Almost nudged you to be more civil over [[Talk:Poe's_law#Alleged_typo|this thread]] at the time, suspecting that your opening comment might just goad the other editor into being elaborately defensive of something that didn't matter, and I see this has now happened. Someone made an edit without being aware of policy, we made them aware of policy, they went silent: you should [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] at that point. Civility policy is there to avoid wasting everybody's time with unnecessary arguments, as much as anything. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 09:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Almost nudged you to be more civil over [[Talk:Poe's_law#Alleged_typo|this thread]] at the time, suspecting that your opening comment might just goad the other editor into being elaborately defensive of something that didn't matter, and I see this has now happened. Someone made an edit without being aware of policy, we made them aware of policy, they went silent: you should [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] at that point. Civility policy is there to avoid wasting everybody's time with unnecessary arguments, as much as anything. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 09:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
:<small>''[For those playing along at home, we're talking about this reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=758595005] and this talk page thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=760333789#Alleged_typo]]''</small> Oh, please. Mr. Dyspeptic called fixing the typo ''uttrerly'' in a quotation "the edge of vandalism" and "deliberately destructive" because (he still says even now, though he can't seem to explain how) the error is "textually significant". '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
:<small>''[For those playing along at home, we're talking about this reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=758595005] and this talk page thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=760333789#Alleged_typo]]''</small> Oh, please. Mr. Dyspeptic called fixing the typo ''uttrerly'' in a quotation "the edge of vandalism" and "deliberately destructive" because (he still says even now, though he can't seem to explain how) the error is "textually significant". '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious... [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 14:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EEng.
Satellite image of a section of the Great Wall of China, running diagonally from lower left to upper right and not to be confused with the more prominent talkpage running from upper left to lower right. The shadow at the upper left indicates "You are here." Talkpage archives are not visible.File:Князь Данило Острозький у битві на Синіх Водах.1362 рік.jpgMongol hordes attempting to enter EEng's talk page are repulsed by the maze of disorienting section headings and the brigade of fervently deranged talk page stalkers. Many die of carpal tunnel syndrome while scrolling to the bottom of the page.
FDA Warning: Pagescrolling-related unilateral musculoskeletal asymmetry
My friend told me that the best way to get a man would be to impress him with my ability to crush a can so forcefully that the contents shoot out, fly up in the air and land in my mouth, so every morning I do yoga, swim and then come here for 40 mins scrolling to the bottom of EEng's talk page; my right forearm looks like Popeye's now and it's done wonders for my love life.
(a/o February 2, 2016: 131 stalkers, 81/89 "active" [5])
Stalkers caught on camera
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Being Tallest is Unhealthy
There are FACTS, and then there are opinions. Here are some FACTS:
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.
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.
Ryoung12222:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ryoung122:
I've removed some of the excess line breaks from your message (above, apparently responding to [6]).
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 [7] of someone who's dealt with you before.
Kudos for hitting the trifecta of Wikipedia egotism: an indefinite topic ban [8], a deleted vanity bio [9], even -- and this is a first in my experience -- a deleted vanity category[10].
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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: [11]. EEng (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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. ~PescoSo say•we all18:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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!"
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 [12]. 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)[reply]
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[14]). But in all seriousness ponder on this example. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.[1] 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 [15]. 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 [16]. And please no lectures [17] 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)[reply]
^Porch light out – elevator doesn't reach the top floor anymore – screw loose – lost their marbles – knitting with only one needle – Rolls Royce chassis, moped engine – set design by Norman Rockwell, screenplay by Stephen King.
From a new friend
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)[reply]
I never saw PM and have only just now checked it out. Your comparison to me took on a disturbing quality when I read, ...which details his friendship with Alig, that later fell apart as Alig's drug addiction worsened, and ended after he murdered Angel Melendez and went to prison, until I realized that the Seth Green character is the friend, not the murderer. EEng (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that hate-turns-to-love thing a lot, though usually it takes years. I'm assuming you've alredy seen [18]. 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)[reply]
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.
Two years ago ..., - and did you know that several editors I know enjoy your user page inspiration, unable to decide which pair of image and caption is most to the point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Widener Stacks Reading Room as final exams approach.
Greetings, EEng. I hear springtime in [name of university location redacted for security reasons] is a splendid spectacle and I do hope you're enjoying the hell out of it, getting full value out of your tuition, and making those lifelong connections. Or, alternative to all that, digging your couch. --Lockley (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderestimate my earthly tenure -- my lifelong connections were made long ago. Sadly, the most cherished of those (see Andrew Gleason) ended a while back. EEng (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. Probably pointed you to this before, but if not... you may enjoy Sacred Cod. Comments invited.[reply]
Discussion re what one editor considers a personal attack, and another does not
If you don't like the section header, then delete the whole section. Don't edit my comments.
Struck-out hatnote was added by PinkAmpersand
Sorry, but section headers have visibility and prominence (e.g. in TOC) disconnected from their content and should needn't be allowed to represent your opinion only. For the record, PinkAmpersand's orginal section header was Personal attackEEng (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't do you the disrespect of templating you, so, let me say simply this: I don't really care how bad of a guy Qworty was, or how much he deserves to be banned. (My own opposition is simply because I think a ban to be slightly overkill... however, a lot of users I highly respect disagree with me, and I don't plan on lobbying this.) He could be the epitome with everything that's wrong with Wikipedia and I still wouldn't feel any differently about what you said. You should know better than this, and in my opinion the first admin who saw what you wrote should have indeffed you on the spot until you were willing to agree to never say anything like that again. Not, mind you, because I think you're some contemptible troll, but because blocks exist to prevent disruption to the project, and what you said was clearly and unabashedly disruptive, calculated with the maximum intent to insult. I really don't like making enemies here, so I'd be very happy if this were the last time I felt compelled to call you out for something. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)06:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those who may be wondering, PinkAmpersand is referring to a comment of mine [20] in the ANI discussion on banning User:Qworty. That comment was:
Ban this revolting intellectually masturbating narcissist so he can enter the final phase of his career i.e. teaching high school English or freshman composition while fantasizing about the literary glory that should have been his. "It’s time to get over the Internet. It’s time to get over ourselves." [21] Whatever the fuck that means, you dumbass. EEng (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PinkAmpersand and another editor objected to that post on BLP and NPA grounds, and removed it from the discussion. I would have restored it, with the following comments, but for the fact that the ANI discussion is now closed. My response is the following.
BLP doesn't come into this since no one could possibly interpret my comments as assertions of fact rather than my own interpretation of his behavior; meanwhile NPA must be applied in light of the fact that in a ban discussion we are, inevitably, discussing not content but the contributor. (NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." -- such evidence is present in spades in this case.)
My words distilled the feelings of betrayal and embarrassment Qworty's behavior aroused in me and, I am confident, in other editors. Because such feelings were a predictable consequence of the eventual exposure of Qworty's behavior, expressing them sheds light on the heedless disruptiveness of Qworty's longterm determination to engage in such behavior, and was therefore an appropriate contribution to the discussion about whether to chuck this jerk out on his ass.
However, in light of your concerns I'll rephrase as follows:
Ban this difficult selfabsorbed person (whose behavior raises significant WP:NOTHERE issues), perhaps redicting him to more effective outlets for his talents and allowing him to reflect on his contributions toward improving the lot of his fellow man. I find his recent userpage comments unhelpful in terms of explaining his longterm behavior.
Finally, PinkAmpersand, since you dislike making enemies (as you say), you might think twice before taking on the role of Wikipedia scold. If (as, again, you say) you think a ban for Qworty is overkill then your judgment about editor behavior and appropriate responses to it is seriously flawed.
I understand that you were very angry, and perhaps understandably so, but I don't think that "he had it coming" is an appropriate defense for gross incivility. Your comments were practically the definition of a personal attack, and the fact that you refuse to admit that disturbs me far more than the fact that you said them in the first place (which could otherwise be written off as a "crime of passion"). There is no backing in policy for your "predictable consequence" argument; rather, NPA tells us
The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.
Furthermore, the amount of "serious evidence" (which I agree existed) is immaterial, seeing as your comments were entirely about his personal real-world life.
This is all a moot point now, more or less, but if you're unable to acknowledge the wrongness of your own actions, instead choosing to wikilawyer your way out of it, I must say that I hope you change your ways soon, before you wind up getting yourself blocked for disruptive editing. (Also, how fucking dare you use my !vote to suggest I'm not fit to criticize you? That's practically a PA in itself—deflecting criticism with ad hominem arguments.) Anyways, I'll be disengaging now. Bye. Hope I've given you some food for thought. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)03:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have failed utterly to understand what I wrote, which had nothing to do with "he had it coming", disturbs me far more than the fact of your starting this fuss (which could otherwise be written off as a "kneejerk reaction"). To make it easy for you I'll highlight the nub again:
expressing [such feelings] sheds light on the heedless disruptiveness of Qworty's longterm determination to engage in such behavior, and was therefore an appropriate contribution to the discussion.
I'm happy to repeat that your idea that Qworty shouldn't be banned brings into serious question your ideas about editor behavior and the appropriate response to them. And juxtaposing your more recent suggestion that I should be indeffed makes your poor judgment even more manifest.
Just so you know, by the way, I'm not saying any of the above because I think you're some contemptible troll, either.
Dear EEng, great quote from the EB: Plutarch relates, that before this, upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."
The problem here is that I didn't create this statue; someone else did. I am merely trying to scrape the pigeon excrement off the shoulders.
This all started when someone called me and said they had seen a strange COI notice on the W entry about me. When I went to look, I also saw the COI and tried to engage with Wikipedia's editors to find out why and how it got there. Do you really believe I would make this stuff up about my 12-year-old? Really? I mean, come on!!!!
Nor am I in any way, shape or form worried that the media may see the Talk Page attendant to the Article Page about me. On the contrary, I am in the process of writing an article about this entire affair which I will make sure you get a copy of, if I ever find the time to finish it. Plus, the final chapter of this sage has yet to be written.
However, I did enjoy your Plutarch, in all seriousness. Having spent 7 years of my youth learning Latin (and some Greek), I have a great fondness for the classics. Here is one you may enjoy; it's one of the dicta from the boarding school in the UK that I attended called . . . oh, wait, that information was expunged from the Early Life part of my article. LOL!
Ok, I'll tell you: Winchester College. The saying is, "Aut disce, aut discede. Manet sors tertia -- Caedi."
Well, I'll just have to run that by my Harvard roommate -- he prepped at [elite boarding school] of course -- who naturally was a Rhodes Scholar after graduating summa in a double major combining classics with [other impressive field of concentration]. One time at master's tea just before high table, one of many Nobel laureates who graced our Senior Common Room made a most amusing quip...
Do you honestly not see how immodest you appear dropping lines such as Having spent 7 years of my youth learning Latin (and some Greek)? (All that stuff about my roommate and so on is real, BTW, but I don't trot it out at the drop of a hat -- except when in the private company of elites such as ourselves, of course.)
I sincerely hope you didn't make up the stuff about your daughter, but I have no way of knowing. Certainly many, many people have done such things in similar circumstances. I urge you, for the sake of your daughter, to just withdraw. Drop it. Stop looking at the article. Ask you friends not to look at it and certainly not to talk to you about it. Just forget it.
J.G., the article was created by an IP editor on April 8, 2005, and read as follows at creation:
"Often referred to as the "father of Internet (interactive) advertising," J. G. Sandom founded the world’s first interactive advertising agency, Einstein and Sandom Interactive (EASI), in 1984. It grew to become the largest digital marketing services firm when it was purchased by DMB&B (MacManus Group) in 1994. Sandom continued to manage EASI on behalf of DMB&B through 1996.
From January 1997 through October 1999, Sandom served as Director of Interactive at OgilvyOne Worldwide, where he grew the company from a loss of $2MM to an estimated $100MM in revenues in 30 months, and from 12 “permalancers” to 650 digital marketing specialists worldwide; named “Number One Interactive Ad Agency” – 1999, by Ad Age magazine.
From November 1999 through 2001, Sandom served as President and CEO, and then Vice Chairman of RappDigital Worldwide, the interactive arm of direct marketing/direct response agency giant Rapp Collins Worldwide, an Omnicom Company. Within a year of inception, RappDigital became one of the nation’s “Top Ten” interactive ad agencies, according to Ad Age magazine.
Sandom is also the author of six novels including Gospel Truths and The Hunting Club (Doubleday); the latter was optioned by Warner Bros. for theatrical development. He is currently working on a new novel, The Unresolved, for Penguin/Dutton/NAL."
Jim, what's an IP editor? And I believe you're wrong about the creation date of the Article. I thought it was older. But who knows. That was a long time ago. I can barely remember what I had for dinner yesterday. The article you quote above has several errors in it. “Top Ten” should read "Top Twenty", The Hunting Club was from Bantam - A Crime Line book (not Doubleday, which is, I believe, a sister house), and The Unresolved was a Dutton Children's pub (not a Penguin or NAL book, although they're both sister houses too, I believe . . . but don't quote me on that; they're all consolidated now and there are precious few independents left). Sandom (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sandom, please take my advice. Don't ever look at your article again. Go immediately silent in all these discussions, except for a one-sentence bowing out. It will be better that way. EEng (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I needed a laugh after a determined attack last night by trolling, vandalizing sockpuppets on my user and talk pages. That's the way to convert a Jew to Christianity, huh? Cullen328Let's discuss it05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal attack. Please don't make any more edit summaries like that. The issue you are edit-warring over is extremely trivial, and you are wrong on the MoS issue, but it's ok that you're wrong on MoS. It's definitely not ok to make personal remarks in your edit summaries. Really, please don't do that again. --John (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I appreciate that you think you're keeping me on the straight and narrow, but I stand by my statement, and to underscore that I'll amplify it here: the editor who used to call himself Malleus Fatuorum recently changed his "name" to Eric Corbett; however, I believe it would have been a service to the project had he, instead, changed his name to Malevolent Fatuous, because that would let editors know up front what they might be in for when he appears in any new situation. EEng (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are not only behaving in a way that our community norms explicitly find unacceptable, but you are being rather unfair to Eric. You asked him here to get involved in the article, you then disagreed with some (fairly innocuous) edits he made, and now you're throwing out insults to him. Does that seem fair to you? --John (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phineas Gage GA
I've failed the article. User:Eric Corbett has stated on his talkpage that if the article is passed he will take it to GAR which basically means that he has now made it his personal mission to make life hell for anyone who doesn't agree that he is the sole authority to be followed regarding article writing and formatting. I don't wish that for anyone and therefore see no other choice than to fail. This is an immense shame because the article is great and you have done a great job and Wikipedia should be be ashamed of the way you have been thanked for your volunteer work here. I am very sorry it went like this. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to reconsider. As I said before this doesn't cause me any stress because (a) crap like whether et al. and so on go in italics doesn't really matter and (b) from a review of his edit history, it seems like Malevolent Fatuous (you do know who I'm talking about, right?) gets into stuff like this all the time and always self-destructs, or gets blocked, or holds his breath until he's blue in the face, or whatever. And as for John, well, he means well.
Many good people have put a lot of effort into this so far; sooner or later the article will be re-nominated, and then again there will be a flurry of attention by everyone and his brother, and again we'll have to go through this stuff. So unless there's a deadline I'd prefer we continue.
Anyway, I don't see where MF said he'll "take it to GAR" -- all I see are comments saying stuff like "we're involved in a GAR" i.e. the normal peer review that's part of the GA process. Did I miss something? Anyway, I don't have any fear of any "higher scrutiny".
If you'll reactivate the process, we can evaluate where we are. One thing to remember is that much or most of the stuff being argued about isn't even on the GA checklist. So, what do you think?
I am glad it didn't cause you stress, it did to me. Eric said he would take it to GAR at his talkpage. You are of course right in your assessment of his usual behavior pattern. I think it would have to be renominated to take up the review again. You are right that none of this is on the GA checklist. If I re-nominate it I can't review it myself. If you do it I can, or if you like someone else can do it. I'll look at it tomorrow with fresh eyes. Let me know what you think.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest that in the meantime you just revert your own closing with an edit summary something like "Now not so sure I want to close, want to think about it". If you don't do something like that right away then it will need a new nomination and, I'm guessing, you have to wait a while before doing that. And then, as I said, we'll have to deal with a new influx of knowitalls. EEng (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you post at the Talk of the nom page if someone knows how to undo that manually. I'd be surprised if there isn't. I hate to press but I really don't want to lost the momentum, and since you're the reviewer you're the only one in a position to ask. I'd really appreciate it. EEng (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried but I don't think it is going to happen. You could renominate it right away and we'll take it from there. I would prefer not to review it at a second review, but if you prefer that I do it I will.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·02:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't do that, since it would imply that I am responsible for carrying out the response to the review, which I am neither capable or willing to do. I think User:CurlyLoop will be willing to renominate, and Pyrotec who is a competent and experienced reviewer whose reviews I have myself enjoyed has expressed a willingness to take over the review when he finishes two other ones. I apologize for botching this. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·13:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well damn I was finally sifting through the barnstar list to see the most exact, appropriate one today and I've been preempted. If I gave another one, would it come off as excessive? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we're still talking about Genie, honestly I've hardly done anything really. I started a copyedit thinking Blade was nearly done, but turns out it was just a momentary pause on his part. I think the next step will be the possible split that was discussed a few weeks ago. After that happens (or doesn't) I'll swoop in with my trademark red pencil and overcomplex Brownian sentences. EEng (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you're in the market for another article to get involved with, I'd appreciate your taking a look at Phineas Gage. There have been a lot of formatting and layout changes recently, and images added. And there are some special technical problems on which I'm hoping we can get comment from others. There's some discussion on the Talk Talk:Phineas Gage#technical_stuff but it's a bit out of date. Wanna jump in? EEng (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop replying. Sometimes, I know I'm being goaded and still can't stop rising to the bait. Thank you for your reminder. Unless there are problematic edits to articles (as opposed to talk pages) the matter merits no further response. Feeding the beast is an apt metaphor.
It's good to have a voice of reason around.
On another matter: I'm no good at finding lost minds. But here's the Ming you were looking for:
Remember our long-lived friend (who amazingly, seems to have actually taking his indefinite block to heart)? While this one guy is a rank amateur by comparison, similar lessons apply, especially this one: in general (sad to say) it's too much to hope that the party with whom you are engaged will be convinced; convincing those watching and listening should be your goal. Once you think you've achieved that you can fall silent, leaving your interlocutor to babble on contentedly. EEng (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)CRASH! Oh dear. That thing wasn't genuine, was it? After all, a Ming is a terrible thing to waste.[reply]
Followup: As predicted, the response from multiple editors at COI Noticeboard was variations on What makes this a COI issue? and I see no reason to look at this as a COI issue. Better luck next time. EEng (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
cease your non-stop personal attacks
You have been here way too long for me to have to be posting this in your talk page. Your constant antics and belligerence editing the MX wikipage is not acceptable. Consider this a warning. Whatzinaname (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors in the discussion have pointed out your dickishness, and it's not a personal attack to tell you you're being a dick if you are, in fact, being a dick. So stop being a dick. EEng (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the content dispute, I am in general agreement with EEng, as I believe that the reliable sources support their point. That being said, I would advise both of you to tone down all snarkish and self-indulgent comments. The dispute is over a very minor point. Tone the comments way down, please. Nothing good will come of it. Thanks. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have said this before. [23] Really, quit it, it isn't helpful. I have personally been banned for way less (in fact for nothing at all, but that's a story.) And Whatsy? You too. Starting off by effectively telling editors they are idiots and the article they have worked on is a disgrace is not a good business plan. Rumiton (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who starts out by calling Pulitzer Prize winning historian Manning Marable a "moron" has little credibility for complaining about personal attacks shortly thereafter. Unless one considers Marable fair game as a result of his untimely death. After all, it isn't a BLP violation, is it? Cullen328Let's discuss it05:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, it's Whatshisname, not me, you're talking about. 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
for the giggle. Please go back to that thread and imagine which short posting I could barely restrain myself from responding to with "Only what I read about yo momma!" David in DC (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an hour at a fun party feels like 15 minutes while an hour at a tedious faculty meeting feels like 5 hours, an hour at ANI feels like your life is flashing before your eyes while an hour not at ANI feels like a day in the countryside. If that helps. EEng (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing it's taken so long -- been fretting about that sentence for ages! Strive ever upwards, O Wikipedians, be it just a word at at time! EEng (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another clueless editor drops in to visit
Hello, I'm ChrisGualtieri. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not refactor my comments again and do not make snide personal attacks. Also, do not call editors "nazi"s, because they removed 1900 characters of this.[25] Comment on the edit not the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call another editor a Nazi, but rather a MOS Nazi -- that is, an often ignorant, always arrogant, self-appointed knowitall who finds salve for his insecure ego by pretending that enforcement of increasingly minute and arbitrary rules, over consideration of what looks good and reads well, benefits the project.
As to you, do not fuck with others' comments on article talk pages, as you did -- I've restored my comments and stand by them. You made a run-on, borderline unintelligible defense of certain actions of yours; I responded with "Everything you're saying is nonsense", followed by a bullet-list explication of why everything you had said was nonsense. [26] If you don't like that, then stop posting nonsense.
As already pointed out elsewhere, you spend a great deal of time removing, and issuing warnings about, angry comments directed at you by other editors, e.g. on your talk page. Ever think about why that is?
Making personal attacks and deliberately making up things you know nothing about to attack editors is a problem. You have a massive COI and your ownership is problematic enough, but making up lies is not acceptable. Some misunderstanding completely unrelated to your issue has no place being on the talk page and next time I will report it to an administrator because your hostile attacks of "MOS Nazi" or any type of "Nazi" unacceptable under WP:NPA. Do you understand? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re next time I will report it to an administrator because your hostile attacks of "MOS Nazi" or any type of "Nazi" unacceptable under WP:NPA:
(For those playing along at home here's the edit summary [27] Chris is so up in arms about.) I could change my wording from "MOS Nazis" to "bossy schoolmarmish MOS-haunting tin-ear-for-language knowitalls" -- would you prefer that? Anyway, if you don't recognize yourself in those descriptions, what does any of this have to do with you? And if you do, then how is it a personal attack to describe you in a manner which you agree is accurate?
In any event, here's what I predict an administrator would say about all this:
First, he or she will tell me that -- though it's understandable I was pissed off at you for making a complete mess of an article and then, when challenged, posting a list of nonsense justifications for what you'd done, but falling strangely silent when those justifications were answered -- I should have heeded the better angels of my nature and moderated my condemnation of your absurd waste of my time and your own time.
Second, he or she will counsel you to stop being a crybaby. You fucked up the article, wouldn't admit it, and almost a month later are still sulking because you were called out for it.
As to Making personal attacks and deliberately making up things you know nothing about to attack editors is a problem: What the fuck are you talking about? What can "making up things you know nothing about" even mean?'
And Some misunderstanding completely unrelated to your issue has no place being on the talk page: What the fuck are you talking about here, either?
As to massive COI and ownership... well, I'll deal with those laughable ideas on the article talk page.
Why are you being rude and spiteful? I'm trying to work with you - this is not your article to rule over and I'd much fancy being able to read the actual text with more than 13 characters smashed between two large images and other formatting and size issues. Why will you not discuss this civilly? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing ownership and stewardship -- see WP:OAS. As to "formatting and size issues" (and "13 characters") please post a description of them at the article Talk, in a way others can understand what you're talking about. I suspect you've got zoom set high and/or text size (if you're using IE) set to "Largest" or something. EEng (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, but your assumptions of what I am using is wrong. I'm not going to argue with you about this; it's why I've purposely avoided responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation. You are emotionally and academically invested in the page and it is only out of respect for actual experts on Wikipedia (we have too few) that I don't want any dramatics. I mean no offense and I hope you understand my position. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, whatever. "I'm not going to argue with you about this" -- you don't argue (or discuss) anything. What you do, as just seen, is complain vaguely ("formatting and size issues") but then never explain what you're talking about; you've been doing this for a month without making a single suggestion for anything to change. If telling yourself you're "avoiding responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation" makes you feel better, fine, but the the important thing is that you've decided to move on to wasting others' time instead of mine. Call it selfish if you want. You're practically the Wikipedia poster-boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect. EEng (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You made an improvement to the rendered page - it is not my preference, but it is better. So why would I need to reiterate or argue after its resolution? I see you have asked for clarification on my arguments - and normally I'd be happy to explain further, but you don't want to listen to me. You are an expert on Gage, while I dislike the significant conflict of interest generated by extensively using both you and your co-author's work, I respect your position. If I wanted to be a thorn in your side, trust me, I could, but we both have better things to do than indulge in dramatics. That is why I asked you stop the personal attacks, but I've realized by not responding in kind or getting upset gives more time to you to improve the content. So long as you seek to improve Wikipedia, even just this one page, I'll respect your stewardship. If you really want to make a fight, WP:COIN and a few other places would be a good proving ground to see if those "MOS Nazis" could explain in more detail why your page presents significant problems with its excessive and unnecessary usage of various templates. Your call. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the 100th time:
go to the article's talk page and post a concrete suggestion or description of a problem (e.g. specifically describe the "excessive and unnecessary usage of various templates" you refer to above -- I genuinely would like to know about any potential problems);
or go somewhere to complain about my COI, or my attacks, or whatever;
or just go away.
But do not keep saying here that you've identified problems with the article but aren't going to explain them. It's ridiculous. EEng (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee fueled parody, at WP:talk MoS/D&N
I must thank you for one of the best (and funniest) scenarios of Wikipedia editing I've read. I'm going to be chuckling all day. The cleanup you're doing on MoS is making it actually useful, and I thank you for that as well. I should probably appreciate that more, but it doesn't make me giggle with joy. htom (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well ;P to you too, buster! But isn't yr Okt-fest example still ambiguous? Might the reader not mistakenly conclude that it lasts 1 yr + a few days? Assuming we're past that, what do you think about "Holy Week 2014 begins April 13 and ends April 19" -- conserves column width! EEng (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. The example looks good, although I'm not sure what "Holy Week" is or if it would ever be called "Holy Week 2014". I intentionally chose an example in the past (so it needn't change tense in due course) and that spans two months, otherwise someone might get the idea of re-writing it as "from 13 to 19 April" or something. What about "In 2013, Ramadan started 10 July and ended 7 August"? —sroc💬09:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When faced with a term or phrase (such as Holy Week) with which I'm unfamiliar, I often think to myself, "If only there were some way to answer such questions using calculating machines... A world-wide information storage and retrieval system of some kind... Perhaps computers linked using a kind of telegraphic communication system... with a typewriter-like way entering queries... and some kind of display device by which the machine would present answers...."
Well, last night I decided to stop dreaming and start doing. Click here for a demonstration. Crude, I know, but it illustrates the general idea. I don't think there's any money in it, though. Too bad.
You're right that crossing months is better, and in the spirit of inclusionism (if that's a word) perhaps we should go with Ramadan. More comments there. EEng (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will make sense to you. You asserted, with palpable condescension, that immigrated from and emigrated to are blunders [30]:
There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject. One "immigrates to" and "emigrates from" Consult any grammarian source if in doubt.
Though no possible level of appropriateness to debate on doesn't recommend you as a wordsmith, I would never deny my own fallibility. Thus I double-checked and... guess what? Your prissy 7th-grade English teacher Mrs. Snodgrass was wrong, and my warm and wonderful 8th-grade teacher Mr. Dunkum was right (hi, Mr. Dunkum, wherever you are!): one may emigrate from or emigrate to or (if one prefers) immigrate from, or to, as well.
You've been offered three compelling arguments for why this cannot be but so:
Argument logical [31]: Under your theory this sentence is verboten--
He emigrated from England to America.
because (you say) one can't emigrate to somewhere. And the following is also a no-no--
He immigrated to America from England.
because (according to you) one can't immigrate from somewhere. So, presumably, you would have this--
He emigrated from England and immigrated to America.
inflicted on the reader, and that's ridiculous. QED.[1]
Argument empirical general [32]: As seen here [33] examples of emigrated to are thick on the ground in the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Courts of sundry states of said United States, and the esteemed and honorable Courts Supreme (or other highest courts) of numerous other jurisdictions and sovereignties. High court justices are usually considered exemplary expositors.
And as if that's not enough, no less luminous a legal legend than the great Epaphroditus Peck quoted the digest of a Massachusetts court's opinion thus:[2]
Refusal by an English woman, whose husband had emigrated to the United States and had obtained employment here, to follow him to this country when he reqeuested her to come and sent her money for her passage, was held to be desertion by her, it being found that she had no other reason for her refusal that reluctance to leave her native land. Franklin v. Franklin, 190 Mass. 349; 4 L.R.A. (N.S) 145. See the note to [etc etc and so on and so forth...]
Now, you're not really planning to climb into the ring with Epaphroditus Peck, are you?
Argument empirical specifical[3][34]: Emmanuel College's tablet "In Memory of John Harvard A.M." describes the man as "A member of Emmanuel College who emigrated to Massachusetts Bay...", and later describes itself as "erected by Harvard men ... in the College which fostered his beneficent spirit." Since as is well known Harvard men think they're always right, and Emmanuel men pretty much are always right, this wording (passed by both) must surely be considered dispositive.
The true difference between imm- and em- is a subtle one of emphasis and narrative point of view. These --
John lost his best friend when Bill emigrated to America.
Many of these new immigrants to America had left good friends behind.
Those emigrating from France found it relatively easy to obtain exit papers; those from Germany, less so.
American authorities scrutinized those immigrating from France less carefully than those from Germany.
-- are all fine and all subtly different, and would be irreparably crippled if twisted to fit your Procrustean bed of linguistic over-prescription.
Not everyone shares your high opinion, Mr. Jonesey (assuming you weren't being facetious). Aside from ol' CG (abovebelow) we have this effusive praise: "so snobbish and pigheaded that I could only make it through three sentences until I couldn't force myself to continue." [35] Noting, however, that it was this critic himself who wrote the bulk of my post's opening (i.e. "There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject... Consult any grammarian source if in doubt") I must complement the gentleman on his candid self-evaluation. EEng (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could not have been farther (further?) from Facetious, wherever that may be. Mesmerized was more like it. Gobsmacked. Enthralled. I smile enigmatically at you, and my eyes follow you about your chambers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My attorney will need your address for the restraining order. It would be best if you cooperate. EEng (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Many people leaving Facetious find themselves in Synecdoche (and of course when I say Synecdoche I really mean the greater Synecdoche area).[reply]
Personal attack? You decide! [Section heading not supplied by ChrisGualtieri]
Did you really... and I mean that... need to spend all that time making such a post? Its your time, but I think some of this is a bit ironic. Glad to see you are still floating about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, it took about one Masterpiece Theatre episode. (This current post cost about 1/2 a Modern Family.) You like to mass-update article classes, I like to warn off stubbornly misinformed know-it-alls.
WARNING! Text inside constitutes, according to one editor, a personal attack!
Chief among our differences, CG, is that you seem to think that beautiful portraits (or fine Wikipedia articles) are created by dutifully coloring between lines set out for us by our betters, instead of considering what will please the eye or nourish the intellect. Perhaps you would have asked da Vinci, "Did you really need to spend all that time making such a picture?"?
I'd watch those personal attacks and bearing false witness because I don't tolerate such abuse sitting down. Your comment shows your ignorance and folly - but if you take such pride in burning bridges, far be it from me to tell you that you've burnt the last with I. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to tell you what I just told you.
Second on the list of differences between us is that you think everything's a personal attack. You certainly don't take anything lying down -- you get right in there and issue stern warnings! [36][37] Some of them are even "last" warnings! [38] And "bearing false witness" -- what... gonna report me for violating WP:TENCOMMANDMENTS?
Re "Far be it from me to tell you that you've burnt the last [bridge] with I"... Is that meant to be some kind of brain teaser? It's like a kid saying, "I'm not gonna tell you that mom has milk and cookies in the kitchen."
Followup: you were very modest, startswithj, about your humor-detecting talents. But take heart, there's someone even more humor-impaired than you apparently imagine yourself to be, as seen in the next section. So feel yourself lucky -- as the old proverb says, "I cried because I had no WiFi, until I met a man who had no laptop."EEng (talk)
Note: The author of the below subsequently removed it. However, I'm electing to repost it here as a permanent reminder to myself of how serious can be the sufferings of those afflicted by profound humor impairment. The assertion that my phrase "terrorist threats against local bridges" -- just above, next to another editor's joking "exploding gift" gif -- actually "insinuates" that the text to which it links is a "terrorist schtick" (odd image, that -- better check your dictionary, CG) suggests a poor prognosis.
Warning
Misappropriation and changing the context of any editors text is specifically not allowed. Do not do this EEng. You've lied and put words in my mouth and you are being abusive. Next time, I will take it to arbcom do not dare put any insinuation with terrorism to my comments. You understand?! You've insulted my work and you've lied all it one post, but then you alter my text and flow and chalk it up to some terrorist schtick. I think you owe me an apology.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. CG, I'd appreciate your telling me where I altered your "text and flow" or "lied and put words in [your] mouth". (Since there was no section heading I made it "Personal attack? You decide!" -- and I've now clarified that it's not your heading, if that's what's bothering you.)
Later (10:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)): The patient exhibits a continued preoccupation with removing my post, above, quoting his earlier "warning".[39][40][41] Of course it's best for his recovery that he face the consequences of his actions, rather than run from them.
A friendly note
Stop refactoring and reinserting my deleted text, you are violating the talk page guidelines. I am well within my right to remove my own comments and not have them altered, refactored or reinserted by you to mock. You are being hypocritical because you continue to refactor my text and you scream about "not fucking with my posts". Now calm down - you are only adding fuel to the fire. You've continually altered text and you edit war over nothing. You don't see me constantly bringing up your comment that almost got you indeffed for personal attacks; treat others as you want to be treated and you'll find your interactions on Wikipedia to be more pleasant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those who may be wondering, we're talking about the text removed here [42], which can be seen in context here [43].
Sorry, I missed this until now. Quoting a post of yours, giving full context, is not refactoring, whether you subsequently deleted it or not. (And in quoting it I noted that you had deleted it.) EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query
Hi EEng. Chris has raised with me the edit you made here. Would you stand by this edit and its like? I do share his concerns with the standard of your interactions. I'd prefer to sort it out with you directly, but if not I would need to go to a central noticeboard, so please consider your response carefully. --John (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by it fully. If you can explain what the hell he's talking about, including the silent shift, from the beginning of the thread to the end, in what's being demanded, please do so -- there. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. It seemed like too much trouble to merge all the adjacent empties (and doing so would create a lot of potential for rowspan mess-ups), so I drew the line where the entire "category" (Information) has empty comments. My motivation was to eliminate the unpleasant visual effect of all those parallel lines blocked together and that's the most important example of it. If you want to extend that to the rest, or revert my one merge, that's fine. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the visual cleanliness, but we should be consistent — both within the table and across tables generally. It actually works well (at least on my browser: Firefox 27.0.1 for Mac OS X) to omit the final cell in a row when it's not needed; it has the same visual appearance without the messy rowspan parameters that are prone to tripping editors up. I'll give that a go but feel free to revert if it doesn't look right. —sroc💬12:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't do that is that IE 11 interprets the lack of the final, empty value as "on this row, that column isn't even there" and expresses that by omitting the right-hand, final vertical line for that cell. In other word, instead of
-------------------
| val | val | |
------+-----+------
| val | val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val | |
-------------------
you get
-------------
| val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val |
-------------
(Here I'm assuming your browser renders this ascii art the same as mine does.) To me that looks a bit odd but better than all those empty cells, but I fear you may get blowback. I suggest you leave it as you have it and brace for reaction.
So you see, we're friends after all. But don't think you've heard the last of me on that stupid year-comma thing. EEng (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see the ASCII art. (How'd you do that?) My browser shows as the first case, but I feared some other browsers would show as the second case (or something else weird). Let's see what happens. (grabs popcorn) —sroc💬14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the more than 50% of the characters in a block of text are hyphen, plus, or pipe, the browser detects ascii art and renders it that way.
More information
Ha ha! Just kidding! If you go back and look, each line begins with a blank. For some bizarre reason lost to history that triggers that stark monospace rendering.
Not sure if you realise that your edit at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers inserted your reply in the middle of Makyen's comment, which I believe is poor form: your reply should be below, after Makyen's signature, to avoid confusion about who wrote what. I suggest you move your reply.
Sorry to always be harping on the negatives instead of admiring all the good stuff you've been doing! I get the sense that you sometimes seem to be in a rush to post your changes and then having to repeatedly edit again and again to patch things up, and there's always the risk that someone will revert, edit, or start a conversation while you're still perfecting your work. Maybe it would be beneficial if you tinkered in the sandbox before posting your finished product for all to enjoy, which might make us all more inclined to praise your work rather than criticise works in progress. I digress. Keep up the good work! —sroc💬14:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 for 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you removed "the definite article", you added a negative byte count pointing to the unlucky number 13. And mentioned it in your edit summary. After a 133 byte edit. At 22:23. Such links are almost always unintended, since numerology is merely a special relationship between a number and some coinciding events.
Fair enough. Just thought if you'd been the type to believe in the hoo-ha, you'd have liked the heads up. I had to ask a Wikifriend to revert mine. It's an awkward request. If you run into any bad luck, hope for sevens. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:30, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Hey, what do you know? Seven minutes between my post and your reply, and an inverted 23 here. You'll be fine. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:32, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
It's fine, of course. I hope my snapping at you a while back didn't make you uneasy about dealing with me, but please consider the context. Over the last six months I've invested many hours reorganizing and massaging MOS (especially Dates & Numbers) to make it more usable and, to my amazement, have received almost no resistance. (Nor have I received much appreciation, but I can live with that.) Except in a very few places which I carefully call out, my intention is only to improve the presentation without changing the meaning. So when, in one tiny corner, I unintentionally did change the meaning, I was a bit miffed to have the C-word waved in my face as if I was trying to pull a fast one. [44] I recognized, even then, that you likely didn't mean it that way, but MOS is such an unpleasant place that I think we should all bend over backwards to keep the tone as pleasant as possible. EEng (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The removal of that "you can" appeared to make it mandatory, which was a bit sudden (and undesirable I think, without having talked through the implications). MOS is powerful, both for on- and off-wiki English. It purports to be a professional authority, and has that capacity (probably it is that already), so it's not surprising that there's tension on a wiki. Cheers. Tony(talk) 07:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree the change was inappropriate -- I just wish more consideration had been given to the fact that it was apparently unintentional.
If you really think that people are using WP MOS as a style guide outside of WP, I think we need a little disclaimer on it somewhere saying that, while anyone's free to use it of course, it has many details peculiar to the needs of WP and issues that arise there, and which may not be appropriate for general application elsewhere i.e. a camel is a horse designed by a committee. EEng (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea how that last statement really is.... better choice of words than I used as well. I'll need to remember that for next time MOS dramas erupt over the addition of the number of auxiliary parameters or data granularity without considering the more meta aspects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Lizzie died of fright, but I, Kafka Jane, can give a close reading if you wish. Overall, I'd say it looks damn good. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per COMMONSENSE, you're just too funny. I've never seen anyone revert a dummy edit before -- much less twice! [47] The important thing is that through collaborative editing the article is incrementally improved relative to its state when the sun came up this morning. EEng (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm making this the founding entry in the Museum of Bizarre Reversions on my userpage.[reply]
And per any of the measures of most editing, you are patronising, boorish, and certainly nowhere near as good as you think you are. The article hasn't improved much, and some of your edits have been a step backwards: Milligan "later told someone"? that's just laughably poor. I hope not ever to be back here, so feel free to leave some "witty" (tedious and tiresome) comment to close it off. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of amusement here without my contributing anything. Your reversion of a dummy edit is worth the price of admission alone. EEng (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A visit from an editor both angry and clueless -- always a dangerous combination
You clearly love a joke judging by your user page, so take a look at these; Did you hear about the deluded and seriously unfunny editor who thought they improved a featured article by writing like a drunk three year old? These are bloody hilarious! [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], and this. Cassiantotalk19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by all of them, which with perhaps one or two exceptions are straightforward corrections -- for example, the insertion of a missing quote mark [56] and changing [57]
died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, 26 years to the day
to
died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, twenty-six years to the day
You've listed all my edits to this one article, even those obviously appropriate, which implies you're just one of these OWNy editors who can't stand fresh eyes. If you'll say why you think any of them inappropriate, I'll be happy to discuss. EEng (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like fresh eyes, but not the ones with shit in them. Your cliche OWN accusation is also more predictable than your "humour". Oh, and thread properly as it becomes more readable and easier to respond. Cassiantotalk 4:39 pm, Today (UTC−4)
LOL! "And please don't reformat my posts"? That's a nice use of a conjunction to start a sentence EEng. It's edits like that which makes your grammar all the more laughable! Cassiantotalk21:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be hinting that And at the start of a sentence is a blunder, which it's not. But people who take comfort in rigid rules often say it is. As for --
It's edits like that which makes
-- I'm sure you know better, so I'll take it as a measure of the extent to which you're just lashing out blindly. Still waiting for specific comment on any of my edits you complain about above. EEng (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a gesture of respect for the Grammar Nazis and their selfless and untrankful work I made a point of ending my sentence with a couple of prepositions for them to clean up at. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see -- you were giving them something to be angry at. The thing is, a grammar Nazi is someone who actually knows his grammar but applies it inflexibly and thoughtlessly; here we have someone who doesn't even know the grammar.
Did you hear about the boy who was tired of the same old bedtime stories about Australia? He said to his father, "Dad -- what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of about Down Under up for?" EEng (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You missed an apostrophe this time. And a hyphen. For someone who picks fights over grammar and usage, based on age-old grammatical rules that have split opinions, you're certainly having trouble. Still waiting for specific comments on my edits which you complain about in your opening post. EEng (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Die Gammar Nazis (FTW TM) rule at FAC. Got in Himmel. Damned right too. We can't afford to have these casual passers-by mess with our firmament. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get the joke? You are about as funny as a strong dose of syphilis. Gerda, I'm surprised you find this entertaining. This kind of negative exchange is what loses the project editors, losses which you so publicly mourn. Cassiantotalk09:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I probably missed something because I did't see "negative exchange". - Nazi - I just explained in a DYK nom that you better use that word to be "attractive": simply compare views for hooks mentioning "Nazi" and those that don't. - That is negative, but how would we change it? - I don't "mourn publicly", I factually made a note on top of my talk about a loss 3 years ago which prepared me well to take all later ones. I sing praises. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have now breached WP:3RR (you are at 4RR). The talk page thread is open and awaits your comments, rather than edit warring. If you revert again I will have no hesitation in reporting you in the right forum. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh! You won't hesitate!Oooh! I'm scared. Report away, but watch for the ol' boomerang. You're ridiculous. (For those who are wondering, SC's got his knickers in a twist over this [60] -- click back back earlier from there to for some world-class Angry Edit Summary contenders from SchroCat and his co-owner Cassianto -- more from the latter above in this very thread! EEng (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript, 22:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC): Since I ran into this while on another errand a moment ago, I thought I'd insert it here:
Uncle G to Schrodinger's cat is alive: "You demonstrate exactly the sort of non-collaborative non-effort-expending attitude on the part of an editor with an account that makes editing so bad for so many, and that people rightly ridicule in cases like this where myopic Wikipedians foolishly fight to un-write the encyclopaedia. Calling someone who in no article edit did anything but add verifiable content and cite sources intended to support it a "vandal" is almost merely icing on the cake of how unproductive, uncollaborative, and un-Wikipedian that attitude is. ... You're supposed to be a collaborative editor. Stop thinking that your purpose here is no more than to sit in an armchair, mark other people's work, and use the undo tool, without otherwise lifting a finger to help when an article needs fixing." posted on WP:AN#Editor Dr. Blofeld, 03:22 19 December 2012 (UTC)
A different editor responded in far more appropriate terms to Uncle G's rather sanctimonious wailings that failed to take into account anything based in policy, most importantly WP:BLP. Still, always nice to have an admin veer into incivility about one. Anyway, you want me to drag through your ANI performances? Life is too short to do so, but I wonder why you bothered to do it with mine... How pointless to drag up something from 18 months ago. As you probably didn't bother to look into it in much detail, I stand by my response given at the time. As per the above, move on, it only poorly reflects on you, not others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You should know better than to behave this way.Orlady (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So should you. Honestly, can't you just let something fun and interesting, like a weird old word almost no one's seen in 200 years, live and grow? [62]EEng (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, something's just come up with "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days" (using my DYK checker tool). Not sure what to do about that. Seems a real shame.Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, that DYKchecker tool is just a tool for use by humans. Humans aren't suppose to let the tool make decisions for them. Humans can -- and do, on a regular basis -- understand that articles are eligible for DYK if they were nominated within the specified time window. Eligibility doesn't automatically expire for nominations sitting on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But then I'm only human, alas. And only mostly idiotic. I'm guessing that it was indeed nominated within 7 days of its passing GA (if that was what's required). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the nom is timely. As you know I never pass up any opportunity to point out that the idiotic 7-day idiotic requirement is idiotically idiotic. So can you complete the review? EEng (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I left a message on the DYK talk page, I didn't expect much to come of it for at least 12 hours, but the deadly duo of EEng and Yoninah performed magnificently, I expected it would need some fixes from me, but you, Yoninah, and Belle fixed all the issues. Thank you very much for getting it done for me, I am very grateful. Best, Matty.00707:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. An unfortunate limitation of edit summaries as a medium for artistic expression is that once you've hit <enter> you're stuck. My regret here is that I didn't link to Can't Anybody Here Play This Game?. A pity. EEng (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC) But then Picasso (or someone) said form is liberating i.e. if I could revise it, I'd probably still be revising even now, instead of wasting my time usefully editing elsewhere on WP.[reply]
Obviously as a ninjarette (don't highlight that spellchecker, it's brilliant), I don't take three strikes to put somebody out. ("testing showed it was 1.7 times more injurious than a 30mph car crash with modern safety features". You can't argue with "testing") Belle (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Over here in the UK, we often used to play "zero tolerance rounders", but the shot-gun would always jam at just the wrong time! lol. 20:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I'm particularly pleased because understatement is not one of my stronger modes of expression. BTW you might be amused by [63] and [64]. EEng (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Today's drama-fest will begin at 1400 hours. Refreshments and snacks will be provided for the peanut gallery.Turkish Delight also available.
Without wishing to comment on who's right and who's wrong, I threw together User:Ritchie333/Hit and run editors today, and one point I made in it is that the typical Wikipedia reader won't be too fussed about what citation templates are used in an article. I can barely master {{sfn}}, and even then it's akin to drawing a pentagram on the floor and hope the formatting doesn't cause errors or get reverted. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Referring to caption at right] Dammit, I'm going out. I hate for my tickets to go to waste. Know anyone who can use them? To answer (Ritchie) your question re GA (not FA) delisting, see [65] which incidentally makes some blushworthy comments.
But seriously, I'd be very happy for you to comment on who's right and who's wrong. .
Oppose: that's how we do things round here when asked for a comment (I know you didn't ask me to comment, but that's par for the course too) Belle (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Ritchie: Your essay is bang on. You might want to draw on this by Beyond My Ken (you'll find it linked under Thoughts or something from his userpage):
The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
BMK's thoughts page is generally brilliant - here's another one : "Start with an article that looks like shit and reads like it was written by a high-school dropout. A hundred edits later, take another look at the article – and it still looks and reads like shit. That's because the intervening edits did useful things like replace m-dashes with n-dashes, capitalized the first letters of template names, added interwiki links, vandalized and reverted the vandalism, made sure that bold text was being used as laid down in the manual of style, removed extraneous blank lines and miscellaneous other actions which did not, in any fundamental way, improve the article." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thin-skinned admin blocks for criticism of himself!
Noting that you are blocking for comments regarding you, I'll let the great John Stuart Mill try to explain to you how ridiculous you're making yourself look:
Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate ... If the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.
In other words, it stings because it's so true, you're mad because you can't think of anything to say in response, and as the person criticized you shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide whether the criticism is appropriate.
I doubt I'll appeal this since there's more use letting it stand as a 48-hour monument to your thin-skinned pettiness. Along those lines I'd appreciate it if you'd note this block in the ANI discussion -- unless you'd prefer others not see your action side by side with the "offense" that prompted it.
P.S. Will you be blocking Nyttend as well? After all, he called you an "amateur" [67] -- that must have stung pretty bad too. Or that mean Ritchie333, who called you "a stereotypical Wikipedian, who makes a large amount of similar changes to pages, despite having had no evidence of being previously interested in any of them" (not by name, of course, but then I didn't call you by name either -- you just seemed to know it was you that I was referring to -- funny, isn't it). Ritchie also mentioned that "One of the reasons hit and run editors have gained prominence in [the area of trivial formatting changes] is that writing the encyclopaedia has become more difficult. The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime". That must really hurt. You should definitely block Ritchie333 for that!
But I'm not sure if blocking someone is that much nicer? I certainly wouldn't condone "personal attacks", but goodness me, compared to what I've been called on occasion, this looks like a rather mild but candid observation. Could Bgwhite be regarded as "involved" in any way here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, perhaps you'll be kind enough to post a mention of this block at the ANI thread. I want it in the record there before it gets archived. Bgwhite apparently prefers to work under cover of darkness. EEng (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgwhite: probably does not agree with your continued snark and attacks, but I do not think changing the header to "Admin blocks for criticism of himself" is appropriate here. It does not seem to follow the talk page guidelines and I've warned you repeatedly for making gross abuses of my own text. Please stop inflaming the situation - this is getting beyond distasteful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change words I wrote. For the record, I had edited the ANI discussion three times and not on the thread you responded too. You were responding to John and Typto's comments. The examples you gave were John's and you took a swipe at John. Your words were directed at all editors editing Gage. Other admins at the ANI page said you did a blockable offense. At least now you are directing your hate at me instead of Chris, John, Typto and everybody else. Just drop it and edit Phineas Gage with Chris. Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: No editor contested the blocked while it was active and no unblock has been requested. Eeng remained blocked for 48 hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed these comments until now, and they bear responding to, just for the record.
As already explained above I was perfectly happy to have been blocked by a thin-skinned bully like Bgwhite. And many more editors at ANI said I did not "do a blockable offense" (to use the words of an editor who has trouble writing English) and scolded Bgwhite for acting in clear violation of WP:INVOLVED.
My words were not directed at all editors editing the Gage article, but rather a small group of self-certain editors who tag-team actual content contributors to maintain their freedom to impose nonexistent "rules" reflecting nothing but their desire to feel they're doing something useful -- regardless of whether or not they actually are.
Magioladitis' clueless non sequiturs, showing he comprehends nothing that came before, make more obvious how blissfully insular is the mindless echo chamber of mutual cheerleading in which this group operates.
It's almost artistic -- the way in which your spare, innocent obliviousness makes my point more eloquently than I could ever hope to make it myself. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have to be blocked -- what a weird way you have of expressing yourself -- but if a thin-skinned bully wanted to further underscore what a thin-skinned bully he is, that would be a great way for him to do it. EEng (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
License to female
Re: DYK prep 2. I was told - by the horse people - that "female" is a term better suited to animals than women, was just invited to a project "women writers" and see that term in a category. How about "licensed women architect?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion is split on that, with no middle ground -- it seems an editor can either love my style, or burn with hatred for it, with no middle ground ever. Submitted for your consideration:
The phrase in dispute was is remarkably small, which leads me hope the teenage girl wasn't someone he was dating -- though that would explain the autonomic hostility. EEng (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making improvements to The Analytical Language of John Wilkins. Part of the reason I created this one was to watch the DYK process unfold (it's an area of WP I have very little experience with) so I hope you'll entertain a newbie question: there are now a couple different hook proposals at the nomination page. What happens to determine which one is the one that sticks? Just add a comment of endorsement to the nom page itself or is there another venue for that? Thanks. --— Rhododendritestalk | 15:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of hook is determined somewhat haphazardly. First, during the nom discussion often some or all-but-one get struck for one or another reason -- as the original nominator your preferences get a bit of extra weight in that. Next, the reviewer may not want to bother verifying several hooks, so may pick a smaller subset, or just one, to verify. Finally, if there are still 2 or more in play, then the "promoter" picks one to send to the main page. So if you much prefer one, or much dislike one, say so. Keep your eye on the nom page.
Sooner or later the article on Celestial Emporium should be merged in to your article, but that can wait.
I wrote a very long paper on Wilkins' Real Character and Philosophical Language about eight years ago, my thesis being that almost everything you read about Wilkins is baloney, because almost no one had access to the actual work until a facsimile was published some years ago. Foucault, who didn't read it, babbles on based on Borges, who didn't read it -- at least he admits it -- and was working from a bunch of other people who didn't read it either. Subbiondo's paper is complete nonsense -- absolutely shameful -- he makes a fool of himself. The best overall by far is Andrade [72], which you can find in a few anthologies. But if this interests you at all, there's no substitute for going through the book itself [73] -- it's amazing. Wilkins is the greatest genius and most wonderful, gentle person you never were taught about in school. This is his magnum opus, but everything he wrote is worth reading, I promise you. EEng (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip re: DYK. I'm bookmarking the link for later. It's not directly relevant to the work I'm doing now (and I have enough of it :) ), but I find these "universal language" ideas fascinating. Is that your interest or did you come to Wilkins another way? I came across Wilkins before I read Borges or Foucault, while trying to learn more about Leibniz's universal character. Unfortunately, I never got around to reading either of the primary texts (Leibniz or Wilkins), but they're on my "down the road" list... --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... are you saying there's a viable (new, etc.) DYK in there? Or just trying to whet my appetite? I've mostly been tinkering hooks in prep for grammar, fmt, and plain good fun-ness. For a while I when through new noms offering modified hooks but it's too taxing, especially because of the stupid system under which noms are organized by the date the article was expanded etc., instead of simply by when the nom was posted -- so you have to search for new things among a week of old stuff. Have you been watching the idiotic discussions about whether to increase the burn rate? [74].
Listen, on PG, it would be really nice if you could participate. There's a detail of Tfish's proposal he's going to have to mock up so we can see it, but after that, when the two approaches are clear we could really use a 3O. I feel he and I are talking past each other somehow (I just don't see what problem he's solving, and there are clearly downsides to what he's proposing) so could I ping you when he and I have agreed the two approaches are being presented with crystal clarity? EEng (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tfish and I never really had a problem. I think I pissed him off because I didn't knuckle under to the know-nothings in the interests of the greater good, as he saw it, plus I lost my temper a few times at you-know-who. EEng (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who says that a caption can't say "Note detached bone flap above forehead" on the grounds of a complete misinterpretation of MOS:NOTED is a know-nothing (in the sense of someone who wants to pretend that they don't know, or don't understand, something when they really do -- and just can't bear to admit it.) I think you missed the origin of all the animosity from this crew over this past year, which started with a string of discussions like [75]. This was my first exposure to the high-handed, semi-informed, hyper-rigid self-certainty of this particular breed of editor. (And note -- oops, there's that word again! -- I only made the OP and the contraption came to life all on its own!) EEng (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Admin Bgwhite is WP:INVOLVED, as he and I have had trouble before re this very article [77] (though I have never told him or anyone else to "fuck off") and on other articles.
I repeatedly asked that the question be raised at the article's Talk page, per BRD. [78][79][80]
Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Bgwhite blocked me [81] seven hours after my last edit, and after another editor had restored the article to "my" version [82]. The article continues to remain in "my" version, with no attempt to change it by anyone including WP:INVOLVED admin Bgwhite. The block serves no purpose.
Your edits weren't exempt from the rules on edit warring, because you weren't removing a copyright violation, a libelous statement, or vandalism. In this context, you were edit warring, and considering this is your second block, 72 hours is a reasonable duration. PhilKnight (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|1=The unblock decline did not address any of the points I raised in my request, which are, again:
That the blocking admin acted in contravention of WP:INVOLVED, given his prior disputes with me regarding that very page and other pages.
That the block was in no way preventative, in that it was made 7 hours after the last relevant edit to the page (during time no other admin saw fit to take action, and despite an ANEW thread being open all that time -- reinforcing the stink of INVOLVED already mentioned).
}}
Discussion
EEng it's not "your" version. Any block to bots that you added was removed exactly because it served no reason as I explained you but you kept reverting me and another editor. The nobots tag on the page is only to prevent bad typo fixing by editors who won;t understand the template you put inside a word. In fact, the template inside the word is not needed since the browser takes care (or at least should care care) of this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line, the template you were warring to remove was restored by another editor, after which you suddenly dropped your efforts to remove it. Whether the template has the precise same list of bots as before doesn't matter -- it lists the bots that have recently done damage to the article, which is all I was trying to maintain. (Talk page discussion might have come up with a narrower list of bots to block, if that was your concern, but you declined my repeated invitations.)
Please stop trying to prove who's right and go spend your time fixing the bugs in your scripts that are the cause of all this wasted effort. EEng (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a second block by Bgwhite. What a coincidence. Do you have any idea how user:Bladesmulti learnt of your lil spat with Magioladitis in order to revert you 11 minutes after your second revert of Magioladitis? It seems like another coincidence. Did they participate in any related discussions about the article? p.s., for future reference, 3RR is a fairly strict limit; once you hit it, you need to take a break or take the matter to talk / another venue for more people to see the dispute and help one way or another, irrespective of right or wrong, unless the article is a BLP or very clear-cut vandalism. John Vandenberg(chat)16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, based on my conversation with Bladesmulti in the section just above this one (#Edit_warring_on_Eleanor_Elkins_Widener) it appears he walked in on the dustup with Magioladitis quite by accident (though I think it would have been better had he stayed out of the firefight, not knowing the background).
Of course you're right about 3RR, strictly speaking, but you'll notice that seven hours after a 15-minute edit war only Magioladitis' old pal Bgwhite saw fit to issue a (72-hour!) block over such a silly matter.
It's also too bad that an unblock request sits for days with no resolution either way. I'm not ashamed to be blocked by a thin-skinned bully like Bgwhite (see #Thin-skinned_admin_blocks_for_criticism_of_himself.21 -- and even less ashamed to be blocked by him twice, since it shows his colors that much more clearly -- but naturally I'd prefer that the record reflect the WP:INVOLVED, punitive, and angry nature of his action.
For those who don't know, Magioladitis is the maintainer (or one of the maintainers) of AWB, which does a lot of good on certain types of articles (those which haven't gotten careful human attention to their formatting) but also a certain amount of bad on other articles (those which have been carefully formatted by humans, sometimes in ways outside the experience of editors like Magioladitis and Bgwhite). What seems to have upset him (or them) is that the article carried a {{bots}} template asking that AWB and certain other bots, which have made damaging "fixes" to the article in the past, spend their time elsewhere. I suspect his hacker's ego is hurt by the idea that his scripts don't have free rein to roam as they please, and his edit summaries claiming "any problems have been addressed" and "tools work after last changes I [made to?] the page" are typical of assurances heard from inexperienced programmers everywhere: "Now I'm sure my code works -- I found the last bug -- trust me!" He doesn't seem to understand that no tool is appropriate for every situation. That's only my speculation of course. EEng (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, with page's current state, no AWB bot will make any unwanted changes. And in fact the bots tags is completely useless there since the only possible problem is a typo fix bug. Since typo fixing is only made by human editors and it is known to be imperfect (for instance, in some cases, there are typos on purpose or "typos" are actually rare words) editors should get any edit before the save. AWB's typo fixing is more of suggestions and less strict rules. I never wrote that I guarantee that AWB does not have bugs and it won't make unwanted changes in future version of that page (or any other page). It is very likely that the entire problem was a misunderstanding but please assume good faith in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the block length of 72 hours based on, exactly? If this repeated re-addition was based on some kind of lack of understanding in the part of EEng, is a 72-hour block meant to be more effective in "re-educating" him than a shorter block? Surely the link provided to User:Bgwhite's edit of 22 August shows he was very clearly WP:INVOLVED? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak on behalf of Bgwhite but just note that the time period is the next bigger after the previous 48-hour block. I do not like if the discussion goes there. I think the best is to find a way to work altogether and I see EEng not helping on this direction. There was no reason to go for 5-6 reverts as there is not reason not to believe me that AWB won't affect the page negatively for the time being since I have tested it before removing the tag. If we all assume good faith and co-operate we will be more productive. Have you seen me making any large scale changes in any of the pages EEng works? No. Because EEng does a wonderful job, as fasr as I have seen, in finding sources. I respect their work but I would like to see a page in a state other editors can get involved too. Anyway, I do not want to open a completely new conversation about everything right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been feeling awful about this since it happened, and I haven't known what exactly to say until now, but I feel like there are a few things I want to say. As EEng knows, 3RR is a serious thing, and I think the final straw was that EEng made two reverts after the notice on his talk page. There was a report at WP:3RRN, and administrators pay close attention to whether or not the reverting stopped after the editor was notified. It seems to me that if Bgwhite had not made the block, some other administrator would have. (And I don't think that requests to go to talk in edit summaries of reverts make the reverts alright.) EEng, please, we need you here at Wikipedia, and you are too smart to get sucked into these edit wars. Please get a hold on the reverting, before we lose you completely. I'm really worried, and I really mean that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well No, Magioladitis, I must admit that I haven't really been monitoring your interactions with EEng. And I only really commented as it's been quite a while since he requested, along what appear to be very sensible lines, a review of his block. Perhaps he'll get a review after about 71 and a half hours have elapsed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the list of requests for block review, and there's a backlog, with 31 such open requests right now, so I doubt that there is a personal snub here. But I have an idea. EEng, just in case you want something to do while restricted to this talk page, how about archiving old threads? Otherwise, you might be going for the world record for the longest user talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've blocked EEng before. That doesn't mean I cannot block him again. I'm not aware of any interaction I've had with him since 7th September. That was to complain that EEng is changing my messages on his talkpage, which he has since changed again (so, warning, EEng has done and may edit by messages here). The interaction before that was August 30th. I believe EEng has a fixation on me, but not the other way around.
I was contacted by two people about EEng's edit war. They also made me aware of this thread at WP:AN3. So, if I didn't make a block, someone else reading AN3 would have.
I've blocked three people (including EEng) in the past week for 3RR, two 72-hour blocks and a 24-hour block.
a) The other two were on the same article. One person was recently blocked for edit warring, thus I did a 72-hour block. The other person had a clean slate, thus a 24-hour block.
b) I did 72-hours for EEng because: He was recently blocked, he reverted 5 times, he reverted three different people, his was disparaging in his edit summaries ("your vague assurances are worthless") and he disregarded the instructions at {{nobots}} on how to apply the template. Remove half of these and it would still warrant 72-hour block. From WP:EW, "Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks."
Unlike what EEng said in his block appeal, the article is not currently at "his" version. This is his last version. This is the current version. They are different.
EEng did ask the question to be raised on the talk page. However, EEng never did raise it on the talk page. On his 5th revert, he did ask this to be discussed again. After the 3rd revert, one doesn't continue to revert, they should ask the question on the talk page. EEng wasn't following what he asked of others.
@Bgwhite: You said: "I was contacted by two people about EEng's edit war." I don't see those contacts on your user talk page. Can you tell us anything about those contacts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, both were by email. Both were sent while I was asleep. I do believe they were sent so I would block EEng. Who/What/Why is not relevant. Admins get notices all the time about somebody's alleged bad behavior. I've been sent emails and notifications multiple times the past month about EEng and not acted on it. This time, he clearly broke the rules, which is why I intervened. If EEng didn't break the rules, we wouldn't be here and that is the only thing to consider. Bgwhite (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgwhite: Thanks very much for the reply. I agree that it doesn't matter who the people were, and I have no doubt about admins getting lots of e-mails. But I think that I can safely infer that the two persons weren't merely spamming every admin they could think of. They likely contacted you because you were the blocking admin the previous time. In no way do I think that this fact affects the validity of the block, so please don't think that I am implying that. However, it does speak to how you are becoming perceived as the admin who is receptive to blocking EEng. For that reason, I recommend that you consider yourself to be "involved" in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the idea behind WP:INVOLVED was that the blocking admin was, or had been, in dispute with the blocked editor in the same article? Saying "if I didn't make a block, someone else reading AN3 would have" looks a bit like saying "WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply if I can save another adnin diong the same job."? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that PhilKnight's reasoning is correct. Although I've said what I said above to Bgwhite, I think that the two existing blocks walked right up to the line of INVOLVED, without actually crossing over that line. Bgwhite never edited the Widener biography page where the reverts took place. In most of the conflicts between EEng and Bgwhite, Bgwhite has been acting in an administrative role rather than as a disagreeing editor, although, just as EEng has, frankly, taunted Bgwhite, Bgwhite needs to start considering, going forward, that he is starting to be perceived as having an involved or prejudiced role. And I wish EEng would drop the review requests, because it would be asking a lot of any administrator reviewing the AN3 report to assume that, had EEng been reverted again, EEng would not have continued to revert, given what had already happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request was declined per WP:UNINVOLVED which reads "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fair comment. Thanks for clarifying that your decline was not "per WP:UNINVOLVED". But I think you should give a clear answer about it, one way or the other. If you think the block is still valid, that's fair enough. But at least we will all have clarity on when it is appropriate to block and when it is not. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John Vandenberg's comment about going over 3RR - there are very few circumstances when that's acceptable, and this certainly wasn't one of them. In this context, I think the block is valid. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is all quite academic at this point, but still enlightening. Magioladitis, you don't seem to have looked at the diff I supplied re INVOLVED [83] -- a discussion in which I asked (not of Bgwhite):
What purpose is served by activating it? Please answer in terms of how articles are improved by highlighting < p>, not in terms of the mechanisms of operation of these tools. EEng (talk) 11:33 am, 22 August 2014, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC-4)
and Bgwhite jumped in out of nowhere to reply
We've been thru this before. You do not like anything about Checkwiki. You've told us to fuck off. You've called us MOS Nazis. We show where in MOS, but you've used MOS is just a guideline/policy and IAR. The funny thing is, one of the reasons Phineas Gage is not a GA is because of your idiosyncratic formatting. The very thing we've been preaching is one of things holding back your GA nomination. Eleanor Elkins Widener is already on the whitelist and won't be checked for <p> again. Bgwhite (talk) 1:35 pm, 22 August 2014, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC-4)
(All false statements on Bgwhite's part, BTW, other than that I did refer to certain editors as "MOS Nazis", for which I later substituted "schoolmarmish know-it-alls" or something like that.) Now, does that really comport with UNINVOLVED's criterion, which reads
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias,
--? Hardly. Bgwhite lost his temper, repeatedly, and still allowed himself to act on his anger in an administrator's capacity. EEng (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I will step in here like a schoolmarmish know-it-all, and say that I stand by what I said earlier, that the block stepped up to the line of "involved" without quite crossing over it, and that Bgwhite should consider himself involved for the future. And beyond doubt, EEng has acted on his own anger as well. Which isn't worth it. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? An admin who says to an editor "You do not like anything about [this administrator's pet project]. You've told us to fuck off. You've called us MOS Nazis" is an "administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias"? Again, you must be joking. EEng (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You and I both have better things to do than to dwell on this, but when you have called other editors MOS Nazis, even if it is later changed to something else, you should drop it for your own sake. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The greater the extent to which one considers what I said offensive (I actually don't, per Mel Brooks) the more obvious is the INVOLVED aspect. EEng (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually feel bad for the article's creator Northamerica1000, since this deprived his article of the full time in the oven it deserved. Anyone want to propose that the hook be re-run? EEng (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hookers
How far from Connecticut to DYK? Original title: "Hooker's Company reach the Connecticut"
Ritchie333, I'm having trouble coming up with an appropriately suggestive pun on this, perhaps because "Parramatta Eels", "Sydney Roosters", and "hookers" make a frightening combination. EEng (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you've got hookers here, and you posted only about adult diapers on my talk page? Be careful your computer doesn't get a virus! (I always knew there was something shadey about DYK.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC) If only you knew... EEng (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right, but I'm going to stay neutral regarding various editor opinions about the hook that was run. People have divergent opinions. Perhaps consider adding a new hook as an ALT4 there! NorthAmerica100015:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking Far Side, because otherwise I wouldn't have known what that is. Anyway, here's one of my all-time favorite somethings. [85] -- sww "Secrets of the honeybee" story. One day at work they almost sent me home early because I couldn't stop bursting out laughing on conference calls with clients etc. EEng (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, that is very funny. Although, of course, that's why they're called Bee Featers. But I must stop droning on. Time for me to buzz off, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. helpful captions show how Wikipedia (any many other organisations) work[reply]
Hm. I thought they were raven feeders. (Linking raven feeders partly on the off chance you don't know about the ravens, but mostly so you can follow it to find out about Charlie's "ignominious end".) EEng (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I've often wondered which end of a raven is the ignominious one. Now we know. And see last hook here [86] -- probably we'll all end up at ANI.[reply]
Please stay with the discussion if you would be so kind. This is a classic example of the spinning wheel of random DYK requirements, depending on who happens by. EEng (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It's a shame how people who actually contribute content have to waste their time figuring out how to avoid being harassed by the technogeeks [88]EEng (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see now that there's quite some background to this whole p tag business -- it would appear I've been caught in heavy crossfire. Anyway, I think the 2nd (72h) block was more egregious. Rule says must blockbrz0101. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, your bad luck. What's weird is that you and I crossed paths with him on exactly the same trivial issue. [89] It seems he never learns. EEng (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the MOSNUM examples for ≥ and ≤ appear in the table (spaced), but when it's a number by itself, is the symbol spaced thus? "If the value is > 15, the procedure is likely to succeed". Or >15? Thx. Tony(talk) 11:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the question of whether and when mixing symbols and text like that is a good idea, I'd think that >, which is standing in for a word, should be spaced on both sides in your example. But that's just a guess, and in some contexts dropping the space on the right side might look better. (This is, after all, about what looks good, not some silly "correctness".) EEng (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks. I've since thought that because operators (+3, −3) are unspaced on the right, that "values of >3 should", "values <3 should", etc should also be unspaced on the right, since they look to me like operators in that context. The visual fails with the "is less than" sign, unspaced, to my eyes; but maybe that's the price for consistency. This seems like a different context to the spaced one in the title here. Tony(talk) 01:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your insult directed at me on the DYK nomination page is not appropriate nor appreciated. I expect an apology from you to be posted on that page. HalfGigtalk11:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an insult, I wasn't talking about you (or anyone else for that matter) [90], and there's nothing to apologize for. However, the fact that you feel compelled to imagine it was directed at you is something you might want to think about. EEng (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK that you misunderstood, but not OK that you can't just say, "Oh, I see, I misunderstood." For the last time: I wasn't referring to you (or, indeed, to anyone), there's nothing to apologize for, you embarrass yourself by continuing to whine about this, so please put a sock in it. As mentioned elsewhere, if you want to have the last word please do -- I'm unlikely to respond because experience shows you're unlikely to say anything new. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't you read the thread linked in my post above, Tfish, and see that it referred to no one. As Martinevans was able to see with ease (see below) this is all in the complainant's mind. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think HalfGig is in the right too, as far as how editors should treat one another i.e. civilly. Unfortunately that has no relevance here, since nothing, nothing in this matter has been in any way uncivil, unless you count HalfGig continuing to make accusations about an imagined slight. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:HalfGig, I too found the grammatical ambiguity in your first hook quite amusing. I assume it was unintentional. It's unfortunate that you took EEng's poking fun at that as poking fun at you. I'm sure you're the type of editor who likes a good Luffa now and again. I'm the true pun-kin head around here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. If he can't take it he shouldn't be dishing it out [91][92]. This guy's always angry. There's no dispute here, just his venting, so there's no dispute resolution to be made more difficult. EEng (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You having the most experience in the petty feud quarter, of course. Actaully, I was going to ask you to take over for me, since you and Bloom are always entertaining to watch. EEng (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo. I've turned over a new leaf, i.e. not arguing the toss with those who will never get it, plenty of them around. But the initial advice stands, start a thread rather than attempt a puerile debate via edit summaries. That way we'll get it all out in the open and neither of you will need to feel anxious or upset. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed you were less of a curmudgeon lately. Keep up the good work. There's nothing to debate, as BMS has made the needed fix, Bloom's incomprehension notwithstanding. EEng (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's more convincing when the person warning about "edit warring" isn't one of those doing the reverting. You're obviously angry about other things. [94][95]EEng (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See [96]] for what all this is about. As with earlier incidents recently (I seem to be making a habit of this [97]]) I'm pleased and gratified to be blocked at the behest of someone so transparently angry [98]. Hopefully this will allow him to cool down. EEng (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, the best thing I can think of is that a very long time ago, an unruly landlord took exception to the music the band I was in were playing, and at the end of the gig told us to not come back while turning a blind eye to a couple of drunks hurling our equipment out into the street, nearly causing injury due to a bass drum flying through the air. When 3RR wars break out, think of tales like that and remind yourself "it could be worse". Happy holidays. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you revert this edit. The comment is off-topic there and makes you look petty. I don't think it contributes to a good working climate, either between the two of you, or in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the suggestion, but decline. I'm not embarrassed to be blocked at the behest of someone like that, but I prefer that the context be on the record. EEng (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sometimes a typo is just a typo, but I'm not sure it's possible to distinguish one from a F.S. without more psychotherapy than my insurance will underwrite. Not intentional, at any rate. EEng (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that before, of course. I like where the doctor says "the bar entered a 'non-eloquent' area of the brain" -- likely Google-translate for the "silent area" – see [101]. What's really amazing about these kinds of amazing survivals is that they're not actually uncommon anymore. See Stone (1999) "Transcranial Brain Injuries Caused by Metal Rods or Pipes over the Past 150 Years". (My favorites: Case IX – "a young left-handed American Marine in a jeep accident near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who had a gear shift driven through his head ... On follow-up examination he was free of gross deficits and was eventually dismissed from the Marine Corps because of injuries to his knee. Some years later it was learned that he did have a dyslexia and had sought the help of a nun who trained him to read" – and Case XIV – "The victim and his friend were intoxicated and attempting a 'William Tell' maneuver ... The arrow was removed by pulling it through the brain along its original trajectory ..." I always find it amusing that details such as "near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", and the nun, are considered somehow relevant.) EEng (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said somewhere else, it just goes to show that hookers aren't appreciated, despite providing a much-in-demand service. EEng (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Today is "National shit on EEng from a great height day". Please bring your rotten tomatoes and automated insult generators. Thankyou. Image courtesy of Ritchie333
How prescient of you (see below). In the event, it apparently didn't. So what do you think -- should I file the ritual futile unblock request? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll specify just why you blocked me, I'll consult my glittering salon of talkpage stalkers for advice on whether I should file the ritual futile appeal. EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ked me, I'll consult my glittering salon of talkpage stalkers for advice on whether I should file the ritual futile appeal. EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies:, @Yngvadottir: - I've just had a GA review torpedoed as a result of EEng's block, I don't suppose you've be awfully kind like you were to the Best Known For IP and consider "time served" would you? EEng, I think you've made your point in the AfD (as have I) and we should both leave it alone. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving a talk page
A large pile of composted Talk Page threads can spontaneously combust if not properly managed
You always lift the spirits of those around you. Listen, will you please check your inbox/junk folder and get something useful done while I'm doing my penance here? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If only I could get to the bottom of it! But, irony of ironies, it seems you "can't actually archive your page until the block is expired, because you can't edit the Archive sub-page..." or so come kindly technical chap tells us. Now there's something in need of tweaking. However will you fill your time? A trip to Cornwall never goes amis. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, yes. While he was well-intentioned, I'm afraid our friend fell into what appears to be an endemic trap at GA, which is WP:Reviewing_good_articles#Imposing_your_personal_criteria. Please stay with it. I need your honest opinion on whether you can see these "image and quote" problems. If so, I'll fix them. Either way, after that I'd like to renominate and get a proper (i.e. stick-to-the-criteria) review from you. EEng (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so [103] though you'll need a better source than any of those -- you'd probably find it in the liner notes of one of his albums (not sure if that counts as a RS -- never thought about it). Did you get my email???EEng (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, many thanks. I was thrown by the Google translation of "Berklee" as "Berkley". My knowledge of Czech is pretty limited and I have to guess. But I can't even guess when it somes to Hebrew! Jakubovic's liner notes are often a bit scant, to say the least. Sorry no access to email at the moment, but I will check as soon as I can. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"My knowledge of Czech is pretty limited." I had an instructor once who mentioned that he was going to have a busy term because he was taking over a sick colleague's Akkadian class "and my Akkadian is pretty rusty." I found that endlessly amusing. I mean -- how to do you stay supple in Akkadian? A sabbatical in Akkadia? And how would anyone know? If you just fake it, what are the chances you'll get found out? Glad I could help. EEng (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC) I was a bit pissed off when I wrote the email -- I really thought you were playing with fire at my expense -- so please see past that.[reply]
If someone has 100 DYK credits to his name, all for articles that he himself created, and now he's nominating someone else's work, does he have to submit a QPQ? Or does he get a grace period until he has 5 DYK nominations of other people's work? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered, but if you're coming to me because I'm considered "the expert" then DYK -- indeed all of WP -- is doomed. Nonetheless I'll do my best to resolve this recalcitrant riddle. My interpretation of WP:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria (5) is that, once you have 5 credits for whatever reason, you have to start doing one review for every nom you make. So no grace period for your friend. EEng (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was not the founder. The Colony decided to create New College. Harvard's will gave some (half?) of his estate to the endevor. In return, the colony named the college for him. Read the article. - Denimadept (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are correct as far as you state them, but you misunderstand the use of the word "founder" in the context of John Harvard. I've augmented the article to cclarify [104]. EEng (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently didn't read my edit summary [105], and an article on a bridge article shouldn't be discussing who founded Harvard College anyway. This has been elaborately explained elsewhere as well [106], plus additional citations were added this morning which you seem to have overlooked [107]. EEng (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I'm saying this as one friend to another - leave ANI alone. Rubbing Drmies up the wrong way is likely to result in a block, possibly an indefinite one. Now, don't take that as meaning I support or want you to be blocked - I don't! But the peanut gallery at ANI generally don't tend to evaluate the pros and cons of an editor, and once you've been dragged there a few times and blocked, it's easy for said peanut gallery to think "he's not here to write an encyclopedia" and break out the banhammers. Please, just stick to articles and DYKs - whatever other disagreements we've had recently I can honestly say your work at DYK is a good thing and very much appreciated for keeping the quality of the main page upheld. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I doubt that anyone is going to blocked for rubbing me the wrong way, and I'm not going to block for it. And Ritchie, it wasn't just the peanut gallery, if that's what those folks were: ANI, as I feel I have to explain constantly, is not a forum--and so, EEng, it doesn't matter whether something takes three hours or not. It's consensus plus an admin's judgment, and in this case the admin is me. Few people dislike the forumy peanuty chatter at ANI more than I do--but I hope that there's at least one person in the room who understands that the constant reopening of threads and the persistent shit-smearing in that discussion is, in general and in the long run, what makes ANI the barrel o' crap it is. So, EEng, you made a comment, I (and a couple of others) thought it violated guidelines for talk page behavior, I removed it--and really that's all there is to it. I got no problem with you, and you can complain as much as you like as long as it's not too disruptive. Also, I don't work for Harvard either--does that help? Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What, I should just sit around while ol' BGwhite just makes up stuff up (e.g. that I work for Harvard)? I understand what you're saying, but I feel the best thing you can do (for me, for you, and for WP) is to speak up yourself and say what you think. These people are out of control.
Thanks for the complements re DYK. I'm not mad at you re GA, but I do think you misunderstand what the standard is meant to be there, along with most everyone else at GA, which is why it seems few quality editors care about GA status for articles anymore -- articles get GA status for conforming to very cramped ideas of what articles should look (not stated in the GACR, though) with little regard for whether they're anything anyone would actually care to read. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your contribution to the day's events is of course most welcome. As mentioned to Ritchie above, though, speaking up at the venue is important too almost as important. At heart this intolerance of criticism is a serious threat to the project. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll just have to put Widener behind us, but on the general principle I am in pretty much agreement with your views on GAs; on more than a few occasions (eg: Talk:1988–94 British broadcasting voice restrictions/GA1) I have passed a GA with a comment like "well we've got issues with x, y and z but they're not part of the GA criteria so I'm passing anyway". IMHO the following are not required to pass GA : infoboxes, templates, categories, URLs for print sources that happen to be online, non-free images, audio files, an inline source at the end of each paragraph, links to other articles, any external links .... I could go on.
It would have been nice when you did not use PAs to blemish a nominator on an article. The article was rotten, unsourced and seemed to fail WP:GNG. Thanks to your work to add all kinds of related sources the article is now just rotten and seems to fail WP;GNG. Congratulations with that achievement. The Bannertalk20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks to your work to add all kinds of related sources the article is now just rotten" -- I guess I've been confused all these years, because I thought adding relevant sources is what we're supposed to do. Anyway, the article may be rotten (and it is) but that's got nothing to do with AfD. The article was unsourced, but if you'd simply googled the article title you would have come up with several good sources immediately, and saved us all this trouble. It's not a "PA" to point out that you apparently didn't do that, as WP:BEFORE calls for you to do. You seem to be under a misapprehension about how AfD works -- articles don't pass or fail AfD, rather their subjects do, regardless of what's in the article. EEng (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Eliot Morison was a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. Mason Hammond was one of the real-life "Monuments Men" you may have learned a bit about in the recent film of that title. If you're seriously suggesting they're not reliable sources then I'm afraid there's a gap between us that further discussion will be unable to bridge. EEng (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sorry if I seemed pissy...
No problem. You didn't seem ... anything.
But I believe I must apologize for bad reverting. Not that I don't like the change; in fact I do. If the sroc's change is finalized formally, I can finally act upon it. But if I acted upon it and then someone spring the same revert on me objecting the bad MOS change, then I'd be unfairly in trouble. Fleet Command (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying out of that one -- these date-consistency wars make my head explode. sroc's a good guy/gal BTW, in my experience, so I'm sure y'all can work it out. EEng (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to explain if you don't know the background. "Longevity" has been target to an amazing amount of POV-pushing and spamming for about 10 years. RY was eventually blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry; see [108] and also [109]. Of course none of that has anything to do with notabilty, except that you can always rely that whatever sources are offered are the most marginal, strained, thin ones you can imagine. There's an overview of the sources at User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#He.27s_baaaaack_(again). If no other sources are added in the next week or so I'll be taking it to AfD. EEng (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. What is AfD again? It's hard to find stuff quickly in Wikipedia's help desk. thanks
"Articles for Deletion", where editors discuss whether a subject meets the minimum notability criteria to have its own article -- see [110]. In rereading that, I find a post by RY which pretty much sums up the bizarre flavor of everything related to him and longevity: he describes himself as "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". Eventually he was topic-banned from longevity (see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Ryoung122) and later blocked indefinitely for continuing to edit in that area via sockpuppets. I believe you'll find that most editors feel that the longevity quagmire, in terms of the amount of community time spent refereeing behavioral problems, has been one of the most destructive and wasteful in WP's history. EEng (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help, but you know I'm twiddling my thumbs until I get the go-ahead after the latest concerns were raised. Your turn! EEng (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to start another interminable discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, so I'll comment here first. The spirit of your latest edit was fine by me, but the precise wording of the first change could confuse some editors. I undid it, but then decided to leave it for the present. My concern is over an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body and whether people will grasp that it has to be read in conjunction with the next point which allows YYYY-MM-DD in limited contexts. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not participate in the discussion leading to this change, but for some reason was asked to be a kind of neutral implementer of the changes apparently agreed upon. Having said that, I don't see how there can be any confusion, since there is clearly a list of three alternatives, and the second one (which you quote above) doesn't restrict the possibility of using the third one. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding. In any event if you think there's a clarifying change that will help, by all means raise it at Talk:MOSDATE. Better to get things as perfect as possible while it's all relatively fresh in everyone's mind. EEng (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spaced en dash with a range of approximate dates?
The MoS (up to about 13 January 2014) used to call for a spaced en dash if either date in a range of dates contained a space. I see that you were in the middle of that MoS change, but I couldn't find any discussion regarding it. Was there some reason for dropping that requirement, or was it just something lost in the shuffle? There is no specific guidance now for how to correctly format a case like "Otto Schulmklopfer (c. 1819 – c. 1871)", though the example "Dionysius Exiguus (c. 470 – c. 540)" still uses a spaced en dash. I have added spaces to en dashes in cases like this and had them undone, and now find my ammunition disappeared around January last year. Any clarification would be appreciated. Christhe spelleryack03:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check doesn't find that the interaction between c. (& c.) and spacing of the en dash was ever explicitly stated, but anyway I added something [111]. Does that do the trick? EEng (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that clusterfuck but I thought there might be something else, in the absence of which I'll just preserve the text on this as is, but not add this as a ref 'cause I think that to do so will just cause trouble. (There'll be trouble sooner or later on this, of course -- a house divided against itself cannot stand -- but I don't want to be the one to spark it.) But if you think it's helpful go an ahead and add it yourself (as a footnote, I would think) -- it's your funeral. EEng (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is better. I knew that my change was awkward, but I wanted to make the most minimal change possible for it to be correct. As for your next edit, I think we'll have to add a time machine to the DYK toolbox, so people can verify that an article will be created, expanded, or GA-ized in the year after it appears as an April Fools' Day DYK. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know, actually, and your timing is perfect as I'm in Berkeley just now so I'll pop down and have a talk with them. If MT had direct contact with the family, which is remotely possible, he could have mentioned it in these materials. EEng (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and thanks for catching it. For some reason stuff like that only happens when I'm being a smartalec. EEng (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^Consult your doctor before trying this medicine. Symptoms include: a systemic allergic reaction, a worsening of withdrawal symptoms for not placing {{ANI-notice}} in months, and casting the first stone.
For your reading pleasure/horror/sign of all thats wrong in the world.
EEng, this edit crossed a line. I know you are eager for the AfD to close, but this edit was borderline vandalism in as much as you deliberately edited the article to make it the subject of an in-joke. Regardless of her suitability to have a standalone article, it is not hard to work out that Dr Thabet is a real person with a real Facebook account and a real Twitter feed. Just sit back and be patient. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second -- it can't be "borderline" and also "cross the line". Jeesh! But I will agree temptation got the best of me. EEng (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oy - I've only used revdel twice and got yanked off to ANI for the first time ever for it. You can't see the diff now because your prayers were finally answered when another admin deleted the article per WP:CSD#G3. I'm sure I could sit down with Dr Thabet and have a nice cup of tea and some chocolate digestives. Maybe I'll bring some Wickedly Welsh Chocolate along. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know about your trouble re revdel, which is why I gave you a hard time about it. Just to, you know, twist the knife a little. I'd stay away from this Thabet character -- she might atomize you into dark-matter interstellar space or something. EEng (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know they say no one's indispensable, but in the case of catchy hooks, you have been the only one doing anything about it. Where have you been lately? I really felt I had nothing but "blah" to work with while assembling Preps 3 and 4 last night. The part about hooks being "hooky" should be written in the rules in blood! Yoninah (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, beating back the philistine forces of Professional Wikiism and Stultified Solemn Dignity [113] has left little time for actual hooking. But I did manage to get in [114]
Well somewhere in my monobook is a script which does precisely what you're looking for, highlighting dabs and redirects and all that jazz. It's most likely to be "Anomie's stuff" but feel free to copy, paste, refresh cache and see how it goes. P.S. Clear out your talk page. Too long by about a factor of five.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your edit summary here, could you clarify your intent? Did you mean to be offensive? If you are trying to piss off other editors - to use your phrasing - why complain at all? It's okay when you do it and you're special? I'm not understanding the message you're sending here. --Pete (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The grrrr of my edit summary distills what the edit itself says: "I'm beginning to see why everyone's so pissed off at you." For example, you keep fussing that date-format choices for particular articles shouldn't be decided at Talk:MOS. That's true -- but nobody's proposing to do that nor is trying to do that. Your "You do understand this, don't you?" was the icing on the cake. EEng (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that - and your incorrect perception - but could you answer my question, please? Evading the point just makes me more curious to hear your explanation. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the answers to the questions in your OP:
Q: Looking at your edit summary here, could you clarify your intent?
A: As already explained, grrrr expressed frustration.
Q: Did you mean to be offensive?
A: No.
Q: If you are trying to piss off other editors - to use your phrasing - why complain at all?
A: Aside from being rhetorical, question is counterfactual since I'm not trying to piss off other editors.
Q: It's okay when you do it and you're special?
A: I don't know what it refers to, but we're all special in our own ways.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm astonished that you don't see how your edit summary could be taken as offensive, but your answers make this clearer. Perhaps you could be more careful in future? --Pete (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're easily astonished, and no extra care is needed. Now stop wasting my time trying to conform my edit summaries (!) to your delicate sensibilities. EEng (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hover your mouse over the link and you'll see it points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mikado#behold. If you click on the link you'll see it takes you not only into the Mikado article, but the #behold makes it go specifically to the location of the {{anchor|behold}}, where that particular song is discussed.
Oh, shut up. Over-indenting an earlier comment (as I've done here) makes clear that I'm responding to you, not to the immediately prior post. EEng (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably catch hell for this, but my patience has run out. Will you please stop making personal attacks against The Rambling Man on WT:DYK and anywhere else. I'm dead against blocking established contributors, but other admins are not, as you well know. Attacks don't help your argument, it just means people either think the other party is right or ignore the conversation. Please, do something else. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fucking kidding? Where were you yesterday when he said I "continually accept, even promote, the mediocre"? Making accusations requires evidence, which he has twice coyly refused to give. He's been insulting everyone at DYK on a daily basis now for months, and it's time someone bells the cat. EEng (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I am not happy about TRM referring to DYK as "horseshit" either, but when I look at the arguments presented, his are geared more towards content, and yours seem more geared towards him as a person. Why can't you just get along? I see Bencherlite has presented a pretty good summary of how to quell this dispute, and I would take that good advice at face value. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, he hasn't. He's giving TRM carte blanche to continue his constant denigration of other editors, now including me directly. As I explain here [116] TRM's a liar who says whatever pops into his head. EEng (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A typical cart blanche (note use of "soaked head").
That may be, but given that calling people liars is covered by NPA, if someone continually does it after being asked to stop, they generally end up blocked. Believe me, I know how you feel. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, repeatedly referring to someone's "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre" [117], with the clear implication that I'm doing it on purpose in contravention of policy-- and just to be clear, I'm neither doing in on purpose, nor doing it at all (I don't do DYK reviews nor put prep sets together) -- then refusing to back that statement up, is also a personal attack, but none of the drive-by admins give a shit about that. (It's worth noting, BTW, that none of the admins who regularly hang out at DYK -- all of whom were uninvolved, cared to block.) In case you missed it, check this [118] out to see who's actually working to improve quality at DYK, and who's just complaining. EEng (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't any drive-by; I read the discussions and have WT:DYK on my watchlist (I used to comment there often). You'll also note that I only blocked after the last spat, which none of the other admins saw. If you have a problem with this block, please request an unblock and/or go to ANI—I am always happy to bring any actions I take as an administrator in front of a wider forum. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right, like anyone in his right mind would submit an unblock request or take it to ANI -- not that I give a shit about a 31-hour block, or any block like this really. They're monuments to the dysfunction of the admin system.
But how about if I just ask you: if you read the thread, how do you see this [119] fitting into the picture? Do you think it's OK for an editor (an admin at that) to go around saying things like that (and he's been saying it about me for almost a year) with impunity? See, I don't give a shit about being blocked, but I do give a shit about aspersions about my editing, competency, and adherence to policy and guidelines. So again, please explain how what I said at that diff figured into your decision to block.
And while you're at it, given that you felt block(s) were needed (and they weren't -- TRM and I are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves), please complete your sentence addressed to TRM here --
I seriously debated blocking you as well for blatant baiting.
-- using the word but, as in --
I seriously debated blocking you as well for blatant baiting, but I didn't because _______________________.
You fill in the blank, please. EEng (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. The [name of impressive laboratory device] is warmed up now, so I'll be gone until sometime tomorrow -- take your time.[reply]
(a) Only one person was making personal attacks. (b) You had been warned. I actually came here to warn you, and blocked only after I saw this section. I'm done engaging here. Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so, having ignored both questions, the drive-by admin declares the discussion closed and drives on. So much for WP:ADMINACCT:
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
Only blocking one party in this playground squabble seems a bit unbalanced. I think I'd personally take "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre" as a personal attack. As EEng points out he doesn't "do DYK reviews nor put prep sets together". It's a shame that Old Rambler hadn't "done engaging" a lot sooner too. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. I thought it was EEng's hopelessly juvenile "orgasm" comment that tipped the balance and led you to block him for "disruptive editing"?[reply]
I am unblocking based on "time served", on the T:DYK thread being hatted, and on TRM asserting on my talk that he will not continue the feud, shrugging it off as "a clash of egos". Since we can't leave people blocked when the cause of disruption goes away, I'm doing it now. There now follows a choice of viewing. On BBC ANI, a discussion on censorship between Derek Hart, the Bishop of Woolwich and a nude man, and on BBC Eeng, me telling you this. And now....Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the gesture, Ritchie, but I'd rather that during the dispute you'd taken the time to see what Martin sees so clearly above: TRM attacked me repeatedly (and falsely) with impunity, and when I finally told him to shove it up his ass, I got blocked. EEng (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your wit, constructive sarcasm and edgy humor, your perspective and contributions, sometimes contentious but worth it. I could bet serious money that your wiki-adventures here may someday be the start of a novel novel.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I was talking to Tom's Ulcer, not you. That's what the overindenting is for, remember??? Geesh. EEng (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC) But you're welcome too.[reply]
Sooner or later I will probably visit Cambridge and perhaps we can arrange a get-together. Hope you are doing fine. I'll check out Charles R. Apted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit comment: "Type 'a' when you want 'a', a 'b' when you want 'b' ..."
Are you serious [120]? It's no issue to me (and I will not argue the point), but I couldn't believe that those edit notes make any worthwhile difference. My logic is as follows:
There are those who are familiar with editing tables and for whom the edit summary is distracting.
There are those who are not as familiar with editing tables, but try and notice that they've messed up the table, and then figure out how to fix it.
There are those who are unfamiliar with editing tables and would not notice that they'd messed it up but happen to take note of the edit note. But then they would probably mess up the table in other ways at the same time, even if they'd taken note of the edit note.
There are those who just don't pay attention to anything, including the edit note.
The edit note usefully addresses only the subset of the third bullet who did not mess up the table in any other way. Also, editors do not stay in that category for long (they tend to move up the list fairly fast), and the edit rate of this table is probably not high, especially since the less experienced editors probably do not make many edits to the MoS (at least edits that will not be reverted in their entirety anyway). Given this "nonempirical logic", I'm interested to know whether you've found that the edit notes have made any observable difference? Or are they there mainly to express frustration? —Quondum17:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created that table and have nursed it even since. When I added the warning, problems with people forgetting to adjust the rowspans -- including those not carrying that note -- seem to decrease. It's easy to overlook that the rowspans are there at all, and this acts as an alert. They're certainly not hurting anything and they may be helping, so let's leave them. EEng (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its you who is on the side of the wiki. Beware of trolls who claim they are there to repair the bridge... they are trolls - they don't repair the bridge they just curse those who repair the bridge and note how they would remove the bridge as that would prevent repairs being made. Remember to finish talking when its obvious you are in the lead. Let the uncivil have the last word. This barnstar is for all the great work you do and I don't want you to feel unappreciated. I rarely comment at DYK talk because of the uncivil comments made by those who are not in your league of contributions to the project. You don't need to prove that people are uncivil - its obvious to all. You don't need to show that you are assisting the project - that's obvious too - hence this barnstar. Nil desperandum. Victuallers (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I'm not sure how obvious things were to others, since the only comments (other than equivocal ones) were by drive-by admins grabbing the wrong end of the stick. But here's how you can help, despite your understandable distaste for the atmosphere: comment at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. If we can make basic grammar a DYK criterion, we won't have to listen to Rambling Man's complaining any more. EEng (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My worry is that even if the sulky child is demanding something sensible then why would I support their agenda. The demands won't be complete until we include the silliest of ideas like "lazy redirects"... ???? At some point we have to say that Wikipedia is flawed. Always is, always will be. Getting the main page to FA status is just a crazy idea. If you think that doing "X" would mean that we wouldn't have to listen to uncivil and irrational demands then I do hope you are right, but I fear that you are being over optimistic. Talk at DYK is just toxic - we need to find somewhere else or ignore uncivil comments entirely. I'm trying to do thr latter and others are too, if you discuss there then you may feel alone - but you are not. Meanwhile Well done. Victuallers (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nonsense like "lazy redirects" is... well, nonsense, but I asking that an article linked from MP have no obvious grammar boners does seem realistic. If you haven't already please do comment at the link I gave. I'd appreciate it. EEng (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accusation struck
It was actually with reference to the awful choice of hook you promoted for the Grace Kelly filmography, which I subsequently fixed, but never mind. Perhaps now you could remove some of your personal attacks? If not, don't worry. I've supported your proposition, for the numbers. Perhaps now we can bury the axe (not in my head) and crack on with fixing the problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I have this right. I promoted the hook
... that '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|Grace Kelly]]''' won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then retired from acting the following year at the age of 26?
... that [[Grace Kelly]] won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|retired from acting]]''' the following year at the age of 26?
And that's what you called my "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre, or worse" that "is damaging Wikipedia"???[122] I appreciate the strike, but please tell me you see how outrageous -- bizarre, really -- an accusation that was. EEng (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a pisspoor choice of a hook, and I was actually genuinely surprised that you sanctioned it. Believe it or not, that actually flatters you. It was worse than mediocre. It was foremost in my mind at the time I wrote what I did. Who knows, it may be the only one you've ever done to that standard. I also felt like noting that using a search on Template edits is all very well, but you didn't do a search on edits I've made on prospective articles listed in prep and queues. That may seriously slew your claim that I do so much less than you at DYK. But it matters not. I have no further interest in pissing in the wind trying to debate things with you. Your ongoing accusations of me being a bully and a liar are too much for me, much like why I left DYK in the first place, after you'd made it clear that DYK was your place and who was I to be there, complaining about the lack of quality etc etc while you wisecracked your way through everything, abjectly belittling and bullying those with whom you disagreed. It was only when I saw the quality control diminish to nothing that I felt the need to interact again. Now you seem to entirely agree that the quality is appalling, and to see a promoting admin suggest that he moved an article he described as "abysmal" to the main page has been a real eye-opener that we wouldn't have got from this debate if we hadn't have been cock-blocking. Sure, it didn't pan out as I wanted, and I sure as hell never wanted you to be blocked for anything, even the personal attacks, even the repeated liar and the fuck himself and the soak your head (although the latter belongs at kindergarten, as I'm sure you now agree) and the endless "kvetching" (do consider that some of us really don't care for this kind of kvetching). Do us all a favour, agree to move on, as I have offered to do, if you'd like to strike some of the attacks and so on, fine, if not, fine, history will see it for what it is (as you have demonstrated in your keenness to keep the collapsed discussion uncollapsed). If you'd prefer to keep the attacks going, so be it, and I'll have some belters for you. This is my best, last and final offer, do with it as you will. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at some of the things you're saying:
No, it was a pisspoor choice of a hook
If you think linking to Grace Kelly versus to Grace Kelly filmography is anything like a shocking indictment of DYK then you've lost all perspective.
Believe it or not, that actually flatters you. It was worse than mediocre.
Again with the insults you so freely spit at everyone.
Who knows, it may be the only one you've ever done to that standard.
If you don't know whether it's "the only one", then what possible justification could you have had for your comment that I "continually accept, even promote, the mediocre, or worse"? It's nice that you've now retracted that statement—days after you were challenged to back it up and refused to do so—but that you insisted on leaving it in place for so long makes you... yes, a liar if you knew it was inappropriate all along, or... just plain deluded if you actually think it was appropriate i.e. that the isolated example of the mistaken (as you see it) link discussed above justifies such calumny. Take your pick.
[123]Here this just comes across as unnecessarily abrasive; by editorialising a problem, strawmanning those who don't agree, shaming the reviewers and then using it as an excuse to deplore the failings of DYK. Highlighting a problem can be quite useful, as with any constructive feedback, but continuously using fresh examples to advance an argument while indirectly pillorying good faith contributors is disruptive.
This is very much what I've been saying to you for months:
[124]Why do you keep saying I'm happy to have not-so-well-written articles appear? I'm not. I've simply pointed out that the review process as it stands does nothing to prevent that ... The people who participate here already share your concerns about quality, on the whole, so you're preaching to the converted -- and insulting and annoying them at the same time.
[125]If you think DYK criteria should be changed (and I agree they should -- if it were up to me DYK would carry only GAs) make a proposal for a change to those criteria. But you're wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria.
[126]You're not asking nicely but with highhandedbess and sarcasm. "For you Americans, let's call it DYK 101"—go soak your head, will you? I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into—the word toxic comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping.
I have no desire to drive you away from DYK, but I do want you to stop that behavior: Stop belittling other editors for not enforcing standards not in the criteria, no matter how "obvious" such standards may seem, to you (or even me), to be. Instead, help get the criteria changed.
I appreciate your recent support for adding basic grammar as a DYK criterion, and if we can get that to happen, you and I both will have less to bemoan in the future. EEng (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this was not yet another opportunity for you to keep the fight going. I have no interest in you repeatedly and repetitively going over old ground. If you wish to move forward, let's do that, if you don't, just say so, leave the personal attacks and the repeated claims all over the encyclopedia, and I'll know exactly where I stand and where to go next. That you ignored pretty much every sentence of my note speaks volumes in that regard. I will not be watching this page for a response, as it seems fruitless to do so. Moreover I will continue to fix up the articles that are being promoted to the main page via DYK despite some of them being "abysmal" and will comment accordingly. The sooner you realise that your approach has also turned off many editors, and driven some away (myself included, temporarily) , so much the better for you and the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only criticism I've received in this matter is from admins warning me not to call you a liar, and they're right -- I should have called your comments "grossly unfair and contrary to fact", not called you a liar. As for what others think of your behavior I again refer to Fuebaey's comment above. And -- oh yes -- this and this and this and this and this and ... EEng (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the tip on the link-coloring js.[reply]
Going for the record?
For longest talkpage? You ever read this old stuff or you just like scrolling?
Regarding the query in your edit summary on The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, the Baring-Gould commentary to NOBL describes "Lord St. Simon" as a "solecism," because St. Simon was a second son. But if that is so, it is a solecism that was perpetrated by Conan Doyle (or should I say Dr. Watson?) himself, and so we probably should feel comfortable leaving it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I remembered that B-G had said something about this, but I'm at that age where I'm sometimes too lazy to get out of my chair to go find out exactly what. Thanks for taking the time. But who's this Conan Doyle? EEng (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded—although, to be fair, it seems our colleague's primary concern was actually that the article would lead to sweeping bans on meat consumption, and that incensed meat lovers, driven savage by frustrated bloodlust, would seek gory revenge at health food stores. FourViolas (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, when you make edits like this, i.e. quoting extensively from the prose of an article written by someone else, followed or preceded by sweeping, judgmental exegeses like "classic OR", it is generally a good idea to let the editor in question know so they have an opportunity to respond. In this case, you didn't, and I feel somewhat blindsided.
In the same vein, disparaging the votes that are going against you in an AfD isn't a particularly good idea, either. There is a lot more to them than just "passes GNG".
That said, in the case of some of the excerpts you posted I am amenable to making changes. However this will have wait till later next week when I have returned from Mexico, where I'm at Wikimania right now. I just don't have the time or the resources right now. The DYK nom is being held open pending the resolution of the AfD, which I don't think will have happened by then, so there's no rush. Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've been around long enough to know you should keep your own DYK nominations watchlisted. The term is nothing more than a neologism for an age-old phenomenon that does not itself merit an article: young people who don't know how to dress at work. The OR is extensive, the article a kind of coatrack for stories of mis-attired young people who happen to work, specifically, in Congress. EEng (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. No apology whatsoever, no consideration given to the idea that I might have had hurt feelings, not even transparently insincere lip service. Instead, a lecture (which you should not have presumed to give) on how you think I'm supposed to handle my workload (something not even the Eric Corbetts of the world would have done), and a clear demonstration of your congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach ).
I knew I was right not to check back here.
Keep up like this, and one of these days you're going to be sitting in front of the ArbCom, nervously twitching as they decide whether you will have any future at the project to speak of. When that day comes, count on me not being among those pleading on your behalf. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want transparently insincere lip service?
There's nothing to apologize for, and I have no idea what you mean about a "lecture". As Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article says, "Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion."
Should I ever end up at Arbcom (and it happens to the best of us) I'll just stand on my record, thanks very much. Being blocked for calling someone—the blocking admin himself, in fact!—a "self-satisfied roving enforcer" is hardly a badge of shame [128], especially when an admin such as yourself feels free to refer to another editor's "congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach)."
Anyway, sorry to disappoint you but my parents were the first in their (working-class) families to attend college—state schools, by the way—so no legacy I. Scholarship, too—does that fill you with even more resentment and anger?
@Daniel Case: I'm sorry for your hurt feelings. It must be upsetting to have your article criticized so comprehensively.
Even so, I wonder if you'd like to strike any of your comment. It's probably not the place of a relatively new user like myself to remind you to comment on content, not contributors, but I'm saddened to see an oversighter resort to an ad hominem vulgarity over an AfD. WP consensus on the limits of civility may have its vagaries, but one's interlocutors' anuses are generally not discussed IRL. FourViolas (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree that the less oversight of interlocutory anuses, the better, though of course this isn't real life. EEng (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I think you may be confusing ad hominem arguments with ad homonym arguments. That happens a lot since they sound alike. (I've made that joke before but I like to trot it out now and then.)[reply]
Zenobia
This is not Zenobia
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Neither is this
I just added Zenobia (bird) to the DYK stats page, and that reminded me that I wanted to thank you for your work on the article. Hooks/articles that I encounter among the nominations which I actually find interesting are, unfortunately, about as rare as those poor birds, so I was really glad that we were able to salvage this one for DYK. Sorry that your desired hook couldn't be used, but the one that made it to the Main Page got over eight thousand hits. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM01:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did the same thing I did years ago, when I created a userbox with the image File:MagrittePipe.jpg and a caption "This is not a userbox." Here I managed to beat the bot before it could drop by to unceremoniously remove the non-free image, and have instead replaced it with a crude substitute. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM07:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what to put here, I'm laughing too hard
I will admit that I stand with User:Softlavender. You're talk page is hilarious! Well done at getting into so many hilarious scenarios and being able to be both serious and humorous as needed!
You deserve every single one of these that you get:
Hello E. I got a chuckle out of this though I am not sure if that will be the reaction of everyone. Should someone start editing from the great beyond I think a new SPI report (that would be a spookpuppet investigation) would need to be opened. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk17:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sooooo tempted to type something on that page and have Ritchie explain his way out of that (yes, fingers would be pointed straight at him when queried). Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reversion on Houghton Library. As a WikiGnome, it's been a habit of me to correct the bolded stuff in the lead. I didn't realize the lack of the "the" in this case. Should've read through it more though (and probably shouldn't have edited so late into the night). Thanks. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EEng. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
*Watches the Canadian Parliament write up the EEng Exclusion Act 2015* Well, someone just got barred for life. Now, for the smugglers. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But do I gather correctly that since your post here the problem has been resolved? I've added the nom to my watchlist so that if there's further trouble I can leap into action.
7&6=thirteen, as you may have realized I've stopped participating regularly at DYK, but you know I love a goofy hook, so any time you have an article that lends itself to such treatment, feel free to call on me. It will bring a ray of sunshine into the life of a forgotten DYK shut-in to know I can still be useful. BTW, have you visited the museums lately? EEng (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know you love goofy hooks and puns.
I can see why one might avoid WP:DYK, particularly on a daily basis. This article is a good (but by no means the worst) example. Sisyphus comes to mind. If you have any insight, it would be appreciated. Thank you for adding it to your watch. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎)18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not pass go
While this looks suspiciously like a barnstar, it's actually a prison tattoo.Once you've seen one content dispute, you've seen 'em all!
Hey EEng, shouldn't the caption say "If you want to take on metrics vs. imperials in articles, that's your business. I've got a more pleasant appointment to keep." not "English" since even the English don't use their own system anymore? Or have I missed something here? Probably missed something, but still ... Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I can't get an answer from physicists as to whether spacetime is curved in relation to the interaction between protons and electrons on the atomic level. I was just wondering ... Tony(talk) 06:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to know I have an ally when trouble arises. Thank you for your cogent and temperate support. I owe you other communication. One of these days, perhaps when you have given up all hope. In the meantime, if you would like me to set up auto-archiving on your page here, let me know; I'd be happy to help. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tempted into stupid ideas... beliving this will be saving Wikipedia or tidying it upp....
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harvard University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
How clever of you to copy exactly the warning [135] left by another editor, on your talk page, regarding your behavior in this very matter!
It seems that, stymied in describing King's College as "one of the world's most selective and prestigious" schools [136], you've made it your mission [137][138][139][140][141] (based on your misunderstanding of WP:PEACOCK) to remove the word prestigious from Harvard University, despite the fact that abundant sources support this characterization. You've been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, and repeatedly directed to discussions such as Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_4#The_Header_Dispute; and I'm afraid I must quote something that another editor (an expert on higher education) wrote in that discussion to the last person who went on the same crusade you're on: "I suggest that if you don't know that Harvard is considered one of the world's most prestigious universities then you're incompetent to edit this article." So smarten up. EEng (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the great things about Harvard is that everyone who works there, including the cops, plumbers, and dining hall workers, seems to have some hidden talent or interest. The night guard at Lowell House had an extensive knowledge of the Federalist Papers, and my roommate used to get help with his Greek homework from the guy who checks your bags on the way out of the library. During the long struggle for unionization, the union's motto was "We can't eat prestige". You gotta love the dry humor for a serious situation. EEng (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Words fail. When you unblock me, please make sure your entry in the block log makes clear the nature of your original action in instituting the block; the words "outrageous", "tone-deaf", "absurd", "ridiculous", and "incompetent" would all be good choices. EEng (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A 48 hour block would have been appropriate for the shitty attitude you have been laying down at ANI. While it may be fun and jokes you were getting into topics that did not involve you and grinding your axe. You were adding heat to situations that did not need heat added to them. The indef was over the top, but your behaviour was not so innocent either. The block was excessive but did not occur in a vacuum. Really if a reasonable length block has been made it would have stuck, so don't act too self-righteous. HighInBC16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC: Pardon me, but what in the world are you talking about? "Grinding axe" -- huh? Here's every ANI post I made in the week before the block. Which ones are in any way inappropriate?
If you're one of these people who thinks that humor doesn't have a useful purpose, including (or even especially) in difficult situations, then please add yourself to the list of admins whose experience of the world is sufficiently limited that you should probably leave behavioral blocks, other than obvious vandalism, to those with a broader perspective and more social clue. EEng (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept your false dichotomy. The fact is you are going to topics that don't involve you and taking up space commenting on things that in no way help the situations. I don't think that thinking this is annoying and unhelpful means I don't think humour has a useful purpose. Your humour is taking the form of telling people off. If I have made your "list of admins" that is too bad, but perhaps consider that your behaviour is also a factor. HighInBC16:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC: Again: huh? Of the three posts above, one was an image adding harmless comic relief to the otherwise dreary ANI landscape, and the other three were absolutely serious comments on what was going on (though (d) also carried my notorious ribbing for Drmies). So false dichotomy or not, I must insist that you answer: which of those justified my being blocked? That's a very serious charge, so either put up or shut up. Or do you, like Nakon, just shoot from the hip, and stonewall when called to account? EEng (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a trout may have been sufficient. I know you are having trouble seeing your comments as disruptive, not sure how I can convince you otherwise. HighInBC18:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, or maybe a small supply of trouts. EEng is often frustrating and exasperating. But I am pretty sure that we dont have a policy that makes that in itself a cause for an indefinite block.·maunus · snunɐɯ·18:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC: Oh, I see. First you cast this as "a difference of opinion on what justifies an indef block" [146]. When that turned out to be ridiculous, you wanted 48 hours. Now it's a trout. Have you no idea how corrosive to the project are this kind of careless and imperious pronouncements on the fate of us peons?
Yes, I'm having trouble "seeing [my] comments as disruptive", because you've dodged my repeated demands that you say what talking about. And now that Nakon has issued a full (and very gracious) retraction and apology [147], you're alone in insisting that I did anything wrong at all. So you have two choices now: admit you were just shooting your mouth off, or make it obvious you're one of those people who has to always insist he's right, no matter what. (I put that last bit in big-bold so that, since you undoubtedly will continue to bob and weave, it will be obvious to everyone, at a glance, what's going on here.) EEng (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are to be commended for graciously accepting Nakon's apology. Now, that seems like an odd thing to say, but around here, some people are only interested in perpetuating the drama no matter what. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM (a fellow back pain sufferer) 21:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, it is obvious from HighinBC's comments that he is a prime example of what I have been saying for years about administrators around here. Their first rule- Protect their own. High's defense of a outrageously bad block which was followed by a pathetic defense that no one but the hardcore administrators will ever defend. What Nakon did is just another example of why administrators are allowed to get away with almost anything whereas we editors get routinely shafted on a regular basis....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely puzzled by HighinBC's views, because I have always regarded High as someone with good judgment (and I'll refrain from suggesting any relationship between height and cough syrup). I guess it just comes down to the difficulty of assessing humor online. EEng, I hope your back feels better soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. While you guys are at it, you might take a look at Nakon's reversion (here) of my clearly constructive changes (which, while fit subjects for discussion as all edits are, certainly don't deserve a high-handed no-edit-summary trashing). Perhaps this is Nakon's subtle way of underscoring the need for effective mechanisms for recall of heavy-handed admins who, having made essentially no edits in six months [148], suddenly appear out of nowhere to throw their weight around in situations they know nothing about, then mysteriously go silent when called to account. EEng (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the edits to Deletion process. Looks pretty strongly like a rollback by mistake, so I've assumed as such and undone it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I fully agree with IJBall in this edit; I'm happy to remain blocked as long as it take for Nakon to come to his senses. Wikipedia doesn't need me nearly as much as it needs to come to grips with the problem of this kind of admin. EEng (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately a cramped ride in a crowded taxi recently left me with a herniated disk. It hurts like the dickens, so until it's treated on Monday I have to get up every 2-3 hours and walk around to relieve the pressure on the spine.
If you look at my block log you'll see I'm quite used to this kind of crap, and I hope it won't sound wrong when I say I wasn't worried for a second about how this would turn out. I appreciate your taking the time to get the ball rolling on clearing things up, and when this is all over please take a few moments to visit the Museums. EEng (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I wasn't worried about the long term either, since this case is clearly that of a bad block but, as you say, I simply wanted to get the ball rolling to resolve this as soon as possible given always the on-wiki constraints. Thank you for your kind words EEng and for the invitation to the museums. Very interesting places indeed. :) I wish you a speedy recovery and a Happy New Year! Dr.K.07:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked, as this is clearly an unjustified block and current consensus agrees. Blocking for that reason, without discussion, was not acceptable. Discussion will carry on at AN, I'm sure. WormTT(talk) 09:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I considered leaving you blocked a couple of people suggested (and you agreed), but I refuse to see a bad block stay in place until the blocking admin sees the light. Especially as the blocking admin hadn't posted for 3 hours. If you want to take it further, go ahead, I'll be willing to comment in any forum you bring it to. WormTT(talk) 14:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment, and then I'm going back to suffering horizontally for a few hours instead of vertically... With regard to this comment [149] by IJBall: Obviously Nakon make a mistake, but it was a mistake no admin should ever, EVER be making. Consider the exchange which Nakon cited [150] as the basis for blocking me:
Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.
Drmies: "Next time just post on EEng's talk page. Not only do they know a thing or two about Wikipedia policy, they also have lots of time on their hands."
EEng: "Drmies, shouldn't you be cabaling with your fellow Arbcom-ers?"
Next to my comment, I posted the image you see at right. Someone who can't see that Drmies was teasing me, and I was teasing him/her (I'll figure out which someday) back, shouldn't be an admin, much less (as Nakon is) on the OTRS and UTRS teams.
Add to this the facts that...
everyone knows that Drmies is perfectly capable of taking care of himself/herself;
Nakon, asked to account for his actions, still failed to see the absurdity of what he'd done, pointing to the completely innocent exchange (quoted above) as justification for the block; and
Nakon, by blocking both my email-this-user and my talkpage access, was forcing me to appeal my block through the very UTRS system for which he is one of the gatekeepers...
...then we have here either grossly poor judgment or heedless arrogance. Take your pick.
Hey EEng, sorry I missed the party--that was a bad block and I suppose Nakon knows this by now. FWIW, I enjoyed your comment, as wrong as it was--when you made it I was either doing dishes, singing karaoke, reading Paul Theroux, or sleeping--or all four simultaneously. The secret ArbCom cabal doesn't meet anymore on Fridays (don't tell anyone) in part because of all the young people, like Kirill, GW, Keilana, and DGG; Friday nights it's usually dancing and then Waffle House. I'm obviously not invited to those events. Again, my apologies for that block; may we have many more fringey conversations together. Try not to get a spike through your head. Happy Saturday morning, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I doubt Nakon understands how wrong what he did is (though of course he understands everyone else is telling him it was wrong). I suspect he rationalizes it as just a minor mistake. You know me well enough to know I don't give a whit, for myself, about being blocked, but the demoralizing effect of this kind of behavior on the rank and file is substantial. You have a forgiving nature, but please consider what I said at AN [151]:
I don't think it aggrandizes my momentary martyrdom to say that the outcome of this thread will tell us plebians once and for all whether admins are subject to even the most minimal standards of accountability, or can do whatever the fuck they want with no meaningful consequences, ever. Imagine if I'd been a new user—score another one for editor retention!
I, and many others I'm sure, would like to see you take the lead in not letting this end up just another monument to uncontrolled admin misbehavior. If I may suggest you might start by emailing Nakon and making clear to him that he's expected to participate in the AN discussion. EEng (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a few hours today looking into Nakon and his actions. He's not a bad admin, he's hard working and a massive benefit to the encyclopedia. It just seems that last night he went... off. I've put detailed explanation of the issues at his talk page - but given his history, unless he comes back and goes off the deep end, I don't believe that anything is going to come out of this. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes, and as far as I can see, this is a one-off mistake. I'll be keeping an eye on what happens and may well have more to say. WormTT(talk) 15:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Worm. EEng, I have not seen the AN discussion (unless I edited from my phone, in which case I don't know what I did, haha) but I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holy bleep, EEng! I was logged out throughout this entire fiasco, but now that I've seen it, I am appalled at what happened to you. Heck, you've said way worse to me, and I don't have a problem with anything you said to me. There was nothing remotely block-worthy here. At least this particular admin came around to making a genuine apology, which I think does count for something. In any case, your literal pain in the back sounds far worse than the figurative pain in the neck, and at least there was no iron through the skull, so I wish you a rapid recovery, even though you clearly never lacked for a spine! Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around in Wikipedia for a while now, love EEng's humor, and don't know the particulars of what the current dispute is about, but my two cents is that an indefinite block is way too much punishment, that we need sharp guys like EEng in Wikipedia if only to help others think, and that EEng does contribute to the encyclopedia. But I haven't examined this subject in depth -- it is my two cent opinion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of in-depth examination was the problem here, Tomwsulcer. As an ArbCom member I charge more than two cents for my opinion, of course. Kelapstick, what's our going rate? And do we accept gold nuggets and bauxite? Drmies (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could charge more than my two cents for an in-depth examination, but I'd probably fall asleep mid-examination on this one. Good idea to keep me off of ArbCom for the foreseeable future; better yet, we'll pay you ArbCom members in 100% pure bauxite for your judgments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner or later I'll probably visit Boston again. Right now, I'm promoting my new novel Jakk's Journey about, as you may have guessed, a high school boy who builds a spaceship, flies to Betelgeuse, meets sexy aliens, has adventures, and learns how to become a human! Sooner or later Jakk may get a page in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no previous knowledge of Nakon, but I see that he may in fact be an Obotrite leader who flourished 954 – ca. 966. Well he's certainly not flourishing now, I'd say. I'm sure it's very easy to react, on the spur of the moment, to comments at AN/I which don't immediately appear to be constructive. But in this case, I think a lot of editors who have been watching from the sidelines, think he may have made what is commonly termed "a mistake". I'm just wondering if he should admit that, or even offer some kind of apology as a result? Or maybe he thinks that admins all "reside in a "ringwall" of fortresses"? And that whatever mistake one administrator makes can be neatly corrected by the prompt action of a second administrator? It would be nice to know. Just as a detail of medieval Slavic tribal history, of course. Remnant Visa 123 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. well I obviously should have checked before I started writing this! He has done the very noble and polite thing and offered an unreserved apology. And that's something that, in general, is rarer than hen's teeth around here. I have great respect for that and I applaud him for his honesty. A Tanner Vims 123 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...Wow. Rather odd, sociologically speaking, that a mouse click and a few comments from a rhinovirally impaired Internet user could have caused such consternation among so many. Glad to have you back, EEng, and please don't take it out on your poor fellow invalid; as AirmanVents notes, we don't say sorry to our friends when we hurt their feelings as often as we should, and those who do so are greatly to be admired. Pip pip, rest well! FourViolas (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restored headers and messages
Hi EEng sorry to see what happened, personally I appreciate your sense of humor. Anyway I've taken the liberty of restoring your page headers, and also all of your old messages have been moved to User talk:EEng/Archive 3. So your talk page is fixed a bit better anyway. Good luck with things --Jules(Mrjulesd)21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint, but as most of know I prefer to let it all hang out, so for the moment I've restored everything. However, I promise to do at least some archiving soon, or maybe reorganize into subpages. Not just now, but soon. Thanks to everyone for their marvelous performances in the latest production of Through the Looking-Glass, and What EEng Found There. EEng (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aagh! (Tryptofish runs crying from the room.) It breaks my computer again! (And are you sure you want to talk about letting it all hang out in a discussion about it being too long? Sorry, I couldn't resist!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions from friends near and far
You should have plenty of time to concentrate on you User Page and Talk Page from now on, EEng, "fnarr, fnarr".... A Rams Invent 123 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. but now very pleased, of course that your Talk Page is a reasonable length, at last. oh no! ... where's that new "dislike button" again? [reply]
Are you aware your user page contains floating boxes hovering under the Wikipedia logo and sidebar menu, making both those and the boxes unintelligible? Is this intended?
Also, FYI, I tried to restore the deleted content from your talk page but kept getting errors, perhaps a fault triggered by the large page size being copied from the clipboard.
Hey there, sroc ol' buddy. Yes the floating boxes are intentional. It's not that I wanted to obliterate the WP logo etc. intentionallyper se, but I figure everyone's seen that stuff (and the links are available on any other page anyway) so I might as well use the real estate for some fun links. You'll notice I make sure that the images are cleverly positioned so that the links unique to me (User Contributions, Email this user, etc.) are either still visible (no images over them), or visible if you scroll the page down a bit. (Or are they? Maybe the placement is wrong on your browser? Please let me know if so.) EEng (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. Please don't restore my talk page. That's Nakon's job.[reply]
Well this is what it looks like on my screen. Note the "Email this user" link gets lost amongst the images, but I suppose you'll blame that on some widgets changing the sidebar in some way you didn't anticipate. Note also the box under File:Screenshot of EEng's user page as seen from space.png#Licensing asking to enter a tag depending on whether "this screenshot displays the Wikipedia logo"; how do we answer that, then? {{Wikipedia-screenshot|logo=kinda}}? —sroc💬15:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down the page and the WP stuff disappears, leaving my nice images (which if you click take you to fun articles). So what's the concern? (That's not to say you don't see legitimate concerns, but before I give you all the answers to all the various potential concerns, I'd like to know which ones concern you.) EEng (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so I see. What if one wishes to click on one of the obscured sidebar links, however, such as "Email this user"? I mean, I'm sure a clever user will find a way around such things, but what about the rest of us/them? Not that I'm really concerned; it just looked like it may have been a formatting error and you'd meant the boxes to be floating elsewhere. Oh, the journeys they could have through the depths of these pages! —sroc💬16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I thought you would ask that! Well, if you click the little expand/close triangle next to Tools, two or three of those links should be visible in the little gap between images; others, not visible e.g. (I think) Email this user become accessible if you scroll down just the tiniest bit. Even if that doesn't work, User contributions and Email this user are available at User talk:EEng. I thought all this was a small price to pay for the warm inner glow I felt at how clever I was to have those images there. You understand, I'm sure. EEng (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zillion
So I thought I'd clean up Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from March 2006 (only has two members), but I can't find any "update" template in Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, though the edit screen verified that it's a member of three or more of those hidden "to be updated" categories. Where should I be looking? Drmies (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I get it--"as of" can (also?) be potentially dated, sure. Yeah, Michigan highways, it's a thrill only few people understand. Only thing better: Ohio highways, but Nyttend has claimed all of those already. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Drmies, would you like me to send you my papers on Gage? I think you might find them interesting. They'd have to be attachments, so you'd have to Email this user so I can email them back to you. EEng (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no thanks--I got plenty to read right now (Paul Theroux, for starters). Hey, I tackled a dozen or more of those articles that need to be updated--man it's tedious. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You're turning me down for some asphalt and a hack travel writer with a lot of wasted vowels and x's at the end of his name. Fine. EEng (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at so many articles just now that my head is spinning. I'm done with the Mayflower Madam (whose smile, exactly the same in every picture, is scaring me), and I'm done--stick a fork in me. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note for humor-impaired admins: "I'm done—stick a fork in me" is a figure of speech, not a suicide threat or request for euthanasia -- please do not block! EEng (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, Andrew--someone may think you think I'm just a cook, when in fact I'm the head chef, and block you. (Also, thanks for the article link!) Drmies (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Small world
Jimbo announces Greatest Stature Award, to be given annually in honor of EEng
I'm at a birthday party in London for Wikipedia – surrounded by the celebrities like Jimmy Wales and the WMUK crowd, cutting the birthday cake. They have a visualization of Wikipedia running on a big screen here and I was watching the edits just now. I recognised many of the topics and was especially tickled when I saw an edit to Phineas Gage pop up. I said, "I bet I know who did that – it must be EEng". I was right – don't you ever stop tinkering with this thing? Anyway, thanks for beavering away to provide the cabaret while we party on... Andrew D. (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even on the toilet, apparently... (Caption by EEng) "...now if I can just tamp down this blasting powder into this hole..." (Caption by ME123)
The day may come when I'll switch to maintenance mode for Gage, but not likely soon. Research continues.
Until recently I thought I toiled in obscurity, except of course for my periodic trips to ANI. It was a shock, therefore, when during the recent fiasco an editor commented that "Blocking an editor of EEng's stature is [something] [somethine] [something]". So apparently I've got stature—my mother is so proud! If you send a self-addressed, stamped envelope I'm giving free autographs for a limited time.
That visualization thingee is cute. I'm sorry to be missing the party. Re your userpage photo, I've been meaning to mention that I was in London recently (30% Gage research, 70% pleasure -- my favorite place in the world) and for the first was able to fit in some followup at BL. When I saw that sculpture of Newton out front I was instantly reminded of this quote from him:
I keep [a] subject constantly before me, and wait 'till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light.
That's the one. When I first saw it, in situ, I honestly thought it was a guy on the toilet. I thought, "Why does the British Library have a statue of a guy on the toilet." EEng03:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You have more than 2,500 edits to Phineas Gage (talk+article), and still why this article is not good article or featured article? You have devoted your entire life for this article and you read this article daily for 700-800 times which is quite amazing thing. I think you should nominate it for FA. Your efforts worth more than FA. Currently that article has more than 37,000 characters/bytes, I hope one day you will have more edits to article than number of characters in article. That will be a distinct and unique record. Best of luck. Cheers. --Human3015 It will rain16:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I cannot remember how long I've been stalking, or exactly why, but Harvard springs to mind, and this, the rather bitter dispute over it some time ago, between who I cannot remember, and do not care. wow. Point is that I've read the Gage article many times since, and it is fascinating, and thought you should know. -Roxy the dog™woof16:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[FBDB] Goodness me, I thought some fool had tried to make it a "Good Article". But I can clarify that EEng has not devoted his whole life to this article. He has also spent whole years on the Museums on his Talk Page, in constructing the world's longest Talk Page, and in making inappropriate puns and convoluted lame jokes on other editor's Talk Pages. He deserves a permanent topic ban from Gage for relentless WP:OWN issues. Isn't that right Trippy? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[FBDB] Personally I think maybe the topicban should be broader, as I sense that maybe EEng has a close personal connection to all articles about people whose brains have been damaged by metal bars.·maunus · snunɐɯ·00:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my new {{FBDB}} template to some of the posts above, so no one gets blocked.
I appreciate the kind comments. My experience with GA has not been good, unfortunately, largely because (IMO) too many people do the one thing you're absolutely not supposed to do when reviewing, which is to impose their personal preferences (about what an article ought to look like) instead of sticking to the actual list of GA requirements. If people want to try again maybe the time is right, but here's what I'd ask to happen first: maybe everyone could take an informal look at the article versus the criteria (which are presented and discussed at WP:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not). Then problems can be fixed before nomination. Are there two or three of you who'd like to volunteer?
I'm not volunteering for that, and I have a hunch it's a recipe for a repeat of what has happened in the past. But – on the plus side, FBDB made me LOL! Well-played! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're right, but sooner or later someone's bound to nominate it, so better it be planned than a surprise. Anyone else? EEng01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thus we see the chilling effect of the roving enforcers, though in case it wasn't clear, what I'm asking for is an unofficial review against GA criteria, not an actual GA review. But anyway...
Veering off topic
Roxy the dog, I'll be happy to set up for you a {TIBNAPA} template -- "This Isn't Bullying, Nor A Personal Attack". Or maybe {TIBNAPAJAF} (which really rolls off the tongue) -- "This Isn't Bullying, Nor A Personal Attack, Just Adducing Facts. What would you want the documentation say? -- see Template:FBDB. EEng17:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About the finger that one might give, I see from the TOC that there are now 208 sections to this talk page. I guess it's a baby-step in the right direction. But as Kirsten Dunst said in her film debut, "I want more!" (or actually, less). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to think engineers are mindless robots blindly applying rigid rules, - After I said, "I'm the engineer type"? Logic fault. ―Mandruss☎05:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it didn't say just how far your tongue was imbedded into your cheek area. Museum is cool and I wish I could feel that humorous when I'm at Wikipedia. I've been trained well, and it doesn't turn on and off very easily, so I generally just leave it off while I'm here. How sad is that? (Although I was cracked up by "with no respect intended".) ―Mandruss☎07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd laugh if this kind of nonsense didn't represent such a colossal waste of editor time as you seek (unsuccessfully) salve for your bruised ego. EEng19:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A request
Hi Eng, I'd appreciate it if you would not change the policies and guidelines around image sizes without consensus. It's a contentious issue and one that has caused a lot of bad feeling between editors in the past. People have to be given the chance to express a view about changes that might affect the way they edit, especially changes to policy. All the best, SarahSV(talk)00:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see anything contentious in Adam's edit, whereas you removed this, for example, which is widely relied upon, implying in your edit summary that you thought it belonged in the MoS instead. If you want to downgrade something from policy to guideline, it's better to check on the talk page first. People need the policies to be pretty stable. SarahSV(talk)01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your link shows me removing something which wasn't there until Adam added it today, and the first part of my edit summary explained why I didn't think it should be added. So your idea that I was "downgrading something from policy to guideline" is completely wrong.
My edit summary's tail, anyway, this entire section really should be eliminated after merging to MOS/Images--doesn't belong here, was simply a suggestion for what we should do in the future to consolidate formatting advice, with the implication that in the meantime, we at least shouldn't be adding mere formatting stuff to Image Use Policy, thus exacerbating the already serious problem of fragmentation of that advice all over the place. EEng01:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've got that off my chest, let me say that I wouldn't be so pissy had this not been the second time in recent days you've got the wrong end of the stick. If you think any of my changes to WP:Manual of Style/Images were anything more than changes to organization and presentation -- that is, if you think any of my changes actually changed the actual advice being given in the guideline -- then please point out an example -- either something that got dropped, something that got added, or something that was substantively changed. Please note that what may at first appear to be new material e.g. the preference for upright and deprecation of px -- is in fact imported from longstanding provisions of WP:Image use policy, and obviously no discussion is needed before bringing that stuff over.
Certainly it's possible I might have inadvertently changed something substantive, but that's easily fixed and not an excuse for reverting the whole suite of changes which, I will modestly say, are a vast improvement over the prior vague, repetitive, randomly ordered presentation. Minor errors can just be fixed. EEng01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost track of what you're doing there and at the guideline, but you now seem to have restored something you earlier argued was new and should go. I wish you would leave things as they are. SarahSV(talk)05:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Thanks to all the confusion you've sown, I mistakenly reverted just the second of a pair of edits. Now fixed by BushelCandle[156].
"I wish you would leave things as they are." I wish you would take the time to figure out what's going on before butting in and getting everything mixed up -- removing nonsubstantive changes with a call to "get consensus", then reverting the removal of undiscussed substantive changes, again with a call to "get consensus". You've made an already confusing situation worse, as not just I have tried to explain to you a couple of times now. [157]EEng10:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could be, but the purpose of the hyphenation is to link the words together into a unit, and the link in "neutral point of view policy" would already do that pretty effectively. But, yeah, I have seen them hyphenated like that sometimes. Going by other usage on other, well-developed WP:POLICY pages, we tend try to work such references into natural language, like "Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view". It scans better and comes across less like "bible thumping" about our policies. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an American old enough to remember annual broadcasts of Amahl and the Night Visitors? If so, the title references it.
Thank you for this [[158]]. The term "directly related" was hideously pernicious. It allowed any editor to remove an image from an article that didn't have a ridiculously direct connection to the subject even if the picture was positive, or even just harmless--despite the fact that there are thousands of violation of that, particular wording in excellent articles which contribute positively to the project. It happened to me. There was plenty of concensus opposed to my edit, but while that wording existed, it trumped any of my arguments. The previous wording guaranteed a 'hypocrisy of uneven enforcement.' Eliminating it means that your edit 'punched above its weight class.' Regards Tapered (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A note: the link to the edit appears differently on your page than it does in the preview. It still links fine, but it's a puzzlement. Tapered (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.
Your comment regarding syntax is incorrect and inaccessible. Basically what you're doing is closing the unbulleted list and starting (with your edit) 5 definition lists and associated definition items, and subsequently causing my post to close all of your lists and start my own. The previous syntax continued the list item which it was in as well as the definition lists from above, and correctly so.
I disagree also with your statement about the threading of the topic but I'm not in the mood to revert again. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for accessibility but I'm tired of it being used as a bludgeon for demanding that everyone (sighted or not) attend to hypertechnical colon-colon-star-colon-star minutiae. A screen reader should express what a sighted person would see and comprehend, period. You may be technically right in the sense that *::: gives a slightly different interline gap then ::::, but since fewer than 1 in 30 sighted persons know or notice that anyway, it's clear they get along without the distinction, so there's no reason those using screenreaders can't as well.
As for my formatting of my own comment, thanks for offering to leave it alone -- although, in the event, you didn't, so I'll be fixing it again. EEng00:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely trot this out, but I have a degree in computer science (among other things) from a breathtakingly prestigious institution, so please don't try to tell me what a screen reader "can't" do. It's nonsense, and you're talking through your hat. "Disruptive"? -- oh, shut up and go bother someone else, will you please? I've got a busted water heater to deal with and, frankly, I'm not in the mood. Cheers. EEng02:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
😁 Building blocks to a smile
Stackable WTF blocks
You are the recipient of a WTF Block
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're an mature adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable. I even have some! Atsme📞📧03:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: Intended as humor. Pure pun-ishment.[159]
- it was a slip of the keyboard due to my irregular finger sizes. I'll try to be more careful in the future. [pause to treat rug burns from rotflmao]. Only you would have caught that - ❤️ your wit!!! Atsme📞📧23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered at first whether that might be a bit of sophisticated wordplay on the part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea News Service. I decided the answer's No when I realized they don't seem to know there's an apostrophe in Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Gosh, can't they find even one commie fascist totalitarian apparatchik who's fully literate in English? EEng23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand the grammar, don't try to "improve" if you can't. There's no need for such a dickish edit summary either, which just compounds the show of ignorance. – SchroCat (talk)
You don't often see constructions of the form ; I'll add it to my treasury of especially clear writing exemplars. Also, it's a shame you corrected [160] your original post, because now my droll observation—
"There's boned for such a dickish edit summary"—what a curious way you have of expressing yourself!
—loses much of what modest punch it had in the first place.
Anyway, it's not always easy to guess which pretentious shibboleth you're harping on, but this time I'm guessing you hair's on fire about the shocking false title introduced here [161]. You realize, do you not, that denunciations from angry editor SchroCat (or should I say, "the angry editor SchroCat") are practically a badge of honor among the community at large? EEng17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have the intelligence to understand the difference in variants, then there's little I can do to lift you from the slough of ignorance you choose to inhabit. – SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the question of whether that's actually what's going on, indeed you'd be the last person I'd nominate to lift someone from a slough of ignorance (you're so cute with those quaint expressions—you're like Maugham, except of course not really at all) so no disappointment there. But if that fantasy helps you sleep at night, by all means cherish it.
Sustained rounds of sputtering denunciation from you being particularly prized, can you please keep it up? And can you upload a photo of yourself turning various shades of red? I've added a placeholder at right. EEng20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC) You forgot to tell me whether the dread "false title" was the pretentious shibboleth troubling you.[reply]
Well, I noticed you received some very nice compliments from some members of Proj Med for doing something commendable, and because of that, I figured it elevated you to a level that I could trust your input regarding some warnings issued over a highly utilized cure for bashfulness. I thought it best to ask you directly rather than bother more important editors like Tryptofish and Doc James with such trivia, especially if there was no cause for alarm. Please watch the following video and let me know if you think there is any need for me to be concerned. [163]. Atsme📞📧21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the true power is behind the throne. Oh but look, Your Majesty -- you have an important state dinner to attend just now. Don't worry, I'll mind the store. EEng19:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Proj Med kudos are misleading, being based (most likely) on edit counts; I'm probably in the top N because of my 2000+ (no kidding) to a single article, Phineas Gage. Interestingly for your query, the remedy you're asking about has effects not entirely unlike those of the treatment Mr. Gage received i.e. an iron bar through the front of the brain, those effects including (to an extent not entirely clear) becoming a difficult person who can't make up his mind and stick to a plan. On the whole I think the "T" treatment is probably a better choice than that received by Mr. Gage.
Thank you indeed for bringing this matter to my attention. It will likely end up in one of the Museums in due course. EEng22:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. Talk page stalkers are encouraged to click the link in the OP.[reply]
I got your ping (which for reasons I cannot explain seems to me to be vaguely related to validations of advisories) at that DYK discussion. I've gotta say, my first reaction was confoundment that WP didn't until just recently have a page about that, then I realized it was because of promotion to GA, then I began to feel like it was April 1, and then I figured April 1 is over so I would not comment there and would instead come here. Anyway, I wish you and the other editors a fertile discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you, Yoninah! Since I'd just made my first nom in a long time, I thought I talk a walk down memory lane. Any maybe I will again now and then, but I don't think I'll be there regularly -- too much trouble for too little result. But feel free to call on me for my talents as a hooker. EEng16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but it took me an awfully long time just to find this section on your talk page. And stop groping the salmon with your tiny fins. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You probably mean reinstate, Einstein. You're a forum-shopping crank who's been harassing an established and respected user. Go soak your head. EEng14:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
meant restate, which you did on his talk page and again here...but reinstate too as far as the revert...your behavior is against policy and inappropriate. how long you've been "established" on here is no defense..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ArbCom motion, suggestions Hewitt makes on talk pages should be "brief", and Hewitt was reminded that he is still restricted from self-promotional editing per the original ArbCom case. The posted references do not contribute to the argument and are self-promotional. Do not act as the enabler of Hewitt. If you restore the material I removed again, you will be restricted from doing so. —Ruud19:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ruud Koot, please lay off the threats against another experienced, good-faith editor i.e. me. What the restriction says is [164]
The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP (Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.
Hewitt's original post was indeed brief [165] and even if you think it wasn't, that doesn't excuse what you're doing. If you want to mark it "edit request declined" that's fine; or if removal of his complete post is justified, that's fine; or if you think he's violating his restrictions then take that to the appropriate venue. But you should not be materially altering another's post [166] in a way that misleads others as to its content (in this case, making it look like he posted proposed text without sources -- inappropriate though those sources seem to be).
I think Hewitt's a crackpot, but that doesn't excuse your heavyhanded actions at the article talk, or your highhanded attitude here, and I expect a response per WP:ADMINACCT. David Eppstein, if I'm missing something in all this please enlighten me. EEng20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hewitt may or may not be a crackpot but he's also a sockpuppeteer, heavy self-promoter, and problem for the project. Hence his ban. If left to do what he wants he will filibuster the Gödel talk page into unusability; see the "arguments" links in the archive navbox of the talk page. So in this case, I do think it's reasonable to remove the comments (or move them to arguments). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, removing Hewitt's post might be fine, but check the third link in my OP -- what was done was to silently modify his post very substantially, and that seems inadmissible under any circumstances -- wouldn't you agree? EEng20:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. You fail to see the tactic Hewitt is employing here: he posts a semi-legitimate point for discussion and then uses this as a coatrack for self-promotion, disrupting the talk page in the process. If the post is removed completely, he will claim that he is being "censored" and revert back to sockpuppeteering, causing more disruption to the talk page. Those references are tangential to the argument, and removing them thus do not "substantially alter" his argument. If he notices his self-promotionalism is not allowed to stand, he may eventually give up on this, without being able claim he was mistreated. Do not allow yourself to be played as pawn in Hewitt's game. —Ruud21:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't asking if you agree, I was asking David Eppstein, whose comments so far support simple removal of Hewitt's post, or moving them elsewhere -- but not altering them. Inclined as Hewitt is already to claim he's being mistreated, you're giving him more ammunition by altering his post to remove the sources he'd included. I see nothing anywhere justifying such modification. Everyone can see the sources are self-promotional, so why don't you just let his post speak for itself (possibly assisted by a comment you add)?
I still haven't heard anything from you about your dickish threat against me. Admins who throw their weight around are a real hot button for me. EEng22:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that material is left to stand, it would incentivize Hewitt to post more of such material in the future. If the material is removed, it might discourage Hewitt from posting such material in the future. The latter would minimize the disruption of the talk page.
I consider the removal of this material arbitration enforcement. I will use my administrative tools to make sure this material stays removed, if necessary. I prefer not letting it come this, and am required to warn you before I would do so. If you disagree with my interpretation of the restrictions placed upon Hewitt, I suggest you take your issues to the ArbCom here. —Ruud23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An admin upholds one of the five pillars without throwing his weight around.
Again with the threats ("I will use my administrative tools to make sure this material stays removed, if necessary. I prefer not letting it come this, and am required to warn you before I would do so") instead of engaging what I've said. I guess I can add one to the count of highhanded dick admins who resort to threats as a substitute for engaging what another has said.
Just as I predicted, your altering of Hewitt's post has given him one more thing to complain about [167]. While he'd complain no matter what, this way a bystander (unable to see what the refs were) might mistakenly believe the refs were appropriate, and sympathize with Hewitt. Great work, Mr. Admin. EEng14:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that wasn't one of my better efforts. WPO: where they also wikigroan. I was trying to say that they now have Gawker as competition. As for the latter part, woopsy, I was misremembering this. I hope that my errors didn't dampen your moo. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite bit is "Wikipedia’s principled editor’s are in no moo." EEng05:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC) I'm (ahem) principled, so watch it with the comments, insects![reply]
I wasn't reverting because of your topic ban -- that was just additional information so other editors would know what we're dealing with here. There's absolutely zero patience for more of this longevity/GNG nonsense. EEng00:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on appealing my topic ban and proposing a topic ban against you, Legacypac, and DerbyCountyInNZ. Tag-teaming like you're doing is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, if all else fails, I'll be getting in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation about the behavior you've shown. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please hurry, as it will speed the day you're indefinitely blocked along with your fellow longevity zealots, so the rest of us can go back to working in peace. Catch you on the rebound! EEng01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whew! Because for a minute there I was really afraid that he/she/it/they might get me blocked. That was a close one! Charmed life, it seems. EEng02:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may recall that Jeffrey Dahmer was killed during a fight in prison. So... What did Jeffrey Dahmer say just before the big fight in prison where he got killed?
Ready?
"Aah -- I used to eat guys like you for breakfast!"
A sudden hankering for a visit to the museum made me type in WP:EEng instead of User:EEng and that took me to the Electrical engineering wikiproject. Felt a bit silly, since in my mind the only possible explanation for the Eng. in your username was the word 'English' - E. English. - NQ(talk)12:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shirley, I'm pretty sure that EEng actually does have a background in electrical engineering, although I cannot vouch for what grades he might have gotten in English. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, I've always wondered how it's meant to be pronounced. Is it /iːiːɛnˈd͜ʒiː/, /ˈiːɛŋ/, or /iːŋ/? If it is indeed an abbreviation for "electrical engineer", then I guess the logical pronunciation would be /ˈiːɪnʒ/ — but I'm not sure. Eman235/talk02:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I went to create an account, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind. Yes, I think there was some vague association to EE, which is indeed a constituent discipline of whatever it is I do, though not its emphasis. But really it was just short, easy to type (to save people trouble in the ANI threads which, subconsciously, I knew even then would be coming) and random. Only much later did Martinevans123 suggest that I perform in rites and dances.
In my mind it rhymes with spree-xxxx, where, I now realize, xxxx stands for a sound I can't rhyme in English (and which, BTW, is not the Eng in English either). I just checked, and it's not the eng in Deng Xiaoping either. It's the a in ache + the ng in king. EEng21:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From his recent edit summaries (e.g. [169]) Tryptofish is your man, since he seems immersed in IPA just now. But as long as the e in eyng is like ay in day, yes. EEng00:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dang! If I understood the proprietor correctly, he wants the vowel sound to rhyme with "bay" or "hey", and not "fang" or "hang". Now perhaps there is a southern US pronunciation in which "dang" gets drawn out to something like "dayng", y'all, but to me a "long a" is not what "dang" is. Now as far as I'm concerned, it really should be as in "Deng" – but then again, as someone who insists that they are a fish, I guess I should let the proprietor have his way (or at least pretend to indulge him.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, like an ideal gas, I fill all available space, no optics needed. As for that page, I just took a look, and blech! It's a subject that annoys me so much that I don't want to edit it. About the disputed content, I agree with you that it will be source-able (pretty much all verified by my micro mind), but you can probably wait until you get sources before reverting it back in. And I think the new pagename is too long and kludgy. How about Harvard social clubs for wealthy inbred misogynists? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the Pork Club, appropriately dealt with
Gas, perhaps. Ideal, hardly. Re the other, I agree with you in general except... my roommate was a Porc, and I never knew a better bunch of guys. It seems to be different from the others. Pagename is awkward but I do think the whole group belongs in one discussion. You gotta hand it to the administration in how they're cleverly putting the screws on with this no-leadership, no-recommendation thing. It's masterful. EEng00:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have you know I saw Ted at the Cardiff Capitol, back in the 70s, when the roof had to be reinforced against his decibel level! ... and my ears have never been the same since. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, look, another high-handed member of the "admin 3%" drops in to deliver an arrogant lecture on his backward understanding of how things are supposed to work, leavened by ominous threats. See [170]. EEng14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin drops in to lecture and threaten
Original section heading by OP: "Conduct Concerns"
Recently I've noticed that a number of your comments this month have not met the expectations outlined in our civility and no personal attacks policies. Examples include referring to a user as a "prick" and "completely tonedeaf"multiple times, using images and captions to insult other users (1, 2), making personal attacks towards others, and general incivility on a policy discussion page. (e.g. "The last time [you] had to deal with [me]"? Was there another time you gave a high-handed lecture showing you have a backwards understanding of how things are supposed to be done? You don't "have" to deal with me, and as NE Ent so effectively explains below, you're arguing in support of those who have kne-jerk reverted in violation of PGBOLD, so perhaps you should leave the refereeing of minor squabbles over nonsubstantive changes to those with a better understanding of guidelines, policy, and just-plain-how-things-are-done.") Such comments are not appropriate and don't contribute to a constructive editing environment. Please stop with this behavior or your account may be blocked. Best, Mike V • Talk17:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear for bystanders, all those links relate to my criticism of the bullshit behavior of admin Bbb23, who (surprise!) canvassed you to come to his aid. [171] Thanks, but I don't need any lectures on appropriate behavior. Bbb23's kneejerk reversion (without substantive comment) of multiple other editors' contributions, and subsequent refusal to participate in discussion, doesn't contribute to a constructive editing environment either, and it's healthy for someone to point that out; if Bbb23 doesn't like it, he should cut out that kind of behavior. I'm sure he's an effective checkuser and vandal fighter, and in the capacity I'm sure he has your respect, but out in the wide world of real editing (where one deals with actual other editors, not SPAs and vandals needing mass reversion [172]) his knowledge and behavior leave much to be desired. When an admin behaves as he has—papering over his own bad behavior with even more bad behavior, including high-handed block threats—most editors just knuckle under, but someone needs to bell the cat. Quoting myself [173] :
And let me be clear: I have no problem with 97% of admins, who do noble work in return for (generally) either no recognition or shitloads of grief, only occasionally punctuated by thanks. But the other 3%—whoa, boy, watch out!
The comment you left above is a continuation of the behavior that I've asked you to stop. I have blocked your account for 3 days. Mike V • Talk19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow -- just this morning I was groping for an example of unintentional self-parody, and here you've served one up on a silver platter. If you were shocked that I didn't bow and scrape in your presence, then you must have missed this userbox at the top of User:EEng:
Welcome to the 3%! Further to the quote I gave earlier (above), here's more [174]:
When users do something that administrators don't like, but when the users not only disagree but have the temerity to object to the sanctions levied against them by administrators, is this an unacceptable dissent against the powers-that-be that must, always, be quashed by any means necessary?
We say "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "The benevolent dictatorship encyclopedia that docile and compliant rule-followers can edit as long as they remember their place and are always properly respectful towards ADMINISTRATORS." So, please, if that's not the message you want to send, just let these userboxes go. And if you want to boot a user off the project for not being here to help build the encyclopedia, please do it for a more substantive reason than that the user refuses to say "Uncle" when confronted by admins. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked for a personal attack or harassment. Where is the personal attack? Saying behavior is bad is not the same thing as saying someone is bad. You should unblock.Sir Joseph(talk)19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism and commentary is fine, however it must be undertaken in a constructive manner. Mischaracterizing my comments by changing the header title to "Another admin drops in to lecture and threaten", claiming Bbb23 was acting with a "bullshit behavior", improperly suggesting that Bbb23 was canvassing me to engage in the conversation despite not engaging in the conversation, and using uncivil language, such as "lectures on appropriate behavior", "Bbb23's kneejerk reversion", and "high-handed block threats—most editors just knuckle under, but someone needs to bell the cat" is poor conduct towards other editors and is not permitted. EEng was warned that this behavior was not appropriate, but still continued. I don't feel the block should be lifted. Mike V • Talk20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us here at Wikipedia have gotten used to EEng's rather acerbic and, shall we say, direct style, and like him for it, and while I'm kind of nodding my head here, I continue to think EEng is a valuable addition to the Wikipedia community, who may be in need of lessons in ettiquete?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Jesus. If "Bbb23's kneejerk reversion" is now part of a block rationale, block us all. What a shite block, a complete kneejerk reaction, utterly bogus, high-handed admin behaviour that needs to be called out, it's utter nonsense. And that, folks, is just the opening sentence of my memoirs of reading utter tripe on Wikipedia. Hardback due out just in time for Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked
User:Mike V, after your warning ("conduct concerns") on this page, EEng posted this in response. He also made a few innocuous edits on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, but I'm sure your block had nothing to do with those. You blocked for his response to your warning, and I don't think that was reasonable. The response wasn't very polite, indeed. It didn't defer to you as admin. The worst of it was that he changed your header, which is certainly inappropriate. But was it a disruptive edit, enough reason to block? No. Mainly it was an explanation of his criticisms of Bbb23. It didn't contain any personal attacks against Bbb23 or anybody else AFAICS. I've unblocked. Bishonen | talk21:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Well thanks, Bishonen -- not because I care a whit about an enforced break per se, or about my block log (I got over that long ago), but because it's nice to know that there are at least some admins who will stand up to the 3% who think that being an admin entitles one to imperiousy demand that the rest of us show deference to their superior status, and cower and beg for mercy at their whim, whether what they're saying conforms to policy and guidelines or not. EEng01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Telegrams from near and far
Dammit, I was logged out during all the fun! I'd like to propose two actions. First, I think EEng should be blocked again because when I clicked that link he gave to Bbb23's user contributions, it made my Firefox hang up, and we certainly cannot have that. Secondly, I propose that we tattoo [FBDB] across any available portion of EEng's anatomy. In one fish's opinion, both Bbb23 and Mike V are, on the whole, excellent administrators and very helpful members of the community. What happened here, however, was what seems to happen all too frequently on Wikipedia: people getting pissed off over stuff that would seem unimportant after a good night's sleep. Ironically, Mike V's initial warning was good advice. Ironically too, EEng is cognitively incapable of following that kind of advice (something to do with brain damage at Harvard), and believe me, I've tried many times to no avail. Unfortunately, when Mike V observed EEng's response, he overreacted. Bish, as always, and I do mean always, got it right. EEng was disrespectful but not disruptive. Group hug. Now where is that tattoo needle? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about re-imposing a block for having a too long talk page? Is that a blockable offense? Surely there should be some fingerwagging!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tripping up Tryptofish's browser => BAD, EEng, bad bad bad, you should be tattooed bigtime for such horrors. (Me, too, for extending an already too-long talk page)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About an hour ago I figured that, while blocked, I might as well spend some time doing what some of you desire so much, which is to trim this page. Unfortunately, a few trims into the project I realized that silly ol' Bishonen had unblocked me, so if it's still too long complain to her. EEng01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or block this EEng joker for being more of a truth-to-power curmudgeon than me. Horning in on my territory? This will not do. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this talk page reminds me of a long beard:
A very good question - which may serve as the anthem of a frustrated editor facing one ANI too many. Credits to Nine Inch (0.011 chains, 0.23 m) Nails. Possible answers:
They've been amazed at our dazzling erudition and wait with bated breath for the outcome of our deliberations
They've got bored
They're wondering how many editors can dance on the head of a pin, and don't know if there's enough room for them to join in. BTW - there's loads of room - drop in here.
For a moment I thought it said defibrillations. Perhaps we can work "Everybody's Gone to the Moon" (or maybe "Fly Me to the Moon") into the examples somehow. You two might be interested in a "discussion" I'm having with a troglodyte who thinks humor has no place in serious discussions -- Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Continued_obstruction. EEng10:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More than interested! Happy to be a nosey bystander though. I'll join the discussion after we've sorted out units, and I've brought clarity, peace, tranquility and a common sense of purpose to This RFC - that should give me 5 years minimum, and there'll still be humourless trogs to deal with.
Personally, I think a bit a humour greases the wheels of collegiate editing, or something. It's been fun to have a joke on the side of the rather dry topic of units.
By the way, you spoke to soon, it's all kicking off over there on units.
I'll wade in a bit later if needed, but I need to disappear for a few hours for a hospital visit (not that far away from defibrillators and drug doses...) Robevans123 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean wade in on units, great, but if you mean on sockpuppetry, please don't -- I didn't mean to canvass you, just thought you might be amused to gawk at the humorlessness -- I do so cherish the quote at the top of User:EEng. I've run into this prick before and he's/she's completely tonedeaf. Hope your hospital visit's not troubling. EEng14:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely units only! Didn't feel canvassed, it's definitely an area of watch, don't touch. Hospital visit was fine thank you. Just a follow up on some routine blood tests - all in the green zone. Going to have a quiet night off, so I'm ready to deal with some people who are fantastic at saying what they don't like, but surprisingly quiet at putting something else forward. All will be done as politely as possible, and in the best possible taste. Nil illegitimi carborundum. Robevans123 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no you got blocked again...
Well, what else is new. My two cents is that EEng is a valuable addition to Wikipedia, if a bit difficult at times, although I've sometimes considered that maybe he should be blocked for having a too long talk page. Just kidding. Just saying' hello, EEng, hope you'll be back soon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this -- it's perfect for an upcoming talk on Gage in pop culture. It's vaguely similar to a youtube video I grabbed about six years ago (now no longer posted, AFAICT) in which the US is metaphorically Gage (a stockbroker named "Phineas Geiger" in the vid, for some reason) and the WTC attack was the iron-bar-through-the-head turning America/Gage into an irritable, unpredictable, bullying, angry psychopath etc.
I have a feeling that Trump would actually like being compared to an iron rod. So is your viewspike detector a Geiger counter, or a Gage gauge? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to David Eppstein: I did use it in my talk, to good effect, because it shows the extent that Gage can be invoked without introduction in at least some circles. (I also found some tweets in which people say things like, "I'm gonna go all Phineas Gage in a minute!") You may also have noticed I've used it at The Museums. EEng08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's no laughing matter -- it happened to me! I was on a long bike ride and there was this string of ducklings (or goslings? who cares, they're all the same) lined up on the bike trail. I shooed them away and all of a sudden Big Mama Duck/Goose/Thing comes swooping down and pecks at my helmet. Scared me a little but it wasn't fatal as far as I remember. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Y92.482 Bicycle path as place of occurrence
V10.3 Person boarding or alighting a pedal cycle injured in collision with pedestrian or animal
For WP:BALANCE: The traditional account, that Jonah made his home in a fish's abdomen, has been publicly criticized by revisionist scholars.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by FourViolas (talk • contribs) 21:39, June 13, 2016
I have the weirdest, weirdest stalkers. It's you, the many stalkettes gathered here from all walks of life, each making his or her little dysfunction- or neurosis-revealing contribution, who make this talkpage what it is (whatever unspeakable thing that may be). EEng00:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The love goes right back atcha, Deryck Chan. I like your close—"with a reminder that editors – admin or not – should refrain from causing unnecessary antagonism in discussions, and from placing disproportionate emphasis on following processes"—with the understanding that the antagonism (mine, at least) was a direct result of that disproportionate emphasis on process over substance. Not sure you realize it, but I got blocked by one of those high-handed process-fixated admins over this—see [179]. And proud I am of it, too. EEng17:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. have you visited The Museums lately?[reply]
No, I wasn't aware of your very short recent block until reading your reply above. It simply adds to the farce of the whole fiasco... Deryck C.21:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, EEng. You got me twice because I did not know who F.I.M. was. I make that kind of typo now and then. Brain says one thing; fingers another. OK, now can you advise me of any other point? BTW, I found NOTNOT to be interesting too. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}23:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the bar through the brain [181]. Anyway, you were warned it was tasteless. The great thing about Harvard topics is there are always people wandering about saying droll things:
I apologize for reverting your edit over at "What Wikipedia is not" (diff [182]). I am an experienced editor, but forays into policy and guideline pages are new to me - so I admit I was being rigid. Having looked over your user page and talk page I see that you are a very experienced editor and that you know what you are doing. So, in the future I think I will do the same for any editor who edits guideline and policy pages - before I revert with an intention to save the Universe and Wikipedia.
I also noticed that you are immersed in humor; so I hope you like the title of this section. As an aside, perhaps editors should ask why is there no guideline page that describes "What Wikipedia is too!" (as an argument that counters "is not"). OK. I know that sounds a little nonsensical. Regards ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have nothing to apologize for at all. I don't always know what I'm doing, and your edit, following my edit, stimulated me to think things through afresh and make an even better edit. That's the way it's supposed to work, and Wikipedia at its best. Keep up the good work.
Well, I was a little apprehensive because of the amount of new material I'd developed, but I think it went well, other than the fact that my laptop crashed 2/3 of the way through so that I had to ad lib while it rebooted. The evening as a whole (i.e. including the other speakers) was certainly wonderful from my perspective. We ran maybe 75 minutes over and almost everyone stayed to the end, if that means anything.
The big announcement of the evening, and the unstated (until that night) reason for the whole thing, was that the very nice couple who had the daguerreotype all those years (without realizing it) have donated it to Harvard, so that it's now part of the Warren Museum collection along with the skull, tamping iron, life mask, etc. It's an amazing story -- what's the probability of that thing not only surviving all these years, but being identified? The mind boggles. EEng21:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a WW2 army-surplus laptop which overheats every now and then. That problem seemed to have gone away after I upgraded to Windows 10 but -- just my luck -- it chose that moment to reassert itself. In a way it may have made for a better session, since we had Q&A during the reboot, and a lot of good questions were asked. EEng22:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that accounts that bother me here often fall mysteriously silent soon afterward. Ever think about that? EEng02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to request that you strike your "Delusional smoke and mirrors" comment at the Ameen AfD. That was out of line. Reasonable minds can differ. Montanabw(talk)10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I have not seen the AFD mentioned here. However, at AFD:Octaviano Tenorio, you can see that Montanabw has engaged in a protracted exercise of smoke and mirrors, and is also demanding apologies. I don't know if the issues are connected. I wrote a looong reply on my talk[183] to Montanabw's complaint there. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(uninvolved) I'm going to suggest that persons actually interested in retaining the article spend their time adding citations and content to it, rather than arguing needlessly over other people's AfD comments. Softlavender (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would wholeheartedly agree, and on that article BHG mentions, John Pack Lambert did so, my position is that his work was adequate, BHG's position is that it is not. I am tired of being repeated accused of "dishonesty" and a "protracted exercise of smoke and mirrors." My position is sincerely held and made in good faith -- on an article on a topic involving conservative white men instead of third-world progressive women, no less (I am trying to be fair in my assessments at AfD). The RfC is a slow-developing process and is raising a number of good discussions about the misapplication of WP:N. Frankly, I am finding this exhausting, but I cannot allow the ad hominem remarks of BHG, who I used to respect as an editor, to continue to the point that I permit myself to be bullied. She is crossing a line here and so did Eeng. Reasonable minds can differ, and even heatedly, but we can remain civil. Montanabw(talk)18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.... You're doing it again. Just stick to adding RS citations and content -- ignore the opposing comments of others. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My problem, Softlavender, is that I don't care enough about the JPL articles to work on them; I do care that I am being insulted and attacked. If others would stick to only their own cogent arguments and lay off trying to tell me that I am wrong, stupid, bad, dishonest, manipulative and whatever else they are throwing around, we would all be much better off. Montanabw(talk)22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't care enough to improve an article (or at least find and provide links to RS that provide significant coverage), then don't argue on AfD -- just place your !vote but don't add the AfD to your watchlist. If you get that bothered about being insulted/attacked/labeled, and if you react to such insults, then in my opinion you won't have a good time on Wikipedia; I've said as much before. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, talk page stalkers. I saw Montanabw's message early this morning and composed an appropriate apology. but rushed off without sending it. Here it is: Montanabw, I'm sorry you're delusional, even if sincerely so. Ecstatic hand waving can't make up for absent sources. I came up with the "smoke and mirrors" image entirely on my own, and the coincidence of plural editors doing so independently should give you pause. EEng18:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I am so sorry that you can only respond to a reasonable request by WP:BAITING. You have now officially and directly called me "delusional" which is a personal attack and has crossed the WP:NPA line. It is unfortunate that you can only deal with disagreement by devolving into attacking the individual. Now I understand the kind of person you are. Thank you for clarifying your views so precisely. Montanabw(talk)22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your delusions apparently extend even to the meaning of the word delusional. I doubt strongly that you understand, or indeed are capable of understanding, the kind of person I am. As I just suggested to you elsewhere, WP:STOPDIGGING. EEng22:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, delusional is commonly a reference to having a psychiatric condition wherein an individual has had a break with reality and is in need of psychaitric hospitalization. That is, for someone who is not suffering from that condition, a belittling insult. For someone who does suffer from that condition, it is cruel. Let's try for some civility. Montanabw(talk)22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montana, and I say this as someone with personal appreciation and respect for EEng and general admiration for his stalkers, trying to get him to apologize for incivility on his talk page is all but permitting yourself to be bullied. I suggest you stop trying to get blood from stones, and file a complaint if you need to or go do something nice with someone you love if you don't. FourViolas (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A delusion is a strongly held belief that is stubbornly resistant to being displaced by superior evidence. It's meant that for at least 400 years, and only comparatively recently took on the specific medical meaning you for some reason want to give it in reference to yourself. It is at this point that many editors in my position would issue a stay-off-my-talk-page "order", but I've never done that and expect I never will, because I fear no man or woman's criticism or denunciation—I'm secure in my own skin, you see, and happy to let observers judge for themselves. But please, for you own sake, stop embarrassing yourself and take FourViolas' excellent advice. Kid's got a good heart and is wise beyond his years. EEng00:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insights, FourViolas. It is clear from the above comments that I am dealing with an abusive personality here and there is a time to stop beating my head against the wall. I have a number of other projects and AfD is most definitely in need of attention. I shall step out of this particular talk page discussion, with considerable disappointment. Montanabw(talk)00:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exit Montanabw, stage right, draped magnificently in victimhood. Presently he or she is heard offstage, demanding apologies and retractions from numerous editors in rotation.EEng01:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never understood the Wikipedia bent for requesting (or demanding) apologies. For an apology to be meaningful it must be freely given, at the initiative of the person who offers it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's especially puzzling since it gives abusive personalities such as myself the opportunity to flagellate anew the hapless, innocent victim who sought only to offer the aggressor the chance to purify his soul via confession and contrition. EEng01:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I think you're going a bit overboard on the mockery. (I've probably managed to piss off both you and Montanabw here, but what the hell, somebody has to say these things.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine what you think you've done to offend or annoy me, and if someone comes repeatedly to my talk page begging to be called out as a fool, who am I to disappoint? EEng03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a chance -- see above in this thread, plus User:EEng#get the joke. If Atsme or Randy Kitty were somehow offended (and see elsewhere on that page where we'd been enjoying each other's company) they would have spoken up for themselves. What WP doesn't need is yet another tone-deaf, tsk-tsking scold poking her nose into others' friendly interactions. EEng03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly unnecessary. Name-calling is a clear personal attack on another editor, the sort of thing that can get you blocked in a heartbeat by the first admin who spots it (and frankly, I'd support it, given your determination to double down on this). Your conversations at an AfD are not private and if you think you might be annoyed if someone else interjected their own remarks, perhaps an AfD is not for you. In any event, I urge you reconsider. There are always ways to tell someone precisely what you think of them without crossing the line. This was not the way. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary perhaps, but not unwarranted, and there's no doubling down. I realize you mean well, but you obviously haven't absorbed what's going on here. Of course anyone's free to interject his or her own comments, but Nosy Parkers who get the wrong end of the WP:STICKin others' completely friendly interactions, because they apparently lack the capacity to understand them, and scold people for imagined offenses within a conversation in which they were not previously involved, are a particular pet peeve of mine. There's enough real friction at WP without someone inventing it where there is none. (And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about you here.) EEng05:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
I've reported our latest friend here because I have a feeling he's related to the previous troublemaker on the Harvard article. I also have half a mind to MFD WP:UNIGUIDE seeing how it is constantly misrepresented and flies in contradiction to WP:V. Calidum¤02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding phrasing like "highly prestigious" for Podunk Junior Community College sounds like good advice to me. The difference is that for Harvard it happens to be true, and also arguably an accurate summary of the later "University rankings" section. Anyway, it's an essay, and you can find one of those to support any point you'd want to make (and many you wouldn't). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically wondering what you thought about Calidum's idea of sending UNIGUIDE to MfD. I say don't bother. EEng04:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I keep typing and erasing replies. I've tried evasiveness, wryness, silliness, sarcasm, black humour, acerbity, seriousness, ponderousness, but nothing I can come up with sounds appropriate. I want to say something wise, witty or at least coherent and worthy of reading, but words fail me. I find the topic too depressing, and I feel as if making light of it mocks survivors and victims – and those who find themselves in a much more precarious position than I believe myself to be, who live in immediate, mortal, existential fear. It feels so privileged. I don't know; I just don't think it's my place to talk.
I saw it but felt it best not to call attention to it. (Oops.) By coincidence I am reading Ian Kershaw's two-volume Hitler biography and am presently up to mid-1933. Some of the parallels between current events and then are... thought provoking. You could take whole sentences and just change the names or places and it would be impossible to tell whether they were from the book or today's newspaper. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you don't even have to change names. One quotation I was struck by is Ludwig Thoma's undisguised complaint about Berlin, the supposed incompetence of the government, the local socialists and "orientals", in 1920. It sounds like a letter to the editor or web comment written by any reactionary Bavarian curmudgeon today. Except that the "orientals" today are Muslims (the Kreuzberg quarter is particularly well-known for its population of Turkish Germans) rather than Jews. The Nazis denounced Berlin as "verniggert", presumably because of the popularity of American cultural products such as jazz – Afro-Germans did exist, but I believe were more of a rarity even in Berlin. I was shocked to hear that, according to a poll in 2008, as many as 26% of the German population still insisted that dark-skinned people don't fit into Germany, and 50% didn't want to live in the same building together with "Turks" (I fear it has only become worse since then). That's, like, the definition of racism. Clearly, even tons of people here have learnt nothing from history, and going over all this stuff at school was an exercise in futility. :( --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't shake the impression that Germany really does consist of 50% I'm-not-racist-but-heads and 50% pc Cultural Marxists® and Antifa anarcho-punks. (At least street battles like in the twenties aren't common.) I still guess we commies have more fun. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time and stomach for it, I have a modest proposal for EEng and his glittering admirers.
Come to a personal position on whether he's on or off his rocker, and how many of his arguments fail and why.
Go back and reconsider our host's well-chosen and -illustrated gallery, and try to resolve any internal hypocrisies.
I'm currently glumly pondering step 3.
On a tangential note, I just saw the '61 West Side Story for the first time and found it remarkably topical as well: the core theme (optimistic if anything) about the plague on both our houses is the story of our current globalfailure-of-politicsplotlines, of course, but the film also fits in still-thoughtful treatment of immigration, racism, misogyny, gender nonconformity, and even headscarf symboism. FourViolas (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on it as soon as I've finished this steak. BTW, the next time we have to relitigate whether Harvard is "one of the world's most prestigious universities" [185] we can just point out that Trump called Iraq "Harvard for terrorism" [186]. Yale, eat your heart out. EEng06:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Time to get out the canoes and paddle to section, Wadsworth old fellowHey, I hear we do pretty well ourselves. That "source", incidentally, states that Harvard is "one of the world's most prestigious universities"; also, that we "boat" a 201-acre main campus.
What are you doing eating steak at midnight? 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I always eat raw meat at the witching hour, after strangling the animal to death with my bare hands and drinking its blood. Believe it or not the Charles, as recently as 1958 or so, has risen to the point that sandbags were needed as far upstream as Eliot House. EEng00:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of school spirit, I have in fact been closely watching the Hitler/Trump quiz. It troubles me that I scored 100% on telling them apart (and with no peeking at the answers), because it would seem to indicate that I understand too well some things I'd rather not be familiar with (maybe too much time spent with ArbCom and GMOs). I just figured that I wouldn't gloat about it until now, because of my, um, educational commitment to humility (ha, ha). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't expect it to actually be hard to tell who said what, because of the strong stylistic cues (Hitler being decidedly more literate than Trump). EEng00:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler? or Trump? – "A highly intelligent man should take a primitive and stupid woman. Imagine if, on top of everything else, I had a woman who interfered with my work!" EEng02:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Answer
(Voice of Mel Brooks...) "I've got da Vestern Front! – da Eastern Front! – dat fat pig Goering! – zose Juden! – Und jetzt, on top of all dat, dat voman is driving me meshuggana! Oy vey!"
I think I would have gotten that one right, too, but your talk page is so slow to load (ahem!) that I could see the hidden answer before it finished loading. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey Stalin, if you're listening out there, if you can find FDR's letters, I'm sure that the press here will reward you mightily." followed by: "I vas just being sarcastic!" --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I follow your embellishments of your user page, I've gotten an idea for some alternatives to the ostrich, courtesy of a joke told by Bill Maher: 1, 2. Gets the affect and the hair rather well, doesn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a complete impossibility, come to think of it. Then you and I can be interviewed on CNN, responding to Trump saying we should be shot (digitally, of course)! EEng08:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least it's not another "Barnstar of Good Humor"...
The Yuge Barnstar
That's one hell of a user page you've got there. I tried to print a copy out (in case my internet goes down), but I don't have the required 63 pages to get the whole thing. I'm off to the store in the morning to buy paper. Anyhow, here's a Trump-sized reward for having a liberal sense of humor. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about User:EEng, don't you mean "Trump's ego"? If you mean the little star at the left of the box there, don't you mean "Trump's genitals"? EEng00:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Colonel Wilhelm Klink, I stole some of your images,[reply]
I am the only one here to receive an email (via "Email this user") from Hillbillyholiday reading something like --
Dear Mr Eeng,
Just came across our "eeng" article what was recently updated by User:Colonel Wilhelm Klink. Not sure if it's owt to do with you but sounds a bit like a HOECS to me! Don't forget, online pedophiles can actually make your keyboard release toxic vapors that make you suggestible ... [youtube link redacted]
This email was sent by user "Hillbillyholiday" on the English Wikipedia to user "EEng". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
Oh, Lord, I walked right into that one. But please, no more such emails. I almost reported you at ANI as a compromised account. EEng05:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Toxic vapors? You smell like hammers? Fuck this, I'm going to bed."
I'll respond to this now; I saw it here yesterday, and I still don't understand it. I get the whole "Klink is a stalker" thing, but the rest is just a bit too far out there for me, and, given the nature of this conversation ("online pedophiles", "compromised account", "yuck"), it can't be pleasant. Ignorance is bliss, right? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 15:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what all this is. I think you got dragged into it only because you happened to be near the top of the page's edit history. I hope this won't cause you to drop your membership in my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng16:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think any of it had anything to do with the good Colonel. And when the proprietor said "Oh, Lord, I walked right into that one", I took it to mean that it was a joke that EEng understood and I didn't. So I did some searching online, and the sentences in question come from an episode of some British comedy TV show. (I have no idea why any of it is considered funny. I suppose that it just means that the sun has set on the British Empire. At least it made me feel slightly better about TV in the US.) The episode was very controversial, because it centered on jokes about pedophilia. And that is why I said "yuck". (At least I am happy to see from the image here that a certain political candidate is reading about it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only understood in the sense that by that point I'd realized ME123 was involved, which explains anything. EEng01:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Then you are so much more perceptive than is WMF's software for identifying IP addresses. Good for you! OK, so here is what is going on. The entire population of Wales (the nation of Welchers, not the co-founder of that website) has been viewing your talk page, and thus, the large spike in viewings. These people have four national characteristics: a tendency to cough up hairballs when they speak, hillbilly-like tendencies, inexplicable sense of humor (and it's not worth bothering to try), and warm feet. That explains everything (although I admit that my explanation requires explanation). In any case, the good Colonel has nothing to be worried about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In his edit summary, our hillbilly friend calls me a "butty boy". So, after posting about pedophilia, he calls me a "boy" and refers to my posterior. Wow! Don't they have farm animals in Wales? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's unusual... I had always considered Wales to be one of the more grounded countries. Perhaps being so close to England is finally taking its toll. And, oddly enough, I received a pamphlet in the mail today urging me to -- get this -- "save the whales." (!) Have I done anything to piss off British conservationists? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC) That was never here. Please excuse my ignorance. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng to the rescue! I saw what you just did, and I thank you for your support. I have been very remiss in not communicating with you, and hope to remedy that very soon. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern, but I'll need to see actual evidence that the length make it hard for anyone to read. As to editing, no one except I should be making anything but section edits. EEng19:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, please forgive me about this, but I'm actually going to agree with Andy. Here's a bit of evidence. I just left a comment in a section a little way above, and I carefully timed how long it took from when I clicked "Save" until the saving process was actually complete. I have a very fast internet connection (and the monthly bill to go with it), and my experience is that the rate-limiting step for my edits is at the Wikipedia end. Normally, my edits "save" in around 3 or 4 seconds. The edit I just made here took 18 seconds. Please consider some serious archiving. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to my watchlist, and then clicked for the diff of my comment immediately above, and it took 21 seconds. I then clicked from the diff to the top of this talk page, and it took 20 seconds. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's just Trypin', like he sometimes does. Any time a page is edited a new version has to be rendered. The page being X times the size of a typical page, it's not surprising it takes X times as long to render, though as SBHB found it's highly variable (server load, naked chance, etc.). It's part of the cost of membership in my glittering array of talk page stalkers. Anyway, the result is cached, so if the page gets any significant traffic at all, only the edit-or sees this delay, not plain read-ers.
I'd like you to self-revert your last edit. We can discuss the 400 bytes of text in the "proponents" section, you may make some valid points, but blanking 6,000 bytes of text you haven't iterated an issue with is problematic. LavaBaron (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
It's not a technical edit -- it's just a gnome swooping in to "improve" an article by doing something which has no effect on what the reader sees, merely changing one form of valid markup to another form which the gnome prefers, or which he/she mistakenly thinks is the "right" form because that's what he/she happens to be more familiar with. See WP:MOS: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The watchlists of those who maintain a given article are gummed up by, and their time is wasted in reviewing, such worthless busywork. EEng23:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding User:EEng#Museum of Puffed-Out Chests, I have a (bad) idea for an additional specimen for the museum, but I dare not add it without the curator's approval. In fact, I'm ashamed of even having thought of it. Sorry. Really, this is in very poor taste. Please be warned: the link leads to disturbing content. I mean it.
This museum is about EEng's psychiatric condition. For the endocrine condition, see Breast hypertrophy.
Indeed you should be ashamed, but we must face the situation unflinchingly. I encourage you to add the following code, which modifies your proposal slightly and gives credit where credit is due:
::''This museum is about EEng's psyche. For the endocrine condition, see [[Breast hypertrophy]].'' {{mdash}}<small>~~~</small>
Alright then, the unconditional psyche. But sign it? No way! It's merely a tip-of-the-hatnote, and I don't want anyone associating that with me. I've got my rep-pew-tation to protect! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not signing anything without either my lawyer or my shrink. But for now, modesty demands that I bid adieu! (I must be tryping.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the entries that made Leo Kearse the UK Pun Champion at the Leicester Comedy festival in 2015:
"I was in hospital last week. I asked the nurse if I could do my own stitches. She said "suture self".
The pathologist said: "It may be shit to you, but it's my bread and butter." (True story: when I took Biochem 10 at Harvard, the professor actually told that joke in the final lecture of the course.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm banning both of you from this page for 48 hours to give you two a chance come to your senses, sober up, or whatever it is that's needed. EEng21:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make User:EEng pay for that wall. Mark my words." [192]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "I was shuffling through the Harvard sand, but my head's in Mississippi". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Martinevans123 I haven't met any of you in person so I have no clue which one is the "foxy Harvard boy" - do tell - or is WP fortunate enough that all of you fit that description? Atsme📞📧15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^^One of the reasons I love volunteering here. Real people seeing each other as real people but having said that, you must surely be referring to the red fox jacket as being "foxy" because the dry suit image is closer to the "real me". , but please carry on and I, too, will bask in the wonders of the brilliant minds I've been so fortunate to experience here and throughout WP. Atsme📞📧17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revert of edits adding country into US place articles
Dear EEng, I see that you have made several reverts of edits of mine such as this one with the comment "...we don't qualify US states as being in the US -- WP:USPLACE". I believe that you are in error. The page you linked to does not relate to content but the convention of US place names as article titles, the opening paragraph of the guide says "...This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places" (my underlining). I have been editing a long time, although not so much recently, and it was my impression that putting the name of the nation into an article lede is promoted since it helps search engines. I would be grateful if you would either revert your edits of mine or provide me with a guideline (or rule) which indicates that US articles, or articles generally, should not have the nations name in the article text. As you have reverted a number of good faith edits by me, it is for you to prove that your edits are in line with current WP practice. I shall watch your page for your reply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered you on this twice. First was in a thread you yourself opened [194], where you'll notice multiple editors joined in explaining why what you're doing is inappropriate. Second was in the edit summaries I used (e.g. [195]) in reverting your changes. I might also add that I only had to revert some of your changes, as the rest were reverted by various other editors before I got there. EEng23:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond there - suffice to say that a guideline relating to titles has no effect upon content; it is why the title of the guide refers only to that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I may have calves only a cow could love, but I won't be giving birth to one. It was humor connected to the Bart Simpson image you posted at Coward; meant nothing by it. Atsme📞📧16:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I started to write "Your contributions are always welcome" and a few keystrokes in it revised itself into "You are always welcome here", and the result is what you see above. EEng20:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don'cha just hate it when that happens...especially when you're trying to make a point in a fallacious argument like we all tend to do from time to time. Atsme📞📧22:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
[Leaving this because of what looks like mass WP:ASPERSION-casting and mischaracterization of the views of everyone on the other side of style dispute, made by you in a extraneous WP:POINTy image sidebar at WT:MOS earlier today, and which you defended as appropriate at my talk page after why it is not appropriate was explained. You last received a WP:ARBATC DS notice in 2014, and were not engaging in things like this in the year after that notice, so maybe this will have the desired effect. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)][reply]
To be fair, what I was saying was that some people seem to think that articles should be dry as bones in the desert [196], which he says is a personal attack. Then this morning I got pinged into this maelstrom [197]. EEng04:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a personal attack, its a straw man psychological projection and mischaracterization of everyone who disagrees with you about decorative quotation boxes, to character-assassinate them has holding a stupid/crazy position that they do not in fact hold, and thus a civility problem and, as a big extraneous sidebox jammed into an RfC discussion it probably qualifies as WP:POINT disruption. You should have had the grace to remove it when it was objected to. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not character assassination (!) to say that some (not "all") editors think that articles are supposed to be dry as dust. Lots of editors express such a view, asserting that dry, flat, cold = something they call "professional". Please now have the last word in this completely insane discussion on this trivial matter. EEng13:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COI
Thanks for pointing that out. I was remembering from my days on OTRS, fielding demands from academics to cite their own work. It's pretty clear that self-citation is a bad idea, and wide-scale self-citation doubly so. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And people wonder why editors who actually write articles get pissed off at gnomes who tinker, fiddle, and fuss over nothing. EEng07:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I missed all the fun. I didn't know that we could delete editors! For a price, I know someone who can do that the old-fashioned way (joke). Or maybe just witness protection. Anyway, +1 to what NeilN said about archiving. Please, please, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For once, you came up with a YouTube link that I actually found interesting enough to watch through, and then watch several more that came after. (In fairness, several of the US foods are things that I've never seen in the US.) So, spotted dick comes in a can, and you can put your spotted dick in a microwave. Does that clear up the spots? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Martin, if you are trying better, you'll have to be more careful about talking about pulling a dick out of a Fanny! And how many Evans123 family members are there? Sounds like they are reproducing like Welsh rabbits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if that archiving is really happening, it might be better to put this section away sooner rather than later; for convenience, I've erected a section heading. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC) (And if you decide not to archive it, you could at least put it in a hat.... okay, I'm done now.)[reply]
Honestly, I'm a bit upset over this whole archiving business; it's just not right to deconstruct the only man-made talk page that can be seen from space. Perhaps I can dicker with EEng on the matter.... (bold and italics highlighting what was apparently MartinEvans123's point all along.) Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, it's nice to know my humble page brings enjoyment to so many. What's canfassing, and is it legal in all 50 states? EEng20:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm RexxS. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
If you're not interested in discussion, then please keep your ad homiems to yourselfRexxS (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "RexxS is simply behind the times -- see note at..." and linking to a recent (July 2016) guideline change which you apparently missed [199] isn't a personal attack. You're being ridiculous. (And we'll leave it to others here to judge whether, in this context, saying "You're being ridiculous" is a personal attack.) EEng21:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalkers! Now's your chance!
Uncle EEng wants YOUR honest opinion!You think EEng's abrasive? What the hell would you know!EEng, who the hell cares what you think?I have to hold up two fingers instead of one because they're so tiny.I'm Joseph Priestley, and I approve this message.
This is maybe the third time today I'm getting the "Impossible-as-it-may-seem-I-agree-with-EEng" treatment. When did I become the personification of heterodoxy? EEng15:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalkers, your honest thoughts are solicited on the comments above. If you wish, log out and comment anonymously (and I promise I won't geolocate the IP). Thanks, EEng
Hell, I don't even know what we're commenting on. Is it the fact that, judging from timestamps, it took TimothyJosephWood 22 hours to read your user page? (I admit that seems a bit speedy, doesn't it?) The rest seems pretty run-of-the-mill, no? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 03:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, thoughts are being solicited on the idea that I'm <sniff> abrasive and self-absorbed. I mean, that might even be true, but I'd always hoped no one here on WP would notice. EEng03:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my experience, the only abrasion I've been met with is a rash on my index finger from scrolling through your userspace. And as for the "self-absorbed" aspect, it may have something to do with the fact that it took TimothyJosephWood 22 hours to read your userpage. Either way, I wouldn't worry about it. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 03:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is your strategy for archiving your talk page, noticeably your third archive looks much greater than the other two, I need your guidance. Cards84664 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My third archive has size zero. Do the others have negative size? If you're looking for any kind of guidance from me, you must be desperate. EEng03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)p[reply]
Edits don't need sources; information one adds needs sources. I didn't add the information, just copyedited the text to say the same thing a different way. EEng08:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "the information you're adding" needs to be verified, per WP:BURDEN. Otherwise, it will likely be challenged and/or removed. If you've just moved info already sourced, please copy the source(s) to that section as well, to avoid confusion. X4n6 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the source(s) for this information is/are listed elsewhere in the article, please also attach them here, or the edit risks being removed. X4n6 (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take it, by your failure to respond to my question, that you've realized that I added no new information. Since I didn't add it, I have no idea where it might be sourced. Why are you still wasting our time on this? Before you get any bright ideas, BTW, I remind you that BURDEN sets the standard for removal of unsourced material (outside BLPs) as being that you genuinely believe no source exists -- not just because you can challenge it. So please don't get any WP:POINTY ideas. EEng09:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you should have gleaned from my response, is that I had no interest in playing games. As you're clearly not interested in claiming ownership of this unsourced material - and since you appear equally disinterested in providing appropriate sources for it, I've removed it per WP:VERIFY. X4n6 (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I've restored it. There's no reason for me to "take ownership" of this information since, as now both I and another editor have told you, I didn't add it. And VERIFY doesn't require, in order that material remain in an article, that it be verified, merely that it be verifiable. Did you make even the most basic attempt to find a source before engaging me in this nonsense waste of time? The fact that you can remove something unsourced doesn't mean you should, especially material this new and duly tagged [citation needed]. EEng10:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.X4n6 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at your page for the first time. The Trump stuff. Hilarious? Not really. It's childish and irresponsible. This is not the place to do this. Try to imagine doing the same thing, but with Hillary Clinton on your page. Doctalk09:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a limit, in size and scope, when it comes to user pages. It's a little out of hand. I'm not running to report it, just noting it. Doctalk10:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on my user page is there either to increase other editors' pleasure in contributing (by providing modest amusement they can enjoy during breaks from editing) or to assist them in becoming more effective editors (by illustrating various aspects of Wikipedia as a social environment e.g. [200]). Democratic figures are featured as well as Republican (e.g. [201]) though unfortunately those opportunities don't arise very often, because e.g. Clinton and Obama just aren't as amusing. EEng10:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's cute! There's no question that you have a good sense of humor. For me, the thing is really this: why put your politics on display here? What purpose does it actually serve? Who really gives a crap if you're a liberal or a conservative? It's an allegedly unbiased encyclopedia. We should try to strive for neutrality. You're just showing your hand. I would take any edit you make in the political realm with a grain of salt as biased, based on your user page. Jus' sayin'. Doctalk10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Granting for a moment, for the sake of argument, that I am indeed "showing my hand" via my user page, then I guess that would act as a sort of COI disclosure should I edit any political articles (which I don't). Editors aren't personally required to have a neutral point of view—only articles are. EEng10:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. What I'm really getting at, in a roundabout way, is that you can't use your user page to store a ton of... "funny stuff" that is really not related to Wikipedia. That's what private webpages are for. MySpace, etc. The servers are not here to host comedy pages. Doctalk10:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as seen numerous places on my talk page (e.g. here), many editors find my userpage a refreshing place to take a break from editing or (e.g. here) to find "medicine against chronic wikidespair". Certainly that's good for the project. Thank you for the complement on my sense of humor, though not everyone agrees with you on that (image at right). EEng11:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC) I'm afraid I have to go back to bed now -- midnight snack -- but please visit The Museums frequently.[reply]
Doc, you're out of line. While I'm not necessarily a fan of the user's talk page, you've gone too far. First, you're being contradictory when you say you're not running to report the user's page - then you unilaterally choose to censor it? Second, you're also being hypocritical, as one of your own userboxes identifies you as a Republican. Why is it fine for you to "show your hand" but not this user? As for your claims of "defamation?" No wikilawyering please. Parody is protected speech. Per CENSOR, even on this project. So if there is a COI here, it's in your removal of content on another user's page. You know better. You need to self-revert - and if you don't, the user would be justified in reporting you. As the line goes, if it offends you - don't look. X4n6 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Images for Trump's family are listed on the pages they are used on Wikipedia. We don't use those images on a user's page under "Gallery of Creepy, Fawning Enablers". It's completely against BLP. Doctalk11:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, personal pages are not BLPs. So I'm not seeing any validity to that argument. Second, again, parody is protected speech. Third, you're editing another user's page. Since you can spout policy vios, you're well aware of the many that violates, so don't make me list them. Fourth, you have a COI, so you're really not in the best position to complain. You just look like a pov pusher yourself. But again, if you are offended - or just humor challenged - I'd suggest you just not engage further with this user or his page. But if you are too vexed, vigilantism is still not the answer. It all too often boomerangs. Take it to the proper forum. Where - as you probably already now - you'll likely get told exactly what I've already said. And risk possible sanctions yourself for vandalizing a user's personal page. But the choice is yours. X4n6 (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you two, thank you for your comments. In the morning I'll adjust the content to address Doc's concerns. After all, the kids (though they've chosen to put themselves into the spotlight) can't help who their father is, and the wife probably didn't know what she was getting herself into. Now, may I get back to sleep, please? EEng12:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Ya know, if you put a little effort into it instead of just straight-up deriding, it could actually be amusingly clever and inoffensive. Think SNL humor. "Gallery of Creepy, Fawning Enablers" is desperate. Work on the material and get back to me. Doctalk12:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that if we start prohibiting editors from expressing their political opinions on their user pages, there are an awful lot of user boxes that will have to be removed. And as for the dividing line between acceptable commentary, and commentary that "goes too far", there is no practical way to establish a consensus as to where that line would be. A user page is not an article for our readers. If one does not like a particular user page, then don't look at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand - what's all the fuss about Pole Mics? They are very useful for recording the sounds of silly hats, silly skirts, and scottish monster shepherds, and all from a safe distance.
Absolute stupidity to equate Trump with Nazism. The Nazis actually murdered millions of people!!! Alarmist types that equate a potential Trump presidency to Nazism?! Sheer lunacy. Doctalk08:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, if you read a good history covering the rise of Hitler during the period 1930-1933 (e.g., Ian Kershaw's two-volume bio) there are some very interesting parallels. I don't think Trump is plotting mass extermination. But the electoral tactics and the appeal of authoritarianism to disaffected segments of the populace, "restore our former glory" type rhetoric, laying the blame for national decline on certain ethnicgroups and the like are strikingly similar. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair to Hitler I don't recall that he was plotting mass extermination when he first came to power either. In the present case, time will tell. EEng16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you don't seem to have read Godwin's recent article [203] cited by the very sentence you link, nor the Peter Bergen piece (cited with approval, in turn, by Godwin in that same article) which concludes that Trump is indeed a fascist, with only the exception that he's not (yet) openly calling for violence. Godwin's Law warns against glib comparisons to fascism, not all such comparisons.
That otherwise seemingly intelligent persons continue to deny what is so obviously going on here is the reason I opened my very first post on Trump with Huxley: "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach."
Now, if I may, I would like to exercise the Museum Curator's privilege by asking that this debate be halted. It's not in keeping with the spirit of fun I like to promote here. EEng16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At 0028 hours local time, I mentioned [204] that "My user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing. But I don't want debate on non-Wiki partisan matters breaking out, because that too often leaves editors with high blood pressure instead of a feeling of relaxation and refreshment." Within hours...
...the following post was transferred here from another page...
I really didn’t see your "final answer"[205] until today. I was amused, but not in a good way. You’ve been here since 2006, and yet you claim to know more than me about several things. Here’s a few where you’re totally dead wrong:
WP:BLP, very first sentence: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.” Any page actually applies to what you deem to be “personal pages”.
Parody is protected speech… by whom? Wikipedia? This is a private website, not a government. BLP policy is normally strictly enforced here over "parody".
Editing another user’s page does not violate "many" policies. I don’t even know what that means. What policies? Meh...
You have zero evidence of me having a COI on anything. On what are you basing that accusation? It’s one of several personal attacks you used to dismiss legitimate concerns. I'm also a “POV pusher”, “vigilante”, and a “vandal”. The vandalism charge is just truly ignorant of policy. Very sad for an editor of your tenure. Why did EEng not consider it vandalism? Because... it wasn't! Amazing...
So, this is really not an insult; please don’t take it as one. In the future: know what the hell you’re talking about before you chastise an editor who’s been around as long as me. I predict that you'll just erase this thread with a nasty edit summary and not even take any consideration to what I wrote. Doctalk06:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and the fireworks began...
As you can see, Doc, I've moved your post above from my talk page, where you saw fit to leave it - a full ten days after this was discussed - to where it belongs. Here. If anywhere.
Beyond that, my own responses will be of appropriate length, even though, so many days later, I truly care less than a tinker's damn. But first, an admonition: kindly stay the hell off my talk page with this kind of crap. Any need you had for a 10 day old rebuttal belonged here. Or just screamed at the top of your lungs inside your bathroom. As someone who has "been around as long as me" - you really should know that. However, it must also be noted that, the only likely reason you posted on my talk, was so other editors, like Patient Zero, who reverted you; or Tryptofish, whose advice, similar to mine, you also ignored; or Martinevans123 and Robevans123, who were amused by your woeful misuse of polemic; or Colonel Wilhelm Klink, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and David Eppstein, who challenged your pov, as well as your grasp of logic. But so much for all that now. Oops. Still, since frankly, I can't resist a point-by-point refutation of yourpolemic:
1) This project grants "considerable leeway" on userpages, per WP:USERPAGE. Also, your cherry-picked, yet painful misinterpretation of WP:BLP is pretty transparently wrong - as the very next sentence following your quote is: "We must get the article right. You've "been around" long enough to know that userpages are not articles.
""At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.
...Here it is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here."[206]
So, put both politely and succinctly: your claims of injury, defamation, or any other potential liability to this project, from the clearly intended parody posted on a userpage - are all crap. With that, I'll also advise you - perhaps preemptively - that the Wikimedia Foundation is an American non-profit organization; and as such, is subject to all the applicable laws of the United States.
4) "You have zero evidence of me having a COI on anything." Really? Besides your strident responses here, here, here, here and even when politely asked to stop, your response here, before finally relenting here. But no... this edit, was a purely non-partisan edit and in now way a COI, coming from a totally non-pov pushing user whose own political biases are impossible to read - except for the years that you've felt the need to self identify as a Republican on your userpage. Or the comments you've made here. So tell me again the one about the "zero evidence" I have.
a) Stay the hell off my talk page with this waste of my time. Especially when I was right;
b) In the future, know what the hell you're talking about;
c) Stop pov pushing anywhere on this project; and
d) Before you try to throw weight around that you don't have - you should know that someone who really had "been around", would have been smart enough to check the Users list first - to know with whom they were talking. So you've been "around" over "eight years?" Want a cookie? I've been around over ten.
Your WP:LASTWORD smarm can go suck an egg. The disussion was already way over! I wrote that on your page... 3 days ago. We've moved on. You're certainly not convincing me, or anyone else, of anything with your addition. Piss. Off. Doctalk12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Is it OK come to somone else's Talk Page, to edit war and tell a third party to piss off? Or does the careful use of that piss period mean it's not a real insult? I guess it's pretty much up to EEng what he wants on his Talk Page. Much like his User Page, really. By the way, I was fully convinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. sorry if I've "trumped" your WP:LASTWORD last word.[reply]
Please be aware that this process can take up to ten years and you should avoid making any changes to the page during this period. The serf is currently preparing the vellum (he's chasing a calf, but that's a typical Saturday night on the Levels), while the chief scribe is preparing his quills, the milliner-in-chief is measuring everyone's head, and the proof-reader in waiting is searching for his rubbers erasers. Everyone is keeping a safe distance from the tanner-in-residence.
Seriously. The guy can't even get the grammar right when giving you a warning about MOS sanctions. It's either irony or a paradox or something that I haven't thought of yet. In any case, I've unsuitably indented my reply a la EEng, just to ensure you know I'm replying at you innit an' not dat uvver fella. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I've responded in detail on your talk page [207]. (Connoisseurs of forum-shopping Wikilawyers taking advantage of the credulity of random admins may want to follow that link.)EEng21:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, you have more than once altered text on a talk page posted by another editor against their objections. You justify that by stating "Unfortunately there was no way for me to restore the edits by other editors that J-G removed without also removing his comments;" removing others comments against the objections of others is a breach of WP:TALK. After their comments were restored, if you though that such a restoration was unjustified, you should have asked an uninvolved administrator (either directly or indirectly via WP:ANI) to intervene. Edit warring over the content of article pages is disruptive, edit warring over the content of talk pages is unnecessary and disruptive (hence the rules over not altering other people's comments). Alter another person's comments on a talk page (other than those small changes sanctioned by WP:TALK talk) and I will take administrative actions. Is that clear? -- PBS (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, looks like we've got another live one with a bad case of WP:IDHT on top. What has happened to Wikipedia to make such people the ones we give the mop to? And since when has admin privilege been required to take obvious corrective actions that aren't actually uses of that privilege? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, PBS (since you have trouble following talk page discussions) D.E. is talking about you. Is that clear? EEng06:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, your failure to even acknowledge the unusually strong condemnation by one of your fellow admins, above, of your behavior in this matter adds to the accumulating evidence calling into question your fitness as an administrator. EEng03:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your [(user:Jayaguru-Shishya)] comments because, in the same edit in which you made them, you deleted and refactored others' comments. One notices PBS has stopped defending you. Get a clue. EEng15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never "defened" user:Jayaguru-Shishya. So stating that I have "stopped defending [user:Jayaguru-Shishya[" not accurate. I reminded you of my previous warning of MOS descretionary sanctions (User talk:EEng/Archive_2#Notification of Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions) and under those sanctions I placed a specific restriction on you not to delete other editors tal page comments. I did this because you seem unable to understand that deleteing other's comments against another editors objections is a direct breach of WP:TALK. I have responded now because you seem to be self justifying you breach of WP:TALK.
Despite you suggestions that an involved administrator ought to be an arbitrator in this issue, it is univolved admins, or as you put it "Drive-by admin[s]", that are preferred for such interventions (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
If it makes you happy to get the last word in then you most likely will, but unless you behave in such a way as to warrent my intervention under the MOS discressionary sanction, I so not intend to engage in further correspondence over this issue. -- PBS (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, look, the drive-by admin pops up to threaten and lecture again!
It's somehow not surprising that you and your little pal J-G are still whining about this two weeks later, because you're both clueless.
Uninvolved is fine; drive-by, which is what you are, is someone who doesn't bother to understand (or, as is increasingly obvious in your case, is incapable of understanding) what's really going on before issuing pompous lectures and threats. For the nth time, it was J-G who removed and refactored others' comments, not me; I undid his removal and refactoring of others' comments, and for that you're giving me grief, because you're clueless.
I repeat what your fellow admin, David Eppstein, said about your actions in this matter: "What has happened to Wikipedia to make such people the ones we give the mop to?" i.e. you're unfit to be an admin, because you're clueless. I notice you became an admin in the old days when that status was essentially anyone's for the asking. It's unfortunate that the voices in the wilderness pointing to your "consistently poor judgement" and predicting that you would "certainty abuse adminship" weren't heeded.
When you're excited either your spelling or your typing deteriorate; slowing down might lead to improvement in those areas, and possibly in your thinking processes (though I can't be sure of that). I'm glad to hear that you plan to stop embarrassing yourself by posting further here, and will (I guess) just go do whatever it is you do when you're not encouraging Wikilawyers and wasting the time of editors who know what they're doing. EEng07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Favor
Hey @EEng: this may seem like a lot to ask, with us not being acquainted and all, but because you've been active at DYK, and have a reputation as a good copy editor, I thought what's the harm in asking?
I recently made a DYK nomination for an article I made, Timber Sycamore. I'm pretty excited about the article because I was surprised, when I began reading about the program, that I'd never heard of it before.
Do you think I could prevail upon you to perhaps review my article, and the nomination?
Just as a quick FYI, every statement **should** be attributed either to the next citation that follows, or occasionally, to the one preceding. Let me know what you think! -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Great and Powerful Oz has decided to grant your puny request! However, DYK rules forbid the same person from both copyediting (or doing any significant editing) and also acting as reviewer. So which do you want? Personally I'd rather copyedit, as I haven't done much reviewing for a while and I'm rusty at it. EEng14:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm trying to amend and copy edit things now, in advance of any review, but if you'd prefer copyediting, I'd appreciate your eyes, oh great one ;) -Darouet (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[FBDB]Use title case when referencing The Wizard, insect! And it's 'O' not 'Oh' i.e. "O Great One". You are obviously in desperate need of a good copyeditor! The Great and Powerful Oz will attend to the task before the end of one of your puny Earth days! EEng14:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, please do not end my days O Great One: they are so puny! Why trouble Yourself to even consider them? My days are as grass, they pass like the wind; the storms hurl me from my place, and the tempests steal me away in the night!
I really don't want my talk page to become a debate venue, but I can hardly imagine what we're supposed to conclude from the fact that you've referred us to a New York Post piece by John Podhoretz for what you apparently think is a serious purpose. EEng07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing. But I don't want debate on non-Wiki partisan matters breaking out, because that too often leaves editors with high blood pressure instead of a feeling of relaxation and refreshment. (Wiki-related matters provide enough of the former.) Keeping that in mind, you are a welcome and valued member of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng07:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of debates: wow! It's already here! Monday, 9PM EST! None of us know what to expect, really. Just a crazy ride we're all on. Cheers :> Doctalk07:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It can now be revealed that I'm the Trump stand-in Clinton's been using in preparing for the debate, so in fact I can say with confidence that I do know what will happen. Unfortunately I can't tell you. Sorry. EEng07:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you hate me? Listen, there's trouble at [210] (that section and the RfC immediately following) so having no idea what your position would be I wonder if you'd like to wade into the swamp. EEng21:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to name pages, but you ought to look around and see if there is anything where you can reciprocate. (Something that you already commented on, so I know that you are already interested, but haven't commented on in the last week or so.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being so cryptic because I'm twisting myself into a Trypto-pretzel, trying not to cross the line into canvassing. So, you are correct to think of that guideline. (I cannot imagine anything else that rhymes!) Just before commenting here, I made a comment at the guideline talk page. What I commented on is not what I'm referring to here. But it deals with a related kind of discussion, and a related kind of discussion was also discussed by me, and commented on by you, higher up on the same guideline talk page not too long ago. An administrator is asking for more eyes, in order to get a clearer consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Crytpofish, if it's canvassing for Editor X to direct Editor Y to a certain discussion via an explicit link, then it's no less canvassing if Editor X does so via a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. But in this case it's not canvassing, because (as anyone acquainted with both of us knows) we're hardly aligned on everything, and you have no idea what my opinion on the matter will be. So, since I've tried my best once again and I still have no idea what you're talking about, will you please stop pussyfooting around and just give me a link? EEng21:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, very much. What you said was helpful in clarifying the discussion, and indeed was not at all parroting what I had said. I feel really stupid about the way I communicated here at your talk, so I want to get this off my chest (or my fin out of my mouth). I completely misjudged the clarity of what I was saying, and I had made my first comments assuming wrongly that it would be clear. I never intended my exchange with you to grow into such a back-and-forth, but it kind of took on a life of its own, making what I originally intended into a much bigger deal than it should have been. Not my finest wiki-hour. OK, glad I got that off my chest. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just cot-ed that discussion at the AfD, but please understand that I wasn't finding fault with your comment. Just felt it was time to stop. But you asked me a valid question. My answer is that I don't expect things here to be any better than or different from the rest of the world. But I still don't have to like it! I suppose one could say that I'm not too fond of the real world, either. And as for your mention of pricks, that really does bring us right back around to the original topic of this talk thread, doesn't it! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. X4n6 (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: [211]. Firstly, it's really poor form to roll back a whole edit, taking it with other improvements and corrections. If you think a particular sentence violates policy, you should just do something about that.
Secondly, no, looking up an address, and subtracting the date of construction of the bridge from his birthdate is not OR, it's providing context to the reader. That the construction of the bridge began when he was about 7 is trivial maths. That the bridge's on-ramp passes in front of 55 Frankfort St is easily verified. The previous version of the page was factually incorrect (it stated he was born at the location of one end of the bridge, when the bridge didn't exist yet). Please be more careful with your OR sledgehammer. Stevage07:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stevage, I've enjoyed working with you on the article, so please let's not fall out over something like this.
I don't believe my undo (which you link above) removed anything other than the statement that When he was just seven, the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge began, its northwestern on-ramp passing directly in front of the family home; but if it did, that must be very subtly hidden in the diff. For my peace of mind, can you give me an example of one of the "other improvements and corrections" that my edit removed?
(so that, presumably, we're supposed to click on the map and conclude that his birthplace address is opposite a Brooklyn Bridge ramp) is absolutely OR. How was the address converted into coordinates? How do we know the street wasn't renumbered at some point (which happens more often than people realize)? How do we know when, during the seven years it took to build the bridge, the ramps were constructed? Was he living there the whole time from his birth until the ramps were constructed?
Since, for whatever reason, you've brought this issue here to my talk page, I'm going to invite members of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers to check out the diff you linked and opine on the OR question. In the meantime, I ask that you reconsider and remove this material yourself. It can't be passed for DYK with this issue outstanding. EEng07:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just learned that we have a page on Radiometric dating. It strikes me as a less-than-ideal way to meet romantic partners. (Although, come to think of it, one might meet someone who is hot.) The curator could perhaps do something with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I don't want to look at the page history, but did you censor your own joke, or did someone else do it for you?
If it was someone else, I think you'd be forgiven for reverting them. If it was you, I thought I'd tell you that "one of the candidates takes the podium" makes a little less sense, and so is a little less funny, to those outside the US. The image being what it is would make me a lot more like to interpret "candidate" as one of the contenders for the throne in a monarchic state prone to succession disputes.
"One of the candidates in the 2016 presidential race" would probably be the best solution (I probably would have found this more amusing than just saying "Trump", honestly).
Hijiri88, see [213] and [214]. As you'll see from my edit summary I agree with you, but with the adjacent posts talking of small-r republicanism and so on I'm sure most people realized who was who, and I didn't feel like making a fuss. Have you visited The Museums? EEng22:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I admire your hook wizardry, but your grammar tweaks leave something to be desired. I'm not an English teacher, so I can't say what grammar rules are being violated here, but changing "one of the few journalists in the world who has met..." to "one of the few journalists in the world to have met" is not proper English. You wouldn't say "EEng is one of the few DYK editors to write super hooks", but "EEng is one of the few DYK editors who (or "that") writes super hooks". Similarly, if you want to add the word "its" to "...that Wash's Restaurant served up soul food dishes to Atlantic City beach-goers by day and its nightclub-hoppers by night?" there should have been a possessive on "Atlantic City": "... that Wash's Restaurant served up soul food dishes to Atlantic City's beach-goers by day and its nightclub-hoppers by night?" I undid my correction of your correction to the first hook out of politeness, but maybe I shouldn't have. Yoninah (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I never thought about it before, but "The only journalist to have done/seen/overcome X" might very well be nonstandard; however, it's certainly in American usage.
As for Atlantic City, construction doesn't always have to be parallel. I remember thinking about adding the same 's you suggest, but I was on my phone, and it was late, and I was tired, and ... I think I had some other rationalization. It's not egregious as it stands, but I should have pressed on and added the possessive. I do depend on my esteemed fellow editors to keep an eye on me.
"The only one to [verb]" (or the "one of the few" phrasing that started this) is perfectly grammatical, even if one is a prescriptivist rather than a descriptivist. This construction is called a relative infinitive clause, or an infinitival relative clause. See e.g. [215]. I don't think it has anything to do with American vs British usage; Shakespeare used it, in Henry VI part I: "the only means to stop effusion of our Christian blood". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's all Greek to me. Thanks, D.E. I momentarily doubted myself because I had trouble finding good examples via Google. So there, Yoninah! Shakespeare and (more importantly) Professor Eppstein back me up! ;P EEng23:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. As you can see from the article history, I started reviewing the article at 21:03 UTC, but when I tried to post my review 20 minutes later, you had just started yours. Hope I didn't cause you to lose too much time over it. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't include the entire lyrics of a Randy Newman song. Copyright reasons, you know. Take it down; maybe include a small excerpt. DS (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that Randy Newman would mind, of course, but you're right – rules are rules, and President Trump is definitely going to be a strong enforcer of intellectual property law, he being such an intellectual himself. Personally, I'm gratified you read far enough to notice. EEng16:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You atheist! Clearly, it should 1 AD, to reflect common usage!"
"I think, if we use AD, we should prefix it, while CE should always be suffixed. With a grave accent over the E.""
"How about we use (year) to end the religious issues?""
"That's not common usage!! But it's common style on Wikipedia! But it's not—it's—uh—" Editor's head explodes from the contradiction, causing mild confusion as to whether (Gregorian year) or (Julian year) would be more appropriate.
"That previous RfC simply does not show enough consensus. I will take legal action against the Year Name Cabal!!"
...until the discussion sinks to the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement and everyone agrees on the eminently sensible [insert your favorite disambiguation here].
CaroleHenson, I just wanted to thank you for your hard work on the article, and encourage you to keep it up despite the obvious difficulties. It's important. EEng03:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, That is so very nice of you! Your second comment is lovely and very much appreciated! I do get frustrated sometimes, but mostly I think it's a really good group working on the article, and the individual efforts come together in a lovely synergistic way. It's so nice to see how many editors, like you, make great edits and keep the article in great shape! (I hope that makes sense, I'm getting a little punchy!)--CaroleHenson(talk)03:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Newell Boathouse, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Newell Boathouse stands on land for which Harvard pays $1 per year under a lease running one thousand years—after which the university can renew for another thousand years? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Newell Boathouse), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thank you for your help with my first DYK, it has been "promoted". I'm sorry if I misunderstood you at some points, and I'm tickled that an article I worked on might soon be on the front page. I really appreciate your patience and help. Smmurphy(Talk)20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This candidate makes personal attacks at RfA when they ...." "Wrong!" ... "...leads to an incivil environment..." "Wrong!" "...admin numbers are dropping...." "Wrong!"
Though I love the bit where he refers to Goebbels as "Skeletor", I actually think this [216] is better. Just to be clear (as you know, but for the benefit of eavesdroppers) I would never seriously compare anyone to Hitler -- that would be a BLP violation. EEng01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was an attempt a while back to provide a rating for this talk page, but it was unsuccessful. Apparently, it was impossible to provide a rating because nobody could reach the end; whenever somebody came close, the page began to reproduce itself, leading to much despair among the ratings board. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall Newell
EEng, per your edits on the Marshall Newell article, I don't see how it's productive to restore html code for those endashes, particularly when the endashes throughout the rest of the article are rendered in wikicode. Using wikicode instead of html code appears to the preferred way do things across Wikipedia. Also, your last edit on the heading of the head coaching record table breaks standard formatting used on thousands of other articles about sports coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dashes are difficult to distinguish from hyphens in the edit window, so using symbolics (–, {{ndash}}) makes it immediately obvious that the right character is present. (Had I noticed I would have changed the remaining –s to symbolics as well; I won't do that now since I don't want to appear WP:POINTY.) Your idea about "the preferred way of doing things" is an illusion. As my edit summary in moving the coaching record table indicated, I'm not sure of the right way to introduce the table, and you're welcome of course to improve that. EEng04:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's not an illusion is the several years I've spent collaborating with a number of editors to standardize both those endashes and those record tables across thousands of articles. You are welcome to acknowledge that reality whenever you care to. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also not an illusion is the phenomenon of editors working in this or that narrow sector of the vast Wikipedia enterprise misinterpreting the happenstance of their personal experience for a universal status quo. If there's a guideline or policy backing up your claims about markup, you are welcome to point it out whenever you care to. As to the table, I am now for the third time inviting you to modify it, or its heading or lead-in text, however you think best; but it does not belong sitting alone in its own section. EEng08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither two featured articles nor two thousand featured articles would establish that there's some universal rule -- a policy or guideline would (might) do that, and I note you've declined my invitation to point to one. I say now for the fourth time that I don't care about the table heading and you're free to make it whatever you want.
I have to go back to actually improving articles now, and you have to go back to adding wikiproject templates and fiddling with categories and changing markup in ways that don't affect what the reader sees and other busywork, so I'd like to draw this particular discussion over nothing to a close. Please be my guest and embarrass yourself one final time by having the last word now. EEng14:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever helps you sleep at night. For future reference, smartass is one word, or you could hyphenate it: smart-ass. Thanks for playing our game, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng17:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:LQ is self-contradictory are counter to existing consensus as to the existence of the MOS:LQ guideline. Please seek a new consensus separately if you like, but please refrain from further off-topic disruption of that discussion (arguing against consensus is disruption by definition). The title of the thread is "MOS:LQ is self-contradictory", not "Should MOS:LQ exist?" Thanks. ―Mandruss☎07:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, Mandruss is talking about this comment [217]. Mandruss, I have great respect for you as an editor, but on this point you're being ridiculous, particularly your idea that "arguing against consensus is disruption by definition". Consensus can change (though I don't hold out much hope in this case) and if it does, it's because someone spoke up and said something most everyone else disagreed with. EEng08:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the respect is generally mutual (and I like your humor when good-natured and in a situation where it's not in the way of important discussion). Also this comment.[218] Yes consensus can change, but there are better ways to seek it than to make off-topic comments and see who supports you there. Try to imagine a scenario where your comments sparked an outpouring of MOS:LQ opposition in that thread which resulted in the elimination of that guideline. I think that's a highly implausible scenario. That kind of thing needs the structure provided by the RfC format. ―Mandruss☎08:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<extends hand to shake> No hard feelings, pal. LQ is, unfortunately (not that it matters all that much) here to stay, so there's no point in an RfC or whathaveyou. However, I think there's benefit to the occasional subversive aside now and then, just to remind others who may think they're alone that in fact they're not the only ones who have avoided being absorbed into the Borg. EEng09:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If 30 other editors each invoke their right to a subversive aside (why should you be special?), and that collectively makes it very difficult to make progress on the thread topic, I think that would reveal a flaw in your approach. Maybe that's premature. ―Mandruss☎11:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subversion: Mandruss asked about EEng's ejaculations at WT:MOS, but maybe they were premature. But don't worry, EEng's hands are just fine, I guarantee you that! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good reason why Wikipedians(,) at large(,) [see?] exhibit a strong bias in favour of LQ: As you, EEng, have apparently already intuited or even implied, Wikipedia attracts the sort of people who have internalised the fact that – at least in many contexts highly relevant to them – punctuation matters. And who are simply prone to arguing about (what some would call) "stupid, pointless crap". (Or, alternatively, "stupid, pointless crap.") That said, given that LQ has already commonly been called thus since at least the 1960s and had already been in use before that, your assertion that it "was devised by people who mistake English punctuation for a programming language" is almost certainly incorrect. (Interestingly, a reader's comment at the linked Slate article cites an unnamed source alleging that the American convention arose due to a practical consideration in the age of the metal movable-type printing press!) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy Tucker (squirrel)
Allergy warning!
This talk page may contain nuts, nuts, jokes about nuts, and nuts who converse with a nut who often concerns himself with nuts. Be aware that epinephrine shots are unavailable, although, judging by this page's content, shots of alcohol are quite bountiful, as are those ever endearing "cheap shots", which will be handed out to all attendees on a regular basis. Page may also contain copious amounts of corn and cheese.
"Fussing" is insulting. Implying I'm a bigot who thinks "cross-dressing is somehow wrong", if that's what you were trying to do, would be egregiously insulting. When all I did was take the time to provide an in-depth review, and pick the hook where I anticipated there would be the fewest problems, there is no need to be that offensive. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nuts!
For those playing along at home, the OP objects to this post of mine. Even members of my glittering array of talk-page stalkers—all connoisseurs of half-baked, fly-off-the-handle malapropistic[1] indignation, of which we get a lot around here for some reason—will enjoy an Eats, shoots, and leaves belly-laugh when they absorb this one. I proposed the DYK "hook"
Wearing clothing is a human characteristic. An animal can't be a transvestite, or a cross-dresser, really.
Then after some back and forth, I chided you for your continued
fussing that cross-dressing is somehow wrong.
And then you came here to pop your cork, saying that I had implied that you're "a bigot who thinks 'cross-dressing is somehow wrong'". I implied nothing of the sort. You should review MOS:WORDSASWORDS, wherein is explained the difference between my implying that you think
For those playing along at home, Maile's talking about this DYK item:
... that Juanita's Galley was noted for a "fabulous" breakfast, potluck, the proprietor's "unpredictable disposition", and a 40-person brawl featuring car jacks, pipes, steel bars, a fishbowl and an ax?
Like screenwriters, we hookers labor largely in obscurity. By taking time out to visit, Maile66, you've brought a ray of sunshine into the life of an otherwise forgotten shut-in. EEng00:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A beer for you!
I sort of doubt I'll be able to get through election night without drinking heavily. But I'll give it my best effort. GABgab15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't want me on decaf, since that would make me cranky from lack of caffeine. (I'm actually far less cantankerous than people think I am; they seem to assume I'm always being dead serious, and imagine me scowling, when I may be laughing). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again EEng. I don't know if you know anything about the citation of penal codes, but I've asked at the Teahouse and before that at the Help desk without much avail. I'm trying to cite these two links: [219] and [220] at Ronald Reagan. I could just leave the links in-line, but I'm not sure whether or not that's MOS or not. Please help. Many thanks,--Nevé–selbert20:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Neve-selbert, legal citation has a lot of prissy detail used to frighten newcomers, but if I really needed to cite one in an article I'd just do the best I could, not worry about it, and let someone who knows that they're doing come along and fix it. Here's something which might help [221].
But I looked at the article and there's a deeper problem. First, I don't see the need to cite (much less link) the specific penal code section. It's already referred to as the Mulford Act, with a link to an article discussing that act, and that's really enough. Even if you wanted to name the specific penal code section, you'd need to get that from a reliable source, which would give you the citation format; to determine the code section yourself would be WP:OR. And there's another problem: codes get reorganized and amended, so there's a real problem of knowing that you're citing and linking the most up-to-date statute (and in fact one of your links doesn't even seem to work). So, again, I'd just link to the Mulford Act and and leave it at that. If there's some text from the statute which readers should know about, that should come from a RS too. EEng23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's my suggestion. If there's something we're missing then someone will revert and then you can discuss it on the article's talk page. Good luck! EEng00:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Official records and so on take some creativity. I'd give it as
Death certificate for Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher, 8 April 2013, BAY 326211, Entry No. 194.
However, there's an issue here a bit similar to the one for the Cal. statute, which is that this is a WP:PRIMARY source, and would not typically be cited to support a fact given in an article e.g. for the cause of death. I know that sounds strange but there are good reasons for this e.g. sometimes such records get amended; thus we depend on secondary sources (e.g. a good biography, which would have researched the question) for such information. The only way I would foresee using such a document is as an image per se, placed in the article to illustrate something mentioned in the article e.g. if there was something interesting or memorable about the document itself. You'll find three examples of such primary images (two newspaper reports and the burial record), appropriately used, at Phineas_Gage#Death_and_exhumation – you'll notice no facts are cited to these images, rather the images illustrate facts cited to secondary sources. There's a long discussion, by yours truly, of these kinds of issues here [222]. EEng22:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources state that she died of a stroke. If I just added "Stroke" to the death_cause = parameter & added a footnote linking to the said death certificate suggesting that she specifically died of an ischaemic stroke, would that be OK?--Nevé–selbert22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed your post until now, Neve-selbert. (It was election day.) That would still be going beyond what the secondary sources say. If it really was an i. stroke specifically, there should be some secondary source saying that, specifically. Try papers of record like The Times and The (New York) Times. EEng06:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello EEng. I just wanted to say thank you for your various museums. They have helped me immensely in living through this craziest (the nicest word I could think of - the others are much darker) of elections. Well, the day is finally here and a fellow wikipedian dropped this gem off on my talk page. I thought I would share it with you in appreciation of your sage sensibilities. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the clip, and was not impressed - don't care about the Trump part, just the bullhonkey about Brexit - so am unable to resist responding to it. We've had this little Brexit incident where we voted to leave the European Union. Ah, not that most of us wanted to of course, no no. It was just those people who bothered to vote. Poppycock, you regressives wanting to undermine the democratic process. You had your opportunity, and despite the largest voter turnout for anything in who knows how long (if ever), you lost. You self-righteous buggards. Democracy may be the worst system, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. I get that this is meant to be a joke, so no hate directed towards anybody, except for "SavetheDay" as they seem to genuinely believe the hogwash they spread. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just as it's clear most Americans voting for Trump don't understand the implications of doing so, it's apparent that many or most of those voting for "Brexit" didn't understand the implications of doing that, either. Saying so isn't an attempt to undermine the democratic process, but rather a call to strengthen its foundation, which is an educated and informed electorate. I thought the video was brilliant (in the sense in which the English use the word). EEng18:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to point out but your choices in the U.S. give you the option between a liar and an idiot. [I]t's apparently that many or most of those voting for "Brexit" didn't understand the implications of doing that, I don't think you could be more wrong. The proof will be in the pudding - if it ever gets baked. The EU is looking more like a trojan horse to me everyday. [A]n educated and informed electorate - you'll only ever see a voter as "informed" if they think like you do. There's plenty of informed voters who voted for and against Brexit and whether you like it or not, there's plenty of informed voters voting for Hillary and Trump. Same info, different outcome. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you'll only ever see a voter as "informed" if they think like you do. I don't know whether that's the way you operate, but it's not the way I do. However, facts are facts, and since the overwhelming majority of self-described Trump supporters still think that Obama was born in Kenya, there would seem to be a severe informedness gap. As for Brexit, interviews post election show that many, if not most, Yes voters could not describe coherently what the EU is or does, or even pick it out on a multiple-choice list of descriptions of important international organizations.
However, as I have with other such threads on the page, I would like to declare this debate closed. This page is meant for discussions about improving the encyclopedia, or to provide pleasant relief for editors from the humdrum cares of editing – not political debate. EEng19:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I won't engage further except for one minor detail; I don't know whether that's the way you operate - If it were I'd be utterly confounded as to your support of Clinton. As it so happens I am not. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My, this is a close election. Not nearly as comically one-sided as projected, yes? Perhaps that can make its way into the "museum"? Doctalk06:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I for one support Brexit. As for the Donald, well, we'll have to wait and see. I had a comic thought about a short trump speech; Trump on the Birther Movement; "She started it", Everybody else; Mr Trump... t-this is the third presidential debate. Not kindergarten. Trump: Wrong! Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
".... most Americans voting for Trump don't understand the implications of doing so", dearest EEng you will next be telling us that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woods (as long as the woods aren't Canadian or Mexican, in which case they just "perform" on the wall instead). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear EEng: Like many editors here, I am very saddened to learn of the executive order to have you deported to Mexico. Truly, I have enjoyed editing with you. As for me, when they go low, we go high, and several states approved legal cannabis, so I intend to spend the next four years getting high. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it to you to inject something dirty into wholesome kids' entertainment. BTW, did you know we're part of a gay-bashing lynch mob [224]? EEng23:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Leave it arht, me ol' china!! Just keep your marf shut, okay?? .. or me and Billy will 'ave to send the boys rahnd. In all clubs you get the occasional drunk and they 'ave to be slung arht. I intend to get married as soon as possible and Billy just wants to be left alone." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ritchie333, you certainly made this suggestion at just the right moment. But now that the excitement's over, let's go ahead. I supplied the hook, so you make the nomination; I don't want to tempt fate. EEng03:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. How come I always attract the attention of admins with under 10K edits who haven't edited in years except to come out of the woodwork to give me the benefit of their gentle minstrations? EEng00:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't anything wrong, just Nakon thought there was -- remember, he's the one with the "cold medicine" excuse. Follow the link he refers to here [227] to see the original comment. EEng17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userpage
I've recreated your userpage as of immediately before the AE posting, minus the disputed section, at User:EEng/temp; feel free to just cut-and-paste it as you see fit. Intentionally created in your userspace rather than mine, to allow you to vanish it just by slapping {{db-u1}} on it if you don't want it hanging around. ‑ Iridescent23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I knew something good would come from all of this, and maybe some of that good will be that someone will change the name of that image asap (blp and xyz being taken into account) not to mention that maybe you should throw some obscuring moondust on your caption there. Randy Kryn01:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...on the other hand (the one holding a blue umbrella), if the young woman does employ herself in our oldest and most honest profession, this is about the best thing that could happen in promotional terms, and my apologies to her for going on about it so. On the complaining page EEng pretty much accused me of being full of lust (per my user/useless name), and, full disclosure, I had no retort or canonical abode to escape such a ludicrously self-evident charge. Randy Kryn12:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Hookers chose their name, this woman may have known nothing of this and was on the street hawking blue umbrellas, a semi-trendy tattoo parlor, and Oz slipper knock-offs. Aside from chivalry of some kind and feeling protective of Wikipedia, I pushed at this issue a little because of the humorous irony which EEng pointed out. During a discussion about BLP violations out popped, totally separate from EEng's content, the biggest BLP violation on the site. That's entertainment. Randy Kryn00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your comment assumes that there's something shameful about being a hooker, and is thus a form of hate speech. I'm reporting you at AE. EEng03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like Robert Anton Wilson's definition of the professionals: 'tantric engineers'. Could be a category name. Congrats on the page come-back, I hope the lady in red appears within it, a story to tell your grandchildren. Randy Kryn 3:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I complained here about the userpage. Didn't really do anything about it. Expected Hillary to win, and for it to become a shrine. Of... "hilarity"! Anyhoo, things will surely work themselves out. The financial markets aren't exactly spelling "doom-and-gloom".[228] Don't believe the hype! Cheers :> Doctalk08:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I missed quite a party! It could never have lasted, I guess. I suggest you put your creative energies towards political cartooning; the Crimson keeps advertising for a contributor, or you could go for national syndication. FourViolas (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In American education there's something called "the P.E. Syndrome": the observation that a disproportionate number of Physical Education teachers become, ahem, administrators such as principals and vice-principals. Why? Because P.E. teachers have no lessons to prepare and no homework and exams to grade, leaving ample time to take the supplementary courses in educational theory required to move up through the ranks. As they say, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym" – and then become principal, I guess. There's a similar phenomenon here at WP, and it's especially obvious when you look at the contributions history of the clue-challenged admin who opened that ridiculous discussion. EEng17:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC) (P.S. No disrespect meant to the many good principals, vice-principals, and coaches out there -- just pointing out that, as in policing – and WP adminship, for that matter! – there are a number of bad apples that make the rest look bad.)[reply]
I go off Wikipedia for a week, and I miss all the good stuff, sadly. What a ridiculous mess: some Wikipedians just do not have a sense of humor. When I said above that you were going to be deported, I had no idea that it would be true. And of course they got it all wrong: they should have archived this talk page instead. Well, I'm glad to see that EEng's sense of humor has not been quashed. And don't get me started about P.E. teachers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... you get yourself into a lot of trouble, don't you? I suppose that's the ever-present risk of this type of humor: there are always people who cannot find it in themselves to tolerate it, and those people sometimes have the will and the ability to do something about it, even if it flies in the face of what is ultimately the greater good. On a positive note, that printed out copy of your user page I have has greatly increased in value! I would put it up on eBay, where I'm sure it would fetch thousands, but the sentimental value is simply too much. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the discussion end with saying you can put your user page back, minus some cuts and giggles related to the esteemed leader? Please raise the curtain again, the crowd out here is getting rowdy and none the wiser. Randy Kryn11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Flattering! But that so-called essay (a one-sentence essay) was deleted in 2013 on my own request, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect", where I stated I regretted ever putting it in Wikipedia space. Somebody has pointed the redirect WP:WADR to WP:WikiSpeak#WADR, which the "essay" was anyway redundant with, so all is good, Ritchie333; you can still use WP:WADR in conversation. (If you want to amaze yourself, check out WT:WADR for some of the lamest waste of timediscussion and greatest stubbornness over nothing I've seen in all my years here. Appropriate in a twisted way, I suppose.) Bishonen | talk16:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed it is (your opinion being of value, that is, although I also agree about the brilliant part), and thank you! The office pool is now open for estimates of the time that will elapse before some defender of the wiki will come along and want me blocked or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should, on request, email people each one little little bit of The Old Museums for them to add to their user pages. Kind of spread it around. EEng22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a chance, we don't want to be responsible for President Farage. Anyway, since we're here, I was "up for Portillo" and remember that interview. However, the most joyous occasion of the evening came earlier when it was announced that David Mellor had lost his seat; he got a standing ovation. He was the Trump of his time. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prep sets
Please don't edit a DYK prep set while the "inuse" tag is in place. I put it there because I like to build the whole set before saving it, and having intermediate edits done by others in the interim really makes things most difficult. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth, sorry, there are so many templates and warnings and editnotices all the time there that I just didn't notice one more. REMOVE THIS MESSAGE WHEN ADDING HOOKS TO THE QUEUE The queue is empty. When the hooks are added they MUST be approved by adding
The hooks below have been approved by a human (EEng) and will be automatically added to the DYK template at the appropriate time.
to the top of the page; the bot will not update unless this is added. Remove this message when adding the hooks. DYK queues: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • Queue clear Next queue: 4 [update · Purge] (edit · history) DYK prep areas: Prep 1 • Prep 2 • Prep 3 • Prep 4 • Prep 5 • Prep 6 • Prep clear EEng12:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(For those playing along at home, this is re [230].) Perfect. Now it can truly be said that I've been blocked so many times, it's a joke. EEng18:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, from now on, nobody can accuse you of having the most idiosyncratic sense of humor on the project. You have been surpassed in terms of utter weirdness. And once again, I missed all the fun! Only one second, and I wasn't even here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to point me to any of the voting guides that will usually have popped up by now? I find the formal statements and Q&A too sterile. EEng05:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never wrote a guide, but my annual musings can be found clicking on the first line of my talk. Actually, it doesn't matter, arbcom, I mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To save anyone thinking for themselves, "neutral on NYB and oppose on the others" is the right answer. With the exceptions of NYB whose presence won't be actively negative, and three candidates who are actively liabilities, the remaining candidates have such an air of forced bland inoffensiveness that they give the impression they shit boiled eggs. For the second time in as many months, I find myself thinking "none of these people have anything in common with me and I really don't want to vote for any of them". ‑ Iridescent16:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone -- they sure make that list of voter guides hard to find. In appreciation, I'd like you to enjoy this video [231] of me preparing the turkey this past Thanksgiving. EEng22:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're being mentioned, indirectly, here, where another editor is calling you "surreptitious" for calling Nazis Nazis. (Actual Nazis, not the modern ersatz ones.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I said "disingenuous" (not straightforward or candid). If it's in the hook, why can't it be in the article? (The article is what looks disingenuous to me.) Yoninah (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to explain that WW2 Germany was a (the) Nazi state any more than it's necessary to explain that the "American president" is the "President of the United States". EEng02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this concerns [233]. I didn't say it's slang, I said it's WP:SLANG: a violation of the precept that articles "should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner" -- businesslike being probably the word most apt here. In a detailed discussion of Crosby, it's appropriate to explain that his style could categorized as that of a "crooner", that being a semi-technical term; but it's not appropriate, in a context in which Crosby's style is irrelevant, to inject that unusual term into the text, as you have: "During a post-recording session talk with Crosby, the crooner suggested..." Thus I changed crooner to singer; I'd have changed it to simply Crosby if that didn't give us, "During a post-recording session talk with Crosby, Crosby suggested...", which is awkward. However, on reflection I see that the problem is solved by "During a post-recording session talk, Crosby suggested...", and thus I've made that change. EEng23:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to parse your statements to within a hair's breadth of meaning, but the fact remains that "crooner" is not "argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon", is perfectly intelligible to the average reader, and constitutes "businesslike" prose. If you don't understand that, then I suggest you reread the previous sentence. 32.218.47.105 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The previous sentence is
However, on reflection I see that the problem is solved by "During a post-recording session talk, Crosby suggested...", and thus I've made that change.
so I really don't see how that makes your point. Anyway, I'm sure my glittering salon of talk page stalkers will arrive soon to help us sort this out. EEng23:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe a better point is that we should avoid circumlocutions, regardless of how jargony they may be. It wouldn't be any better if we said "the musician" instead of "the crooner". We should just say "He suggested", or "Crosby suggested", rather than inventing new and colorful ways to confuse our readers by avoiding saying his name. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) OK, I glitter. 32.218 is correct that "crooner" is a perfectly acceptable word to use in this context, and that it does not fall afoul of WP:SLANG. On the other hand, it's not particularly necessary or useful to say it, and EEng's edit, [234], improves the sentence. And it is fucking aggravating to get an edit conflict on this talk page, given how long it takes to load. Says the syncophant. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FirstLast-ever close
If one editor is warned not to insult and the other trouted for reverting, how was that a content dispute? And I am being nice here to you... Debresser (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this concerns my close at [235]. Don't do me any favors. ANI is for serious stuff, not someone calling you a bad name. You got your warning and your trout, so go back to improving articles. EEng06:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not much fun improving articles, when other editors can obstruct you from doing that and can call you names for trying too. I have been along for over 8 years, and believe me that I have seen drama. This was not a content issue but a behavioral one, for which the other editor was rightfully warned, so you made the wrong call calling this a content issue. Now you can play the lofty admin who per definition is right, but just that you should know, you weren't, and it won't be the first or the last time. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who made EEng an admin? I demand they return their tools - the ones they don't have - right now. In all seriousness, the warning and trout I handed out were most probably the best scenario outcome. I don't think a block or PBAN were on the cards. Hell, if I hadn't handed out the warning myself, they mightn't even received one. Furthermore, the editor - who's name is too convoluted for me to spell from memory (Nomoskedacity I think?) - remains in denial that their comment constitutes an NPA violation and at least a few of the editors were far less concerned with the incivility then they were with their interpretation of the equal representation issue on the article. Where's the equal representation of women at Nazism? there's women nazi's as well and right now that article is 100% dominated by men. The injustice of it all. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comes to mind. Besides, unless they cross the line further, a warning for a first offence is what is expected anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem necessarily with the closing of the ANI, but the warning, and possibly trout, should have been mentioned in the close. It was not JUST a content dispute, as you mentioned there was an NPA issue and that is what brought the case to ANI. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk)14:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... fair enough actually. If EEng wants to they can put "content dispute if I ever saw one with PA's and EW - for which warnings have been administered - to boot". If that would more accuaretly summarize the thread. That's up to EEng though. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about righting great wrongs, but I think that should stay on the talk page, until it gets to be a big disruption. If I weren't involved, I would have closed it with the mention of a warning, so that it can be seen in the future should it be needed and that is why closing statements are important. I would also use the NAC template which is what is usually required for a non-admin closure. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk)15:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I have to admit, that you have a sense of humor. I say that regarding your section header. Okay, so you f-ed up your first close. No big deal. Go forth and be fruitful. :) Debresser (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify that, even within the collapsed echo-chamber, it was getting increasingly annoying for at least one of the participants as well as for anyone else who might have been trying to read it. I was honestly hoping someone would (again) come along and tell us to shut up so that I would have an excuse to stop replying and not have it look like I was deliberately ignoring him just to be antagonistic (believe it or not that actually happened before). I will try to take your advice, and I hope he does too.
Anyhow, my main reason for posting this here is just to clarify that the "thank you" I just gave you was not meant ironically. Believe it or, not, that is also something that has happened on at least two occasions (I was the one receiving the ironic thanks; I don't know if my thanks have been interpreted ironically).
Go through various noticeboards, and catalog the subject area that produced complaints for some thousands of random threads, which can be normalized by the number of articles/edits in mainspace articles of that subject. Should make for an interesting read - hopefully someone does it, and we can get support for your proposals. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been saying this for years. Instead of # of articles, I think the right metric would be page views. My prediction would be that the lowest signal-to-noise ration will be found in: footy, wrestling, porn stars, and music genres. Eliminate those and we can all live happily ever after. EEng07:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting (and for once at this talk page, I'm not joking). Dramas per page view. I think there might actually be a bimodal result. The greatest frequency of obvious idiotic conduct (in other words, where it is easy to see what the problem was and how to deal with it) would indeed be in those topics. But if instead one focused on the most intractable conflicts, a different population would emerge, with a lot of religion, politics, and pseudoscience showing up. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some years back during the height of the MMA wars, I suggested wiping out the entire MMA wiki project. Best analogy would be the nuke from orbit option. Full saturation. Even had a few people agreeing. Blackmane (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to avoid intractable conflict, specialize in writing and editing biographies of 19th century state legislators. They all meet WP:POLITICIAN so you need not fear AfD. Other than that, nobody cares, which gives an ambitious editor free reign. The downside, of course, is that nobody cares. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that pages about species of aquarium fishes would be similarly drama-free. Alas, I've seen nasty arguments started by WP:ELNO and WP:NOTHOWTO advocates who care more about rules than about subject matter. Far from intractable, but enough to surprise me. By now, nothing surprises me anymore. After all, early in my editing career I got death threats because I had said that I thought that an image from a Japanese comic book did not need to be deleted from part of a page that was discussing that image. (It was when the geniuses at Something Awful were on a crusade to delete anything about Japanese pop culture from Wikipedia because... well, they just couldn't stand it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever considered making a userbox template that would track how many dollars you have in the game? Some of them are obviously untrackable (like editor review, R.I.P), and others hard to track, like third opinion, but most of the user rights can be done, and also probably the FAC's and related. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second brilliant idea here in the last 24 hours. I'll put this on my list of things to do between now and when I die. EEng02:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness
Hello, EEng. This comment by you at Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness appears to be trolling, pure and simple. It has no place on the talk page, as it does not relate to improving the article, and I would suggest that you remove it (per WP:TALK, "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject"). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment, "Reading this entire page, I find no little irony in the fact that the subject relates to insanity", is an attempt to get the participants to draw a line under the 50 posts, over 15 months, on the meaning of the words enemy and or. I guess it isn't going to work. EEng08:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were free to make a constructive comment if you wished; even stating that the issues under discussion on the talk page were not important might have counted as a constructive comment. Insulting other users, whether directly or by implication, is unwelcome. I would again suggest that you remove or refactor your comment, which is certainly a candidate for removal under the talk page guidelines. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly serious point made in an attention-getting way. Groups of sane people can act in an insane way, so there's no reason for you to feel it reflects on you individually – unless you keep obsessing about it, in which case my comment will indeed take on a deeper, less impersonal meaning. EEng08:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I decline your request. "Attention-getting" doesn't imply "insulting", and as you will surely see if you review this very page, plenty of very excellent editors prefer exercising their expressive faculties to selecting stock expressions from some menu of approved platitudes. I said the discussion was insane, which is was, and with any luck that would have caused you both to snap out of it, though unfortunately that did not happen in this case. As already mentioned, you should beware lest your insistence that there's been some negative reflection here on you personally take on the quality of a self-fulfilling prophecy. EEng01:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you call a discussion insane, by implication you are calling the editors involved insane. Stating that directly would be a personal attack. Do so, and I will invoke WP:NPA to get you blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is best to avoid making comments that other editors are likely to interpret as insults, whether or not they actually are. I have no wish for you to be blocked, per se; I was simply noting that if you want to go further and make direct personal attacks against me, that I would then feel obliged to try to get you blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, we should just allow some people to have the last word and let that speak for itself. But it impresses me the knots they sometimes tie themselves into to do so. "Obliged" to try to force someone to show you some respect, rather than doing something to actually earn it? Really? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, just how clueless are you? As three people now have tried to tell you, there was no attack. Not everything is about you, and as to It is best to avoid making comments that other editors are likely to interpret as insults, whether or not they actually are, I suggest you try: It is best to avoid interpreting other editors' comments as insults, when there's another reasonable way to interpret them. And finally: I would then feel obliged to try to get you blocked – obliged? Are you – I will now say it – insane after all? Now, per David Eppstein, go ahead and dig yourself down to bedrock by having the last word. EEng06:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When he originally made the comment,I did not have the slightest idea what would it snowball into.....Really! It's simply pathetic that some people are just so humorless.And above that so obliged !Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard08:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion is really unfortunate. FreeKnowledgeCreator, you really have not gotten to know EEng very well. If you had spent any time reading EEng's talk and user pages, and followed EEng's edits, you would have known that many of his/her comments are humorous, and that s/he values humor as a way to lighten a conversation or brighten his/her fellow editors' day. EEng and all the talk page stalkers here make many serious and valuable edits on Wikipedia, including comments in discussions, but occasionally – one might say often – they take time to have fun, mostly on their own talk pages. That many editors appreciate this is evidenced in the number of people who have this page on their watch list and participate in discussions here. In this light, I am absolutely certain that the comment to which you provided a link at the beginning of this section was not meant as a personal attack. I believe it was meant as a lighthearted comment on the content of the discussion, which s/he saw as endless arguing over unimportant things, and the humor in the comment lay in relating that endless arguing to the topic of the article itself. You took it as a personal comment about you, and I don't think EEng meant it that way. Yes, s/he could have said it more seriously, something like, "I think this endless arguing over something so unimportant is ridiculous," but that's not EEng's style. S/He really is a very nice person who will always give a thoughtful answer to a reasonable question or request. I think the best response to his/her comment on that talk page would have been either to ignore it entirely or to respond with humor. Of course you are not insane, or anything close to it. You're an intelligent and valued editor. If you don't enjoy the wit and banter that EEng and his/her talk page stalkers enjoy, just ignore it. I think it would be a complete waste of your time to try to change EEng. You will never succeed. EEng and others here, it is just simply a fact that some people don't relate to, or catch, or understand, or appreciate, some varieties of humor. I'm not advising you to stop posting humorous comments, but if you think about it, you will realize that that kind of comment could be misinterpreted by a serious kind of person as a criticism of the person engaged in a discussion instead of a criticism of the discussion as a whole. Imagine how the suggestion that a person is insane – if the person takes it as a serious comment upon himself – might make him feel. I would just like to suggest that you (and talk page stalkers) follow up a misunderstanding of a humorous comment (with the possible, and unspoken, hurt feelings that go along with it) with more kindness. – Corinne (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a thoughtful comment, thank you! I'd have more sympathy for F.K.C.'s misreading if he hadn't opened a bunch of ANI threads in the past year, claiming he's being insulted and harassed by various people. It's a pattern with him (or her). EEng19:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have, at various stages, been harassed by other editors, and I've no apologies to make for responding to that vigorously. It has nothing to do with you, as I've never accused you of harassment. By the way, if you'd bothered to look at my user page, you'd know I'm a guy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FreeKnowledgeCreator on the job
Well, at least you imagine you're being harassed, attacked, insulted. How long before you stop digging? This has ceased to be amusing, and is now just sad. Please, go do whatever it is you do when you're not playing the victim. But first, have the last word one more time, and I ask my glittering salon of talk page stalkers to not respond so that F.K.C. can experience that tiny feeling of triumph that will maybe raise his self-esteem a notch. God knows he can use it. EEng21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Back again? Don't you ever give up? How appropriate that the quote at the top of your user page [238] speaks of a "circular system whose prime significance lies precisely in circling around forever within itself". Indeed a magnificent achievement of unintentional self-parody! I congratulate you! EEng08:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to respond to me, that invites further comments. That's your choice - no one is forcing you to do it. The quote on my user page is, of course, a comment on Wikipedia as a project. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, A magnificent achievement of unintentional self-parody. Or perhaps I should have said "unconscious". EEng09:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to hurt your feelings, rather to test the limits of your commitment to your status as victim. What's your purpose in coming here over and over? Masochist? EEng09:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FreeKnowledgeCreator, your continued posting on another user's talkpage when that user has made it clear they don't want you here is itself starting to slip over the line into harassment. You've been on Wikipedia long enough that I won't patronize you by putting a big red triangle on your talkpage, but I strongly suggest you both knock it off. ‑ Iridescent09:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng is capable of speaking for himself. If he had even once suggested I should not comment here, I would have stopped. To insist on commenting on the talk page of an editor who has made it clear that he doesn't want you do to that is harassment, certainly. If EEng really wanted me to stop, why would he go on to replying to me? Replying over and over again to a user who comments on your talk page is hardly evidence that he doesn't want you to comment there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness (now following Iridescent's link) I had no idea what I was getting involved with. FKC is right -- I never asked him to stop visiting (and it's a point of pride that I've never "banned" someone from here -- I fear no one's comment or scrutiny) and I cannot in any way say that I feel I'm being harrassed. But this is beginning to lose its charm, so please FKC, for your own sake, take on board what six editors (including, now, someone over at the article talk page) are telling you: you were not being insulted, and you need to take WP:AGF on board more thoroughly than you have. But when you then come to another editor's talk page over and over, acting the fool, you'll likely be treated like a fool. You may now have the last word, if you wish, and this time I really promise I won't respond. Notice I said if you wish – there's an opportunity in that. EEng10:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm not entirely clear what you were directing me to on my Talk Page. Your link took me to a Current Event portal for a date in August, but I saw nothing there about Joey Casio.
Just to clarify, he and I were not friends. We had never met. I just discovered his music over the summer, and quickly became a big fan. But I am still curious what you were trying to show me. Please clarify on my page, thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That link was a "footnote" from someone else's message on your talk page, not from me. I know he wasn't your friend, but I was too tired to say, "Sorry about that musician that you were a fan of." EEng21:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again EEng. I am currently having a problem with stacking a sidebar at Margaret Thatcher. An image that is supposed to be situated in the second section has been shoved down the page to a different section, and I don't know how to rectify this. I was going to ping you and Redrose64 where I did last time concerning Mr Reagan, but I forgot where that was. Anyway, I'm also considering whether to be bold in trimming the infobox at her article, given how long the sidebar is. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert13:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you're still contributing. I don't see the problem (though what you see and I see will differ, depending on screen size, zoom setting, and sometimes browser). Can you tell me more? EEng15:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The trick is to recognize that the sidebar (on the right) will always appear further down than the two stacked images (on the left) anyway, so it makes sense to invoke the images first, then the sidebar. The way you had it before ran up against limitations on how much floating material can be deferred on one side or another, though I've never quite understood the details of this. In general things are most likely to go as expected if you alternate invocations left and right. EEng16:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, but you'd do better to ask at the article talk page, where people more committed to the subject will likely be found. Happy editing! EEng16:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to reveal your destination (at least the pilot knew where he was headed) ;)
"Flight 1549 hit birds on taking off from La Guardia, disabling both engines, but the pilot ditched the plane in the river and everyone survived; investigation confirmed he had made the right decision and he became a hero". ENDS.
...evidenced of course by an appropriate citation.
Although, maintaining an editor's healthy self-criticism, perhaps still the flight number is fancruft? If you had just got out of the sea after a crash landing, would you be bothered about the number? That's another few characters saved!
For those playing along at home, this is about US Airways Flight 1549. IanB2 Well, actually, now that you mention it I suppose we could reduce the entirety of the article to, "Accidents will happen. The End."
I hope your comment doesn't hint at concealed resentment. I do feel strongly that too much detail of interest only to the select few made the article a very hard slog for those who wanted a generalist's understanding of what happened, with only such technical information as impacted directly on the event. One technique would be to move such stuff to sections of their own after the main narrative, or to footnotes. See Phineas Gage to see how I've used both techniques to control an abundance of ramified detail on a single subject. EEng02:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I am enjoying the gusto with which you are trimming the article. And wanted to wish you a merry Christmas. If it enabled me also gently to make the point that you occasionally throw someone living overboard, that was a bonus ;) IanB2 (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the stuff you have deleted about the fire service respond, I would suggest restoring the citations and attaching them to the following sentence in the article - the citations provide links to extra stuff on the emergency response, for those that want to research this, and only show as a tiny number on the article so don't delay the casual reader. IanB2 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the comments Rjensen blanked would have been okay to blank if he had cited NPA rather than BLP (indeed, I group the incident that started that whole thread as one such comment), so my citing NPA makes it different on its face.
It's also not like I was edit-warring with other experienced users to keep the off-topic (and baseless) personal remark out and constantly refusing to listen; the user who reverted me (and I'm not talking about you) is brand new, half their edits are reverts, and based on my brief interaction with them on their talk page they clearly have a fair bit to learn about policy. I'm not trying to BITE them mind you -- it was apparently a good-faith mistake and while I think they need to show a bit more care it couldn't hurt to do so for them first.
Unlike Rjensen, though, I understand the Streisand effect and will not deliberately aggravate the situation by dragging it out any further. It's good that the thread finally got closed. I'm gonna stay offa ANI for a while and go back to editing articles on topics the user in question is never going to be able to follow me to (like they obviously followed me to that thread, if you look at all their edits in context, their not having anything specific to say about the topic under discussion, and especially their failure to even attempt to deny this).
Especially at ANI, leave it to others to decide what's personal attack on you. It's one of the few places we comment on editors, not on content. When you participate there as much as you have recently, you have to expect that others will form opinions on that participation -- possibly negative. EEng15:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with the exception of that one thread (which drained an awful lot of my energy) my ANI activity went down over the past month or so, and it's difficult to take that particular user's involvement in the thread in good faith because (a) he didn't seem to have read the discussion himself (if he had, he would have !voted in favour of Vanamonde's proposal like everyone else), (b) he kept aggressively campaigning for what he knew would be the worst possible result from my point of view (that would have drained even more of my time and likely caused Maunus to face sanctions for his already withdrawn and apologized uncivil comments, thus emboldening Rjensen), (c) his only substantial comment was to draw attention to my prior conflicts with him, and (d) he was directly accused of having followed me there and did not deny it, apparently because to do so would have been a lie and would have brought him under scrutiny. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I didn't untangle who was saying what to whom. All I know is that you got in way too deep in that thread. Your participation may have gone down a lot recently, but it's still very high. If you're going to swim with the sharks you're gonna get bitten now and then. A thick skin is the only answer. EEng22:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I think I have thicker skin than you give me credit for in comparing me to the subject of the thread: I let similarly off-topic and aggressive comments consistently made by Rjensen stand, choosing instead to respond and discredit them rather than remove them (although I likely would have been forgiven for doing the latter), hence the getting way too deep you refer to. It's just that, per AGF, in the normal state of affairs in the sharks' den it is assumed that the normal targets for scrutiny on their behaviour are those involved in the initial dispute, and the only way uninvolved third party commenters can normally expect to get bitten is by misbehaving in that same thread. So in effect, being a third party who is right on the substance and successfully convinces a significant number of other contributors makes one immune. The wild card, though, is my having a wikistalker who has no qualms wih showing up, not actually readin he thread itself, and making oblique references to my dispute with them from almost two years ago. The simple fact is that 100% of the hatting and collapsing was either done by me or at my request and done for the explicit reason of readability/closability, so claiming that it was because I had been myself guilty of off-topic or inflammatory commentary is an extraordinary claim that should not have been made without extraordinary evidence. Such claims should not normally be allowed to stand just because the thread was closed before the target had a chance to respond. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have no intention of reverting you, or bringing this up anywhere but here. I'm happy with the close and don't intend to open myself up to more criticism from that user again. So if you're not happy to keep discussing philosophy of editing with me you can blank this section or just tell me to buzz off and I will oblige. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to blank this section (look at this page -- obviously I never do) nor will I tell you to buzz off. But your tendency to expound at length on fundamentally simple topics is part of why some of those ANI threads became so prolonged and involved. If you feel attacked, let others defend you, and if they don't, shame on them. EEng23:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the idea that I'm "stalking" Hijiri88 is ludicrous. I haven't checked recently, but at one point I was the number 2 or 3 contributor to AN/I by number of edits. Right now I have 7935 edits to that page, about 4% of my total (my article edits tend to hover just below 75% - right now they're at 73.27% [239]), so the idea that I'm participating to AN/I to "stalk" Hijiri88 is hogwash, pure and simple -- as is his assumption that because I disagree with him I must not have read the thread. Lately he's a heavy participant there, and I've been one for many years, so our crossing paths isn't "stalking", it's to be expected. If H88 doesn't like the heat, then I suggest he get out of the AN/I kitchen, or else (as you say) grow a thicker skin and cut down his verbosity significantly. In the meantime, unless for some reason the community bans me from dong so, I'm going to continue to contribute to AN/I when and where I see fit, whether or not he is involved. If H88 thinks that's "Wikistalking" (which we now actually call WP:Harassment) I suggest he either file a formal complaint accusing me of something specific, with concrete evidence to back it up, or shut down his whining about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it's almost christmas...you didn't die this year...someone on the internet put two and two together and posted something about it...so...maybe things are finally starting to look up TimothyJosephWood19:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make something cynical, after seeing a dozen or so people posting season's greetings on...two or three hundred talk pages each. Seems like it might fit in here. TimothyJosephWood20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... if I were to refrain from raising my beverage vessel to you in appreciation of your efforts at Fred West on the quest we would be forced to pursue of eliminating unnecessary usage (which would not be inaccurately described as "virtually all usage") of the "Forensic Files" past prospective tense. Children who grew up watching half-hour crime reconstructions on cable would grow up to become writers who apparently believe it would make them sound like hard-hitting professional journalists, and even reasonably reputable print organs would begin to use the pointless affectation as liberally as the peanuts a Dairy Queen employee would dollop generously onto a sundae he would have doused immediately prior with hot fudge. Reasonable minds would consider a public awareness campaign if there weren't arguably bigger fish that would require frying. Hoping you will go on to have a happy 2017! - Julietdeltalima(talk)17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prepared to fully rise to this haughty and aloof ludicrosity (although I could should I wish to do so) beyond saying that not only do some of us prepare ourselves with exhaustive hours spent (beyond watching and reading crime fanzines which you seem to believe I solely do so to leave - in your mind - a charlatan legacy), to create and populate articles with reputable/verifiable references for the ULTIMATE benefit of the global community and NOT myself, but that we do NOT devote similar energy to dismiss others' effort. In the 8 years I've been doing this your comment takes the cake. User EEng please don't think I am even slightly lassoing yourself in here to this reply. User:Julietdeltalima, I'll take you WAY beyond Wikipedia crime-wise if you like to attest to what I can detach myself to (I was tempted to add an ultimate, non-Wikipedia link but won't do so but ask me on my talk page and I'll do so). Do what I do, to the extent to which I do, with the capabilities of retaining your emotions and sanity, then come back to me and ridicule me. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing personal, EEng. (it Up! Break it Up!) I just checked your page to see if there were any observations of the article thus far and read that for the 1st time. I know it's retrospective to a degree. Just had to let my thoughts known. No disrespect intended to any individual. Sicko signs out. ;)--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Regards.[reply]
No personal offense intended to Julia; I suspect she didn't know it was largely a solo effort to the then-date of construction. Maybe this is a gripe to a degree, but generally on Wiki. I see no shortage of reference etc. tagging but not a degree of effort from those asking for citations etc. to populate the web themselves. Julia don't take it personally. With 4 or 5 exceptions I've encountered on Wiki. over the years, people can't detach themselves to do this type o' topic. That's actually one of the reasons I devote attention largely to this topic. Off-topic to a degree, but I work with data. All the best to yous both.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying my best to populate an article most could not surmount their nervous system to evolve to how it could be (and in my way is albeit with slightly meandering sentence structure). Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kieronoldham: And you've done a good job -- took a lot of research. I apologize again if I hurt your feelings, though sometimes I can't resist highlighting awkward turns of the phrase. I hope you feel the article is improved by the tightening, which is mostly done without loss of information, though there will be places where I'll eliminate what I see as overdetail. Feel free to push back. EEng03:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm sorry if I sounded slightly abrasive. You didn't hurt any feelings; I just sensed - probably wrongly - you were being dismissive. I just find these challenges rewarding and do them ultimately for the benefit of others' reading. I am aware I can add a little too much (superfluous?) detail from time to time. You've tightened and trimmed it quite well. Have a good Christmas.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, your reaction was an understandable one when someone arrives out of nowhere not only taking a hatchet to your hard work, but with some, er, unkind things to say along the way. I hadn't realized the article was mostly one person's work -- usually masses like that are the work of many over a long period. I'm not sure I have the energy to continue, though, at least right now. Maybe I'll drop in from time to time. EEng21:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons greetings. Please don't archive the DYK discussion page items "Cwmhiraeth and the role of the promotor" and "Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt" for a while because I have sent links to them to various friends and relatives and they won't find them if they have been archived. I wanted my "folk" to see how we co-operate behind the scenes at DYK, and admire the sequence of events leading up to the first time I have ever been sworn at during my sheltered life. ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Barnstar for you
The Original Barnstar
Just letting you know your improvements to the Fred West article are appreciated from the heart, EEng. Sometimes overlapping information and personal lexicon can be overlooked. Seasons Greetings, too. Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trypto, that comment was meant to be a joke, not an attack or criticism. FBDB. Besides, EEng and Martinevans are two people who have linked to sexual content in discussion to each other. His lot was an offhand comment about this talk page and those who frequent it - hello to a lesser extent I gues. That's what I was pointing to. I hope that didn't come out too wrong. Happy to retract or rephrase if EEng likes. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My reference to "critics" was meant as a reference to EEng's userpage, where there is a section called "What the critics are saying", and it means "critic" in the sense of someone who appraises or reviews, as opposed to criticism as in finding fault. And I posted here because you didn't ping or whatever, so I figured that EEng and the rest of us in the "lot" would want to know. I don't think that what you said there was particularly offensive, although I guess some humorless types will construe it as EEng and the rest of us having a misogynistic sense of humor or something like that. Personally, I found your post at the RfA kind of tl;dr, and kind of not really helpful for an RfA, but your mileage may differ. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmm. Fair enough. I probably should have pinged EEng as I did name them. I didn't mostly because as you call it, it is a "tl;dr" that would leave EEng wondering what I'm on about for about half the wall. I did say somewhere towards the end that this was far more a personal comment than a adminship capabilities related one, so it's value as an RfA comment might be more limited. Thanks Tryptofish for leaving the note to EEng and for the reply. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, for those reading if anyone at all. I've significantly cut my post at Ivan's RfA. It no longer mentions anyone by name and I hope it's less tl;dr'y. This is what Tryptofish was referring to. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. Am I really some kind of apex predator in the Wikipedia ecosystem? And here I thought I was just making the occasional joke here and there to lighten the mood. I've been thinking of nominating myself at RfA just to find out what people really think of me. EEng02:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, last I checked the definition of apex predator is grabbing them by the pussy without asking permission, so I figure talking about the pussy without asking for permission is quite a way up there. Maybe not apex but definitely in the top 10. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, talking about the pussy of someone in particular, yes, but surely not pussy in the abstract. Anyway, this is all very fine talk comeing from Mr. Nude Dude. EEng03:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot who it was but there was an editor on Wikipedia who pissed off the wrong group of admins and was banned/blocked (forgot which) because he kept refusing to archive his talk page and undid the admin's archiving of his talk page. Reading his talk page war with the 3% admins was fun, now I have to look to see if I can find it again. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk)16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, If you will kindly search the string 3% on this page and its companion User:EEng, you will find some of the incidents you're thinking of, plus links to others. EEng16:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How could you not realise a discussion had been archived when it has a huge coloured box around it? You had to see the section had been archived to even edit it. It's not controlling what you say to tell you it's not right to reply in an archived discussion. It's against policy. Ss11205:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're very sure in your pronouncements, yet your display at ANI shows that you don't listen -- a deadly combination. In the edit conflict page the rendered page is in the middle; if you jump to the bottom (as I did) to pick up the text of my post, then jump to the edit box at the top (as I did) to reinsert that text, you won't see it (as I didn't)isn't even shown, so there's no huge colored box for me to notice. Now for the nth time, as a pile of editors have now told you, stop ascribing dark motives to your fellow editors, stop trying to control what articles they edit, and stop trying to control where and how they post comments. Got it? EEng06:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"No peace"
With your permission, I'd like to explain "no peace": I used to help out at union protests and "no peace" was a frequently-chanted slogan. Though, using "no peace" does not advocate in any way for any actions that WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits. I hope I've cleared the confusion that I've unknowingly caused. CédricHATES TPP.23:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from a working-class background so I don't need any pointers on picket-line slogans, thanks. If you think your explanations at ANI are helping your case, you're very much mistaken. I suggest you withdraw your demands for an apology, and try to demonstrate to the community that you understand why everyone is so pissed off at you. If you fail to do this you're very likely to get blocked, possibly indefinitely. EEng02:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EEng. Thanks for your reply to my query. You should be aware that I have already alerted the other editor to the existence of the MOS thread - in case you might prefer to moderate your comment. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but my comments were meant for public consumption, including by our esteemed colleague—in fact I pinged him. Someone who, after being directed to the MOS provision contradicting his view, insists that "I would also add that my opinion as an individual is at least as valid as yours and if I want to make these changes - which are not a waste of time - I will do so!" is unlikely to become a productive editor. It's also worth noting that (as seen in that quotation, which is copy-pasted straight from his post) he confuses a dash for a hyphen in a discussion in which he emphasizes his superior knowledge of how to use endashes and emdashes! Amazing. EEng23:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, we've already seen. Forget consensus, he acknowledges what a house style is and then keeps on arguing. I got my fill of people who lecture others on how to write, without apparently being able to do it themselves, in college Expos. EEng00:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MOS your way
EEng, you've been given tons of slack to rewrite the MOS your way, though it's not clear what your point is. So when someone (like me) pushes back on one or more of your edits, don't you think it's incumbent on you to discuss before pushing your way in an edit war? Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, we're talking about this [240]. I don't need any slack, thanks. You may not see the point (reduce distracting overdetail on technical points and general flab and bloat, improve layout, bring related points together...) but from the Thank-Yous I've received apparently others do; there are many eyes on the page and no doubt any changes not perceived as improvements would be rapidly reverted.
As to the matter at hand... You removed an example I had added, stating a concern. I reinserted the example, with an edit summary explaining why I thought your concern was misplaced. You removed again, and I reinserted again, this time in a modified form I thought would address your concern, overfussy though I think it is. That's not an "edit war". EEng03:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What uncivil? What rejoinder? All I said is everyone should feel like they're a winner once in a while, so we're all happy for you! But while we're on the subject, I might ask what the point is of your uncivil section header (though please understand that I am not, in fact, asking). EEng06:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the personality issue, this wave of mass edits to MoS has to stop. I'm liable to revert the entire mess back to the last stable version. Please do not do this sort of thing, EEng. I'm pretty sure that you know that "MoS is unstable, so it's not really a guideline and thus we should ignore it" is among the top 2 or 3 anti-MoS (usually false) rationales of people who would delete or gut the guideline. Stop making it true for them, I beg you. I'm pretty sure you also know that minor clarifying changes often turn out to be controversial, because they subtly shift meaning (or can be misinterpreted as doing so) in ways that affect large numbers of articles. I think you should self-revert that mess, then make a couple of copyediting changes, and let that sit for a week. Give people time to assess whether they actually change anything. Then make a few more. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, I don't think "mess" is an appropriate term. You know how careful I am, and it doesn't sound like you've actually looked yet. Please do. In particular I'd like you, with your mercilessly critical eye, to review these: [241][242][243][244][245][246][247][248][249].
I did look, and saw reasons to object immediately, though only here and there. I am not doing a mass-revert (I oppose those generally, and was hyperbolically indicating frustration). I'm poring over it all now. I agree many of the changes are positive, but some are not. I'm trying to massage back in what needs to be restored without doing violence to your cleanup intent. That said, please don't use guideline pages as sandboxes to experiment with templates and wikimarkup. If you are not "markup master", just ask on the talk page for someone to deal with the matter, like closing up example spacing in a way that doesn't just introduce new problems. I'm about 1/5 done going through it all (including intervening edits by others). I've taken a very hands-off approach to MoS for months and stopped watchlisting it, but I don't think that was a good idea. Now that I'm looking again, many (especially drive-by) edits to the page do not appear to be helpful. (Again, I think many of yours were, it was just the shotgun approach I mostly had an issue with, and I think it's what has alarmed Dicklyon, and I think Tony1 raised a concern, too). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect to do so much at once, but you know how one gets into a groove. But don't worry, I've certainly scratched my itch for now. EEng22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get it. It's just that getting in that fugue state on a guideline can lead to a lot of disputes. Anyway, I just spent several hours poring over all that (and I didn't mean "mess" in a pointed way; where I'm from, "all that mess" is an colloquialism that's equivalent to "all that stuff, which I don't want to think about / deal with / explain right now"), with an eye not just to what I care about but what anyone else is likely to object to. Hopefully we can let it lie for now. PS: I don't care about the exact wording here, just a) there's more than one way (MoS's own lead makes the point "rewrite around dispute when you can", and I like to reinforce this throughout MoS), b) "stilted" is just an opinion, not an MoS "finding of fact". Honestly, I think everyone on earth will just DGaF about making that sentence a tiny bit shorter, so unless you really object to it in some way .... I was tempted to put back a handful of other things but I recognized that they were not really necessary, and had been added as "what if someone stupid thinks it means ..." WP:CREEP and/or that I'd added it myself and was feeling defensive about my word-sprouts; you were right to delete them. Anyway, I would expect some later editors to tweak what you did and what I did after some more, including some possible reversions to the older text. I would suggest we take them to the talk page as line-items to discuss and not edit the page directly. The fact that it's been so stable for most of this year is a major selling point. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like creating an important category every once in awhile...
Thanks for the, um, tips, Martin. (And what a cheerful narrator!) Very useful here in the US, where we are well on into the process of legalizing recreational use. In contrast (jingoism alert!), our page on The Roaches is the very essence of UK twee. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awww... "The legend says that she fell in the pool on a foggy day whilst walking along the top of the Roaches. Ever since that day she has been enticing unsuspecting victims down to the pool and to their watery grave." How lovely! It's because it's only just down the road from Coronation Street. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also like The Roches. As for the CfD, they should have nominated that stupid roach category instead. But I've gone to that CfD and made a suitably dyspeptic !vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"We don't give out our ages, and we don't give out our phone numbers (Give out our phone numbers!) / Sometimes our voices give out, but not our ages and our phone numburrrrs!" EEng21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically "two apparently sane people, one person I've never heard of so have no opinion of, and one serial fuckwit who's so consistently stupid that closing all discussions the opposite way to whatever he's supporting is actually a workable admin technique, but always just about manages to weasel his way out of any action being taken against him", but that would be a little long-winded. ‑ Iridescent16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[FBDB]Even though I'm on Arbcom, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.
Well, I won't do it that way again -- wasn't intending to -- but I was absolutely serious in what I said here [250] and will periodically remind DYKers of it until people seem comfortable simply ignoring those of his comments that deserve ignoring. Whatever the value of some of his complaints, they are largely (and perhaps completely -- more than completely) outweighed by his insistence on drowning them in a sea of trivial niggles. It's a shame, because he has an eye for potential problems but no sense of priority. EEng04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your substantive point, but a nasty presentation risks distracting from it. (FYI, I'm forever recused on anything TRM-related, so my arbship really is irrelevant here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd characterize my presentation as forceful, but your point is valid and I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for visiting, Your Arbship. (BTW, I pointed out to Drmies the other day that one anagram of Arbitration Committee is Motto: recriminate a bit. Perfect, don't you think?) EEng04:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont do this and stop making a fool of yourself its not clever, it would be better to educate us as you appear to know the small print of the MoS and explain why we cant add United States to places in the United States in aircraft accident infoboxes. Do you have any suggestions as to where the best place is to mention the United States, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no best place. Articles don't refer to New York City as New York City, United States, and this has nothing to do with this being what you sardonically call "Usapedia", because we also don't tell our readers that London is in England, Moscow in Russia, or Tokyo in Japan. I explained this twice [252][253], the second time linking the two controlling guidelines –
– which you apparently didn't read, because you once again changed the article to read Washington State, United States and New York City, United States.
You're an admin so I shouldn't have to tell you all this. If you're responsible for the opening of various articles explaining (for example) that Heathrow Airport is in "Hillingdon, London, England, United Kingdom", then you've got a lot of cleanup to do. I might be gentler if you'd omitted the Usapedia crack, which you should probably reserve for when you know what you're talking about. EEng16:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Just wondering -- why would we need to know that the US Airways flight was coming from the United States? :/
Just wait until the new President is sworn in. (POV-pushing and spam alert: I'm proudly wearing my "Don't blame me. I voted for Hillary." button, that can be obtained from Amazon. Really, I'm actually wearing that button!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne, to my astonishment I just stumbled [254] on the fact that you and I already interacted on this issue once, so I really don't understand why we're going over it again. EEng01:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
You have now reverted two editors (who don't generally agree with each other) who have found these statements to be in violation of WP:POLEMIC, specifically to the above-quoted statement. Please do not continue to revert against this consensus. If you continue to believe that the statements are not in violation, you can bring it up on the user talk page, on the talk page for POLEMIC (WT:User pages), or on a notice board, perhaps as an appendix to the thread in which Cedric was indef blocked. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this is about [255] Too late. You're fussing about nothing, and I'm sure you know how I feel about the nannying of editor's userpages. The bar for such removals is very high. The guy's been (deservedly) humiliated but no need to add to it. Let it go. EEng00:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, firstly that seems to be a criticism of Wikipedia and we generally don't remove those. More importantly, we generally also give lee-way to those blocked/banned to "vent", and finally POLEMIC is in the eyes of the ever wonderful admins. I have seen pages and pages of off topic crap, userboxes calling for violence against certain people, but no action. A little tiny statement about how Wikipedia works by a banned user is not going to get under anyone's skin. Finally, that statement on his page is also certainly not polemic in any event.🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk)00:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment from the actual blocking admin BMK, do you really want to go down this route? If Wrongful accusations from a popular guy: "NBD." Fighting such wrongful accusations: "WP:BATTLEGROUND! WP:NOTHERE! Indef block!" is such a terrible block of WP:POLEMIC that it needs to be removed immediately, then most of User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts is so far in breach that it probably warrants a permanent site ban. Unless something is actually libellous, grossly offensive, a specific attack on a named individual, the use of userspace by a user with little or no history of Wikipedia activity to host out-of-scope content, or something which is actually causing technical problems,* we've always allowed extremely broad leeway in what people can keep in their own userspace. This is really not a hill on which you want to fight. ‑ Iridescent15:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] *"something which is actually causing technical problems" is a policy which this talkpage is going to breach very soon if you continue to refuse to archive it to make whatever WP:POINT you're trying to make, incidentally; if any given page plus all transclusions hits 1.5mb in size, the software will lock it and whoever allowed it to reach that state will be treated as a disruptive editor, and that limit is a non-negotiable limit hardwired into Mediawiki, not just an artefact of humorless admins who fail to see the funny side of your having a talkpage that crashes the browsers of between 10–30% of readers. ‑ Iridescent15:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, Iridescent, there's no POINT. I do archive now and then, though I should probably pick up the pace. The parser stats are between 1/20 and 1/4 of limits, and the emphasis on text size is misguided since, as with most articles, it's swamped by the images. EEng17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Iridescent! I say go for it (or at least revoke his talk page access)! Problem is, EEng just likes it when the rest of us say "it's too big!" Cmon, EEng, you can do it! And see: [256]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Imho etc it's not half as bad as the notice at the top of their tp, as I might've mentioned before ;) but seriously, that should be got rid of. I spose it has lost imapct now they're blocked, but what a first-time impression it could give a noob that stumbled over it. Just a thought. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi.15:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That notice is now one with Nineveh and Tyre, as he doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn "anyone can edit". Looking at his CentralAuth page, it's clear that he's primarily active on Yue Wikipedia. I suspect a lot of this may be a cultural misunderstanding; since Yue is a tiny Wikipedia (only 199 active editors and 50,000 articles, according to the current table), I imagine most of the editors there probably know each other so there's much more of a culture of goofing around and an "I don't need to follow the rules, I write the rules" mentality as there was on en-wiki in the early days, and he just doesn't realise that despite all appearances en-wiki is actually a fairly professional working environment and generally takes a very dim view of self-appointed comedians trying to disrupt procedural discussions. ‑ Iridescent16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment on Cedric's talk page. I don't have a problem with commenting on blocked users' talk pages (obviously), but if you are going to do so I'd advise against mentioning "diacritics". His block had nothing to do with diacritics, despite what he would likely want you to believe. It did have to do with posting indecipherable edit summaries that were not indecipherable because they included diacritics; they were indecipherable because the spellings used therein were gibberish. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home [and I'm getting tired of saying that] we're talking about [257]. Crikey, you and BMK both gotta find more to do that doesn't involve managing the precise wordings of messages editors leave for one another. EEng04:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed what BMK wrote (and still haven't read it). I saw your comment on his page because I was reading it. I knew he would immediately try to appeal his block, and I was fairly certain his appeal would mention me specifically. I corrected a few users on this point on ANI, and it's important -- last time In ictu oculi opposed the indef proposal, apparently on the misunderstanding that the dispute had something to do with diacritics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, we're talking about anagrams of the phrase Manual of Style[258] Oh, but you can put it on my talk page??? I guess I can take comfort in knowing that I provide an outlet for the community's otherwise pent-up creativity.
Taking your lead, let's see, um, we've also got Lo! My anal fetus! (not very catchy, if you ask me) and My so-anal flute or My anal flute – so??? (hardly improvements). Oh, wait, how about Lofty anal muse? Possibly some member of my glittering array of talk page stalkers can can expand our
thinking along those lines.
PS Wow thanks, reading the top of your page provided my first Wiki experience (after five years) in which I laughed five or six times without scrolling down once. Fantastic NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record:
...as the proposer, I am not actually wanting this to pass. I rather want to lay the issue to rest against a tendentious argument. Thanks for your support by so clearly opposing (one of the odder thanks I've given another editor, to be sure). Happy New Year. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)01:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn, as any member of my glittering array of talk page stalkers will attest, I specialize in not giving people the opposite response to the counterfactual strawman they didn't propose. Have you visited The Museums? EEng01:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"An elderly man taking his songbird out for a walk ..."
Sorry if this puzzled you; in retrospect I can see that to a reader not familiar with China it might need some explanation.
It's not unheard of, even today, for older men in China to keep caged songbirds as pets. In mornings they actually take them out, usually in the cages but sometimes (less so now) letting them fly around the city (they eventually return). That's what was happening there.
I've given him a Big Scary Warning. I have better things to do than monitor him for compliance, but if he starts this Dash Warrior shit again let me know and I'll send him on his way. (For someone to reach the point where Dicklyon is complaining that they're too obsessed with imposing their personal stylistic preferences deserves some kind of award in its own right.) ‑ Iridescent19:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my high school Russian got me that far. It's the video I'm unclear on. EEng06:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Anyway, didn't the Tsarevich come to an unhappy end?[reply]
When I clicked the link, I got taken to a disgusting compilation of Russians puking after drinking too much booze. As I understand it, there is a tremendous amount of vodka consumption there, so vodka drinking is something of a cliché. EEng Vodka, anyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I heard about it on NPR. He says it couldn't have happened because he is a germ-phobe. (Really, I heard that.) No wonder he has so many divorces. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly Caution: You look like you are on the edge of an edit war. Please take any content disputes to the talk page. I've gotten, and declined for now, a request to protect the page. I'm also leaving this message on the other party's talk page. Drop me a line if you have questions or concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, thanks, Ad Orientem, but I guess you're still getting your sea-legs as a new admin -- you forgot to check the article's talk page.[265]. The idea of page protection here is ludicrous. EEng19:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback; I share your peeve with the misuse of stats, which is why I wanted to write a bit more in depth. I think it's best to clarify what I meant by posting the statistics. I'm not a positivist, I view them as a tool to gain additional facts that we can use to make decisions, not as able to definitively answer questions on their own. Reading the discussion above part of my decision-making process was to what extent is this a problem, non-bold links getting more clicks than the bold links we are highlighting. To answer that, I needed more than the ten or so hand picked data points offered so far and so would anyone else that had that same question. So I calculated the descriptive statistics which would be of use to anyone. I wanted to give something slightly more useful than the raw data so that others can, to quote my self, "do with it what [they] will".
It was always intended to be quick and dirty, essentially the first things you look at when you are given a bunch of data, so that people like you who do know how to interpret statistics can come to your own conclusions. But I also recognize that a lot of people don't know what to do with all those stats, so I wanted to give them something to take away from the data without forcing my opinions and interpretations on the data. That's what the t-test was for. A basic question that is the foundation of the discussion "do bold links get a different number of clicks than non-bold links". The t-test showed that they do get significantly more clicks and I intentionally left it vague from there so that the reader can use that to come up with their own interpretations.
However I wouldn't have stated the conclusion did I not have confidence in them. The statistics are all consistent with your hypothesis, that the data can be explained as a difference in the base number of hits, but it relies on flaws in the data which I figured to be unlikely. Because these are central tendency measures with about 900 points in both categories, the outliers you point out would be washed out as noise or you'd have to say that there is a strong net bias for bold links being high traffic. That at 900 data points DYK noms would not approximate a random sample of pages seems unlikely to me. But even the descriptive statistics give credence to it not being a data flaw. Take for instance the standard deviations. Firstly, they're both the same order of magnitude meaning that they're probably a similar shape. Secondly, for both groups, one standard deviation includes the mean of the other group meaning that there is a substantial overlap of the distributions.
I said that specifically: The statistics are all consistent with your hypothesis, that the data can be explained as a difference in the base number of hits. An alternate way to state it: the difference I found is mostly due to differences in the base-hits of bold links versus non-bold rather than their status as bold or not. Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"it relies on flaws in the data which I figured to be unlikely" -- what flaws? what's "it"?
"That at 900 data points DYK noms would not approximate a random sample of pages seems unlikely"
As the number of data points increases, the sample distribution begins to approximate the population distribution (assuming all data is normally distributed). My point is that the sample sizes are so large that outliers would have a marginal affect on the data. My assumption was that the page view distribution of pages nominated for DYK is the same as the page view distribution of pages linked for clarification, both of which, because of the large sample sizes, would be equivalent to the population distribution. I specifically checked this and found that it is false. The average base page views for bolded links is ~2000 while it's ~150 for non-bolded links. Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And stuff like "the standard deviations. Firstly, they're both the same order of magnitude meaning that they're probably a similar shape" makes no sense at all.
It's great you're trying to get some quantitatives, but you need to more clearly define what you're looking for. You still seem to be focusing on whether nonbold links get, in general, different rates of clickthrough than do bold links, and there's no question at all about that, so it's a waste of time. The debate is about the effect of the presence of nonbold links on clickthroughs for bold links, and there's no way to actually find that out without some kind of experiment. Short of that all we can do is get an upper bound on how many clicks might be being diverted to nonbold links, by looking at how many clicks nonbold links get -- but that has to take into account the baseline level of clicks the nonbold links get on other days anyway. I vaguely perceive you to be suggesting you can neglect that, and (again) that's absurd, since nonbold links are established articles that often have thousands or tens of thousands of clicks daily anyway.`EEng23:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstand me or I misunderstand you. I'm confused as to what your fundamental problem is. you need to more clearly define what you're looking for I feel I've answered this already, but essentially, I'm not looking for anything, I'm providing descriptive statistics that summarize a large amount of data. there's no question at all about that, so it's a waste of time I disagree, and regardless will waste my time on whatever pursuit piques my interest. I vaguely perceive you to be suggesting you can neglect that That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that, regardless of why the groups are different (base page hits, bolding, aliens), the descriptive statistics I gave are still completely factual summations of the data. The t-test is only valid if 5 assumptions are correct: (1) The data are continuous or ordinal (they are); (2) the samples are random (this one is a little more dodgy given the conclusion that the base page hits are different between groups; they're random samples of their respective groups, but they may not be random samples of the population); (3) the data are normally distributed (they are); (4) a large sample size, usually greater than 30, is used (it is); (5) the treatment does not significantly change the variance (it doesn't, hence the comment about the standard deviations being the same order of magnitude). These assumptions are met with or without normalization (the validity of assumption 3 is independent of the normalization as it's about the sampling). Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Personally, I don't mind you interposing your responses within my post, but most people find it very offensive and in general you shouldn't do that. I find, however, that most people will tolerate your numbering their bullets, so you can reference them in your own post, if you very deferentially point out that you've so.) Again I applaud your enthusiasm, and I don't want to talk down to you, but I have a degree in statistics and use it regularly in my work (in adversarial situations where there's someone on the other side ready to pounce) so you have to believe me when I tell you that a lot of what you're saying and doing makes no sense. A (nonrandom) sample:
Back at TDYK you said that something (I'm still not sure what) was significant, apparently because "p>0.00001". At the time I assumed the > was a typo but now I'm not so sure.
You said, "As the number of data points increases, the sample distribution begins to approximate the population distribution (assuming all data is normally distributed)". As the sample size increases the sample distribution approaches the population distribution always, period, whether or not "the data" (by which I suppose you mean the population) is normal.
The t-test is for small, not large, samples; it does not require normality; and it makes no sense at all for ordinal data.
There's no "treatment" here. Links end up in the hooks bolded, or not bolded because the articles they lead to are of utterly different kinds -- established vs. new -- and there's no way to interpret this as some kind of "treatment".
Perhaps most fundamentally, you seem to have based your computations on all the hooks "the last 200 revisions to T:DYK" [266]. This isn't a sample (much less a random sample) of anything, it's a population -- it just is the hooks from the last 200 revisions. There's no sampling, no uncertainty, and hypothesis tests make no sense here.
I know enough to know when I'm out of my depth, and I'm willing to say this is one of those moments. My thoughts on your points will probably be wrong or trivial (except for the first one; it was a typo, one that I wish you'd pointed out earlier!). I will say though that I wish you had been this clear from the beginning! I really don't mind what you perceive as bluntness or talking down. If I've posted it, I hope people will push back and help come to a good solution. I'd much rather you be clear than try to preserve my ego. So no need to fret or hedge, I've taken your comments in the good spirit they're intended.
The only thing I'm still unclear on is how you think the comment should be reworded. From the focus of your last comment, it seems you don't have much problem with the summary statistics but rather the hypothesis test (ie, the t-test) should I strike the t-test or revise to be more clear about its (lack) of implications. You've said next to nothing about my use of Cohen's d, is that something that should likewise be revised? Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]05:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC) P.S., I don't usually respond inline like that, but this seemed like one of the few times it seemed beneficial. So no need to worry, it's not a habit.[reply]
Well, there's nothing stopping you from computing d, but what does it mean? You tried to translate the d-values into % of one group which exceeded the mean of the other group, but doing that really does require knowing the data is normal (or something else about the distribution), and for sure that's not the case here -- I've never looked into it but I can just about guarantee you that page views of the general article population are heavily skewed left, with a very long tail to the right.
If you ask me, quit trying to compare bolded and nonbolded links, and instead focus on how much each nonbold link's views increase on the day of the hook's appearance, compared to a baseline established by the 14 days on either side. It would be then quite interesting to relate that to the views for the bolded link (which almost always have an essentially zero baseline, since the articles are new other than the case of GA promotions). The question isn't whether bolds vs. nonbolds are more or less, but how much nonbolds might be drawing away from bolds. EEng06:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: An issue about your stats which concerned me was that you took hooks which usually have only one bolded link but can have many unbolded ones and treated the data as two groups. I would think a by-hook analysis would be more informative. A few things which I would find interesting would include:
For each hook, find additional clicks on the bolded link (less baseline, which I agree with EEng is usually near zero, but given we have new GAs in the information, needs to be accounted for). Find average additional clicks for non-bolded links, less their baselines. Plot against each other and see what we got.
Also estimate the probability that the bolded link views exceeds the non-bolded. This could be done (crudely) by counting hooks where extra bold clicks > average extra non-bold clicks. Treatment of multi-bold hooks would need to be considered carefully as an average is less meaningful if (say) clicks decreases with distance into the hook.
Examine whether the lead hook's behaviour matches that of other hooks, and also whether the quirky (last) spot displays different behaviour. The lead hook also has clicks on the image.
Recalling my analysis at User:EdChem/DYK clicks for a single day, chosen as a recent day when it was written, which shows that the ratio of non-bold (total) clicks regularly exceed bold clicks ranged from 0.35:1 to 4.86:1, with 7 / 17 hooks having a ratio below 1 (the one hook with no non-bold link is excluded). Is examining such a ratio useful for commenting on "typical clicks" from a DYK, or for identifying cases with high ratios for hooks which appear to draw attention from the bolded link? The valid statistical tests available is not obvious to me as a statistically aware non-statistician scientist, so I would defer to a trained statistician. (EEng, I haven't pinged you on your own talk page, but obviously I am interested in your views).
EEng is right that the real answer would come from an experiment. Theoretically, if every access to the main page on a half-day (as we are using 12 h slots at present) served the same DYK but including or excluding non-bold links, and the clicks resulting from each group can be analysed separately, we would get good data to address the question we seek. Such an experiment could only be run with the permission of the WMF (which wouldn't happen) and would need repetition, and may be technically problematic - and that's without even considering ethics. What we can do to answer our questions is limited and indirect measures are necessarily problematic. If I may share a personal story, I had a lecturer in quantitative methods of analysis who was roped in to teach at Masters level at the last minute as the assigned lecturer became unavailable. It was obvious to me that he knew how to do statistical tests and certainly how to use statistical packages, but he did not understand how they worked and consequently made some mistakes I found astounding. As an example, given a data set of responses from people, he considered whether the male and female respondents were (on average) the same age. Instead of performing a simple t-test, he plotted the data, age on the y-axis, gender on the x-axis, assigning male as x = 1 and female as x = 2. He then had as determined the correlation coefficient and test whether it statistically significantly differed from 0. The conclusion from the obvious analysis and his was the same, our data set had females who were statistically significantly older than males, on average, but only one approach was reasonable. The view that "small p-value = important finding" is dangerous and misleading because the p-value is meaningful only if the test is valid and appropriate to the data and the question. Misuse of stats arises from ignorance, from mining data for / seeking evidence to support a conclusion (instead of allowing conclusions to arise from evidence), deliberate misrepresentation (such as unjustified selective exclusion of data), and honest mistakes, amongst others. I'm comfortable with your goodwill and good intentions, Wugapodes, but I suspect that, like me, you lack sufficient statistical experience to be really confident about analyses to enlighten us about a question where we can't do the experiment we need to get the answer. EdChem (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
if every access to the main page on a half-day (as we are using 12 h slots at present) served the same DYK but including or excluding non-bold links, and the clicks resulting from each group can be analysed separately – You don't need to present the same hook two different ways. Instead, you'd do this:
Develop and approve hooks, and put together hook sets the usual way.
As a new final step before a hook set goes live, flip a coin and if it's heads, unlink all the nonbold links (or make whatever changes to links called for by some proposed new linking approach) in that set (or maybe you flip the coin on a hook-by-hook basis -- there are pluses and minuses with each approach). This is "treatment".
Analyze view stats for bolded links and (if there are any) unbolded links in hooks that got the treatment vs. those that don't. Presumably the most interesting question is whether bold links in treatment hooks do or don't get more clicks than those in controls. (This is a "composite null" so some additional thinking would be needed about what questions we really want to ask.) And if so, how much more?
I'm not sure how much use an experiment would do, though it would be interesting and fun. We could propose a week long trial at WT:DYK to basically do EEng's design (I'd modify it to just have all hooks that week be sans-links and compare it to a prior sample for ease of execution. This definitely would not need IRB approval (were we to have one). The data are not "about" people, but are specific to the effectiveness of internal policies and won't be generalized so it's not human subjects research. Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]02:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC) P.S., @EdChem: I agree with you on all that. The stats I posted were meant as quick and dirty summaries, not a definitive analysis. I've updated the post to make that caveat more clear though[reply]
A design with two different sets of hook content (rather than just differences in provided links) will be open to criticism for the uncontrolled variable of the hook content themselves – "bold-only set X got more clicks than unbolded-hooks-as-well set Y because X had more interesting hooks". On 12 hour cycles, we also have the problem that more clicks come overall in one set than the other each day – "bold-only set X got more clicks than unbolded-hooks-as-well set Y because X was in the high-click position of the day." An experimental design that includes known flaws is not good. Further, based on my background knowledge, I don't think that the difference is as simple as having non-bold links. I think this is a manifestation of what are termed "seductive details" in educational psychology. We make hooks deliberately interesting to attract attention, but sometimes the hookiness lies in a detail not with a focus on the bolded article, such as the recent seven-year-old king example. In education, this would be a seductive detail if the result is recall of the king or his age but not the salient fact in the hook – but is this a seductive detail in that sense, given that the point of the hook is not education. If we are looking at a situation akin to seductive details, then the dominance of one or more non-bold links should be disproportionate to whatever is "typical", and not present in every hook. This will cause a difficulty in statistical analysis because of a bimodal distribution. The position of the bolded link in the hook also appears to have an effect (as clicks generally decrease along a hook), though the image also gets a lot of clicks, and the effect of hook position in a set is also likely to be significant. I'm not sure we have the data to design a truly effective experiment, even leaving aside the implementation problem. Also, even though the WMF may have no ethics body and as we have no intent to publish in the literature and are not acting as academics answerable to an IRB, that does not mean that there are no ethical issues to consider. We are talking about collecting data on website usage from people, which is done routinely and with consent under the ToU / ToS, but a proper experiment (which I maintain needs two different presentations of the same hooks to be an ideal design) is not necessarily covered by the consent under ToU / ToS. Maybe we would be told that there is no problem with doing this, but doing it without asking is at very least unwise. EdChem (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arbor-treeish break
This will never actually happen -- even deciding to change the number of hooks per day saps the community's entire strength, and with TRM rumbling about deckchairs and so on it'll be impossible to discuss this intelligently. Nonetheless it's a fun discussion (and who knows?).
The design I described has no "uncontrolled variables", as you seem to think, and none of the flaws you describe are, in fact, present: that's the beauty of randomization. Because the 0000-1200 and 1200-2400 time periods are known a priori to be so different, we'd analyze them as separate experiments: this cuts the sample size in half (one half goes into the 0000 experiment, the other half into the 1200 experiment) but almost certainly cuts the SDs way more than that, so power goes up. (We can check those assumptions in advance.) We can certainly look for any left-right pattern, or whether any effect on the bold link changes with the # of nonbold links, etc., but whether or not such patterns exist doesn't matter, because the question we'd be asking is: Does removing all the nonbold links (whatever they're position and however many there are) change the # of clicks on the bold link?
You seem to be suggestion a crossover design, under which each hook set would appear twice, once for the first 12 hrs and then again for the second 12 hrs, the links removed ("treatment applied") for one or the other appearance, per a coin flip. This would be a serious mistake, because we know that a DYK article often continues to get clicks even after its hook has left the main page, apparently because readers pass links along via email and blogs and so on..
There are no ethical issues here. That's silly. This would be no different from saying, "Gee, let's see if adding some nice pictures to these articles brings in more readers." We're not doing anything to readers and we're not gathering data on readers
Treating the different time periods separately would be wise / appropriate, yes.
I am not suggesting a crossover design, I am suggesting two versions of the set fed randomly to each different IP address which accesses the main page. This would allow direct hook-by-hook comparison, taking the content of the hook itself out of the equation.
Hook quality is an uncontrolled variable, IMO. Let's reduce it to a one-hook experiment (and going to the extreme / absurd to illustrate the issue).
The former is a true statement, the latter is the most clicked non-image hook DYK has ever had. Let's say we ran these against each other and found (astonishingly) that B got more clicks for the bolded link, and that only about one-third of clicks for A were to the bold link. Let's further say we tried to argue that this supported avoiding non-bold links. Would we be taken seriously (leaving aside that only one hook is an appallingly bad design from a statistical perspective)? Of course not, because the uncontrolled factor is that A is dull and B is not. Extending this to a complete set of hooks and where the differences in clicks are not massive, some will inevitably argue that set X was more interesting than set Y and that accounts for differences. If we run set X1 (bold links only) and set X2 (same hooks with non-bold links) at the same time, the results are directly comparable and the hook quality issue is avoided.
I am not a statistician but I am aware that corrections dealing with all sorts of confounding factors are possible, so maybe there is a way under your design that my concern would be addressed. Unfortunately, the audience for the results is likely less statistically knowledgeable than I am and will likely not found methods they don't understand convincing. Unfair, perhaps? Maybe... but the situation nonetheless, IMO. EdChem (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So an A/B test? That would not be easy to implement on a whim. That's why I think EEng suggested randomly selecting some hooks to put up without links and some with, because then the randomization mitigates problems of quality because a high quality hook is just as likely to be in the bold only group as a low quality hook. It doesn't really require fancy math, just consensus so even more likely to be confusing. Wugapodes[thɔk][ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]13:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
leaving aside that only one hook is an appallingly bad design from a statistical perspective – Yeah, but that's the point. We wouldn't be doing two hooks, we'd do 1000, and Wugapodes has it right: a high quality hook is just as likely to be in the bold only group as a low quality hook. And this randomization doesn't just "mitigate" the problem (as Wugapodes said), it eliminates it, if the sample size is large enough given the treatment effect (bigger treatment effect --> smaller sample needed) and SD of views (higher SD --> bigger sample needed). EC, I appreciate your concern that people may not understand this, but your A/B design is susceptible to exactly the same misguided criticism – people might worry that the readers presented with the treatment version "might just happen to be" the kind of people who like to click on DYKs (or who like that particular subject, or any number of other things that affect propensity to click). That's not true, because randomizing who sees which version takes care of that (on an overwhelming scale – in an A/B design each of millions of readers would be randomized separately) but people will still have that misconception.
That aside, there are insurmountable problems in designing an A/B approach. Even if we had the machinery to randomize the contents of the main page on each visit, how do we handle the situation where the same "reader" (whoever that is – do we identify the reader by the IP address they'er working from – whether they're logged in or not?) returns to the main page an hour later – do we remember what we showed that IP last time? And what about clicks that don't come from the main page – what if the reader clicks on a link a friend emailed him? Advertisers spend a lot of time trying to figure stuff like this out, but it's complicated, there's a lot of handwaving to it, and no one really knows how well it works. Too bad, because in general A/B designs, if you can do them, are very powerful. EEng21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, you're a bore
The sooner you stop personalising these discussions with your snide humourless asides, the more likely we are to make some ground. Ironically this is one of the debates at DYK which is trivial to solve. Stick with WP:OVERLINK and don't create yet another arcane and subservient rule that can be endlessly debated, once again detracting from efforts to improve the mainspace. I know it's been a while since I've had time to seriously work on articles, you too by the looks of things. We need to re-focus the debate on quality of target articles, everything else is, and I know you don't like it, or object to it, or whatever, but deckchairs. Having discovered how popular OTD is with basically zero effort, versus DYK, it does suggest we could do without DYK altogether, particularly as the current debate is really underlining the fact that no-one really has a clue what the project really stands for. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost nudged you to be more civil over this thread at the time, suspecting that your opening comment might just goad the other editor into being elaborately defensive of something that didn't matter, and I see this has now happened. Someone made an edit without being aware of policy, we made them aware of policy, they went silent: you should WP:DROPTHESTICK at that point. Civility policy is there to avoid wasting everybody's time with unnecessary arguments, as much as anything. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[For those playing along at home, we're talking about this reversion [267] and this talk page thread [268]] Oh, please. Mr. Dyspeptic called fixing the typo uttrerly in a quotation "the edge of vandalism" and "deliberately destructive" because (he still says even now, though he can't seem to explain how) the error is "textually significant". EEng18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpeg){kind=small}
.JPG)
Rumiton (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ChrisGualtieri. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
--Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Atsme☯Consult Agent 99 14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Eman235/talk 22:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Atsme📞📧 03:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Eman235/talk 06:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 02:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
. Atsme📞📧 22:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- it was a slip of the keyboard due to my irregular finger sizes. I'll try to be more careful in the future. [pause to treat rug burns from rotflmao]. Only you would have caught that - ❤️ your wit!!! Atsme📞📧 23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
<---- fertile discussion? Atsme📞📧 01:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for reverting your edit over at "What Wikipedia is not" (diff [182]). I am an experienced editor, but forays into policy and guideline pages are new to me - so I admit I was being rigid. Having looked over your user page and talk page I see that you are a very experienced editor and that you know what you are doing. So, in the future I think I will do the same for any editor who edits guideline and policy pages - before I revert with an intention to save the Universe and Wikipedia.
.jpg)
Atsme📞📧 21:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 
Atsme📞📧 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
, but please carry on and I, too, will bask in the wonders of the brilliant minds I've been so fortunate to experience here and throughout WP. Atsme📞📧 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 14:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 00:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
User:EEng, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EEng and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EEng during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 06:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(2).jpg)
_(29394082490).jpg)
Done —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Like Yes, there are a lot of turkeys at Wikipedia. And: [232]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
![[134]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXHPtH9WkAA7WLA.jpg){kind=link}
![[191]](http://www.signsofthesea.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ENRUG014-A.png){kind=link}
.jpg)
