User talk:EEng

Phineas Gage

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

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

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

The citation voodoo is documented at Wikipedia:Citation templates.

If you need a hand, come and grab me.

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

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

Reversion of my edit on Gage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lowell House

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

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

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

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

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

Newly discovered Daguerreotype

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

I have regretfully reported your edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

Lobotomy

Hi,

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

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

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

Chebyshev's inequality

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

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

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

Phineas Gage

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

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

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

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

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

Abraham Zapruder

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

Discussion continued at Talk:Abraham Zapruder.

Lee Harvey Oswald

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

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

Ehy!!

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

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

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

Stanley Watras

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

ANI discussion

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

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

Gentry McCreary Sr

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

MacDaid block

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

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

Lone Mountain (California)

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

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

Thanks for nothing

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

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

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

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

AfD participation

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

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

Re: Broken Springs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Longsun

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

Samuel Eliot Morison

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

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

Walled garden spam

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

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

Will do (Flow Notation System for rap)

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI: The real Richard Hills and Noron Theory

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

User:Freekra

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

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

Strange rant

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

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

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

Malcolm X

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

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

Project Home 2011

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

Being Tallest is Unhealthy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryoung122:

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

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

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

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

Ryoung122 14:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jaume Cañellas

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

Edits to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis/WMF_interviews

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

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

Malcom X

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

Malcolm X

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking for a comment

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

Hi EEng, I reverted you on Herb Caen

Hi EEng,

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

Query re editing habits

This query was transferred here from [20]:

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

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

MX discussion

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

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

um...

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

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

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

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

Herb Caen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Talk:Godwin's_law

Re:Talk:Godwin's_law

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

Fundamental science

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

If you understand my concern about the intelligibility of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFA tagging

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

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

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

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

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

Fred Rogers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genealogy databases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re Terrie_Moffitt's_developmental_theory_of_crime

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

September 2012

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You expressed concern about the wording of my chivalrous interventions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:Requests for comment/EEng

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for John Harvard statue

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

Thank you

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

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

Harvard daze

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

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

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

Soft redirects

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

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

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

Invitation to WikiProject Electrical engineering

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

Your edits at transformer

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

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

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

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

thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe it was Sam Butler that wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, who are you really?

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

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

Some followup

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

As you should know, there is a log of new users, as well as a display showing when new accounts are created in Recent Changes. Baldy_Bill and I became friends because we both frequently work on the new pages queue and the defcon measurement going with it. Soon we began to just converse with eachother and collaborate naturally. -- Binko71100 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't know. I'm satisfied that (on the evidence here, at least) that you're neither a sockpuppet nor a puppetmaster and assuming that's correct, I'm sorry to have troubled you. Please try to be less strident. EEng (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I guess I do appreciate your humor, although it can get out of hand :D. Anyways, take care. -- Binko71100 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Annenberg Hall (Harvard University)

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

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

While there might be other Annenberg Halls, the one at Harvard seems to be the primary topic as it is best known and most notable. If someone thinks to create an article about another notable Annenberg Hall, the undisambiguated page can be turned into a disambiguation if necessary. My moving was only to assist readers using the search box - it is much more likely that a user will search 'Annenberg Hall' than 'Annenberg Hall (Harvard University)'. Intelligentsium 04:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Annenberg Hall (Harvard University) will come up in a search for Annenberg Hall, so that's no argument. Once again, this obsession with minimalist article titles is a complete waste of time. EEng (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a waste of time - it makes the wiki more logical and easier to navigate. I agree that a qualifier in the title is necessary when there is more than one article that the title could refer to, or when the title is a very generic name (such as "Memorial Hall" or "Alumni Hall"), but it doesn't make sense to leave the undisambiguated title a redlink and have a very specific title with no links to it for a redirect - I'm not saying it won't come up in a search, but why not just cut that step out? There could be other Annenberg Halls, just like there are other Johnson Halls, but this one is the best-known. I'm not sure that there even is another notable Annenberg (if there are indeed a score out of the thousands of universities in the US). This one goes back to 1874 and it's the only one I could find with significant coverage outside of internal university sources. Intelligentsium 19:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There's now an Annenberg Hall (University of Southern California) so now maybe you won't be kept awake at night knowing that Annenberg Hall (Harvard University) exists. Why don't you do the honors of setting up Annenberg Hall as a dabpage since you're no doubt skilled in that. EEng (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that; as I've already said, at the time it didn't make sense to leave the base page name of the article a redlink when no other articles existed for buildings with the same name. That's a non-issue now that you've created the USC Annenberg Hall article. I don't think the USC Annenberg Hall is notable enough for an article, based on sources (I've added the only non-self-published source I've been able to find for it, which as an interview is still borderline primary), but that is a separate issue and one that I won't contest. Intelligentsium 22:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of what's made this whole michigas so absurd is the disconnection of the discussion from intelligent common sense. Think about it... do you really think that a new $150 million building for the School of Journalism at a major university will not garner multiple reliable secondary sources -- if not this month then in the next month or two? Let me repeat: it's a new building for a journalism school. It's like wondering whether there will be enough sources reporting on the NYT new headquarters building or something. EEng (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That might be true, but it's not our place to speculate on notability based on whether we think there will be sources in the future, we have to work from sources available now. Primary sources, such as those that might be written by student journalists or from within the school for school publications, also do not qualify to establish notability. Anyway, I don't think we need to pursue this issue further - we can agree to disagree. Intelligentsium 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

While it might not be expressly forbidden, the use of internal soft redirect is very clearly deprecated at Wikipedia:Soft redirect: For internal use in general, hard redirects should be used instead.. If you think there is a good reason to ignore guidance in this case, then it is incumbent on you to establish consensus and not simply revert the several other editors who have disagreed with you. The documentation for Template:Soft redirect also pretty clearly advises against using the template as you have. older ≠ wiser 19:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That point was added [57] to the documentation for Soft redirect without discussion (the Talkpage didn't even exist at the time) so I hardly think it makes your case. I've given, over and over, the reason I think a soft redirect is sensible even internally. When a user clicks on a link to e.g. Sanders Theater he may be startled to be presented with an article entitled Memorial Hall, and would have to read into the text to find out that Sanders Th. is in fact discussed there. Yes, I realize there's a tiny Redirected from just under the article title but the naive user is unaware of it. Therefore, I think it's very helpful for the reader to be presented with an explanation first: "Sanders Theater at Harvard University is discussed in the article on ===>>> Memorial Hall". Is there some evil this creates that you are trying to prevent? EEng (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It was added in 2006 and has been unchallenged. You are certainly welcome to raise the question, but the acceptance of this guidance for the past seven years is pretty solid evidence of the community's expectation. And the guideline itself also clearly deprecates using it for internal links. If you want to change current practice to enhance it in the way you suggest, please discuss and show some consensus. older ≠ wiser 22:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I do agree older does not necessarily mean wiser. The documentation clearly does not forbid it -- if you want to open a discussion somewhere to change that, please do so but let me know -- so the only question is what will be done in this individual case. I'm discussing it now, and gave a reason. I repeat: what's your reason that the soft redirect is a problem, in this case? EEng (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, while it is not expressly forbidden, it is very clearly deprecated. Review of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect shows was not intended for such use. My opinion is that this is an inappropriate use of a soft redirect and apparently some other editors feel similarly. If you want establish consensus for such usage, please show where consensus was established. My reasoning for this case is that I see no benefit to departing from the conventional use of a hard redirect. There are thousands of such redirects, and I don't see anything special about this case. older ≠ wiser 23:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I just gave a reason -- it would help if you would address it. As to the discussion you mention, can you point to individual parts of the talkpage? What I see at Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect#Internal vs external use is that two people proposed language explicitly endorsing internal soft redirs, and a third editor didn't like it, saying there was old consensus against it, though without giving evidence and without removing the "should" text I am relying on. Can you tell me, again, what evil you are preventing? Can you just let this go under IAR for now, and if you want to restart the discussion just linked above I will happily join you there. I've told you why I think this imporoves the reader's experience, and the only argument I hear from you is that consistency is the hallmark of great minds. EEng (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the benefit that you suggest. There is value in consistency. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to help.
I think you are misreading Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect#Internal vs external use. TexasAndroid initiated the discussion (which was for a peculiar case where there was a foreign language article for the redirect); Yoenit provided some explanation behind the redirects; Kotniski initially concurred, though then agreed with the statement of McLerristarr | Mclay1 I don't think redirects within the main namespace of the English Wikipedia should be using soft redirects; OldDeath explained how he came to create the soft redirects, but was clearly open to other suggestions; eventually TexasAndroid added language to the guideline about when internal soft redirects might be appropriate - and it is worth noting that redirecting within article space is not there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) later expressed much the same understanding I have that there is no consensus to use soft redirects internally. There is more background is in the section Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect#Deletion of soft redirects. But I think I was looking at Template talk:Soft redirect#Edit request when I linked to Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect above as I had both open in different tabs. older ≠ wiser 03:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

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

Only if you agree to remain part of my Worldwide Conspiracy to Protect the Legacy of Lobotomy and the Memory of Egas Moniz. And where's my LOL for this [58]? (More seriously: you may have overlooked that my edit summary re Gage GA contemplated such a technical objection -- despite recent events I'm really not an unreasonable person, so you should have felt free to revert, briefly explaining in yr edit summary.) EEng (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. I'm really hoping for feedback on Talk:Lobotomy#In-pop-cult/literary portrayals/etc. material, if you can spare a moment from your abundant free time.

Privacy and no disclosure

Privacy is important on Wikipedia. If you wish to publish you university address and telephone number on your user page your are free to do so. But be aware that not everyone who uses this site is sane, and it is not appropriate for others to make any comment or allusion about another users's personal information that has not been disclosed by that user. I don't care (and I doubt any others do care about which university if any you attend), but to start to see why this can be a problem spend some time reading WP:ANI and you will soon read vitriol on that page of a similar type that you see with university dons (too Oxbridge for you?) competing for the same funding. The trouble is that if an editor starts to edit controversial pages then information about them could be a matter of life and death (they may after be Liverpool FC supporters[59]). But in all seriousness ponder on this example. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You needn't explain to me why privacy is worthy of protection (whether on WP or elsewhere) and you'll get no argument from me that some here are not playing with a full deck. But that doesn't have anything to do with it, because -- don't you get it yet? -- Lockley didn't make allusion to my personal information. He made a series of jokes in which I actively participated [60]. 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 [61]. And please no lectures [62] 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)

Take it to ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Whiffenpoofs poised to perform the Fantasies of Victimization of 1912

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Spreading sunshine and happiness everywhere

You recently removed my section that I posted here...Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks. My section was not off-topic. It offered specific suggestions regarding how the article might be improved. Please undo your edit. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your text

Hey Rich, if you truly believe that these are personal attacks, then why not improve this article by updating it to match your preferences?

is not an attempt to improve the policy page, but rather a taunt to another editor. I will not restore it. But go ahead and do it yourself, if you wish; you're just digging yourself deeper. EEng (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the relevant Wikipedia policy...was it a personal attack when I asked you to stop being disruptive? --Xerographica (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry, missed your post until now...) Answer: I don't know and I don't care -- didn't bother me in context. Just please stop being a jerk all over the place. EEng (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Soft hyphens

They weren't mistakenly removed; that was intentional. See my previous edit summary which stated: "Undid revision 537758394 by EEng (talk); the remainder of the article does not use soft hyphens".

1. Unless you know of a provision of the MOS that requires them, it's odd to have only the one part of an article using them when I've never seen them used elsewhere.
2. They break up the text in the edit window, in the middle of words, making it harder for others to decipher what words.
3. They are of limited utility. Yes, they tell a browser where it could break a word for hyphenation at the end of a line, but the body of the article lacks such a feature, making the quote horribly inconsistent.

Under the principle of consistency, please either add soft hyphens to the rest of the text of the article, or please leave them removed. Imzadi 1979 → 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

See my edit summary, subsequent to yours quoted above:

doesn't matter whether the rest of the article uses s-hyphens -- because quote box doesn't justify (can you figure out how to do that?) wordbreaks are esp. useful here.

The pullquote is selfconsciously highfalutin, incorporating superabundant multisyllabic bombastic verbosity. Combining this with no justification in the quotebox -- and here I repeat that I would be much obliged if you can tell me how to enable such justification -- and the result is an sightly ragged righthand margins (depending on screen size and magnification). & shy; fixes that, and improving what the reader sees outweighs the beauty or consistency what the reader doesn't see i.e. the markup.

I didn't add & shy; elsewhere because I don't see offhand where it would do any good. Your suggestion to "add soft hyphens to the rest of the text," just to mollify some vengeful god of consistency, directly contradicts your other complaint, that & shy; makes source text hard to read. (And that's not an argument in the present case, BTW, because the pullquote is verbatim and subject to little or no editing anyway.)

Markup is there to be used, and here it is put to its intended purpose. If you want to add more throughout the article, go ahead -- though it will have little or no effect on the rendered text -- but do not remove those already there which serve a purpose.

EEng (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining your position on soft hyphens here? --bender235 (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I took the soft hyphens out of 3 articles that had many hundreds each. They do much more harm than good, according to the consensus at the discussion linked above. Probably we should say so in the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1

I've reverted you at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Please do not edit others' comments. You are, of course, welcome to re-insert your own, so long as you do not do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. However, though I understand the principle, where one editor declares he's "taken the liberty" of typographically modifying another's post, for a clearly stated reason, at a time when that other editor is obviously still active in the discussion, I think it might be better to let that other editor object for himself. EEng (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Doubting Thomas

I think my "current manic burst of energy has spent itself", also on Girdle of Thomas. So please feel free. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, why don't you go up to your room and loosen that girdle. Ooof! Doesn't that feel better? EEng (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Melvil Dewey and Louis Marshall

I have no intention of getting into an edit war over the inclusion of the enumeration of the Dewey petitioners that you believe "adds little or nothing to an understanding of Dewey." But I assure you that for this article ever to make it to Good Article status, this information will have to be included. Melvil Dewey was the preeminent librarian in the state, possibly in the nation at the time. For him to be publicly rebuked and then forced to relinquish his post was no small matter in his life, and it took a group of substantial individuals to bring it about, led by the eminent constitutional scholar and lawyer Louis Marshall. And it is likely that the loss of this post led indirectly to Lake Placid becoming the site of the 1932 Winter Olympics: it was at this point in his life that Dewey turned toward developing the Lake Placid Club as a center of international winter sport competition.

Now I will grant you that the section I added seems unbalanced in the context of what is, at present, a very incomplete article on Dewey. But that tends to happen in the process of a stub becoming a Good Article. I am confident that you have the best interests of the project at heart, but I think that you have failed to consider where this article needs to go.

Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 23:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious

guarded logic
Thank you for quality articles such as John Harvard statue, developed with care for detail and explicit edit summaries, revealing "the idea of the three lies is at best a fourth", and other math, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: DYK Andrew Gleason

Actually, DYK is seeing a significantly reduced supply of approved hooks. Last week at this time there were 63 approved hooks available for promotion. Currently there are 18 approved hooks.

Looking through the current supply of approved hooks, there are one or two that I would be willing to swap into Gleason's slot in Prep 4. Before doing this I should warn you that it is very likely, due to the limited supply of approved hooks, that another person will promote the article in the next day or two if I return it to the nominations page. Such a promotion will most likely schedule the article to run over the weekend and there is no guarantee that your hook would again be placed into the image slot. If you still want me to return the Gleason hook the let me know and I will take care of moving it back to the nomination page. --Allen3 ^talk 19:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I don't want to sound like a click-hound but of course I and other editors who have worked on the article certainly want maximum exposure -- the subject deserves it (but then how many DYK nominators don't think their subjects deserve it?). I'm now considering the fair-use route (for an image seen only inside the article, not the one in the hook) and if that pans out we'll be good to go, but I'll need overnight to figure if that approach is gonna work. So can I let you know tomorrow?

In times of hook scarcity, why not just rotate the hooks more slowly?

EEng (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It occurs to me that perhaps I should be responding, in part, with "Well then, I'll just jump in and lend a hand with DYK reviewing." I guess I will do that after I've got Gleason as ready as I can, but I have to say that most of my exposure to DYK (not on this article) has been very negative -- I firmly believe that its rules encourage the submission of half-baked, even embarrassing articles. One article I was personally involved with in detail was hooked with a flatly false statement cited to an absurdly unreliable source, and another almost went to DYK with a true hook, but article content that was outrageously false (through complete misunderstanding of how to vet sources) and abysmally written to boot. Certain rules in particular (e.g. prohibition of cite-needed templates) squander the opportunity, presented by main-page exposure, of attracting new editors. It seems to me the theme of DYK should be, "Did you know... [obscure fact]? If you didn't, then we hope that was fun for you. If you did, then perhaps you have the expertise needed to help improve this frankly incomplete article." Instead it's "Are you intrigued by this possible-untrue assertion? If so, click here to see a Potemkin article on the subject, which by the rules has gone from nonexistence to main-page exposure in the shortest time possible, thus minimizing the chance that someone who actually knows about the subject might get involved with it." Sorry to sound so negative, but I needed to get that off my chest.

(watching) I confess that I am normally happy with DYK ;) - but just today, in this nom, I feel a conflict between what I would like to make known and what is considered more "juicy" and "catchy". (Is it even?) - I also mentioned this nom, sort of, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The image issue has cleared up (will appear in article in next 12 hrs) so resume countdown as normal. EEng (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do. --Allen3 ^talk 10:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew Gleason

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Other Phineas

The life and health of Phineas Gage is a fascinating subject and one that has enlightened medicine. His is a subject with worldwide interest. That is why I cannot understand why you keep blanking a page about Phineas the Dog in tiny little Salem Mo's page. Granted the article is too detailed and needs editing; however the story is not finished like Phineas Gage's life is. So the story goes on. There are 50,000 people following the story of Phioneas the dog to date. Rather than blanking that section, you might rather use your fine editing skills and make the article more readable. The National references are just starting to develop. Thanks.

Readability has nothing to do with it. The question is whether the dog story does anything to enhance the reader's understanding of the article's subject, which is Salem, MO. The answer is: No. It's just something that's happening there recently. Five years from now no one will want to read about it -- the ultimate test for inclusion. When and if "National references" appear, of a more than passing nature, than maybe that might change.

And by the way, the story of Phineas Gage has mostly muddled medical understanding, not enlightened it. EEng (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I you really want to continue this discussion, please do so on the article's Talk, not here. EEng (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

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)

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.

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 attack EEng (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

For those who may be wondering, PinkAmpersand is referring to a comment of mine [65] 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." [66] Whatever the fuck that means, you dumbass. EEng (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

EEng (talk)

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)

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.

EEng (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Do you have any thoughts regarding the ongoing talk page debate? I see you edited at about the same time as Malik Shabazz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. For the record I was already preparing those comments before you contacted me. I think this is a WP:ROPE situation and nature will likely once again take its course [67][68]. EEng (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, compare Talk: Tila Tequila#Super powers and war on the Illuminati with the stringent policy standards that we have rightly established at WP:BLP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Phineas Gage for Good Article status

Hi, this is a note to let you know that an article you appear to have put a lot of work into, Phineas Gage, has been nominated for GA status. You may wish to monitor the talk page (but I imagine you do already) for any reviewer comments. Thanks. CurlyLoop (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sandom Fracas

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."

Cheers, EEng. Sandom (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

EEng (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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."

J.G., do you have any idea who wrote that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Malcolm X

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? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim Leavelle

Thanks for your help with the caption in the Jim Leavelle article. Have a good day! - Thanks, Hoshie 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving Phineas' notes

I see you have started to move these too. It is well past my bedtime now and I was interrupted for a little while so I will let you carry on otherwise there will be edit conflicts. We should end up with the definitions in "lift order" (same order as they appear in the display - that is not essential for the mechanism to work but it is another way of making life easy for editors). --Mirokado (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your demonstrating how to do this. I saw it once somewhere but later could not locate how to do it. I won't bother worrying about lift order during move -- too stressful -- but we can always reorder later. Thanks again! EEng (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Jacob Davis Babcock Stillman

Hello EEng,

This is just a courtesy visit to inform you that I took the liberty to make a slight addition to your article backed by references. I hope you'd like my little effort. I'd like your say on this. Best regards. (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC))

June 2013

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)

Oh please. You must be joking. EEng (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not joking. --John (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

More of the same

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring edit summaries explaining clearly why changes are being made, and reverting said changes with your own edit summaries making misleading or false reference to prior policy or discussions. Behavior such as this wastes the time of editors who actually know what they're doing. If you continue, you risk appearing even more clueless than you already do. EEng (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Editors who know what they're doing" is a category that clearly doesn't include you EEng. Eric Corbett 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And less still you Eric.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion. Which frankly isn't worth much. Eric Corbett 18:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --John (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE look at the content of the changes you're reverting? You're obviously not paying attention to what the changes actually are, but just reverting as a knee-jerk reaction. EEng (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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?

EEng (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

I am sorry but the closing cannot be reverted once the GA-Bot has updated the GA nominations page and logged the fail into the article history.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

OK, I'll try. Sorry for the hassle.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

Hey, why didn't I think of this? -- you can just renominate it (I don't think I should). EEng (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

And because you earned this

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Anyone who is brave enough at trying to whack back my verbosity has more than earned this. Your work is truly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that I never asked for this. [69] EEng (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

That's a splendid idea and I look forward to User:The Blade of the Northern Lights responding to the request for hours of contributions which was totally directed at him. ;) MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have some time tomorrow, and I'd be more than happy to have a look at things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh goody. Thanks to you both. EEng (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo

I don't think I can do anything to get the inscription better in the Gage photo. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right

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:

Happy trails,
David in DC (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

Away for a while

I will be away for a while, so please don't be irritated if I don't respond to further comments re Phineas. Good luck with the article! --Mirokado (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all and please let me know when you're back and ready to tackle all this technical minutiae again. Good luck/vacation/travels/whatever. EEng (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm back. I've not yet looked at Phineas, but I see elsewhere that you are continuing to have fun with him. --Mirokado (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that one of your first actions after "returning" was to contact me, so I'm flattered, but I wonder if you may regret it.

There's an editor who's all over WP "fixing" things and who regularly gets angry messages like this [70]. In early November he made "correcting" the Gage article a crusade. It started here (and yes, I was ANGRY) and went from there. See also [71] ("Chris's abuse of the noticeboards and community discussion pages is longstanding ... pattern of responding to any discussion that does not immediately yield the result he wants by starting a new discussion elsewhere.")

You'll be interested in this... remember those long, detailed discussions we had about formatting innovations [72]? Well, here's the thanks I (we) get: [73] (Seach the page for minefield to see the idiotic accusation -- presumably you're part of this conspiracy too. I know you warned me about being too technically daring, but you never hinted at this rabid foaming at the mouth!)

There's a very good editor who -- I hope -- will soon see the light about what's going on here. [74]. Keep your fingers crossed. I don't expect you to just believe I'm in the right about all this. Once Tryptofish gets back to me I'll be going over all of it with him, and you may want to follow and/or participate in that.

I'm guessing you don't want to get involved with the content battle -- I have no worries about how it will eventually turn out -- but if you don't mind I'd like to contact you when sanity has been restored. I have some new ideas for the reflist.

Better find some low-stress corner of WP to hang out in to compensate for all this.

EEng (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Before I forget... One of the first things you showed me -- and I was enthusiastic about it -- was how to move the notes out of the article body (where they interrup the main text) to the bottom of the article within the reflist. However, it turns out that if you do that, then it messes up calling out "sources" from within "notes". So I had to move the notes all back to the main article. Also, I got fed up with citationbot doing stupid things so I copy-pasted all the cites back to in-article templates. I don't want you to think I reversed some of your ideas just for the hell of it.

Thank you

For helpful comments here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Rumiton (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Clueless editors on parade

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. I brought up your removal of referenced information about cheating at Harvard University on the conflict of interest noticeboard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that -- this brings into serious question your understanding of basic WP policy. EEng (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right -- I'll lower my voice. Whatsyourface, stop being a dick. EEng (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, OK! That was positively the last time. Really. Cross my heart and hope to die. EEng (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You have said this before. [75] 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)

But last time I didn't say "positively". EEng (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, it's Whatshisname, not me, you're talking about. 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Point made, EEng, but you still may be tapdancing on the edge of the abyss. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(thumbs up)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		This was entertaining. So, when will Bodice-Ripping Bots be out in theaters? Sophus Bie (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

For those who are wondering we're talking about this literary gem, which came to me in some deliroius fog after I noticed User:BracketBot leaving a message on User:Citation bot's talkpage (though I need to say that the final, um, climax is cribbed from a vaguely remembered cartoon from the 90s). Bracketbot notifies editors who make changes apparently resulting in unbalanced parens, brackets, and similar markup in articles, and apparently Citationbot had done just that:

[From the upcoming motion picture Bodice-Ripping Bots.]

"Oh, hi, I'm Citationbot. Wow, thanks. I've been looking everywhere for that other bracket! So you're that big strong Bracketbot I've heard so much about. Gosh, you look like you must be 64-bit -- such big quads! -- and completely hardcoded -- such a complex instruction set with great ABS addressing. Why don't you come into my domain? That's not my usual protocol, but a girl feels so secure around a guy with so much onboard cache. I wasn't expecting to host, so pardon my open proxy -- a bit RISCé, perhaps, but just something I wear around the server farm. Virtual mammary memory? -- oh no, these dual cores are absolutely real! 100% native configuration -- no upgrades at all. Should I slip into a more user-friendly interface -- something GUI, perhaps? Oh, you prefer command-line? -- kinky! ..."

Later: "Oh, Bracketbot! I can't believe your high refresh rate. My husband has a really short cycle time and his puny little floppy drive is subject to frequently hardware failures, so sometimes I have to use manual simulation! And I've never had 10 gigabytes of hard drive before! Let's FTP! ... Oh god! I'm downloading ..."

It's so refreshing when the little orange bar pops up and it's not some psycho troll. Is there some "This page is kept because it's considered humorous"-type archive to which this can be transferred, so I can pretend I'm basking in some spotlight of recognition even though no one actually visits those pages?

I'm guessing you don't get much uptake on your username (unless you haunt the mathematical corners of WP). Though my degree is in applied math I don't consider myself a mathematician, though I was privileged to count one of the true greats among my friends. If you can give that a look -- esp. the research material -- that would be great. EEng (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be two applicable archives where it could be kept: either at Wikipedia:Talk page highlights or mentioned in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars under "Bot vs bot". Basking time already? I'd better get my sunglasses! B)

In fact, you're the first person to get the reference! Have a prize!*

I took a look at Andrew M. Gleason, and made all the fixes that immediately occurred to me. You might want to know, this image that you added to the article has been deleted due to lack of OTRS permission. By "research material" do you mean the "Selected publications" section or the references? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 01:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

*Prize not included.

Hmmmm... Let me take time to ponder the most worthy repository for my erotic masterpiece.

Re Gleason, it was the Math Research section and everything after it that I hoped you could look at, and to a lesser extent the cryptanalysis. We were under a bit of pressure because of the DYK deadline but D. Eppstein (and I think he recruited another mathematician friend) did a great job of getting the narrative of Gleason's research into shape in time, but see Talk:Andrew_M._Gleason for discussion of what might need more scrutiny. He's a very energetic contributor and you should introduce yourself -- you'll note that your activity on the article has already attracted his attention. EEng (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Almost all the images in the article came through me, actually -- got them from Frau Doktor Gleason who is a very interesting soul in her own right. Somehow that last image slipped through the licensing net and I've been meaning to execute a do-over. EEng (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Okey dokey, I'll take a look at that then. Warning though, I'm not sure how much use I'll be: I've only started on my graduate degree, and despite the name, Lie groups are not actually my specialty. I should at least be able to find some references to add. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 07:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

An informed but not expert reader is the article's audience, so you're perfect for the job. I'm sure your efforts will lift the article's quality. That should be enough lame puns for now -- though did you notice that Lamé was born in a torus -- sweet, don't you think? EEng (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sweet, indeed! Just so you know, I'm out of town for a couple of weeks, so I'll be slow in replying to messages. Cheers! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 07:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That peculiar person

I've been notifying others by posting variants of the following message, mainly because I'm not sure how to handle this.

I've been passing around this link. His initial appearance at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake here consisted of extremely bizarre behavior: repeatedly (like 5 times) splitting comments after being told to stop (including splitting comments that ask not to split comments), arguing that http://blog.ted.com is a news organization and a reliable secondary source, and more.

I was completely convinced that it was his Tumbleman / Bubblefish trolling persona, as his boastful description of trolling activities elsewhere matched the behavior I was seeing. He took me to dispute resolution (the wrong place); the case was dismissed and I've ceased communicating with him altogether. He walks a delicate line of always being able to claim he's acting to the best of his ability, and so I'm unable to prove anything. This looks like a true pro who has honed his art for a decade.

He was a defender of Sheldrake at the TED forums, so he has reason to be here other than random trolling. Maybe it's a real-life case of le Petit Tourette, where he's been trolling so long that he's lost the ability to interact for real. vzaak (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, David in DC and I were thrown together originally by the shared sorrow of getting entangled with Ryoung122 -- who was not a troll, but may have had some borderline social deficit. (See my final posts to him on his Talk -- completely sincere. It's a shame because he really had something to offer, but just could not understand the rules here.) These people can consume an unbelievable amount of editor time, and they seem to have nine lives.

As long as he remains in slow motion (doesn't branch out to make more and more trouble in more and more places) I think the best thing is to keep giving him WP:ROPE as more and more other editors get clued in. Maybe I'll poke around his contributions in the next few days. EEng (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC) (P.S. I always find that people who refer to Wikipedia as "wiki", as your friend did in the conversation to which you linked, always have behavioral problems -- poor understanding of policy + low frustration tolerance + righteousness.)

He's been doing it all over teh internetz for years. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 06:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me know if there's something I can do. EEng (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem has been noted and additional eyes are on it. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ormus onus

Your edits to Ormus are biased and unsubstantiated. The substance is not fictitious. It is a real substance, I can make some and send it to you prove it. It is a white milky substance that is derived from ocean water and it is used in agriculture currently. I sell products in agriculture and I sell this substance formulated in my products. It has great effect in small amount. It may simply be a trace mineral additive, but using a specific process with ocean water will derive a REAL substance, and it is known colloquially as "Ormus." All the other hype around it may be psuedoscience, the name "Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements" may even be a misnomer, but the name "Ormus" refers to a trace mineral concentrate derived from ocean water through a specific means. So please do not dismiss something as idiocy when you in all honesty have no idea what you are talking about.

For those wondering what we're talking about, it's Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements

No, I do know what I'm talking about, and it's idiocy. More importantly, as far as I can see it's non-notable idiocy If you know of reliable sources discussing it (as quackery and pseudoscience, of course) please add those to the article -- ripoff websites selling saltwater don't count towards notability. EEng (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

I'm afraid I'm not able to give that my best effort. I'm way over my OSHA-established monthly limit for exposure to boldface as it is. Meanwhile, look what I'm dealing with (though before you say anything... yes, I've been rattling the cages a bit -- I don't have your powers of restraint): Talk:Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements and WP:Articles for deletion/Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Elements. EEng (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Next time do something meaningful, don't just revert

There is nothing on any page about the difference between the two, therefore the redirect is blatantly absurd. So instead of just trigger-happy reverting, why don;t you elucidate the rest of mankind about the difference and enrich the WP with your knowledge? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, we're talking about [76].

Why so angry? Your concern with cutting out redirect (per your edit summaries) are contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN. Furthermore, in your first "cutting out" you eliminated the mention of leucotomy completely, which is inappropriate since that was Moniz' own term (at least originally). It's that elimination I was reverting. I didn't explain the difference between leucotomy and lobotomy because my knowledge doesn't extend to what that is, exactly.

As to "elucidating the rest of mankind", please check elucidate in a dictionary, as well as WP:MOSDASH for the difference between hyphens and dashes. You may want to reconsider your self-awarded evaluation, "This user can contribute with a professional level of English" [77].

EEng (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

1. I know the difference between hyphens and dashes, and yes, I inadvertently used the hyphen, accustomed to my auto-correct in Word, which I have programmed to change the hyphen followed by a space into an m-dash.
2. I know what lobotomy is, leucotomy I was not familiar with, therefore I clicked to read about. Guess what? Waste of time, as it took me to lobotomy, which - as already said - I know what it is. Therefore, quoting from the project page that you so kindly pointed me to, "It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading."
3. You also claim that there is a difference between lobotomy and leucotomy. It puzzles me that in various articles worked on by hundreds of people nobody has ever had the inclination to address this issue.
4. I do contribute with a professional level of English. But my blood boils when people prefer to revert rather then fixing what they see wrong. So yes, I used "elucidate" where I meant to use "enlighten".
5. Especially when dealing with people who should know better, but just want to have the last word - very superior indeed - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22%E2%80%8Bknown+better%22&title=Special%3ASearch and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22%E2%80%8Bbetter+known+%22&fulltext=Search ... big difference ...

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of numbering your points above for ease of reference.

1. You're still having trouble with hyphens vs. dashes, as seen (conveniently enough) in your point 2.

2. I am unable to apprehend what you're trying to say here. Did you only just now discover that leucotomy redirects to lobotomy? And hovering over leucotomy gives the hint Leucotomy -- redirects to Lobotomy -- Lobotomy is a neurosurgical procedure... What's misleading about that?

3. Contrary to what you say, this point has been raised: Talk:Lobotomy/Archive_1#Leucotomy_is_DIFFERENT_from_Lobotomy.

There is indeed a difference between the two, but it's difficult to explain (and in some ways has never been fully elucidated historically). I earlier pled more ignorance than actually is the case, so let me explain a bit. If you look through the article you'll see that the term leucotomy predominates until the start of the discussion of Freeman & Watts, when lobotomy starts being used instead (mostly). This corresponds to the very rough division between Moniz' use of leucotomy (for his hole-in-the-skull technique), and lobotomy for Freeman's transorbital technique, and some back-and-forth use of both terms for intermediate techniques tried by Freeman & Watts, and others, in between. Since most of the article's content deals with social and theoretical points largely independent of the particular technique, it doesn't interfere with the exposition, which is why I've never worked up the courage to tackle this in the article.

4. I didn't revert rather than fix -- the revert was the completely appropriate fix. You inapppropriately eliminated the term leucotomy [78] and I reverted, which fixed what you did. That you subsequently reasserted your "eliminate redirects" preoccupation, and I haven't reverted that as well, doesn't mean there was something else that needed fixing -- it's just what floats your boat, apparently, and I don't see any point in spoiling your fun.

5. As seen here [79], you combine significant confusion on English usage with certainty that you're right -- a deadly combination. In fact your post above also shows serious deficiencies, but it's not my purpose to embarrass you.

5. You seem to think a hit-count-search for two different word orderings shows that one phrasing is as good as another. That's ridiculous, since the issue was which phrasing is better in the specific text under discussion -- not on average in various usage situations Wikipeida-wide.

I don't have to have the last word -- you go ahead and have it instead. It may help bring your blood down from boiling point. By the way -- did you know that Aristotle thought that the brain's only function was to cool the blood? (This turns out to be true only in some people, of course.) EEng (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for History and traditions of Harvard commencements

Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

My upcoming Massachusetts trip has been made complex by several other agendas, and I can not guarantee being at Harvard at a specific time, but thanks anyway for your kind tour offer.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, what days will you be in the area? It's very possible I can meet you on short notice. After all, we Harvard graduates just sit around all day clipping coupons, so it's no problem having my chauffeur zip me over there in the Rolls. Even if I'm out of town I can get there pretty quick in my private jet. Seriously, even an hour would be fun. EEng (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Hey, check out the first item in the "Did you know?" right now (up to 8pm Eastern, Friday).

Yes, I saw it, thanks. Also saw Harvard Handyman out in Utah. :) Hope you're doing well. Of course if you're ever in Summit, New Jersey, which is really a hill, probably named by real estate people, I can show you my deluxe tool-minivan (Sienna) and perhaps we could have coffee. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem like a nice man but my parents taught me never, never to get in a stranger's van. Sorry. Are you not coming at all? EEng (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm jealous. Meet ups are so much fun. Try and do it if you can. I've had meet ups with internet friends here in the UK, and it has been great.  ;) --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 00:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My Spidey Senses are beginning to tingle! EEng (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Listen, TWS -- are you OK? Just checking. EEng (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am okay. Just returned. Trip to Amherst, Andover, Marblehead, Salem, Amherst, 500 miles in 2 days. Only saw Boston from a distance. Next time maybe visit Boston proper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it -- for a while I was afraid that Tom's ulcer might have been acting up. EEng (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Been called Alka, Bromo, Bleeding, Flying, etc. Recovering from perhaps too much driving. Lots of photos. In Salem, Massachusetts, waylaid by literally ten thousand motorcycles parading through town Sunday. Traffic came to a standstill for a half an hour.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Units

Re [80]: same thing, right? The real question is: 48 solar hours or 48 sidereal hours? NE Ent 14:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

Costco run

I searched and searched the aisles, and they were fresh out of troll food. So, on to other ventures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not bake some nice Troll House cookies? EEng (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tamping iron

Re: "Not rushing you, but I'm wondering if there's a problem, or perhaps I can clarify what's wanted?" (request)

No problem, just planning to go to Harvard's Warren Anatomical Museum and take quality photo (I'm in Boston). I've found few more pictures on Internet, but still no good to read inscription.  --Victor•talk 15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC).

You've got great initiative but that's not a good idea. Like many museums the Warren does not allow photography without permission, and even if you could manage to sneak a shot I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia or Commons to host an image obtained illicitly. You could try applying for permission but I doubt you'd get it.

Anyway I don't think a sterile shot of a museum display is the best thing for the article. I think for the reader to make out the inscription for himself in the actual portrait of Gage is more interesting, even if that takes some effort on the reader's part -- in fact, especially if it takes some effort -- and even if only only a portion is legible at all. You seem to know what you're doing in cleaning up images so I'm still hoping you can apply those talents to enhance the inscription as much as possible.

If it helps you get your bearings, the most legible portion reads Gage, at Cavendish, Vermont, Sept. 14, 1848. -- the second half of Vermont is just above Gage's two fingers touching the iron. If even just this part could be made somewhat more legible that would be great.

EEng (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will try both options.  --Victor•talk 21:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC).

Um, what two options? EEng (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for info about museum, will go definitely. So, about Tamping iron image. I had not much success with it, the main reason is not poor quality, but fact that iron is out of focus, too close to camera. You can see some results here: file   --Victor•talk 23:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC).

Actually, what you've done is about what I had hoped for -- didn't expect a miracle. The "Enhanced" and the "blue" are the best. Were you using Photoshop? And if so, which knobs and dials were you turning -- I'd like to try it myself. EEng (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW (just to be sure): you did start with the original full-resolution version[81] and crop, rotate, adjust from there, right? EEng (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Phineas Gage "remaining"

Like it. Ward20 (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.[82] Comment on the edit not the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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. [83] 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?

EEng (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning

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)

• 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 [84] 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.

Do you understand? EEng (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

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)

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)

Perhaps you'll like this [85] better, though it has its own drawbacks. EEng (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

December 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Phineas Gage, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This is unacceptablePer WP:WIAPA: "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page." You have been warned three times before about this. This is your final warning about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Please do not remove article improvement tags without improving the article. --John (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Gage info

I've been digging around in the archives for a few hours. I've found so many copies and different stories that are not coming up in Macmillan 2000. It's messing with me. Maybe its new information, maybe its junk, but I've found several different dates and details for Gage's history and that of the immediate area... most puzzling is the sideshow matter. Which I think something is off on... and I think you know what I am talking about. Care to fill me in now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I've never thought that you were anything but well-meaning, if terribly, terribly misguided. However, several times I've decided that trying to get you to understand how completely mixed up your ideas are was a hopeless cause. But each time I somehow decided again that maybe you could be saved. Just a minute ago I was about to hit <save> on the most scathing, sarcastic, humiliating denigration of you imaginable, and here comes this post from you. It's a sign, I guess.

I think I may regret this, but nonetheless I'm going to do it... Do you have Skype? If so I'll email you a Skype ID you can call me on. (Or email me yours.) I think things may go better if we talk like actual people, instead of character names in the Wikipedia Multiplayer Roleplaying Game. EEng (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Just realized ... I need to Skype to you because if you Skype to me you'll wake someone else up (long story). So send me either your Skype id or a phone #. What's the worst that can happen? EEng (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't use Skype. Sorry. Well, this makes all my searching pretty much useless. I did find minor mentions on things all over the place, even tracking down details on the latter Phineas Gage and his life in a somewhat successful attempt to cover the business matter. Nothing concrete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's late anyway, so perhaps another time. I'm confused ... what does the link have to do with your searching? And what "later Phineas Gage" (there are lots of people named Phineas Gage, believe it or not -- some alive today)? What "business matter"? EEng (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The paternal grandfather, Phineas Gage. Found a mention about when he operated the mill and our Phineas Gage would have been about 5 then. Also found his address and some other tidbits. I'm assuming that you know all this though. I couldn't find any mention of it in Macmillan 2000 and I spent some hours searching the Barnum details and ended up finding some minor things before finding what you already know. Or what I assume you already know. I found over two dozen newspaper reports that variously spell his name and give differing details. Perhaps on Thursday we can talk - I am still horrendously sick and I sound terrible with a bug I caught. If I knew where to look, I could make a more productive scan at the libraries, but I don't know if my efforts are needed at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, I still a bit confused about why you're calling the paternal grandfather "the later Phineas Gage", but anyway... We have over 10,000 documents somehow related to Gage or his family or people around him or doctors / schoolteachers / ministers in places he might have been, or ... -- mostly dead ends. I used to have it all in my head but lately been concentrating on the South America aspects so my memory is a bit fuzzy on the older research.

Anyway, as I recall Grampa Phineas ran a mill -- there was a court case re a dispute over a mill pond or something. I even have his will. So whatever you're looking at could be stuff I already have, or not. Every little bit helps.

You mentioned "archives" / "library" -- Which? Where? I assume you're using an electronic database of some kind -- which one? I hope you're feeling better. EEng (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I wrote "latter" but yeah, bad choice of words. 10k documents. Well that reduces me to probably 0 unique documents. The chroniclingamerica.loc.gov is where I found some odd mentions. One of interest.[86] I found some interesting sketches in a few places that come from the exhibition of the skull, looks like they didn't bookmark right, but I assume you found them. Was interesting because it compared the woodcut to skull side by side. I live west of you, not by much, but I do happen to be in area that was well connected and a bit preserve happy and had a booming trade at the time. It is likely that documents survived and are accessible, my own library while small has a complete set of some rare books including several from the 17th century just lying around. If I know what exactly I'd be looking for, it'd probably help turn up something. If I waited a month to get Macmillan's book, obviously I'm not afraid of a little legwork. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • By the way, its the way in which that article is written stands out to me. It takes very faithfully from Harlow, but the date of death is listed as May 18, 1861 which is rather bizarre. Do you happen to have a copy of that Boston Med Journal from April 1869 or that pamphlet? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Googled it, "The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, Volume 80" page 116 and 117 carries this. Now, I'm not great on interpreting this. Perhaps you can enlightening me, as this seems to be an additional statement from Harlow after the 1868 publication. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As you've figured out the piece you linked is a reprint of a piece from the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, which however is not (as you say) any later statement from Harlow, but just a review of Harlow (1868) (listed, BTW, here [87]). As often happens the reviewer was in a hurry -- Harlow 1868 says that on May 18 Gage "went home to his mother" and died May 21, but the review gives May 18 as the date of death instead. Stuff like that happens all the time.

If your library has 17th-century books just lying around there's something terribly, terribly wrong there. EEng (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I get the feeling we could have been friends

For whatever reason, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Comma after year in m-d-y format seems to have upset you. I have tried to remain civil and dispassionate, assuming good faith in your innocent error, and avoid abuse or accusations. I have tried to reason with you based on rational arguments, supported by various reliable sources and comments of other editors agreeing with my post on why the comma is needed after the parenthesis; you rejected these, not by citing any contrary sources, but some vague notion that style guides can be ignored as "not rigid logic" when it feels right. When you devolved to mentioning "societal decay... immorality, open homosexuality, interracial marriage, and baby murder", I lost all interest in trying to reason with you, and the implication that I was beaten by nuns has not enamoured me of you. So much for earning one's respect. —sroc 💬 01:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll have more to say about the nuns some other time, but I wanted to say that sjust now I unintentionally overwrote some of your recent changes without realizing I was doing that, thus (I fear) making it look like I did so intentionally and without deigning to explain. I'll have to review what happened and then I'll either selectively revert myself or explain somehow. Don't want you to get the wrong idea about me. I have my prickly side but I fight fair. EEng (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. This may have to wait until tmw, though, if that's OK.

Thanks for your comment. I have had a look and restored some of my earlier edits which I think are uncontroversial without undoing all your good work. For example: I saw that you restored the italics around the "MMMM D, YYYY" format, so I have replicated this to the other formats for consistency; I put the "Explanation" column header back, as it's uncontroversial and I assume you reverted this accidentally; I restored some of my wording which I think you reverted by mistake; I restored the line breaks in the table source code which make it easier to see where each new cell begins. I also took the opportunity to make further additions based on your improvements. For example: I added bad examples for "2005–04–05" (using en dashes) and "03/04/2005" (using slashes in ??/??/YYYY format); I separated some of the rows that dealt with different issues and used merged cells to join the correct format, as you have done in other cases. Hopefully you will agree with my changes, but please have a look and see what you make of them. I think, with our combined efforts, it's really coming along as a more accessible guideline. —sroc 💬 06:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure YYYY MMM DD is not a valid date format

Re this reversion of my edit at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers: as I wrote in my edit summary, I changed the example because it used the YYYY MMM DD format, which is not valid, as far as I know. I couldn't find it in the table of acceptable dates (which is now very hard to read).

I'm sure there is a way to provide this example without ending up in a comma-or-no-comma-after-the-year morass.

It might be time to take the page to the Sandbox to play with it there. I admire your boldness, but it is taxing to follow these dozens of edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please make it stop! This edit to revolutionise the "Acceptable date formats" table and your subsequent edits have made a right mess. It looks awful, is confusing, and has left out substance from the original. You wrote in the edit summary: "humbly submitted for other editors' consideration... Comments invited". You can submit proposals on the talk page, but there's no need to mess up the project page in the meantime. I'm reverting it for now, so feel free to raise it on the talk page to garner further discussion and build consensus before implementing it. —sroc 💬 03:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Error

I think you mistakenly clicked thank instead of undo. 8^> —sroc 💬 09:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Harvard's athletics in the lead

Since the lead should summarize most parts of the article, I think it lacks the athletic part. Maybe a brief description should be added there? Biomedicinal (contact) 10:51, 26 January 2014‎ (UTC)

If you're talking about the Harvard University article, athletics (intercollegiate athletics, anyway) is a strictly undergraduate concern. Therefore, the athletics material should be reduced to a bare sentence or two, and the material transferred to Harvard College. EEng (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please sign with four tildes

Please make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). I've had to add your name on two separate occasions where you only left a time stamp (five tildes).[88][89] These conversations can be hard enough to follow as it is. Thanks. —sroc 💬 14:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't guarantee that I'll never err on that score again. If I do you can post a complaint at the WP:AdministratorsWrongNumberOfTildesNoticeboard. EEng (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I hate that noticeboard. I think that every user on wikipedia has been there at least fifteen times. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You must be the most desperate and lonely talk page stalker there is, to be hanging around my talkpage. EEng (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Geez, just a friendly reminder. —sroc 💬 16:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, sroc, but think about it. As seen on this very page I've been editing for about 6 years. Likely this one-two punch of typographical irresponsibility was some fluke of fatigue or situational distraction, in which case there's little point mentioning it. Or perhaps it's a longstanding habit -- but then no doubt I've been scolded about this before over the years, and further exhortation won't help. (For the record first explanation is the correct one.) So was it really worth the trouble of posting here and pasting in two links to prove that I did it twice and me getting the little red notification and the clicking on the orange YOU HAVE NEW MESSAGES and reading what you said and responding and then my poor talk page stalker having what few brain cells he has remaining taken up by this and ... You see my point?

A far more sensible way to handle this would be to say, "Hmm... These discussions are so complicated it's a good bet EEng looks at the revision history to see what's been posted in which threads. So as I add his username to this post he signed incorrectly, I'll include a little message in the edit summary, sometin' like Hey, EEng, can ya' be a bit more careful to oount your tildes -- I got better things to do than sign your posts for you! with maybe a little wink icon.

Imagine how much less trouble that would be, though of course at the risk I might not see your message in the edit summary. But that really wouldn't be a disaster.

EEng (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot you would see the ping when I added your name on the talk page, so I thought I'd drop a brief note to make sure you saw it the second time. (I would have thought you might have paid a little more attention after the first time.) Anyway, it's not a big deal, as you say, so was this really worth another diatribe? I'd written 3 lines on this to your 16, so who's building on the molehills? A simple "Noted" or "Saw that" would have done. —sroc 💬 07:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my psychiatrist is away so I've run out of diatribe -- pharmacist refuses to dispense more without a prescription. EEng (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

John Harvard (clergyman)

Nothing you ever did or said regarding the use of "emigrate" or "immigrate" made any sense to me. [90] Sweetmoniker (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Maybe this will make sense to you. You asserted, with palpable condescension, that immigrated from and emigrated to are blunders [91]:

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 [92]: 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.

• Argument empirical general [93]: As seen here [94] 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:

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  [95]: 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.

EEng (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. The link in your post above proves only that emigrate from is acceptable, not that emigrate to is unacceptable

Telegrams from near and far

The very model of a Modern Emigrantica

Mr. Dunkum would be right proud, not to mention Sir William Schwenck Gilbert. "Procrustean bed" indeed. I doff my specifical QED to you, dear EEng. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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." [96] 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)

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)

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).

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)

How much time do you think it took me? EEng (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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?"?

EEng (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. What is it that's ironic

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)

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! [97][98] Some of them are even "last" warnings! [99] 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."

Anyway, that's "burnt the last with me," Einstein EEng (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Humor…on Wikipedia?

File:Jokey-Smurf-Gift-256.gif

This edit was a joke, right?

• ["Good, gooooood!! My plan is working puhrrrrfectly!"]

I'm not the best at recognizing humor (I'm from the Midwest).

Please accept this modest gift (to your right).

Cheers, startswithj (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. However, due to terrorist threats against local bridges, you won't mind if I x-ray it first? EEng (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Someone's comment on the above

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. [Removed by original author ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC) ] EEng (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC) attack? You decide!" -- and I've now clarified that it's not your heading, if that's what's bothering you.

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.)

Revision of my edit on Harvard College

Hi,

It seems like the way the words were arranged in that sentence, "residents" should initially be a noun. Sam.gov (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)