Wikipediocracy

Facebook’s Oversight Board, in one of their first decisions punted the decision to fully endorse the “indefinite” ban of Trump back to Facebook, seemingly for the lack of clearly defined policies.

Very Arbcom-esque of them, except they somehow managed to not sound like a bunch of windy douchebags in the process. Is that $130M nest-egg for oversight starting to look like a good investment, or pissing into the wind?

Discuss.

"Discuss." Who are you?

Oh, whatever; I think that the two really aren't comparable. Of the six Arbcom blocks (that I know of) this year, one was part of a case decision where the evidence and rationale was public, while the other five were done without any sort of case or motion. Looking over those five and using the varying amount of background info I know about them, I can confidently say that they were all good blocks and that it would be difficult for a regular administrator to make them because of private information/not stuff you can or would want to talk about in public. So if any Arb reads this, thank you for those blocks and keep up the good work.

And if you meant T&S, I think they've stepped up their game a bit recently. All of their recent global bans, at least the ones I know the background of, seem pretty solid. Of course they could improve and I don't completely agree with all of their recent decisions though, so I guess they would be a better comparison than Arbcom.

I think this has been said here before, but one of the reasons why no reasons are provided is because of legal concerns. I think that makes sense and I would say the majority of those banned by either T&S or by Arbcom should not be let back and were banned for serious reasons, some of which are even more "potentially libelous" than the reasons behind the Trump ban. So in this Facebook case, the reason for why there were no reasons provided might've been legal reasons. Although, let's be honest, they had a very vast number of reasons to ban him and the entire public knows why it happened. Should they have provided a reason? Probably, although I'll be honest that I don't care. I don't use Facebook and this isn't going to make me use it either.

Hamsterdam wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pm

...seemingly for the lack of clearly defined policies...

Seemingly, perhaps... but the fact is, Facebook's policies don't allow for indefinite bans, only timed bans (i.e., 30 days) or permanent ones. The question is, why not? I'd say the answer is fairly obvious: If you make the ban indefinite, that increases the workload of Facebook employees, since they now have to continuously adjudicate the length of the ban. In other words, the bannee gets to keep hassling them with messages saying "can I be let back in now?"... "Can I be let back in now?"... ad nauseum, and each time they'd expect some sort of response. Responses cost money, when you're paying people to make them.

Whereas, Wikipedian admins love all that stuff. They practically live for it apparently, because it's a huge power trip for them and gives them something to do that doesn't involve boring article maintenance and content research. And since nobody is paying them, the WMF's attitude towards it is basically, why not?

So I guess I would disagree with you that this is "Arbcom-esque" of Facebook; Facebook has a business to run, and they lose money if they have to bring in more people to run it. If Wikipedia were run like a business, there would be a fairly immediate decrease in the amount of drama and stupid behavior all over the site, but you'd also have things like the elimination of indefinite bans. And then, the higher-ups in the volunteer admin corps would start to leave, and unfortunately they need those people. Meanwhile, Facebook doesn't have volunteer admins, and they don't care if a few people leave now and again, since they supposedly have 2.7 billion active users, as compared to about 140,000 on Wikipedia (both by their own definitions).

(To be fair, Facebook's definition of "active user" is far broader than Wikipedia's; you only have to click something once during any given month to be counted as such. If Facebook used something closer to WP's definition, their number would probably be under 1 billion, but of course that's still hundreds of times larger than WP's number.)

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 7:18 pm

Whereas, Wikipedian admins love all that stuff. They practically live for it apparently, because it's a huge power trip for them and gives them something to do that doesn't involve boring article maintenance and content research. And since nobody is paying them, the WMF's attitude towards it is basically, why not?

In reality, it's drudge work. Category:Requests for unblock (T-H-L) is pretty much always backlogged because it is so very tedious to deal with. This is why we do things like remove talk page access, limit appeals to once every six months or even a year, etc.

What some folks here can't seem to wrap their minds around is the idea the majority of admins do all the boring stuff they do because they care about the project, not because it gives one an immense sense of power over others. There may be some who come into the job expecting it to be that way, but the shine wears off pretty fast.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 7:37 pm

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 7:18 pm

Whereas, Wikipedian admins love all that stuff. They practically live for it apparently, because it's a huge power trip for them and gives them something to do that doesn't involve boring article maintenance and content research. And since nobody is paying them, the WMF's attitude towards it is basically, why not?

In reality, it's drudge work. Category:Requests for unblock (T-H-L) is pretty much always backlogged because it is so very tedious to deal with. This is why we do things like remove talk page access, limit appeals to once every six months or even a year, etc.

What some folks here can't seem to wrap their minds around is the idea the majority of admins do all the boring stuff they do because they care about the project, not because it gives one an immense sense of power over others. There may be some who come into the job expecting it to be that way, but the shine wears off pretty fast.

Yes yes yes indeed. The relatively few admins who do it for the immense sense of power over others are usually the ones who eventually lose their privileges. Think of dangerous pandas and 23 bbb's.

There is a group of over-assertive long-term editors who have figured out that you don't even need to be an admin to exercise immense power over others. Manual-of-style defenders, I'm looking at you.

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 7:18 pm

Facebook's policies don't allow for indefinite bans

I was listening to NPR today and they had an interview with Thomas Hughes, director of the Oversight Board Administration and he mentioned multiple times there is a problem with “indefinite bans” in that they somehow violate “international human right” norms. Not sure if I got that last part correctly, but it struck me odd each time he said it.

Here is a link to the segment. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/06/99437667 ... -trump-ban

Hopefully someone will use that language in their dealings with Arbcom/admins to accuse them of violating international law. Just for the lolz.

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 8:33 pm

There is a group of over-assertive long-term editors who have figured out that you don't even need to be an admin to exercise immense power over others. Manual-of-style defenders, I'm looking at you.

Several of the stupidest discussions I've ever had on WP were about MOS issues, and people who use them like bludgeons and expect that everyone knows the whole MOS in and out so they can just say "you're violating MOS:LISTFACE" or whatever and that their version of making an actual point.

Hamsterdam wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 10:44 pm

Hopefully someone will use that language in their dealings with Arbcom/admins to accuse them of violating international law. Just for the lolz.

That wouldn't be anything new.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 11:16 pm

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 8:33 pm

There is a group of over-assertive long-term editors who have figured out that you don't even need to be an admin to exercise immense power over others. Manual-of-style defenders, I'm looking at you.

Several of the stupidest discussions I've ever had on WP were about MOS issues, and people who use them like bludgeons and expect that everyone knows the whole MOS in and out so they can just say "you're violating MOS:LISTFACE" or whatever and that their version of making an actual point.

I note that Dicklyon is at ANI for page moves. Again.

The current article-titling battle is being fought in the Mons Pocket. As in pocket (military) (T-H-L) – combat forces that have been isolated by opposing forces from their logistical base and other friendly forces.

The military history editors who've put their love into creating articles such as Breskens Pocket (T-H-L), Courland Pocket (T-H-L), Demyansk Pocket (T-H-L), Kholm Pocket (T-H-L), and Ruhr Pocket (T-H-L) think these are Big Deals which merit having Proper Names. The MOS group probably think these are just ordinary pockets named Breskens, Courland, Demyansk, Kholm, and Ruhr, as is Mons, the current target.

Google Ngrams is inconclusive. While the proper name appears to have a slight edge, some usage is likely using title case, which negates the argument for proper name. In these situations, the MOS convention is to use lower cases. Proper names are reserved for when books almost universally use the proper name form.

The MOS group will likely prevail over the military-history editors who they've isolated into the Mons pocket. Next, if past is guide, they may isolate them in other pockets like the Ruhr and others I listed above. They've previously done this to the trains editors, moving their Lines and Stations to lower case. Only if the trains and military history projects formed an alliance with other projects might they be able to successfully isolate their attackers into the MOS Pocket and neutralize them.

Since on some level consensus is a numbers game.

Hamsterdam wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 10:44 pm

I was listening to NPR today and they had an interview with Thomas Hughes, director of the Oversight Board Administration and he mentioned multiple times there is a problem with “indefinite bans” in that they somehow violate “international human right” norms. Not sure if I got that last part correctly, but it struck me odd each time he said it.

This is indeed a real issue. We used to have indefinite sentences in England but they have been struck down as inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course the USA is not a signatory to that and the WMF happily disregards the laws of countries other than the USA. I don't know if these sentences violate anything that the USA has signed.

To the degree that indefinite means “go away until you can stop acting like that,” it seems like a useful thing to have.

That it’s somehow a human rights violation to be kicked off Facebook for inciting a deadly riot and attempting to overthrow a democracy is of course a whole other issue.

I mean... I don't feel like this should even have to be said, but there's a rather large difference between putting someone in prison indefinitely and kicking them off of a website indefinitely.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Fri May 07, 2021 5:56 pm

I mean... I don't feel like this should even have to be said, but there's a rather large difference between putting someone in prison indefinitely and kicking them off of a website indefinitely.

Even more so when one considers that the only thing that prevents people from using the website again after being kicked off is their inability to disguise the behaviour that got them ejected in the first place.

A tussle amongst WikiProject Manual of Style (T-H-L) and WP:WikiProject Military history (T-H-L) deserves a gif of a Moebius strip of dogs chasing their own tails.

This is one of the better meta-comments on Wikipediocracy.

It could be made into a short Blog post.
Tim might enjoy editing a blog post that ridicules the WikiProject Manual of style.

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Fri May 07, 2021 1:58 am

The current article-titling battle is being fought in the Mons Pocket. As in pocket (military) (T-H-L) – combat forces that have been isolated by opposing forces from their logistical base and other friendly forces.

The military history editors who've put their love into creating articles such as Breskens Pocket (T-H-L), Courland Pocket (T-H-L), Demyansk Pocket (T-H-L), Kholm Pocket (T-H-L), and Ruhr Pocket (T-H-L) think these are Big Deals which merit having Proper Names. The MOS group probably think these are just ordinary pockets named Breskens, Courland, Demyansk, Kholm, and Ruhr, as is Mons, the current target.

Google Ngrams is inconclusive. While the proper name appears to have a slight edge, some usage is likely using title case, which negates the argument for proper name. In these situations, the MOS convention is to use lower cases. Proper names are reserved for when books almost universally use the proper name form.

The MOS group will likely prevail over the military-history editors who they've isolated into the Mons pocket. Next, if past is guide, they may isolate them in other pockets like the Ruhr and others I listed above. They've previously done this to the trains editors, moving their Lines and Stations to lower case. Only if the trains and military history projects formed an alliance with other projects might they be able to successfully isolate their attackers into the MOS Pocket and neutralize them.

Since on some level consensus is a numbers game.

The primary principle of military battle-engineering is force concentration (T-H-L).

MILHIST is one of the very few well-run and highly active WikiProjects, it's a shame to see the MOS goons beating up on them.

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 7:18 pm

Whereas, Wikipedian admins love all that stuff. They practically live for it apparently, because it's a huge power trip for them and gives them something to do that doesn't involve boring article maintenance and content research. And since nobody is paying them, the WMF's attitude towards it is basically, why not?

Wikipedians sure do love their power trips. And that applies all the way to the top. At this point, I assume that anyone who holds any advanced role on Wikipedia is doing either to further some undisclosed agenda, or is in it for the power trip. So far, I haven't been wrong all that many times.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 11:18 pm

Hamsterdam wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 10:44 pm

Hopefully someone will use that language in their dealings with Arbcom/admins to accuse them of violating international law. Just for the lolz.

That wouldn't be anything new.

Cf. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights § 19.2, ratified in 1966:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

source

This was revisited in 2011 §, and a lot more is said about the undesirability of states tacitly permitting electronic media to violate freedom of expression laws (e.g. by indefinitely blocking someone for calling "wiki-mob justice" a wikimedia lynching while correcting misrepresentations made about them).

Kelly Martin wrote: ↑

Sun May 09, 2021 11:09 am

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 7:18 pm

Whereas, Wikipedian admins love all that stuff. They practically live for it apparently, because it's a huge power trip for them and gives them something to do that doesn't involve boring article maintenance and content research. And since nobody is paying them, the WMF's attitude towards it is basically, why not?

Wikipedians sure do love their power trips. And that applies all the way to the top. At this point, I assume that anyone who holds any advanced role on Wikipedia is doing either to further some undisclosed agenda, or is in it for the power trip. So far, I haven't been wrong all that many times.

Hah! I'm in it for the money! Haven't you seen me holding out my cup yet? Everyone knows money buys power. You first need money to buy power. OK, a big platform on social media helps. God knows that did wonders for Trump. The people controlling the banners at the top of Wikipedia pages that ask for money are the ones with the biggest social media platform around here.

Well.... not really... I'm in it for some undisclosed agenda. Tell me what my undisclosed agenda is, I'm interested in knowing what people think it is.

Kelly Martin wrote: ↑

Sun May 09, 2021 11:09 am

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Thu May 06, 2021 7:18 pm

Whereas, Wikipedian admins love all that stuff. They practically live for it apparently, because it's a huge power trip for them and gives them something to do that doesn't involve boring article maintenance and content research. And since nobody is paying them, the WMF's attitude towards it is basically, why not?

Wikipedians sure do love their power trips. And that applies all the way to the top. At this point, I assume that anyone who holds any advanced role on Wikipedia is doing either to further some undisclosed agenda, or is in it for the power trip. So far, I haven't been wrong all that many times.

Everybody needs a reason to do anything. Given that the Arbcom role comes with a certain amount of respect from some quarters and infamy from others, there is obviously a level of power associated with it. I can acknowledge that, but I haven't feel need to lord it over people. Can't disagree with the concept of a power trip at the fundamental level, but I don't think my power trip is the sort that your referring to...

As for undisclosed agenda, well, I do have one (or a few) as certain areas get a lot more of my attention than others. The "undisclosed" part, well, I'm always happy to talk about agendas, and I'm self aware enough to know what bothers me.

However neither of those areas are necessarily evil.

Don't let Worm fool you. He makes the new arbs give him their lunch money. If you vote against his ideas he'll give you a purple nurple.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Sun May 09, 2021 7:34 pm

Don't let Worm fool you. He makes the new arbs give him their lunch money. If you vote against his ideas he'll give you a purple nurple.

DYK, BbbRx, that you had only made 2222 blocks at the wikiscan cut-off point in 2012? You haven't quite reached 2222 comments here yet. Maybe you'll reach a new echelon in the karmic soul harvest when you do. Or maybe you too'll just remain a habitué.

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Sun May 09, 2021 12:23 pm

Everyone knows money buys power. You first need money to buy power.

Actually, observant people as early as in their twenties realize it's the opposite way: you build power through connections and the power brings the money.
Exceptions to this are those who were born into huge wealth (like Trump), but their parents were not, yet made it.

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Sun May 09, 2021 12:23 pm

The people controlling the banners at the top of Wikipedia pages that ask for money are the ones with the biggest social media platform around here.

I like the parallel.

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Sun May 09, 2021 12:23 pm

Well.... not really... I'm in it for some undisclosed agenda. Tell me what my undisclosed agenda is, I'm interested in knowing what people think it is.

Social status. Is that an agenda or basic nature of every living being? Easier to understand with the latter approach.

Kelly Martin wrote: ↑

Sun May 09, 2021 11:09 am

Wikipedians sure do love their power trips. And that applies all the way to the top.

That's the primary incentive of spending every day on WP instead of looking for a job. There are extreme examples like Bbb, but also exceptions. However, in most admin's behavior the signs of "enjoying" power and expecting to be treated as authority is noticable.

Kelly Martin wrote: ↑

Sun May 09, 2021 11:09 am

At this point, I assume that anyone who holds any advanced role on Wikipedia is doing either to further some undisclosed agenda, or is in it for the power trip. So far, I haven't been wrong all that many times.

That agenda if there is one is certainly not to save the world or to create an utopia called Wikipedia.

I should probably state here that I'm perfectly willing to accept the notion that in many (perhaps most) cases, the longer a WP admin has been "on the job," the less interested and enthusiastic they become regarding blocks, bans, editor sanctions, and the adjudication thereof. That may well be particularly true of Arbcom members, due to their having (typically) been around longer than most. And I'm even willing to accept the notion that there are numerous admins who take on the role with no particular interest in blocks and bans whatsoever.

It's one of those things where intellectually, you know that everyone is different, and there's nothing forcing all these people to act in lockstep with each other, or follow often-unwritten rules that seem inexplicable, mostly involving how they're supposed to react to other admins blocking people (and their not necessarily agreeing with it). But in terms of empathic reactions to what we see happening, it's very difficult not to treat that whole aspect of the operation as cold and monolithic, with those participating in it hiding behind a seemingly unyielding edifice of rules and bureaucracy, and perhaps even getting some amount of vaguely sadistic pleasure out of it.

I guess I assume people expect that sort of attitude from someone who's been doing this as long as I have, but who knows.

I see Newyorkbrad has posted a "contrarian view" on the MoS vs MilHist Battle of Mons Pocket Capitalisation bunfight, over at WP:ANI:

Well, I'll call it a contrarian view here, though I'm not sure I wouldn't be in the majority if a truly site-wide survey could somehow be taken. I've never really understood why the editors within major groups of articles, with demonstrated subject-matter expertise, shouldn't be relied upon to decide the capitalization of those articles. A site-wide MOS that avoids repetitious subject-by-subject or article-by-article or even sentence-by-sentence debates over the same issues is desirable on many usage topics. Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki. The efforts for MOS-driven uniformity in this area therefore strike me as unattainable, and the emphasis on their importance as excessive. There have always been a handful of editors, I will mention no names, who push for lower-casing of article titles even where the editors active in creating and maintaining the articles, and with the greatest expertise in the subject-matters of the article content, uniformly assert and offer ample evidence that upper-casing is the convention in those areas. For more than ten years, forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized such editors, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has weakened some of their good-feelings for and interest in Wikipedia as a whole. With all respect to everyone's good faith here and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that these aggressive forced-capitalization-uniformity efforts are a worthwhile overall contribution to the well-being of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

link

I think Brad was being rather tactful, as he is inclined to be. If I'd tried to make the same point (which I think most uninvolved rational beings would agree with, since it is simply common sense), I'd probably have thrown in a few expletives. And at least one comparison with the Departamentul Securității Statului.

Have the Turabian wannabes at WP:WikiProject MOS (T-H-L) promulgated any encyclicals on the capitalization and italicizations of genes (T-H-L)?

As noted in the Wikipedia article Gene nomenclature (T-H-L), conventions with gene-typography vary by Genera (and species).

The WP:MOS follows scientific convention about capitalizing genera and species:
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Scientific_names (T-H-L)

Biology articles appear to be anarchic! Even core articles have references with the usual Wikipedia avoidance of capitalization next to references with all words but the articles capitalized.

In the future, Wikipedia editors with an impulse towards instigating trouble should violate WP:MOS by referring to ᴡᴘ:ᴍᴏs (T-H-L) using small caps (T-H-L)!

I suggest splitting off the subthread on WP:MOS fanatics.

When WikiProjects collide: Military history vs. Manual of style

AndyTheGrump wrote: ↑

Wed May 12, 2021 7:41 am

I see Newyorkbrad (T-H-L)has posted a "contrarian view" on the MoS vs MilHist Battle of Mons Pocket (T-H-L) Capitalisation bumfight (T-H-L), over at WP:ANI (T-H-L):

Well, I'll call it a contrarian view here, though I'm not sure I wouldn't be in the majority if a truly site-wide survey could somehow be taken. I've never really understood why the editors within major groups of articles, with demonstrated subject-matter expertise, shouldn't be relied upon to decide the capitalization of those articles. A site-wide MOS that avoids repetitious subject-by-subject or article-by-article or even sentence-by-sentence debates over the same issues is desirable on many usage topics. Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki. The efforts for MOS-driven uniformity in this area therefore strike me as unattainable, and the emphasis on their importance as excessive. There have always been a handful of editors, I will mention no names, who push for lower-casing of article titles even where the editors active in creating and maintaining the articles, and with the greatest expertise in the subject-matters of the article content, uniformly assert and offer ample evidence that upper-casing is the convention in those areas. For more than ten years, forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized such editors, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has weakened some of their good-feelings for and interest in Wikipedia as a whole. With all respect to everyone's good faith here and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that these aggressive forced-capitalization-uniformity efforts are a worthwhile overall contribution to the well-being of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

link

I think Brad was being rather tactful, as he is inclined to be. If I'd tried to make the same point (which I think most uninvolved rational beings would agree with, since it is simply common sense), I'd probably have thrown in a few expletives. And at least one comparison with the Departamentul Securității Statului.

Dicklyon (T-C-L) is a traveling bum fight (T-H-L).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... y_Dicklyon

I once really upset Dicklyon by posting an actual picture of a dead horse in a thread about some MOS nonsense. He repeatedly tried to remove it because it upset him so. It was pretty funny, but lacked the tactful approach that NYB is using here.

Moral Hazard wrote: ↑

Wed May 12, 2021 7:33 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote: ↑

Wed May 12, 2021 7:41 am

I see Newyorkbrad (T-H-L)has posted a "contrarian view" on the MoS vs MilHist Battle of Mons Pocket (T-H-L) Capitalisation bumfight (T-H-L), over at WP:ANI (T-H-L):

Well, I'll call it a contrarian view here, though I'm not sure I wouldn't be in the majority if a truly site-wide survey could somehow be taken. I've never really understood why the editors within major groups of articles, with demonstrated subject-matter expertise, shouldn't be relied upon to decide the capitalization of those articles. A site-wide MOS that avoids repetitious subject-by-subject or article-by-article or even sentence-by-sentence debates over the same issues is desirable on many usage topics. Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki. The efforts for MOS-driven uniformity in this area therefore strike me as unattainable, and the emphasis on their importance as excessive. There have always been a handful of editors, I will mention no names, who push for lower-casing of article titles even where the editors active in creating and maintaining the articles, and with the greatest expertise in the subject-matters of the article content, uniformly assert and offer ample evidence that upper-casing is the convention in those areas. For more than ten years, forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized such editors, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has weakened some of their good-feelings for and interest in Wikipedia as a whole. With all respect to everyone's good faith here and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that these aggressive forced-capitalization-uniformity efforts are a worthwhile overall contribution to the well-being of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

link

I think Brad was being rather tactful, as he is inclined to be. If I'd tried to make the same point (which I think most uninvolved rational beings would agree with, since it is simply common sense), I'd probably have thrown in a few expletives. And at least one comparison with the Departamentul Securității Statului.

Dicklyon (T-C-L) is a traveling bum fight (T-H-L).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... y_Dicklyon

I wrote 'bunfight', not 'bumfight'. Not the same thing at all...

Write American if you want to avoid misunderstandings!

Moral Hazard wrote: ↑

Thu May 13, 2021 10:56 am

Write American if you want to avoid misunderstandings!

Tomato.

AndyTheGrump wrote: ↑

Thu May 13, 2021 4:46 pm

Moral Hazard wrote: ↑

Thu May 13, 2021 10:56 am

Write American if you want to avoid misunderstandings!

Tomato.

I always remember the first time I went to the USA and saw a poster (sorry, billboard) saying "gas saving tires" and wondered why conserving gas should make you tired. (For the benefit of English speakers, to an American gas is a liquid.)

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Thu May 13, 2021 8:25 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote: ↑

Thu May 13, 2021 4:46 pm

Moral Hazard wrote: ↑

Thu May 13, 2021 10:56 am

Write American if you want to avoid misunderstandings!

Tomato.

I always remember the first time I went to the USA and saw a poster (sorry, billboard) saying "gas saving tires" and wondered why conserving gas should make you tired. (For the benefit of English speakers, to an American gas is a liquid.)

Well, it's contextual. Gas being short for gasoline, which you would call petrol. Still, not a great slogan.

I'm tired of rotating my gas-saving tyres. As if they don't do enough rotating when I drive down the motorway.

Could be worse. You could call it "Benzin", or you could scrive it "peatrail".

No Ledge wrote: ↑

Fri May 14, 2021 2:01 am

I'm tired of rotating my gas-saving tyres. As if they don't do enough rotating when I drive down the motorway.

Did you call in to Click and Clack (T-H-L) (the Tappet Brothers (T-H-L)) on Car Talk (T-H-L) on NPR (T-H-L)?

Once, a patrician called Tom and Ray Magliozzi (T-H-L):

The mechanics had told him not only to rotate his tires — but also to change the air in his tires (deflating them and reflating them)!

That actually is necessary if you are going to use nitrogen instead of straight compressed air, but hardly anybody actually does that. link

hm... I suspect Zoloft may wander by with his ax any minute now, but for steering this topic toward docte talk of (dé)gonflage & pneumatique. (les affaires? elles font pschitt... )

This is what tends to happen here when the thread is dumb and has a title that describes something that isn't a real thing.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Fri May 14, 2021 7:57 pm

That actually is necessary if you are going to use nitrogen instead of straight compressed air, but hardly anybody actually does that. link

Thanks for the informative article,
The Consumers Union's Consumer Reports has nice typography.

Costco fills their tires with nitrogen, and has free self-service nitrogen filling stations.

Dicklyon wrote:Buidhe, there's a similar issue on an article you edit a lot: Armenian Genocide. If you look at stats from books, you'll see near half capped; and the contexts where caps are ahead are generally in refernces to titles such as "Revolutionary Genocide : On the Causes of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and the Holocaust" and "America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915" and "Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust". Where the context has "is" or "was" instead of "of" or "and", lowercase is in the majority. In any case, it not near the threshold of MOS:CAPS. Let me know if you'd mind if I move it; we can do an RM if you think it's controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If MOS:CAPS has a threshold by which 'Armenian Genocide' shouldn't be capitalized, it has a threshold too high.

tarantino wrote: ↑

Fri May 14, 2021 11:57 pm

Costco fills their tires with nitrogen, and has free self-service nitrogen filling stations.

It is a comfort that Costco's pharmacy seems not to sell homeopathic preparations.

watis wrote: ↑

Sat May 15, 2021 12:02 am

Dicklyon wrote:Buidhe, there's a similar issue on an article you edit a lot: Armenian Genocide. If you look at stats from books, you'll see near half capped; and the contexts where caps are ahead are generally in refernces to titles such as "Revolutionary Genocide : On the Causes of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and the Holocaust" and "America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915" and "Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust". Where the context has "is" or "was" instead of "of" or "and", lowercase is in the majority. In any case, it not near the threshold of MOS:CAPS. Let me know if you'd mind if I move it; we can do an RM if you think it's controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If MOS:CAPS has a threshold by which 'Armenian Genocide' shouldn't be capitalized, it has a threshold too high.

Some context

In dogs, compulsive behaviors include acral lick dermatitis, flank sucking, pacing, circling, incessant or rhythmic barking, fly snapping or chasing unseen objects, freezing and staring, polydipsia (excessive drinking), sucking, licking, or chewing on objects (or owners), tonguing or licking the air and other forms of self mutilation.

The behavioral condition arises when the pet is exposed to chronic stress or recurrent situations of conflict, and this leads to excessive licking. It has also been suggested that self-injurious behaviors such as acral lick dermatitis may arise in situations of understimulation. Therefore a predictable daily routine with sessions of social play, exercise and training as well as a variety of stimulating forms of object play may help to prevent the disorder and is an important component of the treatment plan.

The need for protection and prevention so that the wound can heal (Elizabethan collars, bandaging) must be weighed against the increased anxiety that these products might cause.

Compulsive tail chasing may be a displacement or compulsive disorder in some dogs, but could also be a type of seizure disorder, or might be due to pain or medical illness. Some cases such as those seen in bull terriers may exhibit a more intense spinning or whirling behavior. Other concurrent behavior problems such as aggression have been reported in “spinning” bull terriers.
Head halters are very useful in dogs that chase their tails or spin to interrupt and redirect the dog to a more appropriate response. Once the dog has focused on the owner, they can be told to sit and then settle and over time the desire to tail chase or spin may diminish. Regular interactions, exercise and routine are very useful in the treatment of tail chasing in most dogs.

https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/ ... rs-in-dogs

Why does Wikipedia capitalise 'Manual of Style'?

AndyTheGrump wrote: ↑

Sat May 15, 2021 3:23 pm

Why does Wikipedia capitalise 'Manual of Style'?

I suppose because, per the Google Ngram that's the form most commonly seen used in books.

watis wrote: ↑

Sat May 15, 2021 12:02 am

Dicklyon wrote:Buidhe, there's a similar issue on an article you edit a lot: Armenian Genocide. If you look at stats from books, you'll see near half capped; and the contexts where caps are ahead are generally in refernces to titles such as "Revolutionary Genocide : On the Causes of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 and the Holocaust" and "America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915" and "Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust". Where the context has "is" or "was" instead of "of" or "and", lowercase is in the majority. In any case, it not near the threshold of MOS:CAPS. Let me know if you'd mind if I move it; we can do an RM if you think it's controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If MOS:CAPS has a threshold by which 'Armenian Genocide' shouldn't be capitalized, it has a threshold too high.

He's doubling down: new Requested Move