This is an archive of past discussions with User:EEng. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I should have remembered that the standing order for MOS edits is "if in doubt, revert first, ask questions later". So to the extent that I doubted your good faith, I withdraw unconditionally. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It was not revert first, ask questions later so much as the fact that the inserted text literally and exactly began as shown here:
Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk pageApply beforesection link making the change.
Hi, quick note. Wasn't trying to edit war with you about that video. I think the video is helpful and we aren't here to only show "safe practices" on Wikipedia. But the adding after you deleted was simply I thought I didn't click save right because when I reloaded the page in another tab shortly after adding the video it was gone. I thought I did something wrong, didn't notice until I saw the history that you deleted it so quickly. You seem to feel strong ownership of that page? Didn't try to step on you or anything, sorry about that. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I assure you I feel no ownership of the baby buggy page. But when other editors tell you that your self-made video doesn’t improve an article, you should listen. EEng12:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
That skeleton
That skeleton image isn't some unknown long-forgotten burial, but a photo of the exhumation of the cemetery of the Catholic graveyard of the Church of St Michael the Archangel in Sanok. Sanok is somewhat politically sensitive—it lies right at the meeting point of traditionally German/Austrian, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian/Belarussian and Jewish areas—and the EEML gang are pretty much guaranteed to take offense (or at least, to feign offense) once they make the link. Given that Commons is in no danger or running out of photographs of skeletons, you might want to use one a little less sensitive unless you have a blinding urge to be scraping assorted East European nationalist editwarriors off your talkpage for the next six months. ‑ Iridescent16:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, all the good skeleton pix – to be effective it's got to give the impression that the subject dropped dead in harness – seem to be from someone or other's sacred burying ground, so since I've been using this one for years (and so have other people – I'm an influencer, apparently) I think I'll just stay the course and take my chances. But I appreciate the heads-up. EEng17:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Derrick Morris
On 23 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Derrick Morris, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Derrick Morris received a new heart in 1980 his chances of survival were slim, but he lived another 25 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Derrick Morris. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Derrick Morris), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
"Enclosed Instructions for Use: Each player receives a large brand and a corresponding number of small brands. At the beginning of the game place the opened cup in the middle of the table, which is best covered with a thick blanket. Each participant places the small marks on the tablecloth at the same distance from the cup. In turn, each participant is then snapped once, i. with the big mark is pressed on the edge of the small mark so much that the latter falls through a jump in the cup. Anyone who has brought one of his brands in the cup, may snap again. Once a mark falls off the table, it must be returned to its starting point. Who brings all the brands in the cup first, has won." (Google translation from German)
Apparently (see section header), we expect such typos. Thanks, as always, for giving me a tittery, tiddly, tickly giggle.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Please do not archive this page because of its size (above section). To save my edit above, it took me 1h30m52s, during which time I read War and Peace twice. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The only thing that holds true about hands applies to measuring a horse. And speaking of horses...a gal entered a bar in Texas, and noticed a cowboy with his feet propped up on a table. She marveled over the size of his boots and was inspired to approach him. She boldly asked him if what they say about Trump's small hands is true, then could the opposite be true about men with big feet? The cowboy grinned and said "Shore is, ma'am," and invited her to his bunkhouse. She was curious enough to accept his invitation. The next morning as she was leaving the bunkhouse, she handed him $300. He blushingly accepted the money and with a big grin thanked her saying, "Ain't nobody ever paid fer mah services before." She retorted, "Oh, don't be flattered. Use that money to buy yourself some boots that fit." AtsmeTalk📧15:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
With all the money Trump claims to have, it would seem he's been on the receiving end of a lot of those payments over the years. EEng01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
So cut this back it's not to late
Life's too short and I can't wait (for the page to load)
Please cut this back, oh don't see
It can't be read; i t j u s t w o n 't l o a d. Dlohcierekim (talk)
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." EEng16:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I followed that link, and at first my antimalware software didn't want me to go. I bravely persevered, and I noticed that they call the page in question Phineas Cage (sic). Somehow, that seems fitting for a site like that. I wonder if he's related to Nicholas. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
That is weird. I think you're getting the security messages because you're using https in the address. As far as I know, there is no certificate, so you should just use http. Sole Flounder (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"Sorry, but if this is included then there's no conceivable Wikiproject that wouldn't be included"
whats wrong with including many wiki projects ?
Hi RJJ4y7. If the Harvard University article carries a WP:Wikiproject neuroscience banner, then it would have to have banners for all the following: African and African American Studies, Anthropology, Applied Mathematics, Applied Physics, Art, Film, and Visual Studies, Astronomy, Bioengineering, Celtic Languages and Literatures, Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Computer Science, The Classics, Comparative Literature, Earth and Planetary Sciences, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, Economics, Electrical Engineering, English, Environmental Science & Engineering, Germanic Languages and Literatures, Government, History, History of Art and Architecture, History of Science, Human Evolutionary Biology, Linguistics, Materials Science & Mechanical Engineering, Mathematics, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Music, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Philosophy, Physics, Psychology, Romance Languages and Literatures, Slavic Languages and Literatures, Sociology, South Asian Studies, Statistics, Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. Those are just the departments of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Then you'd also need banners for every branch of medicine, law, business, government, divinity, engineering, education, architecture, and any number of things. Then the banners become meaningless. EEng12:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
im aware of this but my question is what is wrong with that?
i mean the perpose of banners is to notify those groups of interest to work on the project, dont we want as many peolpe to work on articles as possible? RJJ4y7 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The key is "groups of interest". The goal of banners, as EEng notes, is to get people who are especially interested in a fairly specific topic that they have chosen. For example, Harvard is a school that a significant part of a location, so it's relevant to schools and that location. You seem to have a particular interest in adding {{Neuroscience}}, and WP:Neuroscience identifies itself as "A collaborative team of editors aiming to create high-quality neuroscience articles". I don't think Harvard is a "neuroscience article" even if some people there study that topic. Now that you know several editors dispute this general approach, consider asking WT:Neuroscience what those already involved there feel would be useful and relevant. DMacks (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did. Thanks! I've just been too preoccupied to think about what order those should go back into the right archives in; it shouldn't be too hard once I look at it though. Will probably need to split it because there were relevant discussions both before and after a page move. --Closeapple (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg listed for discussion
Thanks for uploading File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
[I posted the following at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing on September 20 and to an administrator the following day, but as yet have received no reply. I've been supposing that in the continued absence of a response I'll repost it at the Teahouse (and not at the Village Pump because I don't want to put it both places), but want to stay as high on tippy-toes as I can while trying to get through this minefield. Can you offer any advice (other than to shut up and do nothing) and perhaps clarify the unclear policy? Thanks.]
(1) An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
Does this mean "at any one (but not more than one) of the following", or "at any one or more of the following"? Could the sentence be revised to make this more clear?
(2) The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, [...]
I sense a conflict here and again request clarification. Before reading this, I compiled a list of previous editors of the page concerned, there being a few more than a hundred. I didn't include some of the editors, not because of the content of their edits but because their edit was very minor, or came from an IP address with no contributions link, or had "bot" in the name of the editor. The list should thus serve from the viewpoint of neutrality. I could go back and include even the minor one-timers and the bots, though this seems unadvisable since the given example is of editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. There seems to be a possible conflict between selection and quantity, however. If I don't notify all the past editors of the page to avoid writing to too many (however many that is – this too could perhaps be made more clear), then I have to make a selection, and selecting seems problematic. If I select using some random method (none of which I have in mind), what's to say it's really random? And if I select an equal number of editors expressing a certain disposition and those expressing another, then what's to say I didn't include the ones I like and exclude the ones I didn't, even if I included the same number from both categories? Would it be best to simply notify all the prior editors, including the minor one-timers and the bots, or should I use my present list in which these aren't included (which would be in accordance with the example). Thanks for any information and/or advice, and I hope the uncertainty in the two points mentioned can eventually be clarified in the WP:APPNOTE text. If one or more persons have asked about these things before, that would seem even more appropriate. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You're worrying too much. (1) Use your judgment but be restrained. (2) Notify the most recent 5 to 15 substantial editors found on the contributions list. Five if it's no big deal, 15 if it's controversial. Not a hundred. EEng15:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm worrying less now, thanks. (1) The text could easily be "any one" if that was intended. "Any" does not limit, but I won't go hog-wild and will try to avoid the appearance of doing so. (2) Okay, 5 and 15. I assume that's your opinion and that others might differ, but I'll respect yours. I was going to make it 14 rather than 15 for the sake of equality, but the policy says that notices should be sent to "those" (?) rather than strictly to "an equal number of those". It would then seem that 8 good guys and 7 bad guys would be acceptable, though one might take exception to 9 and 6. Thanks again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I had looked at the DYK discussion early on, but didn't stick around. Seeing it now, good grief, it looks like death-by-overthinking, or maybe by something else. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Your "I rest my case" video at the top of your user page links to an unavailable video. Bummerrrrr. Nice user page, btw. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my edit based on misunderstanding about the article size. (I'm sure that I had concluded this by being led there from somewhere else, but that was yesterday...) While we're both here, would you please assist this relative ignoramus by informing her how to calculate/assess/find automatically the actual size of the finished article? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The usual tool for this, I think, is the one at User:Dr pda/prosesize. It provides a link in the sidebar that you can click to calculate any page's size. You have to save first; it won't work while you're editing. But because Wikipedia:Writing better articles is somewhat official (part of a guideline), it would probably be best not to add unofficial user page software links to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The Great and Powerful Oz prefers the "Page statistics" link found on any page history page; then once you're on the page stats page, search the string prose. Since it's linked from page histories I think it counts as official, and it doesn't require installing anything (plus it gives a lot of other useful stuff). EEng07:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah - thanks to both of you. Any chance of including this (as a footnote to the 50KB size guide perhaps) in the style manual? As a relative newbie to anything more than occasional small edits, I seem to find myself wading through pages of Wiki help trying to find what I need sometimes. (I must admit that I'm usually more focussed on content than the tools and should probably dedicate more time to the latter sometime!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I have made a few changes to several pages where article size and splitting are mentioned, and did find that Prosesize tool referred to as well as another user one - so I threw caution to the winds and copied them onto another page as well...
Now, on a related but separate matter, talking of size - back to where my enquiries into size and splitting articles started. Long story short (having originally being led to some work on a "great-great-great-grandchild" of the Immigration article), does anyone reading this feel inclined to contribute to a discussion I started on the Immigration talk page here? Someone at the Teahouse suggested that I post a query on some of the related Project pages to attract interested editors, but looking at those pages, I'm not sure they're the right place to post. Any other suggestions? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I took a glance and the only thing I'd say is that I wouldn't get too focused on size as a reason to split an article. I'd look first for ways to trim excessive detail throughout. EEng06:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I probably didn't make it clear, partly because I got temporarily diverted by wrongly calculating the size of the article and then wondering if it needed further splitting based on its apparent size. I wasn't really considering doing any further splits myself, just mainly trying to initiate discussion on what gets left behind in the parent article, and (related) how to deal with the same topic being dealt with in multiple places - which sometimes start off the same and then someone adds or changes something in one place and not the other, etc. etc. And (as a side issue) there's inconsistency amongst articles which deal with the relationship between immigration and crime. Perhaps I should delete and rephrase most of what I wrote in that section on the talk page to make it a bit clearer (and shorter). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. For better or for worse, I've re-worded my post over there. I know I get too wordy sometimes - but I think I have clarified the issue for myself a bit, anyway. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Good luck. Bear in mind that the topic is a controversial one, so while WP:BOLDness is still the order of the day, be prepared to back off and discuss if there is resistance. EEng04:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been doing a bit of editing on the two pages, as per my comments on the talk page there, but have confined myself to the mechanics of transclusion and the principle of which bit to include in the parent article at this point. I do intend to review some of the structures and content of related articles, but don't worry, I'm well aware of the potential for controversy so will be treading carefully. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Indeed, saw it via CD. Interesting idea, though haven't really had time to process it. As a friendly albeit frustrated aside, it took multiple tries to read and respond to this message. As someone who sometimes connects via lousy wifi , lousy computer, mobile, etc. (and who has had trouble even with none of the above) I find this talk page often unusable for its [arguably, I guess] intended purpose. Maybe 500k would be a reasonable already-quite-large compromise? :) FWIW. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Added bullets altered threading style
Hi EEng, fairly minor point, but I'd like to understand your addition of asterisks in front of my post of 07:57, 9 Feb two posts prior. This change also converted Nil Einne's properly threaded column 1 ':' into an asterisk as well, thus stylistically unifying our two posts and making the threading harder to follow, imho. Such alterations are sometimes helpful and I do them myself on occasion, but in such cases I like to see an edit summary with something like, "Technical TPO violation to improve threading, for <reason>." As I say, nbd, and you probably had a good reason, but I'd just like to know what it was. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It seemed like a series of parallel comments was accumulating so I bulleted them to bring out the parallelism. However, not having had my coffee I apparently put a separate bullets on each of your paragraphs. I've fixed that now. EEng20:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Your recent behaviour on the Jeanne Calment page
For your information, see below.
Help wanted for references to Garoyan's thesis
A large part of the sections on Jeanne's Calment daily routine at the nursing home, and about her medical history there, are cited to Georges Garoyan's 1990 thesis: Cent-quatorze ans de vie ou la longue histoire de Jeanne Calment, doyenne d'âge de France, published at the Aix-Marseille university. Does an editor have access to this document? We should review the citations, provide exact pages and quotes, and perhaps improve translations. — JFGtalk11:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
In other words, you, with the support of EEng, have randomly trashed the article without first reading the single most important source on Jeanne Calment. You have thereby deprived researchers of valuable Wikipedia information (most researchers, whether supporters or critics of Calment, cannot read the French sources). You ask belatedly for help, but why should anyone now trust you and work with you? This once-excellent article is a lost cause. Both of you, take this as a lesson for the future how not to behave on Wikipedia, please. 86.162.86.5 (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
You should also see the flat-earther nuts that came out in email to support their POV on what Auguste Piccard saw in his balloon ride, after I semiprotected it. "Cling to your water pear religion as best you can ... The lengths the ball cultist will go are hysterical" !? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
all of these discussions are old, and don...
...'t need to be on my talk page anymore.
My typing is not as accurate as I'd like, and sometimes I hit the enter key when I meant to hit an apostrophe (maybe I'll hack together some custom Javascript so it doesn't post an edit when I press enter in the edit summary box; it doesn't do it in the main edit box after all.)
Hey EEng! I've just returned, but I've noticed a hundred or so edits while I was on my hiatus, but I decided to give myself some time away from the wiki to reflect. I've planned them in .txt documents, and I'll be back and post them after I get them organized. I haven't lost my passion yet! Hopefully I've got a bit more sense now.
Hi Mitchellhobbs. I'm afraid I don't do much draft reviewing and don't know the procedures. Perhaps someone watching this page will step in to help. EEng16:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I understand you guys prefer disorder in images... I otherwise like order in images layout... Why too much empty blank spaces in page ? when my way could resolve a better approach all images together... Then a space between symbold like € of currency and numbers give a better reading... https://imgur.com/gpJRc6y --88.70.23.126 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Your screenshot shows you're using an unusually wide window, so what you're seeing is atypical. Whatever your personal taste, WP house style is that nonalphabetic currency symbols are not followed by a space -- see MOS:CURRENCY. EEng21:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Enjoyed your comments on Trump. Although I am from Canada, I do watch the ABC Evening News and feel slightly nauseated by his behaviour! We feel your pain. This is a real test to see if your Founding Fathers put enough checks and balances in the Constitution to protect America against tyranny. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
LOL...Remember hate, lying, greed and bragging about your fornications, adultries and sex abuse are not Christian regardless what the Religious Right says! In any event with all the evidence of wrongdoing Impeachment now seems inevitable. I plan to tune in! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) PS I am planning a WP article on this topic.
June 2019
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Apparently, the article needs to be only as clear as you deem appropriate.SMP0328. (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
We've worked together too long for you to template me. Your edit summaries -- please look at them -- were somewhat fractured so that they didn't really explain why you were adding all that verbiage. I've made a new change -- far more concise -- which I think you will find satisfactory. EEng06:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
On 28 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article J. J. Stiffler, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that J. J. Stiffler's "unparalleled" and "landmark" Theory of Synchronous Communications (1971) sprang from NASA's need for power-efficient synchronization of data transmission for its space probes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J. J. Stiffler. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, J. J. Stiffler), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
You see this guy? He's an anchor, people leave him alone.
Hey EEng! Can you tell me why the redirect (not saying you had anything to do with it{lol}) goes to Murder of Jennifer Cave? I don't know how to fix redirects thats why I'm asking. Thanks
The above is what I wrote off the top of my head ~ having read further down the article I see what hall has to do with the murder. The only reason I'm leaving this edit here is ~~ this question ~ 'Can you redirect to a spefic section in an article and if so how? Thanks EEng ~mitch~ (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Well after reading more of the article ~ no need to redirect to a section ~ I would just like to know though, maybe for next time ~ regards ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I always think it's a good idea, instead of linking to the section by its actual name, to add an {{anchor}} at the top of the section with some slightly different string, and link to that. Section names get changed now and then, and this will break the link, but people leave anchors alone. EEng17:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Martinevans123! ~ I was looking at a bed a breakfast somewhere east of the Atlantic ~ which led me to a comforter ~ then to her article here ~ and after I typed LA I saw 'Hall' so being adventurous ~ well here we are again ~lol ~mitch~ (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I started listening to bagpipes this morning to get me motivated before my cup of coffee ~ at 1:56 into the flick, I saw Laura Ashley ~ I never even heard of them before ~ (I have heard of Old Spice though) ~ well now I have been listening to angels ~ so I took it as I sign I should go to Scotland some day ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"You go to Europe and the roads are opposite". My word, this must rank alongside "what did the Kurds ever do for us in Normandy?" comment, as a breath-taking pinnacle of intelligent analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Anchors away! ⚓️
The three scallywiggins, they washed their mizzens,
And hung them out to dry,
"Ahoy, Martinevans, did you not hear,
The scallywiggins washed their mizzens?"
"What?! Washed their mizzens, the old scallywiggens;
I smell a rat close by!"
"Yo, ho, me hearty, that’s not a rat,
It’s a Tryptofish ready to fry."
YOU KIDS GET OFF MY SEA LAWN!
Ok, following is an example of the WP:Anchors I was referring to for use in the Museum. Click on "The Wisest Man Who Ever Lived" where there's a link to Rigsby's commencement address OR if you prefer, you can bypass that one, and click this BLP wikilink which takes you to a specific quote boxed discussion on my UTP. I was going to anchor a couple of items in your Museum that I've had occasion to reference but you are the curator, and I dare not trespass without permission. Besides, you may not like the idea, or have a better one in mind. AtsmeTalk📧01:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, Anchors ya say matey? Me seafarin' ways taught me a lot about real anchors, but WikiAnchors...a whole new beast! Only anchor I see regularly is in my signature...but I like your clever use of anchors. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Well shiver me timbers!! Ahoy, me hearty! It's been a while since we shared some grog. 🍻🏴☠️ Collect some killicks, lass - they'll serve you well. All hand hoy! It's time to weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen! AtsmeTalk📧02:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Um, you guys do know that the phrase is anchors aweigh, right? Anchors away would mean something like throwing the anchors overboard. Atsme, you're welcome to add anchors to my user page. I recommend that you also use permalinks since the day may come when some snitty admin ties to make me remove all that facetious Trump material which does not, in fact, seriously imply that the President of the United States is a sociopathic moron who has not the faintest idea how anything works [4] (It also does not seriously imply that his vocabulary is that of an eight-year-old -- if the eight-year old was being raised in a brothel.) EEng 11:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I actually wrote a paper once which contained this passage: Fade in. Exterior, daytime. A wharf alongships. Jolly sailors batten down the mizzenmast and bilge-bail the fo'c'sle as they prepare to weigh anchor and shove off for Beantown. Avast of the yardarm, a daft coxswain foists hey on the jim-bob.EEng11:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, EEng. Re: "away" - simply a play on words - as in anchors are a way to link directly - the latter preceded by a play on a proverb I didn't mention, "where there's a Wills there's a way" (my RL surname being Wills). Carry on. AtsmeTalk📧 12:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Adding: while perusing the Museum, one of the images inspired thoughts of a new section. I added an example. AtsmeTalk📧12:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the first action of the apparent "Mr Space Owl" sock was to restore a change made by one "Dr Horncastle" here, the latter being a known sock of Eric Corbett. Then there's the odd similarity in the style of username. I think the edit itself was fine, but doesn't this seem like too much of a coincidence? I can't figure out why the Corbett sock would be editing an obscure page like this one (on the day after Mrs Pace Owl was blocked for edit-warring) unless there's some connection. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, but I think even E.C.'s substantial powers of duplicity are insufficient for delivery of so effective an impersonation of a demented Buddhist. EEng08:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
No it wasn't. That's not what née actually means, the way you wrote it in your edit is not how it should be used, and in any case that information doesn't belong at that point of that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Why is this other user chiming in? I am editing the other part of the article as well. Yes, her name wasn't Jacobs; it was Stevenson. However she doesn't use Jacobs. The way it should be written within the article is Jill Tracy née Stevenson Jacobs Biden. You're quick to revert something when it's incorrect as it is. I guess Jill Jacobs Biden would work for the template. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
In articles about other people, we generally only use the common version of the name, the one that is the title of her article. There is no need, for instance, to place great emphasis on her Sicilian ancestry (where the Jacobs comes from), because it's not relevant there. And since you didn't hear it when we said it the previous times, that's not how "née" is used. It doesn't go into the middle of someone's name like that. "Jill Tracy née Stevenson Jacobs Biden" would (ignoring the missing comma) refer to someone now called "Jill Tracy" but whose full birth name was "Stevenson Jacobs Biden". You cannot stick "née" into the middle of a name and expect it to make sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure I have many, even numerous questions for you, DE. Saw you're an admin too. It's not "sticking" née into something. First no one really knows her name, not many anyway. Absolutely no one calls her Jill Jacobs. If you want to fix it, go ahead. It's not right how it is now. Second it's two separate things, fixing the template mention and the one in the article. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"Jill Jacobs" in the infobox is fine as it is now. It gives her birth name. And Jill Biden has never changed her first name from Stevenson to Jill, so your proposed change is wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You are not listening! Let's assume you are wrong for a minute. One Jill Biden is wrong too. It doesn't even say that. Two we agree her name is Jill Tracy Stevenson (née would go in front of Stevenson) Jacobs (wherever that is supposed to go) Biden. Three you seem quick to dismiss something that isn't right. I guess you could look at other templates and you see there's a standard way to list spouses. Four I guess you have an opinion on Larry Sanger. He doesn't like Wikipedia now and many people are starting to see the site fails in some respects. What say you? Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess I will have to elaborate for you to understand. Jill Biden's name is not listed correctly on the page we're talking about. You are both right that née means born (maiden name is the name a woman is born with, by the way). I am not right all the time although maybe I am right most of the time. Her name is Jill Tracy (middle name) née Stevenson (the last name she was born with) Jacobs (I guess that goes before Stevenson Biden.
Almost no one you could run across knows her as anything other than Jill Biden. Jill Jacobs is decidedly not her name. Does that make sense now? Also I was saying this site seems quick to allow things that shouldn't be allowed. You were pretty quick to revert something that is wrong as it is now also. I could cite many other big topics that are incorrect on here but those can wait. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
For instance, the article about the lovely wife of Richard NIxon does not contain "née " in the info box. In the lead it's "Thelma Catherine "Pat" Nixon (née Ryan; March 16, 1912 – June 22, 1993)". Elaborate at will, but it seems quite simple to me. --Deepfriedokra(talk)10:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
In the info box her name would be different, it would be Jill Jacobs Biden. Well look at that, it says Pat Ryan in the info box. Ok, so info boxes are wrong on here it seems. Nevertheless it should say Jill Tracy Jacobs née Stevenson Biden in the article. I guess a bigger topic is that this site, Wikipedia has some problems. Users are deleting information that should be left alone. It's been pointed out that the site is biased now too. It's pretty tough standing up to the revisionists. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Howdoesitgo1, since you seem to be ignoring everyone trying to explain this to you, let me put this simply and in bold: that is not how you use "née", even if there's consensus that "née" is appropriate. If she was born "Jill Jacobs", later became "Jill Stevenson", and is now "Jill Biden", then (if and only if) there were consensus to include every permutation of the name (which there isn't), the correct form would be "Jill Biden, née Jacobs, formerly Stevenson". Your preferred formula of "Jill Tracy Jacobs née Stevenson Biden" would mean that she was christened "Jill Stevenson Biden" but now calls herself "Jill Tracy Jacobs". Given the number of people who've explained this to you, you can't use "I wasn't aware" as an excuse; if you continue to push this you'll be dealt with as we deal with anyone else who deliberately tries to insert incorrect information into a Wikipedia article. ‑ Iridescent14:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
When the time comes please take it outside. I just had the carpets shampooed and bloodstains can be awful stubborn. EEng15:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
EEng, you're odd. Iridescent, I didn't say I have the name right. No one wants to realize the name is wrong how it's on there now. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Jill Biden, née Jacobs, formerly Stevenson seems alright. I note people don't like to discuss things on talk pages. It's incorrect to revert talk pages on Wikipedia, particularly ones about a subject. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, dahling! How do yew dooo! Really, my deah, I am SO happy yew recognized me from across that crowded room. Happy to make your acquaintance. I have no hard feelings of cawse! (We are all in the madcap environment togethah, right?) Toodles! Your new friend, you know, the one who has BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh look, there's that call I've been expecting! Sorry, gotta take this. There are canapes in the fridge. EEng17:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
6:00 am inspiration
I think it might be a good idea for those who watch the various MOS pages and are active on their talkpages to stop answering general style questions and instead refer them to the language refdesk. My reasoning is that a lot of the negativity directed towards the MOS and its "regulars" comes from seeing the talkpage of a style guideline being used for answering style questions that are not covered by said guideline. This gives the answers the appearance of consensus-based legitimacy and any critisism of that is, I think, totally valid. The talkpages should be for improvement-based suggestions and clarification of existing guidance. No?
I'm sending this to several people so please respond on my talkpage.
Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't come up with anything particularly good either. I don't think any puns on "fanny" would be a good idea, especially with BLP. Might be best to go with "...that musician Nickey Barclay collaborated with..." and list some of the famous names. By the way, there are a lot of duplicate links. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think any puns on "fanny" would be a good idea – Why, because Barbra Streisand might sue us to keep people from knowing about it? EEng01:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There are ENGVAR versions of "fanny" east of the Atlantic which make the hooks more risqué than in the Americas. Not necessarily a showstopper, but something to be aware of. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'04:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I've gone with ... that two of Barbra Streisand's albums have some Fanny on them? Incidentally, a few years back there was an ANI thread where a bunch of IPs were edit-warring on Streisand's main article and calling anyone who disagreed with them a "Barbra hater" but I can't find it now. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Why would removing a valid comment to any editor requesting edit summary comments need to be let go? I actually want an answer as to why deleting someone else's talk page request should be considered acceptable.
An IP with an extensive contribution history and long user talk page makes one edit without an edit summary, and you go leaving them a warning? WTF? When Serial Number removed your warning, that should have tipped you off to the fact that you were off base. EEng23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
What's happening?
And now my life has changed in oh so many ways My independence seems to vanish in the haze
Top of the morning to you, Ringo Paul!! I wanted to share a few thoughts about recent trends, and what I find extremely disconcerting about WP these days. I think you've noticed it, too. I'm speaking of the subtle transition in the way a few of our admins are swinging their mops. It appears more like duty creep that has transitioned from a focus on fighting vandals and stopping disruption to the cognitive restructuring of editors by using their tools to control the narrative. What ever happened to "Think different"? Is WP becoming a homogenized project because of groupthink, and what appears to be either a lack of or suppression of creative thinking skills and free thought? It's one thing to keep the prose in our articles dispassionate and neutral but doing so should neither prevent it from being engaging, nor absent of all significant views - but that is exactly what's happening. Engaging readers is how we capture their interest vs alienating at least half of them with a large dose of WP:POV creep. Of course, WP will survive and grow because of the trivia and COI articles that inundate us now, but what are we growing into? In my experiences, citing a WP article in a discussion becomes a battle over fact and opinion because WP is considered unreliable and is quickly dismissed which drives our readers to seek knowledge elsewhere. Do you see that as a potentially dangerous trend? The internet itself is a trend and serves as the host for trends, all of which are driven by popularity. Someone somewhere is building a better mousetrap, and if it turns out to be more reliable, fact-based and neutral which is what WP started out to be, what will happen then? How dependable is the loyalty of WP volunteers, especially when we're being treated like disposable nobodies under the control of thought police? Just a few thoughts from an over-thinker. Atsme💬📧12:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, Atsme's opening reference is to my recent confession (at AN) that I am actually Ringo Starr.EEng
I'm not in a position to actually narrow it down to a particular diff because of an ongoing discussion, so I'll just say Jimbo's TP is full of examples. Also to consider is DS AE in general because unilateral actions can be made at an admin's sole discretion, and cannot be overturned by another admin as is the case with normal blocks or t-bans. Granted, we have some excellent admins but it only takes a few aggressive types to influence an entire process. When admins start modifying PAGs to fit their POV, and have become so involved in a topic area that they form preconceived notions about particular editors and how they think that editor will act in a situation, that's prejudice. In the big picture, it's the calm before the storm. It's one of the initial steps to homogenization. Another initial step is the limiting and deliberate selection of what resources can be cited for inclusion of information/material. Take it from there, maestro. Atsme💬📧15:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Problem is, for whatever reason I do very little editing in DS areas, so I'm only vaguely tuned in to what you're talking about. I also stay away from the ol' Jimbo talk page, and from the sound of things that's the way it should stay. I'm concerned at your distress, but I'm struggling to find a way to relieve it. EEng04:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
In my limited experience, sweeping statements about the "declining state of Wikipedia" usually have their origins in very specific disputes concerning certain articles, WikiProjects, topic areas, editors or admins. For example, I don't think we can judge the quality of the entire project based on a dozen articles on the current political situation in the U.S.
I can understand not wanting to name names and escalate this currently abstract discussion but it's important to ground statements about the quality of Wikipedia with specific examples so one can evaluate the merits of the argument being made. Just my 2 cents. LizRead!Talk!06:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok, let's keep this going. It's funny how tempest in a teapot cases can end with a one-way ticket on the WP:POV railroad,choo-choo but not a total loss if it provides further fodder for future filings.WP:5Fs On point: AE/DS, one need look no further than the words "discretionary", "unilateral", "preventative", and "backsliding into past behaviors", all of which are defined in a rather muddled and dubious fashion or simply as generalities with countless loopholes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't adminship created for the purpose of fighting vandals, socks and stopping real disruption? Nowhere in our blocking policy does it say that it's acceptable to drop the ban hammer for the following reasons: WP:DONTLIKEIT, cognitive restructuring, Wikipedia:PREJUDICED, or WP:POLD, relevant or not. EEng's probably thinking - You kids get off my lawn!! So I'm thinking I'll make him a sign that reads Keep off the grass! and one for me that reads Keep off my ass! Following is my rendition of AE/DS in action: you make a wisecrack or spout off something under the DS umbrella that an admin doesn't like, and your ass gets blocked at their discretion, despite your comment having one or more of the following descriptors: [FBDB], [stretch] or [hyperbole]. That's how bad things have gotten. Credit's due where it's earned so I'll just say Excellent way to disincentivize productive editors! I realize that nobody gives a big 🐀 about what I think, and neither do I for the most part, so back on point - the biggest problem with DS/AE is that an admin's action can't be overturned without an act of congress,[hyperbole] accompanied by some and eating a big ole helping of . In hopes of defusing the chilling effects of allegations such as woke editors being enablers of the "scorned", I will just point out that blind alliances are what enable the accuser to make such degrading comments with impunity, especially if it stems from prejudice, misconceptions and WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise. Isn't it time for the community to make a few tweaks here and there, and put things back into proper perspective? I'm not the only one who recognizes that we have problems in that area that need fixing; it goes right up to 4 members of ArbCom. KK stated:But I believe this would be better addressed in a case request about discretionary sanctions, which is yet another thing we've been meaning to take a look at for a while. This would be an excellent opportunity for us to revisit the whole issue. Ok Ringo (who, as a kid, looked like Paul), it's your turn to beat your...drum, just the drum! Atsme💬📧15:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Objective3000: I think this is headed in the right direction.DFO
Atsme, Just so you know, there is somewhere on Wikipedia a log of AE/AN/ANI cases and it tracks subject/admins involved and political issue and how the cases were resolved. It's not just Wikipedia topics that are biased. And the bias is so pervasive that at times Wikipedia isn't fun to edit anymore. I've been here since 2005 I think and it was fun to be around. Now it's strategic editing and trying to avoid certain editors who you don't want to interact with. (and just so you know, in some areas, people won't come to your defense because they don't want to go against the groupthink, or also don't want to ruin their image.) Sir Joseph(talk)00:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Fortunately for some, it hasn't been recently updated as it is an indictment of several conservative-minded editors. This paranoid theme that admins and editors are a cabal makes no more sense than QAnon crap. If editors that wish to push the concept that everything is a conspiracy against their belief system want to push that POV; they’re going to have drop that line and find a new path based on actual Wikipedia guidelines, reality, and good faith. I considered entering the recent AE filing a few times (something I’m not shy about) – but found no reason as Atsme was making my case against her in every edit. Coupla years ago, Drmies told her that other editors would start making a record of her hapless claims (paraphrasing). There is no deep state. There is no cabal. Just stick to the facts. I’ll finish by saying that Atsme is a far, far better editor than I and of value to the community. So long as she avoids anything remotely political. And couldn't our host find a better Beatle than Ringo? Perhaps someone in the Chrysomelidae famliy?O3000 (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Liz, a specific example illustrating the declining quality of Wikipedia relating to Atsme's comments about unilateral DS AE actions may be when you gave me apparently false advice about my AE appeal and said that I was lucky to not be blocked. When I asked you to confirm that my appeal actually met WP:BANEX, you did not respond.[13] New editors will not be able to casually participate here under these conditions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity - my concerns are not about editors who identify as conservative or liberal - I couldn't care less about one's ideology when I'm editing - it's about editors and admins who do care, take it personally and feel the need to act on it by pigeonholing their opposition as right-wing (which, btw, is a WP:PA), and then slapping a gag order on them without ever specifying a valid reason for it; a throw shit against the wall approach. I have actually defended a few of my detractors/opposition at AE when I perceived an injustice and will also be the first to lend a helping hand in RL. It's not about the politics for me, it's about the party 🎉🎊.
I'll take it one step further...(which is what my critics hate most about me)...things have gotten to the point that some editors have even cited controlled surveys to gage intelligence levels of people who watch certain news channels, and when such a survey is conducted by academia, and aligns with their POV, it's considered a RS for statements of fact. That has to stop because it is all about IDONTLIKEIT, and the ugly hand of bias reaching out to slap GF editors who are simply copyediting, or trying to achieve NPOV. EEng got a little taste of it himself at Talk:Joe Biden but because he's openly not a fan of Trump and is known as Jesus Christ superstar,affectionately he was not nailed to the cross as I probably would have been, for Christ's sake. I believe a big part of it is prejudice based on preconceived notions that my editing is politically motivated. I have been wrongfully accused of that simply because I disagree, (or is it because of the gender gap)? Another major issue is the overuse of keyword identifiers, like the ones commonly used by so-called media bias experts, in a terribly flawed process. WP editors are using that same process. Certain words or "talking points" send Paul Revere galloping off to warn the village, and the troops arrive with muskets loaded![stretch]
Regardless, it's simple bias that keeps certain articles scrubbed, full of trivia and noncompliant with NPOV relative to criticism. Quite frankly, it's poor editorial judgment when we have unwieldy articles filled with trivia, peacock words, and other material that fails WP:10YT. The essay or guideline supplement WP:RSP is being used improperly, and actually conflicts with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. And that's just for starters, so back on point - the DS-AE brigade is causing more harm than good because prejudice is the Lon Chaney of bias,an old folks analogy and what I perceive to be the motivation per The Critic that Levivich linked to above. Atsme💬📧16:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
What does Lon Chaney mean? He's in everything? Anyway, why are administrators automatically permitted to participate in conduct disputes? It's puzzling that we're combining the duties of editorial oversight and interpersonal mediation...these aren't related skills. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
In my view admin are neither for conduct disputes nor for editorial oversight. The purpose of an administrator is, or rather should be, to push a button that we cannot let everyone push because the risk of abuse or misuse is too great. The buttons are "protect", "delete", and "block". An individual editor is, or rather should be, allowed to become an administrator because the community thinks they will not abuse or misuse a button; i.e., they will only push it when they are supposed to; i.e,. they will only push the button when consensus says they should push the button, regardless of their personal opinions. Admin are, or rather should be, chosen for their ability to understand and comply with consensus when it comes to the pushing of those buttons. Discretionary sanctions turns this upside down, by allowing admins to choose when to push the buttons, and to create entirely new buttons of their own. DS turned admins from being an implement of consensus to being a police officer, judge, jury, and executioner. This has been disastrous, as a small group of people (less than a dozen) have appointed themselves essentially the babysitters of entire topic areas. The conscious and unconscious biases and prejudices of this group of people, who are only human, inform their enforcement decisions, and thus determine when sanctions are imposed and when they are not, and thus determine who gets sanctioned and who doesn't, and thus determine who edits and who doesn't, and thus entire topic areas take on this small group of people's particular interpretation of NPOV, to the point that even outside observers perceive the palpable bias in our articles. Why does such a small group of people have such outsized influence? Because we let them. Editors fail to resolve problems among themselves; instead of doing the difficult work of compromise, they punt disputes to a group of self-appointed "parents"; then they complain about the parents' decisions. I think this should change, which is why I participate regularly at ANI, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. (And by extension, in RFAs, Arbcom elections, and WMF Trustee elections.) "Take the power back." Lev!vich18:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
So... can't we just decide that "everyone who is an administrator is now a 'cleric' with the following powers:..." in order to circumvent arbitration? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to ping in Iridescent for wise observations on the above. (And I want them to know that I did make a feeble attempt to archive in preparation.) EEng09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to read through all the above gibberish; what is the actual question? If it's about a general right-v-left, that isn't a particularly useful exercise; Wikipedia is a global project, and the definitions of "right wing" and "left wing" are culture-specific. (To pick an obvious piece of low-hanging fruit, if a member of the British Conservative Party were to espouse most of the US Democratic Party platform, they'd be expelled in fairly short order as an extreme-right entryist.) ‑ Iridescent10:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the crux of the problem is unilateral action taken at an admin's sole discretion in the name of DS-AE, which means the action cannot be overturned by another admin. Worse yet, DS are being/have been customized to address certain behaviors of editors that have been/are being analyzed by the same few admins; therefore, unlikely to escape prejudice or their own biases and that equates into being involved. To get an AE block or t-ban removed, an editor is forced to either grovel to the enforcing admin, or endure the AE process wherein detractors have been known to cast aspersions and launch PAs with impunity - not fun, especially when it's a POV content issue and not actual disruption. There are no time limits on discussions, so the opposition who may be losing an argument can yell "BLUDGEONING" and an admin can block/t-ban the effective editor to silence them. Bias or prejudice are strong arguments for involvement, and so is patterned behavior that might also include the "study" of an editor, if not admin HOUNDING, which again speaks to "involved". How do we eliminate these problems - especially when trust is lost - keeping in mind the ideological bias on Wikipedia, which is another aspect of the problem that results in disproportionate blocks & indef t-bans against those editors whose views may not align with the acting admin's views? Atsme💬📧15:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
(All obviously with "just my personal opinion and not in any official capacity" disclaimers.) I personally think discretionary sanctions are thoroughly abused, and that their use in practice is almost never justified. They were intended as a fast-track mechanism to deal with obvious cranks and obsessives and with diehard editwarriors in obvious problem areas, not as a general mechanism by which people who know how to play wiki-politics can use pseudolitigation to knock people who disagree with them out of play to allow a preferred version to stick around long enough to become the default.
All that said, I'm utterly unconvinced that the alleged "ideological bias of Wikipedia" exists. To me, the supposed "bias" is just a reflection of the fact that Wikipedia aggregates sources from around the world, not just from the area under discussion, and that English Wikipedia's editors break 40% US, 60% other; as such, when it comes to political topics our coverage of European and Canadian topics appears skewed to the right since we're giving due weight to American opinion, and our coverage of US topics appears skewed to the left because we're giving due weight to non-US opinion. This is particularly true when it comes to modern US political topics; it's hard to overstate how loathed the current incarnation of the US Republican Party is by even their traditional allies on the right in Europe. (Current leaders are holding their tongues publicly until he's out of office so as not to provoke diplomatic incidents, but it's fair to assume that e.g. former UK Conservative Party leader Malcolm Rifkind's on-the-record description of Trump as "Repulsive … so coarse, so vulgar, so insulting to friends as well as to foes … I find him a really exhausting experience and one that does no benefit to his own country reflects what Johnson, von der Leyen, Merkel et al are saying in private.)
If there is a systemic bias on Wikipedia, it's not a systemic bias towards either the right or the left, but a systemic bias towards the values of industrialized societies; to paraphrase something I recently said on my talk page, if the WMF genuinely believed that the opinions of everyone in the world was of equal value than 1⁄3 of each article would be dedicated to the Communist view of that topic and significant chunks of every article on any popular-culture topic would give due weight to the "sinful frivolity which will make you burn in hell" hypothesis.
TL;DR: When it comes to discretionary sanctions, unless it would be obvious to any reasonable outside observer that applying DS is appropriate, it almost certainly isn't. Think of them as a WP:PROD process for editors: if there's any good-faith objection it ought to go to a discussion. Alleged anti-(whatever) bias doesn't come into it and I'm not convinced such a thing exists. ‑ Iridescent18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
AE and DS are an example of "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em". For every complaint of DS-gone-evil, there's a counter-example of DS-finally-solved-a-problem. In one fish's opinion, GMOs are the poster child for the latter. But then again, it depends on which "side" one is on – there is no shortage of anti-GMO POV-pushers who would classify me as the "people who know how to play wiki-politics [and] can use pseudolitigation to knock people who disagree with them out of play to allow a preferred version to stick around long enough to become the default." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I prefer living without DS/AE for the reasons I stated. I agree with Iridescent for the most part. My primary concern is relative to the rejection of significant views from our articles based on DONTLIKEIT, resulting in the purposeful omission of material, or because a particular partisan media echo chamber refused to publish it for whatever reason. After all, a scandal is not a scandal until it has been published by media; a rather pompous POV, don't you think? I'm not referring to verifiable scientific information; rather, my focus is on biased news media, and how we tend to accept at face value whatever scandal clickbait media decides to publish - not to mention RECENTISM. Another problem is our limited access to RS behind paywalls (a growing problem), an issue that I've brought to Jimbo's attention for a couple of years now, hoping something could be done to avoid the inevitable dilemma. Volunteers working in AfC and NPP need access to those sources for verifiability, but oh well. May the force be with you!Atsme💬📧21:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Since you ask whether I think it's "a pompous POV" to consider something as "not a scandal" until published sources say that it's a scandal, I'll tell you what I think. Outside of Wikipedia, I suppose yes there is something rather self-congratulatory about the assumption that something isn't real until self-appointed media arbiters declare it as such. And similarly, there's something obnoxiously Warhol-esque, and/or Kardashian-West-esque, about equating fame with relevance. Long-forgotten: "I think, therefore I am."
But if we're talking instead about Wikipedia (which no one should confuse with the real world!), I think that we damn well better have a preponderance of reliable sources calling something "a scandal", before we call it "a scandal" in Wikipedia's voice. There's nothing pompous about that; in fact, it ought to grow out of a certain humility about editor fallibility.
You and I largely agree about recentism on Wikipedia. My personal way of dealing with recentism has become one of staying away from topics where it presents a risk. Someone else's problem, not mine. Your mileage may differ.
But I posted the previous comment largely because I feel that this discussion is trending in one direction, and that it would benefit from some push-back. Do I think we should deprecate pay-walled sources? Absolutely not! Frankly, there is something anti-intellectual about the concept: nothing is real unless Google finds it. I still believe in libraries with paper books.
I appreciate that you distinguish between verifiable scientific information and controversial public affairs. Like you, I despair of Wikipedia's ability to adequately deal with the latter. And I agree that clickbait is idiot-bait. (See: I'm repeatedly trying to identify common ground. Perhaps I'm very trying!) I've heard other editors say (I've lost track of who, sorry) that we should move away from characterizing recent events and towards just saying what happened. I like that idea. But I think there's a lot underlying "we tend to accept at face value whatever scandal clickbait media decides to publish". If the claim is that the current consensus is to present clickbait as fact, while a minority of honorable editors are being mistreated, sorry, but I don't accept it on face value. I know that's not what you want to hear from me, but we may have to agree to disagree. (As I write this, I'm hearing over the radio that "thousands" have turned out for the Million Moron March I mean Million MAGA March. Yes, that's still where my mind is at, at present. Keep me away from political mainspace content.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The main difference between our perspectives is that I want the full scoop as someone who was trained in old-school journalism when neutrality, accuracy and journalistic ethics meant something unlike what we see today in some of the clickbait opinion journalism - it's day and night - whereas your perspective is more personal, particularly where politics are concerned. I'm not being critical of you, it's your perspective and I respect that, but I don't feel obligated to either share it or agree with it. I also don't harbor any ill-will toward anyone for having a different perspective from my own, but that sentiment isn't always reciprocated. I will joke about any politician at the drop of a hat, I don't care where I am or who I'm talking to, be it Trump or Biden. My Italian Momma, who could be a little crude in her forthrightness, taught me a long time ago that nobody is better than anybody else because we all have to wipe our butt after we take a dump. Talk about humbling...maybe we all need that little reminder from time to time. Atsme💬📧01:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Be sure to get the full scoop! (That's caramel corn, if anyone's wondering... --Tryptofish)
Be careful about looking for a full scoop while wiping your butt!
But seriously, it's certainly a good thing for both of us (and for anyone watching) to respect one another's perspectives even when those perspectives are not shared. You may perhaps want to consider that, whereas from your perspective you are seeking the full scoop (sorry, I can't stop smiling at that one!), other editors who have been in conflict with you (and I don't mean me here) see it as having an idiosyncratic view of what is or is not a reliable source (as Wikipedia defines reliable sources) and that you are too slow to drop the stick (drop the scooper?) when consensus goes against you. I try my level best not to consider myself to have any extra sway about neuroscience content based on my professional background, and I would suggest that your professional journalism background doesn't make your views about journalism any more valid for Wikipedia's purposes than the views of editors who are journalistic laypersons. My sincere advice, but you obviously don't have to take it.
I disagree that my perspective is more (or less) personal than anyone else's (and I think I'm entitled to say when my perspective has been characterized in a way I disagree with). Everyone who cares about public affairs has a personal perspective about it. And if people (or fish) are discussing and expressing personal political perspectives in Wikipedia user space, that's different than expressing it in mainspace or on content noticeboards. And I take very seriously my obligation to set my personal perspectives about politics aside when it's anything reader-facing. As I've now said enough times to fill up multiple scoops, I've been taking the position that editing about American Politics is someone else's problem, not mine. And just prior to my having decided that, our host EEng (this is EEng's talk page, isn't it?) will doubtless remember my taking a "let's not violate BLP over Trump" position here (and here). When it comes to content (and heck, even !Russian hookers), I'd say I've tried pretty hard to set the personal aside. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Tryptofish, it's not unusual to believe that about oneself or one's position - but it works both ways. You said, other editors who have been in conflict with you (and I don't mean me here) see it as having an idiosyncratic view of what is or is not a reliable source. That's expected when the opposition has no other argument to support their position - they target, freeze, personalize & polarize (Alinsky rule #13). And if there's no smoking gun to justify a case at one of the drama boards, they plant one by prepending every diff with an aspersion knowing that few, if any, admins/arbs will actually read the diffs in context, if at all. I have dared to cite PAGs that support my position whereas the opposition argues their respective opinions which typically align with the majority. Today's prevailing attitude is that left-leaning news sources are more reliable. Sorry, but I disagree with the whole RSP rating system - it is flawed. ALL news sources should be approached with caution because they all contribute to issues relative to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. Journalists are not scholars. The alliances/loyalties that grew from some of the older news sources still remain, but now that we have the internet, more people are being exposed to the same facts but from different media perspectives. You can believe one perspective is more reliable than another but that doesn't make it so - only corroborated, verifiable facts matter. Surely we can agree that the bias on WP leans left, and that left-leaning editors are equally as aggressive as their opposition but left-leaning editors have more protection because of the sheer numbers, especially when like minded admins are editing side by side with them in a like-minded majority. Don't Stop The Carnival!
Let's say we're doing damage control and we come across the research conducted by The Critic, or we read our own ideological bias on Wikipedia and cited sources, and we are already aware of the hegemony of the asshole consensus, and WP:RSP. What do you think we should do when we read all the online media criticism about WP? Simply ignore it? Just today I Googled criticisms +Wikipedia, and came across this article, (a source I'm not familiar with), but out of curiosity I looked at RSP and confirmed that it was indeed deprecated. There was an RfC and another brief discussion at WP:RSN. Soooo...what are your thoughts about it? Oh, and before I forget (a simple FYI), I also participated in that same DYK discussion that you provided diffs to above. My diffs are here,here,here, and here.Atsme💬📧19:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Atsme. Just quickly about your last point, about the DYK discussion, yes I know that you participated there too. My reason for linking to my own participation in it was in regards to the fact that, despite my rather unambiguous personal views about Trump, when I took part in a discussion about something referring to him that would appear on the main page, I set aside my personal views and took the position that we needed to be meticulous about BLP and not imply anything about him that was unsubstantiated.
As for the rest, I really don't want to get into further discussion about it. I understand what you are saying and I'm confident that you understand what I am saying. Let's please leave it at that. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh my!
"I need a Cure"
I get an email notice about an event - the headline reads:
You said I could notify 15. I said 14 to be equal, but I figure you're about as neutral as they come so you're the 15th. I don't expect you to say anything, but if you do I expect it to be funny. Roy McCoy (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
If I come up with any zingers I'll be happy to share them, but don't hold your breath. There's not a lot of available raw material in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Here's a free sample:
"I demolish your reasoning" or "Your argument collapses"
EEng—could take a look a the last half dozen edits at Malcolm X? I don't think I am getting through to User talk:Desslock97 whom seems to be tightly focussed on inserting a Malcolm quote into an irrelevant section of the article that concerns his separation from the Nation of Islam. I've tried an edit summary on my revert plus two posts on the users talk page. The user's latest attempt adds a new subsection and text unsupported by the accompanying ref—interrupting the flow even more. Suggestions welcome—or perhaps a touch of your humor might work. — Neonorange (Phil) 14:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the incisive intervention. I tend to make my explanations too specific—leading to, well, you know, lawyering. — Neonorange (Phil) 22:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I stated on my talk page I was willing to move it to a different section or add it in some way into the article. I don't agree that it should just be outright removed, considering it has multiple credible sources (huffpost and a .edu website, both which have been used extensively in various wikipeda articles for various people) backing what he said. I don't understand what you mean by that shouldn't be added to the Malcolm X wikipedia page. What he said about media and race should absolutely be included on his wikipedia page. Desslock97 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
What I think you're not getting is that just because something's sourced doesn't mean it should be in the article -- see WP:VNOTSUFF. The section of the article where you keep making the insertion does involve the media, but it's about how the media covered MX, how EM was jealous of that, and so on; MX's thoughts about the role of the media in society has nothing to do with it.Nor does it belong anywhere else in that particular article, which isn't an enumeration of random things MX thought or said. wikiquote:Malcolm_X would be an appropriate place to lodge this material. EEng02:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
UTP fly
Totally unrelated to anything in particular, I vaguely remember seeing a fly image on someone's user talk page once, and on mouse over, it'd move to a different spot (that old gag). I thought it was called "McFly" or something like that, and it was a template, but it's not {{McFly}} and I can't find it now. Anybody remember what I'm talking about? Lev!vich03:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It's kind of weird actually. I've been editing for three days and until this moment no one -- no one -- seems to have noticed or reacted in any way. I mean not a single sign of life. It's like one of those sci fi movies where they board a vast, derelict spaceship and wander the empty halls. It's almost creepy. EEng03:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering about that as well. When I went to post this I had to read through the last few posts here to see if I was doubling up. I am a little surprised there have not been any overblown reverts/threats. In a good way mind you! PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes of course -- good reverts and friendly threats. The article is so stuffed with WP:YOUDONTSAY and WP:CORNCOBS and circumlocution that if I were the suspicious type I might think it was a Republican plot to reduce voter participation by lulling the electorate en masse into a a state of stupor lasting through Election Day. EEng04:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Based on your edit comment when you reverted my edit, I did not realize that you made other changes. I apologize for reverting the rest of your edit. I don't understand what you mean by "please leave this near the bottom of the pile".—Finell19:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I meant that the note about word-or-dash-but-not-both belongs near the end of the list of bulletpoints, not first. EEng22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
DYK for Hope Ryden
On 27 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hope Ryden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before she became an expert on wild animals, Hope Ryden was an international flight attendant and used her long layovers to observe wildlife in Africa and Asia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hope Ryden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hope Ryden), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
OK, EEng, you asked (at ANI: [16]) for me to give you diffs, so here goes. Before anything else, please let me begin by saying that I'm not talking here about stuff that is particularly bad. As I said before over there, I don't see anything that you should be sanctioned for, not by a mile. So this is picky stuff, as opposed to serious complaints, because I don't have any major complaints. So none of this is going to be NPA violations or the like. And please do not feel like you have to defend any of it, because none of it is a big deal. I've been avoiding WP except for where I think I can be helpful in improving the culture of how editors communicate, and that's where this falls, plus, I'm saying all of this to you as a friend. And because I'm not trying very hard, I found these three nitpicks by just scrolling upwards on your talk page.
So, nitpick number one: [17]. I suspect that you were in the right. But referring to someone as "the IP with 80 edits" isn't engaging on the merits of the argument, but rather, WP:BITE. Yes, I know the IP had just elocuted "Don`t go there..it won`t you far on Wikipedia", a brilliant statement if ever there was one. But you didn't prove anything by refuting it. You once made an eightieth edit, and I once did, too. That's what "punching down" is.
Nitpick number two: [18]. It looks to me, again, like you were right, and you were talking to someone who was being told repeatedly by multiple editors that they misunderstood our file policies, and who was doing some WP:IDHT, albeit politely. You called what they had done "sophomoric". Yes, I know that quite a few experienced users said right here in your talk page section that it did not meet the threshold to be a PA. And that's not what I'm claiming it was. But if I say that it was not generous of you to have said it that way, I'm right about that. You aren't required to be generous in that way, and you don't need to. But you also won't be diminished by choosing to be generous that way.
Nitpick number three: [19]. Another in your long and illustrious line of ANI illustrations. Yes, I know that you get "thanks" for them. Yes, I know that I do them all the time in user space (and I did it once at ANI, and have ever since regretted that I did). I don't know much about the editor who needed, um, suction (isn't that another section here?), but I can guess that they were less experienced than you and I are. I wish that you would just stop with those ANI illustrations, entirely.
In none of these instances were you in the wrong. You don't have to do anything I tell you to do here. And, given that it's just a website anyway, it's no big deal. If you want, you can choose to be generous. Or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Just glancing over this I can see it will be an interesting exercise. I suppose I have an unconscious flowchart for response modes, depending on the history of the issue, the other user(s)' history and behavior, the goal, and so on, and it will be fun to try to explicate that using these cases, and (who knows?) maybe modify it. However, it won't be fast. I didn't get much sleep last night because my lumbago was acting up[1] and for the next two weeks I'll be supervising a construction project in my building. Somewhere in there I'll get started, but not today and not tomorrow. Maybe I'll add some cases of my own. EEng21:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
References
^I actually don't know what lumbago is but it sounds like a good excuse.
By all means, sleep on it. And really, it doesn't require any sort of response at all. Certainly not worth an extended discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 made him do it 👿...not directly, but the lockdown has its affects...not unlike cabin fever and it can be worse than alcohol. At least with alcohol, you pass out when you've had too much...but with cabin fever, you get worse and more active over time. The only cure is for Tryptofish to come back to WP, and for EEng to regenerate our round table discussions so he can yell at the kids and tell them to get out of his yard. That will help release some of the pressure cooker frustration he feels and makes it easier to measure one's comments when faced with WP editors who just don't get it. AtsmeTalk📧13:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
And here's the difference: Someone without generosity of spirit would point out that you should have said "effects", but someone with generosity wouldn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmm. And so here we come to the crux of the matter. To me, generosity of spirit would be to have the respect for my visitor to assume (option 1) that she would appreciate help with getting affect versus effect straight, or (if it's just a momentary lapse) that she will get a chuckle out of a little joke I might make exploiting the fact that affect can in fact be a noun; and indeed if you weren't such a shitty prof[1][FBDB] you'd know that a laugh, like almost any form of emotion, helps a lesson sink in. (Fear works too but is harder to induce remotely than it is in the classroom. And the dean has reminded me several times that love is off limits.) An ungenerous spirit would assume (option 2) that Atsme's got a fragile, easily-bruised ego which asks nothing more than to be allowed to spend a lifetime floating in a warm bath of blissful ignorance. Let's ask Atsme which one she is: Option 1 or Option 2. (And please be serious, Atsme. This is actually an important conversation.) EEng20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 lockdown made me do it...or better yet, it was a conservation conversation starter. Whatever, it affected me profoundly; but nowhere near the way it effected EEng. Now...back to your question, surely you know I'd go with Option 1. I'm the Timex that takes a licking and keeps on ticking!Uhm, carry that ball to the finish line carefully. (That didn't help, did it?)AtsmeTalk📧22:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I think that what we have here is an example of how online text humor can be misunderstood. My intention when I wrote that was to make a joke: I was (apparently) implying that it would be kinder not to point out the error – and yet, I was pointing it out. Irony. Now, maybe EEng is calling my bluff, by pretending that he thinks I actually meant what I said, and if so, well played, my little EEng.[2]
But as for good teaching techniques, I was always an enthusiastic practitioner of humor during classes. (When lecturing about opioids, I've been known to imitate a woman having an orgasm.) But – and I have a very big butt – jokes made at a student's expense are most definitely not helpful to learning. Indeed, quite the opposite. Your dean should have told you that. But of course, university administrators are generally nitwits. At least the ones who have any wits at all.
And, since this is an important conversation, that does translate to Wikipedia. Making a joke at the expense of another editor (unless you know that it's someone like Atsme, who will get the joke) can be a rather ungenerous thing to do. (If you've never seen an undergraduate who is furious because they think that you were talking down to them, you are lucky you missed it. Even if you meant well.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Not Atsme, but I'll give an honest answer. I don't mind good-natured pointing out of errors or even good-natured ridicule for errors from someone I believe basically likes and respects me. I don't like seeing people being intentionally hurtful to people they disagree with. I didn't like this but I also didn't like seeing this (third one of many). Both felt unnecessarily mean. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
For the record (and for those too lazy to click), of the two diffs you just gave only the second is by me. As to that one, I believe you're talking about
Oops, I got the wrong part of the diff
where Editor A saidmost editors spend a lot of time on Wikipedia doing something that is of little benefit to themselves
and I said
Change "little benefit to themselves to simply little benefit and the point is well made.
– yes? But that wasn't directed at, or any kind of comment on, Editor A, or even on editors in general (though I can see how it could be misread as that latter, and that's my fault – I myself had to think for a second to reconstruct what I was saying). It was simply a statement that the procedure under discussion is so complex, yet of so little benefit, that only if editors see their work here as useless in general would they bother doing this particular useless thing. So there's nothing mean about it.
Yes, only the second diff is by you, but no, that wasn't the one I didn't love. It was actually a defense of/kind word to me in response to the first diff, by another editor. The thing I objected to was "Don't worry about it, Valereee. The singular of "admin who barely squeaked through RfA" is not "editor whose opinion anyone pays attention to""
To be clear, I sincerely appreciated the defense/kind word. One of the really helpful things men (I don't think I'm assuming) here on WP can do is object to women being pummeled by other men about some stereotyped issue like women being inept at technical things. Not that I'm not that, but it's not because I don't have a penis. It's because YAWN. So I appreciated you coming to my defense. I just didn't like that it was done by making a comment about how difficult that RfA had been. —valereee (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear you don't have a penis, val, but if you need one, there are websites that can help you find one in your local area. E may have a recommendation. I also thought that RFA line violated the below-the-belt and glass-houses rules, a rare yellow card. Lev!vich00:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the acknowledgement about the RfA line. But the sarcasm about supposed penis envy is appalling, sexist, and stupid. Not funny. Valereee, I'm sorry that you were replied to that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Valereee can express herself on this if need be. These days there's entirely too much of people imputing hurt feelings to other people. Jesus Christ on a crutch. EEng19:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I took it as a joke. I didn't read sarcasm or penis envy into it. (In fact I searched the page to see if I'd missed something else. This page has the word penis on it seven times. Now nine.) —valereee (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, thanks, I'm glad that you feel that way. As to the celibate saint on a crutch, regardless of whether or not valereee was offended by it – and I'm glad that she wasn't – I was offended by it, myself. And I still am. I think I have a reasonably good sense of humor. If it was a joke, it wasn't funny, and I'm not the problem here. So if your (EEng's) reaction is to be offended by what I said, as opposed to what I reacted to, then that's the problem. If there is any take-home from this discussion, it's that humor does not always make for a positive contribution to a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Last year you went to bat for an editor who told another editor to go fuck himself with a dildo covered in sandpaper and hot sauce (among other colorful statements), and when the community told you to drop that particular stick, you retired. (Not your current retirement; this was a previous one.) A few days ago you were joking with the rest of us about a child performing oral sex on a priest. When you say you're offended by my joke, you are being completely and totally insincere. Lev!vich21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, you have my prior history wrong on some of those points. But there is a difference here, between those earlier jokes and this one, and it's a pity that what I've been trying to say, very sincerely, isn't getting across. What MPants said was directed at a drive-by IP troll who was spouting Nazi sympathies, and I trust that that would not describe an established female editor. And the Saint John sculpture joking was not directed at any editor (unless that childkneeling person is an editor here). Yes, I have a sense of humor. But humor varies, depending on the target. And you completely and totally do not seem to understand the distinction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is my talk page and I forbid either of you from continuing this branch of the conversation. If you two fell out I don't know what I would do. EEng22:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you. But getting back on topic, I really do hope you will give serious thought to what I said about the targets of humor. Again, I'm not accusing you of anything there, but just passing along what I hope will be useful advice, going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I realize I shouldn't have done it with a lady present, but I feel OK with that being my response to Editor A's Not everybody is as inept as you, and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" (which particularly got my goat because, in fact, the plural of anecdote actually isdata). I felt it was a effective reminder of his responsibility to comport himself in a manner befitting an admin; if you want to hear that I regret it maybe a bit, that's true. I'm not a fucking saint. EEng01:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
User talk:EEng#Warning - A bullshit warning of the kind E often gets, responded-to with an "IP-with-six-edits" comment, then humor being used to diffuse defuse conflict.
My point? Atsme is the only one who appreciates fine poetry. And humor is useful. But then I have a whole thing on my userpage about that, so I'm rather biased on the subject. Lev!vich04:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that a bit of a false dichotomy is being created here. Are we being offered the choice of self-classifying ourselves into exactly one of two categories, one being self-important people who openly prize ignorance, and the other being people who grant advance license to being teased over immaterial typographical errors, even where this might distract from substantive discussions? If that choice were posed to me, my response would be mu, in the sense popularized by Douglas Hofstadter in Gődel, Escher, Bach. I understand the point that EEng is making, but I'm not sure that he is making it affectively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Dichotomy hyperbole obviously.
Not a day goes by that each of doesn't see at least one talk post that distracts from substantive discussion by its unintelligibility, vacuousness, or whatever. By comparison, a little joke at least has some redeeming qualities, for those who choose to let it.
I've placed the nomination on hold. Please ping me at the DYK nomination once the merge discussion has been closed, and I'll restore the tick. Should be a brief wait since there appears to be consensus against the merge. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
So if someone thinks that they see a psychiatrist who isn't really there, does that mean that they actually need a psychiatrist? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This just blew in on the slush pile and I thought it would raise a smile if I reposted it here.
"Dumber than a rock in a toothpick Factory" ie; this is a phrase that was created by myself for saying that someone is unintelligent; not smart; uneducated. this phrase can be used as an insult or a derogatory remark. Use this saying with caution as it will offend and hurt feelings. In fact it could even cause lasting pain an turmoil if not used with extreme caution. But if used in good company this could cause laughter and hilarity and may even cause a peeing incident.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but peeing incidents are unacceptable, unless...by design. I have also concluded that EEng's TP may well be the only true "safe place" to say what one thinks, depending on one's perspective, of course. Atsme👂🏻📧19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to say Denser than a rock in the toothpick factory. The idea being that the density of a rock would stand out against a group of toothpicks in uniform density. In which case it should be "relatively denser". Or perhaps it just sounds silly, and trying to get a discussion out of it here is dumber than a rock in the toothpick factory. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hapless nominator: "Oh no!! What have you done to Grandma?!!" Gleeful closer: "That's the last time she runs for RfA!!"
Personally I would have gone with "blunter than a rock in the toothpick factory". But then folks have often said that I'm "one slab short of a full patio." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
If my grandfather had killed himself, that wouldn't bother me in the least. He died 25 years before I was born. I couldn't care less if he died by autoerotic asphyxiation, Russian roulette, eating Tide pods, falling off a cliff while taking a selfie, or by shooting himself in the heart. What bothers me is that after many years of speaking with people who knew Milman Parry, including Albert Lord, I have been told repeatedly that a) no one who knew him considered suicide a possibility b) there is no evidence that he killed himself (no note, etc.) and c) the basis for the theories about his suicide (that he had been denied promotion at Harvard) have been disproved. I assumed that in editing a Wikipedia page, it was important to remove unfounded speculation and errors. Perhaps I was wrong. Although I do wonder at your need to keep this rumor alive. Perhaps you're just generally pro-gossip?
You're right that Wikipedia strives to avoid unfounded speculation and errors, but what we count as founded is tied to what reliable sources tell us. As you implicitly acknowledge, the idea that Milman Parry may have killed himself is a common one, and since there are sources mentioning the possibility the article cannot simply ignore it.Of course I would very much like to see the treatment of this point improved, but that can only happen if we have more sources, and I haven't been able to find any on my own. Your personal knowledge we can't use, unfortunately – I'm sure you understand. But I'll tell you what, I'll contact some classicists I know to see if they can point me to something. If you know of any sources, please do say. EEng01:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. A biography of Milman Parry is currently in the works, by Robert Kanigel, and an article about his death, by Steven Reece, will be published in the journal, Oral Tradition, this Spring, so there will soon be a great deal of new information available about Milman Parry's life, and his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewFeld (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Well why didn't you say so? I'm sure those new sources will allow us to give this point the high-quality treatment it deserves. So I can attend to that as soon as possible, please drop me a message here the moment either source becomes available. EEng02:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Followup: I'm glad to say that the new sources have made it possible to give a well-founded, comprehensive presentation [20]. EEng18:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
A link
Morning - I was hoping you'd remember a link you posted a while back to a YouTube video showing a group of scholars talking about creating an encyclopedia. I started scrolling your UTP from the rock-toothback discussion back to discussions in Dec 2018 and didn't see it. Perhaps it was in the museum? AtsmeTalk📧13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
"...merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." --Thomas Jefferson
I could not help[CitationNeeded] noticing that your so-called "User Page"[22] mentions a "Cabal".[23]
There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will.
Those are now much improved. To be honest, I'm slightly annoyed at how quickly you were able to improve them, and by how much, but I'll take solace in taking full credit. Re the lawyer one: I think it's a good punchline, but the set-up feels contrived. The idea is the lawyer keeps "appealing" until he gets to the constitution, which he edits. Maybe he should go to different courts? Maybe it should start with the jury being polled and "not a vote"? Maybe the whole joke should be much shorter? Levivich03:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I wasn't planning to get into it, but since we're here I'll tell you what I think needs doing in that joke, though it's not a coherent plan. A successful joke must incorporate some kind of incongruity in the punchline, usually (though not universally) in the form of a reversal or change of point of view. This is partly why jokes so often have three parts: two set a pattern, direction, or point of view, and the third breaks the pattern or reverses the direction. (The desert island / raft joke breaks the "3" mold, but that's OK because part of the joke is the tedious multiple chances we give vandals.) Now I think the right thing to do in the lawyer joke might be to have the judge do all the citing of shortcuts (to set the pattern) and then at the end the lawyer rewrites the book or something and invokes ANYONECANEDIT, thus turning the tables. I don't have the details worked out, and honestly it's a tricky story to sustain unless the ripostes are truly bang-on to the various shortcuts that get cited, but I think that's the right framework. Having said that, the opening call by the lawyer to REVERT the verdict is the best line of the joke, and I don't see offhand how to put that into the mouth of the judge. EEng03:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
What if they both cite shortcuts. What do you think of this, quick and dirty:
Well, that has possibilities, because half of essays and PAGs have a corresponding essay or PAG that tends to say the opposite. They're not all coming to mind though. Here's something:
Jury: The result of the discussion was delete. (Jailify? Levivich)
I like jailify. You take it from here. Let me know when you're ready for me to look again. EEng00:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
"Has the jury reached a verdict?" the judge asks.
"Yes, your honor," the jury foremanperson replies. "The result of the discussion was jailify."
The wikilawyer jumped from his chair. "NOTAVOTE!" The judge shakes her head, "CONSENSUS has been reached."
"REVERT!" exclaims the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "0RR."
"DRV!" the wikilawyer demands. The judge shakes her head, "No FORUMSHOPPING."
"There is NORUSH!" argues the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "The deadline is NOW."
"DTTR!" the wikilawyer asserts. The judge shakes her head, "TTR."
"NOSPADE!" pleads the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "SPADE."
"IAR!" the wikilawyer shouts. The judge shakes her head, "DROPTHESTICK."
"NOTBUREAUCRACY!" retorts the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head and points to a book on her desk, "PAGs."
The wikilawyer grabs the book and tears out all the pages. "ANYONECANEDIT!" he cackles.
"BLOCK!" orders the judge. The court officers to take the wikilawyer into custody.
Seeing the officers occupied, the defendant bolts for the door, yelling, "WP:Wikipedia does not need me!" Levivich02:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Pretty good, Levivich. I think you've pulled it off for this month. But in the future I think it's a bad idea to commit in advance to producing a humor column. I'd suggest making it an "occasional feature", so that when it's ready it's ready. I must say I admire your ability to produce stuff on deadline. I certainly can't do that. EEng03:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
"...if you display any knowledge of our products we'll fire you" made me LOL. Thanks! Do you think you could like, you know... check my contribs every day and just follow behind me and improve everything I do? Can I send you some work emails to look at before I send them out? Levivich20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as the world's most petulant grave sparked off an almighty thread about sewer lions, have a couple more oddities I found while transferring assorted clutter to Commons from the smouldering wreckage of Flickr. Zoom in to read the inscriptions. ‑ Iridescent17:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
A complaint about that M2HSS section (well, aside from the one about your support for that crank who demanded it be retitled away from "list of…" because it needed a standalone article and then never bothered to actually write said article, so we're now left with an "article" that has no text whatsoever other than the existing brief summary of the parent article); the quaint identification of the actors' stations in life wasn't some kind of quaint Victorian snobbery, but was done very explicitly by Watts to make it clear that people from all walks of life were equally capable of doing good deeds—a very radical sentiment for the time, when the two main schools of thought were one-nation toryism ("well-educated people have a duty to do great deeds, because the great unwashed are too stupid to do them for themselves") or proto-socialism ("the rich are all crooked and in it for themselves or they wouldn't be rich, so only the poor are capable of decency"). I do keep meaning to get around to doing Watts's biography—he was a fascinating character who pretty much invented radical chic a century early, as well as the guy who Barack Obama cites as his reason for entering politics (all that "Hope" stuff was explicitly a reference to Hope (painting), even if hardly anyone got the reference)—but that's another of those articles that's in such a poor state it would need a complete nuke-and-rewrite and consequently treading on multiple toes. ‑ Iridescent16:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've never been a fan of the article–list distinction anyway, but I will eagerly support you in whatever reform you propose on that score. If you need any help getting obscure sources on Watts (there certainly are a lot) let me know. I did not know about Hope -- interesting. EEng17:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a lot more stacked up to do before I even consider Watts (although I may do some of the more interesting paintings; at the moment we have an odd situation where Hope, Mammon and After the Deluge are at FA quality and everything else is a redlink). If I go back to doing biographies (I don't really like writing them) Zachariah Pearson and Albert Joseph Moore, two Victorian chancers who deserve better coverage than their current atrocious articles, will probably be next.
It's not the article/list distinction that's the issue; it's the fact that the list was intentionally on a subpage so people wanting to read about it would be directed to the page that actually has the story of the monument on it (the histories of the park and the memorial are inseparable, as the former was created to accommodate the latter), but because the redirect has been deleted and the list moved over it, anyone searching for the memorial (thanks to Closer there's a slow but steady stream) now lands directly on the list subpage and assumes that Wikipedia doesn't have anything to say about the topic. ‑ Iridescent17:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I visualized this not as a competition, but rather a teaming of complementary collections (British and American). Since I'm at Harvard several times a week it's especially convenient for me, and their stacks are open so I can skim unlimited numbers books and journals for relevant material. Two other points: I wonder if your relationship with BL gives you online access to all their journals, as I have through Harvard (e.g. [27]); and (and it really pains me to say this) I spent a substantial amount of time at BL some time ago and was shocked -- SHOCKED! at the really low quality of the research staff there. I mean astounded. EEng18:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I try to stay out of American politics articles because sooner or later someone will drag in my talk page and there will be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair. But I think I saw my notes on useful idiot the other day. EEng04:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Image
Hope you don't mind, but I removed the porta potty image from the ANI thread with my name in it. I don't feel it's fair for the thread which is about me to have this image in it, and could have an effect of subtly serving to portray me in a negative manner. Hope you understand. North America100009:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This pioneering attempt at a wooden gravestone dating from the early 1970s reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on what it is. Are you able to help? ‑ Iridescent15:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
"In loving memory of GEORGE HARRISON who died in great agony ... aged 5 1/2 years ... Also SARAH HARRISON grandma of the above who died after long suffering ..." YIKES!I saw a very touching marker the other day in St. Paul's Chapel, NYC:
Beneath the Altar of this Church are deposited the Remains of Mrs ELIZABETH FRANKLIN, Wife of His Excellency WILLIAM FRANKLIN Esq: late Governor under His Brittanick Majesty, of the Province of New Jersey.Compelled, by the adverse circumstances of the Times, to depart from the Husband she loved, and at length deprived of the soothing hope of his speedy Return, she sunk under accumulated Distresses and departed this Life on the on 28th Day of July 1778, in the 49th Year of her Age.SINCERITY and SENSIBILITY POLITENESS and AFFABILITY GODLINESS and CHARITY Were, with SENSE refined and PERSON elegant, in her UNITED.From a grateful Remembrance of her affectionate Tenderness and constant Performance of all the duties of a GOOD WIFE, this Monument is erected in the Year 1787, by Him who knew her Worth, and still laments her Loss.
Grave of John Renie. If you're confused, start with the large H in the center and head out in any direction.
There's probably a decent book—or essay at least—to be written on why pre-industrial England (and the assorted other nations in its sphere), and the late-Victorian death cult, produced such peculiar graves among the middle and upper-middle classes to an extent that was never replicated anywhere else or in any other period. When it comes to truly weird gravestones, the undisputed champion is that of John Renie, in the otherwise totally godforsaken town of Monmouth. ‑ Iridescent19:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 1101.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. InterstellarityT 🌟 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I want to thank you on EEng's behalf for providing him with this helpful advice. Since he is a new editor at Wikipedia, I'm sure that he has never heard any of that before. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Mail, with a SASE, a 64 GByte thumb drive, to EEng, requesting the most up-to-date version of this talk page. Should 64 GBytes be insufficient, a 120 Gbyte solid-state drive will do. Before chosing your media, check the current page size.
[28] Mostly, I'm annoyed by the reverts. Consensus position here is not yours, so if you really think it belongs, get some people together to agree with you instead. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
In articles, where there's doubt about inclusion of material the consensus principle calls for exclusion by default in the absence of agreement. On talk pages the reverse is true: within very wide bounds the default is to retain things, and the only person who seems to actually object can't formulate what his objection is [29]. There Izno tedious pun on your username coming to mind just now so we'll have to leave that for another time. EEng15:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Quoting EEng, June 14, 2019
“I actually know ... well, not everything, but I know what it is I know, and I know this.“
And that quote inspired me to add a self-quote:
"I don’t know how much I don’t know because there’s no way to gage how much I don’t know when I don’t know what it is I don’t know, so stop telling me I should've known. And then comes the day you finally realize you don't know shit." AtsmeTalk📧 12:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Much appreciated. It's clear some people are having trouble respecting others' talk page contributions, so this should help. EEng02:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't think of any betters lines myself, but hopefully something will come to me before NYB's limerick contest starts. I think there is a joke in here, though, about the WMF's "light touch" nearly bringing down the house. Something like The WMF released a new tool for laser-focused, surgical interventions. It's a less drastic version of the global indef ban. It can be limited in time, it can be limited to a specific project, and it only removes from that project the target user and three bureaucrats, two interface admins, two global renamers, a template editor, twenty-four administrators and a couple dozen veteran editors.– Levivich03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You know I tried to get to the white house on a self guided tour months ago ~ all I got was a letter ~ REQUEST DENIED ~ it's true ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim, um, well, I'll do my best to help. I suspect the glitterati assembled here will offer their wisdom as well. Or, if it's your idea to send me an email, I prefer not interact off-wiki unless there's a really good reason; you can do that but I'm likely to keep our interaction to the minimum necessary to help you decide what to do. EEng04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
| | | | | | <-- in case you need more pipes, Dlohcierekim. It's uppercase back slash (Mac keyboard), but you must've known back slash is what you'd get before you came here. AtsmeTalk📧21:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim: You must have stalked me for more than a week to catch me posting a comment in response to QuackGuru not realizing that I have a longer history on that page than the editor you're accusing me to stalk. I don't have much time and nerve for things like that so again I'm just kindly asking you to cut it out and let be. I don't appreciate your threats and the harm it is doing to my personal well being.--TMCk (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You know I went to a swimming hole ~ just the other day ~ hole ~ the water looks nice and refreshing ~ on a hot summer day ~ until you jump in ~ and find out it's spring fed' and 56° ~mitch~ (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Mitchellhobbs - are you an enterprising WP editor? If yes, and you're swimming in Hamilton Pool, then you're close enough to recruit. I've been trying to round-up some WP editors to help me start a WP Group or Chapter (was advised to start with a group). Any interest or know others who might be? AtsmeTalk📧03:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eeng: Hah! I wish. To continue the "pool" motif, we've jumped in at the shallow end, struck our head on the bottom, and swum, dazed as it were, to the deep end. Now foundering but for the help of a whiz with an ice bucket. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Atsme Hmm ` I don't know if I am a enterprising WP editor ~ I do let my girls use my computer some times ` why what did you have in mind ~ I don't go to Hamilton pool very often it's kind of out of the way ~ I find myself closer to Mills pond ~ I have to give the water a chance to warm up a little ~ I guess by the time Saturday rolls around I will grab my bottle of Olay ~ sun screen ~ it seems to work pretty good ~ and the girls seem to laugh historically when I go in for my weekly dip ~ so hey I'm up ~ what do I have to do ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we know you're clever, EE, but for you to take prime space at the top of a discussion to insert your witty cartoons is not OK; just annoying. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
One must consider the possibility that the presence of an eyesore may produce a significant negative impact on the value of any real estate and adversely deprecate its resale value, thus lowering "prime real estate" to "not-so-prime-as-it-once-was real estate".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
A whole fucking month! Wow! You can imagine how I felt when my uncontroversial work of the last four years was used as reason to try to indef block me. And all you did was post your stupid little cartoons instead of looking at the evidence or shutting the fuck up. Practice what you preach, man. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I guess. They already let me off with "no collusion, no obstruction"; in other words, not exonerated and with the cloud of BMK still hanging over me. Per not taking sides, see my remarks there about neutrality cowardice. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Archives!? We ain't got no stinkin' archives!-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
I don't mean to be a bit rude, but your talk page is a bit annoying to scan through, maybe you can fix it? Cheers! Govvy (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Research shows that 15% of it is people asking me to archive. Now and then I do make a pass. EEng12:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As to me, I actually appreciate its length. It doesn't load instantaneously, which forces me to slow down when reading stuff on my watchlist. It's a reminder to savor every moment in life, and to appreciate the fact that I don't have to use a dial-up modem anymore. I praise the length of this page! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please, EEng, archive this talk page. It's hilarious if you're on a fast connection; otherwise it won't load, and is quite aggravating. It also isn't particularly fair to people who may want to contact you. Make your userpage as long as you want, because nobody's required to look at that; but this page needs to be usable. Vanamonde (Talk)15:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Simple solution...User talk:EEng1, User talk:EEng2 and so on...that way, it's non-stop entertainment with user determined breaks inbetween. AtsmeTalk📧20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, as a fan of heartthrobs Jeff Goldblum, David Copperfield, Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, Yule Brenner, Chuck Connors, Richard Boone, and Mr. Peepers, mention of the BLP vio unchained me. AtsmeTalk📧23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It is really really tempting to make an article cygnis insignis explaining that it is the motto of Western Australia, is intended to mean "noted for swans", and is in some sense a pun or at least a rhyme. I imagine that our local only-for-the-birds editor has some connection to WA. I suppose I can at least add a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Once you've cleaned up the Moors, perhaps you could take a fine-toothed comb to this for sourcing/content mismatch.-- Dlohcierekim08:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my friend, I overlooked this until now. Moors will take at least another six months of hard work -- and that's if other stuff doesn't come up, which it already has -- so I'm afraid I'll be unable to help with Mr. Null. EEng22:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Templating a regular
Welcome!
Hizzles EEng/Archive 13, n welcome ta wikipedia! thizzanx fo` yo contribizzles . Slap ya self. i hizzy you like tha place n decide ta stay fo' sho'. Here is a few good links fo` newcoma:
I hope you enjoy perpetratin' here n being a Wikipizzedian! Pleaze sign yo name on rap pages using four tildes (~~~~), o' just three (~~~); this will automatically produce yo name n tha date fo' sheezy. If you need help, chizzay out Qizzles ask me on mah rap page, or place {{helpme}} on yo rap pizzle n someone wizzle show up shortly ta brotha yo questions. Again, welcome ta this plizace!
Every few days I think about the four sock puppet accounts that were created to assert that a 14th-century medieval composer and poet was scared of water. Is this EEng level of humor? I feel distraught that the world does not know the truth of what occurred... is Machaut really scared of water? Are you scared of water... am I? Maybe the truth is that we're all scared of water? I wonder if that posture has something to do with it... Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the way I see it the guy's either on the verge of belching or is miming that he has heartburn. Otherwise, to be honest, I can make neither heads nor tails of what you're saying. EEng00:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
ShoeHorn. Not sure why this would ever be used in concert with a shoe, unless you're a clown... CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓
Regarding shoehorning, if you really want to shoehorn images in without making the page an unreadable mess of randomly placed images and big swathes of whitespace for anyone using a wide monitor or a small font size, the little-used {{tall image}} template is your friend, which makes big images into independently-scrollable entities within their own little boxes. (See the map at Brill Tramway#Metropolitan Railway takeover for an example of it in action.) ‑ Iridescent15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The entire website looks like shit on a wide monitor or in small font size. You'd think 100 million dollars would be enough to figure out how to use a centered div. FWIW, any and all time spent either adjusting layout on a Wikipedia article to "look good", or arguing about what "looks good", is entirely and completely wasted, because whatever adjustments are made to make it "look good" will look completely different to another person using a different device, screen, resolution, operating system, browser, skin, font, or font size, among other variables. Levivich[dubious – discuss]16:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sure, but there are some obvious things that are universal truths in web design, and "if you stack a lot of tall narrow images, you're either going to end up with images appearing in the wrong section, or you're going to have to insert a division break which means the images will trail off into a mass of white space" is about as close to a fundamental law as it gets. It's particularly so in the case of Wikipedia, since (a) there's very vocal opposition to a maximum column width for body text so that's unlikely ever to happen, (b) we need to cater for readers on all sizes of display, from 4-inch first generation smartphones to 5120px-width professional DTP setups, and (c) we periodically increase the default value for upright=1 and we haven't done so for a while so are likely to do so again fairly soon. (At the time of writing, Phineas Gage averages 1214 views-per-day on the mobile site and only 879 views-per-day on the desktop site. Try opening it on your phone and tell me if you think the way the images currently render makes it unreadable.) ‑ Iridescent17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, but your universal truth only holds if you preface it with "For some sufficiently wide window size, ...". It's not possible, with the tools we have, to make articles look good at all window widths, so choices have to be made. Which image(s) do you think should use {tall image}? And why should the great majority of readers, who use reasonable window widths, see that/those image(s) through a peephole so that owners of giant screens will be spared the annoyance of some vertical whitespace? There's a perfectly adequate solution for them anyway, which is to open the article in a window of reasonable width, and use the rest of their beautiful huge screen for your email and so on.Re phones, on my iPhone 7 + Chrome the article looks just fine in both mobile format and desktop format. If your're talking about WP:SANDWICH, in desktop format there are about 40 lines (out of about 1000 lines total in the article) that are squeezed between an img on the left and one on the right, but those are in small runs of 5-10 lines at a time so it's not particularly unattractive. That's with thumb default (upright=1) set to 220px. At thumb size 300px, because of the complicated way stuff shifts around when img widths change, the amount of squeezed text drops to just 2 runs of 10, so it's actually better. These discussions are always complicated by the variety of platforms the discussants are using, but for the moment I really don't know what you mean about problems on phones.Meanwhile, I think I know what you mean by a maximum column width for body text but can you clarify? EEng22:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I meant to mention that I recognize that the article is approaching the image density at which it risks collapsing in on itself like a neutron star, but I couldn't resist tempting fate by adding one more. (Forgot to ping Arid Desiccant.) EEng01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
See right—these are all screenshots in the WMF default mobile view (i.e., what someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor and consequently doesn't have any display preferences set will see if they google "Phineas Gage" on their phone). The combination of multiple objects at differing forced widths and the quirks of the Minerva skin which we force on non-logged-in editors (who constitute 99.9% of our readership) is both creating display goofiness such as single-word or even single-character columns where the software gets confused trying to wrap text, and big chunks of whitespace with objects floating detached. Because editors are almost always working in the desktop editor in either the Vector or Monobook skins, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the majority of pageviews are in the godawful Minerva skin on phones—these screenshots represent what the article looks like to more than half its readers.
By "maximum column width for body text" I mean the perennial proposal to limit the desktop display to a maximum width with the rest of wide screens filled with white space or optional sidebars—as almost every other "primarily text-based but with some images" website in the world does—so situations like Image:Gage screenshot 6.png don't arise on wide monitors, . The WMF have been trying (correctly) to impose this particular change since some point around the Dawn of Time, but it's always shouted down by the "waaah, this would be a change and change is always bad, and even if it's a good change the fact that the WMF is imposing it is a violation of our rights and must be resisted at all costs" contingent. ‑ Iridescent08:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
In pre-phone days, I ran into this sort of problem with my personal website. Even then different monitors should have this sort of problem. Fixed it by setting a max screen width
Turning the phone sideways makes the formatting equally goofy, albeit in different ways, as the software tries to wrap the text around different entities at differing sizes. It's hard to overstate just how much of a botch-job Minerva is. (It's not really the developers' fault—in 2007 when the iPhone was launched Wikipedia already had millions of articles, all of which had been written on the assumption that nobody would ever see them in any format other than on desktop monitors or as printouts, and the developers were forced to come up with something that would display them on tiny screens without either rendering the page totally unreadable, or crashing Apple and Samsung's shitty proprietary browsers completely.) ‑ Iridescent14:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The file description for that latest screenshot says mobile view, but in fact it's desktop view (on a phone), correct? EEng15:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Nope, that's mobile view with the phone turned sideways (you can tell when you're in mobile view, as desktop view has the space to the left beneath the sidebar). In the desktop view in Vector (the default which a mobile user will get if they google "Phineas Gage" and then select "show desktop site") the page displays more-or-less as it should—this is the same section in in Desktop view with every other setting left unchanged. Unfortunately there's no way for a reader on a mobile device to set desktop view as the Wikipedia default—the next time you open your browser Wikipedia will revert to Minerva—so one has to work on the assumption that every reader who visits a page on a mobile device, will be served with the mobile site. The pageview figures back that up—you can check for yourself in the pageviews tab in history to see that each day about 1200 readers get the page in Minerva, and only about 800 in one of the desktop views. ‑ Iridescent17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC))
OK. I'm very interested in fixing any issues that manifest on particular platforms, but please stop saying that X is what half of readers see and so on. It's not. On my phone (iPhone 7 + Chrome, as noted, but actually I've checked several others' iPhones -- different models and various browsers) none of these things you're exhibiting are present. It looks like you've got an Android, and that Android (or some version of Android, or some version of Android with some browser or browsers) is particularly brain dead on some aspects of web page rendering. I mean, look at your first screenshot above (File:Gage_screenshot_5.jpg, Theoretical misuse) -- how stupid does a browser have to be to run a word down the margin one letter at a time? I notice all your screenshots involve quote boxes, so it seems there's something about quote boxes (as opposed to other floating content e.g. images) that interacts badly with Android. Whether that's the fault of the quote box coding, or of Android, I don't know.
With some fiddling on window width, however, I was able get to get the mobile view to display on my laptop in something like what I see in your File:Gage screenshot 7.jpg. Based on what I saw in that rendering, I made a number of.. shall we say.. heroic formatting changes which may perhaps relieve some of the issues you're seeing (in landscape, at least -- if things are OK in landscape I'm really not worried about portrait). I'd really appreciate your letting me know. I'm very interested in this but unfortunately none of my neighbors has with an Android. EEng17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor who knows I have a Google Pixel 3a asked me to take a look at the page for Phineas Gage. As of right now, the page looks OK on my Android until I scroll down to the heading "Chile and Californa (1852-1860) whereupon it looks like some of the ugly pictures in the margin of this talk page. (I took a screenshot, but don't want to deal with the wikipedia red tape to upload it here.) I didn't check for more display weirdness beyond that heading.
Ping Kobnach. Oh, and does it always somehow involve a quote box, as seems the case in all of Iridescent's screenshots seen in this section? Or does it also happy with images when there's no quote box involved? EEng14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
On a skim-through, in mobile view on the stock Chrome browser (the view seen by most mobile views, given Android's dominance of the smartphone market in English-speaking countries and the general reluctance of most people to use anything other than the stock apps; 70% of desktop views and 60% of mobile views is the usual accepted figure for Chrome):
The word-wrapping problems seem confined to quote boxes (I imagine because the browser handles them differently). It's happening with both left-aligned (e.g. the "Chile and California" section) and right-aligned (e.g. "Theoretical misuse").
Turning the phone sideways so it's in landscape mode solves the "wrapping around quote boxes" issues, but causes a different issue with inline quotations using the {{quote}} template when it's used near images. Because text in the quote template doesn't wrap but is instead constrained in an invisible rectangle defined by other nearby objects, the quotations display as a long narrow strip. This doesn't make the page unreadable, just unsightly, so I wouldn't consider it a major issue, but it's something to be aware of.
While it doesn't cause problems with wrapping, because mobile view generally defaults to showing images centered rather than alongside the text, it makes the display a bit weird, particularly in sections like "life" which include a lot of tall thin images; it to the reader it looks like a long parade of centered images surrounded by whitespace, interspersed with the occasional paragraph of text. (Which brings us back to where I came in; MediaWiki, in both desktop and mobile view, does not like tall thin images).
Because the majority of readers are seeing Shitty Mobile View rather than the desktop site, making the mobile view less unpleasant for readers is something the WMF do take seriously. User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (and possibly User:Isarra) are much better placed than me to talk about what's actually being done to try to address the problems with SMV; I have no input at all into its design and my interaction with it is limited to variations on "if you make a significant change to the layout check it looks OK on the mobile site otherwise you'll have an endless stream of good-faith IPs trying to fix what appears to them as an error". ‑ Iridescent08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Well to repeat again, I use Chrome as well but see none of the problems you're getting, probably because I'm in iPhone instead of Android. I'd be thrilled for the article to be used as a vehicle for either improving the way pages are rendered to the browser (including, as with e.g. quote boxes, fixing whatever it is about the way they're coded that causes such phenomena), or for developing recommendations for ways to code pages to avoid or ameliorate these problems, but beyond that I don't know what else I can do. EEng13:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
About 40% of page views are on the desktop site. Everything else is either mobile web (~57%, and up during the last few months) or the apps (a couple of percentage points). Because mobile users have a lower number of pages-per-session, that's probably more than 60% of readers.
AFAICT the design team is mostly working on mw:Desktop improvements at the moment, and will pick up general mobile work again later. My bet is that they'll want to settle the transition away from OOUI first. (Anything you see about Vue.js is related to that. OOUI is the thing that brought us the Big Blue Button and "oversized" (fingertip-sized) tick boxes. Vue.js will not take those away.)
The big things are already pretty well known, and they're not things that can be fixed in software. There is no good way to display a 10-column table on a screen that is smaller than a dollar bill/pound note, and the best solution to their display is to not put a bunch of wide tables in articles. {{Episode list}} is on thousands of pages, and will always be hard to read on a smartphone. Fixing that requires redesigning the template, which requires editors who are willing to develop a consensus in favor of legibility and accessibility instead of the way we've always done it. It probably wouldn't be hard to redesign it as a vertical list, but getting the change implemented would require a lot of effort. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
WAID is more or less correct (though I might dispute particulars).
We've had some of the technologies (WP:TemplateStyles, and generically our sitewide skinning systems) that would correct the images above for some time. Offending templates probably need someone to show up on the associated talk pages and make a reasonable 'complaint' as to the offensiveness of their display (for example, {{quote box}} could be 100% width for displays less than 500 px). For things like <blockquote>, a task on Phab or adding a rule for a clear above the tag to MediaWiki:Mobile.css/MediaWiki:Minerva.css would be preferable and can be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Common.css or at WP:VPT or on Phabricator. (Aside: Please engage on Phabricator.)
There maybe needs to be a little give and take on some aspects. Should we allow all users to specify a width in all template invocations these days? I'm not sure. I want it "just so" on my display doesn't work for some things like width below a certain resolution, so allowing someone to set width in the template? (Because the alternative is to use !important in the TemplateStyles CSS, and that kills all personal customization you might want in your personal CSS at that point stone-dead due to the order in which MediaWiki adds styling to its output HTML.) There's also some give and take about what browsers can support. For example, I made a change today to a template to add CSS that is only supported for 95% of readers. Should I be responsible for the other 5% having the exact-same display and a beautiful page? I don't know. (I do know that Edkoter prior to his flameout cared about the 99.99% or something dumb like that.) Consider for example what happened when we attempted to fix this exact problem on the main page in February(1) or an earlier attempt in 2018(2).
One thing you can do to find where the messes are more easily is just to use a skin that isn't Vector or Monobook on all platforms you use Wikipedia on, which I think leaves Minerva and Timeless (and Modern but we don't talk about that one anyway). (These skins were not designed to be responsive. When patches were provided recently to make them so, at least one community member objected saying that it would be disruptive, essentially killing that effort.)
Sorry if this Izno beautiful prose. If there's a specific change you want to a template, please feel free to ping me or another of our HTML/CSS/Lua-minded admins or template editors to a template talk page and I can see if I can hack it. --Izno (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the time you took to respond but -- no doubt because of my complete ignorance of all this newfangled interweb stuff -- I'm puzzled by some of what you're saying. Since the vast majority of readers are not logged in, how can the choice of skins come into it? What am I missing?And I simply don't understand why fixing the awful formatting near quote boxes is hard. Why can't they be made to behave exactly like images, which don't manifest these problems? EEng02:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I assert(ed) positively, if not clearly, that I think quote boxes can be fixed, but that it just requires some attention to the template in question. (And some discussion about how the template should act at which resolutions, and some discussion about whether users should get to be arbitrary in how they use the templates on specific pages, among concerns of usability for savvy-CSS users.)
Digression: In case it wasn't clear earlier, the reason we couldn't make these fixes before TemplateStyles (which are reasonably new but not really now) is that we did not have access to CSS media queries at a per-template level, so the best we could do was make templates as responsive as possible with inline CSS, or put CSS into the site stylesheets. (The latter is just a bad option for templates which are not widely used enough to accept the associated performance penalties.) For example, with quote box, with inline CSS you can either choose to make it 100% width always or you can make it 100px always, but not both varying on some other factor. Another issue plaguing all web developers is that web browsers have not advanced at the same rate, and even with consistent feature sets do not have a standardized implementation (only the API defined by the CSS specifications), as evidenced by the fact you can't see the problems above with iPhone and Chrome.
how can the choice of skins come into it Well, the 60% on mobile see Minerva, so there is an obvious pro there for using that skin in that you-as-an-editor will [probably] see such issues directly and can know to fix them or alert others. (Of course, Minerva has some harsh cons for editors.) The 40% on desktop see Vector, but if you're on desktop you're probably going to miss these issues because your screen has the resolution for it. You-as-an-editor can choose to use those skins on the other form factor and then you might get a sense of how we haven't adjusted to the mobile world (and should have, it's just the same Not Enough [Knowing] Volunteers problem at the end of the day). I happen to use Timeless, so I bump into broken stuff regularly and just haven't self-motivated to fix it since I know it's not used by the masses. Infoboxes for example will sometimes show the highlighted issues on Timeless, as will quote boxes and some images and sidebars (but not on Minerva, where the skin takes care of it [and probably shouldn't--separation of concerns lines]). --Izno (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I think my dim brain is just beginning to grasp -- tell me if this isn't right -- that different platforms select different skins without the user having to log in or indeed do anything. Suddenly a lot makes more sense. So tell me this, in clear terms for my little brain: I'm not committed enough to go switching skins all the time to check things, but if I had to pick one skin to set my preferences too, which would be the best vehicle for me to do the greatest good for the greatest number, what skin would that be? (I use either Windows 10 + Chrome or iPhone 7 + Chrome).As mentioned before, I'm happy for the article to be used as a poster boy for a complex, dense layout that stresses the system, and to participate in experiments in improving things. And with that I think there Inzo need to take up any more of your time at present. EEng03:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Different platforms: Almost. Any mobile domain (that's https://lang'''.m'''.wiki*.org) will provide Minerva and any desktop domain (that's http://lang.wiki*.org) will provide Vector to the user who has not logged in. Minerva is the default skin on mobile even if you are logged in on mobile, though you can force it to your selected skin by moving to the other domain (for which there is a "Desktop" link at the bottom of the page, or you can remove the .m from the address bar).
I think you can best get a sense of what's going on by setting your skin to Minerva or Timeless. The former comes with pain for editors: a lot of the bells and whistles you have scripts for you probably will not be able to access (for example, I can neither use TW nor move a page trivially in Minerva; you will surely see other scripts you use missing). The latter has a little bit of that but more likely will throw you off because it has anywhere from 1 to 3 layouts depending on resolution as well as a fixed-width content display (the fixed-width idea is the same as in Minerva).
If you find you can't get over the chasm of one of those two skins, you can still stick to your current skin and then switch into those by adding ?useskin=minerva or ?useskin=timeless at any time (I use a separate script that keeps me in those skins if I decide I want to leave the page I'm currently on--that's the badly named persistentParams).
There is a corresponding "Mobile" view link at the bottom of the page if you want to flip back and forth.
There is the final option of fixing the content width of your current skin as well (Vector, Modern, Monobook) to some reasonable (or perhaps unreasonable) width, to get the Vector tools with a Minerva-on-desktop feel. --Izno (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I've been trying Minerva and Timeless as you suggested and now I'm more confused than ever. Everything looks absolutely awful in those skins on my laptop, whether desktop or mobile is selected; and on my phone, I can't sort out what I'm seeing between which skin I've selected, whether I'm seeing mobile or desktop mode, and of course there's portrait vs. landscape. And I spent a good deal of time, at a number of different articles, trying to get a handle on what selection is causing what. So I'm afraid I'm giving up for now. Here's what I know: <and at this point it appears I fell asleep at the keyboard...> EEng'
I was assuming that was some intentional piece of symbolism and you were meaning to say you knew no more about the subject than when you started. ‑ Iridescent07:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The solemnity of the encyclopedia versus the enjoyment of editing
Natureium, you got it wrong. These are not comparison articles, and if you think they are and try to move them or make them a comparison, you will be yelled at. These are explicitly articles of original research and synthesis on who would win in a fight. Since coke, pepsi, common law, and civil law cannot fight, they should not have articles about this. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm being dead serious. See the mission of the original creator which has been fervently followed for the last decade. It should have been deleted many times but it's an ARS member's pet article so it isn't. But don't take my word for it just ask one of the regulars in the last RM "Lion vs Tiger" or "Tiger vs Lion" is basically overall a hypothetical match between the two animals and who would essentially win, and is an iconic name for the debate. (diff).I've long held it is the worst article on Wikipedia and should be deleted, but until it eventually is it is useful for amusement. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's the clearest winner for the next article of this class. There likely is ample sourcing so a true original research synthesis of who would win a hypothetical rematch between the Titanic and the iceberg under different conditions would be possible, and that's a defining characteristic of our animal fight articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems the coronavirus is resistant to exploding limousine after all, but that rabid wolverine on the horizon is a whole other level of hardcore, I wish it the best in its future endeavours (a real shame about that poor leopard, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on here or why, but I took the liberty of assaulting the coronavirus backstage, so flu advances by countout. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there some way to augment the bracketing to show the winner of the finals going on to a special bout against the reigning chamption, Donald Trump? I think Iceberg v. Trump or Civil law v. Trump have a lot of revenue potential, pay-per-view–wise. (Note proper use of hyphens and endash.) EEng23:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I was careful, I chose the one wrestler general audiences could see legit knocking out that great white hopeful, EEng's buyrate will thank me later, trust me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
You're going to need a tech person for that. Also I noticed no one has dared to declare a winner between WMF and ArbCom. Natureium (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
In the same spirit of grim resignation and plot expediency, I put the 99% over the 1%. Regardless of our valid first-round feelings, everyone knows horseducks AND duckhorses do the job for bearsharks OR sharkbears. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Due to neither the bear nor shark willing to enter the shoreline to contest each other, Cher advances to represent their amalgamation, despite protests of Bark. --A D Monroe III(talk)01:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Presuming we're still hosted in Florida, the wolverine is considered a Class II wildman, so just needs a simple permit to publicly perform. The permit requirements are unfairly complicated, so we can (probably) waive, skirt or ignore them. The thing to know is tigers are flat prohibited in the Wang State, especially those who just tore through enough cocaine to disincarnate Brock Lesnar, so if Common Law Jones somehow nullifies or voids the naturally-psychotic cuddlebunny, it's a cakewalk to the iceberg; nobody is going to pay to watch Law v. Ice, the tiger or wolverine must survive or we're all sunk. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Lightning Round Activated!
This is not a drill.This is not a pipe.
This is not a drill, this is it, the ultimate semifinal, the penultimate finale, the brawl to end most-if-not-all! In other words, I'm still unsure of why these things started fighting, but will nonetheless continue to take liberties until given (someone else's imaginary) death. So it's an RfC, see, whose icy hand will it be, raised to sink under the sea, giving a thumbs-up to ye, tryin' to holla at me, yadda-yadda gee, hurry up and vote!InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
And the next thing I remember, I'm waking up on an iceberg next to a strange frozen woman, wondering where my wolverine went. Whooo democracy! Anybody got any coke left? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Apparently Dr.K. disliked the attention and tagged it for deletion under WP:CSD#G6 (only supposed to be for routine housekeeping, not for potentially disputed deletions) with the rationale "This page serves no encyclopedic purpose", and admin Anthony Bradbury somehow agreed both with the rationale and the speedy-deletion criteria. I'm deliberately not linking the user names to avoid them applying the same tag-team tactics to this talk page. But regardless of whether the deletion was a valid application of the speedy rules, it's hard to imagine the list surviving a serious deletion discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both. Yeah, G6 is definitely a stretch there... I was amused to discover there’s a User:Iridescence who predates their more famous near-namesake, although they’re not around much these days so limited confusion is liable to arise. P-K3 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
While it was odd that Dr. K nominated it, and very odd that it actually got deleted, it seems to have been a misunderstanding -- see my link near the top of this thread. David, I really did mean to create a helpful way for people to sort out vaguely remembered colleagues with confusing names. Why do you think it wouldn't survive a deletion discussion? Seems to me it has at least as much encyclopedic purpose as Wikipedia:Queen_Elizabeth_slipped_majestically_into_the_water. EEng01:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Because in the stubby form in which it was nominated it could easily be misinterpreted as intended only to make fun of some editors' names, and that's the way I'd expect a discussion to take it, regardless of protestations to the contrary. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Jeez, it was only a day old; I was going to add some text to explain the function. But I'm not worried about someone's overzealousness. Can I create a new list, with explanation, to help people like me remember that JzG who is Guy isn't that other Guy and so on? EEng14:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Wearing my "performer of 13,000+ deletions" hat rather than the "person who thinks Wikipedia typically takes both process and 'I feel offended by this obviously inoffensive comment' complaints way too seriously" hat, the best thing to do would be to create it in your own userspace, and make it very clear (in a sincere way, not in a snidey "if you're offended it's because you don't get the joke" way) that it's a genuine attempt to address an issue and not an attempt either to make fun of other people's usernames nor to sneer at people who aren't wiki-insiders and as a consequence aren't aware that Outriggr isn't a secondary account of Riggr Mortis. If and when it's ready to move to WP:-space, do so under a neutral title.
(It's spelled Berserkeley, actually.) I'm honestly astounded that anyone could have interpreted that list as anything but what it was -- an aid for the perplexed -- but go figure. As it happens I grew up in Berkeley in the 60s and 70s (and don't get me wrong, I'm proud to have been part of that [35][36][37][38]) so I can handle myself with those types. But so that we may prepare for the battles ahead, can you diff a few instances of the behavior you desribe (unless, of course, you're confusing me with this EEmg)?By the way, the essential argument isn't Perhaps you have an impaired sense of humor (though I do sometimes use that as a shorthand) but rather Your idea of what's amusing, whatever that happens to be, isn't binding on the rest of us. EEng20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC) (And if you are in a position to answer my last query about Android formatting at #Shoehorning, I'd appreciate that too.)
You seriously need diffs to illustrate you have a reputation—whether deserved or not—as someone who acts like a dick and then plays the "it was all a joke, you just have an impaired sense of humor if you don't find it funny" defense? Whether or not your critics are right to think so, a sizeable chunk of your talkpage history consists of variations upon "I get that you're trying to be lighten the tone but please ease off, out of context it just looks like bullying particularly to newer editors and people unfamiliar with Wikipedia's internal culture". (I'm not going to spend my time wading through histories but I'm fairly sure that on at least one occasion I've made that very comment to you, possibly even with that exact wording.) I'll check the shoehorning issue now. ‑ Iridescent08:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I confuse people all the time, but not because of my name. (Actually I confuse people because of my name a fair amount, too.) --JBL (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
That's the smoothest I've ever seen someone get the EFM bit, especially given that you don't show up much at the usual boards. Well done! Also, congrats on getting all of your permissions back after Cyberpower's oopsie - I know we can trust you with EFM, but I'm not so sure about 30/500. In case you weren't aware, there's a mailing list that you'll probably want to subscribe to as well. creffett (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
It remains to be seen where the AE complaint re Eric will end up. But reviewing your contributions on the talk page, I'm just wondering, WTF? I always thought you were cleverer and betterer than what I see there. Can't you manage to disagree without insult and mockery? GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
GoldenRing: Thanks for the kind words, and I appreciate your taking the time. The phenomenon of "civil POV pushing" is often talked about, but less talked about is "civil article ownership". Swarm put it very well at AE:
Obstructing bold edits without citing a specific rationale is disruptive editing. "Specific" means "policy-based". Arguing that "this is X's article, and X needs to have a say" is a policy violation, not a reason to personally attack the editor making the edits. FA's require "stability". But "stability" does not mean "absence of editing". "I don't like your edits", or "this is X's article, don't change it" is not a legitimate content dispute. Illegitimate stonewalling is not what's intended by "FA stability".
At AE you posted only part of my "shut the fuck up" rant, which robs the short bit you posted of context. Here it is more fully:
...by far the easiest thing to do would be to simply STEP THROUGH THE GODDAM EDITS SEQUENTIALLY. In the past 3 days there have been an incredible 110 posts to this thread, totaling 40K of text, all to discuss the abstract existence (but not the substance) of my 150 edits to an article which itself consists, in total, of a mere 65K. Most of these edits are no more complex than[before-and-after of seven edits omitted]There, that's seven of them – 5% of the total – right there. They can be reviewed in 15 seconds each, and if you think "officers were drafted to search" is better than just plain "officers searched", or that readers will benefit by knowing about the dog's teeth and kidney complaint, or about how many days past his birthday Keith Bennett was when he was killed, go right ahead and change those things; I'm not married to anything. But in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, at long last you bunch of old ladies stop pearl-clutching and hand-wringing (you gotta love the imagery there) and either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. I've spent far more time in therapy with you lot responding to your hypothetical anxieties than I did making the changes themselves. Really, it's unbelievable.
(I would appreciate it if, over at AE, you'd substitute the above excerpt for your short one, so that I don't have to clutter the page and confuse the discussion by posting it in my own section.) That was July 12.
For a month -- a MONTH -- my edits sat live in the article without a single modification of what I'd done, or comment on what I'd done, or indication of interest in what I'd done, by any of this bunch -- until EC's block expired. Then the gang assembled and moved in. Too many edits! Too fast! This is an FA! Your edits are shit! I didn't look at them but I know they're shit! You need consensus! What bullshit. And now in the last 24 hours both Cassianto and EC have lied -- blatantly lied -- on the talk page about who said and did what.
Even now, at AE, Cassianto's pretending that I simply told him to "shut the fuck up". That's a lie. As seen above what I said (after three days of begging that this bunch look at the edits and give any specific indication of what was wrong with them) was that he should either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. That's completely different. I'm not going to engage him on that at AE because he lies so effortlessly and shamelessly that he'll just keep saying black is white, but if you're in a particularly energetic mood you might point it out yourself.
They're just trying to gaslight anyone, such as yourself, who tries to untangle what happened. Smokescreens are their friends. So yeah, I've been pissed off and have shown it. EEng17:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors!
Talk page stalkers who have been watching the fun at Talk:Moors murders may be interested to know that it turns out that is "Featured article" is apparently riddled with errors. I've found 22 21 [oops, looks like in one case I missed part of the newspaper story -- The Times has those giant pages in the old days – thanks to SchroCat for catching that] examples of statements in the article not supported by the sources cited – and that's just in the one section (seven paragraphs) I checked. See [39]. EEng14:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You'rea talking about You're talking about the header of the subthread just above this one? What gravedancing? I look forward to a productive collaboration with SchroCat, Cassianto, Eric Corbett, and the rest, all working to together to get this article to at least the Good Article level at long last.
Who could have guessed that the guy who wrote Classification and subject index for cataloguing and arranging the books and pamphlets of a library, and followed it up with Decimal classification and relative index for arranging, cataloguing, and indexing public and private libraries and for pamphlets, clippings, notes, scrap books, index rerums, etc., would turn out to be an asshole. – Levivich05:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mitchellhobbs: The best place to ask for protection is WP:RPP. I have made a request there on your behalf. Unless EEng has some mystical power I'm unaware of, he cannot actually protect pages. Though he may act with the impish impunity of an admin, he is in fact just a regular 'ol editor. I think if he ever did run for RfA, the community would devour itself like Ouroboros. Not necessarily saying that's a bad thing... Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓17:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder why God chose me to be the vessel burdened with such awesome power. But I have sworn to use it only for good, never for evil! EEng21:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Of course it's me. Who on earth would want to pretend they're me? Horrible thought. For talk-page stalkers, here's what I'm asking:
After several bad experiences with numbskull admins at Commons, I decided never to upload files to Commons again, except for PD material. I now want to upload a file and have the person I got it from follow up by emailing an appropriate license. On Commons there's a page I can get the license from, fill in the blanks, and forward to the file donor; then there was a permissions@ address to which the donor could forward the license. I can't find the equivalent stuff here on Wikipedia i.e. the license boilerplate, and the address to which the donor should forward the license after I upload the file. (I don't want to put the donor through creating an account and uploading himself.). Clue me in, please.
Regarding this, I would love to inject a bit of levity into what will be the contentious RfA to end all contentious RfAs... but I'm too chicken. Only you could do it. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Whoever said, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" had me in mind, but RfA is one place even this fool rushes in not. Sorry. At least something is sacred. EEng22:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
You're right, thinking about it, it wouldn't have gone down at all well from anyone. That RfA was even nastier than I expected. I do understand why you generally keep away from them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey EEng, I've noticed some issues with your user page and talk page I wanted to mention. I would have guessed that you were familiar with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies, but perhaps not. It is a pretty important page worth looking over. Some of the items I noticed (outside the page size issues) are your talk page section Upage, and your user page at the Titular characters and directly below that. I'd imagine there are other areas, but I'll mention those specifically. Now I'm hardly a Trump fan, and I'm sure some folks find humor in some of those things - Still, our BLP policy is pretty well defined. Along with that I'll mention a couple WP:Arbcom motions: housekeeping provisions and the American politics (post 1932). If you're unsure then you may want to read up on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I'm hopeful that you'll want to fix the issues I've mentioned. — Ched (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Ched, I'd like to step in here in the hopes of preventing escalation. I do realize that the BLP DS apply "in any namespace", but I also do not think that there are really any policy violations here. I hope that you will not pursue this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
To paraphrase Jackie Wilson, I don't know much about American politics, but I do know Wikipedia. This page (to a small extent) and your user page (to a large) has material on it that isn't BLP-friendly. Now, while I'm EEng-friendly, I'm definitely not BLP-unfriendly-friendly.
That was me trying to persuade you I have a sense of humour, but I reckon I'm going to fail.
I see that DYK is as unwelcoming of attempts to improve the Main Page as TFA can be. Keep trying: the good efforts of MP contributors does not place them above well meaning proposals to improve accuracy and clear English. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your words of encouragement, Kevin McE. Maile66 and I are old pals, and while in this instance he didn’t see my point (which I probably could have expressed less enigmatically) I interpret his comment as being the opposite of unwelcoming. Please be sure to drop by The Museums while you’re here. EEng14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all the leads ~ Martinevans123 ~ speaking of budgets ~ my first gig when I was 24 years old ~ was modeling swimsuits (on the runway) ~ the best part of that job, was not the modeling part but back stage ~ all the models (including the females) changed together in one room ~ talk about a wandering eye ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
On the steps of the Widener in Harvard Yard, Was a pin oak leaf, somewhat crinkly, not hard;
With delicate care it had to be handled, When lifted from the step without being mangled. Straight into a book, the leaf it did go, Quite safe from harm, for the wind it did blow. Down the steps of the library, I carefully retraced, With the book and the leaf quite closely embraced. I smiled a big smile for I knew what I’d do, When I reached the last step with my present for you. A picture I took of the leaf with great care, As students passed by, each holding a stare, Wondering what in the hell is that woman doing, All the while thinking there may be trouble brewing; What they did not know is that I was just being me, Taking a picture for E-E-n-g.
Gosh, that's really sweet. I hope you always use your substantial talents only for good, never for evil. EEng22:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. You do know I'm gay, right? I don't want you getting your hopes up. P.P.S. You might enjoy [43].
Levivich, . EEng - agree. I have been reprimanded on WP for time spent on UTPs vs time spent creating/editing articles in mainspace. I've noticed that on WP larger hour glasses are used for topics my critics like, whereas everything else is timed with a 2 min hour glass. ⌛️🥚 Hands on experience has taught me there are many things one cannot possibly learn by simply reading about it (the experiences of others) or listening to a lecture in a controlled environment (absent the environmental challenges) or collaborating with limited talent. The more diversity there is in our interactions with others, the greater the likelihood it will spawn higher levels of creativity, inspiration and motivation - even if the motivation is to get the hell outta there! 😂 AtsmeTalk📧04:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Next time, I'll rickroll you! I think there's a party trick where a person is given a card that says "See other side" – on both sides! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Consider, first without looking where it leads, what WP:X would be a shortcut to. (Porno WikiProject? Something deletionist?) Then look. Surprise! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thank you for your statement on the Kaprun disaster talk page: "The article has significant tone and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS problems". I want to help improve the page allthough I am not a native speaker. I would be thankful if you could list the things you think that should be improved in detail and I will see what I can do. If the tone is not correct I want to improve it and will take your suggestions seriously as well as the topic "rightgreatwrongs". Sadly it seems that native speakers are not much interested in editing this specific article so I am looking forward to do my best. Thank you very much and BR --Salzburger Nockerl (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Look at the catgories it is in then back at the image
Re "if you'll tell me what to use instead of {quote box} I'll be happy to start using it": MOS:BQ covers this already; use {{Quote}}] unless there's some really, really compelling reason not to. If you're sure there is, then I suppose pick any template from Category:Quotation templates, other than {{Quote box}} with it's inconsistent attribution formatting, or the pull-quote ones that use decorative giant quotation marks. Several have placement and other layout options. Seriously, though, more than 99% (quite literally) of instances of {{Quote box}} and other "decorative" quotation framing templates in articles are misuses and should be converted to plain {{Quote}}. I did a cleanup spree a while back (about 150 articles, before I got worn out), and of those only one single case was using such a template in a manner appropriate for an encyclopedia (and it not for a quotation in the usual sense, but an image-like presentation of an entire short statement, kind of a "document in a box" (and the section was about the document, so the function served was that of an illustration). In every other case it was either pointless decoration of block quotations, abuse of magazine-style pull quotes, or WP:UNDUE-violating over-focus on some particular party's quoted statements. There are thousands of quote-template misuses like this in mainspace, and I expect the ratio to hold, since the ones I dealt with were completely random selections. I find that when I do cleanup of them, the reversion rate back to something decorative is also around 1%. Someone back in 2007 or when ever just felt like decorating, and no one else cares.
This is one of the reasons I want to get most of these templates re-coded to do nothing in mainspace but emit the same code as {{Quote}}. This would auto-fix most of our quotation problems (though not the UNDUE ones, nor our rare instances of real but inappropriate pull-quoting). But {{Quote box}} having inconsistent formatting would have to be fixed first.
I've said it before many times: If people are convinced that our normal and traditional block-quotation style is somehow sub-par for a 2019+ online publication, they're free to propose a replacement style. They're not free to go inject whatever weird quotation formatting "magic" they like at their own blog (WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and we do have a our own MoS for a reason). I've already successfully TfDed some experiments of that sort (e.g. ones that looked a lot like {{Talk quote block}}, with a dark vertical bar on the left, a style borrowed from threaded message boards and some e-mail programs like Eudora, but virtually never found in print or print-mimicking material).
The Phineas Gage article (about which I care) is turning into a train wreck. Those definitely should be block quotations, integrated with context into the material. The current presentation is "magazine style, on crack", filtered through "my first blog" sensibilities of how to present information. Just awful. The urge to begin a section with a quotation is a magazine "feature writer" impulse that needs to be strongly resisted in encyclopedia writing. We have no need to "hook" readers. We don't care how long their eyeballs are on the page, and we aren't weaving a dancing narrative for them, just providing information that they can use how and in whatever portion they desire. The 25th Am. page looks fine. These are really being presented as document fragments for analysis, not quotations in the usual sense. Here, it actually makes sense to lead the sections with this material (for reasons completely unrelated to why people want to do so with "juicy" personal or organizational quotations, magazine-style – sometimes called "quotoids" when they're not technically pull quotes, i.e. not repeated in the main text). Here, the mis-coding of {{Quote box}} isn't really an issue, since its inconsistent attribution code is not being used. However, the "safe" replacement template is {{Quote frame}}. I may just propose merging the former to the latter, though it'll take a bot or something to fix all the attribution. It might not even be bottable. (Bot would have to look for every possible combination of dash and hyphen encoding, with and without spacing also encoded in various ways, and strip it from the attribution parameters before changing the template call to point to {{quote frame}}.) The Harvard case is also unencyclopedic, magazine-style use of "quotoids", which should be integrated into the prose, with context. The present display looks reasonable, but is poorly coded (it's using <br /> as a layout tool, etc.). If there were consensus to retain this as a sidebar, I suppose it's not fatally bad, but should probably be done in some custom <div>...</div>, because presently is's marking up the entire content, including attribution and citations, as quoted material, which is wrong. That template isn't a general layout tool, it's something that emits quotation markup around whatever content it is told is a quotation. PS: I just did another random cleanup run on the results returned by "What links here" for one of the decorative quote templates, and out of 20-ish cases that showed up in the first page of results in mainspace, 0% were appropriate. They were all either normal block quotes that should be in {{quote}}, or they were non-encyclopedic, magazine-style pull quotes. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC); copyedited 04:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm interested in We don't care how long their eyeballs are on the page – Really? We don't care whether the reader thinks, "I don't know where this is going -- I guess I'll just quit" versus "Wow, I'm gonna learn something interesting from this article/section. Tell me!"? EEng15:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you know what I mean. We wouldn't have an MoS, Writing Better Articles, WP:NOT, and all these policies on producing proper enc. content if we didn't care whether readers could understand the material (as to both wording and logical arrangement), or care whether they believed it was accurate and worth reading. But we don't use visual, emotive, lead-burying, teasing, ambiguous, and other psychological trickery to try to steer and latch onto reader attention (we do pretty much the opposite, using plain and detached English, and providing links that help get them to what they're most interested in, which may be nothing at the current page after all). There's a big difference between a sensible article flow (and ToC), versus trying to cajole, shock, amuse, mystify, or otherwise lead the reader around manipulatively (which is actually a subtle form of WP:SYNTH, weaving a "can you believe it?!" narrative from bare facts, the connections between which really have to come from sources, not from our own editorial perspective). Decorative quotations almost always serve such an unencyclopedic purpose (and are a technique borrowed ultimately from fiction, as foreshadowing or plot twist depending on the quote and its relation to the rest of the material).
The only exceptions I regularly see are document snippets for analysis, as in the 25th Am. case, and actually famous quotations, like the opening of MLK's "I have a dream" speech, that are part of the subject of our own article. The ultimate solution may be to fork specific templates for these with separate documentation (e.g. so it's clear that using {{Famous quote}} for a non-famous quote can be reverted), and have all other quote templates just emit blockquote markup if used in mainspace. I mean really, if the only difference between a section starting with an out-of-context quotation (a non sequitur, and most often some form of teaser) in case A and case B is that in case B it's got a box around it and is moved rightward, then the problem and solution are clear. Any random editor would fix the first case, without the box, by either providing context or moving it to where the already-provided context is (or removing it if inappropriate for reasons like UNDUE or because it's an actual, redundant pull quote). Our fix-it impulse often gets a bit short-circuited when people encounter box quotations, because we've become desensitized to them by magazines and tabloid journalism using pull quotes and other forms of teaser (which most of us probably actually ignore, having also self-trained to avoid big flashy noise on the page as usually advertising). But it's still the same non-encyclopedic article content flow. This will be especially apparent to users of screen readers, and anyone else not using our default CSS and JavaScript (which is where that boxing layout comes from); quotoids are also a WP:ACCESS and WP:REUSE problem. Basically, a WP article needs to make perfect sense if you copy-paste its text into a plain text editor without any formatting left other than line-breaks. With quotations in particular, this demonstrates why introductory contextual material identifying it as a quotation is important, because it'll lose its indentation when used as raw text. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion continued below
SMcCandlish – Followup: It doesn't look like {quote frame} can substitute, because there doesn't seem to be any way to control the width of the box. I'd still like to hear your response to my point just above here. EEng03:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I hate to say it but it still looks awful, at least because (a) there's too little margin between the box and adjacent text and (b) the text looks like it's at 100%, where I'd expect 90% (and 90%, IMHO, looks way better). EEng05:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Easy CSS tweaks. As for font size, there are limits to how small to make it, and any reduction generates complaints from the MOS:ACCESS crowd. However, the hard limit is 85% last I looked, so your 90% would be permissible. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Continued discussion re quote boxes
OK, let's take an isolated example, involving a subject with whom I suspect you're familiar. What do you think of the boxed quotation at Herb_Caen#Honors? Do you really think it would do its job better if run into the text as a block quote, introduced by something like At the ceremony, Caen said to the crowd: ? EEng05:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it does an encyclopedic job at all. It's magazine-style fluff. If multiple sources indicate this quip was widely considered memorable, controversial, influential, etc. (i.e., had lasting significance), then it might be encyclopedically useful to include it in the main material with some context. Keep in mind that Caen was first and foremost a humorist (his lead is actually poor in this regard, suggesting with just "journalist" that he was mainly a straight news man – I just went and added "humorist"), so half of what he wrote or said in public was funny, clever, and remembered by someone somewhere. Given that the lead already establishes that his entire œuvre was "a continuous love letter to San Francisco", it's not encyclopedically useful to browbeat the reader with a quote showing his affection for the city, certainly not in a huge, attention-demanding box.
A completely different way to approach this question would be to ask another one: If a mainstream nonfiction book from, say, Chicago University Press, had used this quotation in a book or a chapter about Caen, and it was not a book given to cutesy decoration, just a regular ol' straightforward book like any other, would it have used a fancy offset box for this, or presented it as any other quotation? That's kind of a trick question, because probably either it wouldn't have been used, or it might have been used as a humorous tone-setting device in the form of a centered but visually offset quotation at the beginning of the piece. The latter is another non-encyclopedic use of quotations, what I call a "fake pull quote" in that it isn't repetition of material already in the main text, but looks exactly like such a pull quote and serves the same "try to cajole the reader into continuing, and having in mind what you want them to have in mind, feeling what you want them to feel" psychological manipulation. A regular book probably would not have used this otherwise, except as an inline or block quotation (depending on their house-style length limits) in a passage that dwelt in depth on Caen and his feelings about SF. In our piece, we have no such section, and the section into which this has been shoehorned as a fake pull quote isn't even relevant (being about honors received by the writer, not about his love of San Francisco). It's even crappy as a fake pull quote, since it comes too late to have any "hook" effect; the sole purpose of it being there is subjective layout gimcrackery. In short, just because it's reasonable to do what that article does in some contexts in some other publications doesn't means it's good to do it here. It's a kind of a usage-register matter. We have this huge-ass WP:NOT policy (growing all the time) because of so many things that "are", out there in the world, that WP isn't and should be made to masquerade as. I won't reiterate the WP:ACCESS and WP:REUSE matters from the earlier incarnation of this thread.
PS: If I were to salvage that quote in the article, what I would do is restructure the lead: take the "love letter" bit and the "voice and conscience" bit, along with this quote with some intro context (maybe not as a block quotation – it's ~30 words, and the lead already has one), and from these parts build a third paragraph on the Caen–SF connection, after "The secret of Caen's success" material. (Or as 2nd para., before the "secret" material.) This would also vastly improve the run-on lead sentence by shortening it and making it less repetitive (it includes the string "San Francisco" five times). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to pull in Binksternet on this, for starters on the idea that Caen was a "humorist". While he had a great sense of humor it would never have occurred to me in a thousand years to call him a humorist. Nor does any source I can find use the word. EEng18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Ping response: I have seen Caen called a journalist, a diarist and of course a columnist, but Reason magazine called him a "humorist" (in quotes) in 1987 and Time magazine called him a columnist-humorist in 1996. More recently, a Solano County newspaper writer lumped Caen in with other humor columnists. So the label is not unsupported. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Or, more importantly to me, this bit: "This would also vastly improve the run-on lead sentence by shortening it and making it less repetitive (it includes the string "San Francisco" five times)." It's just really poor writing to do that, even if it's a result of editorial palimpsest over a long period of time. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
You deleted "Abraham Lincoln cared for Tad, who was still very ill and was heartbroken over the loss of his brother." with the edit summary of "a personal nurse was a commonplace at that time, and while no doubt the president was very attentive to Tad, he didn't care for him alone". Nevertheless, no personal nurses are mentioned in the cited source ("Lincoln"/David Herbert Donald) which states on Page 336 "The President gained some respite from his suffering by caring for Tad, who was still very ill and heartbroken over the loss of his brother. Often Lincoln lay on the bed beside his sick son to soothe him and give him comfort." The source doesn't seem to state that Lincoln was the only caregiver/nursemaid for his son but it does state that he provided a large measure of care for Tad. Anyway, was wondering if you'd consider restoring that content or something close to it back into the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by. Re the nurse, I was talking about Mary's nurse -- I removed mention that Mary had a nurse because had the bereaved bedridden wife of the president NOT had a nurse, that's what the article would mention; that she did have a nurse would be a commonplace. I added back that AL found solace in caring for Tad, but not the broken heart because, again, if Tad had not a care that his brother had just died, that's what we'd need to mention. EEng07:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Eric Corbett and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Oh boy! My first Arbcom case! I haven't been so excited since I was subpoenaed to a federal grand jury!Now seriously folks, everyone keep calm. I'll be happy to answer any factual questions here if it will help keep the case page uncluttered. Let's try to keep things serious. Mostly. (But – again seriously – all jokes or kidding are to be kept here; an Arbcom case is a huge timesink for the community, if even sometimes a necessary one, and we don't want to do anything to exacerbate that.) EEng02:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm proud of you for getting this far and not a single dead baby or where-the-bodies-are-buried joke. Such restraint! – Levivich03:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a golden opportunity for our new skit. I'll start gathering the diffs demonstrating that you show insufficient respect to gravity. Haukur (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like they are going to either decline it or accept but suspend it, so I suspect you won't have to deal with much. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
They should decline it, but the only opinion so far is to accept. And being party to an accepted-but-suspended case is not a helpful state to be in. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think they can reasonably suspend a case examining the conduct of active users. I read GW's accept to be specifically for a case focused on Eric (and I'm not getting into whether that's necessary or not at the moment). Vanamonde (Talk)00:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Though not an experienced Arbcom watcher I'm guessing it will be declined, but for the record while I wouldn't look forward to the huge waste of everyone's time, other than that instead of fraud I probably should have said careless negligence I stand by everything I've said and done and fear no scrutiny. You know David Eppstein, since unfortunately Ve has apparently bailed out on us, you would be doing humanity a great favor if you could kick off "the list" with any diffs from July you're concerned about. EEng05:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
There are already about six times the people making statements from the peanut gallery than there are actually trying to resolve the dispute that sparked this exciting episode. Wouldn't it be great if anyoneeveryone thinking about offering their two arbitrary subunits of currency went and verified one of the 50-something red span tags instead? Triptothecottage (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Triptothecottage: What we need more than that is agreement that, when protection comes off, the article will be returned to the upt-to-date version it was in before Cassianto reverted to the June 26 version (on the basis that that version's so excellent -- I guess we won't be hearing that any more). If we can agree to that then I can probably fix most of the verification errors myself, but in any event those who want to help fix things will be able to do so. EEng05:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
David Eppstein, let it never be said I begrudge credit where credit is due [46]. Now can you PLEASE see if you can list anything in the July edits (starting here [47]) that you think should be reverted out? Somebody. Anybody. Please. I beg you. EEng20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that in the depths of the Widener Library, there is a tunnel containing a book collection known as the Pusey Library or Pusey Stacks, referred to by scholars as "Widener Pusey" (as seen here), named after former president Nathan Pusey (of "Latin Si, Pusey No" fame, not to be confused with Phil Pusey or his younger brother, Professor Pusey, who, naturally, was an Oxford man, which, naturally, is near a whole town of Puseys (not to be confused with the town of Pewseys in neighboring Wiltshire)), and that the lads at The Crimson (who are paying nearly $100,000 a year to browse Harvard's Pusey Library, among other enriching activities) have already picked up on this, with varying degrees of subtlety. [48][49]– Levivich05:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
For the record, very few Harvard College students pay full price; for example, families with incomes below $65,000 pay zero. One consequence of the school's wealth means that it can guarantee that no one it wants is unable to attend for financial reasons. EEng06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
From the Department of NOR Violations, I remember very clearly that at the beginning of my freshman year (which would be Fall 1974), there was a (sort of) required swim test for all incoming undergrads. I got excused from it for (exaggerated) medical reasons, but I am very sure that the test did happen (and not just in my feeble mind). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
From the Department of Jesus, Try Following the Link Supplied To See What The Article Says,
Though Harvard has had swimming requirements at various times (e.g. for rowers on the Charles River, or as part of a now-defunct freshman training regimen) Bentinck-Smith writes that "There is absolutely no evidence in the President's papers, or the faculty's, to indicate that [Eleanor Widener] was, as a result of the Titanic disaster, in any way responsible for [any] compulsory swimming test."
A Harvard College swimming requirement was instituted in the early 1880s for crew team members wishing to use boats on the Charles River. In 1919, Harvard instituted compulsory physical training, including swimming instruction, for all freshmen; however, the President's report of 1919-1920 describing the new regulations does not mention a graduation swim requirement. A swimming requirement is described in the 1969-1970 Harvard University Catalogue (p. 63), but is no longer mentioned by the publication of the 1974-1975 Catalogue. Currently, there is no swimming requirement at Harvard.
Really, Tfish, I would have thought that by now you'd know I'm not going to get caught with my pants down on a topic like this. I will add that I have it on unimpeachable authority that there was also a swim requirement for graduation from Radcliffe during some period in, roughly, the 1920s to 1950s. But none of this contradicts the article's very careful statement that while there have been swim requirements, they've no link to poor Harry Widener or rich Mrs. Widener. As a note in the article explains (quoting snopes.com):
Harry Elkins Widener didn't die because he couldn't swim: he, like many other Titanic passengers who couldn't be accommodated by one of the too-few lifeboats, died from immersion in freezing water. The ability to swim wouldn't have helped him, because there was nowhere for him to swim to.
Jesus, EEng, I would have thought that by now you would know that I find the idea of you with your pants off exceedingly distasteful. You sound so defensive, I almost would have thought that you were a Yalie.[FBDB] I wonder, had they done away with Expository Writing by the time that you got there? So I actually did read what the page said before I made my previous post to you, and I even read the source that you cite. "Training regimen"? Isn't that something for puppies? I've now made this edit: [50]. You're welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Which is apparently why you changed "regimen" to "program", I guess, and otherwise you entirely reverted me, which was so sweet. You really need to show more respect for your betters.[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I changed to program because you made fun of regimen a few posts above, and I didn't feel strongly about it. EEng23:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll follow up on this at the article talk page in another day or so, but just letting you know that I found reliable sources that do back up the wording that I put there. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That's fantabulous. I issue was never the truth of the matter, just the verifiabilitilibility. No hurry. EEng22:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, actually; all joking aside, it was an almost impossible design challenge. Personally I don't find the result particularly pleasing, but neither can I suggest a better approach. Someone remind me to do a DYK. EEng05:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
True, all joking aside, Harvard didn't really choose to do all that. Who would make you hire an architect and spend $800 a foot on a 5x5 gate house? The Historical Commission, that's who. – Levivich05:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
While the Historical Commission's involvement no doubt affected the outcome, I believe Harvard would have spent a similar amount in any event. The Johnston Gate the Yard's traditional ceremonial entrance (see History and traditions of Harvard commencements#Academic_Parade) and an important symbol when selling the product. EEng
Princeton had a swim test requirement from 1911 to 1990 and a similar apocryphal story about a deceased alumnus was told there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
EEng displays the narrowness of his education. By the way, I was born in and grew up in Princeton, NJ. Graduated from Princeton High School. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, had thought you had followed me there (I have similar interests to Popcornduff, so do watch) but now see you were already active on the talk page "discussion", which can be best surmised with the three letters...FFS. ps, hope all is well with Martin who has not edited in a while, and is missed. Ceoil (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to clear that up, but it's really MJL you should be apologizing to. Which Martin do you mean? EEng19:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Unaccepted apology noted. MJL has a lot more to answer for than this, and I'm surprised you are using his nativity to advance other grudges. I meant mr Evans. Ceoil (talk)
For those playing along at home, this concerns the bizarre interactions here [51].
Um, look Ceoil, it seems that every interaction we have immediately goes awry because (a) your English isn't that great (sorry, but you force me to say it – case in point: by nativity do you mean naivete?) and (b) when you misunderstand, you start seeing dark motives in everything.
I said above I appreciated your taking the time to admit your prior misunderstanding; that means your apology was accepted.
You accused MJL of conspiring with me by email, so yes, you should apologize to him regardless of what you dislike about him (not that I'm saying I agree with you on any of that, other than that he should be more discerning in where he pokes his nose).
I have no "grudges", and you're getting me close to doing what I almost never do, which is to have an admin speak to you about your repeated accusations, without evidence, of misbehavior by your fellow editors.
Your not as clever as you think, and poor spelling is a weak defense, given all that has happened in the last two weeks. 'Almost never do'; please - most of your edits over the last decade and a bt are to AN/I. But if you cant defend yourself on your own, thats fine man. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
[Thank you for the ping] @EEng: pronouns.Just another example of how improbable it'd be for us to coordinate Either way, It's fine really. I don't feel owed an apology. The accusation was very hurtful, but I don't hold it against Ceoil. He has the right to feel whatever feelings he feels. (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's an uncharitable view, and I'm obviously not going to convert anybody here. But I will say that those that defend Eric dont do so because of his charming personality, it goes deeper than that - he and Tony1 were always to go to guys on how to write correct, and a generation learned from them. The people Eric (supposedly) chased off were not future content people, he always tended to them with kindness and encouragement (I was one), more he was targeted by up and coming admin types. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
You're saying that his personality was charming, that he taught you to modify verbs by adjectives, and that EEng has never created any content and is or was an up and coming admin? Interesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
No David, I was being ironic, which fair enough doesnt translate in text only discourse. I said Eric is not especially charming, and never was inclined towards [unspecified, as we are talking about a 12 year span] wannabe admins. But he has my respect. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
No, David, I think Ceoil is saying it's OK that EC called EEng a "guttersnipe", etc., because EC was nice to Ceoil back in the day. – Levivich21:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes exactly Levivich, EC mentored quite a few new editors, including me. I'm not sure how you connected that with the attempt to associate me with "guttersnipe", which for sure sounds regrettable. But to say again, I dont defend Eric for his fatalistically bitter, and unfortunately hurtful, way with words. Yet, when I was learning how to operate on this place, I improved through a school of hard knocks, rather than cuddly safe spaces.Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
In twelve years I've probably opened two or three threads total at ANI; half or more of my edits there are archiving of resolved threads and so on. Get your facts straight before mouthing off further.
Please don't insult Tony1 by mentioning him in the same breath as Eric Corbett. Tony helps other editors without bursting into schoolyard taunts at the first sign of friction.
Eric Corbett was nice to someone exactly so long as they stroked his fragile ego and scrupulously avoided contradicting or correcting him in even the most minor ways. He richly deserved what he got, and obviously wanted it. This was no Greek tragedy of a magnificent talent brought down by a tiny seed of destruction hidden deep within, but (as I take delight in repeating, now that I've hit on the metaphor) a one-eyed man who managed to surround himself with blind editors over whom he thought to reign as king, and whose blindness allowed them to believe, for a time at least, that he was a deity. His writing was perfectly competent, but by no means brilliant, and like everyone else’s not so good that it couldn't be improved by fresh eyes; and his research and sourcing, in the one example I've probed in depth, was sloppy.That last point is worth explaining a bit. At some point it suddenly became clear that much of Moors Murders was unsourced, and that that had long been hidden by the fact that E.C. and others inserted new material, with inline cites, into an existing article that largely lacked inline cites; the added inline cites were mistaken for covering the old, uncited material, and no one noticed that until now. Eric Corbett's response was, "Yeah, I was a relatively new editor then, and not really tuned in to the problems of WP:Citing_sources#Text–source_integrity. I'm glad someone's noticed the problem and it's being addressed." Ha, ha, just kidding. He immediately put into action his usual strategy of diversion leavened by insults, painting himself as a victim, and so on [52], the diversion in this case being the claim that citation requirements have changed since he worked on Moors Murders [53], which is false [54]. I conclude, therefore, that he's not interested in learning, that there's no reason to believe he's any more careful now than he was then, and that his research is probably about as good as his writing: OK, but far from great. Combining that with his nasty attitude, I say good riddance.
Well MJL, there were coincidences here, for sure...there is no doubt that ye were coordinating. My long term opinion of you EEng is that you are a low value bluffer. Ceoil (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I certainly have not always supported EC - he's a good writer but, like most of us, sometimes his own worst enemy. My ironic aside to your comment about using real names in the recent AN thread was because it is documented on-wiki that he has been harrassed off it. One example was the Rod Hull and Emu account, although I can't remember the exact spelling. I'm just correcting the record - no need or desire for a contretemps. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this concerns what I said here [55].
Sitush, I appreciate your taking the time to drop by. Since I am, on reflection, not conversant with all the crazy stuff that's swirled around this Eric Corbett character on wiki, off wiki, in the corridors of power and at all levels of government, I should have simply said, "No, people shouldn't be harassed IRL even if their name is Eric Corbett. I imagine he's got enough trouble in his personal life as it is." EEng02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I doubt his personal life at present is any more troubled than yours, perhaps less, but in reality neither you nor I can compare them and you're just poking again. Please stop gravedancing here, there and everywhere. You don't like him, we get it, but you are indeed far from conversant with what has gone on. It becomes tiresome having to correct pure speculation on the part of the self-admittedly ignorant and is an example of the "polite" incivility that we really should not be tolerating if we're to have a level playing field. I am sure you will want to reply - you seem to want to interject your off-beat thoughts and so-called humour everywhere - but please don't ping me in it. - Sitush (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to correct my self-admittedly ignorant pure speculation – I labeled it self-admittedly ignorant pure speculation. EEng03:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, remember all those times you misunderstood what someone was saying and got all upset? This is one of those times. My point is that having redirects WP:FOO and MOS:FOO is a very bad idea. (And no, I’m not advocating that anyone actually be shot. Not yet, anyway.) EEng16:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No I do not remember, nor do I care nr did "I" misunderstood. You actually wrote to shoot an editor, so I suggest you undo that one. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
If we're going to start interpreting common hyperboles such as "... should be shot" literally, I'm going to jump off a bridge. – Levivich22:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Just EEng being hyperbolic, joke telling square that he is...so now there's ANI, and here is the scenario when an admin shows up at his page....
EEng: "Ahhh...a loyal (talk page stalker) has arrived. Is there a problem?"
Admin: "Your hyperboles over at Redirects are unacceptable - you threatened to shoot an editor over MOS:FOO. Will you please strike those comments or I'll have to block you?"
EEng: "Uhm, why don't you spare me the trouble of going back? I shouldn't have been over there in the first place as it was right after I insulted a few other editors for trying to do the right thing and fix a mess I made over at AE - I was overindulging in levity and ended up getting some poor editor site-banned even though he was innocent, but I couldn't help myself. I slapped another editor with a trout and told him to STFU. Knocked him on his ass, too! Now he's stalking my page but I've got plans for him, too. I showed him an image of my gun - the same one I used on another dude for screwing with MOS. I told him he needed to be shot.
Admin: "Holy shit!"
The admin immediately jumps on IRC and calls for back-up. In minutes, EEng's UTP is swarming with rouge admins, one of whom is an Arb.
Arb: "EEng, please show me the diffs of your discussion at Redirects."
EEng: "Sure"
EEng shows him several innocuous diffs.
Arb: "Where are the diffs from AE? Do you have those?"
EEng: "Sure"
EEng provides those diffs, again innocuous hyperbole.
Arb: "Who was the editor you were debating over MOS, and where are those diffs?"
EEng: "Oh, that was Mr. Peepers - he decided to start editing GMOs."
Arb: "Where is the picture of your gun?"
EEng: "I don't have a gun."
Arb: "Sorry to put you through this, but the admin who called us over here said you insulted editors at AE, were overindulging in levity, got an innocent editor site-banned, slapped another user with a trout and knocked him on his ass, and used profanity for screwing with MOS."
EEng: "Yeah, I bet that lying son of a bitch also told you I threatened to shoot the guy."
@DePiep:Hardly aggressive. The "punch in the schnozzla" was clearly a joke, and the shoot in the foot was likely a reference to WP:PETARD, which is a serious caution to editors to not shoot themselves in the foot, or hoist themselves by their own petard, something which you are in danger of. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓02:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, it has been pointed out already to you that (as everyone else who read it already understood) the edit was merely a bit of colorful language written in good faith and not intended to be taken literally. Continuing to harp on this issue strikes me as the kind of assumption of bad faith concerning which you are under an editing restriction. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, I mean this in all sincerity... You do good work for the project, and I hope that will continue. But you have to accept that there are things you don’t understand, and let them go. Please. EEng06:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
So your efforts weren't entirely for naught, then. As Tom Lehrer said, "If, after hearing my songs, just one human being is inspired to say something nasty to a friend, or perhaps to strike a loved one, it will all have been worth the while." EEng14:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
In all seriousness, all in my glittering salon of talk-page stalkers are invited to participate, the discussion being whether ships should continue to be referred to as she (instead of it) in articles. EEng04:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
So far no one has proposed using both as a compromise: sheit. Usage example: Look at my boat, ain't sheit a beauty?– Levivich05:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Go ahead, propose it. I'm serious. Reminds me of an arbitrator whom I used to address as "Your Arbship"; when there was talk of him becoming a bureaucrat I mused that then I could address him as "Your Crapshit". EEng06:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No way. If I propose it, I'll be asked follow up questions. Maybe you can settle this by asking Mr. CrapshitCratchit Cratship which pronouns sheit prefers. – Levivich07:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
A response to my recently announced contest to define the word "vashing" [65]:
Hi E. I thought that surely that Alex used that word at some point in the story but, alas, the closest I could get is fashed. Oh well maybe I can win the next contest :-) Enjoy your week! MarnetteD|Talk08:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well EEng. MarnetteD|Talk21:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello EE, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing,7&6=thirteen (☎)20:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Belated thanks. I'll add it to my collection. Believe it or not survival of Gage-ish injuries has become -- if not routine -- certainly no longer suprising. See [66] (which BTW contains the somewhat odd information that Some years later it was learned that he did have a dyslexia and had sought the help of a nun who trained him to read from 20 years ago, and there have been big further strides in management of these cases since then. EEng06:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
They work fine for me. Clicking on one of the footnote marks scrolls to and highlights the relevant reference. I suspect, from your recent edits to the article, that you are running a user script that breaks things and then displays an error message for what it has broken. That would be the place to look for bugs, rather than in these templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I just tried it while incognito and it does work just fine. Although my edits on the article were to get rid of the error messages, my actual concern was why the highlighting and scrolling was not working. It turns out the issue is a conflict with WP:POPUPS which I also have enabled. I tried it with POPUPS off and it works just fine. Sorry for the bother. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I meant to mention that you do have a shitload of js installed and it's inevitable that something conflicts with something. This modern software environment is like the wild west. EEng07:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
"She also served as the escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard his yacht"? If you saw that sentence in isolation, not in an article about a ship, what impression would you make of the subject? It seems similar in spirit to EEng's example of HM the Q smashing a bottle on herself and then falling majestically into the water. If you're going to leave feminine pronouns in place they should not be written in a way that could allow confusion with actual female persons. (I realize that this sentence was present before your update, but it really should have been changed along with the rest.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It still says that Emden was aboard a yacht as an escort. Is that really an accurate description of the location of the evening's entertainments? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The Huhsz, I'm always honored to be called upon, but I thought I did this already, halfway down this section [68]. I'm afraid I won't be able to help out on any ship articles which retain the she nonsense because my laptop's warranty is voided if I vomit on the keyboard. EEng01:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you are willing to risk your warranty with a quick look here, you'll see just how easy it is to remove 29 pronouns from a Featured Article without (I hope) damaging readability or meaning. Happy New Year when it comes. --The Huhsz (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
A lot of what AutoEd does is problematic even when applied to everyday articles; but a blind mass change to a highly complex page like WP:MOS is completely inappropriate. For example, replacing code such as 3–1 with 3–1 makes it difficult or impossible to verify by sight, in the edit window, that the right kind of dash (hyphen?) is present, which is essential since MOS's purpose is to show how to do things character by character. Let me turn it around, Bsherr: can you explain your edit? EEng02:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure! See Help:Entering special characters. That page explains that entering special characters using an HTML character reference or entity name is not recommended. I assume that's why the special character link (see Help:Entering special characters#Special character link) interface feature inserts the Unicode character, and not an HTML character reference. That's also why AutoEd automatically corrects them. I'd be pleased to discuss it further, but would you mind if we did so on a relevant Wikipedia talk page? (Even if I agree with you in the end, that would only result in my now having a view inconsistent with Help:Entering special characters and AutoEd's functions. And if I don't, now you're just chasing me around every time I use AutoEd, right? ) But I am curious if your preference is only concerning dashes/hyphens. Why, for example, would you prefer º to °? --Bsherr (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I can give a hypothetical reason: because I can't keep ° and º straight (at least in fonts that don't underscore the º) and they're right next to each other on my Mac keyboard (option-shift-8 vs option-0), so if I remembered that the one I want is º I could just type that and not worry that I was typing the wrong one. And if that was my reason for doing so, I'd want it to stay that way so that the next time I edited the article I could see that it was still the correct one. For a less-hypothetical example, I also can't easily tell − and – apart, and prefer to see − in the source code (when that is the appropriate character) so that I can tell that the correct one is in use. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) with D.E. above (and noting that great minds think alike) ...
Bsherr, I'm a bit distracted tonight so I'll be blunt: Help pages are not policies or guidelines and (as they themselves say) have not been thoroughly vetted by the community. In fact they're a weird, neglected backwater; most were started years ago, never attracted much scrutiny, and have languished since unmaintained, often falling completely out of sync with actual practice (and often never were in sync to begin with). And yeah, while That page explains that entering special characters using an HTML character reference or entity name is not recommended, it doesn't give a very convincing explanation of why it makes this anti-recommendation:
[symbolic references to characters] are distracting for many editors – Stuff under the hood is often less attractive; we editors make that sacrifice in order to be sure that what the reader sees is correct;
they may cause difficulties with searches in Wikipedia – source code is searched as source code; searches "in Wikipedia" (whatever that means – presumably searches by the reader – are, in fact, completely unaffected by the source coding under the hood, since the rendered page is identical either way).
As to That's also why AutoEd automatically corrects them, it's not a correction but imposition of a preference. There was a time when there was a small group of editors who had started out fixing real errors like typos and broken syntax, and scope-creeped their activities into very unpleasant strongarming of their personal ideas of how things should be onto other editors. Those editors are no longer doing that, thankfully, though unthankfully this came at the cost of our losing those editors completely, because apparently they couldn't see themselves in any other role. Please don't follow that path.
Why, for example, would you prefer º to °? – Because as º I can tell (relatively) easily that it's the right character. But as literals: is this -->°<-- right? Or is it this -->º<--? They're certainly different, and one is right and one is wrong, but I can't tell offhand which is which. Can you?
You are responsible for your edits using automated tools. Just because someone wrote the tool doesn't make it right. If you want to press the point I suggest you open a discussion at WT:MOSNUM. Even if these changes are in principle appropriate, you're making hundreds of changes, of many kinds, in a single edit and they're impossible for you or anyone else to review properly. I know you mean well but this is not a good use of your time, or the time of others, and since as noted it makes maintaining and verifying these pages harder, it's in fact counterproductive. EEng05:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I know that tone can often be misconstrued here, but I read your comment above (particularly your choosing to pedantically remind me of my responsibility to use automated tools responsibly, your venturing to tell me what is and isn't worth my time, and your implication that you are too busy to discuss your reversion, but not too busy to revert it) as quite rude and obnoxious. It's particularly hurtful because I have tried to be friendly in my approach here. I'm very much hoping you didn't mean it that way. Let me know what your intentions were. But I'll say again, if you have an issue with the content of Help:Entering special characters or with the functioning of AutoEd, wouldn't you be better served addressing it on those pages? Your tactic of confronting individual editors is, frankly, bizarre. --Bsherr (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
You're lucky you caught me in a good mood, actually. I didn't confront you: I reverted your edit with an indicative edit summary, you came to me looking for a further explanation, and I gave you a detailed one, which BTW was presciently anticipated by David Eppstein. Help:Entering special characters already says, itself, that it's not a policy or guideline and not vetted by the community, but you don't seem to be taking on board what that means; at the same time, as already mentioned, AutoEd is just a piece of software some editor wrote and I have no control over what's in it, but you have control over whether and how you use it. If someone told you to enable all its "features" and push GO they did you a disservice. I'm sorry if I came on strong but those of us who work hard on articles and project pages and sweat the details thought that the age of the hit-and-run "fixer" was in the past; see the first box at [70]. EEng08:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Wanna jump into a hornet's nest? Some COI/PAID editors have been trying to whitewash this. A bunch of regulars have been pretty outspoken about stopping it. I removed some tabloid, but the negative BLP looks adequately sourced. I'd appreciate if you take a look and see if anything can be done. I think that whole section should go, but I doubt that will happen. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra09:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused. First you say it's well sourced (sources look fine to me on quick check) then you say the section should go (meaning be removed)? The English is a little off, though. EEng14:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Damnit, you'd think this would be a gold mine, but I'm also coming up with nothing. You got Rapunzel jokes, Leaning Tower of Pisa jokes, Tower of London jokes – I mean just think of the British political jokes you could make about a bunch of goats locked up in a tower. Something something royal family, there's a Me-e-e-e-xit joke in there, I just can't get it out. And that's not to mention the girl with the goat tower tattoo. I can't believe I'm not coming up with anything, this is really getting my goat. Maybe just: "Did you know ... that there are goat towers?" Levivich16:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, it’s nothing nearly so lofty. It’s simply another dreary example of blindly multiplying unconditional probabilities as if they were conditional. Most of the fun statistical “paradoxes” are in one way or another traceable to this blunder, deep down under a few extra layers, but here the blunder is on display naked and bare. In fact, in the userbox example there’s something even more fundamentally wrong: people don’t pick their userboxen at random as if from a hat, so the “unconditional probabilities” are wrong to begin with, before we even get to the blunder of blindly multiplying them. (This probably isn’t the clearest response I could give but I’m on my phone with a sunburn so it’s the best I’ve got the strength for right now.) EEng17:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Archive this page, for the love of .... anything, really
I think I've told you this before, EEng. Those of us who are frequently travelling, or using slower internet connections, literally cannot load your talk page at a useful speed. By refusing to archive this you're preventing a substantial number of editors from contacting you, and that's a poor look. Vanamonde (Talk)20:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you are applying Occam's razor to this page, as needs to be done for most of our policies and guidelines. One quibble that I have is with the edit summary here. I can see from experience that many Wikipedia editors have reading skills below that expected of 3rd-graders. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Mrs. Malapropdeclared, "Sure, if I reprehend any thing in this world it is the use of my oracular tongue, and a nice derangement of epitaphs!" So, are we just having a little pun or over-indulging in malapropisms? AtsmeTalk📧
I'm cracking up at "moo goo gai pandemic" over here. Ah-chow mein? Beef and bronchitis? Egg cough soup? I feel like there's also a Chinese Taipei reference to be made that's lurking somewhere.... creffett (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Please don't feel scolded, because this isn't a scolding (and your creativity is amazing), but here I'll counsel that we be a bit more circumspect than usual. Asians really are being attacked on the street by Trumpists and their kin [71] so for now let's suspend this line of thought so as not to add fuel to the fire, even here in our own little corner of the world. Prayers for all. (I actually don't believe in prayer, but they say it works even if you don't believe in it.) EEng03:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I guess I'll shelve those jokes about Italian Lockdown Soup and Iranian Sneeze-kabob. Hard to do this with American cuisine though. I mean, how do you make fun of hamburger-and-my-idiot-president-just-scared-10,000-points-out-of-the-Dow-fries? Levivich[dubious – discuss]03:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not the media, it's the people in charge of naming diseases who are pointing out it's not helpful and is often harmful, and the media are accepting their word for it. The only person who likes it is Trump because he thinks it somehow shifts the blame from him to another country, and he'll throw literally anyone under the bus in order to protect himself. Well, maybe not Ivanka...no, yeah, I think he might even throw Ivanka under the bus if the alternative was admitting he'd not handled something perfectly. --valereee (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and a Trump-Pence campaign letter states: “America is under attack — not just by an invisible virus, but by the Chinese,” while accusing Biden of “siding with the Chinese”.[72] This subject has been added to the Racial views of Donald Trump article.[73]O3000 (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I get it. Tying the coronavirus to China is a political distraction, there's genuine racism and hate crimes going on, and is generally a terrible thing to do. But damn if kung-flu fighting and moo goo gai pandemic aren't two of the funniest things I've seen since this mess started. (Also, my report from a college town in the American midwest: panic buying here apparently also means "buy the entire salad section") creffett (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
We're not talking about what the Chinese government did. We're talking about people in the street blaming their Asian neighbors. EEng15:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are all kinds of innocuous puns and malapropisms that bring a bit of levity to real world fears. With that said, please take care, especially if you intend to go to a restaurant anytime soon:
Valereee, no, I mean all of the packaged greens, salad kits, cole slaw, that part of the produce section. Went to the store last week trying to head off the rush and that section was completely empty. Other interesting takeaways: despite their respective sections being nearly cleared out, nobody wanted the frozen okra, frozen cauliflower, zero-calorie grape Gatorade, or jars of alfredo sauce. creffett (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Creffett, well, duh. Grape Gatorade? I'd have to be extremely thirsty to even consider it. Maybe if you told me there was vodka involved...nope, not even then. --valereee (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
As everyone here knows, I'm close to a free-speech-absolutist in the J.S. Mill tradition (see an earlier thread). But I'm not doctrinaire. As the great O.W. Holmes, Jr. put the test so very well:
To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom.
Well, while we're not exactly in the proverbial crowded theater (to invoke a somewhat awkward metaphor for present purposes) we are nonetheless in an emergency very close to the kind Mr. Justice Holmes envisioned, and evil is even now befalling our fellow men[1] before there "be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies". I'm light-years from counseling repression, but self-restraint in certain things just now will be prudent and humane. EEng14:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. And, even we who are "close to a free-speech-absolutist in the J.S. Mill tradition" (I myself fell in love with Mill upon my first reading of On Liberty forty years or so ago), know that just because you have the right to say something doesn't of course mean you should. Paul August☎16:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
References
^Yes, yes, and women of course. Men and women. And the non-binary. All radices. Yes.
A kitten for you!
Thank you for fixing my error, performed on a slightly pickled brain. It is much appreciated.
No problem. I live to return the deviant to the straight and narrow. I hope you paged through that volume. It's fascinating. EEng20:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to reply to an email at the same time, and don't multitask well. I assumed our posts just crossed paths in the ether, but it probably didn't sound like that's what I assumed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I might not reply here because your userpage takes 3 days for my computer to load. I was referring to him continuing his category bizarreness and creating the red-linked category you added to my page, and then recreating it after an admin deleted the category. I figured it easier to make it an empty category than try to explain the needlessness of it to someone who doesn't have a clue. Natureium (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Saw the thread on the MOS linking page and immediately thought of Whither Canada? though I had forgotten that is was their very first episode. I hope you are well, safe and that you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk
Today I learned
(from a miscapitalization of your name in an ANI thread)
... that an eeng is a Mexican musical instrument, or more likely a typo for the actual name of the instrument
... that an EEnG is an abbreviation for an electroenterogram
Those playing along at home who crave background should see User:EEng#Titular_characters. The article text this Steve Summit character showcases – indeed a magnificent specimen – is:
The comic strip Garfield's titular cat character of the same name enjoys the consumption of lasagna.
I don't wish to keep reverting this editor since it might be construed as edit-warring but the editor hasn't responded to the message I left on his user talk page.
Is there an efficient way to stop this disruptive editing?
(I seem to recall noticing a page where the persistent errors of good faith newbies could be brought to the attention of administrators, but I haven't been able to find it again...)
Now on my watchlist. However, between you and me and the wall, I don't think it's appropriate for that page to be literally transluded into other pages. Honestly I've never seen that, and my feeling is it's not appropriate. Seems to me it should be a See also. EEng16:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit, Sir. I will wait with interest to see if there is any response to the comments you made on the editor's user talk page.
Historically this vulnerable page began as a number of different templates to be used as appropriate on a variety of "visa pages" to gain economy and efficiency of editor effort. (It can be quite tedious updating hundreds of country-specific visa articles with identical information when there are changes.) However, when the labour-saving templates were threatened with deletion, it seemed the lesser of 2 evils to accept lstification. As we have seen though, a huge disadvantage of transclusion is that if a newby finds the transcluded page (often they can't) and does silly stuff, it has an immediate effect on many pages. That's why I was rather hoping this page could be given a degree of protection... --BushelCandle (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I still don't see why transclusion is better than just saying, "Countries commonly impose other restrictions beyond those related to visa. See XXXXX". EEng17:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm conflicted now. What was above made me question my judgement in calling Poopy42069 the best username ever. However, what made me really doubt myself was that User:Poopdick69 was a user. For 51 seconds. I may or may not have queried the API to get that number. I still think Poopy42069 tripping so many filters in so little time is impressive, though. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Gotta admire the creativity. See also [75]. I wish I could remember who put the idea in my head of Osama /bin/login/ as a username. EEng22:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
No disrespect meant to a nice guy but English is not his first language and I think this comment may deserve some consideration for the hallowed halls of your Museum - I shouldn't laugh but I did... AtsmeTalk📧02:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Another museum candidate of some sort: Special:AbuseLog/26583009's edit summary, THIS PAGE SHOULD BE IN ENGLISH. IF YOU REVERT THIS BACK PLEASE REVERT EVERY PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA TO TAKE ENGLISH INTO NON-AMERICAN LANGUAGES. WHAT THE FUCK IS SO HARD ABOUT THIS? ENGLISH SHOULD BE IN ENGLISH. A fine vintage with an all-caps body, notes of troll, and a pleasant tautological finish, though if the IP wants to change Wikipedia back to an American language like Cherokee, I'm good with that. Another entertaining filter hit from the same user is Special:AbuseLog/26583067, helpfully pointing out that the Italians sided with the Nazis...on a page about bruschetta. creffett (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Harvard does not deserve to be exempt from a Controversy heading. The small snippet in History mentions that he tried something, and doesn't show that an actual policy was passed when he Lowell was serving that dramatically impacted Jewish admittance rates. It would be a disservice to the victims of the past as well as a missed opportunity to document the past. If not ethically, then it should have a Controversy header for the principal of fairness since most universities have a Controversy header. Ocarwa (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Ocarwa, before addressing the content dispute, I'd ask that you take a moment to explain why there appear to be two of you (Ocawa and Ocarwa) - if they're both accounts that you operate, you need to disclose that. Operating more than one account without acknowledging it is almost always considered sockpuppetry. creffett (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
When I first made these accounts I wanted one to create an account with the fewest amount of characters and matches other accounts. Found out that this current one is I've edited the same pages before 4 years ago, so I'm not hiding my account. One is logged into my phone and the other my desktop. To add, they only differ by one character so I wouldn't consider that any attempt to impersonate two people. I'll delete the other account right now if that seems weird in wiki-culture. Ocawa (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Ocarwa, Ocawa: As WP:CRIT advises so well, A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. A 400-year-old institution has seen plenty of controversies, which cannot possibly all be treated in any detail in the main article. Restrictions on Jewish admissions are already mentioned, and a full article on the subject (or possibly the broader subject of the history of Harvard admissions overall) would be great. But there's no way the main article can give anything but a mention to Harvard's profits from slavery and admission of blacks and admission of Jews and admission of Asians and admission of legacies and admission of rich kids and admission of poor kids and napalm and nuclear weapons and McCarthyism and Sacco & Vanzetti and ROTC and Vietnam and academic freedom and Gina Grant and the Secret Court of 1920 and the Salem Witch Trials and Theda Skocpol and Lawrence Summers and the sheltering of regicides and the Charity of Edward Hopkins and the gay Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and the Allston land grab and South Africa divestment and fossil fuel divestment and unionization and theft of the Sacred Cod and the all-male social clubs and the Gov 1310 cheating scandal and Increase Mather being a crusty old fart. And those are just a few off the top of my head. EEng04:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Eeng! You do make some fair points. I do believe that university page readers would greatly benefit from a concentrated place to view material that otherwise would be hidden from the website's official website since that's usually a sales pitch. Could making my own page with the material and listing it as a link under a new Controversies header be a good compromise? The University of California page has a Controversy page and that encompasses like 7 Universities. I think it's only fair and for the good of the people to have Wikipedia conglomerate information otherwise hidden by these influential institutions. Ocawa (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Besides substantial six-figure incomes, the UC President and all UC chancellors enjoy controversial perks such as free housing in the form of university-maintained mansions. In 1962, Anson Blake's will donated his 10-acre (40,000 m2) estate (Blake Garden) and mansion (Blake House) in Kensington to the University of California's Department of Landscape Architecture. In 1968, the Regents decided to make Blake House the official residence of the UC President. As of 2005, it cost around $300,000 per year to maintain Blake Garden and Blake House; the latter, built in 1926, is a 13,239-square-foot (1,229.9 m2) mansion with a view of San Francisco Bay. All UC chancellors traditionally live for free in a mansion on or near campus that is usually known as University House, where they host social functions attended by guests and donors. UC San Diego's University House was closed from 2004 to 2014 for $10.5 million in renovations paid for by private donors, which were so expensive because the 12,000-square-foot structure sits on top of a sacred Native American cemetery and next to an unstable coastal bluff.
How is that a criticism or controversy? Lots of schools have grand president's/dean's/chancellor's residences that are now white elephants. I myself grew up in a house with a view of San Francisco Bay -- is the president of the UC system not entitled to the same after a long day at the office dealing with "sex for the students, athletics for the alumni, and parking for the faculty"? What is the reader supposed to conclude from such uncontextualized stuff? You've given a great example of exactly why such sections shouldn't exist. Real stuff that matters should be woven into the article. EEng16:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Those are valid suggestions for the UC page, but it still stands that the Harvard page lacks Controversies. It was not my point that we make the Harvard page into the UC page, only that we add a Controversies header to fairly document major things that otherwise wouldn't be popularly known. If criticism doesn't belong on the page then, a header with links to the Controversies should be established. Either case is better than not including notable mishaps. I agree that the Levering Act should be linked in the UC page as well. If it's of significance, then it should be written about either on the page or in its own page and linked in the main one.
Putting this stuff in the See Also wouldn't be that great either. Imagine the average person's perspective; if they think of an institution they are likely to conjure mainstream media advertisement and reportings done on the subject. Our job as contributors is to not only show the mainstream definition, but also information that is less known. Perhaps we should seek opinion of other authors not affiliated with us if there is no agreement or compromise made. Ocawa (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I've said why articles, in general, shouldn't have Controversies sections. I didn't say that criticism doesn't belong on the page, just that the place for it is to be mentioned, at an appropriate level of detail (i.e. usually not much) in the normal course of presenting the subject; the article's job isn't to be a compensating counterbalance to a school's own self-presentation, but simply to make its own balanced presentation, period. Please open a discussion on the article's talk page if you want to pursue this further. EEng04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Citation needed at Widener Library
"and in the early 1980s library officials "pushed the panic button"[80] again, leading to the construction of the Harvard Depository.)[citation needed]"
Do you have a source for the information? I cannot find a source for this. The material has been flagged for over a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.217.93 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You didn't look very hard. [76] Just out of curiosity, what's your preoccupation with this obviously correct, uncontentious statement? EEng00:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe that a "deffer" is a slang term for someone who writes definitions for a dictionary. By extension, the verb "deffer" means to define something. A deffer who plays golf is known as a "deffer duffer", and one who looks good doing so is a "deffer duffer dandy". Those who are amusing are "daffy deffer duffer dandies". There was one who was so good, he was known as the "Deadly Daffy Deffer Duffer Dandy" by his opponents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, mister, we was only foolin' around. We ain't got no playground or ballfield or nuttin'. Can't you help us mister? Please buy some candy! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Re: [79]; any interest in helping with a copy edit? Would be appreciated; its at PR now, and I fear I will be eaten alive. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I actually clicked because without my glasses I thought it said Holden Chapel, but since it's you'll I'll give it a go. I usually make little edits that are easily reverted, so feel free. I'm not proud. EEng23:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Me neither. Grew up in 70s Ireland when grammer and fancy English things were not a priority, so dont know the rules; help appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I was just taking a break to ask if you found what I'd done copacetic. I'll continue after a talk with me old mum, and maybe a movie with my boyfriend. OK, maybe it will be tomorrow. My aim is generally to simply re-express what's there, though now and then I'll cut a bit of detail; I try to do that in standalone edits so you can restore if you want. Let me know if you see any problems. EEng01:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew...too many words, which is why asked for review...you are trimming without losing too much colour (I do like my colour, but cutting rept is ok). V happy so far, go talk your aould wan. Ceoil (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we don't want to lose the color; it's the fat that we seek to excise. (Yuck.) But concise writing takes work, and few can do it. As Mark Twain (or Benjamin Franklin, or someone) said, "I apologize that this letter is so long. I did not have time to write a shorter one."Mom's all squared away, as is dad. They've been divorced 40 years but they live next door to each other; it's very convenient. EEng04:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It's an article I wrote after running into the story in the course of other research. It's rare that I get an opportunity to link so I couldn't let it pass. EEng18:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit sensitive about my ability to spel in English, not something I ever got the hang of, though by better half was a queen bee back in the day. Maybe I lucked out. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Well as you probably know I take 'em where I find 'em, and it's all in the spirit of fun. I'd say that in this case it's your typing more than your spelling. I'll get back to the article today or tomorrow. It's longer than I'd realized. EEng22:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm very happy with the progress from this side. Might have to invest in a barnstar or something. Hugely appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Whew indeed. Brilliant man. Thank you so much, the page is drastically improved. I owe you three Guinness', at least!!! Sound as a pound. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Understandable, people change as they grow older; I know I have stayed closed to g/f was with for 8 years...the spark had gone but still care. Its not easy man, but have met the love of my life since. My point is I really respect couples that part on good terms.
Re words, am aware of "elegant variation", which I think is where I think we first met, but damn it, cant escape the gravitational pull. Which why have called in heavies like you. Ceoil (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your changing it back again
I'm leaving the office right now to go out for 4-5 hours and don't have time to edit Wiki more at the moment, but we can't reword that sentence to imply that Floyd died because Chauvin put his knee on his neck. See a quick explanation here after another editor made a similar edit: User_talk:AzureCitizen#George_Floyd's_lede_rollback. Please consider reverting it for those reasons. I'll circle back later to take up the conversation further if need be, I'm just literally walking at the door at the moment... regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, when you juxtapose two facts like that the implication is there whether you make an explicit connection or not. But I've reworded. EEng16:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the re-wording, that works. Yep, I agree that even when split into two sentences, there's some implied connection there. When the RM on changing the name from "Death of..." to "Killing off..." closed the other day, some editors started changing the very front of the lead from "X died..." to "X was killed by Y....", and breaking the sentence in two was the quickest remedy. Now that you've changed it back to "died," I hope it sticks. Amazingcaptain was exceedingly polite about it, but passions are running very high on this topic for others. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Replacing "46-year-old" with "middle-aged" in George Floyd article's lede
Hi,
Do you think we can replace "46-year-old black man" with "middle-aged black man" as 46 year old would take away a reader's attention? The sentence is kinda long and we can remove some facts from there. Moreover, I was also going to remove the MPD fact. :) --Amazingcaptain (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that's going overboard. There's a reason that old-school news stories always give the ages of persons reported on if possible: "Police said that John Smith, 18, snatched the purse of Mary Mitchell, 82..." There's nothing like a person's age to give you a gigantic amount of information about them in a tiny space; right away you're able to begin forming an image. Gender is comparable, but of course you almost always get that for free from names and pronouns so it's not an issue. So I'd absolutely leave it. EEng18:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Amended Complaint: "The officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of their squad car by pushing him from the driver's side. As the officers were trying to force Mr. Floyd in the backseat, Mr. Floyd repeatedly said that he could not breathe. Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily sit in the backseat and the officers physically struggled to try to get him in the backseat. The defendant went to the passenger side and tried to get Mr. Floyd into the car from that side and Lane and Kueng assisted. The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed."
LA Times: "Chauvin and Thao soon arrived, and all four officers made 'several attempts to get Floyd in the back seat of their squad car by pushing him.' Chauvin pulled Floyd out of the squad car and Floyd went to the ground face-down, still handcuffed."
USA Today: "The officers attempted to get Floyd into a patrol car, while Floyd said he couldn't breathe. Chauvin and Kueng tried to get Floyd into the car from the passenger seat while the other officers tried pushing him from the driver's side, according to court documents. When that didn't work, Chauvin pulled Floyd out of the passenger side of the car and Floyd 'went to the ground face down and still handcuffed,' the complaint said."
When putting him in the car didn't work, they took him out of the car. Makes sense.
The Old Grey Lady just skips it altogether: "As they tried to walk Mr. Floyd to their squad car, he stiffened up and fell to the ground. Mr. Floyd told them he was not resisting arrest but was claustrophobic and did not want to get in the back seat of the car, according to the arrest affidavit. Soon, Mr. Chauvin showed up, with Mr. Thao at his side. Mr. Chauvin quickly took charge. Cellphone video showed that Mr. Chauvin placed his left knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck. Mr. Lane held Mr. Floyd’s legs, and Mr. Kueng held his back. Mr. Thao stood between the officers and onlookers, according to charging documents."
I'm not sure whether the above is meant to be an action item for me. I've been meaning to say: great work on straightening out the chronology. EEng23:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
For talk page watchers, this thread is about Killing of George Floyd. That article and the many related articles (e.g., George Floyd protests) have proposals where consensus is as-yet unclear, and it would be very helpful if more editors would register their opinions to help move us towards consensus (regardless of what those opinions are). Thanks. This public service announcement brought to you by Levivich[dubious – discuss]00:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
RfC on infobox style for locations
Hey. Just re. Talk:Killing of George Floyd#Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020. I was originally planning to open up an RfC for this anyway, simply due to the lack of consistency, then you mentioned you'd be interested in making it in your recent response and I think it'd be better if you made it.
I wanted to mention two points which I hope you'll take into account when drafting:
Although I'm fine with "US" on this page in the meantime, for the purpose of an RfC I think I'd prefer better consistency. You mentioned your preference for "US" rather than "United States". One point I get raised here is the ignorance of English-speakers (Americans, Brits) in not really learning a second language, unlike much of the rest of the world. I don't think there should be a special exemption to allow "United States" to be abbreviated. It's a weak point, but I feel it creates a slippery slope. You could also allow exemptions for more well-known abbreviations (like "UK", "USSR"), but then you end up with questionable ones like "UAE", "HK", "NZ", "AUS"). There's also the point that what abbreviations we think are easily recognisable may not apply across all readers -- on that note, this is why I think "New York City" should also be "New York City, US" -- we don't know what terms are recognisable to which readers, and the additional 2 characters isn't really wasting infobox space. Although most probably know California and NYC are in the US, London in the UK, Paris in France, I don't think there's any reason to assume and omit.
I recognise your point about infobox space and practicalities, so hopefully you can consider this point and come up with a working solution, and/or provide options in the RfC. Whatever the outcome is, I don't think it should be a per-article decision, for the sake of consistency and preventing pointless debate -- I can't think of any reasons why this should differ in the infobox from article to article. And I'm aware I used "US" in my above bullet - it does appear cleaner there. I have no clue which guidance should be adopted in which cases. Unless a well-reasoned policy can be made, it's probably better to leave it to each article, I suppose.
Non-infobox text should not be included in the policy. I think WP:GUIDANCE accurately sums up why I think that should be left a per-article decision. Some articles deserve context of country, like George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom. Others less-so.
Just my POV. Hope you can consider the points and come up with a working solution. If you do go ahead and make the RfC, please let me know.
Finally, regarding: I'd prefer United States personally – At least between now and the presidential inauguration I'd prefer anywhere but the United States, so if you'd like to make a seven-month house swap I'm game. I'd like to retract such implication, though I appreciate the offer. We have plenty of problems on this side of the pond, but at least civilians don't get tear gassed by the government for a photo op. I like to enjoy my morning stroll gas-free :D ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
When I said I'd initiate a initiate a proposal for a MOS change "when things die down", that means not days from now and probably not weeks from now, but months. Getting something like this changed, if it can be changed, is WAY more complicated than just posting an RfC. As I've rubbed in your face already, I've been around the block a few times, and I know how hard this will be. Just posting an RfC out of the blue is certain to fail. The first task is to quietly discuss with the opinion-making MOS elite. That alone will take quite some time and right now, as you can appreciate, Floyd matters are absorbing most of the time and energy I can devote to WP. After allowing 24 hours to elapse for comment I anticipate no problems in installing this change on the Floyd articles, but a project-wide change will have to wait. Ping me in a month and if the spirit moves me and the stars appear auspicious, we can get started. EEng15:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Countries in infobox
Hey. You mentioned that there was a conversation on this in archives, but we didn't find it the last time. Just wanted to let you know that I did finally find it, it was in WT:NCGN, here, in case you're interested. The discussion was prompted by one editor mass-removing "US" from infoboxes due to their interpretation of WP:USPLACE. Only that mass-removing editor appeared to be in support of this interpretation. The conclusion seems to be that it makes sense to include, for the same reasons I argued, and implicit consensus for inclusion was shown by analysing a diverse range of GAs/FAs (after the infobox subheading). Just thought you'd be interested. And letting you know that, uh, I've affixed this great achievement to my personal Wikipedia CV. three weeks and 1200 edits' worth of experience -> EEng, per usual, is correct is a mighty achievement I must say ;p (friendly banter disclaimer) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
As you can see by what's going on at WT:MOS#Removal_of_"UK"_from_location_field_in_infoboxes there's something about this topic that makes editors act like cats in a bag, so you'll understand my warning that this wouldn't be easy. The discussion you link notwithstanding (though it helps), what would be needed to put this issue to rest once and for all is a new discussion (probably RfC, eventually) preceded by getting MOS elites on board first. EEng14:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see what you meant now. esp re. all the little nuances applicable to each country. Must say, it is surprising to me that this hasn't been hashed out and standardised by now, given it has been so many years since the project began (indeed, a decade after the discussion I linked).
I don't feel that UK discussion is going to lead to the standardised guideline I hope for. Doesn't look like anyone is close to changing their minds on the issue. Just as an example from that discussion, plenty of people would oppose to standardising omission of 'Scotland' in favour of UK, while others (like myself) would oppose having both (eg "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK"), as well as solely having Scotland. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: My mistake, allow me to clarify. Fuzheado has so far ignored mine and Bagumba's comment. I view their reopen of discussion as "meh", but their reversion of the move as unjust, as no one has ever supported the current article title on the talk page, and it's out-WP:MOS in many ways. So, I'm asking you, as one of the most experienced editors,[注 1] to weigh in on what I should do next. I think that discussion being reopened and the move are separate issues from perspective of WP:IAR. But I need outside opinion, and help. I believe we're doing a disservice to readers by leaving it at this title in the face of clear WP:consensus, regardless of state of discussion. But, I can easily be wrong, and I remember: nothing is "urgent",[注 2] there is WP:NODEADLINE, WP:CCC. So, is this worth a protracted debate over, or should I just "take the L" as the kids say? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!19:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for removing my bot's misplaced notice from Talk:8′46″ – I'm in process of debugging that now. If you're interested in the gory details, see this.
Oh, and my quick opinion of the above is that WP:SNOW never falls in controversial topic areas. Let the discussion run for a full week. wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: I think you're conflating the issue of the close reversal with the page move itself. As stated...I view their reopen of discussion as "meh", but their reversion of the move as unjust. I don't think it's a big problem to have it on a "second best" title for a week, given the popularity of the page, and then, if by some miracle of procedure, another name, like 8m46s, wins the day, we go with that. Having it on a title everyone thinks is bad for a week, probably the week of the article's life where it will be most read, seems strange to me. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!20:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Look, I don't know from close reviews and so on, but I've made a post at the article talk which I hope will move things forward. If things go as planned I think there will be clear consensus very quickly. Since this is really just about typography (sort of) and not the usual arguments like Peking vs Beijing and that sort of thing, maybe we can act on the consensus without waiting a week, if that consensus is clear enough. EEng20:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Psiĥedelisto, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "everyone" thinks the current title is bad. Seems like an acceptable title to me. Perhaps not the best title (opinions vary on that, it's why we have discussions) but not bad... 8'48" would be an actually bad title.
Reviewing the page move history:
at 19:15, 2 June 2020 Fuzheado created page 8'46" (start)
at 06:27, 13 June 2020 Psiĥedelisto moved page 8′46″ to 8 minutes 46 seconds (Moved per requested move on talk page. Non-admin closing early due to clear consensus. (WP:SNOW))
at 15:44, 13 June 2020 Fuzheado moved page 8 minutes and 46 seconds to 8′46″ (improper SNOW CLOSE, no consensus, and early close - undoing move until proper procedure followed)
So your "snow" move lasted all of seven minutes before someone else decided that it was a "technical" matter that the title should include "and" between the minutes and seconds. The whole point of "requested moves" is to avoid such frequent, disruptive page moving. The original title, or the close variant of that, lasted a full week before the RM was opened, so it is not at all clear that it's such a bad title that it must be moved immediately. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, it is absolutely an inappropriate title. 4′33″ is called that because that is literally -- those very characters -- the name of the musical composition the article discusses. Not so here. EEng21:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@EEng and Wbm1058: Wow! You're telling me this title was chosen by Fuzheado? And this same editor ignored my comment and that of another admin on the talk page, and has made no arguments as to why their preferred title fits the WP:MOS? So, in sum—Fuzheado is not an uninvolved admin? I never would have even considered it possible. I assumed some new editor chose this obviously incorrect title. Stunning—now, finally, what's gone on here makes sense. To (incorrectly, in my view) use procedural minutiæ to keep an obviously incorrect title on the page for seven days because some editors dissented to another title. And let's note that Fuzheado did not attempt to defend their title in the thread at all, against the multiple editors assailing it. Curly quotes are not allowed. Minutes and seconds are not to be marked even with straight quotes. So, yeah, I definitely don't think I got out of your post what you were hoping I would. Or is the argument that Fuzheado has all the time in the world to undo closed requested moves in which they are heavily involved as the main party!, but none to discuss on the talk page why they are correct per the MOS? They need seven days to formulate their killer argument as to why curly quotes are allowed, and quotes should be used for minutes and seconds, on one of the most read pages on the site right now. This revelation is too much for me, I can't believe it. Is this a cause of action for WP:AN/I? I suppose it is, yes, if they continue ignoring pings? So, let's try this one, and I'll also invite them here on their talk page. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!23:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I gather there's some grievance over the history of the moves of this article, but I'm sorry, I don't know anything about that and I'd be lying if I said I could invest the energy needed to come up to speed. I put a chunk of time into moving the discussion towards resolution, and that's going to be my contribution. Sorry if you expected more from me. I disappoint people on a regular basis. EEng23:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem. I will not ping you further, and will instead suggest Fuzheado discuss it over on Talk:8′46″ rather than here. Did not expect more from you. Replied here as this is where wbm1058 posted the vital clue. Feel free to close this section. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!23:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible, but my username is based on a typo I commonly make. The V isn't even important, except after I sent that very first email I realized it would distinguish me from all the other chimpanzees. Except I was writing to one, not from one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's in bad taste, but now's probably not the best time. Also (#1) we'd have to get it to GA. Also (#2) I haven't participated and haven't read the arguments so far, but offhand my inclination is that it should be merged to ... somewhere. EEng03:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no bet. Also, on reflection there will be some small % of editors who will accuse us of trying to minimize what Chauvin did. EEng22:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I think these new userboxes I made fit your aesthetic
À
This user supports utilisation gratuite, c'est-à-dire, gratuitous use of French.
Ç
Æ
In re gratuitous use of Latin, ego sum in favorem funditus; viz., I am 100% in favor.
... such as this? I know they're a repetitive pain in the ass and that cases like this one should be rightly laughed off, but still if you're taking the time deal with it also add/change the answered=yes parameter so it doesn't pollute the ER request queue, which is full enough as is. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about the queue thing. I should have changed it to Answered and then immediately archived.Ya' know, there ought to be a way to set some parameter, on a highly active talk page like that one, to cause ERs submitted on that page to not be enqueued, on the assumption that the page is so active that ERs can be handled locally. Or maybe, as a backstop, with the parameter set ERs won't be enqueued unless they go unanswered for X days. I recognize this would probably be more trouble than it's worth, but you see my point. EEng03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Well I agree that it seems like the only thing that should have changed is the colors, but the fact is that everything was neatly well-formatted before, and afterwards there's all kinds of strange whitespace in the College section. (This is all on my platform, of course.) EEng15:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
If you disagree with the changes (with your assertion: "everything was neatly well-formatted before", which seems to be an opinion rather than a fact, apart of being unpolite towards me), you can go back to the previous edit or add the colors yourself. It's your decission. I already gave you the proof in that link. Clear enough, I guess. Don't blame for things I never did. End of discussion for me. - Fma12 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Calm down. Your link doesn't show what things looked like before your edit; this one [83] does, and this one shows things after your edit [84]. You added some code which you think does some particular things, but which apparently has side effects you don't understand. I'm telling you, and you're going to need to believe me even if you don't see it on your platform, that it did mess up the layout (on a typical-sized laptop running Chrome on Windows 10) by introducing a lot of half-full lines in the College section that aren't there in the version just before your edit; that's not an "opinion". Since I have every reason to believe that your intention really is to improve things, and we're always learning and improving our skills as editors, I thought you might be interested to figure out why this was happening in this case so that it won't happen again, especially since it appears you're making similar changes to other templates/articles; perhaps what I'm saying will ring a bell, and you'll have an insight into what's going wrong.Or, as seems to be the case, you can interpret my communication as some sort of attack and just press on making mindless changes you apparently don't fully understand without caring whether they improve things or not. As you say, it's your decision. EEng16:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
On my platform as well, I must say the template as much worse after the changes, with many misalignments, looking very amateurish overall. The colors themselves (the intent of the change) are now ugly and intrusive, when before they were subtle and helpful. --A D Monroe III(talk)03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
While I appreciate your support, surely you don't mean to call Harvard's beautiful crimson ugly and intrusive. (But count your blessings: it narrowly missed being magenta [85].) EEng03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
While I appreciate the humor in that reply, for those that don't (there's always someone), I'll point out that my ugly and intrusive comment meant using that color scheme for text. Bold, even glorious colors tend to make reading the text annoyingly difficult. --A D Monroe III(talk)19:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
At least Harvard knows what its color is. One of my almae matres can't seem to figure out whether it's Pantone 290 or 292. Anyway, I think using crimson for the navbox header but not for the interior parts is a reasonable compromise, both because of the formatting issues and for readability of the content. I'm curious why coloring some of the list entries makes the formatting go wonky, but not curious enough to make any serious efforts to debug it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Atlanta shooting article
Hi. Nice job editing the Atlanta shooting page. You are making it better. A couple of comments. 1. I think there are two investigations. The header you edited is in the singular, though. 2. Why is internet inlined here ... isnt that an overlink? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:644A:43B5:4DD3:1CF3 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I was going to unlink internet but got distracted. If someone reading Wikipedia doesn't know what the internet is, they'll need more than a link. EEng01:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Resisting arrest typically happens before the arrest - they're not escaping arrest, they're resisting BEING ARRESTED. It goes "reasonable suspicion" to "detained" to "probable cause" to "arrested.
As of the phrase
All right, I think you've had too much to drink to be driving. Put your hands behind your back for me
He was "detained" Anything that happens between "detained" and arrest would be legally known as "resisting arrest". I'm putting that part back.
@EEng: - Good catch though, we should take the time to get this right.
While I appreciate your taking the time to contact me, we editors are not in a position to make such determinations, regardless of our experience or expertise. What the sources say is that Brooks tried to break free, wrestled, struggled, tussled, scuffled, and so on. I don't see any reliable sources stating, as fact, that he was resisting arrest. EEng23:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@EEng: You are entirely right (and I hadn't thought of it) that I should not interpret. I plead guilty. :) That said, there are news sources using the term "resisting arrest.
The CBS piece just quotes unnamed "officials" and "police said" the day after the incident. That leaves the LA Times. I'd be interested to see the whole paragraph, but honestly given the intensity of interest in this case you'd expect numerous sources for something like this. (That's true for everything in the article, and a serious problem we have is that's it's chock-full of low-quality local news/breaking news sources when, at this point, much better sources are available.) Please drop by the museums. EEng03:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
"The former Atlanta police officer who shot Rayshard Brooks in the back after he resisted arrest and ran off outside a Wendy’s fast-food restaurant will be charged with felony murder, according to a Georgia district attorney." Levivich[dubious – discuss]05:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I screwed up on the talk page of "Killing of Rayshard Brooks" and in doing so, I confused you and all the other editors who are all working hard on that article. I have made corrections, but I want you to know I am very sorry for my screw up & hope it didn't waste too much of your time. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
My normal level of confusion is so high that I doubt you could do anything to add to it in any significant way. You draft is very good -- a big improvement. Please keep helping out. EEng21:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey, everyone, I've been happy to host this discussion over the past days, but I think it's better if it continues in a more conventional setting, so I've moved it to WT:MOS#WP:ERA,_MOS:STYLERET,_MOS:RETAIN. (ERA is really part of MOSNUM but I think this is a more global issue, intersecting as it does ENGVAR and STYLERET.) (signed) Your host, EEng21:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Lee Harvey Oswald inclusion in Far-left terrorist category
You mentioned in the revert comments that you would like a source for this claim. Are you wanting a source to say that he was a terrorist for killing the president of the USA? Or a source that says he was an american Marxist & communist?Digdeepertalk02:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. I must say that seems a bit subtle for general use. Don't you think it could lead to accusations of misquotation? EEng03:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I think I'd use it when someone misstated something. "You quoted the source as saying x, but what it actually says is "xyz", which is not the same." Of course I'll never remember the code or where to find it, and I'll be too lazy to go hunting. But I could see the usefulness. —valereee (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense (the part about using it for when someone misstates something, not that part about you being lazy). EEng16:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
If you're asking for my advice on something, I'm happy to do what I can, but if I'm your reality check you need to get out of the house more. EEng15:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a long tenure user who has been vexing me. Should probably just let it go. This way I don't act rashly. I prefer to not stir drama, but they seem to be into stirring. Have you ever posted to AE before? I thought you could, you know, give feedback on process. You know, what's it like? --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm unable to figure out precisely who or what you're talking about, and I have very little experience with AE or, indeed, much of anything Arbcom-related. My advice would be to outline the issue quietly on the user talk of an experienced admin you trust, and get their fresh-eyed evaluation. EEng18:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, if this is what I now think it is (G.S.?) I'd let it go this time. This user has a strange preoccupation with rehashing archiving mishaps, as if they were capital offenses. If he keeps it up he's gonna get in hot water, but as things stand I think a formal complaint will end with no consensus, he's just a crotchety old grump, something like that. If I've got the wrong situation, let me know. EEng21:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Today I learned that a tattletale is also part of a rope
You can find it all inside, no need to wrestle with your pride. No, you ain't losin' your mind, you're just at AE. They can lead you to yourself, or you can throw it on the shelf, but you know you can look inside for Arbcom, oh yeah. Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
My dear @Levivich:, if your intent has been to vex me, you have failed utterly. Actually, I rather like you, even though I many times disagree with you. You add a certain, ineffable, je ne sais quoi'. --Deepfriedokra(talk)21:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Kamala Harris infobox image
I don't think I've ever seen an officeholder's infobox use the image upright function before. That's why I deleted it: I thought it was a mistake. But if you're confident it belongs there, that's fine with me. --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Woko Sapien: It definitely is incorrect; it contradicts the way we display the portraits of every other person with an officeholder infobox, and makes the margins on the left and the right of the picture excessively large. MOS:IMAGESIZE is a guide to sizing images that exist on their own; this image is in an infobox, and the image should be sized appropriately to it. I changed it back. — Tartan357(Talk)05:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but Sapien came to his senses, and there's still time for you to do the same. MOS:IMAGESIZE certainly applies to infobox images (I should know, because I wrote it), and margins have nothing to do with it. An image's appropriate size isn't based on how long it's been a certain way, or the way "we" display portraits in other articles; the reason, in fact, that you seldom see upright in infoboxes is simply that it wasn't available until a few years ago. This is a near-closeup with the subject filling most of the frame, so that at upright=1 she appears startlingly large. See Barack Obama and Joe Biden for images with other compositions appropriately presented at upright=1, and Lionel_de_Jersey_Harvard for a good example of a portrait appropriate at reduced size. But hey, the article has way worse problems than a lead image that bores into you like the Big Brother is watching you posters in 1984, so you can rest easy.
I'm certainly willing to come to my senses. Could you please be more specific about which part of MOS:IMAGESIZE you're referring to? It seems to me that it's about how to scale images using the upright parameter, not what sizes are aesthetically appropriate. IMO, it's simply too small at 0.8, which is why I thought to check the scaling in the first place. The time for which the current size has stood – as well as the way almost all other infobox portraits are presented – is reflective of consensus to an extent. My concern is with the size of the image rather than the use of the upright parameter. That said, I agree that it's a bit big and would be willing to meet you in the middle at 0.9. On a general note, while the use of upright instead of a fixed width makes sense to me for the reasons you wrote in the MOS, the practice is uncommon, even for newly-created content. Forgive my ignorance, but has the width parameter been deprecated in any way? — Tartan357(Talk)08:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your willingness to discuss. Before we go any further, we need to be all looking at the same thing, so if you could check at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering that Thumbnail size is set to 220px, then you'll be a the standard base size i.e. upright=1 will mean width 220. Also, make sure your browser zoom is 100%. Now then... These discussions are necessarily subjective, but certainly portrait-shaped images should be at width less than upright=1. In fact the original default size for portraits was 0.75, but that's too much typing so I usually just use 0.8. However, other considerations do come in. For example, the Biden and Obama images are from further back, with full torso and much more background -- by contrast, Harris's photo is so close in, a bit of one shoulder is out of frame. To me, the key for a portrait is to bring out the character of the face, and Harris even at 0.8 gives us plenty of that. So I'd really suggest sticking with 0.8. But if that keeps you up at night how about 0.85?
Re has the width parameter been deprecated in any way?, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean fixed-width parameters (i.e. expressed in pixels), then yes, they're deprecated in favor of upright. If you mean the width parameter in infoboxes specifically, well yes they're deprecated by implication by the general deprecation of specifying fixed widths anywhere (with certain special exceptions); but as mentioned, for technical reasons upright wasn't available in infoboxes until recently, so fixed widths have persisted in infoboxes largely because people don't know there's an alternative. EEng02:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm using the default settings. This seems plenty reasonable to me. I was focused more on the size of the image rather than the size of her head in the image. I still think it seems a bit small, but perhaps other infobox photos need to be shrunk. I won't get in the way of you changing it back to 0.8, and I appreciate the explanation, since you've obviously worked on this a lot. I'll probably be using the upright parameter more often from now on. — Tartan357(Talk)04:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean if you feel that passionately about it, sure. But it sort of feels like splitting hairs if we're negotiating the thousandths place. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I added a newly cropped version of her Senate portrait. It's wider and has less of that zoomed-in effect the previous one had. Hope that can settle things.--Woko Sapien (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Waiting for the AFC queue would be like... well, you know. Just kidding, and a shout-out to all my fellow AFC reviewers who stalk this talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
A costume that requires you to text a wikilink to the uninitiated might be the nerdiest thing I've ever heard of. Definitely a cape. I'm thinking something that communicates the pretense and possibly self-delusion of non-bias...hm...that takes me to Bill Barr... —valereee (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The general principle here is great, but I would say combine a checkmark on the chest with a cloak that has a load of crosses on the bottom of it. Preferably a really long cape that you keep stepping on, to represent all the contrary viewpoints you're ignoring. ~ mazcatalk19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Well played. Magnificent, in fact. I am awarding you the Steisand Effect Order of Merit, with Oak Leaves and Silver Rivets. (Allow 4 to six weeks for delivery. You pay only shipping and handling.) EEng04:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Which Office? I loaded Word and turned the volume all the way down and now when I click on "DO NOT PRESS" I can hear the clicking sound but nothing else happens. Should I try Excel? Lev!vich21:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
File:Assistencia.jpgIt looks like you're on EEng's page. Would you like help? * Suggest a witty DYK hook * Write a thigh-slappingly humorous essay * Troll him with an aggressive template message
Hello, EEng. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Celestina007, I received your email. The user right you asked about is completely unrelated to the issue you stated. I don't know how I can help you without knowing what the articles in dispute are. EEng04:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I had thought somehow it might help in curbing paid editing. I’m currently not sure how EFH works, Theoretically, I was thinking perhaps with EFH if an editor created any article pertaining to Nigeria I’d somehow be notified about it & closely examine the article & its creator. I wasn’t sure, that’s why I thought it wise to ask you for guidance on how it worked since you have great experience in this field. Thank you for your time & your response, I think for now i’d just stick to my normal method of nabbing UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. I was going to ask you what UPE (which you mentioned in your email) is, but I realize now it's Undeclared Paid Editing. At first I thought it was Universal Primary Education and I couldn't imagine why you'd be against that. EEng14:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I've just abbreviated John the Baptist and Light came upon me. What came out might surprise –or not?!– some people in Jordan. They're promoting the country as "the other Holy Land", which is perfectly fair, with the Baptism site a magnet for tourists (i.e. Sunday pilgrims). Me personally am convinced it's a sign from the Divine, as there's no such thing as a coincidence under His sun. Especially not in abbreviations. MtPbwy, Arminden (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I reverted your revert of my edit at WP:NPA for the following reasons.
First of all, it is inappropriate to revert, on policy as well as article pages, without an explanation of the objection to the edit. Saying “no consensus” or especially the novel “needs much broader consensus” is not a valid explanation. This is explained in multiple places including WP:DRNC (“Don’t Revert due solely to No Consensus”).
There is no requirement for establishing any particular kind of consensus prior to editing a policy page, much less a “far broader consensus” than satisfying those who choose to participate in a discussion per BRD.
The edit I made is fully consistent with the spirit and intent of the policy page. It’s just adding another explicit item to a list that the page states is not exhaustive so it’s no longer implicit. Makes it less vulnerable to misinterpretation.
If you have a specific objection to adding this to NPA please explain at the policy’s talk page. Thank you. —В²C☎03:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
While I pretty much agree with [86] everything you're saying, including the sarcasm, I think both of us could probably do better to marshal some serious response to what is clearly WP:POINTY behavior or WP:FORCEDINTERPRET BS. That nonsense needs to be shut down. Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
You might get a kick out of this.[87] No piano line is so important that you'd have to take your hand off your pint at any point. with thanks to martinevans for finding Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
So I was discussing this on IRC with someone, and I don't really know where to ask onwiki. I figure you may have some interest and background (and some of your TPS', Eppstein probably, might put me onto the right track if I'm astray), and adding a few bytes here surely can't hurt: is it just me or most of our maths articles a bit difficult to follow? I have some okay background, not research-level or anything but ug/olympiad, but I still have to think trying to follow articles on concepts I do reasonably understand (or so I hope!). Many times I think it's just the articles trying to cram every form of notation into the very first example, adding a bit of bloat and making it longer to get to the point, other times it's the style of writing, or lack of structure.
There's always WP:SOFIXIT, but I don't really understand what our maths articles are trying to do, so I may just be completely mistaken on what an appropriate math-related article would be. Are we trying to educate? Or just provide information on a topic? If the former, unlike even advanced physics articles where they can be written in a way where one can read and follow an entire article (even though they may not be able to do a single problem afterwards), it seems a bit difficult to word many areas of maths assuming little prerequisite knowledge? Still, I feel like we fall short even on basic articles. Euclidean distance, for example which I recently saw, is something we first learn in early/mid teen years (in the school system anyway), but some of the notation on the first few lines one wouldn't encounter till much later. There's just no structure here. If the latter, well, who are we catering for? I can't imagine such articles are useful to people until they already know a topic 'well-enough', and know enough notation (maybe equiv to end of first year knowledge here) to actually follow what the article is saying. Personally, I feel like an interested 14 year old should be able to dig into a geometry article, follow up to what they know, and still learn something new? Necessarily, I'd think that means cutting down on notation at times to improve accessibility?
FWIW, we have a good number of very well written maths articles, too. So not saying it's all of them. I recall some good ones re discrete maths. But just feels like whenever I stumble across one, on average it's not written in a way that's easy to follow. And I don't know what "the right way" to format them even is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not just you. Take happy number, for example. The lead paragraph does a good job of explaining what that is. The rest of the article? I have no idea what it says. Lev!vich15:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Are we trying to educate? Or just provide information on a topic? – For better or worse (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK):
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects ...
In other words, our target audience is apparently trained mathematicians who, for unaccountable reasons, have momentarily forgotten what Euclidean distance is while remembering everything else. Now consider something written by the late lamented Andrew Gleason:
It is notoriously difficult to convey the proper impression of the frontiers of mathematics to nonspecialists. Ultimately the difficulty stems from the fact that mathematics is an easier subject than the other sciences. Consequently, many of the important primary problems of the subject—that is, problems which can be understood by an intelligent outsider—have either been solved or carried to a point where an indirect approach is clearly required. The great bulk of pure mathematical research is concerned with secondary, tertiary, or higher-order problem, the very statement of which can hardly be understood until one has mastered a great deal of technical mathematics.
I think the combination of the two explains your (quite common) experience of our math articles. Of course, on top of all that, a lot of our articles are incomplete or just plain badly written, and in math or science – unlike (say) history – a single hiccup on a key point can make the entire rest of the article unintelligible. What to do about all this, I do not know; better minds than mine, say David Eppstein's, have put more thought into than I have. EEng16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
This complaint about technicality of mathematics is a common one, both here and elsewhere: see the famous incident of Euclid, Ptolemy, and the royal road to geometry. Usually when I see this sort of complaint on specific Wikipedia articles it indicates that the complainer doesn't appreciate that some important topics in mathematics really are necessarily difficult, but I think the two examples above about Euclidean distance and happy numbers are indeed more technical than they need to be. Some of us really do put a lot of effort into making mathematics articles accessible, but it's difficult to write both nontechnically and informatively on these topics, and some other editors are more enthusiastic about putting in as much technical detail as they can. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
David Eppstein, wow, that is neat! Current version turned out even better than I was mentally picturing an improvement to look. Nice touch on swapping out the main image too - the old one had wayy too much going on as the intro pic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
While I share your sentiment about google url debris in general (especially when it's surfaced onto the rendered page), I find the new text search feature quite handy when used judiciously. EEng18:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Skeptoid
I can't find the sentence in WP:EL that says Skeptoid is "not the sort of thing we link to", especially since it is "pretty good". Please help. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
one should generally avoid providing external links to ... Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. I said it's pretty good because it's lively and incorporates the latest research instead of rehashing the usual tired fictions about Gage being a vagrant psychopath and so on (though it does contain some minor fictional flourishes of the author's own). But there's nothing factual in it not already in the article. EEng18:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra Consider the 1998 address to UNCF, by VP Dan Quayle, who stated: "And you take the U.N.C.F. model that what a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." Amazing words of wisdom...some brain cells died in the cause...Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Proving that my talk page has grown to the point that it is no longer necessary to make new posts, but rather simply reference prior posts: [90]. EEng03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Opps, sorry, I do not stalk on a regular basis, and did not intend to be tiresomely repetitive! Do you think that the space aliens who view your page, will "beam up" DQ first?Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!04:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :::Thanks for asking deities, saints, etc., to assist in closing the WP:ELEM thread at ANI. It seems that your heartfelt pleas (and those of others) were answered. Lighting a candle...Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!04:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Very good point...I think the aliens might be searching for some tasty? food, if they beamed up "the real" DQ! You are obviously a connoisseur of fast food...ninth favorite? You made me laugh, thanks! Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!04:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, helpful is, in fact, my middle name: E-helpful-Eng. Did I provide a reference? If I did I don't remember. To be honest it's from my personal knowledge, though anyone with even the most basic knowledge of 20th-century California school architecture can see at a glance that the edifice in your photo cannot possibly date from before the the 1980s. But for all those sticklers out there I did dig up a cite [91] (search Thousand Oaks) and BTW here's what T.O. (as locals call it) looked like when Harris attended: [92].Since it was you I skipped my full lecture on filler images (my favorite ones to hate being exterior shots of courthouses where so-and-so-the-serial-killer was tried) but I will make one particular point: unless there's a very strong reason, "location" shots should be from the relevant period, not taken decades later after the place has undergone who-knows-what transformations. We should be providing either authentic images or no images, especially when they're of such marginal import even under the best circumstances. EEng06:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I never heard any locals call it "TO" when I was dating Berkeley ladies while attending college in San Francisco back when Harris was attending Thousand Oaks. But there can be little doubt that your original research is vastly superior to mine, because you are a much smarter fellow than I am. Thanks also for sharing your philosophy about photos of historically significant buildings. I will be sure to rent a time machine next time instead of trying to portray what the building looks like in 2020, since you decree such images worthless for our readers. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(off on a tangent; this one was something along the lines of 'what offends religious people') A friend's father used to sit in church and when the congregation was called to take communion would whisper "Now is the time for the ritual cannibalism." Parishioners sitting nearby did not appreciate this. He was a complete jackass, but funny's funny. —valereee (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The hand on a stick thing that Napoleon has in the picture seems an ideal instrument for eating soft fruit while being made Emperor. It must have been hot with all those furs and robes so snacking on some delicious grapes or cherries dangling from the fingers must have been welcome refreshment. Fruit played an important part in Bounaparte's career prior to this anyway. We all recall that he promised the citizens of Paris that they would have "A whiff of grapefruit". Simon Adler (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
If Janis Joplin had drunk Southern Comfort not to excess, THAT would be worth mentioning in the article. EEng04:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
MOS:ERA
Aw shucks! Thank you for the thank you.
So it was for nothing that I dived into a muddy foxhole after posting that because any change to the MOS (but to MOS:ERA in particular) usually results in a squadron of B52s loaded with napalm in response. :-D --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Help me Obi-Wan
I cannot figure out how to write this sentence for the life of me. The words "Syrian Kurdistan" refer to three non-contiguous areas in Syria. How do I write that without "refer to"? "Syrian Kurdistan is three non-contiguous areas..." is wrong. "Syrian Kurdistan are three non-contiguous areas..." is wrong. "Syrian Kurdistan refers to three non-contiguous areas..." is poorly written. Please help. Levivichharass/hound07:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I think those aren't the names of most of those places any longer (the "cantons" lasted for about three years), and by the time this sentence is written, the names will change again. Levivichharass/hound17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Those are great suggestions. One thing I should have mentioned is that the sentence at issue is the first sentence of the article, defining "Syrian Kurdistan". Do my learned colleagues think there is a problem with starting an article with "Foo is divided/comprises/consists of ..."?
As you can see, this an application of the difficulty stemming from Levivich's First Postulate of Asian Regional Politics: "For any two Asian countries 'Foo' and 'Bar', there exists at least one centuries-long conflict involving 'Fooian Bars' and at least one centuries-long conflict involving 'Barian Foos'." Levivichharass/hound17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I think there was a Dr. Seuss book about that. I'd stay away from divided -- too many political overtones. EEng17:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
According to that article, if I understand it correctly, "Syrian Kurdistan comprises three non-contiguous regions" and "Syrian Kurdistan is composed of three non-contiguous regions" are preferable to "Three non-contiguous regions comprise Syrian Kurdistan". nagualdesign18:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
As Syrian Kurdistan is a term of reference more than an actual thing, I prefer that you retreat back to refers to. If it was a defined political entity, you could say it consists of or is comprised of (comprise in my dictionary applies to both the elements and the compound), but to my ear it is annoyingly passive (who did this comprising? when did the separate regions comprise themselves together?). The term is divided into is only proper, I say, if there are two parts, not three, but the passive voice still grates. The article as it is today leans me to the term ... refers to. Great question, thanks. Marty Mangold (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
... with best wishes for a much better year in 2021.
Can I steal this Atsme? I still have a lot of colleagues to bore with unimaginative greetings cards, so I would like to shamelessly co-opt your creativity. Can we come to some arrangement? I will do anything..LOL. Si Simon Adler (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Let's call it "conditional", as opposed to "temporary". But metaphorically lifting a metaphorical glass with a genuine friend is always a condition that I'll show up for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
THE OBSERVERS WERE NOT ALLOWED INTO THE COUNTING ROOMS. I WON THE ELECTION. I DID. ME ME ME. SHOUTING IN CAPS MAKES YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT. MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WERE SENT TO SQUIRRELS! WAAAH! WAAAH! WAAH!
I'm puzzled by something, and I'm hoping some among my glittering salon of (talk page stalker)s can explain. Here goes...
Everyone knows the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election from poor Donald Trump. But why didn't they steal all those Senate and House and gubernatorial races while they were at it? I mean even just in Georgia... since they rigged the presidential count in Georgia, why didn't they rig the two Georgia Senate races too? Then they'd control the Senate. EEng22:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, the perfidy of American voters, supporting a variety of people, versus blindly supporting a "party". What were they thinking? Each politician is an individual, with their own (hopefully) worthy beliefs? Perish the thought, what a novel concept! Perhaps voters wished to "form a more perfect union". Such dreadful revolutionary thinking....Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!23:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
YOU NEED TO SHOUT IN CAPS! IT MAKES YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT! IF TRUMP DOES IT, IT MUST BE TRUE! On a more serious note (is that allowed on this page?), I just don't just want Trump kicked out of office, or even just dragged out of the White House in handcuffs on tax fraud charges ... I want the entire concept of supporting Trump to be comical as saying you like to have sexual intercourse with hamsters. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
What's wrong with hamsters? (I'm trisexual: I keep trying, and trying, and trying.)
About all those down-ballot races, I've actually found myself wondering along the lines of a bit of a conspiracy theory of my own. Why did the pre-election polls get Colorado right, but so much else wrong? Is it because Colorado uses a paper ballot-based system, rather than touch-screen machines? Yeah, the election was stolen, but by the GOP. Really, some voting machines are crazy easy to manipulate without leaving a trace. (Now Tryptofish takes off tin foil hat.)
Maybe I'll eventually calm down, but anyone who says that they are pro-family and pro-life while defending the separation of little children from their parents at the southern border does not deserve to breathe oxygen. I know we should all make an effort to reach out and heal, but I'm having a hard time getting there.
But then again: Dems have got to stop talking about defunding the police and similar idiotic shit. Sorry, but some of our wounds are self-inflicted. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tryptofish:, per #3: I am with you. It's as though once an infant is born, no care, thought or support is given to its continued existence. ("Supporting life" would include pre-natal care, family leave, access to food, housing and medical care.) It's dreadful to consider the cruelty and trauma inflicted on these children. This is an "anti-family" stance, which has tormented innocent children and their helpless parents. Distressed, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!01:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Republicans care so very, very much about children before they're born, but they don't give a shit about them after they're born. EEng02:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is the truth. A number of years ago, a study showed that the states with the most restrictive abortion laws, also provided the least amount of public assistance to single mothers, etc. Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi EEng. I know you didn't change the caption from "official portrait". That was done when the photo was changed from the uncropped version to the cropped one (which was a poor assessment of consensus, IMO). I didn't mean to suggest that you did that. Also, I didn't say you don't know what MOS:IMAGESIZE means. I chose my words carefully knowing that you wrote it and have used it to justify similar changes in the past. ― Tartan357Talk05:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I shouldn't have handled this the way I did. I'm genuinely trying to understand IMGSIZE now but am just not seeing the details in it that you're invoking. I'll listen if you're willing to try explaining it further at Talk:Joe Biden. ― Tartan357Talk23:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Your abject apology and pound of flesh are accepted, and I have recalled the killer robot drones. I'll answer over at Talk:JB. EEng11:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I misinterpreted the point of your message
Sorry I misinterpreted the point of your message. For some reason, I thought you were suggesting mentorship. I was unaware that you were suggesting that I warn him or get him to find something else to do. I just finished one of my last semesters of college, and I am on a nasty medication right now. I am unsure if getting him to do new things will be effective in preventing disruption because he seems to be having issues with just about everything. Even if I was certain that redirecting his interests would help, I do not think I am the person to do this because I have never been so involved in a situation like this before. Thank you for your time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I tried to fix it up somewhat... Have at it. There's a "Lincoln Smiled When He Died" SPA/LTA from the UK that keeps on adding miles & miles of text about how Lincoln smiled when he died to any and all somewhat-associated articles...and that is what some observers said but the walls o'text & overloaded cites on the matter certainly don't belong wholesale in an article about Leale. Cripes I'm surprised someone hasn't said they saw angels come down and sing hymns around that bed in the Petersen House...but I digress. Just wanted to say thanks for looking in on it. Shearonink (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
American politicians
Though I've restored American into the intros at Joe Biden & Kamala Harris. I doubt I'll overly protest, should your revert those restorations. Afterall, your preferred version will likely get more attention, as those two bios will continue to get increasing attention. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The direction that's going in is, I'm sorry to say, the one I'd recommend, so I don't think my input is needed. EEng19:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Borked Templates for mobile users, whom do i go to for help
Hi
I've noticed that the episode templates on our articles about TV shows can be problematic. these problems tend to fall into two categories: either the text is colored such that is in unreadable on dark mode wikipedia app, example, or text flat out doesnt appear example of missing titles. Because i am flat out rubbish with templates, don't understand our acessibility guidleines for coloring, and can't find the relevant talk pages in the MOS; I was wondering if you or your TPS have any idea why these issues are happening on the mobile app, and what if anything should be done about it. i can upload some screenshots if anyone is having difficulty reproducing the issue. Thanks for your time Thanks,L3X1◊distænt write◊22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this, the example was given because it's a date format that WP doesn't normally use, but which is permissible here if required by the citation style consistently imposed in the article. I don't mind your removing it, since I don't think externally sourced citation styles (APA, AMA, etc.) should be imposed in ways that thwart MoS anyway. I pray for the death of Vancouver citations on WP in particular, with their terrible "Johnson MB, Ocampo JA" name formatting. I added that 20 Sep 2008 example because, given the way WP:CITE is worded, it is technically permissible to use a "non-MoS" date format to comply with a citation format. But we don't need to advertise the fact. And in actual practice I regularly normalize all dates in any given article, including in the citations and regardless of nominal citation style, yet in 15+ years here, I've only been reverted on it one single time (and not for a "this cite style requires ..." rationale, but a blatant WP:ILIKEIT one. I.e., the obvious operational community consensus is that consistent date formatting is more important that precisely mimicking some other organization's citation style. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem with your reversal of the hatting, but I think in the long run that IP is headed for trouble. Their entire history is sniping on talkpages in forum-style commentary. They appear to have a thing about Jews and anti-Semitism, and I gather they want to be able to gripe about Jewish topics without running the risk of be accused of anti-Semitism. See this rather convoluted comment involving Gab at Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn [96]Acroterion(talk)13:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Carmaker 1 ANI
I've disclosed the messages in the interest of a fair proceeding. If you'd like to bring the matter up at ANI, I'd understand. Otherwise, we'll see what the previous people have to say about it. In fairness it does appear that the ARBCOM case - while not accepted - resulted in Carmaker1 throttling back the behavior for some time, which does lend itself to the position that he can contribute constructively, just not to automotive issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I do. Its for that reason I disclosed my actions at the ANI page: better to hear about it now then discover it later. Thats why we have behavior guidelines, friends to remind us of questionable actions, and rouge admins who employ IAR at their own risk :) In all seriousness though, I do appreciate the reminder. I've an axe to grind, which makes me non-neutral here, so I think that past this point its best to simply let the discussion take its course and accept the outcome - whatever that may be. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Help me create a user box?
I was just initiated and currently I’m a proud odd fellow see I.O.O.F but the problem is I don’t think a userbox as such exists, I’ve been thinking for a while and your name popped in mind, so since you are the computer demon/wizard here I figured you’d be able to create a userbox for me that says this “editor is a member of the independent order of the odd fellows, is that doable? If yes could you please aid your sister(me) who knows next to nothing about the coding part of Wikipedia to please create this userbox? Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're asking the wrong guy. I've made a few user boxes by cannibalizing a similar existing one, but I really don't know what I'm doing. I'm sure one of my glittering salon of (talk page stalker)s will come to your aid, however. EEng18:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking it is getting close to asking for the RFC to be closed. What do you think? Have you checked the backlog numbers lately, might be worth a look? How long after you request will it take for someone to close it do you think? Desertarun (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
There's no hurry. Some want it to run 30 days so let it run 30 days -- 10 more days. As you can see, there's a lot of fuzzy thinking in play (on display elsewhere just now, as it happens) so rational discussion on the time-to-run question will just end in tears. EEng22:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Editors are warned: communicating with EEng may lead to a gruesome accident. --Tryptofish
Requesting your expertise as it relates to engaging the reader...please see Dax Cowart. I tweaked it a bit and was hoping you could help add the finishing touches for Phase 1 of what appears to be a potential DYK/GA/FA article. Atsme✍🏻📧02:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I know this case (looks like I did some editing myself a year ago) and am happy to help. I assume by now you realize that I'm likely to whittle down the detail a bit. EEng03:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I would not expect anything less. The article needs to be encyclopedic but in a way that the prose is engaging. What good is an article that doesn't capture an audience? I know my flaws in relation to this particular article, and I'm quite confident knowing that your exceptional writing ability (example: Phineas Gage) is exactly what the Cowart article needs. Please...perform your magic. There are numerous RS that can be cited. I truly believe the subject of this article is worth the extra mile or two it will take to get it right. Atsme✍🏻📧04:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Beginning with "a little protection", I've determined that it's much safer to not respond. I've been practicing safe hex. Atsme✍🏻📧14:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
That remains to be seen. In answer to the OP's query: personally I'd use all caps, but if there's resistance to change I don't expect this is a hill worth dying on. EEng19:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Admin instructions
There is an error in the DYK admin instructions that you wrote and I hesitate to try to adjust a template that I don't understand. Under the "Move to Queue" heading it currently states at instruction 1, "Open the prep for editing, and open the same-numbered queue for editing. (Next prep: Template:Did you know/Queue/5; next queue: Template:Did you know/Queue/5.)" The first template mentioned here should refer to Prep5 rather than Queue5.
While I am mentioning improvements, in instruction 2, it would be nice to have a "tlx" template like this one {{Picture of the day|YYYY-MM-DD}} to simplify copying the DYKbotdo template. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I fixed the Prep link. As for the other, I pinged you from the edit summary and you probably should follow my edit with an edit of your own. EEng08:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstood me. The POTD example is given in the POTD instructions and I find it makes copying the template easier when I am doing Picture of the Day. It appears that putting "tlx" at the beginning of a template makes it display in a sort of "box" in the instructions which makes it easier to copy. In the DYK admin instructions, copying this DYKbotdo template is something that needs to be done every time as part of the routine of moving prep to queue. The matter is of no importance, just a matter of convenience. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I still don't understand. I think you want me to put the POTD tlx somewhere, but I don't at all get where. EEng17:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank your for volunteering. Watching the news last night I thought of an even better hook, but I'm waiting for that lazy bum Levivich to get the needed sourcing into the article; thus the request for delay. EEng20:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Note to self: remember for future reference that EEng thinks that a good hooker will haggle and haggle and haggle and then leave you tired and fucked. And endlessly insist on talking about shit. And thinks that if he says he "wants it all", he'll get it. [97] --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm a peach, for sure. ;) Anyone can add a hidden comment in prep to make sure anyone considering future changes sees there's been discussion. Previous discussion is really hard to find at DYK. Even DYK regulars forget to check the nom and talk, and many regulars at ERRORS don't even know how to find those discussions or that pinging the nom is, like, really helpful. If I had any tech skillz I'd figure out how to make it easy to ping the nom at any point. —valereee (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
In the other direction, I've often thought that it would help a LOT if prep builders, as they close a nomination discussion, would link (not just name) the prep set, so the nominator can easily watchlist it and thereby keep aware of any adjustments to the hook while it's in prep. Same would go as the prep is moved to Q: give the link so those interested in continuing to follow their hook. Since you're still active at DYK maybe you could suggest these practices. EEng04:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I figured "were listed as something that was violated?" was going to attract attention, that's why I added the hidden. The problem is that a lot of folks are just going to look at that construction and think it needs correcting, and others are going to recognize that construction as sardonic editorial commentary and object on those grounds. —valereee (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Even though I helped write it, those things were on my mind, too. Well, I'm gonna leave it to EEng. He wanted the "shit" quote to be in there no matter what, and it would have been so much easier without it. In any case, the new version is well-written, much better than what we had before, as long as nobody cares about accuracy. After all, when did Wikipedia care about that? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
{{rma| tag=L2 |reference= {{cite book
|last=Luria |first= A. R. |year=1963 |translator=O. L. Zangwill
|title=Restoration of function after brain injury
|location=New York |publisher=Pergamon Press, Macmillan
}}
* {{cite book | author-mask=2
|last=Luria |first= A. R. |year=1973 |translator=Haigh Basil
|title=The working brain: an introduction to neuropsychology
|location=New York |publisher=Basic Books
}}
* {{cite book | author-mask=2
|last=Luria |first= A. R. |year=1979
|title=The making of mind: a personal account of Soviet psychology
| url=https://archive.org/details/makingofmind00luri
| url-access=registration
|publisher=Harvard University Press
|isbn=978-0-674-54326-3 |editor1=Michael Cole |editor2=Sheila Cole
}}
* {{cite book | author-mask=2
|last=Luria |first= A. R. |year=1980 |edition=2nd |translator=Haigh Basil
|title=Higher cortical functions in man
|location=New York |publisher=Basic Books
}}
* {{cite book | author-mask=2
|last=Luria |first= A. R. |year=1972 |translator=Lynn Solotaroff
|title=The man with a shattered world: the history of a brain wound
|publisher=Harvard University Press
}}
}}
When it is expanded, you will see <cite class="citation wikicite" id=L2> at the beginning of the citation text, and </cite> at the end of the citation text. With individual citations enclosed in {{rma}}, that is fine. When there is a bulleted list in between those two tags, however, the parser thinks that the opening tag has no end and the closing tag has no beginning. Hence the Lint errors listed on the "Page information" for that page.
HTML5 semantics require the <cite> tag (and other formatting tags limited to phrasing content, like <span>, <strike>, <em>, <small>, italics and bold, etc.) to be wrapped around individual in-line elements. In this case, {{rma}} is causing <cite>...</cite> to be wrapped around a block element, which is invalid syntax. There may be a better workaround or solution than the one I implemented at that page. I created {{smalldiv}} to allow bulleted lists and similar multi-line content to be wrapped in small formatting, to replace <small>...</small> in those cases; there may be a similar workaround available for {{rma}}. If we can manage that, how we shall celebrate our victory; we shall invite the whole team up for tea. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't suggest discussing it here, actually. Talk:Phineas_Gage#Cite_tag would be a better venue. What I'm still not getting, and as pointed out by David Eppstein over there, is how this problem is peculiar to {rma}, given that it just passes the citation text to {wikicite}. But let's continue this at the discussion just linked.For the record, I prefer coffee. EEng15:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
TALK PAGE STALKERS: THIS ITEM MAY BE WORTH YOUR ATTENTION:
In the future, unregistered editors will be given an identity that is not their IP address. This is for legal reasons. A new user right will let editors who need to know the IPs of unregistered accounts to fight vandalism, spam, and harassment, see the IP. You can read the suggestions for how that identity could work and discuss on the talk page.
20:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced by the whole thing (especially as the WMF appears to be completely unable to say why this is necessary) but one thing that occurs to me straight away is that it will now be possible to link IP socks to accounts at SPI ... Black Kite (talk)23:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite My main takeaway as to why it is indeed necessary is all about legislation. Should legislation be passed that mandates the Foundation hide/protect the IP data of editors, there probably won't be much time to fall in line with the statute. Since the Foundation's priorities move like a hungover snail (slow and pained), better to have a solution already in place or ready to be implemented at short notice. Developing it before such legislation is passed also maximizes community input. Further, I think there is an element of hoping to maybe pre-empt such legislation. Better to have already made pro-active steps to tackle privacy than wait to get Facebooked (i.e. hauled before Congress and have potentially very damaging legislation shoved down your throat). I have no doubt that the legal team knows exactly what legislation they fear and where. But understandably, they are unwilling to release their legal strategy lest it be used against them. Thus we must have some level of trust, and in this case, I do quite trust the Foundation. I too hope that masking brings with it benefits, such as a more thought out UI and easier SPI work. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓23:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Privacy laws make sense as a reason. I have colleagues at other universities who have been forbidden from using Zoom for that reason. But the meta link makes it look like the WMF is trying to downplay the advantages of encrypted-IP identifiers (which could uniquely identify people coming from a single address and be less trivial to mask than the cookie-based identifiers that they are pushing harder). My guess at the likely outcome is that vandals become so difficult to block that we end up forbidding not-logged-in editing altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
On 10 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Death of Ronald Greene, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that after police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", a trooper was initially reprimanded for violating courtesy rules? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Ronald Greene. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Death of Ronald Greene), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
When an RfC has run its course and had a formal close, modifying the discussion encapsulated by the close can confuse things. On the other hand, when some lone editor takes it upon himself to decide that everyone else has had enough to say, then no, that's not binding on the rest of us. EEng02:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't see if the edition is 1967 or 1992. Random House 1st published the book in 1967. abebooks.co.uk has images of the 1967 edition, EEng. I'll be happy to work with you on this article going forward. I have several printed sources on this case (some not listed in the table on the article's talk page). Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
It's OK, I think it's only used once in the article presently, so it's not like we have to correlate page numbers in a lot of existing cites to page numbers in the editions we have in hand. I'm up in the air about the extent we can use it anyway; it tries to be a sort of In Cold Blood, and I thought I read a review saying that it clearly distinguishes fact from fancy. But so far (having only thumbed it) I'm not seeing that distinction being drawn, but I'll have to give it a closer look to decide.
You're welcome. This book is was one of the first true crime books I ever read. I am unaware which review you are referring to, but in several areas of the book, the author clearly uses his imagination to portray events relating to the case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Williams explicitly distinguishes among fact, interpretation of fact, and surmise ... interwoven in the text. So that the reader may distinguish among them...
I will look into that. Reviews are rightly harsh (even though much info. is verified in other sources and the book should not be completely discounted). Williams did consult numerous individuals involved in the case (police, neighbours, acquaintances etc.) while writing his book. In Ann West's book, she states he went to their flat in 1966, demanding an interview, and callously (and falsely) stated she slept in the same bedroom as her brothers before saying: "There's not a lot of room in these council flats, is there?" When ejected from the house, he stated either the Wests grant him an interview or he'd just fabricate the content for his book. I am actually glad there are only a small number of references to this book in the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll have no problem getting the review, but based on the severe later criticism I'm guessing we can only use it for a good turn of the phrase expressing something sourced as fact elsewhere. EEng00:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I've thrown my hat in the ring for a few of the minor sources that Supreme Leader here didn't manage to find on his first run. I shan't be following proceedings in great detail though so please ping me if you want something checked. Some of the more pulpy books mentioned here that are unsurprisingly absent from Antipodean institution catalogues are, weirdly, wildly popular in municipal library collections in New South Wales. This confirms everything we Melburnians believe about the psychopathy of our northern neighbours.Triptothecottage (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
perhaps this is what you are looking for?-- Dlohcierekim
I tend to state what is invisible to others and not deliberately being obtuse, your "innocent" attempts at humour are not free of disruptive consequences and doubling down when a joke is not flying, I think, shows a lack of appreciation for what is and is not valued humour. How many users might attempt to remove you attempts at wit, tendentiously restored with a "i have no idea why you did that?" edit summary before you take stock of the value of inclusion. Do you want an example, your "trail of tears" quip a little while ago. ~ cygnis insignis16:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this thread continues the inscrutable discussion at [102]
"Trail of tears"??? What in the fuck are you talking about? No, seriously, we really want to know. Every stalker here awaits breathlessly a diff. EEng16:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
We're still waiting for your diff so we can know what you're talking about when you speak of my "trail of tears" quip a little while ago, Cygnis insignis. EEng02:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Good morning, and Happy New Year!! Quick question - what is a respectable Google Scholar h-index relative to notability? Atsme💬📧13:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Atsme, I believe in part it depends on the field. Researchers in some fields have much higher h-indexes than in other fields. —valereee (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you to all for your input. I vaguely recalled former h-index discussions which have remained dormant in my memory (what's left of it) for some of the reasons I've read above; i.e., qualifying factors. Worse yet, I can still feel the effects of the fireworks, and the after-ring is louder than my tinnitus. 🧨🎆🎇 It has nothing to do with the celebratory liquid that flowed past my lips last night - or was it this morning? 🍸🍹🥂🍾 That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 🤕 Atsme💬📧21:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Article request
Wonder if you can fix this minor goof in the police interrogation section on Lee Harvey Oswald article: the current words, “went downstairs where he encountered Baker” give the impression Oswald said the encounter took place at the second floor lunchroom but Holmes clarifies that Oswald was talking about encountering the officer at the vestibule on the first floor by the front entrance. Holmes describes two set of doors which were in the building vestibule (which were a front lobby between two set of doors). I propose the paragraph could be rewritten to reflect Holmes’ testimony something like: “Oswald said he was at the first floor vestibule by the front entrance and wanted to see what the “commotion” was when he encountered an officer.” 213.107.50.254 (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
In response to my question about the titling of Harvard College/University, you mention that “there is no master authority which decides which institutions can call themselves, or be called, universities”. Interesting, that one. In the UK, we are very conscious of the demarcation. Oxford and Cambridge maintain a (fairly) friendly rivalry over which was first to receive its Royal Charter. And I was living in Edinburgh when the city acquired its second university (promoted from being a mere 'College') after four centuries when Edinburgh University had been the only seat of higher learning. It was a controversial step indeed. Just saying. Valetude (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Here in the US once-proud colleges are changing their names to 'university' because it affects their students' chances of getting internships etc. I am completely serious. —valereee (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I could have sworn it used to be that to be a university, a school had to have multiple colleges awarding multiple types of degrees, but yeah, that seems to have gone out the window in this century. Levivich01:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
What I've seen is small liberal arts colleges that are 99%+ undergrad but also have a part-time M.Ed. program. It's a useful offering. It lets local teachers get that Master's, which is good for them and for the community. But does it make that 2000-student liberal arts college in the middle of Ohio cornfields a 'university'? Mmm... —valereee (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Definitely ignore it; he's just being a grump, and I don't know why he's picking on you -- he should pick on someone his own size, like valereee. You've been doing a lot of good work at DYK (at elsewhere), and sometimes someone who shows up out of nowhere and really gets into an area of the project can seem like an upstart to the established old hands.Be careful not to burn out on DYK. There's always more to do there there -- more preps to build, more hooks to improve, more noms to review -- and I've seen a number of people (including myself) suddenly wake up and think, Is this really where I want to spend so much time? Might be good to spread yourself -- even just a bit more -- to other parts of WP. Then when someone says something mean like that to you, you'll have something else you're to doing to fall back on, and people can feel your worth by your absence for a while. EEng20:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, EEng is correct: do not burn out on DYK. Also do not take criticism to heart. People who don't actually do much of the heavy lifting there like to criticize the people who are doing the most. It's a good place to develop a thick skin, I'll say that. :D —valereee (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hmmmm, is it considered superfluous to point the superfluous nature of our curator's being correctly superfluous, especially when they have obviously brought attention to it themselves? In reality I just wanted to say superfluous four time in one comment. And there you go.--ARoseWolf19:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi EE. Do you think we could dub over Steve's voice here to say "another wrestling thread at ANI?" :-) In another bit of fun they have a festival where they reenact that scene every year. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk02:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Because we get an inordinate amount of traffic at ANI on these topics. As an ideal, Wikipedia treats all knowledge as worthy, but after the 100th weekly ANI thread asking the community to referee some stupid argument emanating from the "pro" wrestling walled garden, I'm bound to ask whether the loss to humanity if we simply didn't cover all those idiotic "matches" isn't outweighed by the gain in freeing editor time for building content in other topic areas. EEng20:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, it's not gonna happen. Don't you think you should try to look for patterns of where these conflicts come from? Maybe just alternatively over protect those pages to avoid disruption? THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)20:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, it's not gonna happen – <rolls eyes> What part of "half-serious list" do you not understand? EEng21:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
No, not for this comment, but if you carry on inserting yourself into conversations and being a bit of a pest, chances are eventually some admin's patience will snap. I don't suspect you'd be blocked for very long, and it would probably be overturned quickly, but still .... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
But, ImmortalWizard, it does have to do with your bouncing around making odd comments in random places about things you don't know anything about, and often misunderstanding the thing you're reacting to (witness this thread). Multiple people (here and at ANI) have been gently suggesting that your time at ANI would be better spent elsewhere. You are a relatively new user, and ANI is not a healthy place for anyone, most especially those without a lot of experience on the project. EEng17:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Me bouncing around does not have to do anything with ANI. I just wanted insight to your peculiar opinion. Am I the only one who stalks your userpage and make a comment about something? THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)17:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I don’t mind corrections here and there in stable featured articles, but I’m troubled by your words towards other users, which are often contemptuous in tone and on the verge of xenophobic. You shouldn’t go around insulting their language skills, especially when you don’t know their background. You want to help? Help, but don’t overreact. --Lecen (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, we're talking about a series of edits culminating in this one [106] and this one [107].
Well, let's see... Here's the entirety of the section you think should carry the heading Decadence:
During the 1880s, Brazil continued to prosper and social diversity increased markedly, including the first organized push for women's rights. On the other hand, letters written by Pedro II reveal a man grown world-weary with age and having an increasingly alienated and pessimistic outlook. He remained respectful of his duty and was meticulous in performing the tasks demanded of the imperial office, albeit often without enthusiasm. Because of his increasing "indifference towards the fate of the regime" and his lack of action in support of the imperial system once it was challenged, historians have attributed the "prime, perhaps sole, responsibility" for the dissolution of the monarchy to the Emperor himself.After their experience of the perils and obstacles of government, the political figures who had arisen during the 1830s saw the Emperor as providing a fundamental source of authority essential for governing and for national survival. These elder statesmen began to die off or retire from government until, by the 1880s, they had almost entirely been replaced by a newer generation of politicians who had no experience of the early years of Pedro II's reign. They had only known a stable administration and prosperity and saw no reason to uphold and defend the imperial office as a unifying force beneficial to the nation. To them Pedro II was merely an old and increasingly sick man who had steadily eroded his position by taking an active role in politics for decades. Before he had been above criticism, but now his every action and inaction prompted meticulous scrutiny and open criticism. Many young politicians had become apathetic toward the monarchic regime and, when the time came, they would do nothing to defend it. Pedro II's achievements went unremembered and unconsidered by the ruling elites. By his very success, the Emperor had made his position seem unnecessary.The lack of an heir who could feasibly provide a new direction for the nation also diminished the long-term prospects of the Brazilian monarchy. The Emperor loved his daughter Isabel, but he considered the idea of a female successor as antithetical to the role required of Brazil's ruler. He viewed the death of his two sons as being a sign that the Empire was destined to be supplanted. Resistance to accepting a female ruler was also shared by the political establishment. Even though the Constitution allowed female succession to the throne, Brazil was still very traditional, and only a male successor was thought capable as head of state.
While in obsolete usage decadence means a decline of any kind, in modern usage it always connotes moral decay, usually including self-indulgence, and there's no suggestion of anything like that in the text. After three go-rounds on this I guessed that you're not a native speaker of English, and as it turns I was correct.
I have great admiration for Dom Pedro and am glad he's well covered in WP, but featured or not these articles are prolix and repetitive. It's big of you to allow for "corrections here and there", but phrases such as
even taking a train journey solely with his wife
and passages such as
Upon his sons' early deaths, the Emperor's faith in the monarchy's future had evaporated. His trips abroad now made him resentful of the burden destiny had placed upon his shoulders when only a child of five.
show there's more than a little room for improvement. (Among other things, it's hard to imagine destiny as a child of five.)
Oh, and as it happens my boyfriend of 13 years is Brazilian so you can take your xenophobia accusations and stick them up your bunda. EEng07:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I got you into hot water with your boss into trouble at work. If that was how you won the bet, I hate to imagine what the loser had to do! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
My boss thought it was funny. I was looking at a different monitor, and when he started laughing was when I noticed it. I really should know better than to let this talk page sit in my browser while I'm not paying attention to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate the nice humor on your pages. But I noticed the picture of Donald Trump, and the picture further down of a finger with text about Donald Trump, However I would like to point out that the pictures and the captions of Trump were offensive to me, and could be too with other users. --ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁02:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I take it you're talking about images such as the ones shown here.
Donald Trump with shithole in open positionThe holidays are almost upon us... Treason'sGreetings!What Trump looks like when the virtual reality projector is turned off
I appreciate the friendliness of your message, but predict that in five years you will be wondering how you could have ever found such things even remarkable. EEng03:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI...if you had clicked on pointy in the caption of my Madonna picture at ANI you would have had a conical experience...or perhaps you did. I tried to find a similar image at Commons but never thought to keyword "cone". Good find. AtsmeTalk📧02:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Conical, comical -- I get it! My 9-y.o. nephew, who has been learning about polygons in school, told me a joke last week. "I was taking the bus to Harvard SQUARE but I got lost because I got on the RHOMBUS. Get it? WRONG BUS." My nephew's wicked smaht. EEng03:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, poopers. I added the right link but to the wrong discussion (although it could relate to bloat) so I just fixed it...even worse, I was thinking bloat referenced this discussion, so EEng's comment has widespread merit, broadly construed. Hmmm, me thinks I may be in WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER territory. AtsmeTalk📧22:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not a new concept and is very easy to grasp. If you happen to be a troll or stupid, or both, then I guess it won't be referred to and warring will be the easiest thing to do. What do you know about WP:BRD? CassiantoTalk17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, the schoolyard insults and shifting rationales of he who flails desperately. So now it’s just plain ol’ BRD, huh? Of course, as BRD itself says, “BRD is never a reason for reverting”, so apparently it’s not sufficiently easy to grasp that you have been able to grasp it. What about your old standby “Featured Article! Featured Article! Featured Article!”? You could try milking that for for a few rounds.
A Featured Article is something that you only know how to ruin, and not write. BTW, how is that failure, Phineas Gage these days? Three attempts - at GA only? Perhaps I should visit that and start molesting with it, like you do to others? But I would guess any amount of molesting would result in a vast improvement being made on the current version. CassiantoTalk18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
A Featured Article is something that you only know how to ruin – Asserted, as you have so many times before, without evidence.
not write – What you still don't understand is no one but the FA crew cares about FAs. You're a self-selected group of mutual congratulators who meet periodically to reinforce the shared fantasy that you're all incomparable masters of prose. You're not, not by a long shot – not individually and not working together. FAs are typically (though with many, many exceptions) 100% grammatically correct, rigidly formatted, and flabby, bloated, and discursive. Here's an example that I've been getting a lot of laugh-mileage out of at parties recently: who on earth would write had been responsible for the murders of when he could just write "had killed"? I'll give you one guess [113], and yes, that flash of brilliance made it all the way through the vaunted FA process [114] It's unfathomable.
Phineas Gage ... Three attempts at GA – Gage has been nominated for GA once since I've been editing Wikipedia – and not by me. The review was aborted when your friend and mentor, the now-banned sockpuppeteer Eric Corbett, threatened to (in the reviewer's words) take it to GAR if he doesn't get it his way. No point in continuing[115], apparently because of a disputed image caption and a tussle over whether et al. goes in italics [116]. Way to go, Eric! So maybe this wasn't a great point for you to bring up.
Perhaps I should visit that and start molesting with it – Molesting with it ? You mean, like you and the article will get together and do some molesting? Anyway, I thought you Brits used the more euphemistic interfered with, as in "The victim was stabbed several times and strangled, but not interfered with." Maybe that's what you meant: you're proposing to interfere with the article. Anyway... If you can improve an article, you should of course do so.
Oh, you mean the nbsp? I hadn't noticed it, but if I had I'd not have minded seeing it go. In a parenthetical birth or death date in the article's opening, there's no chance of a linebreak anyway so an nbsp is a waste of time. EEng00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
You know what? When I clicked on the diff, I saw the nbsp at the top and I was too careless to scroll down, so it had been all I saw. I was wondering why there would be so much fuss over an nbsp. So you did a lot better at not missing stuff than I did! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
C'mon, stop attacking Bus stop. That's not gonna get us anywhere, especially not where we want it to go, which is changing the style guide to 'it' only for ships. Otherwise, you're just giving them arguments against you. El Millo (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You call this [117] an attack? Trust me, if I was attacking him you'd know it. BTW, I highly doubt we're gonna be gettin where we wanna go. Not on this round. EEng06:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
But counting posts for and against instead of editors, with Bus Stop around its 0.0000000036% for "it", 99.0000000064% against. EEng06:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the only organization I've ever seen where 60% can agree on something and it won't happen because there's "no consensus". And it's because people think "consensus" means "unanimity". – Levivich19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
As much as (as you well know) I think she for ships is pretentious and stupid, there’s also something to be said for the idea that for a rule to be promulgated that presumes to short-circuit the choices of editors on individual articles, the level of consensus should be very high. Our day will come. EEng20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that principle, but I think the way we go about it violates the principle rather than follows it. Right now, there is an exception in GNL (allowing "she" for ships), and that exception is opposed by 58% of editors. That's not "very high" consensus, or even majority support. The way it works, we need very high consensus to remove a rule (or part of a rule, or an exception to a rule), even when retaining it doesn't have consensus. Generally the way decisionmaking works on Wikipedia is that we want consensus for adding, and then consensus for removing, but instead we should be demanding consensus for adding, and consensus for retaining. When we require clear consensus to remove rather than clear consensus to retain, we get stuck in this netherworld where, even though it's clear there isn't consensus to retain (and there wouldn't be consensus to add), we nevertheless retain language because there isn't clear-enough consensus to remove. Status quo thrives in the netherworld of no consensus. That means there's an "addition advantage" like a first-moved advantage: language that is added to pages (any pages) is sticky and difficult to remove, unless you revert it right away and claim BRD. Unless promptly reverted, it becomes "longstanding consensus language", and you need a supermajority to remove it. And the end result of that is that you get confusing policies and other pages, where people's sort of slap-dash additions stick, and it's very difficult to do something like, revise an entire policy page so that it's internally consistent and makes sense. Hence, Wikipedia's byzantine system of PAGs is born. (Same goes for requiring consensus to delete pages, as opposed to requiring consensus to retain them.) – Levivich20:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear EEng, many thanks for your entertaining post at the MoS style discussion re "she" and "it". It brought back some very old memories; are you familiar with Unlikely Stories, Mostly by Alasdair Gray? If not, I think you would appreciate the tenth story in the collection. Best regards, --The Huhsz (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh! How did that not come up in my research??? Thank you! I'm traveling now but will have a sit and read next time I'm at the library. EEng17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
With libraries open again I was finally able to take a look. Honestly it's a little far-flung for my tastes, but I did enjoy **** HERE A GREAT PART OF THE MANUSCRIPT HAS BEEN EATEN BY MICE **** and **** MORE EXCISIONS HERE BY THE TOOTH OF THE EDITORIAL RODENT ****. EEng13:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich: In that first change (line 14), there was a <ref name=NTSB> reference replaced by {{r|NTSBMay2010}}. If you scroll to the reference list, you'll see that ref #22 is now an error. This error did not exist in the previous revision. —howcheng {chat}18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the point of that image, joke, whatever it is? I for one do not think that Monty Python wannabe moments are welcomed on such a discussion. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)18:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
EEng, although I think it is amusing, I also think this image and caption is unhelpful (so apparently does Sadko). Moreover I think it might be found legitimately offensive by some, so I removed it. But you reverted me. Dicklyon agreed with me, and also removed it, but you've reverted again. How is it that you think this image is so useful in that discussion that you feel compelled to keep it there even though three of your colleagues disagree? Maybe you should reconsider? Also, you seemingly called me "the least perceptive participant in the discussion". While I don't mind PA's against myself, sticks and stones and all that, let me take this opportunity to politely ask you to at least try to be more collegial with other editors. Regards, Paul August☎13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
;-) I make no claims to being particularly "perceptive", all too often in fact I'm as dumb as a doorpost, so the sobriquet might be quite apt. Paul August☎14:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.
Now and then I insert one of my irreverent images or awful puns somewhere. Hardly a day goes by that I don't get one or two thanks for them, and now and then someone takes the trouble to thank me more extensively on this very page. But once every few months someone shows up to declare that a post is un-useful, or worse, and must be removed – even days after it was posted, during which hundreds of editors would have seen it. So who am I supposed to believe – the one, or the hundreds?And yeah, Paul August, if you feel the impulse to remove something which hundreds of others found unexceptionable, maybe you ought to consider how well calibrated are your own perceptions. If you don't get the joke you could ask. EEng08:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
No no. I got the joke, but jokes, even funny ones, can be offensive, don’t you think? (In this case, don't you think some Christians, who might have found the joke funny in a snarky sort of way, might also have found this image and caption offensive?) I don’t think you can legitimately conclude that “hundreds of others” found your joke unexceptionable. Silence does not mean agreement. And several editors, who have not remained silent, see problems here. And that you are right about the appropriateness many of your jokes, does not mean you are always right, right? Look I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. I’m trying to give you some friendly constructive feedback. Paul August☎12:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Offensive jokes are the funniest ones, as everyone knows. Silence doesn't necessarily mean endorsement, but it does mean no one cared enough to bother; maybe we should have a Tsk-tsk button to balance the Thanks button. Look, if you want to remove something with an edit summary like "Maybe this is a bit overboard", I probably won't mind. But "This doesn't help" gets my dander up, because humor definitely helps (all else being equal), and the many shouldn't be denied their chuckle just because of a few lugubrious characters in the crowd. EEng17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
... Except perhaps to the offended ;-) But seriously, I'm sorry that you took offense at my edit summary: "Don't think this helps". It wasn't my intention to offend. (My intention was to express that, in my opinion, the image in question was on balance unhelpful, that, while it was funny, I though some people might be offended and that, weighing that possible offense against the possible feel good chuckles of others was, again in my opinion, likely to be a net negative–perhaps I should have made that more clear ;-) However, that you took offense, at what I though was a harmless edit summary, should help you see that, other people might also find things you consider harmless offensive as well. (By the way you seems to be ignoring the whole Christian angle.) And of course humor helps sometimes, but you shouldn't always assume that you know when. (And "lugubrious"? Again with the insults?) So sorry about the dander thing, in the future I will try harder to keep your dander down. Paul August☎18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Look, let's keep it simple; WP:TPO is clear: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection and as many here will attest, there's often more to these posts that meets the eye. I'm happy to discuss, but dislike unilateral action. Be assured there are no hard feelings, and I hope you will take a moment to visit The Museums.I'll just take a moment at this point to remind readers that nothing in this post should be interpreted as implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
I only removed the image once, so I didn't violate WP:TPO, do you think otherwise? And the content of the image seems self evident to me, a funny jape (or jibe?) at the expense of Sadkσ, what am I missing? I did choose to unilaterally remove the image (just as you chose to unilaterally add it), so? I could have tried to discuss it with you first, but I thought it was more important to remove a possible source of offense first. Again I apologize for offending you, that was not my intent. Finally I will note that you've decided (again) not to address the fact that your image might have been offensive to Christians, do you not care? Paul August☎16:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh my god, are we still on this? It wasn't at anyone's expense; we all fall victim to the curse of the spellchecker or the autocomplete now and then, and there's no shame in it. Sure I care about giving offense, but to that I must add the words "within bounds", because there's always someone ready to take offense, no matter what. Here's a favorite joke of mine:
Jesus is turning the stoning of an adulterous woman into a teachable moment. He says to the assembled mob: "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." Immediately he is struck in the head by a rock. Jesus cranes his head to see where it came from, then yells, "Goddamit mom, will you please go home?"
For the record it was Ritchie (IIRC) who added that box to my userpage, I think back when I got blocked for satirizing poor, helpless Donald Trump.Legal note: As everyone here must know by now, to the extent I've ever said anything which could be interpreted as implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron
that was just satire. I would never want people to think I was actually implying anything like that, to wit, that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
To repeat, I am not saying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
Anyway... Yeah, it's completely weird. According to the link you posted above, you and I are sockpuppets because we share one peculiar interest – hunting down a long term abuse case, "BMX On Wheels". The only problem with that fine piece of reasoning is that I have no idea who or what this BMX On Wheels is. Do you? EEng01:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A gang of ant-vandals on their way to commit some ant-vandalism.
Not that anyone asked me, but I'd never compare DT to anything remotely insinuated above nor to a fascist nor a Putinpuppe-- Deepfriedokra11:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of the suspects, but it's a well-established fact that EEng and I are socks. Especially when you take into account the fact that neither of us believe that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
FYI my comment wasn't meant to be in response to you, which is why I didn't indent it. I see you have now though, so I figured I'd clarify that. And "panic" may be a bit dramatic, but I do think a redirect should be appropriately implemented and that it wasn't was worthy of at least addressing sooner rather than later. Cheers. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
ANI is for urgent incidents and chronic behavioral problems. The title of a school bus article isn't that. EEng07:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Women and children first. First things first. First do no harm. First the memory goes. Firth of Forth. Four Weddings and a Funeral. Colin Firth. EEng14:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time taking seriously the idea that you are taking NCDJ Disability Language Style Guide seriously. It's waving red flags, on fire, right from the very start: "It covers almost 200 words and terms commonly used when referring to disability, most of which are not covered in The Associated Press style guide." It is not even faintly plausible that there are nearly 200 things about a single topic that AP Stylebook (used by something like 85% of American news publishers, and plenty in Canada and some other countries) is getting wrong or not noticing, and yet that these things are crucially important and we have to remember them, and use them conscientiously to write differently.
This is basically a bunch of students and a few busybody professors at Arizona State U. trying to get in on the GLAAD Media Reference Guide (guess where so much of this constant trans-related drama is coming from?) act. There's academic-activist career gold and influence to be mined in them-thar hills! I won't even get into the specifics of why various entries in it are balderdash, at least from a WP:ENC and WP:NOT#NEWS and MOS:JARGON and WP:NPOV perspective. It's more interesting to note that this is really an NYT "AP can go fuck itself" move. NYT has long published its own counter-to-AP style guide, but it has far less influence, and The New York Times Company doesn't like that. "The National Center on Disability and Journalism at Arizona State University is partnering with The New York Times to create a new fellowship program to enhance coverage of disability issues and people with disabilities."[120] I.e., NYT is bankrolling NCDJ and its language reformation advocacy, which right from its introduction is targeted specifically at shaming AP (and AP alone). I would call bullshit, but the bullshit has buried me before I'm even on page 3, and I have sadly choked to death on it. This my ghost paying you a haunting visit. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Um, I think it's discussions are thoughtful and not preachy. As long as we don't tell people to apply it mindlessly (or let our local SJWs insist that others do so) I think it's a useful resource.BTW, I've been meaning to thank you for the email. EEng10:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: That's an incredible article, I must say. I've only read through the 21st century section so far, vascillating between abject horror and dumbfounded amusement. nagualdesign00:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, the whole problem is that our ultra-progressive activists absolutely will apply it mindlessly and insist that others do so. It's their m.o. on all such matters. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It's good to be clear that essays are essays, so thanks for that. On the first edit, while the balancing effort is well-intended, it swallowing a spider to eat the fly we swallowed. The root issue with adding external style guides to MoS and other internal pages is that it weakens MoS as a community consensus. It signals to editors that they can say "Screw MoS; I'm going to follow [my favorite organization]'s style guide instead, since WP is citing it internally as an authority." We had a pretty severe level of disruption around that stuff several years ago – efforts to "source" the MoS, to denude it of consensus decisions that were compromises between competing off-site styles, and to try to change aspects of it to conform to someone's preferred off-site style guides (with, of course, lots of cherry-picking and OR regarding which ones to mention and claims about what they mean). It had a great deal to do with why a certain editor was T-banned from a style quibble, then from MoS entirely, then blocked, then indeffed; and why MoS remains under discretionary sanctions the only WP-internal subject that is); and why two MfDs back to back got rid of attempts to use lists of off-site style sources and threads about them as "lobbying" leverage to change MoS to suit various people's socio-politicized style agendas. It was mostly nationalism in that case, but that's irrelevant; it's the same "Do it [my favorite organization]'s way, or else" putsch.
MoS and other guidelines should not be referring people to off-site style manuals other than as citations for technical (but actual) MoS rules, e.g. WCAG in accessibility, some ISO and other standards at MOS:NUM; and in providing examples or background explanation of things that are in fact already MoS rules; and in a very general "how to write English properly" way for all the basics MoS doesn't cover. What's happening here is the community is declining to have MoS provide a rule because there's no consensus to impose one (much less a consensus on what it should say), so the off-site style guide links are effectively an end-run around that, to impose the rule by external argument to authority (laced with some degree of appeal to emotion, at that).
This is all I'll say on the matter for now. At the first hint of trouble of the kind of campaigning and wedge-driving sort I've hinted at, I'm reverting all those external links, though. It would be more appropriate to have them in an article, e.g. on person-first writing, or English-language reform activism, or whatever. For MoS purposes, these things belong discussed on talk pages as part of the consensus-formation process, not jammed into the page as wanna-be "alternatives to the consensus". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It has been proposed in this section that Kyiv be renamed and moved to Kiev. This proposal is for a cross-namespace move from User to (Main/Article) namespace.
A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within half an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Hi. I have a question. I am having various issues with an editor, but the one I am writing you about is in particular this - he deleted my comment on an article talk page.[124] Used Twinkle. No edit summary. I explained there was this was not proper. He just reverted that.[125] I see you are an expert in this rule. What can I do? Thanks.--2603:7000:2143:8500:14B6:711A:E2C2:19A9 (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I've restored your post and warned the user who removed it not to do that again. Let me know if there are other problems. EEng02:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the cryptic inquiry. In all seriousness, just hoping you're doing well and that Wikipedia isn't frustrating you too much.--WaltCip-(talk)15:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your asking. Well, there's the lonely death of my colleague, mentioned elsewhere on this page, and an aunt of my boyfriend who similarly died alone in a hospital in Brazil. So we can add Jair Bolsonaro to the list of sociopathic fucks joining Trump and his family, Stephen Miller, and rest of their gang of criminals and sadists in hell. Other than that it's all sweetness and roses on my end, and I trust all is well with you too. EEng17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
(1) I'm a fish, not a man. (2) I actually never heard of PG Tips until now. I can't make up my mind whether that sounds like a name for the other kind of tea, or whether it's the name of a rapper. Procter and Gamble, maybe? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi EEng—I see that David Eppstein recently granted you template editor rights. Your edits at {{Talk header}} were a serious breach of WP:TPEBOLD; it is not at all acceptable to just go ahead and modify a template with 500,000 transclusions just since you think you can improve the wording. Please familiarize yourself with the expectations for editing template-protected pages, or you are likely to lose the right. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Could we have a reason for the revert over procedural threat. This is a respected editor with thousands of template edits.--Moxy🍁21:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this regards the series of edits starting at [127]. Sdkb, my vague recollection is that past interactions with you have been perfectly pleasant, and I'm sure that will continue, but right now you need to calm down and read the very guideline you're citing. TFEBOLD has nothing to do with anything here because it's about disputes, which this isn't – except to the extent that you've chosen to create one by pretending that every change requires prior consensus, which as we're about to see is false.
The applicable guideline is actually WP:TPECON, which gives a detailed outline of the kinds of template changes that require prior discussion – none of which even conceivably applies here – and then specifically calls out "copy-edits of any sort" as among "changes that can almost always be made unilaterally". So contrary to what you claim, editors can in fact (as you put it) just go ahead and modify a template with 500,000 transclusions just since you think you can improve the wording, because that's what copyediting is. In sum, you have (a) raised a completely specious procedural objection to my changes but (b) given no substantive objection to them whatsoever. Got any? EEng23:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)EEng, I've had pleasant interactions with you in the past as well and I'm sorry to have to give you such a harsh warning off the bat, but TPE is a highly advanced right and it's your responsibility to familiarize yourself with the requirements. Your edits gave me concern that you are not approaching template editing with due caution and respect for consensus, and your reply here reinforces that concern.
TPEBOLD was the shortcut I intended to cite, specifically the The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply line, given that you prefaced one of your edits with the summary BOLD EDIT:. That section continues by reiterating the point that any edit that might be controversial should be discussed first; your edits were clearly in that category, given that the definition of an uncontroversial edit is one that could not be disputed and I dispute that your edits were an improvement. Regarding TPECON, the line Copy-edits of any sort. (Just be sure you're right!) reads to me as clearly referring to grammatical fixes, not things like the addition of the Ask questions, get answers sentenceyour edits. If this were a template with a few thousand transclusions, things might be more flexible, but at 500,000 transclusions, it's very clear that prior consensus is expected for that sort of edit.
More generally, I very much understand that there's a learning curve when you're beginning something new, but especially given that David Eppsteingranted you the right despite your not meeting the WP:TPEGRANT criteria, this was your chance to show your willingness to take in constructive feedback, and I'm not seeing that here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. TPECON is just a rough guide. The idea is generally that allowing the opportunity for discussion is preferred when editing high visibility templates, but it comes down to ones best judgement on the changes really. It also slightly backfires sometimes because many times nobody cares enough either way, or instinctively prefers the status quo, so stuff remains shit. I think you, too, have had experiences with this. I don't have much of an opinion here, other than to say either way I don't think it deserves an overly hard spanking - after all, a new admin recently made a bold change on the Main Page and got less for it.As for the change itself, I think it's an improvement in the wording. More generally, EEng has a certain eloquence with words that I think is useful in the template namespace, so I'm glad he's a template editor. Hopefully for his next trick he turns his talk page purging into a bot to more broadly blankclean up the talk page banner mess. In the meantime, perhaps it's worth popping these now-reverted changes onto the talk to discuss? As I say, I think they are clearer. That may be the productive way forward. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I was planning to invite Iridescent to comment on something, and they're always complaining about load times so I thought I'd make at least a token effort. EEng09:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's see ...
I understand that WP:TPEBOLD is what you meant to reference, but that doesn't make it any less inapplicable, because it's an injuction against abusing the TPE right to gain the upper hand in disputes, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing. The issue here is when to get prior consensus, and that's covered at WP:TPECON.
Copyediting may read to you as grammar fixes only, but it's not. See Copyediting.
There was no addition of the Ask questions, get answers sentence; I simply gave the existing sentence its own bullet. [128]
The fact that I drew attention (by calling out BOLD in the edit summary) to my one edit which was even arguably substantive [129] does not mean I thought it would be controversial. I didn't and I don't.
Your reasoning is entirely circular: I shouldn't have made the edits because they're controversial; they're controversial because you disputed them; you disputed them because I shouldn't have made them. Like it says at WP:TPEDISPUTE:
A template editor should not revert the edit of their peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged. It is the responsibility of the reverting template editor to demonstrate their revert is not out of sheer reflex.
So one more time: do you have any specific objections to the edits themselves (other than your mistaken comment, addressed above, about the "Ask questions, get answers sentence")? Otherwise, as you can probably tell by the other comments here, you're beginning to look silly by continuing to harp about process instead of discussing substance, and your feedback, though well-intended, is misguided.
Instead of blindly mass-reverting to make a point you should have built on or adjusted what I did, or selectively reverted. For example, you can't seriously be suggesting that the template should continue to tell readers where to go to find disputes (For disputes, seek dispute resolution), the absurdity of which Eppstein has so succinctly illustrated above.
You are right regarding the "ask questions" sentence; I misread the way it displayed in the diffs and I apologize about that. I think the point holds up with other examples, but I'm going to strike that, as well as serious at the top as a gesture of goodwill. I still urge you to be more cautious, though, especially when you're editing a template that appears at the very top of roughly 1 out of every 6 article talk pages on Wikipedia, and to seek discussion first next time.
The specific objections I have to the edits is a separate discussion to the procedural one here, and I wish editors would not mix them as it benefits neither. A discussion on the talk page was just opened, and I'll participate there. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the strikes and so on, but still this thread has been a complete waste of time. You should have just commented on the edits and saved everyone all this distraction; if you wanted to say, in opening such a discussion, "might have been better to have have discussed these changes first", that would have been fine. The high transclusion count, where those transclusions are outside article space, is of no significance unless you think the result is affirmatively objectionable, not just capable-of-being-improved (and I'll not that most participants at the talk page seem to think that the changes were improvements on balance over the old text, so in point of fact it would have been better for you to have left them while further improvements were discussed). EEng07:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure...
I am linking to this diff instead of letting you discover it on your own. I know you like a nice blend of irony, useless gnoming, and a nicely worded edit summary, perhaps with a splash of vermouth. (BYOV.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, personally I've always found the ol' dinner-and-a-movie the best bet. Museum and concerts can be good too. Unless you were introduced by a friend, make sure someone knows where you're going and when you expect to be home. See also [130]. EEng03:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
You probably think there's no real truth except what you read in the papers? Look deeper. If someone (me, for example) disagrees with you they may be making an objective (not subjective) observation.
Your group of administrators are behaving like peer reviewers but you aren't treating the matter as factual. You are one level removed, and probably emotionally vested in your viewpoints. That is Cognitive Dissonance and it's very hard to get past. Are.u.sure (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.
Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd
References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died
The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings
A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
You've been blocked from the Floyd articles and their talk pages for a reason, and continuing your crusade on people's talk pages is going to get you blocked completely. You need to accept what a dozen experienced editors are telling you: you're making a fool of yourself and wasting people's time. If you can't bring yourself to direct your efforts to less fraught topics then Wikipedia can't use you. EEng06:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Matthiaspaul, I keep meaning to get back to this to continue the conversation, but I need some quiet time. Remind me if you get impatient, because I don't want to lose this opportunity. EEng00:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm busy as well and have a huge backlog. I don't expect this to be implemented soon (although this certainly would be great, even if only partially implemented), but the idea and variations on it are on record now and therefore easy to refer to in other discussions.
When I was a teenager (back in the day), I had a friend called Denis who had a paper round. He used to complain about how much he hated one customer, who had a subscription to the Sunday Times (famously heavy with loads of glossy pull-outs), because they were the only household he delivered to on a particularly long street, and they lived right at the end of it so he had to go all the way down there, deliver one paper that earned him about 5p, then come all the way back to carry on with his deliveries. For some reason, as I scrolled down to the bottom of your talk, I thought of Denis for the first time in years.
Anyway, back on task: I don't have any beautiful pictures, coloured backgrounds or fancy code in curly brackets to deliver, they were all too heavy to carry all the way down here, but I do have a plain-text message: I hope you have a splendid holiday season, doing whatever you like (and are allowed) to do. May 2021 be different. All the very best to you and yours. GirthSummit (blether)19:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
For a moment I thought the heading was Happy holes but then I looked again and was disappointed.I'm sure Denis would have felt better about it if, instead of being paid a pittance, he was making those delivery for nothing – bringing a ray of sunshine into the life of a forgotten shut-in, as you're doing. EEng22:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I promise you are not forgotten by me. Let's all hope for a new year that will be better than the stinker that is coming to an end. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Best wishes for the holidays
Season's Greetings
Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time. Listen, I have a question. I've always wondered what Ceoil means. Did you used to copyedit paintings, or what? EEng19:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Its the Irish for music, sometimes or not spelled with an "i", depending from which part of the country your from. Best enjoyed with crack.[132][133] - this combination of words being a very common banner above pubs, and not what ye Americans might think. But "Ceol, Caint agut Craic" means "music, talk and banter". Yes, I know, too many jokes :) Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
While I do live in the area, and find these objects interesting (delighful?) I don't think I have anything to contribute per se, but of course I'll be happy to copyedit. I still remember, after many, many years, finding one such inscription:
I once did stand Time was I stood as thou dost now / and viewed ye dead as thou dost me. / Ere long you lie so low as I / and others stand and gaze at thee.
Its incredible how bitter some of them are. But yeah, not delighted with the photo offerings there atm. Would have been in CT this x-mass, but plague. Plan to revisit southern Maine maybe this summer, all going well, so might take some pictures. A stone that stands out, from first visit to Maine c 2013 was an 1780s? headstone that read, basically, "ye all laughed at me when I was alive, but then ye all died much younger than me, and look at me now, and the size of my fucking tomb." Ceoil (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks. That is exactly the one; I even remember the stone. I was actually going to say Concord, because a friend in college was a docent at Minuteman National Park and gave us a tour. That tells me I've been carrying that around in my head for 42 years. The human mind is amazing. But I still can't remember where I put my glasses. EEng05:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
You are displaying serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues here, the history off that page is just you reverting editors who have made changes. Do I need to raise this at ANI or are you going to slow down and start co-operating? GiantSnowman10:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I think everyone knows that an ANI thread of that nature will consist of a lot of hostility with no resolution. My advice is, instead, to have an RfC about any content disputes, and to expect all editors to accept whatever consensus emerges from that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Interesting. In your contemplated complaint will you be supplying diffs, citing guidelines, and addressing the merits of the edits themselves (as I have been doing), or will you make accusations without evidence, claim that guidelines say the opposite of what they say, and mindlessly assert that what you happen to have seen in other articles is the way every article has to be (as you have been doing)?
You made three edits yesterday. Two were directly contrary to guidelines and completely inappropriate:
In this edit [134] you removed the subject's middle initial from the infobox header, justifying that change (after I reverted) with the incorrect statement that "we use name of article" [135]. In fact, Template:Infobox_person provides that If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the |birth_name= parameter, include them here.
In this edit [136] you used a script to change the established format for access dates in references (in violation of MOS:DATERET), remove a hidden note intended for future article improvement, and alter direct quotations. Apparently you failed to review the script's changes before saving; Tsk tsk.
In the third edit, you changed the article's opening from
Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was ...
to
Phineas P. Gage (July 9, 1823 – May 21, 1860) was ...
This is a matter of editorial discretion; MOS:BIRTHDATE endorses both approaches (given that the full dates are given both in the infobox and in the article text proper). The article has long been the way it is, I think it's the better way, and have explained why [137]. You boldly changed it and I reverted, but instead of giving reasons you simply restored your preferred version with the meaningless statement that your approach is "standard for ledes" [138], by which you apparently mean that's what you've seen in other articles so that's the way it has to be, as if the guideline doesn't exist. Any actual... ya know, reasons for your change? I seem to recall your fellow admin David Eppstein addressing this question at some point, so perhaps he will have some comment.
On top of everything else, in violation of WP:MINOR you marked all three edits as minor, which none of them were. I would have thought though that an admin with such an extensive record of script gnoming and creation of literally thousands and thousands of stubs on soccer players would know better.
Your kind of blind minsitrations perhaps, on average, improve typical ill-developed junky articles that have grown by hook or by crook without careful attention by experienced editors, but when you run into a highly developed article you should think twice to be sure you know what you're doing – not just close your eyes and hit <SAVE>. Our esteemed fellow editor Beyond My Ken put it very well [139]:
The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all... Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article... Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on.
P.S. The foregoing was mostly for the record. What would really happen at ANI, I humbly predict, is that someone will point out that you've made no attempt to discuss, after which someone else will, if we are lucky, add a Burma-shave:
NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave
Are GiantSnowman and/or TheRamblingMan (indistinguishable in this specific behavior) still going around using automated date-conversion scripts? The only way I found to keep them at bay was to use a very specific use-date template for all articles I create. (That is, if you really want numerical archive-date and access-date, add the highly-obvious parameter |cs1-dates=ly to the {{use mdy dates}} template.) GiantSnowman's alteration of three direct quotes in the pursuit of date standardization shows the danger of unchecked scripts for this purpose. Anyway, I totally agree re the point you actually mentioned me for: that year ranges can be adequate in the lead sentence even when more precise dates are known, as long as those dates are expanded later. MOS:BIRTHDATE "if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I certainly don't want to dash anyone's hopes, but after a look at it, it does seem to me that MOS:DASH indicates that chapter and page ranges should be done with n-dashes rather than hyphens. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Why Atsme, you used hyphens when you should have used n-dashes! (And I can vouch that my brain has been fried for a long time!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
The topics proposed for revocation are:
Senkaku islands
Waldorf education
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Scientology
Landmark worldwide
The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.
so quotation marks make sense? Could you please add these on the parameter description of the Infobox, that quotation marks should be use when providing a catchphrases in the catchphrase section? Thanks in advance. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 15:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Tryptofish has brought you a delicious dinner. And don't we all think EEng would look good in a tophat? PS: It probably tastes better with some Skippy peanut butter on it.
Re. [141] (thanks for the ping) - maybe it got lost in the length of comment, but I don't think I ever said reviews would grind to a standstill, just that a backlog would still be around but with (more) noms by regular editors, which I think is accurate. And that, IMO, with the novice editors more relied on to do those reviews, but not required to do more than one, the new backlog would go by even slower. But I'm not voting, and it seems nobody cares, so *shrug*. Kingsif (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Tell you what. If this phenomenon you have in mind actually materializes when the new policy is implemented -- and at this point it's clear it will be implemented -- then I'll eat my hat (whatever that means on Wikipedia). And if it doesn't, why then I'll think of some appropriate way of rubbing it in your face. EEng11:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Then it would be best to mention the influence instead of just the belovedness. (Grandmothers get a free pass for both, of course.) EEng04:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m in awe of template editors, you guys are gods, my question is did you from childhood have a flair for coding?or did you learn it privately or did you major in computer science? Furthermore in your own opinion what coding language is best for Wikipedia? & Secondly, in general(not wiki now) what do you think is the best coding language that is currently high in demand? Someone mentioned Python to me but I decided to run it through you first, lest I forget, what language are we optimizing in this collaborative project? Celestina007 (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Well since you ask, I began on this amazing thing [142] in the 3rd grade, then soon after this, then I took a few years off, and then in high school met my first true love. What little coding I still do is in very arcane environments, so I can't possibly advise you on how to compete with the young whippersnappers of todays. Certainly Python is very good to know. EEng20:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Commenced coding in 3rd grade??? Ha! So it’s innate then! you are gifted. In 3rd grade I was building sand castles, playing hide and seek and Hopscotch. I feel coding is a gift you either have it or you don’t. I’d just stick to my anti UPE work here. Celestina007 (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason is that EEng was struck by lightening as a child. Probably flipped a few of his bits. (And now, he is going to tell me to byte him.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Celestina007, this is s sample of exactly one, but I am getting a lot of job offers that for someone who can create something with MicroPython on a RP2040 processor, using a Raspberry Pi Pico as the prototype. I highly recommend the SunFounder Raspberry Pi Pico Basic Starter Kit, $49 USD on Amazon [ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08XXHGSQ7/ ]. Related skills that will make you even more valuable are some basic electronics (you really don't need a lot; most everything happens inside the the RP2040) and -- after you are good at solving problems with MicroPython -- learning how to make your own circuit boards using KiCad and having a board house actually make the boards.
Here is a recent job that will give you an idea of what the customers are looking for. My customer has an industrial application where they basically spin a thick glass disk at very high RPM. Occasionally the thing goes too fast and explodes, knocking chunks out of the wall of the concrete bunker where they run this thing. They call it "the bomb".
Years ago I made a small gizmo that detected the speed using an optical sensor and a slotted disk on the shaft. It had one job; cut the power to everything if the RPM got above a certain threshold. They called me while back and wanted to make a new one plus a couple of spares and a new feature (cut the power if someone opens the door to the bunker).
They offered an obscene amount of money to not lose their expensive glass and to avoid killing some idiot who ignores warning signs. I charged them half of what they offered to pay and added a magnetic lock so the door cannot be opened until the RPM is zero. Turns out you can call any alarm company and they will install such a lock; lock on power applied or lock on power loss, your choice. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is the interesting part; I also do this sort of thing using assembly language, which really does take a lot or skill. I could have done the job I described above with a microcontroller that costs about a nickel using assembly language. Which is important for some of the things I do, where the factory is turning out a million units at a time, and choosing a $4 Raspberry Pi Pico would cost four million dollars. But many projects need less than a hundred units. For the project above I gave them 10 so they would have plenty of spares. Here is the key point: you could have done the programming after spending a few weeks studying Python and Micropython. It really is that easy! Don't sell yourself short. You can do this. I encourage you; please get a Raspberry Pi Pico and try it for yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello EEng, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, BilCat (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
ANI thread related to discussion in which you participated
Consider that this is the internet and irony that relies on prior knowledge of a person or signals such as body language and tone of voice should not be assumed. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Please help to improve the article to make it more interesting as per WP:BLUEWP:NPOV etc and where your comment is simply snore, please look to expand so it is not just "snore". Particularly, articles and edits that are not just "snore" may actually address complex social issues in new and innovative ways. Can you help with this mission? Mrspaceowl (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
On Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850 you reverted to an edit with a sentence ending in a comma that removed notable information. The reason given was 'do this again and you'll be blocked'. However, you give no reason beyond this for reverting to a sentence fragment from one that makes sense, nor have you said what you consider 'silly' about information on an academic book referenced by a major motion picture which is factual beyond doubt and supported by the most credible source imaginable. You seem to be here for WP:NOTHERE in this case. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Mrs. Pace Owl, your cluelessness act is nearing perfection. Feel free to correct the comma to a period. That way at least something you do will be productive. [143]EEng18:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your tact, respect and commitment to improving Wikipedia in this case. However, I must demur, as the subclause removed seems likely the only interesting thing about the article at present, and should be restored. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this another example of confusion over "and/or"? Logically, "do this again and you'll be blocked" says both of two things should happen: you should do this again (phrased as a command), and you will be blocked (regardless of whether you do it again). "Do this again or you'll be blocked" would make more sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
OED: "Introducing the predicted consequence or fulfilment of a command, or of a hypothesis put imperatively, or elliptically", giving the example Spray with Sanfect and you're safe.EEng20:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
All right then! So... I'm "most very elite". Don't you have an essay about writing that way? (Although it's entirely and completely accurate in my case.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yes. You have an excellent example of someone's harboring-confusion in the Arizona shipwrecks entry at the top of your user page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I wish I could harbor my confusion. Mine's been out to sea since 1986, gone around the world seven times and still hasn't got a clue where it is what it's been doing why it's been doing it when it will be done... I need to go lie down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't try to get around too much. It's much better to go straight through it. (And I mean nothing homophobic by saying "straight"). Always best to surround oneself with too much, no point in trying to bypass it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe we were discussing the correct way to refer to this project. en-wiki seems to be popular, but I prefer EEng-wiki, because this talk page comprises about 62% of it, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that. You realize that the two of us are doing this routine simultaneously on EEng's lawn and on Atsme's lawn? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The thought had occurred to me, yes. I grew up on a dead-end street (that will be the name of my power ballad one day) so I'm used to playing in other people's yards. But I've got a botched custom IEnumerable implementation to re-write for one of my programmers, so I'm pretty much done, now. I'm gonna just make a manual wrapper around a List<T>, which won't mean anything to anyone not into software, but will make any programmer reading this hate me, hehe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd prefer it to be, but this project might eventually be released under license to certain clients. The good news is that, as the lead developer, I have the final word on the contents of the inline comments. My particular favorite is:
//Where's my fucking error handling?!?! - MjolnirPants//I couldn't make try/catch work without breaking [other programmer]'s code - MjolnirPants' Junior-most programmer//I am not interested in you excu... - MjolnirPantsif(thingThatShouldntHappenHappened)thrownewException("Verbose error message.");//Oh... I see. Uh, carry on, I guess. - MjolnirPants
My proposal to write this in Y'ALL (a LISP-derived language I invented that uses southern idioms for keywords) was soundly rejected by my boss. My subsequent proposal to write it in Malbolge was met with open hostility and death threats from my team. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I once wrote a C# function called "cdr" (which if you've done any Lisp programming, does exactly what you think it would do), and had an argument about why it couldn't be called "GetRestOfList" ... it got quite heated. And then there's the (possibly apocryphal) story about Microsoft using a null-terminated Pascal string (ie: the first byte has the string length) which was defined as a "FuckedString". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I too, have car and cdr functions in the standard extension library which my team uses. And they actually use them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Lisp was the single most brilliant language ever invented. If it hadn't been overtaken by C++, I'm 100% convinced it would be the dominant language of deep learning today, and we'd have modern Lisp machines capable of some truly amazing things.
I think Eric S Raymond is a bit of a nut job, but I do like his widely-distributed quotation "Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use Lisp itself a lot." A long time ago, I was writing a tool to parse a flat file and create objects in the parse tree that did stuff. I forget the details, but the stock way in C# of creating any object at runtime is Activator.CreateInstance() which is as slow as waiting for an Arbcom case to finish;[FBDB] I changed it so that it created individual constructors in IL at runtime and stored them in a map based on the object type that was parsed. That was much faster, but while I was writing lots of IL generator code to dump out a one-line constructor, I did think "I'm sure Lisp macros is much easier than this". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, you know, I think crazy people should have a place to gather and be their crazy selves in a relatively safe environment where there are not sharp objects, and if I can supply that I'm happy to do so. Eventually you'll have to get off my lawn, however.`EEng15:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Fellow programmers (and non-programmers alike, since we're all computer-savvy Wikicoders) might find this podcast interesting. I've just listened to the first 5 episodes back-to-back and found it fascinating. The Lazarus Heistnagualdesign14:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Light my wiki! (Note: not a photo of ejaculation.) I want it known that I did not place this image & caption here (or anywhere, for that matter). -EEng Indeed not, it was me. --Candle fish
Getting back to the program at hand... How can we have that info placed back into Sally's Wiki?[145] And here I thought I knew all the anatomical terms. But that sure sounds kind of painful. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry that my poem is so icky
But if you pour yourself a lime rickey
Watch out lest some tricky sicky
Drops into your drink a micky
So that they can have a quickie
And leave you with a big fat hickey
And as the clock goes tocky-ticky
Then you might not be so picky
And end up with a sticky wiki!
Burma Shave.
Figured I'd take it up over here rather than sidetrack the MFD. Apologies if this got heated on the "Editors who are confused page" - I certainly didn't care one way or the other about that page when I first was pinged a year or so ago. That said, my removal wasn't trolling. Like I said in my edit summaries, I simply don't believe that any of those editors are likely to be actually confused, in the same way that a line claiming EEng and Jimbo Wales are likely to be confused should probably be removed. If this is just a free-floating anything-goes list, then removals can be just as justified as additions; I just focused on myself for obvious reasons. That edit was enforcing the standard the list seems to want to create.
Needless to say, I was giving some severe side-eye to your comments in the MFD because of your comment for BilCat's original point - yes, it was technically correct, but it wasn't helping matters when you knew exactly what BilCat was talking about. Just clarify the matter if something comes up like that in the future - "Yes, I reverted your removal, but I didn't do it repeatedly and would have let the matter rest once you re-reverted" or the like would have been fine. Having the demand for diffs, followed by me checking the history and boggling at it, was why I bothered to clean things out in the first place - it felt like you'd tricked me into looking into a matter that you already knew the answer to. It wasn't a win-friends-and-influence people move. That said, whatever. I just figured I'd explain it out from my side.
This might sound odd given my delete vote, but I'll also add that I do appreciate your work in defending humor on Wikipedia, so please keep that up. I'm a fan of humorous content being kept and celebrated on Wikipedia - if I was god-emperor, we'd still be doing even sillier main pages on April Fool's Day and the like. That said, I also firmly believe that any humorous content should not get even remotely close to attacks on editors, nationalism, religion, or other hot-button topics, which unfortunately the current form of that page seems to violate. I'd hope that you don't even revert once, no questions asked, if you see any future removals of editors on that page - whatever, just let it go, it doesn't have to be an exhaustive list. SnowFire (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
BilCat asserted that I'd repeatedly added users who've removed themselves, and I knew that wasn't true. There was one user (singular -- i.e. BilCat himself) who got re-added once (not repeatedly), and that's it. When someone makes a behavior accusation it's normal to expect/demand diffs. I assumed he'd go get the one diff, and then admit that there really was just the one. The only trouble with that very fine plan being, of course, that I promptly went and accidentally re-added you too, which kind of spoiled the whole effect.
I never thought you were trolling. You mis-parsed something I said as implying that -- see my explanation over at the MfD.
Thank you for your kind words at the end there. Now what are we going to do about DesertPipeline? I really feel bad for him/her, but he's just not getting it. EEng05:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of news outlets in general. Levivich? ! 01:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Atsme Talk 📧 22:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
[stretch] or [hyperbole]. That's how bad things have gotten. Credit's due where it's earned so I'll just say Excellent way to disincentivize productive editors! I realize that nobody gives a big 🐀 
about what I think, and neither do I for the most part, so back on point - the biggest problem with DS/AE is that an admin's action can't be overturned without an act of congress,[hyperbole] accompanied by some 
and eating a big ole helping of 
. In hopes of defusing the chilling effects of allegations such as woke editors being enablers of the "scorned", I will just point out that blind alliances are what enable the accuser to make such degrading comments with impunity, especially if it stems from prejudice, misconceptions and WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise. Isn't it time for the community to make a few tweaks here and there, and put things back into proper perspective? I'm not the only one who recognizes that we have problems in that area that need fixing; it goes right up to 4 members of ArbCom. KK stated: But I believe this would be better addressed in a case request about discretionary sanctions, which is yet another thing we've been meaning to take a look at for a while. This would be an excellent opportunity for us to revisit the whole issue. Ok Ringo (who, as a kid, looked like Paul), it's your turn to beat your...drum, just the drum! Atsme 💬 📧 15:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
party 🎉🎊.
.jpg)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I also thought that RFA line violated the below-the-belt and glass-houses rules, a rare yellow card. Lev!vich 00:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
Atsme 📣 📧 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
EEng 00:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
) But I am curious if your preference is only concerning dashes/hyphens. Why, for example, would you prefer 
.jpg)
.jpg)
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Self-trout Firestar464 (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Death of Ronald Greene at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified: primarily a lack of blather control in the hook. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
--ARoseWolf 19:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
-3580144.png)
Atsme Talk 📧 02:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=logo}
. (Sadly, I was forced to retire my Tarage sock in a huff late last year.) EEng 23:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Timrollpickering (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://commaand.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/dutxsgwx0aijgn5.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[92]](https://berkeleyplaques.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ThousandOaksSchool_01.jpg){kind=link}
-3-2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)