Ctrl+F TESCREAL … of course it is there. It is a thing that doesn’t even exist, but of course Wikipedia mentions it.
Oliver, the fact that you even mentioned this is considered “canvassing” (a word I didn’t even know existed) and is apparently against the rules of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia defines canvassing as notifying other editors of ongoing discussions with the intention of influencing the outcome. It is considered inappropriate, because it compromises the normal consensus making process. The proper ways to do that are:
if you complain about a specific editor, you can do it on their talk page
Make sure to be polite, neutral and brief.
Of course this is now used as an excuse to revert any recent attempts to improve the article.
I guess the lesson is that the next time you complain about what a horrible mess some Wikipedia article is, you must refrain from explicitly suggesting that anyone improve it. It is important to follow
I don’t think it counts as canvassing in the relevant sense, as I didn’t express any specific opinion on how the article should be edited. I think maybe you could argue I did vote-stacking, but I think the argument is kind of weak.
Tracing Woodgrain’s post did just successfully fix a bunch of articles. I used to be more hesitant about this, but I think de facto you somehow need to draw attention to when an article needs to be improved, and posting publicly about it is more within the spirit of WP:CANVAS than anything else I actually expect to work (Wikipedia editors with more experience on the issue should raise things however they are supposed to on WP, including posting wherever is appropriate on internal WP boards).
Of course this is now used as an excuse to revert any recent attempts to improve the article.
From reading the relevant talk-page it is pretty clear those arguing against the changes on these bases aren’t exactly doing so in good faith, and if they did not have this bit of ammunition to use they would use something else, but then with fewer detractors (since clearly nobody else followed or cared about that page).
Ctrl+F TESCREAL … of course it is there. It is a thing that doesn’t even exist, but of course Wikipedia mentions it.
Oliver, the fact that you even mentioned this is considered “canvassing” (a word I didn’t even know existed) and is apparently against the rules of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia defines canvassing as notifying other editors of ongoing discussions with the intention of influencing the outcome. It is considered inappropriate, because it compromises the normal consensus making process. The proper ways to do that are:
talk page or noticeboard of a related WikiProject (e.g. WikiProject Effective Altruism)
central place such as Village Pump
if you complain about a specific editor, you can do it on their talk page
Make sure to be polite, neutral and brief.
Of course this is now used as an excuse to revert any recent attempts to improve the article.
I guess the lesson is that the next time you complain about what a horrible mess some Wikipedia article is, you must refrain from explicitly suggesting that anyone improve it. It is important to follow
I don’t think it counts as canvassing in the relevant sense, as I didn’t express any specific opinion on how the article should be edited. I think maybe you could argue I did vote-stacking, but I think the argument is kind of weak.
Tracing Woodgrain’s post did just successfully fix a bunch of articles. I used to be more hesitant about this, but I think de facto you somehow need to draw attention to when an article needs to be improved, and posting publicly about it is more within the spirit of WP:CANVAS than anything else I actually expect to work (Wikipedia editors with more experience on the issue should raise things however they are supposed to on WP, including posting wherever is appropriate on internal WP boards).
From reading the relevant talk-page it is pretty clear those arguing against the changes on these bases aren’t exactly doing so in good faith, and if they did not have this bit of ammunition to use they would use something else, but then with fewer detractors (since clearly nobody else followed or cared about that page).