You may want to increment ((Archive basics)) to |counter= 8 as User talk:Laser brain/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Re "Also, anyone who wants to collaborate on a proposal to nuke ITN and DYK permanently, let me know." I would strongly support such an effort, and would be happy to look over a draft of said proposal and offer suggestions. Alas, I am dealing with health issues of a family member and wouldn't be able to put a lot of time into such an effort. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Great, thanks for the note! I will keep you in the loop. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Plus one", LB—please. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a proposal to the rafters. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Like --Xover (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put together a draft proposal and talk about what wording is best. Too many times I have seen proposals devolve into discussions about easily-corrected flaws in the wording of the proposal rather than about what is being proposed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I agree. I'm sort of mulling over the high-level approach mentally right now and then I thought I'd draft a high-level outline with key points for collaboration. --Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent thinking, Guy Macon. In this case, you'll also need to face the "Main page redesign" black hole... if this material disappeared from Mp, what would replace it, without consensus on how to redesign Mp, which we've discussed a bazillion times without result. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course the obvious solution is just to slightly shorten OTD and run it in the space currently occupied by ITN. Then there's no need for a redesign. In fact, the design would be enhanced, as less content would be 'below the fold'. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too, but I am hardly around so pls post on my talk if something is proposed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know the crowd at Wikinews wouldn't mind a bigger role. If ITN does go, why not some kind of autolink to the English Wikinews main page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. All the problems you have with the article had been taken care of expect sourcing. Should all the sources be looked at? I can tell you that any information I added is properly cite and paraphrased. LittleJerry (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I think we should do some spot checks of anything added after it became an FA. --Laser brain (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like clarification on this. It is my understanding that a user's talk page should ONLY be used for discussing unblock attempts while blocked, and not to request edits from other users. Please help me understand where it says the latter is allowed. --Tarage (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Blocking policy for relevant information. Nothing there says blocked editors can't use their talk pages for things other than posting unblock requests. See also the heading "Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors". --Laser brain (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a second opinion on this. Everything I've seen in regards to talk page revoking has been for editors using their talk page for anything except talking about their block and appeals. --Tarage (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You applied indefinite semi-protection to Talk:Autism more than 5 years ago. Is there any reason why it can't now been unprotected? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: I've removed the protection to see how it goes. Back then, the page was subject to almost daily disruption from drive-by IPs. --Laser brain (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, just checking in re this conversation; with Sarastro1 inactive this month, would you be able to take a look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I closed two. But, it looks like Roger B. Chaffee wasn't even at FAC? I'm a bit confused. Kees08? --Laser brain (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is independent of FAC -- just a test to see how the process could look. What about the others that have feedback? I was thinking the standard coordinator response would be to nudge the participants, since there's been no declaration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Also pinging Ian and Sarastro1.) What do you think of the other three? The untouched one can probably be ignored, for purposes of the workshop. Would it make sense to fail the other two, or ping the reviewers to see if they wish to post a support/oppose, or leave them open? If we leave them open I think we should re-advertise at WT:FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie and Ian Rose, I'm unsure what we want to do with ones like Shannen Says. If that were inside an FAC, I'd say it needs more feedback and wouldn't pass the nomination as such. But "needs more feedback" isn't really a pass or fail, unless we want to say that an entry "fails" after a certain period because it wasn't sufficient to pass. --Laser brain (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ping Nikki to see if she has more to say? If we were to adopt this process, I think there would have to be time limits and a two-week waiting period as per FAC, but in this case it's not clear Nikki has decided that the article does not pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if she doesn't want to continue the review, it occurs to me that it might be time to call the workshop completed and make that a question for the WT:FAC conversation about next steps -- what should be done in a case like this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: They are all closed except the one that didn't get a review. I left a bit longer of a closing note on Shannen Says because maybe we need to invent some different terminology from "failed" when the nominator addressed comments but the review wasn't comprehensive. We'll see what the community says. --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll post a summary and a discussion section at WT:FAC (probably tonight) to see if there's interest in taking this any further. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to help, I am grateful, and while it probably seems like a stupid question--what is a PMC? Can you tell how I ended up with two different ones since I used the template and since I'm pretty sure I just filled it in once? I have been on Wp about a year and a half, and there is still more that I don't know than I do know. I apologize for what must seem like obvious nonsense to you. Even with your knowledge and skill, it will be a full day just getting ref #8 fixed--which I still don't know how to do--and there are 150 of them. I appreciate any suggestions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judeca put it back to its original format and it seems to be work okay that way. #8 is fixed! YAY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: No worries at all. Templates and wiki markup in general are probably two of the least intuitive and accessible things I can think of. The process of using citation templates and trying to figure out which parameters to fill in (and how) takes most people a long time. PMC is an identifying number for documents in PubMed, so it's just another way for people to access the document. It looks like what happened is that you had the correct PMC number in there, and Judeca's edit introduced another template parameter and filled in the wrong number. I was trying not to give them a hard time about it, but it's actually a very irresponsible use of an automated tool. They are supposed to check the edits carefully before saving them, which Judeca obviously didn't do. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is it likely it messed up other references as well? If you look at it--he went through every ref there. I think he was trying to help--but jeez--what a mess! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to give them a hard time but that was very irresponsible. So all of Wiki has come crashing down because of a simple mistake. You made your point already Laser. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of lack of focus on FAC is also the quagmire that is all these daughter lion articles. I feel the main page (lion) is under control but the forking is out of control. Am trying to reign it in with proposed mergers etc. but then you get to see how low traffic areas struggle to get a consensus happening. Sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Understood, and no rush on FAC. I've spent time reviewing the lion subpages until I went cross-eyed and I'm no closer to understanding the issues. --Laser brain (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, our lowest split for taxa is species or occasionally distinctive subspecies. With lions, latest research indicates there are only two. I am proposing that these be the only daughter pages. Discussion is at Talk:Northern_lion#Merger_proposal (we also had two separate pages on the same entity), Talk:Panthera_leo_melanochaita#Merger_proposal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, areas I edit in are generally pretty quiet but there are some contentious groups of articles, including the largest stars, the most poisonous snakes, largest eagles, and...lions.....sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Oh I know how vigorous some debates can get in academia. Actually I've seen two PIs get in a fist fight over plant growth facility space and scheduling... --Laser brain (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The splitting of Corymbia from Eucalyptus led to some acrimonious debate at the New South Wales Herbarium in the 1980s too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in here Laser brain, but after seeing the talk page at lion, does it seem like the behavior problems are escalating? I'll admit I've gone cross-eyed trying to figure out what's all going on at big cat articles too. I've run into Leo1pard at AfD's and seen some pointy behavior already to the point I thought a topic ban might be needed, but I didn't realize how much more of a mess was going on outside of the snapshot I'd seen. I'll admit I don't have the energy right now to pull things together for an ANI, so I figured I'd pose the question here since it looks like you maybe have a better read on whether things are getting worse or just settling into a dull roar that us periphery watchers just don't want to deal with right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingofaces43: I'd say the behavior problems are escalating, yes, but it's been difficult for me to get a grasp on whether anyone is being tendentious enough to warrant looking at their behavior. Attempting to look solely at the content issues and ignore editor conduct has been a challenge. However, I believe that each editor in the space is trying to contribute in good faith. @Casliber: Any thoughts? --Laser brain (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just think he has a view on what the lion pages should look like (which is having lots of subpages on dubiously distinct populations), and is being stubborn about it. The walls of text can be hard to follow as can the multiple threads. It takes alot of patience and time to wade through the talk page, and most likely discourages people new to the debate. Obviously this is a Good Thing as the fewer the participants then the more likelihood of a no-consensus close. How purposeful is this editing to this end? I don't know. But I am bothered by the similarity in language between him and Punetor - however as it was felt there were not enough grounds for a checkuser I have left that alone. But more immediately, it raises the idea of competence - is the editor capable of communicating and summarising their ideas clearly to discuss content with other users. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber and Kingofaces43: When others started making more and more discussions, away from the discussions that you started on the 6th of November, I objected to there being so many discussions despite the fact that the old issues weren't resolved, I had tried to get some mergers done, and I said that I don't want articles for every described subspecies that was mentioned in WP:reliable sources, but see how the thing can be adequately merged. Initially there was a merger done, but others didn't agree to that, splitting up articles from the merged up ones on the two recognised subspecies (Panthera leo leo for northern parts of Africa, already called the "Northern lion" by sources like this), and Panthera leo melanochaita in southern parts of Africa, for which I had earlier used a name based on references like this, but then someone who had falsely accused me of edit-warring in a conversation to you Casliber, when in fact this edit of mine was based on a previous discussion in which he was involved, in which I tried to stop the arguments between him and another user mentioned here, and I cautiously decided not to revert that, but make a compliant here, and interestingly, you decided to side with him, even making an investigation regarding a matter that I had tackled beforehand. If you find the talk-page of Lion frustratingly large, like I did, then why didn't you raise this matter? Leo1pard (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain - an approach from me may be unwelcome at present, and I quite understand that. But I did want to say I think you handled a very challenging situation very well and I see no reason at all for you to consider resigning. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I don't think an apology was required either—although it was a powerful thing to do. ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Late to this, but echo the above. ceranthor 16:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you recently blocked IP 66.69.132.230 following a good-faith but misguided systematic bypassing of redirects. 66.25.201.147 now appears to be swimming in the same duckpond and may need a watchful eye. Thanks, Certes (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Thanks, no doubt the same person. I often think we failed to get their attention rather than that they simply disregarded talk page messages... but is that likely? --Laser brain (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I didn't get (or didn't notice) any talk page messages during my brief and ancient spell as an IP editor but I hope they're as prominent as those we see as registered users. If not then I'm struggling to think how else we could make contact with this contributor. It would be a shame to give them a negative experience, as that sort of diligence could be usefully applied in other areas such as fixing links to dab pages, but I agree that the message is not getting through. Certes (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laser brain. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I've done the tweaks for Joseph Bishara - mostly getting rid of the score/d repetition, but a couple of other minor ones too. In terms of the structure, I think you've got it about right, given the level of information available. I tend to let the content determine the sectioning, and this is about how I would have done it with the same amount of info.

It's one of those cases where a good press article and interview could change the whole article by building up the early life with some decent background information on the man and his music. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks so much! I have some additional materials in the works. Glad to know the structure seems appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2019 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Laser brain: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings1)) to send this message

Your summation here was a bit vaguer than usual. How do you suggest I proceed? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you feel is vague about it? I actually tried to leave more detail than I normally do, so I suppose I came up short... --Laser brain (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i.e., I plan on renominating, so what to do before then... Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I were in your shoes... I'd work with an experienced FA writer who's completely disassociated with the topic. Get some help on the and second opinions on the issues raised. It's not impossible to have a FAC candidate promoted over substantive opposition, but we need enough input and commentary to judge consensus to promote over the opposition, if that makes sense. --Laser brain (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, Homeostasis, there is an instruction at the top of the FAC page about a two-week wait before nominating any article when your previous nom is archived -- unless leave is given by a coord. If Andy is fine with waiving the rule, then so am I but personally I think taking a breather from FAC would be a good thing in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Yes, I didn't notice, but the nom you just opened will need to be closed. --Laser brain (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose:, I understand one-at-a-time, and two weeks before renominating an article, but "any nomination" seems like a strange addendum. Can I get an exemption/waver? I was more than prepared for Jill Valentine to not pass, so I'm not especially plussed about it. My work with Marilyn Manson (band) is completely distinct from JV's controversy (as ironic as that sounds). Antichrist Superstar was my third Manson album nom., following The Pale Emperor and Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death), both of which passed without incident. I don't feel like taking a breather is necessary in this case, especially since the glacial pace of FAC means Antichrist probably wouldn't even get a comment this side of the 3rd or 4th week of January anyway. But I have to say I feel irritated on Aoba47's behalf, who was evidently partway through their review before the nomination was abruptly deleted. But I can easily distract myself with other projects over the next few weeks in either case. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: I sympathize but this rule was put in place by community consensus as a method of backlog management and I'm not inclined to grant exemptions on it as we've consistently received feedback from the community that we should be tightly managing the list. Hopefully it's not too much of a hassle for Aoba47 to post their remarks to the Talk page in preparation for the FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But if that's the case, then you may want to amend your posting here, because I seriously doubt this happens to be only the 2nd time you've refused an exemption. Homeostasis07 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was in reference to the two-at-a-time rule. If someone has a mature nom going that seems almost ready to promote, we'll generally allow them to nominate another article. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I found you on the volunteers Peer Review list of music section. I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to check this discography. Eurohunter (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for your useful comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Becky Lynch/archive1. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, including the FA work leading to a tricentenary appearance! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You are amazing for preventing vandalism. Inalol (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Mark XIV bomb sight you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]