Share to: share facebook share twitter share wa share telegram print page

 

User talk:Rollinginhisgrave

Response to claims of bias

If you are coming from Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias and are looking for assistance, leave a comment below, followed by ~~~~ and you will be responded to shortly.

Thank you

A belated thanks for reviewing St. John's Shaughnessy for GA status. You left lots of good feedback that I will use to improve the article. I appreciate the work you put into the review! Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Dclemens1971, glad it helped. I'm sure the next nomination will be in better shape. For architecture works, a place to look for emulating style/sources would be User:Epicgenius/Quality article contributions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of History of chocolate

The article History of chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of chocolate for comments about the article, and Talk:History of chocolate/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Chocolate in savory cooking

The article Chocolate in savory cooking you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking for comments about the article, and Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Royiswariii -- Royiswariii (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Dark chocolate

The article Dark chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dark chocolate for comments about the article, and Talk:Dark chocolate/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CosXZ -- CosXZ (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of White chocolate

The article White chocolate you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:White chocolate and Talk:White chocolate/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Szmenderowiecki -- Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Justiniano Borgoño

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Justiniano Borgoño. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #16.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too bitey and dismissive

So feel free to improve it, provided you don't make it so long that it won't be read. I don't think editors care that much about its tone, we all just got very tired of all the time spent responding to these things. Btw such changes don't require revisiting consensus 61.

If you feel a need to "personalize" the response, I don't see a problem with a brief reply in addition to the link. But ~95% of what needs to be said should be said in the response page. ―Mandruss  10:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus 61 took some selling on my part. Before it passed, shoot on sight was routine for those things. Now we give a full, consistent response that at least tries to be respectful. So there are degrees of dismissiveness and perhaps you can see how my perspective is different on this. ―Mandruss  11:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss Thanks, I didn't want to step on toes so acted adjacently. I understand editors are tired of hearing the same thing, I don't blame you for referring them to a pre-packaged response. Certainly better than shoot on sight. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well you essentially violated established consensus, apparently knowingly so, so I don't know what you mean by step on toes. ―Mandruss  11:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss Unintentionally. Still coming to terms with the page and its processes, with less tact than may be desired. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for that, I was beginning to get worried. ―Mandruss  11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus 61 took some selling on my part. Before it passed, shoot on sight was routine for those things. I misspoke in haste. Now I feel the need to correct the record. Shoot on sight was far from "routine", although it occurred for the most abusive posts as it does today. What was more common was editors lacking self-discipline and responding to the OP in a manner that was time-wasting, inconsistent, incomplete, unclear, and/or disrespectful. That was the main issue addressed by the response page.

The response page was created in April 2020 with the expectation that it would just "catch on" naturally. When it hadn't done so by May 2023, I proposed #61. It passed, and it's a better world now. ;) ―Mandruss  01:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss Having spent some time thinking on this, I do like the idea of routing editors through a crash course on wiki policy on bias before they can comment on it, you pushing it was certainly for the better. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacking this thread, what source were you referring to here? URL? ―Mandruss  12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss this was the edit I was referring to. I do find it amazing that in neither of the discussions for consensus 25 using archive links to bypass paywalls was mentioned. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAYWALL (policy). Apparently, the community cares less about that accessibility issue than you do. I was able to access that archived source at archive.org/Wayback Machine with only a little more difficulty than I expected, using only the WaPo URL. I guess the assumption is that any reader who cares that much about reading sources is likely to be aware of archive.org and have the competence to use it. Anyway we looked at #invoke (as I recall, some editor did a mass change that was promptly reverted) and the usability issues were just too much. ―Mandruss  12:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss I suppose, I wasn't planning on pushing for bringing it back. The #invoke history is interesting. I've been active on the page for about a week, do you have feedback for my approach I can take on? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just remain sensitive to the fact that a lot of what you're doing is a departure from years of practice. I've been starting to get something akin to the feeling I had when the feminist movement was forced upon me whether I liked it or not. :)
You're better than we are. But there are more of us. ―Mandruss  12:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss Thanks for these comments, I can see my editing getting pushy at times and I kick myself. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:TechnoSquirrel69 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Over the last few months, I've been seeing the name Rollinginhisgrave pop up more and more around good article–related processes. I first met them a couple of months ago when they reviewed my nominee and I was struck both by the quality of their comments and the pace at which they came. As it turns out, they have done the same for over 60 other articles in just the past four months! They also have a couple of GAs to their name — History of chocolate and Chocolate in savory cooking — with even more sweet things in the oven (so to speak), as evidenced by their user page. Although they have only been active for a few months, I hope you will join me in recognizing the good work they have accomplished. This nomination was seconded by Arconning and Vacant0.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Rollinginhisgrave
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning November 17, 2024
A valued user that pops up more and more around good article–related processes. The nominator first met them when they reviewed a nominee and was struck by the quality of their comments and the pace at which they came. As it turns out, Rolling had done the same for over 60 other articles in just the past four months! They also have a couple of GAs to their name — History of chocolate and Chocolate in savory cooking — with even more sweet things in the oven (so to speak), as evidenced by their user page. Although they have only been active for a few months, they deserve to be recognized for the good work they have accomplished.
Recognized for
quality comments
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much TechnoSquirrel69, Arconning and Vacant0! The misspelling in the blurb made me laugh, but it seems strangely appropriate... Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome! Though I must admit I don't see anything misspelled; am I missing something? TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, Rolloing Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I see it now! Fixed here and at the Hall of Fame. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
. Sorry for the mistake...or...was it a mistake???? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buster7 no worries, thankyou very much for facilitating this (and for the new billboard signature). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of White chocolate

The article White chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:White chocolate for comments about the article, and Talk:White chocolate/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Szmenderowiecki -- Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing consensus 20

Re: [1]

If you give a man a fish, he will eat today, but teach a man to fish and he will eat forever.

I.e., you haven't done them any favors in the long term. ―Mandruss  01:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss I certainly don't disagree, but this falls pretty firmly into WP:NOTBURO: potentially legitimate concerns not being addressed because they were raised in the wrong venue. Letting it languish, not being addressed to motivate them to be proactive is pointy. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could not disagree more strongly. Process and organization are not bureaucracy, and perhaps you would benefit from more experience with discussions that mix topics. Remember, if consensus 8 is canceled, it will link to that discussion. According to you, it will be a great idea for it to include a lot of discussion completely unrelated to the cancellation of consensus 8. ―Mandruss  01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss I think my actions aligned exactly with what you are saying: I moved the discussion to a new thread to prevent this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And back to my initial comment. ―Mandruss  01:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And back to my second? Haha. Hope you're well. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. ―Mandruss  02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you...

The Civility Barnstar
I think you deserve it for your contributions to what might currently be the most complex talk page on Wikipedia. Reading your replies makes me feel good inside, for some weird reason. Cessaune [talk] 05:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cessaune this is so kind, thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hello Rollinginhisgrave! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Helping new users better formulate their challenges, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blond chocolate

It seems like you have quite some edits on chocolate, and I wonder, why have you removed blond chocolate from Types_of_chocolate article, on your edit on September 7th?

I wanted to respawn it to the article, but I want to discuss it with you before that.

I'd like to give you some arguments for Blonde Chocolate as a Type:

  • Unique Flavor Profile: The Maillard reactions alter the flavor profile of white chocolate, giving it a distinct taste that sets it apart.
  • Different Production Process: The specific heating and stirring process involved in creating blonde chocolate is different from the standard white chocolate production.
  • Distinct Appearance: The golden color of blonde chocolate is noticeably different from the traditional white color of white chocolate.

Ruby chocolate is considered as a type, not a milk chocolate variant of ruby cocoa. It also satisfies all the above. So why not blond chocolate?

I would appreciate your answer. 141.226.144.100 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, thanks for putting this together. A lot of it is irrelevant to Wikipedia, it doesn't really matter if we can argue the case that it is a "type" of chocolate distinct from white chocolate, it matters how reliable sources discuss that. The most reliable sources I have seen discussing blonde chocolate as a type frame it from the perspective of Valronha's lobbying efforts for governmental recognition as a distinct type. This distinction is not endorsed therein. Don't worry too much about how types of chocolate looks at the moment, I'm going to work on it once I get all the sub articles to good article status. I'll move this to the article talk page when I'm not on my phone later, but in the meantime you can respond here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rollinginhisgrave,
Thanks for your reply! I completely understand your point about reliable sources.
Honestly, I wasn't aware of the industry politics behind blonde chocolate (not from the US here). I initially looked for info on Wikipedia after a friend mentioned Maillard reactions creating its flavor. Since I couldn't find it, I added a short section based on this source. I also added a sentence about its short history.
Originally, I even put it under the white chocolate section because I wasn't sure of its classification.
I agree that regulatory recognition is important, but I also think the types list should reflect culinary characteristics. Ruby chocolate is another example, right?
I hope your reorganization of the chocolate articles will include the removed blonde chocolate information.
Flin00 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Happened across a few articles that I saw you had a hand in and was fondly reminded of your courteousness and patience at Talk:Ludwell–Paradise House/GA1. Enjoy this tea as a sign of reverberating appreciation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti apologies for the late thankyou here, but I'm really grateful for this note. Hope you're well. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Rogue Chocolatier

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rogue Chocolatier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of chocolate

Hi -- I saw your response to my comments at the FAC. I'd be happy to help at the article talk page, whenever you get time to work on it again. I think my first suggestion would be to sketch out the overall tree of articles that should ultimately exist in order to get a clearer picture of what belongs in this article. I suspect there's enough material in reliable sources for specialized articles such as history of chocolate manufacturing -- after all we do already have history of Cadbury which would be a child article of that. That would imply that history of chocolate would be in summary style, which is tricky if some of the subarticles haven't been written yet. Anyway, I have the article on my watchlist and look forward to seeing what happens to it. ~~ Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holiday and Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

Hello, Rollinginhisgrave! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Yue🌙 21:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Your GA nomination of Rogue Chocolatier

The article Rogue Chocolatier you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rogue Chocolatier and Talk:Rogue Chocolatier/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for White chocolate

On 3 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article White chocolate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that white chocolate (pictured) has been used as a coating for vitamin products? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/White chocolate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, White chocolate), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 18,334 views (1,527.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talkcontribs) (he/it) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chocolate in Japan

Are you planning to include cocoa production in Japan in that draft of yours? Because if so, then I'll hold off on my intended writeup of that topic. Cheers. Yue🌙 05:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yue I probably would try to merge it in, as to my understanding, Japan's cocoa production is primarily for domestic purposes (although I may be incorrect here). I won't have time to write up the article for a while, but if you do want to write Chocolate in Japan mainly about cocoa production and leave some cursory notes on history, culture and industry (even just based on the journal articles I've left in the draft), I may be able to come by later and expand. I understand if you want to nominate it for GA for the cup this may not work.
I was actually going to request you write a broad-concept article on cocoa production in Africa, which I think is sufficiently sourced for stand-alone notability and would help navigation. Hope you're well regardless. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave: For this specific topic, I wasn't considering aiming for GA status; I just wanted the article to exist. I also inquired because I didn't want us to overlap our work. Good luck with chocolate in Japan in the long run; I may end up writing cocoa production in Africa in the future but not soon, so you might beat me to it! Cheers. Yue🌙 01:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where you at?

I had the impression you were committed to the sorely needed reduction of Donald Trump—and you're probably the only editor with the personality, knowledge, and skills to accomplish that. Haven't seen you in awhile; was I mistaken, or have you had a change of heart?

Never mind that you were an asset there in general. ―Mandruss  22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mandruss. I haven't much time for wiki at the moment with other commitments. Getting the Trump page to meet NPOV is an exciting challenge, so hopefully I will be able to return, although I didn't much enjoy coming into conversations knowing the positions of many editors based on what I perceived to be their politics. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more about reduction than NPOV. One or two are doing piecemeal trimming, but that's not going to get the article to where it needs to be. perceived to be their politics I share the perception. All the more need for folks like you. And they of course perceive the same about you and me; I'm regularly accused of being one of a cabal of Trump apologists. I just chuckle to myself. ―Mandruss  02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Rogue Chocolatier

The article Rogue Chocolatier you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Rogue Chocolatier for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon

I think you need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Thanks for the note. I do think new points are being engaged, but it is a little WP:1AM. I'll bring it to WP:NPOV/N and leave it in their hands if I am repeating myself (or if you think I'm repeating myself). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are very appreciated!

Hey Rollinginhisgrave, there was a recent post on Bluesky highlighting your work on chocolate articles. It has more than 6000 likes and a bunch of replies, almost entirely positive. You have been dubbed "chocolate hero"! Thanks for all you do here, chocolate-related and otherwise. P.S. out of curiosity, whose grave does your username refer to? Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchydillpickle Oh thanks for letting me know :) it's funny to read, and gives me far too much credit over other editors working on chocolate articles such as Zacharie Grossen, Yue and Zefr.
My username refers to the expression itself rather than commenting on any grave. It's being referenced in a similar way to Wikipedia:UPPERCASE#WP:NOTCENSORED. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya