User talk:EEng

Phineas Gage

G'day, I've seen this article steadily improve over the last 8 months, under your guidance, and I wanted to drop in and say Thank you!. I love that topic, and it is great to see that you're dedicated to improving the article. Have you seen this article? Their images in Figure 4 are free content, which means we can upload them to Commons, and include them in this biography if you think they would be useful. If you ever need some technical assistance, come and grab me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the appreciation. I've put off updating the cites too for long, because I haven't had the patience to learn the markup, and there are so many decisions needed about reference style and so on. I wonder if (after I make a go at learing the ins and outs myself) I might ask for your guidance on technical points and/or for help in actually putting the cites into markup (there will be scores of them!).

The Kelley paper I haven't studied carefully, but it seems to present a visualization method for brains and skulls in general, using Gage only as an example; I don't think it claims any new analysis of the path of the tamping iron, which is the critical issue. Also, in Figure 4 the tamping rod appears to be much smaller than the 1-1/4 inch diameter of Gage's tool -- note the US quarter also shown, which is just under 1 inch in diameter. But I could well be wrong on all of this, and I haven't been in touch with the authors. Thanks again for taking the time to contact me. EEng (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation voodoo is documented at Wikipedia:Citation templates.

If you need a hand, come and grab me.

The important aspect of the Kelley article is that the multimedia in it can be integrated into our Wikipedia article, if it would be useful.

He contacted us at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Phineas_Gage_skull_replication, and I have spoken with him briefly via email a while ago. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit on Gage

I've always been curious about people who revert things rather than simply adding a tag. Reversion is for cases where one fancies themselves an expert on the subject, and is pretty sure the addition is wrong or unsourcable. But this is not such a case. But the tamping iron burial is a very commonly known bit of data about Gage, and obviously your bookshelf lacks John Fleishman's book on Phineas Gage where the burial of the rod with Gage, and recovery of them both by Dr. J.D.B Stillman is mentioned on page 59 (Shattuck takes them both east that December, to Harlow). You can actually find the text if you google "Phineas Gage burial". No, I didn't add the ref. I'll leave it for you do to, as penance for doing things wrong on Wikipedia. Don't revert other people's stuff unless you're sure you know what you're doing. SBHarris 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This book doesnt appear in Worldcat, or either of the two university libraries I can quickly check directly, however it is on Amazon[1] and reading lists[2]. I've found the book in Google books as sbharris mentions, and the text of p 59 reads:

With her son-in-law and the major of San Francisco, who happens to be a physician, standing by as witnesses, Phineas's coffin is unrecovered and carried to a shed. There, Dr. J. D. B. Stillman, a local surgeon, removes the skull. The huge fracture on the forehead is unmistakable. Dr. Stillman removes something else from the coffin-the tamping iron that Phineas carried everywhere, even to his grave.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I regret that you were offended, I believe that my action in reverting your edit was fully justified. If you will be so kind as to wait a few days, I will follow up with a full explanation. In the meantime, unless you object, I think it would be best to if I transfer this discussion the article's talk page. EEng (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, go ahead and transfer what you like. SBHarris 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've summarised this discussion at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Burial_of_the_rod. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I've posted a complete followup at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Burial_of_the_rod. (Jayvb, thanks for transferring and summarizing the discussion.) EEng (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've quickly reviewed your post, and agree we shouldnt reproduce this as if it was fact if the historical record and accounts closer to the event did not mention it. I'll keep watching. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayvb, thanks again for your interest. I would like to bow out of this discussion, and wonder if you might intercede to calm things down should the other party insist on continuing despite there being no new evidence on the table. (And that might be best done, should it be needed, on the article's talk page for all to see.) Hey, and thanks for cleaning up the references.EEng (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion will calm down as it focuses on what sources are available, and what they say. Sbharris has mentioned some that will be worth finding and checking. If it is often mentioned in reliable sources that the rod was buried with the body, we should mention this in the article while also describing the level of disputation of this fact. Doing this will help readers know that we havent simply omitted it - i.e. we know, and we warn readers to not state it as fact without checking the cited sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Burial of the rod.

Lowell House

• Per your question on your edit summary, I guess I will stop you. Please stop vandalizing the Lowell House article. Alanraywiki (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Gracious! Don't get a knot in your knickers! The question was rhetorical and did not require a reply. l admit that mischieviousness got the best of me, but in all modesty, even including my overwrought condemnation of these unhappy spreaders of ill tidings the article was immeasurable improved for the concurrent shrinkage of verbosity, steadying of tenses, crookeds made straight, and rough places plain.

For those who may be wondering, Mr. Alanraywiki was giving me a well-deserved scolding for my insertion of the following text into the article on Harvard's Lowell House:

“ At Lowell, the bells were usually rung on Sundays from 1:00 to 1:15 pm by a group of Lowell residents known as the Klappermeisters. But some Klappermeisters were drunk with power, and putting heedless self-indulgence ahead of the welfare of their sleep-starved fellow scholars, would initiate their infernal clanging much, much earlier than the officially appointed hour on that sanctified day of rest; these wicked souls were hated and reviled by each and every creature unfortunate enough to suffer within the radius of action of these sonic torture machines, and thereafter had trouble getting help with their chemistry homework, even unto the twelfth generation. ”

Vandalizing was not really the right word. It was more like creative writing run amok. Let's try to keep Wikipedia more serious, okay? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Newly discovered Daguerreotype

EEng, nice job cleaning up my initial, humble effort at reporting the newly discovered Daguerreotype. The LA Times has also reported the discovery, available on their website. I have a copy of the journal article if you'd like to see it. The discovery caused quite a stir on 16 July 2009. The discoverer's website was overwhelmed and they quickly upgraded to a better server. Their experience is reported on their Flickr page.Danaxtell (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have regretfully reported your edit warring

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:EEng_reported_by_User:Gavia_immer_.28Result:_.29. I do not like to have done this, because you have undoubtedly improved the Phineas Gage article, but I don't believe this can be resolved until you acknowledge that no one else sees a copyright issue with this image. Please add comments you wish at the link I've provided. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please can we keep the image off the article, and have a discussion about this? I would hate to loose EEng because he was blocked for preventing what he believed to be a copyright violation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Final warning: if this is a copyvio, I'm sure other people will remove it. EEng doesn't need to break WP:3RR for wiki's sake. Anything else that looks like a 3RR vio will result in a block William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re [3]. Nonetheless, the warning stands. You're not a one-man crusade against copyvio William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re [4]. This isn't a court. Don't expect a formal process. WP:BURO William M. Connolley (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lobotomy

Hi,

I've been expanding the lobotomy entry a little bit and, as it's really the first wikipedia entry that I've done and I see that you've done some editing of the page previously, I was wondering if you could perhaps have look over the page to see if the changes that I've introduced so far are ok? Thanks Freekra (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added some commentary on Talk which I hope you'll consider constructive. I've got some deadlines over the next 4 weeks so I won't be able to do much more than cormment for now, however. But keep at it, please. EEng (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks EEng. Very useful. Freekra (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chebyshev's inequality

Hi! I have restored some of the material you removed from Chebyshev's inequality. I think it is relevant and important, as I explained in the edit summary. If you think otherwise, let's discuss it on the talk page. BTW, I think it would create a more productive atmosphere if you avoided words like "bizarre" and "unilluminating" when referring to other people's contributions. Best wishes, --Zvika (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC) I was rude, and I apologize. But the idea that there's "nothing tighter" than the C. bound is a tricky one, and the exposition of that example, as it stands, indeed has serious problems. The spirit will probably move me in a week or two to see what I can do. EEng (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, saying that a bound is tight is a rigorous mathematical statement. It means that there exists situations in which the bound is obtained with equality. The practical implication is that the bound cannot be improved unless further assumptions are introduced. This seems to me more or less what is said in the article. --Zvika (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That the article makes a "rigorous mathematical statement" ... "more or less" pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. Again I apologize for my rudeness, and someday (soon?) I'll make a change and I hope you'll see what I mean. EEng (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

Thanks for the invitation. I'll try to take a look at it soon. Do you intend to try a GAC?--Garrondo (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about all this rating stuff, but if you think that makes sense why not? As you know Gage has been in the news a lot in the last six months and the article gets a lot of traffic. EEng (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well; it is more complicated than that. If you post it at WP:GAC a reviewer would make comments and say if it fullfills GA criteria or not. It will probably be a better idea after some editors review it.--Garrondo (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I was asking you first, I guess! EEng (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. It is great to have a free article from McMillan summarizing his point of view, instead of having to buy his book. I'll try to read it if I have time (as you say time is what always lacks :-) ). Nevertheless it still seems more of the same. We already know what McMillan thinks, but the problem is that from my point of view it is probably far from consensus among experts. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Zapruder

Hi. Thanks for your work there. I think 'unfortunately' is a little POV there; would you mind elaborating your reasons at the talk page please? --John (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:Abraham Zapruder.

Lee Harvey Oswald

I'm in awe of your copy editing, it's a real object lesson in how to take sentences that seem ok, but then transform them into something much more fluid and logical. Even though you make it seem easy, I'm sure it takes a lot of time. I think it's an amazing skill and I'm studying your changes closely to try and learn as much from them as I can. Thank you. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! (blush) The article was (fairly) well organized, and competent at the sentence level, but too much fat -- unimportant details like Ruth Paine drove Marnina from city X to Y, then later drove her from A to B -- OK, we know Ruth was a family friend and friends do such things -- the interested reader could find out details from the refs. Amazing how much tighter things get when you cut even small amounts of stuff like that, which then allows even whole paragraphs to collapse into a single (albeit somewhat more complex) sentence. Again, just for the record for anyone else listening, I have no interest in getting involved in controversy over LHO and JFK -- my intent is strictly to copyedit the article as it stands, neither adding nor omitting anything substantive. Having received no accusatory condemnations from impassioned assassination theorists of whatever stripe, I guess I've succeeded in doing that so far. Thanks for taking the time to compliment. EEng (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ehy!!

It seems you've taken a stance against me! I am following your suggestions lately, so honestly I don't explain your revertion at Margaritus of Brindisi if not a personal attack. Thank map is 1) written in French 2) highlights places which are NOT mentioned at all in the text. It looks done for something else and also the fact it is in French is really ugly to show. One should at least rewrite it in French or, better, make another at all. Let me know and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you personally. I misunderstood your edit summary, so in restoring the map I gave an explanation which didn't answer your objection. It is unfortunate that the wording on the map is in French, but since the article is about an officer in the Normal Kingdom of Sicily, it's not inappropriate. England and northern France are colored because they were Norman possessions at the time; if you had read the image description at [5] instead of removing the image, you would know that. In future, please look for answers to why things are the way they are before deleting things you don't understand. I've restored the map, expanding the caption to explain the coloring. If you still don't understand, please ask me to explain in more detail instead of removing. EEng (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know perfectly which were the Norman lands a the time, and I also perfectly know that the English Normans already had NOTHING to share with the Italo-Normans at the time the Kingdom of Sicily was created (I think the youngest of them could even barely understand each other speaking). Anyway, the situation is what it is with that image. I repeat that having something in French into an English encyclopedia gives the article an amateurish and awful appearance, but anyway, no problem. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Watras

There is a discussion on Talk:Stanley_Watras that you may be interested in, as you contributed to this in the past. Thanks. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this friction has been resolved and Phoenixthebird and I are well on the way to being friends. EEng (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentry McCreary Sr

Thank you for taking the time to explain to me what needs to be done I have given up and asked someone else to pick up where I left off when it comes to placing Mr. McCreary into history for all of his accomplishment.... Your time was very much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

MacDaid block

MacDaid is a sock of banned user Mattisse (talk · contribs). Steve Smith (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sad indeed. EEng (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lone Mountain (California)

i'm confused...your edit summary appears to contradict your edits. could you clarify? cheers! --emerson7 13:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I was confused too. That's what happens when I don't get my coffee. I've reverted myself. BTW, I marked as cite-needed a number of statetments in the article which I don't doubt (it intersects some other research of mine) but which I don't think are supported by the sfgenealogy cite. Maybe you can dig up some cites, perhaps on sfgenealogy.com? I'm afraid I'm overwhelmed just now. EEng (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing

Well I asked you for some advice, but hey, you couldn't be bothered to do that. Just deleted the request. I'm guessing this is what Wikipedia is like - unhelpful people who delight in being obstructive. You know, I think there are better places to be on the web. Can't really trust anything on here now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WyrmUK (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I transferred your query to the article's talk page, where everyone interested could see it and participate, and answered it there. The basic thrust, however, was that you seem to misunderstand the concept of notability as it's used on Wikipedia. Basically, no matter how competent a firm is and valued by its customers, it there are no significant, independent, third-party sources that have said anything about it, there's no way there can be an article on it, even if it's indeed notable.

Unfortunately your query, and my answer, are invisible now because they evaporated along with the article when the article was deleted. Once an article goes into the deletion-debate process, you have to keep tabs on what's going on or when you come back it may be gone. Where an article is of significant length and perhaps can be saved through extensive rewrite, you can write to an admin (I forget just how) and ask for the old raw text back so you can work on it privately to add notability evidence and so on, then restore the article. But I don't think that makes sense in this case.

I'm sorry your early experience here wasn't pleasant. But when people talk about this or that policy, such as for notability, you have to take the time to read the applicable policy so you can participate effectively in the discussion. (And in the present case, you have to check back soon enough that the debate isn't over, and the article deleted, by the next time you show up.) Just saying over and over that a company must be notable because otherwise a customer wouldn't associate itself with that company isn't going to work. EEng (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD participation

While Milowent's remark about the baby Jesus in your heart is at best rather rude, and his argument about poorly-sourced articles being kept is more OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think he's right about one thing. It has been my experience as well that responding prolifically to others in an AfD proves to be usually if not always unproductive. If you've found otherwise, you've been lucky! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't found otherwise -- I just haven't been involved in AfDs until recently, and I think I'll go back soon to staying uninvolved. There's a peculiar combination of forces at work in AfD that's simultaneously laughable and unpleasant. Thanks for the advice. EEng (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Broken Springs

Hi, EEng. Just a note to say that while I understand your frustration and in part share it, it's still important to keep it in check. It's not that I'm Spock, it's just that I've found that on those occasions when I've given free rein to my irritation, it has has always proved counterproductive.

The other thing thing to consider is that article-rescuers like MichaelQSchmidt do very valuable work. I don't pretend to understand them, but as they are generally friendly, I prefer to look on them as an exotic tribe whose customs I can't comprehend. Going into contortions to make what look to people like you and me like utterly implausible arguments in favour of keeping forgettable articles is simply the flipside of their dedication, one of the by-products of their outlook. But the yeoman's work they do in trying to save these articles is sometimes astonishing, frequently quixotic, but always deserving of respect. They tend to take an AfD as a personal challenge, and very frequently turn out pretty good articles in response to that challenge. On other occasions they do an enormous amount of work only to see the article deleted anyway. And then they do it again.

In my opinion, in this case, it wouldn't matter how much the article is improved, because the problem isn't the quality of the article (which isn't a reason for deletion anyway): the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's also ARTSPAM. But, barring some sudden change, the AfD is going to end up in a no consensus anyway -- so there's no point in getting your knickers in a twist. Cheers! -- Rrburke (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As you'll see above at User_talk:EEng#AfD_Participation I've already sworn off AfDs; I'll now redouble my determination. But now that you're here, could you take a look at [6] and see if you can help somehow? EEng (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, EEng. Unfortunately I missed your request for help until just now. I had a look at the edits, and while I don't have time at the moment to give the matter a thorough review (real-life swamped!), I have a couple of thoughts. I note that there have been some substantial changes, but while I agree that criticism section needed wholesale revision, I have considerable reservations about much of the material added by Longsun. First, much of the material appears to be original research. The paragraph beginning "In Morison's view..." is wholly unsourced: there appears to be no evidence that the views summarized in that paragraph are indeed Morison's view. Unless these views are so characterized in some reliable source (or in Morison's own writing), the article has no business attributing such views to Morison. This whole paragraph looks to me like WP:OR. The language is also offensive ("big hearted and generous racists"), the claims are sweeping ("the vast majority of white Americans") and unsubstantiated, and the passage is marred by intrusive editorializing ("Americans could afford to be generous, they were living in America after all"). None of this has any place in a Wikipedia article.

Second, a brief review of the sources cited suggests that the content of the article they are supposed to anchor strays too far from what those sources actually say. In other words, I could not find the claims made in the article supported in the sources cited. In fact, sometimes I couldn't find any hard reference at all to the topic of the sentence the cited source purportedly supports.

Finally, there are style and copy-editing problems -- but you appear to be on top of those.

I'll try to have a more thorough look if I can get some time. Cheers!

-- Rrburke (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

[followup] Hi, again: I was looking at an old version of the article, prior to your most recent edits, which I haven't had time to review. It appears you've removed most/all of the offending material.

-- Rrburke (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rburke, and thanks for your time. The original problem wasn't really about the article, but rather that Longsun had these completely wrongheaded ideas about the way wikipedia works e.g. that I'm a "senior ediitor" etc etc etc. He was trying to bring much-needed balance to the "Criticism" section; since (as it seemed to me at the time -- I now know I was wrong, see below) the existing material appeared to be well-founded, his solution needed to be to add balancing (non-OR) material to what was already there. But he kept insisting on simply killing the old text and replacing it with his own OR, so much as I disliked the old text (it was a borderline hatchet-job) I was forced to revert his changes, and keep encouraging him to add balance in the right way. He didn't seem able to understand that, smelled a conspiracy, etc. I was hoping others would help explain things to him.

Suddenly the other day he made a new rewrite. It was a mess and in way wrong tone e.g. "generous Americans", yet not as much OR as it appears at first -- he's just bad at citing sources. Most importantly it retained the main elements of the old "negative" text along with its balancing new information. A quick read made it look like I could use it as a start of a well-balanced section. I rushed to congratulate him on Talk, and try to head off any edit war with another editor who's been fighting with Longsun for some time.

But once I got into it, I discovered that the old material was not well-founded; as a result it really didn't belong in the article at all, and so there was nothing to balance. On Talk Talk:Samael_Eliot_Morison I detailed my reasons for rejecting several sources used by the old material, and I'd appreciate your adding your opinions, about my opinions, there, since I anticipate trouble on this from at least one other editor. Thanks again.

EEng (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Longsun

Dear Longsun: Please click here so we can continue this discussion on the article's Talk. (Other editors intrigued by this mysterious invitation are invited to lend their thoughts there as well.) EEng (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Eliot Morison

Hi, I have done a translation from Spanish to English of the reference for the above article. I am unable, through inexperience, to place it within the article references but I have left it to be copied and pasted on the 'request for translation' page. Best. Richard Avery (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. This is exactly the kind of collaboration and pooling of talents that makes Wikipedia such a wonderful experiment. EEng (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Walled garden spam

It's WP:WG WP:SPAM WP:AUTO WP:COI, created by WP:SPA and vigorously defended by the same anon IP on three separate AfDs [7][8][9] Qworty (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but let's you and I be careful we don't begin to look like a WP:TAGTEAM. EEng (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do (Flow Notation System for rap)

I figured it's widely known enough to be on wikipedia (The flow notation system), but if it seems to be that private, I'll go ahead and put it on wikibooks under music theory like you said. Thanks for the suggestion. edit: it appears wikibooks isn't public like wikipedia? I've never heard of it before, sorry. Arightwizard (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Most things that arrive at deletion debates really don't belong on Wikipedia, but this is something that I think does belong here, just not yet. To be on WP it has to have been written up in a "reliable source", among other things, and that just hasn't happened yet that I can see.

Wikibooks is like Wikipedia in that "anyone can edit." But I don't know whether they will take it either -- don't know what their rules are. Their mission is to develop teaching materials and "how-to" stuff, and since FNS seems to be a tool for helping write rap lyrics, it seems like something that might fit there -- again, unless it's too new. I just spent a few minutes over there and I have to say I found it confusing. Why don't you post a query at [10] -- describe a bit about the FNS, provide links to the blogs and so on with details, and ask for help finding if/how it can be used on Wikibooks. I don't think Wikibooks has nearly as many people involved as on Wikipedia, so you may need to be very patient. And if the answer is that FNS is too new to be included, try not to be too disappointed.

Also, I don't know if your account here on WP will also work on Wikibooks -- if not, just add your question by editing as an IP editor for now. There's a way to make your WP account work all over the various Wiki projects but I don't know how it works. Good luck.

EEng (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. One other thing: be careful about copyright. I doubt the system itself (the particular uses of X O and so on) is copyrighted, but be very careful that your description of the system is in your own words. Once you get a response to your original question, ask that before you start actually contributing over there. Also, you better save a copy of the WP article on your own computer now, before it's deleted, so you can use it as a starting point as you write something for Wikibooks. And finally, if you have come to agree that the WP article needs to be deleted, so say at the AfD debate to save everyone trouble.

Speedy deletion declined: Neville Hunt

Hello EEng. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Neville Hunt, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not really promotional enough for G11, real issue is notability - let the AfD take care of it. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete Delight

That RB AfD is closed and the thing is gone, finally. The gods are appeased. Qworty (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

XE166

You wrote that Electronics Weekly and similar mags just reprint product announcements. I thought you were calling EW "spam". You replied that it was the article that is spam. You said "Jeesh" and I say "gee whillikers". If "all" EW and similar mags do is reprint press releases, then I think they really are spam. However, I have decades of experience writing for trade publications (not this one), and I think that they show professional editorial judgment when deciding which product announcements to publish. They also produce independent editorial content, often of very high caliber. Thats why such trade mags, or at least the better ones, are read widely and have credibility. Back to this article, it could benefit from being trimmed and rewritten, but I don't think it is really spam. Do you really think so? Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI: The real Richard Hills and Noron Theory

I wrote to the real Hills, he wrote back angry, and the second claimant to his name on the Noron Theory AfD posted not long afterward, with the demand that the article be taken down. He'd like to see the article originator, the socks and associated other SPAs banned, if possible. Well, they did made him look like a crank, didn't they? I told him I'll pursue it, but I have no experience with these matters. Any help you can render would be appreciated. Yakushima (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Freekra

Hi, I'm back at last. Sorry for the hiatus. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! (I've been away myself for about 6 months.) EEng (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange rant

FIRST : do not offend me if you don't want to be banned . My country villa is NOT A STUPID HOTEL but a holiday rental in Garfagnana. THIRD: I'm starting to build in the site lots of informations about places to visit and things to do.... It's a big effort because I'm writing in 3 languages ... There's nothing similar for Garfagnana territory ...So why couldn't I insert links not to my holiday rental but to the info pages ??? It's not SPAM ..... There's quite nothing about Castelnuovo Garfagnana ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleguasp (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't live in Garfagnana . How do you pretend to know about that area more than a person who lives there ? Don't you think to be a bit arrogant ? I found many links on wikipedia pages that are a mix of educational and commercial ....Nobody have never erased those pages . Is wikipedia yours , maybe ?

Note to the curious: I've been away for about six months and was welcomed back by the above. I did figure out what this Aleguasp person is frothing about, though it has nothing to do with me. [11] EEng (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Your initial edit summary of "nothing in WP:MOSQUOTE to support that" is what confused me, and prompted my response. In light of your newer summary, it actually makes good sense to leave it in. Regards. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I missed the passage from MOSQUOTE you, er, well, QUOTEd in your later summary. But once you pointed it out, I have to say it seemed sort of silly--I've opened a discussion here. Anyway, glad we're agreed in this case. EEng (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Project Home 2011

Good point ... I figure I got sucked into the trollish whirlpool. My bad. Ravenswing 18:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Being Tallest is Unhealthy

There are FACTS, and then there are opinions. Here are some FACTS:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people
• http://www.oneinchpunch.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/worlds-tallest-man.jpg
• http://www.elekta.com/healthcare_international_press_release_20071092.php

Fact: the tallest persons in medical history all died at an age below the median life expectancy for their cohort age group.

Now, if you choose to be uninformed, that's one thing. But to make fun of others who are right, and then to convince others that they are right when they are in fact wrong, is to spread misinformation. I do realize the goal of Wikipedia is not "truth" but "verifiability." However, it should be clear that living to 8 feet tall is not something that has generally been desirable.

• http://www.oneinchpunch.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/worlds-tallest-man.jpg

Unless, of course, you think the attention is worth the drawbacks. It should also be clear that there is a distinction between being "tall" and being the "tallest." No one says being 6 foot 2 inches is bad. So, enough with the jokes and take some time to respect other people's viewpoints. You may learn something. Ryoung122 22:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ryoung122:

• I've removed some of the excess line breaks from your message (above, apparently responding to [12]).
• I didn't say that "being tallest" is healthy (or perhaps you mean healthful). Someone said, "In fact, since it's unhealthy, researchers try to limit height," to which I responded by inquiring, "Just where and by whom -- and on whom -- are these creeepy-sounding research efforts, which 'try to limit height,' being carried out?"
• Despite what appears to be an attempt to evade your topic ban by not mentioning longevity explicitly, it seems to me you are likely in violation of your topic ban and I've brought that to the attention [13] of someone who's dealt with you before.
• Kudos for hitting the trifecta of Wikipedia egotism: an indefinite topic ban [14], a deleted vanity bio [15], even -- and this is a first in my experience -- a deleted vanity category [16].
• I've addressed the above to you only as a mattter of form -- in fact it's primarily for the benefit of third parties. Based on a review of your behavior over the years, I'm saying in advance that I will likely not respond to anything further you address to me.

EEng (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you here on Wikipedia to make positive contributions, or make ethnic jokes, as you did this week? And none of what you mention above is a fair or on-topic rebuttal or what I said about the category of "tallest" people, which, by the way, doesn't really fit under the category that I'm not supposed to be contributing to. As for me, it's not a trifecta of egotism: no, the problem is Wikipedia is edited by persons who are not knowledgeable about the subjects they edit. Far from being a "vanity" article, my own article probably should exist, based on outside sources. It's only because Wikipedia caters to the lowest common denominator ("anyone can edit") that it does not, since I have clearly been established as notable. Check out Who's Who in America 2012. I won't see your name in there, but you can find me.

I'm surprised you mentioned your response was for the benefit of others...clearly, it's not. It's for the benefit of YOU. You turned what should have been a discussion about facts into a "me against you" personal issue. That's called a red herring strategy: change the subject instead of admitting you are wrong and made a mistake. As many on Wikipedia allow their own egos to get in the way of the purpose of collaborative, objective, encyclopedic editing, so instead of addressing the FACT that you were doubly wrong in making fun of others for something they said that turned out to be correct (i.e., wrong to make fun and wrong to not research the issue before adding your opinion). Have a nice day.

Ryoung122 14:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, see the last thread on my talkpage. I'll be on an iPhone for several hours, I'll respond when I get a full keyboard. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Blade: You're talking about this? Honestly, I don't think any response to him is needed or even desirable. If you want to engage him don't let me stop you, but don't think you need to do it to defend me. His behavior (past and present) speaks for itself. EEng (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted you to be aware it was going on, as your name was mentioned. Merely a courtesy I extend to people if their names come up on my talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And I do appreciate it. We CYBERBULLIES have to stick together, after all, if we're to maintain our stranglehold on those who struggle to bring light and truth to Wikepedia. By the way, a paper you may enjoy: [17]. EEng (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You have officially made my day now. Thanks!!!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy it while you can, as we will no doubt pay many times over for it. EEng (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Far from being a 'vanity' article, my own article probably should exist, based on outside sources. It's only because Wikipedia caters to the lowest common denominator ('anyone can edit') that it does not, since I have clearly been established as notable. Check out Who's Who in America 2012. I won't see your name in there, but you can find me." Just have to say since I accidently discovered this thread since it was right above the one I started on this talk page, I have never, EVER, encountered WikiEgo such as this. If this person did have an article, I would ensure this paragraph was included. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 18:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Jaume Cañellas

I suppose your sentence "the connotation of the former, in context, is obviously the former" should be "the connotation of the latter, in context, is obviously the former". Thank you for your point of view: I found quite surprising that I was the only one giving this interpretation to my sentence. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/WMF_interviews

Hi EEng, please refrain from adding unhelpful and erroneous edits like this to pages in which we are trying to engage in a productive and thoughtful analysis of what went wrong in our pilot program. I appreciate the humor in your addition, but this is a very serious subject, and I ask that you treat it with the respect it deserves in the future. Thanks. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Humor doesn't imply disrespect, nor does it detract in any way from productive and thoughtful analysis -- it might even add to it. At least I read the thing [18]. Of course, I would never dream of doing what I did on an article page (as opposed to a project page) but I'd be lying if I said I won't do it again in a similar situation. I see in other discussion (e.g. point 1 of [19]) concerns over WMF staff's grasp of how things are really done on WP, and I think this may be an example. EEng (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Malcom X

Hello. I see you partly reverted my recent edit. I don't really mind, as long as the thought terminating cliché "in stark contrast" disappears. Your summary said it was a "clicke". What does that mean? Anyway, I am still not entirely happy with the result. Malcolm came into dispute with the actual people in the Civil Rights Movement, at a time of explosive emotions. It was not just their "emphasis" he opposed. I think it is important that the lead is clear about this. Any help welcome. Rumiton (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Please see the following as a reason to believe "white supremacists" was the rumor and not just "whites".

The black community in Lansing disputed the cause of death, believing there was circumstantial evidence of assault. His family had frequently been harassed by the Black Legion, a white supremacist group that his father accused of burning down their home in 1929. Some blacks believed the Black Legion was responsible for Earl Little's death. One of the adults at the funeral told eight-year-old Philbert Little that his father had been hit from behind and shoved under the streetcar.[15]

Glennconti (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right; I've restored your change. EEng (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Off-Wiki canvassing re you-know-who?

Sorry, I didn't see your message. Now it's too late, anyway. Thank you for the information. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth your investing 10 minutes just to see, because I fear we still haven't heard then end of this. EEng (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same feeling... I spent 5 minutes on it and I saw something, but too vague... but now unfortunately I have absolutely no time to continue. :-( Perhaps next time. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 20:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a comment

I started this AfD over a week ago, and only gotten (at the time of writing) 1 comment. I don't care which way you vote, I just want this to come to some definitive resolution, as the 1st AfD was closed No Consensus. If you could have a look there, it would be hugely appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi EEng, I reverted you on Herb Caen

Hi EEng,

I reverted you and took the issue to the talk page. I hope you don't mind. Thanks, --Mollskman (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Query re editing habits

This query was transferred here from [20]:

Question EEng if I can ask you a question, why are most all of your contributions deleting pages? --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick answer: They're not -- see [21]. Maybe a bit later I'll explain a little more completely. EEng (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

MX discussion

Unless you object, I'd like to copy the messages from my Talk page (now archived) to the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, though when I first contacted you I used your Talk because I didn't think the subject was something others would care about. I guess maybe the bit about the insurance ought to be in the article's Talk archive, now that I think about it. EEng (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

um...

Dear EEng, Thank you very much again for the suggestions; I will definately take them into consideration. I know that I am not an expert on Phineas Gage, but I have done a lot of work trying to find good articles to represent him accurately. I only expanded on the information you had already written, and I even kept some of it in the draft. I would like to put up a more detailed description about Gage to give the article a more well rounded feel and to give readers a better grasp of the topic of Cognitive neuropsychology. Dear EEng, Thank you for your imput about revising the excerpt on Phineas Gage. Right now I am doing a project for my History of Psychology class where we each have to revise a wikipedia article. I have gotten all of my information from peer reviewed sources/articles and .edu websites so I am sure that the information is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulina77710 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Harvard University (Notable people)". Thank you. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, EEng. You may have missed it, but a bunch of people have responded to your latest post on this DRN thread. We can probably move more quickly toward consensus if we can get some feedback from you soon. Thanks! — Bdb484 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Herb Caen

Kudos for your work on the Herb Cain article. Dlabtot (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you, kind sir or madam. I actually tear up a bit sometimes when I think that he's actually gone. It's amazing -- he started with the Chronicle when my mother was 8 years old

If you search for <!-- in the raw text you'll find notes on ways the article can be improved -- it particularly could use more material on the unique feel of HC's work, and on tributes from others. The NYT obit, SFGate piece, and Pulitzer award must certainly have choice bits that can be mined -- also there's in interview with HC himself cited somewhere. Why not take a stab in your abundant spare time.

EEng (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Two items -- paraphrased from memory -- which I particularly remember and have only halfheartedly tried to find (though I suspect the bulk of Caen's text is under the Chron's tight lock and key):

• [Early 70s, last item of the day's column -- typical zinger ending a HC column] FREUDIAN SLIP OF THE WEEK AWARD Hubert Humphrey, recalling the wonders of the LBJ Administration to The Tomorrow Show's Tom Snyder: "At least we didn't wash our dirty Lyndon in public!"
• ...Sign posted in the anatomy lab at Stanford Medical School: "Students -- use only half of brain!"

Re:Talk:Godwin's_law

Re:Talk:Godwin's_law

Maybe it was supposed to be funny, but for me it looks like trolling. Bulwersator (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Rankings

I want to let you know that I reverted your change to Butler University. The information was accurate because it was listed under the "USNWR_REG" category and not the "USNWR_NU" category. If you think the info is misleading, I recommend trying to get consensus to change how it appears when using Template:Infobox US university ranking. Hope this helps. City boy77 (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the fact that there's a "Regional" subheading -- I think many other casual readers would do the same, which just means that poor presentation is added to the general meaninglessness of these ranking exercises. USNWR's turning of higher education into a horserace is one of the biggest blows to human endeavor since the burning of the Alexandria library, and if you want to help that along knock yourself out. EEng (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental science

I understand your concern about the intelligibility of the entry. A more productive approach would be to edit the confusing text rather than to write "huh!" I would encourage you to improve upon the current text and remove the "huh".Iss246 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you understand my concern about the intelligibility of

Fundamental science, in contrast to applied science, is defined as a fundamental knowledge it develops.

then you should have understood my tagging that passage with ''{{huh}}'' [22] and, in consequence, should have known better than to revert that tag with the edit summary "removed vandalism" [23]. Certainly had I any idea what that sentence was struggling to express, I would have rewritten it. But I hadn't, so I couldn't, and the ''{{huh}}'' -- which (it just now occurs to me) you may not realize is valid Wikipedia markup for [clarification needed]) -- should stay in hopes some better mind than mine will be attracted to the problem of decrypting not only that particular passage but the entire mishmash of fractured grammar and repetitive vagary which is the surrounding article,

A review of your edits over time suggests you are a valuable contributor who nonetheless has an unfortunate tendency toward labeling as vandalism others' apparently well-meant edits you happen to disagree with or don't understand. I think this is well illustrated in your discussion [24] with another editor about his adding a link somewhere which you found unhelpful; you labeled his addition vandalism, and he or she rightly objected. In the ensuing discussion you wrote

The point is so many people make bad additions to Wikipedia. I like to undo vandalism and generally protect Wikipedia from bad additions. That is not wasting time. You are the one who wastes time with your minutiae. I want to make Wikipedia better. Maybe what you did is not vandalism in the sense that a writer enters a curse word in a Wikipedia entry. But patronizing users does not make Wikipedia better.

When another editor makes what you judge to be a "bad addition" -- indeed does anything not manifestly in bad faith -- it is not only "not vandalism in the sense of adding a curse word" (as you say above), it's not vandalism at all, because WP:VAND defines vandalism as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". So in future, before typing vandalism in an edit summary please be sure this narrow definition actually applies.

EEng (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have about 6000 edits. Often I edit and edit and edit until a sentence or paragraph comes out intelligibly. The first editorial change is only a step in the direction of improving the sentence. It often takes several steps. Occasionally I make a bad edit; so what. Who hasn't? The exclamation "Huh" looked like vandalism, and not a technical term. I would not have dreamed it to be a Wikipedia markup. Maybe it isn't vandalism but it looks like vandalism.

I think you had to go searching through my past edits to find the disagreement you came up with in order give me a "gotcha". That is pathetic. That is what a scheming politician does to his or her opponent, searching through reams of statements the opponent made to find a misstatement somewhere in the haystack. I reversed plenty of vandalism in the meantime. Maybe you had the time to comb through 6000 edits to arrive at your "gotcha". And I started at least 20 Wikipedia pages from scratch. But you choose to concentrate on minutiae. It is you with your searching through the haystack to find fault who is the minutiae person. Moreover the issue of your "gotcha", if I can remember it was, from my standpoint, more about patronizing readers than about minutiae. I have done a good deal of constructive work on Wikipedia. I prefer not to comb through your past edits to find a mistake.

I also think it is far better to do one of two things than to write "huh" even if "huh" is a markup: (a) work on improving the sentence, even a little; (b) write in the Talk page to discuss the intelligibility of the text.

Iss246 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The following markup term would be less ambiguous than "huh": , a markup term that is more familiar to me, and easily understood by contributors.

Iss246 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly not realize that you're digging yourself deeper? The tag {{citation needed}} is not a substitute for {{huh}}, because one renders as (which is not what I meant) and the other as (which is). My use of it was exactly in keeping with its purpose, and therefore not subject to your review.

In contrast, your labeling of others' well-meant efforts as vandalism is not only offensive but contrary to WP:VAND, and therefore a fair topic of discussion. This is a bad habit you've manifested for a long time -- searching the string vandal in your talk and contributions pages makes this clear in just a minute or two.

That you seem to think this required some great exertion on my part -- that you haven't mastered WP:INDENT [25] -- that you think it's OK (see above) to jump to the conclusion that markup with which you're unfamiliar must be vandalism -- that you insist on posting identical responses in multiple places because you don't grasp how others will otherwise know you've commented [26] -- all suggest that you not only have much still to learn about Wikipedia (we all do) but that you don't realize that you have much still to learn. Since psychology is an interest of yours you should already be familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I've encouraged you -- as others have before -- to give the vandalism accusations a rest, and you have responded -- as you have before -- by contrasting your lofty and rarefied contributions with others' "minutiae". You flatter yourself. No one cares about your 6000 edits and 20 articles (and you especially should stay away from such statistics, given that you needed 16 edits to do this). We each contribute in our own way but since you force the issue, there's some evidence that my work is far from the fluffy minutiae you comfort yourself by imagining it to be: [27] [28][29][30].

You're riding for a fall. Stop crying vandalism where it's not clearly warranted.

EEng (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

People do care about starting articles on interesting and relevant topics in psychology. The Dunning-Kruger effect does not apply here.

YES, I needed 16 edits; I am taking on faith your count because I trust that you looked into the matter. My approach is to write and change and write and change. When I look at an edit I entered I am usually not satisfied, and return to it. In fact, it took me 8 edits (uncharacteristically I went back and counted the number of edits) to work on the bit in fundamental science you identified. I did not have the wherewithal to continue with my effort to locate an apt citation although I was on the trail of one; I simply stopped in order to participate in this colloquy. I am still not happy with my edits on the fundamental science entry. I think the entry should have more detail, including examples from, say, physics and mechanical engineering.

I can understand your upset at my having identified the "huh" as vandalism. I'm sorry for that. I did not recognize the term as a marker. I am much more accustomed to the marker because it spells out exactly what is needed.Iss246 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your impersonation of a clueless Wikipedia editor has been mildly enjoyable until now, but the amusement is beginning to wear thin. Nonetheless I'll continue to play along and pretend you actually think what you posted above substantively engages my earlier comments.

• Honestly, I would expect someone who teaches graduate-level statistics [31] (which was getting harder and harder for me to believe until I realized it's probably "stats for psych") to steer clear of claims so directly falsifiable by a single numerical datum, to wit 15 -- as in: over the last 30 days, the 20 started-by-you articles average a mere 15 page visits per day per article -- hardly a sign these are articles people "do care about." This is not what I was referring to when I said "Nobody cares about your 6000 edits and 20 articles" -- my point originally was that quality, not quantity, of contribution is what matters -- but then you just had to respond with an unsupported assertion begging to be refuted, didn't you?
• Interestingly, although the denial I have determined myself not to be an example of Dunning-Kruger is normally a nullity (because it could just as well be spoken by a D-K sufferer who, by definition, does not realize it, as by someone who genuinely is competent), in the special case of someone who claims expertise in psychology that same denial actually confirms the very thing it attempts to deny -- that is, that the speaker in fact is an example of D-K.

• Why? Because a psychologist who doesn't realize that I have determined myself not to be an example of D-K is a nullity clearly doesn't understand an important concept in his own field (D-K), thereby showing himself to be actually suffering from it! Delicious, isn't it?
• Adapting from Dr. John H. Watson, M.D., Late Indian Army: Talent instantly recognizes genius, but mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself.

• Please learn to indent your comments per WP:INDENT, so that others needn't constantly adjust your posts to keep the thread of discussion clear, as I have had to do for all your posts to date in what you call "this colloquy". (Good SAT word, that, though too bad it doesn't apply here -- you better check a good dictionary before word-dropping it again. It occurs to me that you may have meant it satirically, but since the entirety of your side of the exchange so far may very well be satire -- it's hard to tell -- this would be satire within satire which is just too much for me to untangle.)
• Please start using the <preview> button instead of saving zillions of tiny changes, which clutter up revision histories and make it very annoying for others to follow the sequence of changes. You should not be clicking <save> until you've arrived at text which (a) as an absolute minimum, would be OK to leave as the standing version of the page should e.g. you be suddenly called away to some emergency before making further changes, and (b) ideally, is better (more complete, improved references, nothing removed which needs to be added back) than the existing version.
• Please stop using edit as an edit summary. To summarize an edit by saying edit is meaningless.
• Please review WP:TM. You seem to think is some kind of Swiss Army Knife for inline tagging. It's not. Surely you can appreciate the spectrum running from

• {{cn}}=="This needs a source for verification" to
• {{clarify}}=="This seems comprehensible, but deserves to be expressed more clearly" to
• {{huh}}=="I can't even figure out what this is trying to say."

(Although {{clarify}} and {{huh}}) both render as in what the reader sees, they send usefully different messages to other editors.)

• Last, but most important: I appreciate the apology, and hope this is the end of your unwarranted vandalism accusations. A good rule (though not one I can say I always follow -- but then I don't have people taking me to task about inappropriate vandalism charges) might be to never use the word vandalism if there's any other way to express your objection e.g. "rv incomprehensible addition", "rv unsourced dubious claim", "rm over linking".
• Fun time's over -- please make your next response a serious one. Or just stop accusing people of vandalism who haven't vandalized. That's the only thing this entire conversation is about, except of course the various smokescreens you keep raising about "minutiae" and so on.

Good luck. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. EEng (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

TFA tagging

Hi EEng, I see you added a number of inline tags to Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders this weekend. Unfortunately few of them were fixed before it went live as TFA. I haven't looked at all the tagged sentences, but in case it's unclear what you want I'd encourage you to make notes of your concerns on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Sandra Fluke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fred Rogers

Nice to meet you, EEng. It's always good to find intelligent life at a television-related article. I do see your point about excess detail in the lede, and there's no doubt that for many readers just learning that the sweater is at the Smithsonian will convey the gist of it well enough. However, let's consider those readers who know little or nothing about the Smithsonian. Saying the sweater is "on display at the Smithsonian Institution" is just imprecise enough to mislead to those readers because it implies that the Institution is a place, or at least is associated with a place, when it's actually a government agency that administers a variety of places. One might say with equal validity that a certain sculpture is on display at the National Park Service or that the Pietà is on display at the Roman Catholic Church. Such analogies may seem like a stretch, since it's unlikely anyone would say those things, but that's because they know better; in the case of the Smithsonian, the misconceptions are rampant. In my experience, a large number of Americans, as well as innumerable non-Americans, equate the Smithsonian with a museum or group of museums on the National Mall in Washington, and I think the current wording might perpetuates such misconceptions. I could be wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe your Pieta and Honest Abe examples are comparable -- if you ask a carabinieri (in Italian, of course) for directions to "the Catholic Church" no doubt you'll get a puzzled look, but if you ask a DC denizen "Where's the Smithsonian" he'll point you in the right direction, not deliver a lecture on the ambiguity of your inquiry. It's nice to gently enhance the reader's understanding of such distinctions where possible, but not at the expense of stultification. The lead's P.S.Q. (pedantic stultification quotient) should be kept especically low, and I don't see any way to import the specific location into the lead without it seeming strained. It's in the later photo caption, though, and there it seems fine.

BTW I dislike the term lede as often used by WP editors. it smacks of pretension (present company excepted of course), especially because it's an import from journalism referring to a somewhat different way of structuring an article than is (or should be) used here. EEng (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I do have journalism in my checkered past, so I hope you'll forgive my spelling of the word. My rationale nowadays is that avoiding homographs whenever possible precludes ambiguity, even when misunderstanding is unlikely. Eccentric? Probably.

Asked "Where's the Smithsonian", a DC denizen is likely to ask you to clarify exactly what you're looking for. If he fails to do this, the odds of ending up where you meant to go are less than overwhelming. In any event, your most recent edit elegantly sidesteps the pitfall. Nice job. Rivertorch (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In the context of writing -- thus putting aside dance lessons, Der Fuehrer, London dogs-in-the-park-must-be-on admonitions, and your dentist's x-ray apron (oomph! this thing weighs a TON) -- lead is a general term for the opening of any written work. But lede is newspaper jargon (the spelling, they say, to avoid ambiguity between lead = story opening vs. lead = what a clumsy printer's devil might pi -- not sure I buy this) for an opening in the specific style peculiar to newspapers. But newspaper-style leads/ledes are not appropriate for WP articles, and so neither is lede.

BTW, did you see my changes to the, er, lead of Smithsonian?

I not only saw, I commented above. Am I writing in invisible pixels today or did I set it on my Linotype by mistake? (And no, my checkered past does not extend back quite that far, thanks very much). Rivertorch (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not trying to gaslight me, are you? Either I'm losing losing my mind, or you are (losing your mind that is, not mine -- though if you happen to find my mind I'd appreciate its return) -- or maybe both (though let's not push the panic button just yet). I'm talking about this diff (which includes further changes made just now, actually). Now, um, did you refer to that change above somewhere? EEng (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops! You typed "Smithsonian" and I read it as "Fred Rogers"—a common mistake, I believe. (Mutters to self: "Now where did I put that mind of mine?) The edit looks spiffy, and so do the subsequent ones. I didn't look too closely. My watchlist groweth long. Rivertorch (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a nice rest in the countryside. Nice meeting you. EEng (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

CAT:UAA

Hi. Just saw your revert. You are certainly right in your assessment of that username violation, but take a look at the description at CAT:UAA. That category only tracks usernames that have edited in the past week. Older ones are assumed to be abandoned (since the vast majority of people who receive username warnings abandon their account, whether because of the warning or not), and because otherwise the category overflows and becomes unmanageable. Usual protocol is to watchlist the ones that are removed in case they come back. Sound cool? NTox · talk 03:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Copley Square, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewis Cohen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy databases

Hello, I thought an earlier post of yours about the use of Ancestry.com was truly excellent, and I have cited it here [32]. If you are interested, you might want to take a look at the RSN discussion yourself and contribute your own thoughts. I am sure they would be helpful. Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

re Terrie_Moffitt's_developmental_theory_of_crime

I apologize in advance if I am not doing this correctly. I would welcome any assistance with how to use the talkback function. I edited the page on Terrie_Moffitt'_developmental_theory_of_crime to address the notability issue. The article stating this theory has been cited 2,792 times. This is a very important criminological theory. I an requesting that you remove the notability warning. Again, any advice as to working together on this would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarnold777 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Please, recall provisions of WP:NPA #What is considered to be a personal attack? – [33][34]. Also, if you read WP: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, then some of subsequent conflicts may be prevented. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I think that your remark about me has to be removed for the sake of Wikipedia, but I am not willing to process it with my own responsibility; see WP: Village pump (miscellaneous) #Dealing with harassment and "personal" trolling. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The link you cite labels as personal attacks "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." That doesn't apply in your case because there's plenty of evidence that you have, in fact, been behaving like a jackass [35]. You lecture others about their editing while yourself spouting illogical semiliteracy such as "some of subsequent conflicts may be prevented". Your activities would be laughable to competent editors if you weren't wasting so much of others' time, as discussed in the ANI discussion about you currently ongoing. EEng (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Please, stop to harass me. Yet 3–4 of your egregious violations of WP:AGF towards me (does not matter, on some page or in an edit summary), and we'll meet in the WP: Arbitration Committee. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

By all means don't wait. Bring the matter up at the ANI discussion currently ongoing about you, and see what other editors think. Your behavior is extremely immature. EEng (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm responding to the comment at Wikiproject Mathematics. In my opinion, this edit summary and this comment are the sorts of things that discourage new people from contributing to Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not Incnis Mrsi deserves criticism, expressing your thoughts in this way damages the reputation of the whole site. If you think he's behaving badly, then please try not to descend to the same level. Jowa fan (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Jowa fan, for missing your comment until now. A little history:

• A newcomer [36] makes a constructive addition [37] to an article
• Incnis Mrsi removes the newcomer's contribution and leaves this [38] on the newcomer's page:

I do not think that your Wikipedia skills are currently sufficient to copyedit the lead section of a perfectly established article. Would you try to improve something which is poor yet?

• Another editor (me) comes to the newcomer's defense, urging that he not be discouraged by Incnis Mrsi's unwelcoming behavior, and showing newcomer that I.M.'s behavior is being dealt with [39]:

Andypandyjay, don't take it personally. This Incnis Mrsi person treats everyone in the same nasty (yet unintentionally self-parodying) way [link to ANI discussion on I.M.] Ignore him. I've restored you contribution in modified form.

Jowa fan, your edit summary in adding your comment above was "How does this look to newcomers?" Well, I think that newcomers (a) will see that when someone is denigrated by an aggressively abusive bully other editors will step in to call the bully to account, and (b) will feel resassured.

You expressed concern about the wording of my chivalrous interventions:

• First, my edit summary [40] in restoring the newcomer's contribution:

Instead of demonstrating your jassass-ishness by rv + snotty msg [link I.M.'s "I do not think that your Wikipedia skills are currently sufficient" message quoted above] why not discern what editor is trying to say and improve upon it? You ain't so smart, really.

• Second, my comment after Incnis Mrsi offered his "humble" opinion on the article's Talk -- I felt that those wanting to participate should be aware in advance of the contrast between I.M.'s momentarily humble persona and his usual behavior [41]:

There seems to be a typo in your comment -- instead of IMHO ('in my humble opinion') didn't you mean IMBSEO ('in my bloatedly self-exalted opinion'), as illustrated here? [again linking I.M.'s "I do not think that your Wikipedia skills..." message]?

I stand by my words above. It's a rare editor who hasn't, once or twice, let his baser instincts get the best of him, and in most cases the best response is indeed to turn the other cheek. But Incnis Mrsi displays a persistent habit of arrogant, self-aggrandizing bullying, and especially where he directs such behavior towards new editors I think it's appropriate to take a direct approach and, with moderate restraint, call a spade a spade. As I explained to I.M. a few posts above, I called his behavior "jackass-ishness" because he is, in fact, behaving like a jackass. And as shown by his very poor English, frequent malapropisms, and consistent obliviousness to the unintentional self-parody in which he continually engages, he really ain't nearly so smart (i.e. worldly, experienced, well read, critically literate, wise, etc. -- edit summaries not accommodating precise elaboration) as he thinks he is, and it was high time someone clued him in to that.

You'll also note that I encouraged him to bring his complaints about me to the ANI already under way about him [42]. Of course he didn't -- he's all but ignored that discussion, instead forum-shopping for his plaints that he's a helpless victim. [43][44][45][46]

While my approach has had no appreciable success in moderating I.M.'s behavior, it's apparent from the ANI that others' efforts, using the standard kill-them-with-kindness approach, weren't working either, so a little experimentation seemed in order. I understand your concern about behavior which might "discourage new people from contributing", but in light of everything above I propose that it was appropriate to forcefully counter I.M.'s behavior, which left unchecked quite likely would drive newcomers away; meanwhile there seems little danger of I.M.'s WP activities being influenced, much less discouraged, by anything whatsoever.

EEng (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Requests for comment/EEng

I filed a user conduct RfC. You may say something in your defence. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it will probably get nowhere.. however, if you choose to ignore the RFC, you might be accused of doing what he tries to: letting the 48 hours pass and awaiting an auto-closure. Might be better if you offer a very brief and neutral response, and then distance yourself from Incnis Mrsi until the ANI discussion is resolved.. your comments to every editor he has been "nasty" to may be interpreted as campaigning, given the link to ANI, and that might lead to a lack of sympathy towards your case and let him off easier. Better to set back from it for now, he's already dug his hole, might as well let him lie in it, there's no need for you to comment on all his interactions. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't fear scrutiny of anything I've done, but if the RFC dies it will be because no one else buys I.M.'s bullshit -- no reflection on me. If others contact me (as Jowa fan did, above) I will respond (as I did, above); otherwise I'm not gonna dignify I.M.'s attempt to waste of others' time.

For the record I have not commented to "every editor he [I.M.] has been 'nasty' to" (to do that I'd have to quit my day job to open enough time in my schedule, and buy another keyboard in anticipation of wearing my current one out) but, rather, I've left consoling messages for two new editors I.M. pissed on, hoping they won't be discouraged by I.M.'s denigration of their maiden contributions. I will continue to do that, though I'll omit the side jabs at I.M. since he obviously isn't taking the hint.

EEng (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol, alright. Seems he might not have the right endorsements anyway, and the comments I left have been endorsed by a couple of editors, so I doubt it will be a prolonged experience.. at least not as long as this bloody ANI thread has become.. I would say "I bet he wishes he has just cooperated with everyone in the first place", but somehow, I doubt that very much. Wall + head. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar of (ploop) --oh NO it fell in the water!

	Barnstar of (ploop) --oh NO it fell in the water!
	for the wise and humorous "combative injurues" --> "combat injurues" edit Cramyourspam (talk) 05:03, 3 Oct 2012 (UTC)

John Harvard Statue

Hi EEng. In the past few hours you have removed large swathes of the article John Harvard statue. All of this information was well sourced as I painstakingly took weeks to find reliable sources for all of it. If you do not feel a source is reliable please instead of outright deleting the information, look to see if there is a reliable source for it. I will be re-inserting much of information you have deleted as it is well sourced, relevant, and important in regards to the statue. While the article may not have been a perfect article before, you have edited it down to a place where it now has one sentence paragraphs and is lacking tons of well known information about the statue. I would love to work with you on this article, and hopefully your scrutiny of references will make them better in the long run.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've transferred your post to the article's talk, and responded there. EEng (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Harvard statue

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

for rescuing the formatting of my recent post at WT:MoS 16:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC) This comment by editor Kevin McE, who has somehow figured a way to timestamp his post without his name appearing -- neat trick!

You're very kind, in light of the quality of the rescue effort -- start with [47] and follow "Next edit" from there a few times to see what I mean. EEng (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Harvard daze

Moving the conversation here, where there might be fewer eavesdroppers than on my own page. I am sorry you have had to resort to "shouting" to elicit a response from me. My long silence is certainly not because of anything you said. Other responsibilities, general overload and frequent crises preclude my doing much more than dabble in editing on WP for now. A more constant and concentrated collaboration remains a distant hope. Thank you for understanding, and please do feel appreciated, jokes and all (or perhaps especially).

An interest in the Cavendish area helped bring me to the Phineas Gage article long before I was aware of your connection with it. I always regarded it as a thoroughgoing, well-organized, high quality job, in addition to telling a remarkable story. Cheers for now, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Good thinking, Chief! Activate the Cone of Silence <whirrrrr CLICK!> I'd like to talk with you sometime... I SAID... I'D LIKE TO TALK... i SAID... I'D LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU SOMETIME ABOUT YOUR INTEREST IN CAVENDISH. EEng (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Soft redirects

Just to let you know, soft redirects aren't usually used within the article space. "Soft redirects are intended mostly for external use, where hard redirects will not function. For internal use in general, hard redirects should be used instead" from WP:SRD. "Pepper" @ 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Mostly...in general". I've been through this before. EEng (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted to make sure you knew. "Pepper" @ 01:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Electrical engineering

Hi fellow editor, You are invited to join the WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of electrical engineering. If you'd like to join, add also your name to the member list. Thanks for reading! ShriRamTalk tome 07:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits at transformer

This is disruption to make a point. Don't do it. SpinningSpark 22:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(Actually, the edit you've referenced was to Synchronous motor, not Transformers. Anyway...) Listen, I understand that your powers of AGF may have been sapped latey by some very troublesome editors, and perhaps I should have known better then to try to inject some humor where tensions were high (though perhaps that's the best place to inject humor) but really, what point could I have possibly been making, other than that German can be the target of gentle humor (see, as referenced in my edit which has upset you, "The Awful German Language"). EEng (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't know what your point was either, but joke edits in mainspace are considered disruptive, period, and you should be experienced enough here to know that.

Wikipedia as an organism does not have a sense of humour and jokes here invariably misfire because there is always someone who will fail to recognise it as joke. I have been caught by this myself on numerous occassions. I was not personally upset by a joke against the German language, but I am sure someone will be. I was, however, slightly pissed that I had to manually revert your contribution because there had been subsequent edits preventing rollback and undo was no good either because you had taken about three edits to do it. In any case, whether I found it funny or not is irrelevant, it is not, as I said above, an acceptable thing to do in the articles. SpinningSpark 09:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks

I left without saying anything due to personal reasons and also a lot of burnt out sensation. Right now I am not really sure if I will stay for long or this will be only temporal until I fix a bit the multiple sclerosis article. Nevertheless to hear from a lot of people that still remember me has been a great experience of coming back. I am sure many things will have changed here in wikipedia and the med-project in all this time. I will try to catch up and ask for help if needed...--Garrondo (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You were very much missed; I had the awful idea you'd been hit by a car or something. Sounds like it would be best if you just stuck narrowly to the MS article so as to not let yourself get overburdened at first. Feel free to ask for help. EEng (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin-wannabee sockpuppet poseur warns that talkpage humor constitutes vandalism!

Thank you for your contributions, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. Please do not continue to engage on talking on Lockley's talk page, thank you. (This was sent from my iPhone, sorry for any errors) Binko71100 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As explained at User talk:Lockley, you don't know what you're talking about, either in the matter of my interactions with Lockley, or in the question of whether redirects should be tagged as orphans. Your participation has served to muddle the facts and give Lockley the idea he's be wronged somehow. Take more time to understand what's going on before wading in -- perhaps if you were using a full-sized device you'd be more able to get the "big picture" of the situation. EEng (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop introducing jokes into articles/talk pages. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles/user and talk pages may lead to you being blocked from editing or lead to other consequences. Sorry if this warning template didn't make sense, but this is for your yet continuing improper/rude humor, not for anything having to do with redirects and such. Binko71100 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was Sam Butler that wrote,

Man is the only animal that laughs and has a state legislature.

Were he alive today, he's have written instead,

Man is the only animal that laughs and has Wikipedia admins.

(The above is not meant to impugn all admins -- the vast majority of whom comport themselves with grace, good humor, and sound judgment -- but merely those such as you.) You modified [48] the warning template (which warns against jokes in articles) to make it look like humor in discussions is also forbidden. While it is frequently recommended -- and properly so -- that care be exercised when employing humor in discussions, if you think anyone is going to support your laughable (get it -- laughable?) idea that humor in discussions is an actual no-no, then you need your head examined.

(For the record I have once or twice let temptation get the best of me and made a joke edit to an article -- e.g. [49] -- but that's not what's going in here.)

EEng (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(I'll come right out and say it...) You're a sockpuppet, aren't you, Binko71100?

Wait a minute, Binko! You're not even an admin! You have 130 edits; you registered two weeks ago and immediately created a faked user page [50] and started (Special:Contributions/Binko71100) issuing ban warnings, and within 45 minutes of your own account's creation set up the userpage (revid 532065406) of another new account -- only 2 minutes after that other account was created [51] and before that account's very first edit (revid 532065177, and see Special:Contributions/Sullivanriley) -- and then quickly changed that account's userpage [52] to a little stub that doesn't reveal that you're the one who initially created it. That account made just enough edits to be autoconfirmed.

Then suddenly you're an instructor in the Antivandalism Academy [53], you're congratulating Lockley on his great work [54], and soon he's consulting you [55] about me, and of course you give him unconditional support (though completely erroneous advice) [56] followed by the bizarre warnings to me above.

So, who are you really?

EEng (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no relation to any Wikimedia accounts besides this one and one with my IP address (I first began editing in 2008 sometime) that I used to use quite often before creating this account. By 'ban hammer,' I meant requesting bans of repetitive vandals. Lockley was just someone doing a nice job with the New Pages queue and a friend of mine suggested he deserved a barnstar. A week or so later, this issue came about. I wasn't worried about redirects, I was worried about your history of demeaning and rude jokes on other user talk pages. Talk page or article, doesn't matter. Mean/inappropriate things are unacceptable. As for Sullivanriley, I was both testing as well as welcoming the user, as I hadn't been active in a month or so. Just what I have to say, sorry for the late response, as I have a life, you know. - Binko71100 (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm... And how did you come to know of Sullivanriley's existence, two minutes after that account had been created and apparently before it had made even a single edit? Also, I'd be interested to know how you and Baldy Bill became friends, given that he was almost entirely dormant since his account was created abt 2 years ago, until he suddenly became active about 2 months ago? EEng (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Annenberg Hall (Harvard University)

...has been moved to Annenberg Hall since there are no other articles about an "Annenberg Hall". If/when there appear articles, it can be turned into a disambiguation. This should also solve the {{orphan}} dispute since there are articles that link to Annenberg Hall. Intelligentsium 01:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And I recreated Annenberg Hall (Harvard University). There are Annenberg Halls at a score or more schools in the US alone and a conflict is bound to arise. What in the world is the point of all this moving to create minimalist titles? It's an absurd waste of time and brainpower. EEng (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

Hi -- I'm opposed to changing the article history in the way you did. My reason is basically technical: maintaining articles is already complicated enough without having to make decisions about whether or not aspects of an article's history are relevant to the current article. I would prefer to just have an absolute rule about this. Can I change it back, please? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if you agree to remain part of my Worldwide Conspiracy to Protect the Legacy of Lobotomy and the Memory of Egas Moniz. And where's my LOL for this [57]? (More seriously: you may have overlooked that my edit summary re Gage GA contemplated such a technical objection -- despite recent events I'm really not an unreasonable person, so you should have felt free to revert, briefly explaining in yr edit summary.) EEng (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. I'm really hoping for feedback on Talk:Lobotomy#In-pop-cult/literary portrayals/etc. material, if you can spare a moment from your abundant free time.

Privacy and no disclosure

Privacy is important on Wikipedia. If you wish to publish you university address and telephone number on your user page your are free to do so. But be aware that not everyone who uses this site is sane, and it is not appropriate for others to make any comment or allusion about another users's personal information that has not been disclosed by that user. I don't care (and I doubt any others do care about which university if any you attend), but to start to see why this can be a problem spend some time reading WP:ANI and you will soon read vitriol on that page of a similar type that you see with university dons (too Oxbridge for you?) competing for the same funding. The trouble is that if an editor starts to edit controversial pages then information about them could be a matter of life and death (they may after be Liverpool FC supporters[58]). But in all seriousness ponder on this example. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You needn't explain to me why privacy is worthy of protection (whether on WP or elsewhere) and you'll get no argument from me that some here are not playing with a full deck. But that doesn't have anything to do with it, because -- don't you get it yet? -- Lockley didn't make allusion to my personal information. He made a series of jokes in which I actively participated [59]. He violated neither the letter nor the spirit of WP:PRIVACY. It's conceivable you didn't grasp that in the moment, but what you nonetheless should have grasped -- and what absolutely cannot have escaped your discerning by now -- is that I am perfectly capable of handling such a situation myself [60]. And please no lectures [61] about how humor can be misunderstood. Everything can be misunderstood, and I happen to believe that frequent exposure to humor (which draws its power from tensions among competing views of things) sharpens the critical faculties, and thereby aids discussion. Please give the sermonizing a rest now. EEng (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Annenberg Hall (Harvard University)

...has been moved to Annenberg Hall since there are no other articles about an "Annenberg Hall". If/when there appear articles, it can be turned into a disambiguation. This should also solve the {{orphan}} dispute since there are articles that link to Annenberg Hall. Intelligentsium 01:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And I recreated Annenberg Hall (Harvard University). There are Annenberg Halls at a score or more schools in the US alone and a conflict is bound to arise. What in the world is the point of all this moving to create minimalist titles? It's an absurd waste of time and brainpower. EEng (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

Hi -- I'm opposed to changing the article history in the way you did. My reason is basically technical: maintaining articles is already complicated enough without having to make decisions about whether or not aspects of an article's history are relevant to the current article. I would prefer to just have an absolute rule about this. Can I change it back, please? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if you agree to remain part of my Worldwide Conspiracy to Protect the Legacy of Lobotomy and the Memory of Egas Moniz. And where's my LOL for this [62]? (More seriously: you may have overlooked that my edit summary re Gage GA contemplated such a technical objection -- despite recent events I'm really not an unreasonable person, so you should have felt free to revert, briefly explaining in yr edit summary.) EEng (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. I'm really hoping for feedback on Talk:Lobotomy#In-pop-cult/literary portrayals/etc. material, if you can spare a moment from your abundant free time.

Take it to ANI

With regards to your request on my talk page. I will not get involved. I suggest that that you take it to WP:ANI. -- PBS (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more SPI but I thought I'd wait a while to see if any explanation is forthcoming. Naturally I thought Lockley was behind this at first, but on careful examination I don't think so. EEng (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your concern was an editor pretending to be an admin (See WP:TALKNO) -- that falls under ANI not SPI unless you think you know who the alleged sock master is. -- PBS (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit here is not constructive and it implies that my action was to do with that specific issue. It was not and as it is inflammatory, and is not to do with Orphan issues, please delete all of the comment. -- PBS (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

At to your post two posts above this one: No, my concern was (first) with Binko71100, whose comportment was such that one would be led to believe at first (as I was) that he or she is an admin, but who, it turned out, is not only not an admin but an apparent DUCK of an unknown other user, and (second) Sullivanriley, who is also an apparent sockpuppet in whose creation the Binko71100 account played a role. Binko and Sullivan can certainly go to SPI, even if the original master can't be identified.

As to your post immediately above this one: my edit to which you link was accurate. Lockley posted hither and yon, drawing in numerous other editors in his attempt to makehimself look like some sort of victim. My post emphasized that (a) I stood by my earlier posts regarding him, and (b) that his behavior had already brought him close to being blocked, and that he had best attend to that. Whether the block warning was related specifically to his interactions with me didn't matter, but in the event I didn't imply that it was so related. I will not revert my post, but if you want to clarify what you feel your role was, or the thrust of your comment to which I linked in my post, feel free. But please be careful not to feed Lockley's fantasy of victimization.

EEng (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Whiffenpoofs poised to perform the Fantasies of Victimization of 1912

EEng, shockingly, I find I quite like you. The change came when I began to put your comments in the voice of Seth Green's character in Party Monster. It's no insult. He's mesmerizing. And when I imagine Seth Green's voice saying the phrases "Naturally I thought Lockley was behind this at first" and "be careful not to feed Lockley's fantasy of victimization" in the same breath, it makes a lot more sense. Now do let's leave each other alone for awhile if you can stand it.--Lockley (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that hate-turns-to-love thing a lot, though usually it takes years. I'm assuming you've alredy seen [63]. Shall we now, together, tell PBS to go soak his or her head? What a schoolmarm! It's like Atilla the Hun has appeared to dispense justice on my behalf. Saints preserve us! EEng (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Be more careful who you hang out with -- that Binky guy's up to no good.

P.P.S. Pull any more of that Yale shit and I'll have you boiled in oil.

okay, got it, no more Yalie stuff. --Lockley (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, Lockley, I'd have thought, in this day and age, that you'd know better than to make fun of Poofs [64]. EEng (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)