this page -- that shit went down almost a year ago and it's still here. I know, glass houses and all, but my page contains threads from close to two years ago and is still about 40% shorter than yours from just one. I know that GOT fan and I responsible for like two thirds of that, but still.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow—I didn't even notice there were still posts here from 2016. With only a month to go until oshōgatsu, I think I'll just wait to sweep it all away until then.

"vandalise"—is this déjà vu all over again? Not the only figure around here to get a bug up their ass over maintenance tags—some of them are thin-skinned FA-generating primadonnas, too. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had a flashback to you-know-who when I read this: using an autopass GA review as justification for preserving a piece of questionable content that was completely glossed over in said review should be formally declared a blockable offense, with how disruptive it is and how prevalent it seems to be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just abolish all the green and gold trinkets? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good, but then a lot of the gold ones and even some of the green ones actually are legitimately better than the majority of the garbage material on this site (including, in all honesty, no insignificant portion of what I submitted to WAM this year), and removing the trinkets would make it difficult to track them. I think a blanket ban on editors who were involved in a GAN or FAC process removing maintenance tags from the same articles and bringing up the GA/FA status in content disputes, under penalty of an immediate 24-hour block, would be a better idea, and if more users had seen what you and I had it might actually be a tenable proposal. Dare to dream, am I right? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people have seen what you and I have seen. Just remember how much effort it took to get so many editors to recognize what was before their eyes. That's what makes it an untenable proposal. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It's times like this I wish I could disappear down my 御伽草子 hole and never come out again, but then I'm reminded that someone else is only going to carry the burden later, and that I actually really do like these silly comic book movies (and was willing to put the silly comic book TV dramas on as background noise until they made them all but impossible to access in a timely manner -- seriously, they expect their fans to care about their supposed "crossovers" with the films, but they don't put new episodes on Netflix, forcing those of us who live in Japan to either apply for a credit card and subscribe to another streaming service or wait a year or more after the films' releases to get the DVDs). It's really sick how people can use their gold (and even, in this case, green) non-trophies to get away with this kind of harassment. Maybe if you dropped another one of your magic F-bombs an admin would step in and handle it faster than a pizza delivery like last time. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong diff. This is what I meant to link. More Curtis flashbacks -- I don't believe he carefully read my comment, considered its content and drafted his "reply" in a little over ten minutes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What, fentanyl? Forced abortion? Fukushima? Fujimori? Facebook? I know lots of offensive f-words.

I haven't taken that ANI survey above, though not through lack of having something to say. The way ANI fails to handle these types (and the ridiculous amount of time, energy, and soul it drains just trying) would be No. 1 on my list of ANI fails. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment This is pretty hilarious, and sadly typical of the IDHT, uncivil behaviour one encounters in these pop culture articles... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And he just thanked me for the above comment. Because sarcasm makes everything better! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to keep a record of that—it's evidence of bad faith and that they're following you around. It's not like they have any business haunting my talk page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he does apparently think I did it to him first: I totally followed him to the talk page discussion in question, since it's not like I was "Soft_reboot" invited or anything. The worst part is that, when I comment on a thread I cam across (based on principle rather than on what other users have written as I haven't read it), then notice retroactively that one of those people was involved, I have to preemptively clarify that I never would have commented there if I knew what I was in for. The "shiver [that] went up my spine" and the "sudden, unexplainable urge" were literal truths: when I scrolled up the page and saw ATW's signature that's exactly what happened. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri 88 You think my GA review for Doctor Strange was an auto-pass? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Did you notice the conflation of Tibet with Nepal, and the confusing statement that Chinese people would be offended by the claim Tibet "is a place" that exists? Did you consider that if I tried tagging this odd content I would be auto-reverted by the editors who monitor the page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not (and do not) find the statement confusing, but I will admit that the Tibetan sovereignty debate is not something I'm attuned to. I have no comment on the auto-reverting practices. I want to hear why you thought the review was an auto-pass because that sounds negative to me. Assuming it wasn't a cheap shot thrown out while venting about a third party, I'm honestly interested in the feedback. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if you've personally experienced it, but I'm frankly sick of how three or four users who consider the MCU articles their babies will auto-revert any edit to those articles that they don't like, even maintenance tags that were placed in good faith and that they don't know how to address, or simple technical fixes that lead to lengthy talk-page back-and-forths that ultimately lead to the fixes being restored by the reverters at their own leisure. And I've seen the "this content passed GA review" argument thrown out enough times that I'd rather GA reviewers consider this problem (which is a problem of "stability", one of the GA criteria) before passing the articles through GA review. It's not your fault you didn't (why I didn't name you above), but I think if an editor who was attuned to the Tibetan sovereignty debate rather than someone who frequently cooperates with the disruptive editors responsible for the articles' stability problems it would be better. (Sorry, but I think you were wrong not to call out Adamstom.97 on that Gifted discussion that recently came up on ANI -- he made a comment that could reasonably be read as not entirely sensitive to problems of systemic racism, and while Jack Sebastian did overreact initially, he withdrew his overreaction within two weeks, while Adamstom.97 overreacted to the overreaction, and kept overreacting for months after the fact, even bringing it up on ANI earlier this week.) What I'm trying to say is that I think the GAN process would be better if truly uninvolved editors, with no connection to the nominators, were required to review the articles. The History of Japan GAR two years ago had the same problem -- a disruptive POV-pusher and edit-warrior pushed his version of the article to GA review, and it was auto-passed (and I use that word without reservation) by a frequent collaborator of his. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I fully cooperate with the editors you're talking about - my "no comment" above was meant to be diplomatic. I'll have to look into the Gifted thing at ANI - I remember the RfC but I don't recall seeing the ANI.

I'll consider your point about only reviewing articles I'm 100% uninvolved in. My first reviews were the ones that popped up in the feed at the Comics project and I have generally assumed that someone familiar with the topic would make a better reviewer. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Meh. It could easily be argued that that article is more about film than comics, so a watcher of WP:FILM would probably be more of a topic expert than you, but I see your point in general. Ideally, there would be a clearer restriction on claiming that "this content passed GA review" ([44]) as a defense against changes or removal, since no one reviewer can be an expert on everything touched on in an article like that and should have been taken as a given that your passing the GA did not add "consensus" in favour of the inclusion of (and on the exact wording of) that particular content. (And I'm not blaming you; I'm blaming TriiipleThreat for that particular incident, and blaming the way the project handles GAs for the general trend I've been noticing.)

Honestly, we should probably have GA reviews requiring at least two reviewers: one uninvolved to prevent LOCALCONSENSUS and OWN problems, and one topic expert to prevent bad content and misinterpretation of sources. It's ridiculous that "GA class" replaces the standard WikiProject ratings similar to "FA class", but while FAC generally requires a consensus of editors to pass and even one or two editors raising apparently legitimate sourcing concerns can cause it to fail, GAN requires a single editor (any editor, even this one) to want to promote it and even if more than one user opposes the promotion it can still pass. And GA reviewers should not be allowed say to dissenting commenters things like If [the sources are] unacceptably biased, prove it; the burden is indeed on you.[45] While it's true that a topic expert (as you are for comics articles) would definitely not have written something like that, but would rather have said something like Shit, you're right. This article's sourcing is a mess, and I'm sorry for not noticing it until this was pointed out. I'm therefore giving the nominator one week to fix the sourcing problems before I fail this nomination., it shouldn't need to be a topic expert vs. layman issue, since "the burden is on you" turns WP:V and WP:RS on their heads. Either GA is just a meaningless badge that can't be used in an argument to defend every little piece of the status quo (as has been done on the MCU articles, and those Japan articles), or it is a serious mark of quality and should be given by much more discriminating reviewers.

Again, none of this is your fault. It's a systemic problem, and one that I've honestly benefited from -- I brag about the GA status of Ariwara no Narihira on my user page, but that article too had a very superficial review. But I think it needs to change. (And I think think the user conduct problems demonstrated by some editors on those MCU articles are basically unrelated to the problems with the GA process and should be dealt with separately; which is why I think this discussion has veered somewhat off-topic.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a problem with GA is that since we're all volunteers, we're more likely to review articles in topic areas we're interested in, and thus are more likely to be "involved" ina a sense and at some level of remove from the nominators. There are conflicting ideals here—ideally we want someone familiar with the topic (otherwise how will they know if the article is truly comprehensive, etc?), but then that's going to make us "involved", isn't it?

Whether the Dr Strange review was an autopass or not, I took Hijiri's word because we've had this problem before (History of Japan's the most significant one), but the real problem is editors using the green medalion as a shield against maintenance tagging—and that's what I was responding to when I wrote "How about we just abolish all the green and gold trinkets?".

Hijiri, for the record, in my experience Argento Surfer has always worked in good faith and doesn't tend to "take sides". If there are problems with the review, I'd assume they were honest mistakes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand the actual issue is using a review as a shield, but this is actually the first time I've seen someone who wasn't a nominator/participant comment on one of my reviews. Seemed like a good chance for constructive feedback. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, CT! (Don't you envy me my long commute that has me up at 5 a.m. every day?) I'll respond to what the two of you wrote while I was drafting the above in more detail once I've read it, but I should clarify that I don't for a second doubt AS's good faith. The problem I had was that he works with the nominators on a regular basis, knows them, and probably wants to pass their article (on a subconscious level, of course), and so his having passed the article for GA can't be used as a blanket defense of content that he readily admits (in his good faith) he doesn't read as I do. The "race card" issue was not something I was calling Argento out on in the above and had no relation to my original comment (it couldn't have, as I didn't know about it until yesterday); I just mentioned it because I think Argento, while he made the right call initially by telling Jack off for his overreaction, his correct action on the issue may have inadvertently enabled Adamstom (who is indisputably the more disruptive party, and arguably "started it" with his initial insensitive comment) by calling out one party more than the other. It's definitely not Argento's fault that Adamstom kept throwing the strawman argument "you called me a racist" in Jack's face (as opposed to addressing what Jack actually said, which would have been "you called what I said racist") for two months and counting, but I think if more people had told Adamstom to knock it off, and preferably point out that Adamstom's initial comment had been problematic and he should recognize that and apology for the miscommunication, then maybe we could avoid the drahms that eventually came of it (includingboth the recent ANI monstrosity and, quite probably, this discussion from three weeks ago). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this "racist" stuff is about, and I'm typically up naturally at 5:00~5:30 every morning, so—whimper whimper whimper!

Requiring two reviews for GA would just mean GA would grind to a halt—there's backlog enough as it is. Just look at how many FACs get archived for lack of reviews. A better solution would be a WP:GAISNOTASHIELD essay to link to, and even better would be to have clear guidelines that maintenance tags cannot be removed without the issues raised being addressed. If autoreverting is a habit, it should be sanctionable, regardless if it's an FA or GA (with perhaps some leeway there for mainpage content). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Yeah, that would probably work. Maybe we should start drafting it. I'm still burned out on content production from WAM anyway (and the way it worked out has convinced me that I have to win unambiguously next year, so I've decided to start off-wiki drafting earlier still this year -- I've got three passable drafts for November 2018 already).

The racism thing is something Adamstom brought up in his one comment on that recent ANI mess. Basically he said something that could easily be interpreted as "Jamie Chung looks like Fan Bingbing", which, if that had been what he meant, would have been tantamount to saying "they look alike because they are Asian" (because they really look nothing alike). Jack Sebastian interpreted it that way and posted this rather uncivil overreaction. As far as I can see, it should have been over after this detailed and careful retraction of the original "outrageous racism" remark, but Adam (and only Adam -- Argento was not apparently involved) kept bringing it up and, apparently in a cheap attempt to gain the upper hand in the content dispute that led to the problem and still hasn't been resolved, kept saying things like You think you can bully me away by ... accusing me of racism, and in general just being a cruel person, but you are wrong, You misinterpreted something, that doesn't make everyone else racist, even "subtly" so, I don't know why you have decided that you are the only person who knows what racism is, but you are wrong, and even throwing it in Jack's face in unrelated discussions two months later (So now I don't understand basic English because I am from New Zealand? I guess you forgot how important fighting racism is to you when it stopped supporting your argument.).

Anyway, I wish I wasn't doing this in a long comment basically about unrelated issues, but I really hope User:SNUGGUMS notices the slow-motion edit-warring and refusal to engage in civil, policy-based talk-page discussion on the part of several contributors to the article and takes that into account before deciding to pass or fail this GAN. Indeed, it's super-suspicious that none of my recent comments on the talk page have been met with any of the same uncivil, off-topic, policy-misquoting invective that they are normally met with on MCU-related talk pages -- they haven't been responded to at all -- and I don't doubt at all that this phenomenon is related to the ongoing GA review. I can't think of any other explanation for why Adamstom would completely ignore this, but respond to a similar comment on the talk page of an article that had already passed GAN with this and this. It doesn't look like WP:GAISNOTASHIELD will be wiki-spaced or widely viewed/recognized as a community standard before the next dispute on that article flares up, so that wouldn't help.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't actually agree that requiring two reviewers would be that much of a disaster. It would just take a bit longer. At most twice as long, but realistically less, since the "uninvolved non-topic-expert" would likely be more open to reviewing an article he/she knew had already passed a source-check by a more knowledgeable editor, and "half-finished" GANs could be marked as such for that reason. This of course assumes that under the current system non-expert reviewers actually do attempt source checks, even though I know in reality this is not the case. (And I know the HOJ reviewer was neither uninvolved nor a topic expert, but that was an exceptional case from what I can see.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I have noticed back-and-forth reverts for GOTG2, it hasn't gotten to the point where I'm worried about stability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: But the only reason there haven't been long and protracted edit wars is because I've been avoiding them (and not just because I'm subject to 1RR). An article can't be considered stable when it is highly visible (sequel to the highest domestic gross of 2014) but is controlled by three or four users who don't welcome outside input, dismiss legitimate concerns expressed by experienced editors, auto-revert, blank reasonable talk page comments from experienced editors with nonsense rationales,[46] show a poor understanding of NOR policy (at least where and when it should be applied),[47][48] misread their own sources,[49] and only don't get in long edit wars because of the distaste other editors have for that kind of behaviour. Yes, the article is not visibly unstable, but that's only because the nominator, Adamstom and TriiipleThreat usually wear me down before I bother opening an RFC or taking it to a noticeboard to bring it to the attention of others who might have fewer qualms reverting back and forth than I do. And if you compare what happens when I post a criticism of something about how the article is written on the talk page of one of their articles that already passed GAN -- "ensemble_cast"? [50] [51] [52] "sharing_continuity" -- to what has been happening when I do the same on the talk page of an article that is currently under GAN -- literally nothing --the game-y nature of what they are doing (crearing a false illusion of stability) becomes obvious.

Anyway, the article at present includes a counterfactual claim that Matthew McConnaughey was offered the role of "the film's antagonist", which since the article was revised in May has apparently meant Ego (a role that was already being offered to Kurt Russell at the time), but when the source was written apparently referred to a different character; it's obvious that the source didn't mean that he was offered the role of the film's actual antagonist, and I think rewriting it to say he stated in an interview that he had been offered the role of "the film's antagonist" would probably solve the problem, but I can guarantee you that I would be reverted if I tried to implement that solution.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting an edit simply because it was yours no matter how legitimate it was would obviously be quite an issue. I'll look through the article again later on and editors still have 6 days before my hold on the nomination expires. If reverts continue during that time, then I'd be more inclined to fail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, by "auto-reverts" I didn't mean to imply that they were revenge-reverts against me because I am not liked. They don't agree with my policy that we should not cite outdated sources for outdated information (like the speculation that season 2 of Agent Carter would tie into Doctor Strange, or the character in GOTG2 who would have been played by McConaughey was going to be "the antagonist", which in the context of our current article implies he was offered Kurt Russell's part) and revert when I place tags based on this, and would likely revert anyone else who did the same (note that on the rare occasions when I bring my specific disagreements with them to editors outside of the MCU bubble, there is usually overwhelming agreement with my view, as in the recent "sharing continuity" discussion). Anyway, I'll try implementing the change and seeing if it sticks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, god—I haven't volunteered to write an essay, have I? It would pretty much be reiterating guidelines and policies we already have, but specifically addressing a specific problem.

If you want to see a two-reviewer thing for GAN, go ahead and propose it, but I'm telling you it'll never fly. I've had GANs sit there for months on end—not that I have a problem with the wait per se, but you're not going to magically get twice as many reviews happening. Reviews aren't fun—I hate doing them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm probably going to do a bit of work on it and show it around. You don't have to do anything.

Yeah, the wait is long (I'm experiencing it for the first time myself right now); what I meant is that since it's already long, having a two-step process would, relatively speaking, not make it all that much longer. And I don't disagree with you that it wouldn't fly, just that it couldn't fly, if you get me. The essay solution is better, though.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this singular or plural they?[edit]

"In the process they were the first to solve ..." ... I like how it doesn't matter—kind of like in Japanese, where number is irrelevant. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It won't answer your question, but your last sentence reminded me of this. 笑 Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way he gives speech gives me jitters. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I really love the video. I just checked again and noticed it was apparently filmed on 建国記念の日 in 2010, and if I recall I first watched it at Christmas 2011. When I first saw it, it felt like the lecture had taken place in the real world so long ago, but the amount of time since then is now like four times that length. Really makes me feel old. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was an interesting enough speech, but I couldn't get over his mannerisms. The guy should be in a Talking Heads video. Not that I would do much better—I hate public speaking. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Curly Turkey. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious new accounts keep showing up when I tag articles on Indian and Indonesian topics[edit]

The bulk of them are listed here, but in the last day or so a bunch have shown up on articles that have nothing to do with that user (here, here, here and here).

I've seen ANI threads on similar issues before, and normally I would go straight there. I'm not really "involved", except that I've edited all those articles and I just happened across the suspicious SPAs, so I wouldn't be opening myself up the same kind of nonsense you hinted that you wanted to write in the ANI survey a few sections up. But that SPI was just closed and it would really look like forum-shopping.

Am I crazy, and missing someway that this isn't super-weird and creepy? If you agree, I'll probably wait a coupla days and post something about it somewhere.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sure looks suspicious, but I really don't have the time to look into it closely enough to say more than that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 25[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
User Group update
Global branches update
Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Thanks for all your help, and I hope you and your loved ones have a great new year!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

良いお年を to you and yours, Kintetsubuffalo! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTETurkey2017a123-1] Turkey 2017a, p. 123.

[FOOTNOTETurkey2017b42–43-2] Turkey 2017b, pp. 42–43.

[1]

[2]