User talk:Pacerier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Pacerier. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I added a reference regarding the "mother of all wars" you tagged. Took me all of thirty seconds to do a Google search and find a reputable source (Oxford University Press). Why not try it sometime you lazy shit instead of tagging stuff in violation of WP:IDL? You're probable a sock puppet anyway! (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ‎[edit]


I am Codename Lisa and I am responding to your clarification request on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Unfortunately, you had not supplied a talk page discussion or explanation about what you want clarified. So, you tag had to go. If this was an article, I would have asked you "What do you want clarified?" But it is a high-traffic policy page; such tags cannot remain on it for long. We already have a lot of outstanding requests in the talk page and are in a hurry to zero the backlog.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained odd edits[edit]

Can you please explain this odd edit? That, along with a few others [1], makes me (and at least one other editor) wonder if you are running an unapproved bot. Please note that if you continue to make odd edits wtihout explaining addressing these concerns that you may be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacerier (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC): ❝[reply]
I'm not a bot. Those edits are done by hand.
Typically, I don't write edit comments if they appear to be self-explanatory.
Re first edit, the articles "Groupthink" and "Talking point" are related. A group suffering from groupthink has symptoms of reaching "consensus decisions without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints"; whereas talking points are used to sell points of view by "assure[ing] agreement and common response". Both concepts deal with dysfunctional consensus/agreement.
Re second edit, the articles "Mischief rule" and "Letter and spirit of the law" are related. The mischief rule when applied allows judges to judge based on the intent of the legislature; whereas the spirit of the law refers to the intent of the creator of the law. Both concepts deal with intention of the creator of the law, as contrasted with the law itself.
The "odd" aspect is that you appear to be attempting to directly link to the "See also" subsection of the articles, as in this edit. In this edit, I'm not sure what the point is in linking several articles on the same line. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pacerier (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC): ❝[reply]
I linked those articles together because they share similar concepts.
Like the two paragraphs above, 'could've codified the relation for each and every item, however that would take too much time. It is more practical to let the edits speak for themselves in cases where they appear self-evident (self-evident not by the title of the article, but by the full contents of the article; ie self-evident by the interpretation of the average reader who has groked both articles).
The link to the "see also" section tells the reader to also see the "see also" section of said linked article; because the articles listed in the "see also" section share similar concepts with the article.
  • Csd scenario S1:
We have a concept "intention of the creator of the law, as contrasted with the law itself"; Concept‑1. This concept is splayed over articles; Article‑A to Article‑I.
In each article's "see also" section, we have to list articles. This is repeated for each and every article. When we find another article with Concept‑1, we have to modify articles. In fact, edits needed increases for each and every new article found, giving us a total of edits where articles.
  • Csd scenario S2:
Instead of repeatedly listing articles in each and every article's "see also" section; the list exist only in Article‑I's "see also".
Every other article points to Article‑I's "see also" where the list is kept and updated. Total edits needed is .
S2 is more ideal than S1 because there is a single location where edits occur. This not only reduces the number of edits needed, but also ensures that edits will not be "missed out" (ie having the "see also" section of a subset of the articles not being updated together with the rest). (These are also the exact same reasons for preference of DRY solutions.)
  • Csd scenario S3:
We have the same scenario as S1 but with an additional article; Article‑Z. Article‑Z shares a concept with Article‑C; Concept‑2. On the other hand, the other articles from Article‑A to Article‑I do not share Concept‑2. Visualization:
In such a case, Article‑C must be linked to Article‑Z and vice-versa. However, the other articles from Article‑A to Article‑I must not be linked to Article‑Z. Thus Article‑C's "see also" section has articles while for the other articles from Article‑A to Article‑I, it's .
  • Csd scenario S4:
Instead of having articles in Article‑C's "see also" section, it's now (one pointing to Article‑Z, while the other pointing to Article‑I's "see also"). The other articles from Article‑A to Article‑I have link (the link to Article‑I's "see also").
S4 is more ideal than S3 because the reader can clearly see the relationship between the articles linked; way clearer than S2 in which the relationship is hidden. (All editors are first readers. In S3, after the editor has linked Article‑Z to Article‑C, he will need to ask himself "Is Concept‑2 also relevant in Article‑A?"; this question is repeated times, once for each article from Article‑A to Article‑I that is not Article‑C. In S4, the editor will only need to ask himself one question: "Is Concept‑2 related to Concept‑1?")
My edits were simply enabling S2 and S4, seeing that both S1 and S3 are inferior to them respectively. (Main reason being S1 vs S2.)
Pacerier (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC): ❝[reply]
Articles being listed side-by-side are two sides of the same coin (or multiple sides of the same die). Csd "Golden rule", "Literal rule", "Mischief rule", and "Purposive approach"; these concepts are parts of a single concept, hence are being grouped together on a single line. A single line is used instead of multiple lines because: §

This style requires less space on the page, and is preferred if there are only a few entries in the list, it can be read easily, […]

That's an exciting explanation, but you don't get to make up conventions that aren't part of the manual of style. Please stick to a few simple, relevant links, each one a separate bullet point. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pacerier (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC): ❝[reply]
I had read and was following the manual of style.
These conventions aren't made up by me; they are the kind of edits that I see happening. Csd Edit‑573063002; it's done by User:Chris Howard who has been here for over a decade.
The manual of style doesn't cover everything as that's infeasible. In fact, it clearly didn't state that each item in the "see also" section must stand on a separate bullet point. That's not even a "general rule", let alone a strict one.

Question and comment about comments[edit]

Hello, I've noticed that you've been placing your signature at the beginning of your comments (such as this one) instead of placing it at the end of them; is there a reason for this? I ask because editors typically place their signatures at the end of their posts (and that Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts suggests that editors do this, too).

Also, I've noticed that you add new comments (such as this one) to the top of talk pages instead of at the bottom. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout states that new topics should be added to the bottom of talk pages to keep all topics in chronological order, and to prevent them from being overlooked. (To the best of my knowledge, the only exception to this rule is Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, which seems to be designed that way to assist editors quickly.) CabbagePotato (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacerier (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC): ❝[reply]
Re P1 on "signature position".
In a conversation with more than one message, it's clearer to see who is saying what, and what is said by who, when the "who" is placed before the "what".
"wp:Signatures #How to sign your posts" contrasts preferences by the number of tildes used, not by the positioning of those tildes. While it defaults to:

At the end of your comments […]

—⁠, it is silent and does not forbid placing signatures at the start of the comment.
Pacerier (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC): ❝[reply]
Re P2 on "talk page layout".
I placed new conversations at the top only when they need priority.
Does: §

Start new topics at the bottom of the page

—⁠apply when the other conversations in the page have been "finished"?
Also, if the new conversation is imminent (e.g. a grave issue like a merge request or otherwise) and the other conversations in the page have been done, should the new conversation be placed at the top of the page[1] or at the bottom of the page?
  1. ^ to attract attention
I can't really find anything explicitly prohibiting the placement of the signature at the front of the message, so I guess I can't really say much about that, other than the fact that it goes against convention and may cause some confusion for other editors.
On the point of the placement of new conversations on a talk page, they are usually placed at the bottom of the page (regardless of its importance) partly to keep everything in chronological order. In addition, many editors are used to having new conversations at the bottom of a talk page and may easily overlook new comments placed at the top, so it's better to just place any new messages at the bottom for the convenience of others (also mentioned in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages).
I think that the most potentially confusing part of your comment formatting is the way it is indented. Although you end your posts with a to signify the end of your comments, it could be easily overlooked in longer conversations and be confused with another editor's reply.
Some additional notes: One of your comments has been reformatted by another editor (who also happens to be an admin) and some other comments were removed by an editor who seemed to take issue with the format you were using. Also, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Ignoring comments seems to discourage formatting that deviates from the norm. Personally, I don't really mind the format you're using since I can usually tell who's saying what in your conversations; I'm just worried that other people will take issue with your style of commenting. CabbagePotato (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my deletion of the link to vanity presses, please see the section "What small presses are not" (not my edit). If the article makes clear that small presses are not vanity presses, it seems to me that vanity presses should not be among the "see also" links. Rlitwin (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a WP:STUB; but if you are going to add {{stub}} to an article, please do so at the end, not the top - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. PamD 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sense and reference[edit]

Thank you for your suggestions. I have removed the bullet point in question as too technical. I have left the 'too technical' template, but could you let me have suggestions on which other areas need clarification. It's often difficult for a specialist to appreciate which things presume specialist knowledge. Peter Damian (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Voting rights of Singaporeans[edit]

Proposed deletion of Voting rights of Singaporeans[edit]

The article Voting rights of Singaporeans has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Laber□T 08:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Testing, testing[edit]

Not sure what the reason is for your many tests on the Test article, but please conduct them on WP:SANDBOX. That's what it's there for. Favonian (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: I've just noticed that this editor has posted template banners on Semiotics and related pages requesting discussion but he has not started the discussion anywhere. I was going to remove them with notification here that no discussion was started, when I first noticed that you have already started to notify this account. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bouba/kiki effect[edit]

Hello. Would love to see a published reference for this. Cheers, hydrox (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Pacerier. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Pacerier. Some while back, you tagged Truth and Theory of justification for merger but never created a discussion page. Could you review WP:Merging and correct this? I would do it but it seems bad form to play with someone else's proposal. Thanks — Iadmctalk  07:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. FWIW, I don't think they should be merged: one is about a concept, the other about a philosophical theory of mind.