User talk:Dominic Mayers

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

• News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections

• Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?

• Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24

• In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis

• Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure

• Comix: Generations

• Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Light skin on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Subsections

I'm well aware of how subsections work, and why you want to make your thread a subsection. Normally that works just fine, but there is always the risk, especially when using a cellphone, that one clicks the main thread and ends up placing one's comment at the very bottom, IOW at the bottom of the subsection. I was forced to move my comment because that happened to me. It's just irritating. Subsections work best in articles but sometimes are not worth it on talk pages. If you insist on being uncooperative and irritating, I can't force you to change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't understood that it was a mobile issue. I suspect it is not a general issue. I doubt very much that if one clicks on "reply", it will go to the wrong section. And if one click to edit the section, he has full control on the location of his comment. But thank you for informing me of your issue. If I see that it happens systematically, which I doubt, I will avoid creating subsection in the future. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I usually open the thread by clicking on the section header. That opens up everything, including subsections. Sometimes I will click the "reply" link. When I then scrolled down quickly, not realizing you had restored your subsection level, I ended up at the very bottom and submitted my comment. Then I discovered it was missing from where I wanted it. Then found it at the very bottom of your subsection. If I had known you had restored the level, I wouldn't have made that mistake, but you did it while I was composing my comment elsewhere, and then I added it to Wikipedia by opening the main thread. That avoided an edit conflict, but ended up causing the problem. Weird shit happens at times. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but this is an issue that can be taken care by looking carefully where you put your comment. The fact that you weren't vigilant once is not a sufficient reason to request that people never create subsections. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, ultimately it was my responsibility. I opened my thread and zoomed straight to the bottom without noticing I was in your subsection. Before opening the edit window, my page didn't show your updated level change, and I wasn't looking at the history, which would have shown the change. Then I placed my prepared comment there and saved it. It had to do with my expectations. I didn't expect you to change the level after reading my edit summary, which clearly expressed my concern. My edit summary was based on the previous experiences of myself and others. I've seen this happen many times. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but if you escalate this issue as if there existed an informal rule that we should not create subsections in talk pages, I would not appreciate it, because I believe it's wrong not to allow subsections for that reason. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no intention of escalating it. This is just between us. It was you I was addressing in my edit summary, and I took it for granted you would cooperate. I was mistaken. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk page clerking

It is not up to you to clerk the talk pages. Kindly do not move people's comments into sections, change section titles, or enshrine comments of your own in little boxes at the beginning of sections. Just follow along and use the talk pages in the same way everyone else is - acoording to the WP:TPG. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the sections have been totally reorganized. I don't care for much of this reorganization, except for the fact that a section which discusses "attributing or not" or "fact or not" is presented as being an aspect of not taking side. Therefore, I restored that aspect of the structure to its original state before this big reorganization. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if the sections have been totally reorganized, you are making the problem worse. Don't do that. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but I sincerely thought it was a good compromise: I accepted this big reorganisation that affected a lot the existing comments by changing the context, but I expressed a disaccord. I am also OK with simply restoring the structure (partially, for what matter the most) to its state before this big reorganization. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Edits like this one you made yesterday also changed the context of comments. Just don't do it any more, and let other folks worry about their own behaviour. MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course it changes the context of comments, but that is the idea. Editors, as long as it is done in the spirit of a better understanding, are certainly allowed to reorganize sections. You speak as if other folks have broken a rule, but they did not, even if they did that boldly without any previous discussions. It was just a very normal process of making change to the sections. What is wrong is to make a big deal about this and accusing people of disruption, etc. only because you disagree with a change (but I know that it is not what you are doing here - I am not speaking of you). It is the same thing for the box. There is certainly no rule that says that we should not add a box to explain an aspect of the organization. The most serious issue here is when disagreements about content (and organization) are escalated into behavioural issues with the menace always planning that you might be blocked if you do not comply, as it is well explained here. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What you have been doing on that talk page is not a 'very normal process', it is disruptive. There, I have accused you of disruption. Kindly listen and reevaluate what you have been doing. As a participant in that discussion you should not be attempting to reorganize it. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I take seriously comments like this one. I understand that principle, which is consistent with Grisel explanation. I was planning to take my distance from the discussion anyway. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)