I hope that in the future instead of tearing into other editors, you can express disagreement in a more productive and civil manner. I hope that you will use the "assume good faith" guideline as a reason to stop and calmly consider the possible legitimate reasons for an editor's actions, including miscommunication and that you yourself might not have a complete picture. I usually find the latter is true for myself. You are clearly a smart person and like the rest of the community of volunteers I'm trying to keep motivated, have many valuable contributions yet to make. Thanks for reading, [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 07:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I hope that in the future instead of tearing into other editors, you can express disagreement in a more productive and civil manner. I hope that you will use the "assume good faith" guideline as a reason to stop and calmly consider the possible legitimate reasons for an editor's actions, including miscommunication and that you yourself might not have a complete picture. I usually find the latter is true for myself. You are clearly a smart person and like the rest of the community of volunteers I'm trying to keep motivated, have many valuable contributions yet to make. Thanks for reading, [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 07:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
:I have popcorn, will share. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small>the grumpy dog </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 07:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*I have popcorn, will share. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small>the grumpy dog </small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 07:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::Oh dear. All of those examples look '''relatively polite''' for EEng. Poor Surtsicna, must feel [[Shrinking Violet (album)|crushed]]? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*::Think of your blood pressure. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*Oh dear. All of those examples look '''relatively polite''' for EEng. Poor Surtsicna, must feel [[Shrinking Violet (album)|crushed]]? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
*{{U|Beland}}, I'm sad you wrote too. Mostly TLDR, but in passing:
**{{tq|I think you would have found that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes has two sections which say different things about the disputed question}}{{snd}}No, actually,I would not have found that, as you yourself discovered after posting here (see [https://wiki.riteme.site/?diff=1004974095]), although you strangely omitted to return here to post the traditional ''Oops! My bad!'' Maybe next time you should more carefully consider that {{tq|you yourself might not have a complete picture}}.
**Surtsicna was told over and over and over and over and over, with links to the guideline and/or quoting it, that ''not'' everything in an infobox needs to be in the article. Nonetheless he or she stubbornly insisted on repeating that idea. And repeating it. And repeating it (in multiple threads, as I recall). AGF doesn't require us to close our eyes to what is obviously either a CIR failure or just plain willful blindness.
**My comments about the chairmanships weren't about whether sources were ''in the article'', but rather whether they exist at all. Surtsicna said {{tq|I do seriously believe it is ''not possible to find'' published reliable sources about all these people preceding or succeeding Joe Biden in the given date ranges}}, and I said (yes) {{tq|To be blunt, seriously believing that there aren't complete and definitive sources for the chairmanships of Senate committees brings into serious question your competence to edit this article}}, because that's true. And, frankly, if ''you'' can't see how absurd it is to imagine that there aren't definitive sources for Senate chairmanships, then ''you'' aren't competent to be sticking your nose into this matter. Really.
**{{tq|specifically says in WP:CIRNOT not to label someone as incompetent}}{{snd}}No, it says it's {{tq|generally inadvisable}} to call a person incompetent. I applied my judgment. And look! It worked: [https://wiki.riteme.site/?diff=1002255355]! Too bad S., like you, was unable to bring himself/herself to come out and say, "Oh, now I see. I guess you were right. Sorry I didn't read more carefully."
:Surticna's wasted a lot of editor time. You're on your way to doing the same. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color: red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
:::<small>I had a [[Cosmetic Ingredient Review|"CIR failure"]] once. But it turned out I had just been [[Lipstick on a pig|pigging out on salty popcorn]]. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 18:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
::::Where in the world do you get this stuff???? </small>
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EEng.
Satellite image of a section of the Great Wall of China, running diagonally from lower left to upper right and not to be confused with the more prominent talkpage running from upper left to lower right. The shadow at the upper left indicates "You are here." Talkpage archives are not visible.
Wikipedia Must Be The Saddest Place on Earth
I have had EEng's talk and userpage on my Watchlist for two months because they are the most fun places on Wikipedia.
FDA Warning: Pagescrolling-related unilateral musculoskeletal asymmetry
My friend told me that the best way to get a man would be to impress him with my ability to crush a can so forcefully that the contents shoot out, fly up in the air and land in my mouth, so every morning I do yoga, swim and then come here for 40 mins scrolling to the bottom of EEng's talk page; my right forearm looks like Popeye's now and it's done wonders for my love life.
(a/o February 2, 2016: 131 stalkers, 81/89 "active" [4])
a. Stalkers caught on camera; b. Why was the gardener unhappy?Wikipedians with red lynx cats on their user pageAnd now, without further ado.. Ladies and gentlemen, we present to you... EEng's talk page!
Don't be a tease
You recently teased some trivia questions about MIT in this thread at ANI. I tried using Google, but Mr. Google and I have a love/hate relationship and he offered no assistance (maybe he's tired of being used and tossed aside). Will we ever find out what the answers are now that the thread has been closed? Or will I have another sleepless night wondering why Mr. Google refuses to answer my questions?—Isaidnoway(talk)21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you don't imagine I'd pose a shibboleth you can look up on Google. I'd like to give him a day or two to show off his knowledge [5] before I open the secret envelope. For some reason these poseurs often think they can get away with an MIT imposture (this one was a "professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing" who had "armies of grad students and PhD candidates who work in my labs" – "I'm a computer lawyer" seems to be a common fantasy) but rarely, for some reason, Harvard. You can always tell a Harvard man, I guess. EEng05:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a very young man (after high school but before college), I worked at Kaiser Hospital on Geary Boulevard, where they were digging up Gold Rush era graves during relentless medical center expansions. Mind you, I was not there during the actual Gold Rush. But they needed to create a special city, Colma, California, to accommodate all of the exhumed graves. Cullen328Let's discuss it08:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Colma has 1800 living residents and 1.5 million dead; the town's (unofficial?) motto is "It's great to be alive in Colma!" For the full story see the source cited here [6], and there's a nice map of the four cemeteries that used to surround Lone Mountain here [7]; Gage was buried in "Laurel Hill Cemetery" (which was itself called simply "Lone Mountain Cemetery" until its name was changed in the mid-1860s). EEng18:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Immediately as you leave MIT for Harvard there's a sign that famously provides an unintentional pun when seen from just the right vantage. What is it? Answer: The metropolitan storage warehouse — fire proof next to the railroad tracks, which if you stand in just the right place reads rage warehouse — ire proof. Photo at [8]. It's now student housing.
(2) According to tradition, one MIT president had some famous last words. What were they? Answer: "Bituminous coal", according to legend the last words of MIT founder William Barton Rogers before he dropped dead on the commencement dais. See [9].
(3) What MIT library makes you go around in circles? Answer: Barker Library, inside the Great Dome; see the map here [10].
(4) What was kept overnight in a car trunk during the Apollo 13 emergency? Answer: MIT's copy of the Apollo guidance system's gyros, to verify their performance at very low temperatures. Search "trunk" in [11]. (If you like that sort of thing at all then this book [12] is outstanding.)
Hi EE. Do you think we could dub over Steve's voice here to say "another wrestling thread at ANI?" :-) In another bit of fun they have a festival where they reenact that scene every year. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk02:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(a) The fawning nominating statements make me want to vomit.
(b) My only criterion for adminship is that the person not be an idiot or an asshole, and if you oppose you have to say why, but you're not allowed to say someone's an idiot or an asshole.
(c) They're like super-serious over there and don't allow jokes.
@Tryptofish: I'm not sure if nominating EEng for adminship would be a good idea. I might support him if this page gets created, but I can hardly imagine what absolute chaos would ensue if he were nominated, let alone actually be promoted. SemiHypercube02:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointed!
This is very disappointing. The header turned up on my watchlist, and I took it to mean "Why do I not see you as a candidate at RFA?" So I came here fully expecting to see either a good excuse for not standing from EEng, or (better) an abject apology followed by a prompt self-nomination. (I agree about the fulsome nominations, and always give extra points to the few who self-nominate. Let's have some self-reliance and independence at RFA, people. What are the admins? A mutual admiration society? An exclusive country club?) Anyway. Please do nominate yourself! I'd certainly vote for you. (Yes, I'm too proud to use that "!vote" jargon.) Bishonen | talk03:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I know that Bishonen prefers self-nominations, but that doesn't mean that Bishzilla does too. If Bishzilla nominated EEng, I'd definitely support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the bullhonky aside...HELL YEAH!!! EEng proudly wears the battlescars that were inflicted upon him by years of clueless [fill-in the blanks]. He knows what it means to be [fill-in the blanks]. He has years of experience, incredible knowledge and the wherewithal to [fill-in the blanks]. Any editor who ever doubted his ability to craft the almost perfect encyclopedic article...[fill-in the blanks]. He would be the WP symbol of the Phoenix rising...the mystical Unicorn...the ultimate [fill-in the blanks] that would attract hordes of news media. And I would damn sure vote for him because [fill-in the blanks]. 🦄 Atsme✍🏻📧00:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the compliments, I have not the slightest interest in becoming an admin – not that there's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening anyway. I feel I can do more good as a member of the loyal opposition. EEng21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that this is the internet and irony that relies on prior knowledge of a person or signals such as body language and tone of voice should not be assumed. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please help to improve the article to make it more interesting as per WP:BLUEWP:NPOV etc and where your comment is simply snore, please look to expand so it is not just "snore". Particularly, articles and edits that are not just "snore" may actually address complex social issues in new and innovative ways. Can you help with this mission? Mrspaceowl (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850 you reverted to an edit with a sentence ending in a comma that removed notable information. The reason given was 'do this again and you'll be blocked'. However, you give no reason beyond this for reverting to a sentence fragment from one that makes sense, nor have you said what you consider 'silly' about information on an academic book referenced by a major motion picture which is factual beyond doubt and supported by the most credible source imaginable. You seem to be here for WP:NOTHERE in this case. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mrs. Pace Owl, your cluelessness act is nearing perfection. Feel free to correct the comma to a period. That way at least something you do will be productive. [14]EEng18:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your tact, respect and commitment to improving Wikipedia in this case. However, I must demur, as the subclause removed seems likely the only interesting thing about the article at present, and should be restored. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this another example of confusion over "and/or"? Logically, "do this again and you'll be blocked" says both of two things should happen: you should do this again (phrased as a command), and you will be blocked (regardless of whether you do it again). "Do this again or you'll be blocked" would make more sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OED: "Introducing the predicted consequence or fulfilment of a command, or of a hypothesis put imperatively, or elliptically", giving the example Spray with Sanfect and you're safe.EEng20:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In all honestly the unfortunate background meaning did occur to me as I typed, but I was too lazy to backspace. EEng22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are warned: communicating with EEng may lead to a gruesome accident. --Tryptofish
Requesting your expertise as it relates to engaging the reader...please see Dax Cowart. I tweaked it a bit and was hoping you could help add the finishing touches for Phase 1 of what appears to be a potential DYK/GA/FA article. Atsme✍🏻📧02:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know this case (looks like I did some editing myself a year ago) and am happy to help. I assume by now you realize that I'm likely to whittle down the detail a bit. EEng03:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not expect anything less. The article needs to be encyclopedic but in a way that the prose is engaging. What good is an article that doesn't capture an audience? I know my flaws in relation to this particular article, and I'm quite confident knowing that your exceptional writing ability (example: Phineas Gage) is exactly what the Cowart article needs. Please...perform your magic. There are numerous RS that can be cited. I truly believe the subject of this article is worth the extra mile or two it will take to get it right. Atsme✍🏻📧04:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mind corrections here and there in stable featured articles, but I’m troubled by your words towards other users, which are often contemptuous in tone and on the verge of xenophobic. You shouldn’t go around insulting their language skills, especially when you don’t know their background. You want to help? Help, but don’t overreact. --Lecen (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, we're talking about a series of edits culminating in this one [15] and this one [16].
Well, let's see... Here's the entirety of the section you think should carry the heading Decadence:
During the 1880s, Brazil continued to prosper and social diversity increased markedly, including the first organized push for women's rights. On the other hand, letters written by Pedro II reveal a man grown world-weary with age and having an increasingly alienated and pessimistic outlook. He remained respectful of his duty and was meticulous in performing the tasks demanded of the imperial office, albeit often without enthusiasm. Because of his increasing "indifference towards the fate of the regime" and his lack of action in support of the imperial system once it was challenged, historians have attributed the "prime, perhaps sole, responsibility" for the dissolution of the monarchy to the Emperor himself.After their experience of the perils and obstacles of government, the political figures who had arisen during the 1830s saw the Emperor as providing a fundamental source of authority essential for governing and for national survival. These elder statesmen began to die off or retire from government until, by the 1880s, they had almost entirely been replaced by a newer generation of politicians who had no experience of the early years of Pedro II's reign. They had only known a stable administration and prosperity and saw no reason to uphold and defend the imperial office as a unifying force beneficial to the nation. To them Pedro II was merely an old and increasingly sick man who had steadily eroded his position by taking an active role in politics for decades. Before he had been above criticism, but now his every action and inaction prompted meticulous scrutiny and open criticism. Many young politicians had become apathetic toward the monarchic regime and, when the time came, they would do nothing to defend it. Pedro II's achievements went unremembered and unconsidered by the ruling elites. By his very success, the Emperor had made his position seem unnecessary.The lack of an heir who could feasibly provide a new direction for the nation also diminished the long-term prospects of the Brazilian monarchy. The Emperor loved his daughter Isabel, but he considered the idea of a female successor as antithetical to the role required of Brazil's ruler. He viewed the death of his two sons as being a sign that the Empire was destined to be supplanted. Resistance to accepting a female ruler was also shared by the political establishment. Even though the Constitution allowed female succession to the throne, Brazil was still very traditional, and only a male successor was thought capable as head of state.
While in obsolete usage decadence means a decline of any kind, in modern usage it always connotes moral decay, usually including self-indulgence, and there's no suggestion of anything like that in the text. After three go-rounds on this I guessed that you're not a native speaker of English, and as it turns I was correct.
I have great admiration for Dom Pedro and am glad he's well covered in WP, but featured or not these articles are prolix and repetitive. It's big of you to allow for "corrections here and there", but phrases such as
even taking a train journey solely with his wife
and passages such as
Upon his sons' early deaths, the Emperor's faith in the monarchy's future had evaporated. His trips abroad now made him resentful of the burden destiny had placed upon his shoulders when only a child of five.
show there's more than a little room for improvement. (Among other things, it's hard to imagine destiny as a child of five.)
Oh, and as it happens my boyfriend of 13 years is Brazilian so you can take your xenophobia accusations and stick them up your bunda. EEng07:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I got you into hot water with your boss into trouble at work. If that was how you won the bet, I hate to imagine what the loser had to do! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My boss thought it was funny. I was looking at a different monitor, and when he started laughing was when I noticed it. I really should know better than to let this talk page sit in my browser while I'm not paying attention to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because we get an inordinate amount of traffic at ANI on these topics. As an ideal, Wikipedia treats all knowledge as worthy, but after the 100th weekly ANI thread asking the community to referee some stupid argument emanating from the "pro" wrestling walled garden, I'm bound to ask whether the loss to humanity if we simply didn't cover all those idiotic "matches" isn't outweighed by the gain in freeing editor time for building content in other topic areas. EEng20:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, it's not gonna happen. Don't you think you should try to look for patterns of where these conflicts come from? Maybe just alternatively over protect those pages to avoid disruption? THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)20:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, it's not gonna happen – <rolls eyes> What part of "half-serious list" do you not understand? EEng21:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not for this comment, but if you carry on inserting yourself into conversations and being a bit of a pest, chances are eventually some admin's patience will snap. I don't suspect you'd be blocked for very long, and it would probably be overturned quickly, but still .... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But, ImmortalWizard, it does have to do with your bouncing around making odd comments in random places about things you don't know anything about, and often misunderstanding the thing you're reacting to (witness this thread). Multiple people (here and at ANI) have been gently suggesting that your time at ANI would be better spent elsewhere. You are a relatively new user, and ANI is not a healthy place for anyone, most especially those without a lot of experience on the project. EEng17:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me bouncing around does not have to do anything with ANI. I just wanted insight to your peculiar opinion. Am I the only one who stalks your userpage and make a comment about something? THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)17:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you might consider some form of organized classification system in the Museum - easy to remember key word searches at the top of the page, and possibly use anchors? Just a thought. I was wondering what section I might look to find a situation where someone is ridiculing another for making a mistake but then makes a bigger mistake when correcting it. Atsme✍🏻📧00:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're looking for WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. As for a classification system, you mean like the Library of Congress system, something like
Nothing complex. Just easy to remember keywords - example above would have keywords like errors, mistakes, blunders, humiliation, ridicule, etc. The keywords would fit in the 1st line under the section title. That would allow for a "find" operation. Atsme✍🏻📧01:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realize this page was such a resource for others. Well, let's think about it. BTW you'll see some anchors if you open in edit mode. EEng01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I confused what you guys talking about? Subliminal metaphor about a wikipedia topic. Atsme approached argument different than I did. More than one way to get the right answer. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This just blew in on the slush pile and I thought it would raise a smile if I reposted it here.
"Dumber than a rock in a toothpick Factory" ie; this is a phrase that was created by myself for saying that someone is unintelligent; not smart; uneducated. this phrase can be used as an insult or a derogatory remark. Use this saying with caution as it will offend and hurt feelings. In fact it could even cause lasting pain an turmoil if not used with extreme caution. But if used in good company this could cause laughter and hilarity and may even cause a peeing incident.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but peeing incidents are unacceptable, unless...by design. I have also concluded that EEng's TP may well be the only true "safe place" to say what one thinks, depending on one's perspective, of course. Atsme👂🏻📧19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's supposed to say Denser than a rock in the toothpick factory. The idea being that the density of a rock would stand out against a group of toothpicks in uniform density. In which case it should be "relatively denser". Or perhaps it just sounds silly, and trying to get a discussion out of it here is dumber than a rock in the toothpick factory. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hapless nominator: "Oh no!! What have you done to Grandma?!!" Gleeful closer: "That's the last time she runs for RfA!!"
Personally I would have gone with "blunter than a rock in the toothpick factory". But then folks have often said that I'm "one slab short of a full patio." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there -- I'm afraid I don't totally understand the message you left on my talk page. If there are issues with the sourcing I'm more likely to leave this article as-is and just aim for some other DYK options in the future. It would be super helpful if someone could look at whatever is in the actual print archive at Harvard because I think there is some primary source stuff there that might allow me to cut out Family Search as a source entirely which would be great. Jessamyn (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jessamyn: I have a soft spot for nonacademic Harvard staff (see Charles Apted andn [19]) because they're usually characters. I've tagged some of the sources for further improvement. Not for a while, but sometime in the future I'll pull up his material at Harvard Archives and see what we can do with that material. Ping me in a few months if I haven't done it yet. When we've done all we can we can get a WP:Good article review and thence to DYK, for which there are a number of good hooks -- and the photo with his equipment, cropped a bit, would be good on the main page. EEng21:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scrolling through your talk page discussions, I was wondering why has everyone left only section headings on your talk page – and then I realised that was just the toc :D Has anyone asked you ever to consider archiving your table of contents because they took a long time scrolling to the bott? (No, I'm not asking you to do that) :D Lourdes01:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One time I accidentally clicked on EEng's talk page on my mobile. Luckily I was able to throw the phone a safe distance before it exploded. Levivich02:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This feuding between you and Fae has to stop tonight before it goes too far. Please refrain from responding to bait.LizRead!Talk!04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, because there are only three separate notification sections above and you might not have noticed them all, but it seems that some people want to notify you about something that I'm sure might have been important but the thread has already closed. Maybe it was on AN, or ANI, or one of those places. Anyway, consider yourself notified of the notifications. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does no one notice this irony: one of the things that makes your talk page so big, is all the notes from people complaining that your talk page is too big? (BTW the reason you were graced with a custom "archive this" notice instead of a template is because the user got a lot of grief for templating me to archive my talk page. Even though mine is a tiny seedling compared to your magnificent tree here.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to know is why do your talk page archives cap out at under 100 threads but your main talk page is 300+? This is completely backwards and against all conventions of decency. It's like you're thumbing your nose at the universe. Levivich16:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If my grandfather had killed himself, that wouldn't bother me in the least. He died 25 years before I was born. I couldn't care less if he died by autoerotic asphyxiation, Russian roulette, eating Tide pods, falling off a cliff while taking a selfie, or by shooting himself in the heart. What bothers me is that after many years of speaking with people who knew Milman Parry, including Albert Lord, I have been told repeatedly that a) no one who knew him considered suicide a possibility b) there is no evidence that he killed himself (no note, etc.) and c) the basis for the theories about his suicide (that he had been denied promotion at Harvard) have been disproved. I assumed that in editing a Wikipedia page, it was important to remove unfounded speculation and errors. Perhaps I was wrong. Although I do wonder at your need to keep this rumor alive. Perhaps you're just generally pro-gossip?
You're right that Wikipedia strives to avoid unfounded speculation and errors, but what we count as founded is tied to what reliable sources tell us. As you implicitly acknowledge, the idea that Milman Parry may have killed himself is a common one, and since there are sources mentioning the possibility the article cannot simply ignore it.Of course I would very much like to see the treatment of this point improved, but that can only happen if we have more sources, and I haven't been able to find any on my own. Your personal knowledge we can't use, unfortunately – I'm sure you understand. But I'll tell you what, I'll contact some classicists I know to see if they can point me to something. If you know of any sources, please do say. EEng01:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A biography of Milman Parry is currently in the works, by Robert Kanigel, and an article about his death, by Steven Reece, will be published in the journal, Oral Tradition, this Spring, so there will soon be a great deal of new information available about Milman Parry's life, and his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewFeld (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well why didn't you say so? I'm sure those new sources will allow us to give this point the high-quality treatment it deserves. So I can attend to that as soon as possible, please drop me a message here the moment either source becomes available. EEng02:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector - the source you cited is also an excellent example for Streisand effect per: @DevinCow has jumped from having around 1,000 followers when the suit was filed to over 134,000 since the time of this writing.AtsmeTalk📧14:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Phineas Gage, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance.
Using the preview button can help avoid embarrassing mistakes (diff, diff). You may wish to try making practice edits to your sandbox first, only making the edit to an actual article once you feel sure you know what you are doing. The Wikipedia Adventure may help you learn these basic skills. As a reminder, please do not refer to edits as "dummy" per WP:CIVIL–such language should be reserved for editors only. I understand today is your favorite day; let's try not to ruin it with poor editing.Levivich04:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one picosecond. Once the block has expired, your peers are welcome to make slightly more useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been dunked on. If you think there are literally any reasons for being unblocked, nevermind.
Oh, please...it's too difficult to separate the April fools day blocks from the real ones. They get lost in the latter. AtsmeTalk📧00:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re "if you'll tell me what to use instead of {quote box} I'll be happy to start using it": MOS:BQ covers this already; use {{Quote}}] unless there's some really, really compelling reason not to. If you're sure there is, then I suppose pick any template from Category:Quotation templates, other than {{Quote box}} with it's inconsistent attribution formatting, or the pull-quote ones that use decorative giant quotation marks. Several have placement and other layout options. Seriously, though, more than 99% (quite literally) of instances of {{Quote box}} and other "decorative" quotation framing templates in articles are misuses and should be converted to plain {{Quote}}. I did a cleanup spree a while back (about 150 articles, before I got worn out), and of those only one single case was using such a template in a manner appropriate for an encyclopedia (and it not for a quotation in the usual sense, but an image-like presentation of an entire short statement, kind of a "document in a box" (and the section was about the document, so the function served was that of an illustration). In every other case it was either pointless decoration of block quotations, abuse of magazine-style pull quotes, or WP:UNDUE-violating over-focus on some particular party's quoted statements. There are thousands of quote-template misuses like this in mainspace, and I expect the ratio to hold, since the ones I dealt with were completely random selections. I find that when I do cleanup of them, the reversion rate back to something decorative is also around 1%. Someone back in 2007 or when ever just felt like decorating, and no one else cares.
This is one of the reasons I want to get most of these templates re-coded to do nothing in mainspace but emit the same code as {{Quote}}. This would auto-fix most of our quotation problems (though not the UNDUE ones, nor our rare instances of real but inappropriate pull-quoting). But {{Quote box}} having inconsistent formatting would have to be fixed first.
I've said it before many times: If people are convinced that our normal and traditional block-quotation style is somehow sub-par for a 2019+ online publication, they're free to propose a replacement style. They're not free to go inject whatever weird quotation formatting "magic" they like at their own blog (WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and we do have a our own MoS for a reason). I've already successfully TfDed some experiments of that sort (e.g. ones that looked a lot like {{Talk quote block}}, with a dark vertical bar on the left, a style borrowed from threaded message boards and some e-mail programs like Eudora, but virtually never found in print or print-mimicking material).
The Phineas Gage article (about which I care) is turning into a train wreck. Those definitely should be block quotations, integrated with context into the material. The current presentation is "magazine style, on crack", filtered through "my first blog" sensibilities of how to present information. Just awful. The urge to begin a section with a quotation is a magazine "feature writer" impulse that needs to be strongly resisted in encyclopedia writing. We have no need to "hook" readers. We don't care how long their eyeballs are on the page, and we aren't weaving a dancing narrative for them, just providing information that they can use how and in whatever portion they desire. The 25th Am. page looks fine. These are really being presented as document fragments for analysis, not quotations in the usual sense. Here, it actually makes sense to lead the sections with this material (for reasons completely unrelated to why people want to do so with "juicy" personal or organizational quotations, magazine-style – sometimes called "quotoids" when they're not technically pull quotes, i.e. not repeated in the main text). Here, the mis-coding of {{Quote box}} isn't really an issue, since its inconsistent attribution code is not being used. However, the "safe" replacement template is {{Quote frame}}. I may just propose merging the former to the latter, though it'll take a bot or something to fix all the attribution. It might not even be bottable. (Bot would have to look for every possible combination of dash and hyphen encoding, with and without spacing also encoded in various ways, and strip it from the attribution parameters before changing the template call to point to {{quote frame}}.) The Harvard case is also unencyclopedic, magazine-style use of "quotoids", which should be integrated into the prose, with context. The present display looks reasonable, but is poorly coded (it's using <br /> as a layout tool, etc.). If there were consensus to retain this as a sidebar, I suppose it's not fatally bad, but should probably be done in some custom <div>...</div>, because presently is's marking up the entire content, including attribution and citations, as quoted material, which is wrong. That template isn't a general layout tool, it's something that emits quotation markup around whatever content it is told is a quotation. PS: I just did another random cleanup run on the results returned by "What links here" for one of the decorative quote templates, and out of 20-ish cases that showed up in the first page of results in mainspace, 0% were appropriate. They were all either normal block quotes that should be in {{quote}}, or they were non-encyclopedic, magazine-style pull quotes. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC); copyedited 04:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in We don't care how long their eyeballs are on the page – Really? We don't care whether the reader thinks, "I don't know where this is going -- I guess I'll just quit" versus "Wow, I'm gonna learn something interesting from this article/section. Tell me!"? EEng15:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know what I mean. We wouldn't have an MoS, Writing Better Articles, WP:NOT, and all these policies on producing proper enc. content if we didn't care whether readers could understand the material (as to both wording and logical arrangement), or care whether they believed it was accurate and worth reading. But we don't use visual, emotive, lead-burying, teasing, ambiguous, and other psychological trickery to try to steer and latch onto reader attention (we do pretty much the opposite, using plain and detached English, and providing links that help get them to what they're most interested in, which may be nothing at the current page after all). There's a big difference between a sensible article flow (and ToC), versus trying to cajole, shock, amuse, mystify, or otherwise lead the reader around manipulatively (which is actually a subtle form of WP:SYNTH, weaving a "can you believe it?!" narrative from bare facts, the connections between which really have to come from sources, not from our own editorial perspective). Decorative quotations almost always serve such an unencyclopedic purpose (and are a technique borrowed ultimately from fiction, as foreshadowing or plot twist depending on the quote and its relation to the rest of the material).
The only exceptions I regularly see are document snippets for analysis, as in the 25th Am. case, and actually famous quotations, like the opening of MLK's "I have a dream" speech, that are part of the subject of our own article. The ultimate solution may be to fork specific templates for these with separate documentation (e.g. so it's clear that using {{Famous quote}} for a non-famous quote can be reverted), and have all other quote templates just emit blockquote markup if used in mainspace. I mean really, if the only difference between a section starting with an out-of-context quotation (a non sequitur, and most often some form of teaser) in case A and case B is that in case B it's got a box around it and is moved rightward, then the problem and solution are clear. Any random editor would fix the first case, without the box, by either providing context or moving it to where the already-provided context is (or removing it if inappropriate for reasons like UNDUE or because it's an actual, redundant pull quote). Our fix-it impulse often gets a bit short-circuited when people encounter box quotations, because we've become desensitized to them by magazines and tabloid journalism using pull quotes and other forms of teaser (which most of us probably actually ignore, having also self-trained to avoid big flashy noise on the page as usually advertising). But it's still the same non-encyclopedic article content flow. This will be especially apparent to users of screen readers, and anyone else not using our default CSS and JavaScript (which is where that boxing layout comes from); quotoids are also a WP:ACCESS and WP:REUSE problem. Basically, a WP article needs to make perfect sense if you copy-paste its text into a plain text editor without any formatting left other than line-breaks. With quotations in particular, this demonstrates why introductory contextual material identifying it as a quotation is important, because it'll lose its indentation when used as raw text. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continued below
SMcCandlish – Followup: It doesn't look like {quote frame} can substitute, because there doesn't seem to be any way to control the width of the box. I'd still like to hear your response to my point just above here. EEng03:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it but it still looks awful, at least because (a) there's too little margin between the box and adjacent text and (b) the text looks like it's at 100%, where I'd expect 90% (and 90%, IMHO, looks way better). EEng05:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Easy CSS tweaks. As for font size, there are limits to how small to make it, and any reduction generates complaints from the MOS:ACCESS crowd. However, the hard limit is 85% last I looked, so your 90% would be permissible. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued discussion re quote boxes
OK, let's take an isolated example, involving a subject with whom I suspect you're familiar. What do you think of the boxed quotation at Herb_Caen#Honors? Do you really think it would do its job better if run into the text as a block quote, introduced by something like At the ceremony, Caen said to the crowd: ? EEng05:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does an encyclopedic job at all. It's magazine-style fluff. If multiple sources indicate this quip was widely considered memorable, controversial, influential, etc. (i.e., had lasting significance), then it might be encyclopedically useful to include it in the main material with some context. Keep in mind that Caen was first and foremost a humorist (his lead is actually poor in this regard, suggesting with just "journalist" that he was mainly a straight news man – I just went and added "humorist"), so half of what he wrote or said in public was funny, clever, and remembered by someone somewhere. Given that the lead already establishes that his entire œuvre was "a continuous love letter to San Francisco", it's not encyclopedically useful to browbeat the reader with a quote showing his affection for the city, certainly not in a huge, attention-demanding box.
A completely different way to approach this question would be to ask another one: If a mainstream nonfiction book from, say, Chicago University Press, had used this quotation in a book or a chapter about Caen, and it was not a book given to cutesy decoration, just a regular ol' straightforward book like any other, would it have used a fancy offset box for this, or presented it as any other quotation? That's kind of a trick question, because probably either it wouldn't have been used, or it might have been used as a humorous tone-setting device in the form of a centered but visually offset quotation at the beginning of the piece. The latter is another non-encyclopedic use of quotations, what I call a "fake pull quote" in that it isn't repetition of material already in the main text, but looks exactly like such a pull quote and serves the same "try to cajole the reader into continuing, and having in mind what you want them to have in mind, feeling what you want them to feel" psychological manipulation. A regular book probably would not have used this otherwise, except as an inline or block quotation (depending on their house-style length limits) in a passage that dwelt in depth on Caen and his feelings about SF. In our piece, we have no such section, and the section into which this has been shoehorned as a fake pull quote isn't even relevant (being about honors received by the writer, not about his love of San Francisco). It's even crappy as a fake pull quote, since it comes too late to have any "hook" effect; the sole purpose of it being there is subjective layout gimcrackery. In short, just because it's reasonable to do what that article does in some contexts in some other publications doesn't means it's good to do it here. It's a kind of a usage-register matter. We have this huge-ass WP:NOT policy (growing all the time) because of so many things that "are", out there in the world, that WP isn't and should be made to masquerade as. I won't reiterate the WP:ACCESS and WP:REUSE matters from the earlier incarnation of this thread.
PS: If I were to salvage that quote in the article, what I would do is restructure the lead: take the "love letter" bit and the "voice and conscience" bit, along with this quote with some intro context (maybe not as a block quotation – it's ~30 words, and the lead already has one), and from these parts build a third paragraph on the Caen–SF connection, after "The secret of Caen's success" material. (Or as 2nd para., before the "secret" material.) This would also vastly improve the run-on lead sentence by shortening it and making it less repetitive (it includes the string "San Francisco" five times). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pull in Binksternet on this, for starters on the idea that Caen was a "humorist". While he had a great sense of humor it would never have occurred to me in a thousand years to call him a humorist. Nor does any source I can find use the word. EEng18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping response: I have seen Caen called a journalist, a diarist and of course a columnist, but Reason magazine called him a "humorist" (in quotes) in 1987 and Time magazine called him a columnist-humorist in 1996. More recently, a Solano County newspaper writer lumped Caen in with other humor columnists. So the label is not unsupported. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or, more importantly to me, this bit: "This would also vastly improve the run-on lead sentence by shortening it and making it less repetitive (it includes the string "San Francisco" five times)." It's just really poor writing to do that, even if it's a result of editorial palimpsest over a long period of time. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I crossed the edge years ago. If you're only getting to the edge now, you've got some catching up to do. --Jayron3214:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upage
Hi, I appreciate the nice humor on your pages. But I noticed the picture of Donald Trump, and the picture further down of a finger with text about Donald Trump, However I would like to point out that the pictures and the captions of Trump were offensive to me, and could be too with other users. --ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁02:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you're talking about images such as the ones shown here.
Donald Trump with shithole in open positionThe holidays are almost upon us... Treason'sGreetings!What Trump looks like when the virtual reality projector is turned off
I appreciate the friendliness of your message, but predict that in five years you will be wondering how you could have ever found such things even remarkable. EEng03:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind, but I removed the porta potty image from the ANI thread with my name in it. I don't feel it's fair for the thread which is about me to have this image in it, and could have an effect of subtly serving to portray me in a negative manner. Hope you understand. North America100009:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI...if you had clicked on pointy in the caption of my Madonna picture at ANI you would have had a conical experience...or perhaps you did. I tried to find a similar image at Commons but never thought to keyword "cone". Good find. AtsmeTalk📧02:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conical, comical -- I get it! My 9-y.o. nephew, who has been learning about polygons in school, told me a joke last week. "I was taking the bus to Harvard SQUARE but I got lost because I got on the RHOMBUS. Get it? WRONG BUS." My nephew's wicked smaht. EEng03:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your edit comment when you reverted my edit, I did not realize that you made other changes. I apologize for reverting the rest of your edit. I don't understand what you mean by "please leave this near the bottom of the pile".—Finell19:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the note about word-or-dash-but-not-both belongs near the end of the list of bulletpoints, not first. EEng22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Buttinsky) I just read "kills my 2.4G" and it reminded me that I forgot to share this link with you, EEng - it's the companion to "clean underwear" in the Museum of I Shouldn't Laugh but I Did.AtsmeTalk📧21:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP is preoccupied with making images in a vertical stack all have the same width, which is a good thing in general, especially when they're vertically adjacent, but not so important if there's substantial distance between them. IAnyway, it's OK either way -- too early to spend much time on layout because the article will grow a lot over the next few weeks and then it will become clearer where to place the images. See my comment here [21]. EEng18:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Herewith, you receive the Map of France.
Or you can see O'Keefe, Kevin (January 21, 2013). "Beeville Man Sees Jesus in Breakfast Taco". Texas Monthly. Retrieved April 19, 2019. Ernesto Garza said that the image of the Christian Messiah in his tortilla was "a miracle."
Remember: don't eat the Icon.
"...merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." --Thomas Jefferson
I could not help[CitationNeeded] noticing that your so-called "User Page"[22] mentions a "Cabal".[23]
There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will.
Those are now much improved. To be honest, I'm slightly annoyed at how quickly you were able to improve them, and by how much, but I'll take solace in taking full credit. Re the lawyer one: I think it's a good punchline, but the set-up feels contrived. The idea is the lawyer keeps "appealing" until he gets to the constitution, which he edits. Maybe he should go to different courts? Maybe it should start with the jury being polled and "not a vote"? Maybe the whole joke should be much shorter? Levivich03:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wasn't planning to get into it, but since we're here I'll tell you what I think needs doing in that joke, though it's not a coherent plan. A successful joke must incorporate some kind of incongruity in the punchline, usually (though not universally) in the form of a reversal or change of point of view. This is partly why jokes so often have three parts: two set a pattern, direction, or point of view, and the third breaks the pattern or reverses the direction. (The desert island / raft joke breaks the "3" mold, but that's OK because part of the joke is the tedious multiple chances we give vandals.) Now I think the right thing to do in the lawyer joke might be to have the judge do all the citing of shortcuts (to set the pattern) and then at the end the lawyer rewrites the book or something and invokes ANYONECANEDIT, thus turning the tables. I don't have the details worked out, and honestly it's a tricky story to sustain unless the ripostes are truly bang-on to the various shortcuts that get cited, but I think that's the right framework. Having said that, the opening call by the lawyer to REVERT the verdict is the best line of the joke, and I don't see offhand how to put that into the mouth of the judge. EEng03:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What if they both cite shortcuts. What do you think of this, quick and dirty:
Well, that has possibilities, because half of essays and PAGs have a corresponding essay or PAG that tends to say the opposite. They're not all coming to mind though. Here's something:
Jury: The result of the discussion was delete. (Jailify? Levivich)
"Has the jury reached a verdict?" the judge asks.
"Yes, your honor," the jury foremanperson replies. "The result of the discussion was jailify."
The wikilawyer jumped from his chair. "NOTAVOTE!" The judge shakes her head, "CONSENSUS has been reached."
"REVERT!" exclaims the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "0RR."
"DRV!" the wikilawyer demands. The judge shakes her head, "No FORUMSHOPPING."
"There is NORUSH!" argues the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "The deadline is NOW."
"DTTR!" the wikilawyer asserts. The judge shakes her head, "TTR."
"NOSPADE!" pleads the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "SPADE."
"IAR!" the wikilawyer shouts. The judge shakes her head, "DROPTHESTICK."
"NOTBUREAUCRACY!" retorts the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head and points to a book on her desk, "PAGs."
The wikilawyer grabs the book and tears out all the pages. "ANYONECANEDIT!" he cackles.
"BLOCK!" orders the judge. The court officers to take the wikilawyer into custody.
Seeing the officers occupied, the defendant bolts for the door, yelling, "WP:Wikipedia does not need me!" Levivich02:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty good, Levivich. I think you've pulled it off for this month. But in the future I think it's a bad idea to commit in advance to producing a humor column. I'd suggest making it an "occasional feature", so that when it's ready it's ready. I must say I admire your ability to produce stuff on deadline. I certainly can't do that. EEng03:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...if you display any knowledge of our products we'll fire you" made me LOL. Thanks! Do you think you could like, you know... check my contribs every day and just follow behind me and improve everything I do? Can I send you some work emails to look at before I send them out? Levivich20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the world's most petulant grave sparked off an almighty thread about sewer lions, have a couple more oddities I found while transferring assorted clutter to Commons from the smouldering wreckage of Flickr. Zoom in to read the inscriptions. ‑ Iridescent17:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A complaint about that M2HSS section (well, aside from the one about your support for that crank who demanded it be retitled away from "list of…" because it needed a standalone article and then never bothered to actually write said article, so we're now left with an "article" that has no text whatsoever other than the existing brief summary of the parent article); the quaint identification of the actors' stations in life wasn't some kind of quaint Victorian snobbery, but was done very explicitly by Watts to make it clear that people from all walks of life were equally capable of doing good deeds—a very radical sentiment for the time, when the two main schools of thought were one-nation toryism ("well-educated people have a duty to do great deeds, because the great unwashed are too stupid to do them for themselves") or proto-socialism ("the rich are all crooked and in it for themselves or they wouldn't be rich, so only the poor are capable of decency"). I do keep meaning to get around to doing Watts's biography—he was a fascinating character who pretty much invented radical chic a century early, as well as the guy who Barack Obama cites as his reason for entering politics (all that "Hope" stuff was explicitly a reference to Hope (painting), even if hardly anyone got the reference)—but that's another of those articles that's in such a poor state it would need a complete nuke-and-rewrite and consequently treading on multiple toes. ‑ Iridescent16:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've never been a fan of the article–list distinction anyway, but I will eagerly support you in whatever reform you propose on that score. If you need any help getting obscure sources on Watts (there certainly are a lot) let me know. I did not know about Hope -- interesting. EEng17:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot more stacked up to do before I even consider Watts (although I may do some of the more interesting paintings; at the moment we have an odd situation where Hope, Mammon and After the Deluge are at FA quality and everything else is a redlink). If I go back to doing biographies (I don't really like writing them) Zachariah Pearson and Albert Joseph Moore, two Victorian chancers who deserve better coverage than their current atrocious articles, will probably be next.
It's not the article/list distinction that's the issue; it's the fact that the list was intentionally on a subpage so people wanting to read about it would be directed to the page that actually has the story of the monument on it (the histories of the park and the memorial are inseparable, as the former was created to accommodate the latter), but because the redirect has been deleted and the list moved over it, anyone searching for the memorial (thanks to Closer there's a slow but steady stream) now lands directly on the list subpage and assumes that Wikipedia doesn't have anything to say about the topic. ‑ Iridescent17:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I visualized this not as a competition, but rather a teaming of complementary collections (British and American). Since I'm at Harvard several times a week it's especially convenient for me, and their stacks are open so I can skim unlimited numbers books and journals for relevant material. Two other points: I wonder if your relationship with BL gives you online access to all their journals, as I have through Harvard (e.g. [27]); and (and it really pains me to say this) I spent a substantial amount of time at BL some time ago and was shocked -- SHOCKED! at the really low quality of the research staff there. I mean astounded. EEng18:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I try to stay out of American politics articles because sooner or later someone will drag in my talk page and there will be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair. But I think I saw my notes on useful idiot the other day. EEng04:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your help needed
This pioneering attempt at a wooden gravestone dating from the early 1970s reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on what it is. Are you able to help? ‑ Iridescent15:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So does Trump. From what Arid Desiccant says, the last erection was in the 1970s so there's a parallel there as well. EEng17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In loving memory of GEORGE HARRISON who died in great agony ... aged 5 1/2 years ... Also SARAH HARRISON grandma of the above who died after long suffering ..." YIKES!I saw a very touching marker the other day in St. Paul's Chapel, NYC:
Beneath the Altar of this Church are deposited the Remains of Mrs ELIZABETH FRANKLIN, Wife of His Excellency WILLIAM FRANKLIN Esq: late Governor under His Brittanick Majesty, of the Province of New Jersey.Compelled, by the adverse circumstances of the Times, to depart from the Husband she loved, and at length deprived of the soothing hope of his speedy Return, she sunk under accumulated Distresses and departed this Life on the on 28th Day of July 1778, in the 49th Year of her Age.SINCERITY and SENSIBILITY POLITENESS and AFFABILITY GODLINESS and CHARITY Were, with SENSE refined and PERSON elegant, in her UNITED.From a grateful Remembrance of her affectionate Tenderness and constant Performance of all the duties of a GOOD WIFE, this Monument is erected in the Year 1787, by Him who knew her Worth, and still laments her Loss.
Grave of John Renie. If you're confused, start with the large H in the center and head out in any direction.
There's probably a decent book—or essay at least—to be written on why pre-industrial England (and the assorted other nations in its sphere), and the late-Victorian death cult, produced such peculiar graves among the middle and upper-middle classes to an extent that was never replicated anywhere else or in any other period. When it comes to truly weird gravestones, the undisputed champion is that of John Renie, in the otherwise totally godforsaken town of Monmouth. ‑ Iridescent19:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, poopers. I added the right link but to the wrong discussion (although it could relate to bloat) so I just fixed it...even worse, I was thinking bloat referenced this discussion, so EEng's comment has widespread merit, broadly construed. Hmmm, me thinks I may be in WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER territory. AtsmeTalk📧22:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Hope Ryden
On 27 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hope Ryden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before she became an expert on wild animals, Hope Ryden was an international flight attendant and used her long layovers to observe wildlife in Africa and Asia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hope Ryden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hope Ryden), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Well, I have been called a shill for pretty much every company, service and product mentioned at User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. (and a paid shill for the "Twisty Bulb Cartel" when I mentioned that compact fluorescent bulbs use less energy than incandescent bulbs, but LED bulbs use less than either), So a special "when did you stop beating your fellow Wikipedia editors?" award seems like it would fit right in on my shelf... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 1101.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. InterstellarityT 🌟 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank you on EEng's behalf for providing him with this helpful advice. Since he is a new editor at Wikipedia, I'm sure that he has never heard any of that before. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mail, with a SASE, a 64 GByte thumb drive, to EEng, requesting the most up-to-date version of this talk page. Should 64 GBytes be insufficient, a 120 Gbyte solid-state drive will do. Before chosing your media, check the current page size.
[29] Mostly, I'm annoyed by the reverts. Consensus position here is not yours, so if you really think it belongs, get some people together to agree with you instead. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In articles, where there's doubt about inclusion of material the consensus principle calls for exclusion by default in the absence of agreement. On talk pages the reverse is true: within very wide bounds the default is to retain things, and the only person who seems to actually object can't formulate what his objection is [30]. There Izno tedious pun on your username coming to mind just now so we'll have to leave that for another time. EEng15:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting EEng, June 14, 2019
“I actually know ... well, not everything, but I know what it is I know, and I know this.“
And that quote inspired me to add a self-quote:
"I don’t know how much I don’t know because there’s no way to gage how much I don’t know when I don’t know what it is I don’t know, so stop telling me I should've known.
And then comes the day you finally realize you don't know shit." AtsmeTalk📧 12:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Much appreciated. It's clear some people are having trouble respecting others' talk page contributions, so this should help. EEng02:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up on understanding or worrying about DS long ago. I'm just me and if I get in trouble, I guess I get in trouble. EEng19:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Morning - I was hoping you'd remember a link you posted a while back to a YouTube video showing a group of scholars talking about creating an encyclopedia. I started scrolling your UTP from the rock-toothback discussion back to discussions in Dec 2018 and didn't see it. Perhaps it was in the museum? AtsmeTalk📧13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. I read that book about fifty years ago at my boarding school. It has come flooding back. particularly the bit about the bread and the ciggy for goodness sake. -Roxy, the dog.wooF21:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Since this is clearly your first time editing and I am in no way templating a regular, we hope you will choose to stay here and contribute positively. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on the redirect discussion for Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM by assuming I am creating a hostile environment by mocking people with peanut allergies. Please remember that even peanuts have feelings, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you and have a nice day. [FBDB] --WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Anne drew (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partial list of images needing deletion because they attack or disparage:
Delete: Implies Jimbo invades people's privacy and looks at their naughty bitsDelete: Presents Jimbo as an autocratDelete: Implies Jimbo engages in group sexDelete: Presents Jimbo as a seagoing mammalDelete: Implies Jimbo has no brains
I AM FRAM. FRAM I AM.
THAT FRAM-I-AM! THAT FRAM-I-AM! I DO NOT LIKE THAT FRAM-I-AM!
WOULD YOU LIKE A BAN OF FRAM?
DOWN ENWIKI'S THROAT TO RAM?
WOULD YOU BAN HIM FOR A YEAR?
ISSUE RATIONALES UNCLEAR?
PERHAPS TRANSPARENCY YOU FEAR?
I couldn't think of any betters lines myself, but hopefully something will come to me before NYB's limerick contest starts. I think there is a joke in here, though, about the WMF's "light touch" nearly bringing down the house. Something like The WMF released a new tool for laser-focused, surgical interventions. It's a less drastic version of the global indef ban. It can be limited in time, it can be limited to a specific project, and it only removes from that project the target user and three bureaucrats, two interface admins, two global renamers, a template editor, twenty-four administrators and a couple dozen veteran editors.– Levivich03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know I tried to get to the white house on a self guided tour months ago ~ all I got was a letter ~ REQUEST DENIED ~ it's true ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim, um, well, I'll do my best to help. I suspect the glitterati assembled here will offer their wisdom as well. Or, if it's your idea to send me an email, I prefer not interact off-wiki unless there's a really good reason; you can do that but I'm likely to keep our interaction to the minimum necessary to help you decide what to do. EEng04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
| | | | | | <-- in case you need more pipes, Dlohcierekim. It's uppercase back slash (Mac keyboard), but you must've known back slash is what you'd get before you came here. AtsmeTalk📧21:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim: You must have stalked me for more than a week to catch me posting a comment in response to QuackGuru not realizing that I have a longer history on that page than the editor you're accusing me to stalk. I don't have much time and nerve for things like that so again I'm just kindly asking you to cut it out and let be. I don't appreciate your threats and the harm it is doing to my personal well being.--TMCk (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know I went to a swimming hole ~ just the other day ~ hole ~ the water looks nice and refreshing ~ on a hot summer day ~ until you jump in ~ and find out it's spring fed' and 56° ~mitch~ (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mitchellhobbs - are you an enterprising WP editor? If yes, and you're swimming in Hamilton Pool, then you're close enough to recruit. I've been trying to round-up some WP editors to help me start a WP Group or Chapter (was advised to start with a group). Any interest or know others who might be? AtsmeTalk📧03:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eeng: Hah! I wish. To continue the "pool" motif, we've jumped in at the shallow end, struck our head on the bottom, and swum, dazed as it were, to the deep end. Now foundering but for the help of a whiz with an ice bucket. Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme Hmm ` I don't know if I am a enterprising WP editor ~ I do let my girls use my computer some times ` why what did you have in mind ~ I don't go to Hamilton pool very often it's kind of out of the way ~ I find myself closer to Mills pond ~ I have to give the water a chance to warm up a little ~ I guess by the time Saturday rolls around I will grab my bottle of Olay ~ sun screen ~ it seems to work pretty good ~ and the girls seem to laugh historically when I go in for my weekly dip ~ so hey I'm up ~ what do I have to do ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted "Abraham Lincoln cared for Tad, who was still very ill and was heartbroken over the loss of his brother." with the edit summary of "a personal nurse was a commonplace at that time, and while no doubt the president was very attentive to Tad, he didn't care for him alone". Nevertheless, no personal nurses are mentioned in the cited source ("Lincoln"/David Herbert Donald) which states on Page 336 "The President gained some respite from his suffering by caring for Tad, who was still very ill and heartbroken over the loss of his brother. Often Lincoln lay on the bed beside his sick son to soothe him and give him comfort." The source doesn't seem to state that Lincoln was the only caregiver/nursemaid for his son but it does state that he provided a large measure of care for Tad. Anyway, was wondering if you'd consider restoring that content or something close to it back into the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stopping by. Re the nurse, I was talking about Mary's nurse -- I removed mention that Mary had a nurse because had the bereaved bedridden wife of the president NOT had a nurse, that's what the article would mention; that she did have a nurse would be a commonplace. I added back that AL found solace in caring for Tad, but not the broken heart because, again, if Tad had not a care that his brother had just died, that's what we'd need to mention. EEng07:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me there's a good pun on usurpers in there somewhere, but it's just not coming. Below is the best I could do. EEng12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for posting the ANI message first and this message second. It would have been better form to do it the other way around. Haukur (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have lifted the block as per the ANI thread. Looks like you were right that this would not fly and I apologize. Haukur (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But don't forget to send a photo for the wall of my trophy room.
Apology accepted, and you are to be commended for not digging in your heels. I will be commenting gently (relatively gently, anyway) at ANI in a bit. EEng19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're a mature an adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable. How many more to equal the height of the Empire State Bldg? AtsmeTalk📧20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know you're clever, EE, but for you to take prime space at the top of a discussion to insert your witty cartoons is not OK; just annoying. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One must consider the possibility that the presence of an eyesore may produce a significant negative impact on the value of any real estate and adversely deprecate its resale value, thus lowering "prime real estate" to "not-so-prime-as-it-once-was real estate".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A whole fucking month! Wow! You can imagine how I felt when my uncontroversial work of the last four years was used as reason to try to indef block me. And all you did was post your stupid little cartoons instead of looking at the evidence or shutting the fuck up. Practice what you preach, man. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I guess. They already let me off with "no collusion, no obstruction"; in other words, not exonerated and with the cloud of BMK still hanging over me. Per not taking sides, see my remarks there about neutrality cowardice. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archive much?
Archives!? We ain't got no stinkin' archives!-- Dlohcierekim (talk)
I don't mean to be a bit rude, but your talk page is a bit annoying to scan through, maybe you can fix it? Cheers! Govvy (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As to me, I actually appreciate its length. It doesn't load instantaneously, which forces me to slow down when reading stuff on my watchlist. It's a reminder to savor every moment in life, and to appreciate the fact that I don't have to use a dial-up modem anymore. I praise the length of this page! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, EEng, archive this talk page. It's hilarious if you're on a fast connection; otherwise it won't load, and is quite aggravating. It also isn't particularly fair to people who may want to contact you. Make your userpage as long as you want, because nobody's required to look at that; but this page needs to be usable. Vanamonde (Talk)15:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simple solution...User talk:EEng1, User talk:EEng2 and so on...that way, it's non-stop entertainment with user determined breaks inbetween. AtsmeTalk📧20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It remains to be seen where the AE complaint re Eric will end up. But reviewing your contributions on the talk page, I'm just wondering, WTF? I always thought you were cleverer and betterer than what I see there. Can't you manage to disagree without insult and mockery? GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing: Thanks for the kind words, and I appreciate your taking the time. The phenomenon of "civil POV pushing" is often talked about, but less talked about is "civil article ownership". Swarm put it very well at AE:
Obstructing bold edits without citing a specific rationale is disruptive editing. "Specific" means "policy-based". Arguing that "this is X's article, and X needs to have a say" is a policy violation, not a reason to personally attack the editor making the edits. FA's require "stability". But "stability" does not mean "absence of editing". "I don't like your edits", or "this is X's article, don't change it" is not a legitimate content dispute. Illegitimate stonewalling is not what's intended by "FA stability".
At AE you posted only part of my "shut the fuck up" rant, which robs the short bit you posted of context. Here it is more fully:
...by far the easiest thing to do would be to simply STEP THROUGH THE GODDAM EDITS SEQUENTIALLY. In the past 3 days there have been an incredible 110 posts to this thread, totaling 40K of text, all to discuss the abstract existence (but not the substance) of my 150 edits to an article which itself consists, in total, of a mere 65K. Most of these edits are no more complex than[before-and-after of seven edits omitted]There, that's seven of them – 5% of the total – right there. They can be reviewed in 15 seconds each, and if you think "officers were drafted to search" is better than just plain "officers searched", or that readers will benefit by knowing about the dog's teeth and kidney complaint, or about how many days past his birthday Keith Bennett was when he was killed, go right ahead and change those things; I'm not married to anything. But in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, at long last you bunch of old ladies stop pearl-clutching and hand-wringing (you gotta love the imagery there) and either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. I've spent far more time in therapy with you lot responding to your hypothetical anxieties than I did making the changes themselves. Really, it's unbelievable.
(I would appreciate it if, over at AE, you'd substitute the above excerpt for your short one, so that I don't have to clutter the page and confuse the discussion by posting it in my own section.) That was July 12.
For a month -- a MONTH -- my edits sat live in the article without a single modification of what I'd done, or comment on what I'd done, or indication of interest in what I'd done, by any of this bunch -- until EC's block expired. Then the gang assembled and moved in. Too many edits! Too fast! This is an FA! Your edits are shit! I didn't look at them but I know they're shit! You need consensus! What bullshit. And now in the last 24 hours both Cassianto and EC have lied -- blatantly lied -- on the talk page about who said and did what.
Even now, at AE, Cassianto's pretending that I simply told him to "shut the fuck up". That's a lie. As seen above what I said (after three days of begging that this bunch look at the edits and give any specific indication of what was wrong with them) was that he should either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. That's completely different. I'm not going to engage him on that at AE because he lies so effortlessly and shamelessly that he'll just keep saying black is white, but if you're in a particularly energetic mood you might point it out yourself.
They're just trying to gaslight anyone, such as yourself, who tries to untangle what happened. Smokescreens are their friends. So yeah, I've been pissed off and have shown it. EEng17:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors!
Talk page stalkers who have been watching the fun at Talk:Moors murders may be interested to know that it turns out that is "Featured article" is apparently riddled with errors. I've found 22 21 [oops, looks like in one case I missed part of the newspaper story -- The Times has those giant pages in the old days – thanks to SchroCat for catching that] examples of statements in the article not supported by the sources cited – and that's just in the one section (seven paragraphs) I checked. See [39]. EEng14:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You'rea talking about You're talking about the header of the subthread just above this one? What gravedancing? I look forward to a productive collaboration with SchroCat, Cassianto, Eric Corbett, and the rest, all working to together to get this article to at least the Good Article level at long last.
That either a personal attack on me or a BLP violation with respect to Jeff Goldblum, though I'm not sure which. EEng21:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a fan of heartthrobs Jeff Goldblum, David Copperfield, Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, Yule Brenner, Chuck Connors, Richard Boone, and Mr. Peepers, mention of the BLP vio unchained me. AtsmeTalk📧23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is really really tempting to make an article cygnis insignis explaining that it is the motto of Western Australia, is intended to mean "noted for swans", and is in some sense a pun or at least a rhyme. I imagine that our local only-for-the-birds editor has some connection to WA. I suppose I can at least add a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps this is what you are looking for?-- Dlohcierekim
I tend to state what is invisible to others and not deliberately being obtuse, your "innocent" attempts at humour are not free of disruptive consequences and doubling down when a joke is not flying, I think, shows a lack of appreciation for what is and is not valued humour. How many users might attempt to remove you attempts at wit, tendentiously restored with a "i have no idea why you did that?" edit summary before you take stock of the value of inclusion. Do you want an example, your "trail of tears" quip a little while ago. ~ cygnis insignis16:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this thread continues the inscrutable discussion at [41]
"Trail of tears"??? What in the fuck are you talking about? No, seriously, we really want to know. Every stalker here awaits breathlessly a diff. EEng16:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Eric Corbett and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Oh boy! My first Arbcom case! I haven't been so excited since I was subpoenaed to a federal grand jury!Now seriously folks, everyone keep calm. I'll be happy to answer any factual questions here if it will help keep the case page uncluttered. Let's try to keep things serious. Mostly. (But – again seriously – all jokes or kidding are to be kept here; an Arbcom case is a huge timesink for the community, if even sometimes a necessary one, and we don't want to do anything to exacerbate that.) EEng02:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proud of you for getting this far and not a single dead baby or where-the-bodies-are-buried joke. Such restraint! – Levivich03:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a golden opportunity for our new skit. I'll start gathering the diffs demonstrating that you show insufficient respect to gravity. Haukur (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They should decline it, but the only opinion so far is to accept. And being party to an accepted-but-suspended case is not a helpful state to be in. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't think they can reasonably suspend a case examining the conduct of active users. I read GW's accept to be specifically for a case focused on Eric (and I'm not getting into whether that's necessary or not at the moment). Vanamonde (Talk)00:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Though not an experienced Arbcom watcher I'm guessing it will be declined, but for the record while I wouldn't look forward to the huge waste of everyone's time, other than that instead of fraud I probably should have said careless negligence I stand by everything I've said and done and fear no scrutiny. You know David Eppstein, since unfortunately Ve has apparently bailed out on us, you would be doing humanity a great favor if you could kick off "the list" with any diffs from July you're concerned about. EEng05:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are already about six times the people making statements from the peanut gallery than there are actually trying to resolve the dispute that sparked this exciting episode. Wouldn't it be great if anyoneeveryone thinking about offering their two arbitrary subunits of currency went and verified one of the 50-something red span tags instead? Triptothecottage (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Triptothecottage: What we need more than that is agreement that, when protection comes off, the article will be returned to the upt-to-date version it was in before Cassianto reverted to the June 26 version (on the basis that that version's so excellent -- I guess we won't be hearing that any more). If we can agree to that then I can probably fix most of the verification errors myself, but in any event those who want to help fix things will be able to do so. EEng05:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, let it never be said I begrudge credit where credit is due [42]. Now can you PLEASE see if you can list anything in the July edits (starting here [43]) that you think should be reverted out? Somebody. Anybody. Please. I beg you. EEng20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my friend, I overlooked this until now. Moors will take at least another six months of hard work -- and that's if other stuff doesn't come up, which it already has -- so I'm afraid I'll be unable to help with Mr. Null. EEng22:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Swift
Either she's going for a kind of low-budget Madonna look, or someone locked the door to her dressing room while she was in the toilet.
In copyediting I leave the lead to very last, after I've done (and therefore read) the rest of the article, so I can't say much at this point except that eponymous and buoyed and spawned and (beyond the lead, but an especial peeve of mine) accolades make me want to vomit, and factoids such as "youngest person to single-handedly write and perform a number-one song on the Hot Country Songs chart" and "first act to have four albums sell one million copies within one week in the U.S." are ridiculous. But you gotta love that she spent her early years on a Christmas tree farm. EEng10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I present EEng with the first annual EEng Award for outstanding accomplishments in the field of eponymous accolades. Haukur (talk) I'll get you for this, Haukurth -EEngDad
Monotonously is more like it. I love it that the first outbound link in the article on this Kylie Minogue creature takes you to a page whose lead image is Plato. Her own lead image shows "Minogue performing at The Queen's Birthday Party" – I can imagine Queen Liz thinking, "I'm just glad Winston isn't alive to see this." EEng18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say exactly the same thing, so you see great minds do think alike after all (and please do not post the traditional followup to that). EEng19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see if the edition is 1967 or 1992. Random House 1st published the book in 1967. abebooks.co.uk has images of the 1967 edition, EEng. I'll be happy to work with you on this article going forward. I have several printed sources on this case (some not listed in the table on the article's talk page). Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, I think it's only used once in the article presently, so it's not like we have to correlate page numbers in a lot of existing cites to page numbers in the editions we have in hand. I'm up in the air about the extent we can use it anyway; it tries to be a sort of In Cold Blood, and I thought I read a review saying that it clearly distinguishes fact from fancy. But so far (having only thumbed it) I'm not seeing that distinction being drawn, but I'll have to give it a closer look to decide.
You're welcome. This book is was one of the first true crime books I ever read. I am unaware which review you are referring to, but in several areas of the book, the author clearly uses his imagination to portray events relating to the case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Williams explicitly distinguishes among fact, interpretation of fact, and surmise ... interwoven in the text. So that the reader may distinguish among them...
I will look into that. Reviews are rightly harsh (even though much info. is verified in other sources and the book should not be completely discounted). Williams did consult numerous individuals involved in the case (police, neighbours, acquaintances etc.) while writing his book. In Ann West's book, she states he went to their flat in 1966, demanding an interview, and callously (and falsely) stated she slept in the same bedroom as her brothers before saying: "There's not a lot of room in these council flats, is there?" When ejected from the house, he stated either the Wests grant him an interview or he'd just fabricate the content for his book. I am actually glad there are only a small number of references to this book in the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have no problem getting the review, but based on the severe later criticism I'm guessing we can only use it for a good turn of the phrase expressing something sourced as fact elsewhere. EEng00:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've thrown my hat in the ring for a few of the minor sources that Supreme Leader here didn't manage to find on his first run. I shan't be following proceedings in great detail though so please ping me if you want something checked. Some of the more pulpy books mentioned here that are unsurprisingly absent from Antipodean institution catalogues are, weirdly, wildly popular in municipal library collections in New South Wales. This confirms everything we Melburnians believe about the psychopathy of our northern neighbours.Triptothecottage (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to my attention that in the depths of the Widener Library, there is a tunnel containing a book collection known as the Pusey Library or Pusey Stacks, referred to by scholars as "Widener Pusey" (as seen here), named after former president Nathan Pusey (of "Latin Si, Pusey No" fame, not to be confused with Phil Pusey or his younger brother, Professor Pusey, who, naturally, was an Oxford man, which, naturally, is near a whole town of Puseys (not to be confused with the town of Pewseys in neighboring Wiltshire)), and that the lads at The Crimson (who are paying nearly $100,000 a year to browse Harvard's Pusey Library, among other enriching activities) have already picked up on this, with varying degrees of subtlety. [47][48]– Levivich05:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, very few Harvard College students pay full price; for example, families with incomes below $65,000 pay zero. One consequence of the school's wealth means that it can guarantee that no one it wants is unable to attend for financial reasons. EEng06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the Department of NOR Violations, I remember very clearly that at the beginning of my freshman year (which would be Fall 1974), there was a (sort of) required swim test for all incoming undergrads. I got excused from it for (exaggerated) medical reasons, but I am very sure that the test did happen (and not just in my feeble mind). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the Department of Jesus, Try Following the Link Supplied To See What The Article Says,
Though Harvard has had swimming requirements at various times (e.g. for rowers on the Charles River, or as part of a now-defunct freshman training regimen) Bentinck-Smith writes that "There is absolutely no evidence in the President's papers, or the faculty's, to indicate that [Eleanor Widener] was, as a result of the Titanic disaster, in any way responsible for [any] compulsory swimming test."
A Harvard College swimming requirement was instituted in the early 1880s for crew team members wishing to use boats on the Charles River. In 1919, Harvard instituted compulsory physical training, including swimming instruction, for all freshmen; however, the President's report of 1919-1920 describing the new regulations does not mention a graduation swim requirement. A swimming requirement is described in the 1969-1970 Harvard University Catalogue (p. 63), but is no longer mentioned by the publication of the 1974-1975 Catalogue. Currently, there is no swimming requirement at Harvard.
Really, Tfish, I would have thought that by now you'd know I'm not going to get caught with my pants down on a topic like this. I will add that I have it on unimpeachable authority that there was also a swim requirement for graduation from Radcliffe during some period in, roughly, the 1920s to 1950s. But none of this contradicts the article's very careful statement that while there have been swim requirements, they've no link to poor Harry Widener or rich Mrs. Widener. As a note in the article explains (quoting snopes.com):
Harry Elkins Widener didn't die because he couldn't swim: he, like many other Titanic passengers who couldn't be accommodated by one of the too-few lifeboats, died from immersion in freezing water. The ability to swim wouldn't have helped him, because there was nowhere for him to swim to.
Jesus, EEng, I would have thought that by now you would know that I find the idea of you with your pants off exceedingly distasteful. You sound so defensive, I almost would have thought that you were a Yalie.[FBDB] I wonder, had they done away with Expository Writing by the time that you got there? So I actually did read what the page said before I made my previous post to you, and I even read the source that you cite. "Training regimen"? Isn't that something for puppies? I've now made this edit: [49]. You're welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which is apparently why you changed "regimen" to "program", I guess, and otherwise you entirely reverted me, which was so sweet. You really need to show more respect for your betters.[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow up on this at the article talk page in another day or so, but just letting you know that I found reliable sources that do back up the wording that I put there. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, actually; all joking aside, it was an almost impossible design challenge. Personally I don't find the result particularly pleasing, but neither can I suggest a better approach. Someone remind me to do a DYK. EEng05:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, all joking aside, Harvard didn't really choose to do all that. Who would make you hire an architect and spend $800 a foot on a 5x5 gate house? The Historical Commission, that's who. – Levivich05:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the Historical Commission's involvement no doubt affected the outcome, I believe Harvard would have spent a similar amount in any event. The Johnston Gate the Yard's traditional ceremonial entrance (see History and traditions of Harvard commencements#Academic_Parade) and an important symbol when selling the product. EEng
EEng displays the narrowness of his education. By the way, I was born in and grew up in Princeton, NJ. Graduated from Princeton High School. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hizzles EEng, n welcome ta wikipedia! thizzanx fo` yo contribizzles . Slap ya self. i hizzy you like tha place n decide ta stay fo' sho'. Here is a few good links fo` newcoma:
I hope you enjoy perpetratin' here n being a Wikipizzedian! Pleaze sign yo name on rap pages using four tildes (~~~~), o' just three (~~~); this will automatically produce yo name n tha date fo' sheezy. If you need help, chizzay out Qizzles ask me on mah rap page, or place {{helpme}} on yo rap pizzle n someone wizzle show up shortly ta brotha yo questions. Again, welcome ta this plizace!
Who could have guessed that the guy who wrote Classification and subject index for cataloguing and arranging the books and pamphlets of a library, and followed it up with Decimal classification and relative index for arranging, cataloguing, and indexing public and private libraries and for pamphlets, clippings, notes, scrap books, index rerums, etc., would turn out to be an asshole. – Levivich05:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, had thought you had followed me there (I have similar interests to Popcornduff, so do watch) but now see you were already active on the talk page "discussion", which can be best surmised with the three letters...FFS. ps, hope all is well with Martin who has not edited in a while, and is missed. Ceoil (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your taking the time to clear that up, but it's really MJL you should be apologizing to. Which Martin do you mean? EEng19:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unaccepted apology noted. MJL has a lot more to answer for than this, and I'm surprised you are using his nativity to advance other grudges. I meant mr Evans. Ceoil (talk)
For those playing along at home, this concerns the bizarre interactions here [50].
Um, look Ceoil, it seems that every interaction we have immediately goes awry because (a) your English isn't that great (sorry, but you force me to say it – case in point: by nativity do you mean naivete?) and (b) when you misunderstand, you start seeing dark motives in everything.
I said above I appreciated your taking the time to admit your prior misunderstanding; that means your apology was accepted.
You accused MJL of conspiring with me by email, so yes, you should apologize to him regardless of what you dislike about him (not that I'm saying I agree with you on any of that, other than that he should be more discerning in where he pokes his nose).
I have no "grudges", and you're getting me close to doing what I almost never do, which is to have an admin speak to you about your repeated accusations, without evidence, of misbehavior by your fellow editors.
Your not as clever as you think, and poor spelling is a weak defense, given all that has happened in the last two weeks. 'Almost never do'; please - most of your edits over the last decade and a bt are to AN/I. But if you cant defend yourself on your own, thats fine man. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Thank you for the ping] @EEng: pronouns.Just another example of how improbable it'd be for us to coordinate Either way, It's fine really. I don't feel owed an apology. The accusation was very hurtful, but I don't hold it against Ceoil. He has the right to feel whatever feelings he feels. (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an uncharitable view, and I'm obviously not going to convert anybody here. But I will say that those that defend Eric dont do so because of his charming personality, it goes deeper than that - he and Tony1 were always to go to guys on how to write correct, and a generation learned from them. The people Eric (supposedly) chased off were not future content people, he always tended to them with kindness and encouragement (I was one), more he was targeted by up and coming admin types. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that his personality was charming, that he taught you to modify verbs by adjectives, and that EEng has never created any content and is or was an up and coming admin? Interesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No David, I was being ironic, which fair enough doesnt translate in text only discourse. I said Eric is not especially charming, and never was inclined towards [unspecified, as we are talking about a 12 year span] wannabe admins. But he has my respect. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, David, I think Ceoil is saying it's OK that EC called EEng a "guttersnipe", etc., because EC was nice to Ceoil back in the day. – Levivich21:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly Levivich, EC mentored quite a few new editors, including me. I'm not sure how you connected that with the attempt to associate me with "guttersnipe", which for sure sounds regrettable. But to say again, I dont defend Eric for his fatalistically bitter, and unfortunately hurtful, way with words. Yet, when I was learning how to operate on this place, I improved through a school of hard knocks, rather than cuddly safe spaces.Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In twelve years I've probably opened two or three threads total at ANI; half or more of my edits there are archiving of resolved threads and so on. Get your facts straight before mouthing off further.
Please don't insult Tony1 by mentioning him in the same breath as Eric Corbett. Tony helps other editors without bursting into schoolyard taunts at the first sign of friction.
Eric Corbett was nice to someone exactly so long as they stroked his fragile ego and scrupulously avoided contradicting or correcting him in even the most minor ways. He richly deserved what he got, and obviously wanted it. This was no Greek tragedy of a magnificent talent brought down by a tiny seed of destruction hidden deep within, but (as I take delight in repeating, now that I've hit on the metaphor) a one-eyed man who managed to surround himself with blind editors over whom he thought to reign as king, and whose blindness allowed them to believe, for a time at least, that he was a deity. His writing was perfectly competent, but by no means brilliant, and like everyone else’s not so good that it couldn't be improved by fresh eyes; and his research and sourcing, in the one example I've probed in depth, was sloppy.That last point is worth explaining a bit. At some point it suddenly became clear that much of Moors Murders was unsourced, and that that had long been hidden by the fact that E.C. and others inserted new material, with inline cites, into an existing article that largely lacked inline cites; the added inline cites were mistaken for covering the old, uncited material, and no one noticed that until now. Eric Corbett's response was, "Yeah, I was a relatively new editor then, and not really tuned in to the problems of WP:Citing_sources#Text–source_integrity. I'm glad someone's noticed the problem and it's being addressed." Ha, ha, just kidding. He immediately put into action his usual strategy of diversion leavened by insults, painting himself as a victim, and so on [51], the diversion in this case being the claim that citation requirements have changed since he worked on Moors Murders [52], which is false [53]. I conclude, therefore, that he's not interested in learning, that there's no reason to believe he's any more careful now than he was then, and that his research is probably about as good as his writing: OK, but far from great. Combining that with his nasty attitude, I say good riddance.
Well MJL, there were coincidences here, for sure...there is no doubt that ye were coordinating. My long term opinion of you EEng is that you are a low value bluffer. Ceoil (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitchellhobbs: The best place to ask for protection is WP:RPP. I have made a request there on your behalf. Unless EEng has some mystical power I'm unaware of, he cannot actually protect pages. Though he may act with the impish impunity of an admin, he is in fact just a regular 'ol editor. I think if he ever did run for RfA, the community would devour itself like Ouroboros. Not necessarily saying that's a bad thing... Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓17:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes wonder why God chose me to be the vessel burdened with such awesome power. But I have sworn to use it only for good, never for evil! EEng21:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's me. Who on earth would want to pretend they're me? Horrible thought. For talk-page stalkers, here's what I'm asking:
After several bad experiences with numbskull admins at Commons, I decided never to upload files to Commons again, except for PD material. I now want to upload a file and have the person I got it from follow up by emailing an appropriate license. On Commons there's a page I can get the license from, fill in the blanks, and forward to the file donor; then there was a permissions@ address to which the donor could forward the license. I can't find the equivalent stuff here on Wikipedia i.e. the license boilerplate, and the address to which the donor should forward the license after I upload the file. (I don't want to put the donor through creating an account and uploading himself.). Clue me in, please.
Hi, I certainly have not always supported EC - he's a good writer but, like most of us, sometimes his own worst enemy. My ironic aside to your comment about using real names in the recent AN thread was because it is documented on-wiki that he has been harrassed off it. One example was the Rod Hull and Emu account, although I can't remember the exact spelling. I'm just correcting the record - no need or desire for a contretemps. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this concerns what I said here [54].
Sitush, I appreciate your taking the time to drop by. Since I am, on reflection, not conversant with all the crazy stuff that's swirled around this Eric Corbett character on wiki, off wiki, in the corridors of power and at all levels of government, I should have simply said, "No, people shouldn't be harassed IRL even if their name is Eric Corbett. I imagine he's got enough trouble in his personal life as it is." EEng02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt his personal life at present is any more troubled than yours, perhaps less, but in reality neither you nor I can compare them and you're just poking again. Please stop gravedancing here, there and everywhere. You don't like him, we get it, but you are indeed far from conversant with what has gone on. It becomes tiresome having to correct pure speculation on the part of the self-admittedly ignorant and is an example of the "polite" incivility that we really should not be tolerating if we're to have a level playing field. I am sure you will want to reply - you seem to want to interject your off-beat thoughts and so-called humour everywhere - but please don't ping me in it. - Sitush (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to correct my self-admittedly ignorant pure speculation – I labeled it self-admittedly ignorant pure speculation. EEng03:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
nudge, nudge
I don't know if/how you missed this
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it.No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When an RfC has run its course and had a formal close, modifying the discussion encapsulated by the close can confuse things. On the other hand, when some lone editor takes it upon himself to decide that everyone else has had enough to say, then no, that's not binding on the rest of us. EEng02:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, remember all those times you misunderstood what someone was saying and got all upset? This is one of those times. My point is that having redirects WP:FOO and MOS:FOO is a very bad idea. (And no, I’m not advocating that anyone actually be shot. Not yet, anyway.) EEng16:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not remember, nor do I care nr did "I" misunderstood. You actually wrote to shoot an editor, so I suggest you undo that one. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to start interpreting common hyperboles such as "... should be shot" literally, I'm going to jump off a bridge. – Levivich22:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just EEng being hyperbolic, joke telling square that he is...so now there's ANI, and here is the scenario when an admin shows up at his page....
EEng: "Ahhh...a loyal (talk page stalker) has arrived. Is there a problem?"
Admin: "Your hyperboles over at Redirects are unacceptable - you threatened to shoot an editor over MOS:FOO. Will you please strike those comments or I'll have to block you?"
EEng: "Uhm, why don't you spare me the trouble of going back? I shouldn't have been over there in the first place as it was right after I insulted a few other editors for trying to do the right thing and fix a mess I made over at AE - I was overindulging in levity and ended up getting some poor editor site-banned even though he was innocent, but I couldn't help myself. I slapped another editor with a trout and told him to STFU. Knocked him on his ass, too! Now he's stalking my page but I've got plans for him, too. I showed him an image of my gun - the same one I used on another dude for screwing with MOS. I told him he needed to be shot.
Admin: "Holy shit!"
The admin immediately jumps on IRC and calls for back-up. In minutes, EEng's UTP is swarming with rouge admins, one of whom is an Arb.
Arb: "EEng, please show me the diffs of your discussion at Redirects."
EEng: "Sure"
EEng shows him several innocuous diffs.
Arb: "Where are the diffs from AE? Do you have those?"
EEng: "Sure"
EEng provides those diffs, again innocuous hyperbole.
Arb: "Who was the editor you were debating over MOS, and where are those diffs?"
EEng: "Oh, that was Mr. Peepers - he decided to start editing GMOs."
Arb: "Where is the picture of your gun?"
EEng: "I don't have a gun."
Arb: "Sorry to put you through this, but the admin who called us over here said you insulted editors at AE, were overindulging in levity, got an innocent editor site-banned, slapped another user with a trout and knocked him on his ass, and used profanity for screwing with MOS."
EEng: "Yeah, I bet that lying son of a bitch also told you I threatened to shoot the guy."
@DePiep:Hardly aggressive. The "punch in the schnozzla" was clearly a joke, and the shoot in the foot was likely a reference to WP:PETARD, which is a serious caution to editors to not shoot themselves in the foot, or hoist themselves by their own petard, something which you are in danger of. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓02:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, I mean this in all sincerity... You do good work for the project, and I hope that will continue. But you have to accept that there are things you don’t understand, and let them go. Please. EEng06:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think perhaps, if it should be left as "hoist" [62], it should be placed in quotation marks to indicate it's quoting Hamlet directly? Or maybe with a corresponding bluelink to the article on the phrase? I've got no problem with it being "hoist", but chancing across it, my first thought wasn't that it was deliberately using the archaic version of the past tense. Since the modern usage makes "hoisted" the past tense, and since the phrase "hoisted by his own petard" is generally used in modern English, quotation marks or a bluelink would indicate it's deliberate rather than a typo. Any objection to one or the other? Grandpallama (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. But for the record: if this was article space we’d worry about such things, but in project space we play fast and loose. EEng19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a new concept and is very easy to grasp. If you happen to be a troll or stupid, or both, then I guess it won't be referred to and warring will be the easiest thing to do. What do you know about WP:BRD? CassiantoTalk17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our benighted visitor refers to [63].[64] and [65]
Ah, the schoolyard insults and shifting rationales of he who flails desperately. So now it’s just plain ol’ BRD, huh? Of course, as BRD itself says, “BRD is never a reason for reverting”, so apparently it’s not sufficiently easy to grasp that you have been able to grasp it. What about your old standby “Featured Article! Featured Article! Featured Article!”? You could try milking that for for a few rounds.
A Featured Article is something that you only know how to ruin, and not write. BTW, how is that failure, Phineas Gage these days? Three attempts - at GA only? Perhaps I should visit that and start molesting with it, like you do to others? But I would guess any amount of molesting would result in a vast improvement being made on the current version. CassiantoTalk18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Featured Article is something that you only know how to ruin – Asserted, as you have so many times before, without evidence.
not write – What you still don't understand is no one but the FA crew cares about FAs. You're a self-selected group of mutual congratulators who meet periodically to reinforce the shared fantasy that you're all incomparable masters of prose. You're not, not by a long shot – not individually and not working together. FAs are typically (though with many, many exceptions) 100% grammatically correct, rigidly formatted, and flabby, bloated, and discursive. Here's an example that I've been getting a lot of laugh-mileage out of at parties recently: who on earth would write had been responsible for the murders of when he could just write "had killed"? I'll give you one guess [66], and yes, that flash of brilliance made it all the way through the vaunted FA process [67] It's unfathomable.
Phineas Gage ... Three attempts at GA – Gage has been nominated for GA once since I've been editing Wikipedia – and not by me. The review was aborted when your friend and mentor, the now-banned sockpuppeteer Eric Corbett, threatened to (in the reviewer's words) take it to GAR if he doesn't get it his way. No point in continuing[68], apparently because of a disputed image caption and a tussle over whether et al. goes in italics [69]. Way to go, Eric! So maybe this wasn't a great point for you to bring up.
Perhaps I should visit that and start molesting with it – Molesting with it ? You mean, like you and the article will get together and do some molesting? Anyway, I thought you Brits used the more euphemistic interfered with, as in "The victim was stabbed several times and strangled, but not interfered with." Maybe that's what you meant: you're proposing to interfere with the article. Anyway... If you can improve an article, you should of course do so.
Oh, you mean the nbsp? I hadn't noticed it, but if I had I'd not have minded seeing it go. In a parenthetical birth or death date in the article's opening, there's no chance of a linebreak anyway so an nbsp is a waste of time. EEng00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? When I clicked on the diff, I saw the nbsp at the top and I was too careless to scroll down, so it had been all I saw. I was wondering why there would be so much fuss over an nbsp. So you did a lot better at not missing stuff than I did! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So your efforts weren't entirely for naught, then. As Tom Lehrer said, "If, after hearing my songs, just one human being is inspired to say something nasty to a friend, or perhaps to strike a loved one, it will all have been worth the while." EEng14:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Power tools
Don't let Fram loose with this!
Regarding this, I would love to inject a bit of levity into what will be the contentious RfA to end all contentious RfAs... but I'm too chicken. Only you could do it. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever said, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" had me in mind, but RfA is one place even this fool rushes in not. Sorry. At least something is sacred. EEng22:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thinking about it, it wouldn't have gone down at all well from anyone. That RfA was even nastier than I expected. I do understand why you generally keep away from them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Really, on ANI?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
For those playing along at home, this relates to [71] (and I certainly appreciate El C's faint praise). Here's what I would have posted (in response to our esteemed fellow editor Rhododendrites) had I not been delayed elsewhere:
Well first of all, WP:TPO is clear that in project space, in opposition to article space, the thumb on the scale favors retaining someone's post after a tentative removal has been opposed by the post-er, and the xRR resides in the persistent attempts to remove despite that opposition, after which those with a concern should restrict themselves to commenting on a post they see as problematic.
Beyond that, while your suggested approach has a superficial appeal, I really don't think it's applicable and workable. First, it wasn't really removed by multiple people multiple times, rather by one person multiple times (on perceived lack of merit) one person once (on perceived lck of merit) and after that apparently under the misapprehension that it had been added after closure; and note I wasn't the only one restoring. But more generally, ANI has more than a thousand active watchers [72] and if anything not super-serious could be removed on the say-so of just few of those then ANI would be a dreary place indeed; on the other hand, your point about giving extra weight to the opinions of those participating in a particular thread is a good one, and I'll try to keep that in mind in future.
I realize my humor isn't everyone's cuppa tea, but it's clear it is a whole lotta people's cuppa tea, and the former group can just ignore what they don't "get" (or they can make the effort to get the point – they might even learn something that way).
As a final note for SchroCat, you've got to stop personalizing everything. As already explained I didn't even realize it was you [73], anyone can make a typo, and if you can't be good-humored about it, tough. I wouldn't put it that bluntly were you not so dyspeptic about everything, but your behavior is such that I'm not inclined to put much store in your continual cries of outrage and victimization.
Um, borderline personal attack – what???? So let me get this straight: so now it's a personal attack if I make fun of my own typo? But (and super-serious here now): I have never made fun of anyone's dyslexia; saying that I did without evidence is a personal attack; and if such accusations keep up there's gonna be an ANI thread on that. So have a fucking care. EEng21:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Followup followup:
And now ol' SchroCat decides he's going to end the discussion [74]. Gotta love the control-freakism. Or am I not supposed to say that because being a control freak is a disability? EEng21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas the Tank Engine after a bruising discussion at an "administrative noticeboard" EEng says: Looks like the discussion got derailed?"Tanks." "You're welcome."Archives for let it pass.No, I said "pictures at will," not "pictures of Will"...In de fence, a bull EEng says: I really should be doing something else, but for those budding visual punsters out there wanting to improve their skills, I'd suggest "A lot of bull offered in de fence"
Hello EEng,
Sorry that you got blocked the other day. I have a few requests to make. I have been approached by SchroCat with a request that I ask you to avoid interacting with that editor unless necessary. In exchange, that editor will avoid interacting with you. This would be an informal arrangement for the purpose of avoiding conflict, not a formal logged interaction ban. I would also like to request that you avoid any comments that can be construed as mocking or ridiculing established editors for making routine typographical or spelling errors. Some people are much better at spotting such errors than others, and copy editing is always welcome in article space. Pointing out such minor errors on talk pages can be perceived as cruel or gauche, unless the meaning is unclear to most readers. In that case, a neutrally worded request for clarification is appropriate. My final request has to do with your fondness for placing humorous or ironic or punning images into the type of discussions that almost always lack images unless you get involved. I am not asking you to stop that practice, since I am sure that you have inspired countless chuckles and often help people stop and think. But like most comedians, sometimes your jokes fall flat, at least among some of the participants in these discussions. So please consider letting it pass if somebody objects to and reverts one of your image jokes. If your joke is essential to understanding the matter, I am sure that another editor will restore it.
"Tanks" for the compliment, and you already know I respect you as a "really useful administrator". And thanks for the sympathy, but to paraphrase something I told ol' Ritchie recently, after you get blocked enough times you really don't care.
The situation is a bit complicated, your proposal is a bit complicated, and a proper response will take more effort than I can muster tonight (but you needn't fear that means I'm looking for a complicated way to say No). Probably tomorrow. EEng06:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think Cullen's advice about mockery and about ANI images is very good, I want to encourage you to accept it. As for your usefulness...[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has gotten into plenty of real-life trouble for jokes at the wrong time, it's definitely a "know your audience" problem. I think most people won't care or will get a laugh out of EEng posting a humorous picture for a typo (and let the record show that I'm one of those people, EEng is free to post pictures at will on my comments, especially when I make bad typos), but if someone objects to you posting on them...man, just apologize, make it clear that you were just making a joke about the spelling or whatever and weren't trying to insult them, and maybe make a list of people who have asked you to not do that (and then, you know, leave them alone). I think everyone wins that way. creffett (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you making fun of his typo??? EEng04:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Don't worry, Cullen, I am going to respond to your thoughtful post, but it's been a busy week.[reply]
😂 Porpoisely mammalian, I'd say, creffett. Bellezzasolo, I would never be able to remember the spellings. Can we not add a simple shortcut, like {{cnn}}?
Hey EEng, I've noticed some issues with your user page and talk page I wanted to mention. I would have guessed that you were familiar with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies, but perhaps not. It is a pretty important page worth looking over. Some of the items I noticed (outside the page size issues) are your talk page section Upage, and your user page at the Titular characters and directly below that. I'd imagine there are other areas, but I'll mention those specifically. Now I'm hardly a Trump fan, and I'm sure some folks find humor in some of those things - Still, our BLP policy is pretty well defined. Along with that I'll mention a couple WP:Arbcom motions: housekeeping provisions and the American politics (post 1932). If you're unsure then you may want to read up on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I'm hopeful that you'll want to fix the issues I've mentioned. — Ched (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ched, I'd like to step in here in the hopes of preventing escalation. I do realize that the BLP DS apply "in any namespace", but I also do not think that there are really any policy violations here. I hope that you will not pursue this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase Jackie Wilson, I don't know much about American politics, but I do know Wikipedia. This page (to a small extent) and your user page (to a large) has material on it that isn't BLP-friendly. Now, while I'm EEng-friendly, I'm definitely not BLP-unfriendly-friendly.
That was me trying to persuade you I have a sense of humour, but I reckon I'm going to fail.
I see that DYK is as unwelcoming of attempts to improve the Main Page as TFA can be. Keep trying: the good efforts of MP contributors does not place them above well meaning proposals to improve accuracy and clear English. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your words of encouragement, Kevin McE. Maile66 and I are old pals, and while in this instance he didn’t see my point (which I probably could have expressed less enigmatically) I interpret his comment as being the opposite of unwelcoming. Please be sure to drop by The Museums while you’re here. EEng14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the leads ~ Martinevans123 ~ speaking of budgets ~ my first gig when I was 24 years old ~ was modeling swimsuits (on the runway) ~ the best part of that job, was not the modeling part but back stage ~ all the models (including the females) changed together in one room ~ talk about a wandering eye ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's also a University of California professor. That saddens me even more. Harvard at least has the excuse that his misdeeds were in the unknowable future. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For your continued and apt use of Monty Python sketches in a wide array of discussions, wherein such sketches diffuse the general tension, and provide to the assembled members of the Wiki-pedia a quaint and pleasant respite from their toils, you are hereby recognized as, if nay promoted to, a third level Python Procurer. Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓22:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know .... that the programming languagePython frequently makes use of example variable names "spam" and "eggs"; indeed our article on Python syntax and semantics refers to "For example, in the sample below, viking_chorus might cause menu_item to be run 8 times for each time it is called:" I wonder if you encounter a run-time error, are you cast into the gorge of eternal peril? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the steps of the Widener in Harvard Yard, Was a pin oak leaf, somewhat crinkly, not hard;
With delicate care it had to be handled, When lifted from the step without being mangled. Straight into a book, the leaf it did go, Quite safe from harm, for the wind it did blow. Down the steps of the library, I carefully retraced, With the book and the leaf quite closely embraced. I smiled a big smile for I knew what I’d do, When I reached the last step with my present for you. A picture I took of the leaf with great care, As students passed by, each holding a stare, Wondering what in the hell is that woman doing, All the while thinking there may be trouble brewing; What they did not know is that I was just being me, Taking a picture for E-E-n-g.
Gosh, that's really sweet. I hope you always use your substantial talents only for good, never for evil. EEng22:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. You do know I'm gay, right? I don't want you getting your hopes up. P.P.S. You might enjoy [83].[reply]
Levivich, . EEng - agree. I have been reprimanded on WP for time spent on UTPs vs time spent creating/editing articles in mainspace. I've noticed that on WP larger hour glasses are used for topics my critics like, whereas everything else is timed with a 2 min hour glass. ⌛️🥚 Hands on experience has taught me there are many things one cannot possibly learn by simply reading about it (the experiences of others) or listening to a lecture in a controlled environment (absent the environmental challenges) or collaborating with limited talent. The more diversity there is in our interactions with others, the greater the likelihood it will spawn higher levels of creativity, inspiration and motivation - even if the motivation is to get the hell outta there! 😂 AtsmeTalk📧04:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, I'll rickroll you! I think there's a party trick where a person is given a card that says "See other side" – on both sides! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, all in my glittering salon of talk-page stalkers are invited to participate, the discussion being whether ships should continue to be referred to as she (instead of it) in articles. EEng04:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, propose it. I'm serious. Reminds me of an arbitrator whom I used to address as "Your Arbship"; when there was talk of him becoming a bureaucrat I mused that then I could address him as "Your Crapshit". EEng06:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No way. If I propose it, I'll be asked follow up questions. Maybe you can settle this by asking Mr. CrapshitCratchit Cratship which pronouns sheit prefers. – Levivich07:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A response to my recently announced contest to define the word "vashing[86]:
Hi E. I thought that surely that Alex used that word at some point in the story but, alas, the closest I could get is fashed. Oh well maybe I can win the next contest :-) Enjoy your week! MarnetteD|Talk08:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well EEng. MarnetteD|Talk21:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, stop attacking Bus stop. That's not gonna get us anywhere, especially not where we want it to go, which is changing the style guide to 'it' only for ships. Otherwise, you're just giving them arguments against you. El Millo (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You call this [87] an attack? Trust me, if I was attacking him you'd know it. BTW, I highly doubt we're gonna be gettin where we wanna go. Not on this round. EEng06:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But counting posts for and against instead of editors, with Bus Stop around its 0.0000000036% for "it", 99.0000000064% against. EEng06:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the only organization I've ever seen where 60% can agree on something and it won't happen because there's "no consensus". And it's because people think "consensus" means "unanimity". – Levivich19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As much as (as you well know) I think she for ships is pretentious and stupid, there’s also something to be said for the idea that for a rule to be promulgated that presumes to short-circuit the choices of editors on individual articles, the level of consensus should be very high. Our day will come. EEng20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that principle, but I think the way we go about it violates the principle rather than follows it. Right now, there is an exception in GNL (allowing "she" for ships), and that exception is opposed by 58% of editors. That's not "very high" consensus, or even majority support. The way it works, we need very high consensus to remove a rule (or part of a rule, or an exception to a rule), even when retaining it doesn't have consensus. Generally the way decisionmaking works on Wikipedia is that we want consensus for adding, and then consensus for removing, but instead we should be demanding consensus for adding, and consensus for retaining. When we require clear consensus to remove rather than clear consensus to retain, we get stuck in this netherworld where, even though it's clear there isn't consensus to retain (and there wouldn't be consensus to add), we nevertheless retain language because there isn't clear-enough consensus to remove. Status quo thrives in the netherworld of no consensus. That means there's an "addition advantage" like a first-moved advantage: language that is added to pages (any pages) is sticky and difficult to remove, unless you revert it right away and claim BRD. Unless promptly reverted, it becomes "longstanding consensus language", and you need a supermajority to remove it. And the end result of that is that you get confusing policies and other pages, where people's sort of slap-dash additions stick, and it's very difficult to do something like, revise an entire policy page so that it's internally consistent and makes sense. Hence, Wikipedia's byzantine system of PAGs is born. (Same goes for requiring consensus to delete pages, as opposed to requiring consensus to retain them.) – Levivich20:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear EEng, many thanks for your entertaining post at the MoS style discussion re "she" and "it". It brought back some very old memories; are you familiar with Unlikely Stories, Mostly by Alasdair Gray? If not, I think you would appreciate the tenth story in the collection. Best regards, --The Huhsz (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! How did that not come up in my research??? Thank you! I'm traveling now but will have a sit and read next time I'm at the library. EEng17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello EE, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing,7&6=thirteen (☎)20:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They work fine for me. Clicking on one of the footnote marks scrolls to and highlights the relevant reference. I suspect, from your recent edits to the article, that you are running a user script that breaks things and then displays an error message for what it has broken. That would be the place to look for bugs, rather than in these templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried it while incognito and it does work just fine. Although my edits on the article were to get rid of the error messages, my actual concern was why the highlighting and scrolling was not working. It turns out the issue is a conflict with WP:POPUPS which I also have enabled. I tried it with POPUPS off and it works just fine. Sorry for the bother. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to mention that you do have a shitload of js installed and it's inevitable that something conflicts with something. This modern software environment is like the wild west. EEng07:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please critique
"She also served as the escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard his yacht."
"She also served as the escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard his yacht"? If you saw that sentence in isolation, not in an article about a ship, what impression would you make of the subject? It seems similar in spirit to EEng's example of HM the Q smashing a bottle on herself and then falling majestically into the water. If you're going to leave feminine pronouns in place they should not be written in a way that could allow confusion with actual female persons. (I realize that this sentence was present before your update, but it really should have been changed along with the rest.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Huhsz, I'm always honored to be called upon, but I thought I did this already, halfway down this section [89]. I'm afraid I won't be able to help out on any ship articles which retain the she nonsense because my laptop's warranty is voided if I vomit on the keyboard. EEng01:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are willing to risk your warranty with a quick look here, you'll see just how easy it is to remove 29 pronouns from a Featured Article without (I hope) damaging readability or meaning. Happy New Year when it comes. --The Huhsz (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what AutoEd does is problematic even when applied to everyday articles; but a blind mass change to a highly complex page like WP:MOS is completely inappropriate. For example, replacing code such as 3–1 with 3–1 makes it difficult or impossible to verify by sight, in the edit window, that the right kind of dash (hyphen?) is present, which is essential since MOS's purpose is to show how to do things character by character. Let me turn it around, Bsherr: can you explain your edit? EEng02:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! See Help:Entering special characters. That page explains that entering special characters using an HTML character reference or entity name is not recommended. I assume that's why the special character link (see Help:Entering special characters#Special character link) interface feature inserts the Unicode character, and not an HTML character reference. That's also why AutoEd automatically corrects them. I'd be pleased to discuss it further, but would you mind if we did so on a relevant Wikipedia talk page? (Even if I agree with you in the end, that would only result in my now having a view inconsistent with Help:Entering special characters and AutoEd's functions. And if I don't, now you're just chasing me around every time I use AutoEd, right? ) But I am curious if your preference is only concerning dashes/hyphens. Why, for example, would you prefer º to °? --Bsherr (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can give a hypothetical reason: because I can't keep ° and º straight (at least in fonts that don't underscore the º) and they're right next to each other on my Mac keyboard (option-shift-8 vs option-0), so if I remembered that the one I want is º I could just type that and not worry that I was typing the wrong one. And if that was my reason for doing so, I'd want it to stay that way so that the next time I edited the article I could see that it was still the correct one. For a less-hypothetical example, I also can't easily tell − and – apart, and prefer to see − in the source code (when that is the appropriate character) so that I can tell that the correct one is in use. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) with D.E. above (and noting that great minds think alike) ...
Bsherr, I'm a bit distracted tonight so I'll be blunt: Help pages are not policies or guidelines and (as they themselves say) have not been thoroughly vetted by the community. In fact they're a weird, neglected backwater; most were started years ago, never attracted much scrutiny, and have languished since unmaintained, often falling completely out of sync with actual practice (and often never were in sync to begin with). And yeah, while That page explains that entering special characters using an HTML character reference or entity name is not recommended, it doesn't give a very convincing explanation of why it makes this anti-recommendation:
[symbolic references to characters] are distracting for many editors – Stuff under the hood is often less attractive; we editors make that sacrifice in order to be sure that what the reader sees is correct;
they may cause difficulties with searches in Wikipedia – source code is searched as source code; searches "in Wikipedia" (whatever that means – presumably searches by the reader – are, in fact, completely unaffected by the source coding under the hood, since the rendered page is identical either way).
As to That's also why AutoEd automatically corrects them, it's not a correction but imposition of a preference. There was a time when there was a small group of editors who had started out fixing real errors like typos and broken syntax, and scope-creeped their activities into very unpleasant strongarming of their personal ideas of how things should be onto other editors. Those editors are no longer doing that, thankfully, though unthankfully this came at the cost of our losing those editors completely, because apparently they couldn't see themselves in any other role. Please don't follow that path.
Why, for example, would you prefer º to °? – Because as º I can tell (relatively) easily that it's the right character. But as literals: is this -->°<-- right? Or is it this -->º<--? They're certainly different, and one is right and one is wrong, but I can't tell offhand which is which. Can you?
You are responsible for your edits using automated tools. Just because someone wrote the tool doesn't make it right. If you want to press the point I suggest you open a discussion at WT:MOSNUM. Even if these changes are in principle appropriate, you're making hundreds of changes, of many kinds, in a single edit and they're impossible for you or anyone else to review properly. I know you mean well but this is not a good use of your time, or the time of others, and since as noted it makes maintaining and verifying these pages harder, it's in fact counterproductive. EEng05:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that tone can often be misconstrued here, but I read your comment above (particularly your choosing to pedantically remind me of my responsibility to use automated tools responsibly, your venturing to tell me what is and isn't worth my time, and your implication that you are too busy to discuss your reversion, but not too busy to revert it) as quite rude and obnoxious. It's particularly hurtful because I have tried to be friendly in my approach here. I'm very much hoping you didn't mean it that way. Let me know what your intentions were. But I'll say again, if you have an issue with the content of Help:Entering special characters or with the functioning of AutoEd, wouldn't you be better served addressing it on those pages? Your tactic of confronting individual editors is, frankly, bizarre. --Bsherr (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're lucky you caught me in a good mood, actually. I didn't confront you: I reverted your edit with an indicative edit summary, you came to me looking for a further explanation, and I gave you a detailed one, which BTW was presciently anticipated by David Eppstein. Help:Entering special characters already says, itself, that it's not a policy or guideline and not vetted by the community, but you don't seem to be taking on board what that means; at the same time, as already mentioned, AutoEd is just a piece of software some editor wrote and I have no control over what's in it, but you have control over whether and how you use it. If someone told you to enable all its "features" and push GO they did you a disservice. I'm sorry if I came on strong but those of us who work hard on articles and project pages and sweat the details thought that the age of the hit-and-run "fixer" was in the past; see the first box at [91]. EEng08:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You kind words fill me with joy. To openly plagiarize Tom Lehrer, while at the same time partially changing his words without making clear where or how:
“
If after reading one of my jokes or seeing one of my lame visual puns just one human being is inspired to say something nasty to a friend, or perhaps to strike a loved one, it will all have been worth the while.
thank you for your statement on the Kaprun disaster talk page: "The article has significant tone and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS problems". I want to help improve the page allthough I am not a native speaker. I would be thankful if you could list the things you think that should be improved in detail and I will see what I can do. If the tone is not correct I want to improve it and will take your suggestions seriously as well as the topic "rightgreatwrongs". Sadly it seems that native speakers are not much interested in editing this specific article so I am looking forward to do my best. Thank you very much and BR --Salzburger Nockerl (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, although I think it is amusing, I also think this image and caption is unhelpful (so apparently does Sadko). Moreover I think it might be found legitimately offensive by some, so I removed it. But you reverted me. Dicklyon agreed with me, and also removed it, but you've reverted again. How is it that you think this image is so useful in that discussion that you feel compelled to keep it there even though three of your colleagues disagree? Maybe you should reconsider? Also, you seemingly called me "the least perceptive participant in the discussion". While I don't mind PA's against myself, sticks and stones and all that, let me take this opportunity to politely ask you to at least try to be more collegial with other editors. Regards, Paul August☎13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;-) I make no claims to being particularly "perceptive", all too often in fact I'm as dumb as a doorpost, so the sobriquet might be quite apt. Paul August☎14:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.
Now and then I insert one of my irreverent images or awful puns somewhere. Hardly a day goes by that I don't get one or two thanks for them, and now and then someone takes the trouble to thank me more extensively on this very page. But once every few months someone shows up to declare that a post is un-useful, or worse, and must be removed – even days after it was posted, during which hundreds of editors would have seen it. So who am I supposed to believe – the one, or the hundreds?And yeah, Paul August, if you feel the impulse to remove something which hundreds of others found unexceptionable, maybe you ought to consider how well calibrated are your own perceptions. If you don't get the joke you could ask. EEng08:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No no. I got the joke, but jokes, even funny ones, can be offensive, don’t you think? (In this case, don't you think some Christians, who might have found the joke funny in a snarky sort of way, might also have found this image and caption offensive?) I don’t think you can legitimately conclude that “hundreds of others” found your joke unexceptionable. Silence does not mean agreement. And several editors, who have not remained silent, see problems here. And that you are right about the appropriateness many of your jokes, does not mean you are always right, right? Look I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. I’m trying to give you some friendly constructive feedback. Paul August☎12:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive jokes are the funniest ones, as everyone knows. Silence doesn't necessarily mean endorsement, but it does mean no one cared enough to bother; maybe we should have a Tsk-tsk button to balance the Thanks button. Look, if you want to remove something with an edit summary like "Maybe this is a bit overboard", I probably won't mind. But "This doesn't help" gets my dander up, because humor definitely helps (all else being equal), and the many shouldn't be denied their chuckle just because of a few lugubrious characters in the crowd. EEng17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... Except perhaps to the offended ;-) But seriously, I'm sorry that you took offense at my edit summary: "Don't think this helps". It wasn't my intention to offend. (My intention was to express that, in my opinion, the image in question was on balance unhelpful, that, while it was funny, I though some people might be offended and that, weighing that possible offense against the possible feel good chuckles of others was, again in my opinion, likely to be a net negative–perhaps I should have made that more clear ;-) However, that you took offense, at what I though was a harmless edit summary, should help you see that, other people might also find things you consider harmless offensive as well. (By the way you seems to be ignoring the whole Christian angle.) And of course humor helps sometimes, but you shouldn't always assume that you know when. (And "lugubrious"? Again with the insults?) So sorry about the dander thing, in the future I will try harder to keep your dander down. Paul August☎18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, let's keep it simple; WP:TPO is clear: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection and as many here will attest, there's often more to these posts that meets the eye. I'm happy to discuss, but dislike unilateral action. Be assured there are no hard feelings, and I hope you will take a moment to visit The Museums.I'll just take a moment at this point to remind readers that nothing in this post should be interpreted as implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
I only removed the image once, so I didn't violate WP:TPO, do you think otherwise? And the content of the image seems self evident to me, a funny jape (or jibe?) at the expense of Sadkσ, what am I missing? I did choose to unilaterally remove the image (just as you chose to unilaterally add it), so? I could have tried to discuss it with you first, but I thought it was more important to remove a possible source of offense first. Again I apologize for offending you, that was not my intent. Finally I will note that you've decided (again) not to address the fact that your image might have been offensive to Christians, do you not care? Paul August☎16:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, are we still on this? It wasn't at anyone's expense; we all fall victim to the curse of the spellchecker or the autocomplete now and then, and there's no shame in it. Sure I care about giving offense, but to that I must add the words "within bounds", because there's always someone ready to take offense, no matter what. Here's a favorite joke of mine:
Jesus is turning the stoning of an adulterous woman into a teachable moment. He says to the assembled mob: "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." Immediately he is struck in the head by a rock. Jesus cranes his head to see where it came from, then yells, "Goddamit mom, will you please go home?"
For the record it was Ritchie (IIRC) who added that box to my userpage, I think back when I got blocked for satirizing poor, helpless Donald Trump.Legal note: As everyone here must know by now, to the extent I've ever said anything which could be interpreted as implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron
that was just satire. I would never want people to think I was actually implying anything like that, to wit, that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
To repeat, I am not saying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
Anyway... Yeah, it's completely weird. According to the link you posted above, you and I are sockpuppets because we share one peculiar interest – hunting down a long term abuse case, "BMX On Wheels". The only problem with that fine piece of reasoning is that I have no idea who or what this BMX On Wheels is. Do you? EEng01:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A gang of ant-vandals on their way to commit some ant-vandalism.
I don't know about the rest of the suspects, but it's a well-established fact that EEng and I are socks. Especially when you take into account the fact that neither of us believe that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
FYI my comment wasn't meant to be in response to you, which is why I didn't indent it. I see you have now though, so I figured I'd clarify that. And "panic" may be a bit dramatic, but I do think a redirect should be appropriately implemented and that it wasn't was worthy of at least addressing sooner rather than later. Cheers. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Women and children first. First things first. First do no harm. First the memory goes. Firth of Forth. Four Weddings and a Funeral. Colin Firth. EEng14:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna jump into a hornet's nest? Some COI/PAID editors have been trying to whitewash this. A bunch of regulars have been pretty outspoken about stopping it. I removed some tabloid, but the negative BLP looks adequately sourced. I'd appreciate if you take a look and see if anything can be done. I think that whole section should go, but I doubt that will happen. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra09:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. First you say it's well sourced (sources look fine to me on quick check) then you say the section should go (meaning be removed)? The English is a little off, though. EEng14:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Damnit, you'd think this would be a gold mine, but I'm also coming up with nothing. You got Rapunzel jokes, Leaning Tower of Pisa jokes, Tower of London jokes – I mean just think of the British political jokes you could make about a bunch of goats locked up in a tower. Something something royal family, there's a Me-e-e-e-xit joke in there, I just can't get it out. And that's not to mention the girl with the goat tower tattoo. I can't believe I'm not coming up with anything, this is really getting my goat. Maybe just: "Did you know ... that there are goat towers?" Levivich16:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Discussions and Resources
There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
Jo-Jo Eumerus, it’s nothing nearly so lofty. It’s simply another dreary example of blindly multiplying unconditional probabilities as if they were conditional. Most of the fun statistical “paradoxes” are in one way or another traceable to this blunder, deep down under a few extra layers, but here the blunder is on display naked and bare. In fact, in the userbox example there’s something even more fundamentally wrong: people don’t pick their userboxen at random as if from a hat, so the “unconditional probabilities” are wrong to begin with, before we even get to the blunder of blindly multiplying them. (This probably isn’t the clearest response I could give but I’m on my phone with a sunburn so it’s the best I’ve got the strength for right now.) EEng17:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you find time
Early tools
Three-phase rectifier for high voltage transmission (HVDC)
Inventions that transferred the power from man to electricity
William McMurray (engineer) - could probably be expanded but the technical aspects are over my head. If/when you have the time, perhaps you could add some information about McMurray's contribution - maybe create a history section, and another about his inventions/patents, or whatever? AtsmeTalk📧13:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my area but I can fake it well enough. However, I'm a little backed up right now. Ping me in two weeks if you don't see any movement on the article by then. EEng15:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this concerns [95].
Now you're talking about "interference" and "the law". You need to find something else to do on Wikipedia. I'm serious. This nannying of others' user pages will not end well for you. EEng19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For those intrepid enough to still be playing along at home, this has now metastasized to [96] (that section and the one immediate following it)
Hello, EENG. It's one thing to actively argue "let's remove any numeric goal; here are my reasons..." It's another to passive-aggressively snipe at editors, which you just did more than once over at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#guidance on talk page size. I am writing this polite and personalized message to ask you to please stay out of the discussion if you have nothing constructive to add. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As seen right now in the thread at issue, you have a peculiar idea of what constitutes constructive discussion. I'm doing my best to help you see you're wasting your own and everyone else's time, but it's not working. EEng18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If your idea of having a constructive discussion is "let's not discuss it, everything is fine as is" then you need to actively put forward arguments for that, arguments that then can be evaluated, rather than merely trying to shut down discussion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. 'fraid I don't have a large interest in making so large an issue of large user talk pages. And if you over archive, you're being secretive or something. Now, ima go protect or delete something.Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for thanking me for my 70,000 contributions, including specifically 22,000 policy and other project-space posts. In return, your 8,000 edits, including almost 500 to project space, are appreciated as well. Your relentless rambling about whether we should have a rule specifying that 50K, versus 75K, is a good time to start archiving talk pages, and now a discussion about the meaning of something you could look up in wiktionary, is not appreciated nearly as much. EEng16:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CapnZapp, okay, templating EEng (after the normal, non-templated discussion above) is just condescending. Don't do that. Or, if you prefer:
TEMPLATE THE REGULARS AT YOUR OWN PERIL WRITE YOUR OWN A PERSONAL MESSAGE MORE PERSONALTHOUGHTFUL LESS STERILE Burma-shave
Now changed YOUR OWN to A PERSONAL (avoiding repeat of YOUR OWN). Let's remember to get this one into the template. EEng05:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this concerns the repeated removal of the lower image-and-caption seen here [97]:
The flaw in your analogy, Chris troutman, is this particular nest doesn't belong to the wasps – it belongs to the community. The Signpost's editor-in-chiefmost of all shouldn't be tampering with commentary on the items it publishes, and if Megalibrarygirl wants to selectively remove comments on her essays then she needs to publish them on her own user page. Of course, given the subject of the essay there's some irony to all this [98]. EEng17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, EEng, is that the joke is not neutral. You have your own intentions. However, I and Smallbones both pointed out to you that there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult to a group of people, in this case, non-binary people. You may not agree with us, but it is a valid interpretation of what you wrote and it is always best to err on the side of civility. Wikipedia isn't stand up comedy: it's a place full of people with very different ideas who need to work together and making some people a joke is antithetical to that. Since the image is now back up, please remove it. The second image which you posted with diffs, is also not civil in my opinion where you categorize people who are concerned about the joke as "people intolerant of criticism of themselves." I am not intolerant of criticism: I am intolerant of making marginalized groups the butt of any kind of joke. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being born and bred in Berkeley I knew what a woke-scold was decades before the term was coined, and you are a woke-scold. By folding everything that anyone even conceivably could choose to take offense at (there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult – gotta love it) into one giant ball of weepy hysteria [100] you give a bad name to people (such as myself) who care about actual things that actually harm people. You prattle about civility but give a free pass to those who blatantly accuse other editors of conspiring to suppress coverage of women and so on. Turn that high-powered perception on yourself, busybody. EEng02:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EEng. I've been polite and only pointed out that you are being offensive. And you continue to do so. "Woke scold" is a new one! What you're doing is edit warring and escalating the situation and doesn't need to happen. If you don't like the truth, that's fine. But what you're doing is wrong and I'll say so. Notice I've not called you names or made any aspersions on your character. I said you did one thing wrong. You should admit your mistake and move on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Behold the sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse, clothed magnificently in dudgeon! So supremely arrogant is she in the certainty of her moral superiority! Christ, you lack even the modesty to qualify your opinions – phrases such as I think and it seems to me are traditional ways of reminding yourself that maybe, just maybe, you're just one editor among many, though of course they're unnecessary if you know you're always right. Maybe that's it.
A polite woke-scold (e.g. If you don't like the truth, that's fine) is still a woke-scold. If by "edit warring" you mean I restored a comment – a comment you removed... from a discussion of something you wrote... because you disliked it or couldn't understand it – then you better give WP:TPO another read, Madame Administrator.
Every liberation movement goes through its That's not funny! stage, and the sooner that's over the better. No doubt you mean well, but you need an emergency injection of perspective, proportion, history, and humility. I'm a gay man who was fighting the good fight – and not by sitting behind a library desk in a pussy hat, I assure you – when you were in diapers, so I require no enlightenment about oppression and injustice. The next time you remove another editor's comment because it doesn't conform to your self-righteous standards I'll have you at ANI so fast it'll make your head spin. Signal your trendy virtues some other way. Got it?
"You appear to be reading the situation upside down"
EEng, I think I know Megalibrarygirl pretty well. It's not my business to repeat what I've been told in confidence, but I will say she thinks Trump is a raving lunatic too and Boris Johnson is just missing the clown car. You are picking on the wrong target, If you think she is a "sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse", you are so far out of whack on this one, you're in a different area code. She is not a shrinking violet at all. I mean, she's a flippin' atheist in Texas - what more evidence do you need? Now, in the words of Dr Evil, zip it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well hello there, Ritchie. How good it is to see you around again; for a while we feared we might have lost you. You seem to be reading the situaton upside down:
I'm not picking the wrong target, nor indeed any target. She picked me.
I never doubted that she and I probably agree on most social and political issues, and I don't know where you'd get the idea I might think otherwise.
Nor would I imagine she's a shrinking violet. Her problem's the opposite: she confuses her personal opinions – even on something as subjective as a joke – with what she calls "the truth", to the extent that she thinks it's OK remove others' discussion posts in violation of TPO because, well, she knows the truth. That's the behavior of armchair social justice warriors of the woke-scold variety, and as you know I have little patience for such hubris, especially from those on the thinking end of the political spectrum, who should know better.
She had plenty of chances to back off and agree to disagree, but no. Perhaps she'll think twice should a similar situation arise in future.
EEng, I think you're confused. I'm not picking on you. In fact, I've barely interacted with you. I only pointed out that one joke in the comments on the Signpost article was offensive and removed it to promote civility on Wikipedia. It would have been easier to just leave it off, but you don't want to do that. The joke is most likely going to stay up on Signpost, a place that should be neutral, since no one wants to start an edit war over a joke. Fine. I don't want to edit war either, but I also don't appreciate your personal attacks. It's really petty of you and shows you can't take criticism. Your joke is both regressive and offensive. If something is offensive to a group of people even if you don't think it is it's still offensive. Not sure why you don't understand that. I've said my piece, I spoke the truth and that's that. If you want to talk more, ping me. But leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I don't like to see two of my favourite editors slugging it out with each other. You both make enormous contributions to the encyclopedia and Wikipedia is a better place for having you both around. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of us can really say whether or not a joke is offensive to a group of people; we can only say it's offensive to us, individually. I've seen people say or do things on Wikipedia that I think are obviously and egregiously antisemitic. But I can't speak on behalf of all Jews, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to assert that something was antisemitic or offensive to Jews–I can only speak for myself. And speaking for myself, I can say that I strongly agree with Ritchie about not liking to see two good editors going at it. Levivich[dubious – discuss]21:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, will you get clue? In ==>YOUR OPINION<=== it's offensive. Can you really not see that it's just ==>YOUR OPINION<===, that everyone else need not kowtow[1][2] to ==>YOUR OPINION<=== and that it's not OK for you to remove another editor's post based on ==>YOUR OPINION<===? Apparently you still haven't reviewed WP:TPO as previously recommended, and maybe try taking a hint from the ever-wise Levivich and let someone actually offended (if there be any) speak for themselves; this isn't a schoolyard and you're not the teacher.
As for leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act – I can only interpret that as unconscious self-parody. I'm sure you're a nice person, and as said before I know you mean well, but these tautologies that begin by assuming that ==>YOUR OPINION<=== is obviously the truth are beyond tiresome. Give the broken record a rest now. Really. Tomorrow morning I have to play the authority figure and will be expected to say wise things, so I just haven't got time.
^I've checked and so far as I can see, kowtow is not considered a culturally insensitive term. But maybe you know better. If you prefer I'll substitute genuflect[1]. -EEng
Hoping that I am missing something here, but can anyone explain to me why using Chink in the above context is okay? Perhaps helpful if I copy the Wikipedia page introduction is an English-language ethnic slur usually referring to a person of Chinese descent.[2] The word is also sometimes indiscriminately used against people who look and have an East Asian appearance. The use of the term is considered offensive. Kees08 (Talk)22:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scolding that that last batch of jokes are regressive/offensive/exclusionary goes here:
"Intelligent" discussion begins (heading by EEng, scarequotes by User:PackMecEng)
Just in case it will matter to you, I think you happen to be in the wrong here. We all make mistakes, and we should all try to listen with an open mind to other people when they tell us we've made one. Paul August☎16:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August☎16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you think does matter to me, actually. I'm always open to reasoned discussion on something like this because I recognize that my humor is sometimes a bit, um, shall we say... edgy (plus I'm always interested in learning more about why people find things funny or not funny, in any context). But because of Megalibrarygirl's precipitate action, that's not what this is about; it's about one editor setting up her personal judgment as overriding and unerring, and being unable to recognize that that was a mistake (and contrary to WP behavioral guidelines as well). EEng18:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for trouts all around - I don't think MLG should have unilaterally removed your comment given her position (would have been more appropriate to either ask you to remove it or start a discussion), and I don't think you should have continued adding it after it was removed. This isn't a hill worth dying on for either of you, and I suggest both of you just take a deep breath and let it go. creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no plans on dying, but self-appointed scolds are a particular sore point with me. Had MLG simply offered her opinion, a quite possible outcome would have been that I would have found something even funnier to post in a different vein – strange how constraint can liberating in that way. But instead she took the in-your-face approach, and I just don't take that lying down especially from mop-holders.I let it go with my post 3 days ago timestamped 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC), but MLG just keeps coming back for more. I have little doubt, however, that she's learned her lesson and won't do this again – to anyone. EEng21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One question seems to me to be how to determine whether something (say a joke) is offensive. Surely you agree that just because a joke was not intended to be offensive does't mean that it isn't offensive? Correct? So how do you determine whether something is offensive? Do a certain number of people need to be offended before something can said to be offensive? Maybe is not zero or one, maybe something is more or less offensive depending on the number of people who find it offensive? So even if only one person finds something offensive, then it *is* offensive, just not very? So what should one do if someone tells you they think one of your jokes is offensive? I guess it depends on how generous you want to be. For me, if some thinks one of my jokes is offensive—even if I think they are the only one who thinks so—I think my response would be to apologize, and retract it. It seems to me to just a matter of simple politeness. Paul August☎11:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better questions might be: why does it matter if a joke is considered by some to be offensive or not? Is there such a thing as an inoffensive joke? Should an offensive joke be treated differently than an offensive non-joke statement? Is making an offensive statement (joke or non-joke) a problem that requires correction? Only then can you get to: how many people have to think it’s offensive before it’s considered offensive? The base assumption i chafe at is the notion that a joke is some kind of frivolity, whereas being offended is an actual injury of some sort. I disagree with both characterizations. Just as I disagree with the characterization in this section heading. Levivich[dubious – discuss]15:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Or something else altogether? Note as I've written above: I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent".Paul August☎16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul August:, I'm disagreeing fundamentally that a joke should be retracted because it offends one or even more than one person. (Also, I didn't mean the header comment as a criticism of you or as implying that this conversation wasn't intelligent; rather, I think the conversation above the header was also intelligent.) The joke, as all good jokes, brought an important truth to light. In the context of an article about "invisible women" – about how women are overlooked by the history books – EEng made a joke about non-binary gender. This has many layers of meaning. First, it reminds the reader that non-binary people are, today, right now, the "invisible people", just as women once were (and, in many ways, still are). A second layer is that by looking at a picture of people who appear to be women and calling them "women", we are assuming their gender identity–something that modern society is trying to get away from. Calling them the first "non-binary" programmers (because they were programming analog computers) is a clever way of linking the struggles of women in the past to the struggles of non-binary people today, while simultaneously noting how language (here, the meaning of "non-binary") can change over time, just as social attitudes and oppressed group's rights and privileges can change over time. All in all, it's a clever way to say, "don't forget there are still invisible people today, and they're not just women". And this message was better delivered as a picture with a funny caption than as a long paragraph of text as I have provided here.
So, should we then erase this message because – OMG! It has the word non-binary! It's a joke about non-binary! That means it's offensive! Kill it kill it kill it!! No, to me, that's just a really shallow understanding of a really deep and brilliant joke.
Humor is a very powerful tool when it comes to changing minds, and, by extension, changing societies. It should not be discounted or eliminated based on one person's, or a small group of people's, sensibilities. At bottom, there is no such thing as an inoffensive joke. If it's not offensive, at least a little bit, it won't be funny. And if it's not funny, it won't be heard. So I think in these situations, we should leave the picture, not complain about being offended by a "non-binary joke", and instead be offended by the fact that non-binary people are even more invisible than women. Levivich[dubious – discuss]17:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just said said that, had MLG simply offered her opinion, I'd likely have recast the joke some other way. Perhaps an intelligent conversation such as this one [103] could have ensued. But unilateral removal (which, I tire of repeating, TPO forbids)? Repeated unilateral removal? I've made my attitude on that abundantly clear above. EEng16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not the removal was right, I'm trying to say that your response could have been more polite. Just saying ... Paul August☎16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tread carefully in these things, having been accused myself of being too silly on wiki-pages sometimes (although the more common accusation is that I'm too ponderously serious on wiki-pages, such as I'm being now—of course it's quite possible that both these things are true). Still, in this instance I happen to agree with those who have opined that these images and their captions are, at best, an unnecessary distraction from a significant discussion. If I'd been the first one to see them, I would probably have removed them myself, and I'm thinking through whether I still ought to do so. Also, while I'm absolutely certain this is not how the word was intended to be used here, I am also surprised that no one has observed yet that "scold," used as a noun, is perceived as having sexist connotations and, especially in reference to a specific female editor, should generally not be used. Addendum: I should add that I have a very high level of respect for your (EEng's) talents and abilities, and a disagreement on this specific item doesn't detract from that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad, for the record I have a high level of respect for your talents and abilities, and I'm not just saying that because you're an arb and, ya know, you never know what turn things might take. I want to be sure you read Levivich's post above at #Levivichx because, while he's read in a bit more than I had in mind, by doing so he demonstrates vividly why humor is powerfully useful in getting people to think in fresh ways about important and difficult issues. EEng18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, I reject your scold scold; in modern usage the word's been fully liberated [106].[reply]
Followup: I said earlier that discussion, instead of knee-jerk censorship, had a good chance of stimulating me to find a better way to make my point. Thanks primarily to ol' Levivich, here we go:
There may be some non-binary people among those operating this differential analyser, but from the historical record there's probably no way to know it.
I dare anyone to find offense in that.We turn now to the great John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, "Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"):
We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
OK let's get married because you just quoted my favorite philosopher, and it was my favorite chapter of my favorite book of his, and you quoted it at length. (You had me at "it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied".) Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd come around, Mr. Nohomo. I usually introduce On Liberty as "the greatest piece of political philosophy ever written" but for some reason this time I hesitated for fear the discussion would get sidetracked by a debate about that. EEng20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I was reading through all this, on my watchlist I saw the edit summary for your most recent edit: excellent in other contexts, but beside the point here. In a nutshell, that's how I, and I think many others, too often feel when we see your humorous images and captions in places like the noticeboards. Please bear in mind the old aphorism that "a nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place—like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." And after all, no one can quarrel with that, as it's a well-known proposition of Euclid.Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the first to admit that some of my posts aim merely to break the tension or buoy spirits. But are you claiming that the image+caption above doesn't make a memorably useful point in the context of the original discussion? EEng20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I claim that it very foreseeably became a distraction that substantially outweighed the value of any point you intended to make in the thread. Next, diverting the thread still further to an argument about whether the image and caption should remain, with a re-posted image with a new and nasty caption of its own, was a double digression or meta-digression. Removing the images from the thread was, at a minimum, a very defensible thing to do, and your harsh and unnecessary personal comments about the editor who took the lead on trying to remove them were yet a further distraction from the original discussion. In addition, your position that you might have been willing to see the image removed after all, if you had been asked more nicely, is in tension with your position that the seeming joke actually carried substantial informational value. As for the word "scold," we'll have to agree to disagree; if you continue using it in the context of specific female editors, I predict that sooner or later a serious complaint about the connotations underlying the word will be raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're off on the sequence of events (for which you can be excused given what a mess it was) but I'll just say that once it was explicitly asserted that it "could very easily be taken that you are making fun of non-binary people. We don't do that" – naming me specifically as committing this alleged transgression – there's no way I was going to leave the record uncorrected. Smallbones chose the venue by posting that where he posted it.
I didn't say I'd be willing to see the image removed (though it's the caption we're really talking about), rather I said that non-kneejerk discussion had a good chance of leading to a better caption. And it finally did.
I'm sorry, but I see nothing in your responses above that indicate to me that you are listening to or taking on board any of the constructive criticisms your fellow editors are trying to give you. It would be good if you could try harder to do that. Paul August☎14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm listening; I just don't agree that my original posting was inappropriate. And it seems to me that you're not listening to or taking on board what I've said: Discussion, not suppression. I will now say for the final time that intelligent, non-kneejerk, non-strongarming discussion not only could have, but finally did, lead to something better. The mess in between is entirely down to one editor's ham-handed arrogation to herself of the role of censor. EEng15:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That you seem to believe that everything you've done here was perfectly appropriate—that you seem to believe all your critics are wrong—that you take no responsibility at all for any part of this problem—is disheartening. If you continue in the same vein I don't think this will end well. Paul August☎17:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor."
All of which still leaves the question whether I should remove the whole set of images and captions from that talkpage as being a disruptive distraction from the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If at the same time you remove Smallbone's public implication that I'd "attack[ed] or mock[ed] [a] group whose members include those who do not have a choice about their membership in the group", and leave (floated to the right, of course) the image with the revised caption (the one seen above in this thread – which surely comports well with both the original essay and the discussion) I'd be perfectly happy with that. EEng18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What point exactly are you trying to make with the gorilla image on the right? Are you saying NYB's trying to intimidate you? If so it would be better to say so directly. That's another problem with some of your images, their use as innuendo. Paul August☎19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to my glittering array of (talk page stalker)s for saving me the trouble of explaining. I will just add that this little subplot illustrates a principle which, had it been applied to the main issue of this whole thread, would have saved a great deal of gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair: instead of jumping in to denounce something which you imagine might offend someone else, maybe try letting the someone else speak for themselves. And for the record, if I thought that NYB was trying to intimidate me, yes, I'd just say so. Now stand by while I find a tasteless joke on innuendo (assuming Levivich or some other clown[FBDB] doesn't beat me to it). EEng19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the help of some stalkers, I found what I was looking for: this brilliant chain of puns by Guy Macon. (Key words and phrases: pun account in arrears • semicolonoscopy • innuendos.) Please note: Guy's just coming back after a serious illness so please visit his page to wish him well.EEng02:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I remain convinced that those images and captions are a disruptive distraction and don't belong on that talkpage. However, given everything else that's going on right now, on Wikipedia and in the world, we don't have the luxury of enough energy and bandwidth for the drama that would probably ensue if I removed them again. Therefore, I will reluctantly drop the issue at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But there's always a silver lining. With everyone sequestered at home with little to do, I expect that the NPP backlog and any open arbitration cases will be resolved with remarkable speed. EEng20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archive this page, for the love of .... anything, really
I think I've told you this before, EEng. Those of us who are frequently travelling, or using slower internet connections, literally cannot load your talk page at a useful speed. By refusing to archive this you're preventing a substantial number of editors from contacting you, and that's a poor look. Vanamonde (Talk)20:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that you are applying Occam's razor to this page, as needs to be done for most of our policies and guidelines. One quibble that I have is with the edit summary here. I can see from experience that many Wikipedia editors have reading skills below that expected of 3rd-graders. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd prefer you to raise such things on the article talk page rather than continue to revert. No, "standard" means "encouraged" ie every FA I can recall features full dates. Stop twisting Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Birth_date_and_place (which I referred you to in the full place) which states "These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject" (my emphasis) and "if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context" (my emphasis). You've also conventiently ignored the first full version from 16 years aho which used full dates. Care to comment? GiantSnowman21:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS that you so adamantly point to says "if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context". So in your insistence that year ranges are insufficient, you are pushing a position that is actually in contradiction to the MOS, rather than being supported by it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article, infobox, whatever. The distinction matters only to checklist-obsessed scriptkiddies lacking judgment of their own. EEng17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To what D.E. has said I'll just add that you keep talking about how some version from two decades ago had it, as if this is a WP:DATERET issue, which it's not. Good articles are made by applying sound editorial judgment, not filling in blanks on a form. EEng04:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only those inhabiting the incestuous FA bubble hold up FAs as paragons. The idea that the very first thing on which we should squander one of our most precious resources – the reader's attention and desire to keep reading – is the specific date of the year on which someone was born and died, as if our target demographic was astrologers, is Exhibit A for the stupidity of the FA process. EEng17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A point you assert with nothing to back it up. If you want to further pursue this preoccupation with form over substance open a thread on the article's talk page. EEng17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] What is your explanation for why it is critical to bring the readers' attention to the date of his birth, and not just the year, as the first thing they see about him? Among the other facts that could be stated about him at equal length in the lead sentence, why is this one the most important? You are asserting this with no justification, making your argument highly unconvincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS GiantSnowman if you want an opportunity for a bigger crusade about dates and date formats, take a look at the recent contributions of Citation bot (the ones where the edit summary includes "Add: date" or some other combination of additions including dates). All the added dates are in YYYY-MM-DD format. (I happen to like this format for accessdates but I don't think it's acceptable for publication dates, and they're being added as publication dates.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at GS today, though. Instead I am pissed off about having to spend all my editing time running around after Citation bot and cleaning up its many messes, and at its owner's intransigent attitude when anyone points out that it is not housebroken. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? I've been unkind to so many people lately. However, if you mean this [107] it sounds like you've already figured out [108] that I was parodying the unkindness of someone else. EEng13:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, lol...actually, you seem in general like a very kind person. :) Yes, I know you were reflecting back what someone else was putting out there, only with humor, and I certainly understood the impulse. I just this morning rewrote or deleted multiple responses to the thread. :) --valereee (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then what was the unkind remark you want me to strike? Or perhaps you meant there's some unkind person you want me to strike? I'm rarely violent but for you I'd do it, and right now there are several people I'd be inclined to strike anyway. EEng14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why we are dancing on the head of a pin with this; EEng, strike the belittling remark to do with RexxS's RfA and in your edit summary, apologise. Also, quit with the violence jokes. Aside from the jovial air in which you are doing this, Valereee, I do appreciate your efforts to finish someone else's dirty work. CassiantoTalk14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS is exhibiting precisely the poor temperament that participants at his RfA were concerned about, and when Valereee explained how confusing a certain template's usage was he called her "inept" (and not in a joking way) so I stand by my post. And your affected hand-wringing about "violence jokes" strikes me as a low blow. Maybe sleep deprivation has made you punchy? Don't be so pugnacious. Let's all just knuckle down and get back to editing. I could give you a backhanded compliment if you want. EEng15:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I just learned that the media doesn't like "Chinese coronavirus"?
Mrs. Malapropdeclared, "Sure, if I reprehend any thing in this world it is the use of my oracular tongue, and a nice derangement of epitaphs!" So, are we just having a little pun or over-indulging in malapropisms? AtsmeTalk📧
I'm cracking up at "moo goo gai pandemic" over here. Ah-chow mein? Beef and bronchitis? Egg cough soup? I feel like there's also a Chinese Taipei reference to be made that's lurking somewhere.... creffett (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't feel scolded, because this isn't a scolding (and your creativity is amazing), but here I'll counsel that we be a bit more circumspect than usual. Asians really are being attacked on the street by Trumpists and their kin [109] so for now let's suspend this line of thought so as not to add fuel to the fire, even here in our own little corner of the world. Prayers for all. (I actually don't believe in prayer, but they say it works even if you don't believe in it.) EEng03:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll shelve those jokes about Italian Lockdown Soup and Iranian Sneeze-kabob. Hard to do this with American cuisine though. I mean, how do you make fun of hamburger-and-my-idiot-president-just-scared-10,000-points-out-of-the-Dow-fries? Levivich[dubious – discuss]03:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the media, it's the people in charge of naming diseases who are pointing out it's not helpful and is often harmful, and the media are accepting their word for it. The only person who likes it is Trump because he thinks it somehow shifts the blame from him to another country, and he'll throw literally anyone under the bus in order to protect himself. Well, maybe not Ivanka...no, yeah, I think he might even throw Ivanka under the bus if the alternative was admitting he'd not handled something perfectly. --valereee (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a Trump-Pence campaign letter states: “America is under attack — not just by an invisible virus, but by the Chinese,” while accusing Biden of “siding with the Chinese”.[110] This subject has been added to the Racial views of Donald Trump article.[111]O3000 (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get it. Tying the coronavirus to China is a political distraction, there's genuine racism and hate crimes going on, and is generally a terrible thing to do. But damn if kung-flu fighting and moo goo gai pandemic aren't two of the funniest things I've seen since this mess started. (Also, my report from a college town in the American midwest: panic buying here apparently also means "buy the entire salad section") creffett (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about what the Chinese government did. We're talking about people in the street blaming their Asian neighbors. EEng15:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are all kinds of innocuous puns and malapropisms that bring a bit of levity to real world fears. With that said, please take care, especially if you intend to go to a restaurant anytime soon:
Valereee, no, I mean all of the packaged greens, salad kits, cole slaw, that part of the produce section. Went to the store last week trying to head off the rush and that section was completely empty. Other interesting takeaways: despite their respective sections being nearly cleared out, nobody wanted the frozen okra, frozen cauliflower, zero-calorie grape Gatorade, or jars of alfredo sauce. creffett (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As everyone here knows, I'm close to a free-speech-absolutist in the J.S. Mill tradition (see an earlier thread). But I'm not doctrinaire. As the great O.W. Holmes, Jr. put the test so very well:
To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom.
Well, while we're not exactly in the proverbial crowded theater (to invoke a somewhat awkward metaphor for present purposes) we are nonetheless in an emergency very close to the kind Mr. Justice Holmes envisioned, and evil is even now befalling our fellow men[1] before there "be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies". I'm light-years from counseling repression, but self-restraint in certain things just now will be prudent and humane. EEng14:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And, even we who are "close to a free-speech-absolutist in the J.S. Mill tradition" (I myself fell in love with Mill upon my first reading of On Liberty forty years or so ago), know that just because you have the right to say something doesn't of course mean you should. Paul August☎16:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Yes, yes, and women of course. Men and women. And the non-binary. All radices. Yes.
A reminder
Just a reminder to talk-page stalkers that this is not that place to say anything that could be interpreted as implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 – they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.
I'd ask everyone to confirm here that they understand that they shouldn't be saying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 – they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.
Our good friend Ivanvector is absolutely correct. Do not post anything implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 – they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.
Question: Do the refs have to be in citation templates, or is it OK if I reference
Donald Trump is a sociopathic[1]-narcissist[2]-racist[3] criminal[4] moron[5] whose selfishness[6] and stupidity[7] have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000[8] Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 – they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.
Maybe it would be better as two sentences to avoid Synth:
Donald Trump is a sociopathic[1]-narcissist[2]-racist[3] criminal[4] moron.[5] His selfishness[6] and stupidity[7] have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000[8] Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 – they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.
Actually, it should be stated that this is not the place where you share the opinion of [RS] who have called Trump a...yada yada,[citation needed] and the opinion of [RS] who said...[citation needed] and...well, you get the drift AND by doing it that way, you avoid SYNTH. AtsmeTalk📧16:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Underlined correction to align w/EEng's context. 20:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, all jokes aside, if that guy sends me a check for $1000 I just might vote for him. Unless Biden sends me more. Not because I think he is the best candidate, but because I want to encourage future candidates to send me cash during election years. Levivich[dubious – discuss]16:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, Actually, it's dead-even at Predictit since the Dems got smart and dumped Sanders. [112] But blaming Trump on Coroavirus is pretty stupid and also wrong. I don't like Trump, I'm also a political independent in a purple state (and I think Bloomberg was poor timing). I know Trump banned incoming flights from China and people complained. I know people will complain no matter what Trump does, but sometime he does the right thing. And sometimes the NYTimes will chop his quotes in half just to make him look bad, like when he told states to look into getting masks and supplies on their own, and then added he will be there for them and fund it. Everyone knows supply chain is best at a local level, but the NYTimes ran "President tells states, you're on your own." So why not tone down the rhetoric and stupidity. That's not what we need now. As the former (Obama-Era) FEMA chief said when he was on MSNBC right before he walked off the air, "I don't need to deal with this from bull shit people." Sir Joseph(talk)16:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He banned flights from China but left huge loopholes for ships' crews and so on, and pretended that walls an closed borders would solve the problem. he told states to look into getting masks and supplies on their own, and then added he will be there for them and fund it – what the fuck does "be there for them" mean??? This needs to be a full-court press, all-hands-on-deck, no-effort-or-expense-spared, every-avenue-pursued war effort. People are going to die for lack of ventilators starting in two to four weeks. Every extra ventilator produced will save 10 lives over the next eight months; every mask will save 1/1000 of a life – and President Trump – who as I keep stressing I am not labeling a
sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 – they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet
– as late as yesterday was saying he wasn't invoking the War Production Act to order companies to start producing these vital things because "we might not need it". So get real. EEng20:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, Have you ever dealt with the Federal government and requisitioning? Why should all the states have to put in a request for masks from DC when they can do it themselves better and cheaper if they can get it from a supplier closer to home? That's the latter part of the quote the NYTimes left out. Parly JIT and partly that Trump said he'll fund it and be there for states that need funding and supplies, but said it's best to use your own resources. The NYTimes ran with the headlines that Trump said "you're on your own." When that is not what he said or meant. And it's your vile and nasty TDS that makes me, a real independent in a purple state, who doesn't like Trump at all, vote for him because I can actually see things with a clear unbiased eye, unlike you. I apparently don't fall for Chinese propagnda.Sir Joseph(talk)21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"you're on your own." When that is not what he said or meant – That's clearly what he meant. He has no idea what's going on or what to do. He's a compulsive, shameless liar.Have you ever dealt with the Federal government and requisitioning? – Yes, actually, I have, but this isn't about "requisitioning" – we're not talking about office supplies and garbage cans. Ground was broken on the Pentagon in September 1941 and the first occupants moved in the following April; when it's important, it can get done – if competent people are in charge.This has nothing to do with Chinese propaganda. The Chinese government is run by selfish, greedy motherfuckers who don't give a shit about the people for whose good they're supposed to be working, or about the rest of the world; that's been true for a long time and I can't do anything about it. The sadness is that, at present, the American government is run by the very same kind of people. If you can't see that [113] you're delusional. EEng00:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Headline today (NYT): "Former Labradoodle Breeder Tapped to Lead U.S. Pandemic Task Force" – more Chinese propaganda, I suppose. By the way, how's that JIT thing working out? EEng01:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget - don't fall for fake news telling you that all you need is a mask and gloves to go to the grocery store. It's a LIE!! Everyone else had clothes on!! AtsmeTalk📧23:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, yes, yes, I knew someone would bring that up. Grandfathered, grandmothered, grandxthered. Whatever pronouns and nonbinary descriptions work for the general progressive public. --valereee (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back in March, in this very thread, I counseled my fellow editors not to post anything implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 – they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet
without a reliable source. Well, it's been six months and time to take stock again. In my modest opinion we are now more than justified in stating openly what has long been obvious i.e. that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 – they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.
And while we're on the subject, fuck you and the whore you came in on.And the whore you came in on.And the whore you came in on.
So it's time to get real. An elderly colleague of mine – a World War II veteran, a fine mathematician and wonderful teacher, a man whose boots Donald Trump is not worthy to lick – suffocated alone in a nursing home because of Trump's greed, stupidity, narcissism, and criminality. So fuck you, Donald Trump, fuck the racist father who begat such a slime bucket as you, fuck the agent of Satan who put a hole in the condom that God had intended would spare the world the stain of your existence, fuck the rest of your criminal family, fuck the morons who voted for you, and fuck any morons who vote for you again. EEng18:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] P.S. If you don't like the foregoing, get your head out of your ass. P.P.S. If you voted for Trump and aren't a moron, then fuck you double, since you knew better but did it anyway.
I am so very sorry to hear about your friend, and I agree wholeheartedly with your description, your "modest opinion", and your anger. We have lost, and will continue to lose, many good people. "Fine mathematicians", kindly bus drivers, selfless healthcare workers, the nice neighbor...the list goes on and on. We value the kind comfort and wisdom of an "older friend", the human potential of those just a bit, and even quite a bit younger..each person is such a dreadful loss. "No man is an island entire of itself;...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind." Donne expressed it so well. With sorrow for your loss, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!04:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your thoughtful words are most comforting, as is the vision of Donald Trump being sodomized in hell by Russian whores wearing red-hot barbed-iron strap-ons while Melania sticks needles into his tiny, misshapen penis. Satan was on Fox News the other night explaining it all, and complaining about the headaches Trumps's causing him. He's had to build acres of new tortures just for the Cabinet alone, and Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo, and Pol Pot are up in arms because the VIP wing is full and one of them's gonna have to bunk with Trump, which none of them wants to do because he's so stupid and boring. EEng05:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. The devastation that one, unprincipled, dishonorable person in a supreme position of power can cause is truly horrifying. And quite terrifying. In your creative imaginings, I think the lying tongue would be first to go. Please, try to remember the good experiences with your dear friend, who is free from suffering. Imagine the knowledge that is now clear to him, the mathematical joys and marvels of the universe! I hope some good thoughts of what "Heaven" is like for your dear friend will give you some comfort. I know you are suffering, and again, I am so very, very sorry. Sending you a nice, My Cat Jeoffry "Tiger" hug, Sincerely, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!08:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me attempt to offer some comfort about your loss, as well. Also, as it happens, a few days ago I watched Downfall (2004 film) (on South American river prime). I highly recommend the film, by the way. But something that struck me as I was watching was how much of the film revolves around various Nazi military brass telling Adolf, with Berlin burning all around, that they could not prevail, to which the revered leader would respond with a combination of blaming everyone except himself, and promising that some half-baked inspiration that just came to him would save the day. The generals would cower until one would get up the nerve to suggest very gently that it would not be possible (by a long shot), and the supreme one would hear nothing of it, certain that his own unique brilliance would prove infallible. I may be breaking Godwin's law, but it felt eerily familiar. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, my friend. Of course, while Hitler was fairly intelligent and surrounded himself with reasonably competent (if corrupt) people, Trump's saving grace is that he's a moron who surrounds himself with other morons who can't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. Now back to our regular programming....
No problem. I live to return the deviant to the straight and narrow. I hope you paged through that volume. It's fascinating. EEng20:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to reply to an email at the same time, and don't multitask well. I assumed our posts just crossed paths in the ether, but it probably didn't sound like that's what I assumed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might not reply here because your userpage takes 3 days for my computer to load. I was referring to him continuing his category bizarreness and creating the red-linked category you added to my page, and then recreating it after an admin deleted the category. I figured it easier to make it an empty category than try to explain the needlessness of it to someone who doesn't have a clue. Natureium (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just wanted to reply to the question you left on Illegitimate Barrister's talk page. So, technically, there is no actual upper half as it is actually now an informal term. When an officer is promoted to two-star rank, the rank is just called rear admiral. Another informal term for two-star rank is a full rear admiral. Prior to World War II, the Navy didn't have a one-star rank. All captains were promoted to rear admiral (two-star). A more ridged pay grade scale was established during World War II and the Navy split the pay for the more junior rear admirals into the one-star pay grade in order to match the Army and Marine Corps rank of brigadier general and called them lower half rear admirals, the remaining more senior rear admirals were paid equal to major generals, and where designated the upper half of rear admirals. But regardless of they were paid at the lower half or the upper half of the pay scale, they were all officially two-star rear admirals, which did not sit well with the Army and Marine Corps, because the rear admirals being paid at the "lower half" of the pay scale, still outranked the one-star brigadier generals who received equal pay as the "lower half" rear admirals. The Navy temporarily established the one-star rank of commodore that did solve this problem until the rank was eliminated after the war. A permanent naval one-star rank was not established until the 1981 as commodore admiral. Since 1983, that one-star rank was renamed to it's current inception as rear admiral (lower half). Neovu79 (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this relates to [115].
That's all well and good, but if they only use the lower half of the rear of the admiral, what they do with the rest of him (or her). I've heard food on ships is terrible, so maybe that's related? See [116]. EEng03:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the thread on the MOS linking page and immediately thought of Whither Canada? though I had forgotten that is was their very first episode. I hope you are well, safe and that you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk
Today I learned
(from a miscapitalization of your name in an ANI thread)
... that an eeng is a Mexican musical instrument, or more likely a typo for the actual name of the instrument
... that an EEnG is an abbreviation for an electroenterogram
Those playing along at home who crave background should see User:EEng#Titular_characters. The article text this Steve Summit character showcases – indeed a magnificent specimen – is:
The comic strip Garfield's titular cat character of the same name enjoys the consumption of lasagna.
I don't wish to keep reverting this editor since it might be construed as edit-warring but the editor hasn't responded to the message I left on his user talk page.
Is there an efficient way to stop this disruptive editing?
(I seem to recall noticing a page where the persistent errors of good faith newbies could be brought to the attention of administrators, but I haven't been able to find it again...)
Now on my watchlist. However, between you and me and the wall, I don't think it's appropriate for that page to be literally transluded into other pages. Honestly I've never seen that, and my feeling is it's not appropriate. Seems to me it should be a See also. EEng16:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edit, Sir. I will wait with interest to see if there is any response to the comments you made on the editor's user talk page.
Historically this vulnerable page began as a number of different templates to be used as appropriate on a variety of "visa pages" to gain economy and efficiency of editor effort. (It can be quite tedious updating hundreds of country-specific visa articles with identical information when there are changes.) However, when the labour-saving templates were threatened with deletion, it seemed the lesser of 2 evils to accept lstification. As we have seen though, a huge disadvantage of transclusion is that if a newby finds the transcluded page (often they can't) and does silly stuff, it has an immediate effect on many pages. That's why I was rather hoping this page could be given a degree of protection... --BushelCandle (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why transclusion is better than just saying, "Countries commonly impose other restrictions beyond those related to visa. See XXXXX". EEng17:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was tempted actually, but a photo of someone vomiting is too obvious, our photos of Soviet purges aren't obvious enough, and we don't even have a photo of Miss Conduct. EEng22:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conflicted now. What was above made me question my judgement in calling Poopy42069 the best username ever. However, what made me really doubt myself was that User:Poopdick69 was a user. For 51 seconds. I may or may not have queried the API to get that number. I still think Poopy42069 tripping so many filters in so little time is impressive, though. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta admire the creativity. See also [117]. I wish I could remember who put the idea in my head of Osama /bin/login/ as a username. EEng22:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Natureium, you got it wrong. These are not comparison articles, and if you think they are and try to move them or make them a comparison, you will be yelled at. These are explicitly articles of original research and synthesis on who would win in a fight. Since coke, pepsi, common law, and civil law cannot fight, they should not have articles about this. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being dead serious. See the mission of the original creator which has been fervently followed for the last decade. It should have been deleted many times but it's an ARS member's pet article so it isn't. But don't take my word for it just ask one of the regulars in the last RM "Lion vs Tiger" or "Tiger vs Lion" is basically overall a hypothetical match between the two animals and who would essentially win, and is an iconic name for the debate. (diff).I've long held it is the worst article on Wikipedia and should be deleted, but until it eventually is it is useful for amusement. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's the clearest winner for the next article of this class. There likely is ample sourcing so a true original research synthesis of who would win a hypothetical rematch between the Titanic and the iceberg under different conditions would be possible, and that's a defining characteristic of our animal fight articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the coronavirus is resistant to exploding limousine after all, but that rabid wolverine on the horizon is a whole other level of hardcore, I wish it the best in its future endeavours (a real shame about that poor leopard, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's going on here or why, but I took the liberty of assaulting the coronavirus backstage, so flu advances by countout. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way to augment the bracketing to show the winner of the finals going on to a special bout against the reigning chamption, Donald Trump? I think Iceberg v. Trump or Civil law v. Trump have a lot of revenue potential, pay-per-view–wise. (Note proper use of hyphens and endash.) EEng23:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was careful, I chose the one wrestler general audiences could see legit knocking out that great white hopeful, EEng's buyrate will thank me later, trust me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the same spirit of grim resignation and plot expediency, I put the 99% over the 1%. Regardless of our valid first-round feelings, everyone knows horseducks AND duckhorses do the job for bearsharks OR sharkbears. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming we're still hosted in Florida, the wolverine is considered a Class II wildman, so just needs a simple permit to publicly perform. The permit requirements are unfairly complicated, so we can (probably) waive, skirt or ignore them. The thing to know is tigers are flat prohibited in the Wang State, especially those who just tore through enough cocaine to disincarnate Brock Lesnar, so if Common Law Jones somehow nullifies or voids the naturally-psychotic cuddlebunny, it's a cakewalk to the iceberg; nobody is going to pay to watch Law v. Ice, the tiger or wolverine must survive or we're all sunk. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightning Round Activated!
This is not a drill.This is not a pipe.
This is not a drill, this is it, the ultimate semifinal, the penultimate finale, the brawl to end most-if-not-all! In other words, I'm still unsure of why these things started fighting, but will nonetheless continue to take liberties until given (someone else's imaginary) death. So it's an RfC, see, whose icy hand will it be, raised to sink under the sea, giving a thumbs-up to ye, tryin' to holla at me, yadda-yadda gee, hurry up and vote!InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the next thing I remember, I'm waking up on an iceberg next to a strange frozen woman, wondering where my wolverine went. Whooo democracy! Anybody got any coke left? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the museum
No disrespect meant to a nice guy but English is not his first language and I think this comment may deserve some consideration for the hallowed halls of your Museum - I shouldn't laugh but I did... AtsmeTalk📧02:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another museum candidate of some sort: Special:AbuseLog/26583009's edit summary, THIS PAGE SHOULD BE IN ENGLISH. IF YOU REVERT THIS BACK PLEASE REVERT EVERY PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA TO TAKE ENGLISH INTO NON-AMERICAN LANGUAGES. WHAT THE FUCK IS SO HARD ABOUT THIS? ENGLISH SHOULD BE IN ENGLISH. A fine vintage with an all-caps body, notes of troll, and a pleasant tautological finish, though if the IP wants to change Wikipedia back to an American language like Cherokee, I'm good with that. Another entertaining filter hit from the same user is Special:AbuseLog/26583067, helpfully pointing out that the Italians sided with the Nazis...on a page about bruschetta. creffett (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Judging someone as inexperienced (naive) is not a personal attack, nor is saying that the situation is "getting crazy". However calling someone "sophomoric" is. Paul August☎10:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it is my understanding that, in this case, EEng was referring to the "analysis" as sophomoric, rather than the editor in question themselves. El_C11:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No way sophomoric is a PA. If someone is acting overconfident and immature, then they are being sophomoric, and saying so isn't "attacking" them. Not every criticism of a person is an "attack". Just like the common example: saying "you're acting like an asshole" is a criticism, not a personal attack; saying "you are an asshole" is a personal attack. Anyway, that's my 2 cents, assholes. Levivich[dubious – discuss]14:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh common on, so your saying that If I want to get away with calling someone "a dirty slimy mother-fucking rotten low life asshole" all I have to do say is: "You are acting like a dirty slimy mother-fucking rotten low life asshole"? Paul August☎14:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the latter statement isn't "getting away" with something. In O these many long years I have, now and then, had occasion to say to my boyfriend, "You know what -- you were acting like a complete asshole [the other day / with that hotel clerk / to the innocent person who was clearly mixed up / whatever]". That's completely different from saying, "You know what? You're a complete asshole", which would quite possibly be the beginningn of the end of the relationship. We all play the asshole now and then, and there's a huge difference between helping someone see that in a particular situation -- e.g. "You're being an asshole" -- and condemning someone as a blanket generality -- e.g. "Donald Trump is an asshole" (not that, of course, I'd ever say that here on WP without citing appropriate sources [119]). EEng17:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Another example: "Your mother smells of elderberries" is a clear personal attack, but "you're acting like someone whose mother smells of elderberries" is a perfectly acceptable social criticism. But seriously, it's not a personal attack to say someone is acting overconfident or acting immature, and thus it's not a personal attack to say someone is acting sophomoric. "Sophomoric" isn't an insult like "asshole" or "elderberry". WP:NPA doesn't say "never criticize". Levivich[dubious – discuss]14:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
English is such a wonderful language, so many words, so many nuances allowed, so better able to describe the real world, where things are not black or white but shades of grey. There are shades of niceness and meaness. You can be nicer or meaner. Saying someone is "sophomoric" is meaner than calling them "inexperienced". Bottom line "sophomoric" is a pejorative. No way around it. And by the way I think you are acting like a dirty slimy mother-fucking rotten low life asshole, no offense intended ;-) Paul August☎15:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A long time ago I had a colleague from Ukraine. His English was very good but nonetheless there was room for improvement. We both enjoyed movies so we used to see one together now and then. One night we came out of the cinema and he pointed to the sky: "Look! There is the Mars!" So I chuckled and explained that, for whatever reason, in English the earth is "the earth" and the moon is "the moon", but Mars is just "Mars" and Venus is just "Venus" and so on. He said, "I see. Well, it's just one more of the nuisances of English." One step, two steps later, something began to nag at the back of my mind. With each additional step the nagging got stronger. Six, seven, eight paces. Nuisances ... nuisances ... nuisances. A few more steps and it hit me. "Wait ... you mean nuances???" He said: "Yes, yes. That's what I meant. Nuances." That was the most delicious moment. EEng21:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard does not deserve to be exempt from a Controversy heading. The small snippet in History mentions that he tried something, and doesn't show that an actual policy was passed when he Lowell was serving that dramatically impacted Jewish admittance rates. It would be a disservice to the victims of the past as well as a missed opportunity to document the past. If not ethically, then it should have a Controversy header for the principal of fairness since most universities have a Controversy header. Ocarwa (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Ocarwa, before addressing the content dispute, I'd ask that you take a moment to explain why there appear to be two of you (Ocawa and Ocarwa) - if they're both accounts that you operate, you need to disclose that. Operating more than one account without acknowledging it is almost always considered sockpuppetry. creffett (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I first made these accounts I wanted one to create an account with the fewest amount of characters and matches other accounts. Found out that this current one is I've edited the same pages before 4 years ago, so I'm not hiding my account. One is logged into my phone and the other my desktop. To add, they only differ by one character so I wouldn't consider that any attempt to impersonate two people. I'll delete the other account right now if that seems weird in wiki-culture. Ocawa (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ocarwa, Ocawa: As WP:CRIT advises so well, A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. A 400-year-old institution has seen plenty of controversies, which cannot possibly all be treated in any detail in the main article. Restrictions on Jewish admissions are already mentioned, and a full article on the subject (or possibly the broader subject of the history of Harvard admissions overall) would be great. But there's no way the main article can give anything but a mention to Harvard's profits from slavery and admission of blacks and admission of Jews and admission of Asians and admission of legacies and admission of rich kids and admission of poor kids and napalm and nuclear weapons and McCarthyism and Sacco & Vanzetti and ROTC and Vietnam and academic freedom and Gina Grant and the Secret Court of 1920 and the Salem Witch Trials and Theda Skocpol and Lawrence Summers and the sheltering of regicides and the Charity of Edward Hopkins and the gay Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and the Allston land grab and South Africa divestment and fossil fuel divestment and unionization and theft of the Sacred Cod and the all-male social clubs and the Gov 1310 cheating scandal and Increase Mather being a crusty old fart. And those are just a few off the top of my head. EEng04:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Eeng! You do make some fair points. I do believe that university page readers would greatly benefit from a concentrated place to view material that otherwise would be hidden from the website's official website since that's usually a sales pitch. Could making my own page with the material and listing it as a link under a new Controversies header be a good compromise? The University of California page has a Controversy page and that encompasses like 7 Universities. I think it's only fair and for the good of the people to have Wikipedia conglomerate information otherwise hidden by these influential institutions. Ocawa (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides substantial six-figure incomes, the UC President and all UC chancellors enjoy controversial perks such as free housing in the form of university-maintained mansions. In 1962, Anson Blake's will donated his 10-acre (40,000 m2) estate (Blake Garden) and mansion (Blake House) in Kensington to the University of California's Department of Landscape Architecture. In 1968, the Regents decided to make Blake House the official residence of the UC President. As of 2005, it cost around $300,000 per year to maintain Blake Garden and Blake House; the latter, built in 1926, is a 13,239-square-foot (1,229.9 m2) mansion with a view of San Francisco Bay. All UC chancellors traditionally live for free in a mansion on or near campus that is usually known as University House, where they host social functions attended by guests and donors. UC San Diego's University House was closed from 2004 to 2014 for $10.5 million in renovations paid for by private donors, which were so expensive because the 12,000-square-foot structure sits on top of a sacred Native American cemetery and next to an unstable coastal bluff.
How is that a criticism or controversy? Lots of schools have grand president's/dean's/chancellor's residences that are now white elephants. I myself grew up in a house with a view of San Francisco Bay -- is the president of the UC system not entitled to the same after a long day at the office dealing with "sex for the students, athletics for the alumni, and parking for the faculty"? What is the reader supposed to conclude from such uncontextualized stuff? You've given a great example of exactly why such sections shouldn't exist. Real stuff that matters should be woven into the article. EEng16:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are valid suggestions for the UC page, but it still stands that the Harvard page lacks Controversies. It was not my point that we make the Harvard page into the UC page, only that we add a Controversies header to fairly document major things that otherwise wouldn't be popularly known. If criticism doesn't belong on the page then, a header with links to the Controversies should be established. Either case is better than not including notable mishaps. I agree that the Levering Act should be linked in the UC page as well. If it's of significance, then it should be written about either on the page or in its own page and linked in the main one.
Putting this stuff in the See Also wouldn't be that great either. Imagine the average person's perspective; if they think of an institution they are likely to conjure mainstream media advertisement and reportings done on the subject. Our job as contributors is to not only show the mainstream definition, but also information that is less known. Perhaps we should seek opinion of other authors not affiliated with us if there is no agreement or compromise made. Ocawa (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've said why articles, in general, shouldn't have Controversies sections. I didn't say that criticism doesn't belong on the page, just that the place for it is to be mentioned, at an appropriate level of detail (i.e. usually not much) in the normal course of presenting the subject; the article's job isn't to be a compensating counterbalance to a school's own self-presentation, but simply to make its own balanced presentation, period. Please open a discussion on the article's talk page if you want to pursue this further. EEng04:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed at Widener Library
"and in the early 1980s library officials "pushed the panic button"[80] again, leading to the construction of the Harvard Depository.)[citation needed]"
You didn't look very hard. [121] Just out of curiosity, what's your preoccupation with this obviously correct, uncontentious statement? EEng00:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a "deffer" is a slang term for someone who writes definitions for a dictionary. By extension, the verb "deffer" means to define something. A deffer who plays golf is known as a "deffer duffer", and one who looks good doing so is a "deffer duffer dandy". Those who are amusing are "daffy deffer duffer dandies". There was one who was so good, he was known as the "Deadly Daffy Deffer Duffer Dandy" by his opponents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mister, we was only foolin' around. We ain't got no playground or ballfield or nuttin'. Can't you help us mister? Please buy some candy! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ShoeHorn. Not sure why this would ever be used in concert with a shoe, unless you're a clown... CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓
Regarding shoehorning, if you really want to shoehorn images in without making the page an unreadable mess of randomly placed images and big swathes of whitespace for anyone using a wide monitor or a small font size, the little-used {{tall image}} template is your friend, which makes big images into independently-scrollable entities within their own little boxes. (See the map at Brill Tramway#Metropolitan Railway takeover for an example of it in action.) ‑ Iridescent15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entire website looks like shit on a wide monitor or in small font size. You'd think 100 million dollars would be enough to figure out how to use a centered div. FWIW, any and all time spent either adjusting layout on a Wikipedia article to "look good", or arguing about what "looks good", is entirely and completely wasted, because whatever adjustments are made to make it "look good" will look completely different to another person using a different device, screen, resolution, operating system, browser, skin, font, or font size, among other variables. Levivich[dubious – discuss]16:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sure, but there are some obvious things that are universal truths in web design, and "if you stack a lot of tall narrow images, you're either going to end up with images appearing in the wrong section, or you're going to have to insert a division break which means the images will trail off into a mass of white space" is about as close to a fundamental law as it gets. It's particularly so in the case of Wikipedia, since (a) there's very vocal opposition to a maximum column width for body text so that's unlikely ever to happen, (b) we need to cater for readers on all sizes of display, from 4-inch first generation smartphones to 5120px-width professional DTP setups, and (c) we periodically increase the default value for upright=1 and we haven't done so for a while so are likely to do so again fairly soon. (At the time of writing, Phineas Gage averages 1214 views-per-day on the mobile site and only 879 views-per-day on the desktop site. Try opening it on your phone and tell me if you think the way the images currently render makes it unreadable.) ‑ Iridescent17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but your universal truth only holds if you preface it with "For some sufficiently wide window size, ...". It's not possible, with the tools we have, to make articles look good at all window widths, so choices have to be made. Which image(s) do you think should use {tall image}? And why should the great majority of readers, who use reasonable window widths, see that/those image(s) through a peephole so that owners of giant screens will be spared the annoyance of some vertical whitespace? There's a perfectly adequate solution for them anyway, which is to open the article in a window of reasonable width, and use the rest of their beautiful huge screen for your email and so on.Re phones, on my iPhone 7 + Chrome the article looks just fine in both mobile format and desktop format. If your're talking about WP:SANDWICH, in desktop format there are about 40 lines (out of about 1000 lines total in the article) that are squeezed between an img on the left and one on the right, but those are in small runs of 5-10 lines at a time so it's not particularly unattractive. That's with thumb default (upright=1) set to 220px. At thumb size 300px, because of the complicated way stuff shifts around when img widths change, the amount of squeezed text drops to just 2 runs of 10, so it's actually better. These discussions are always complicated by the variety of platforms the discussants are using, but for the moment I really don't know what you mean about problems on phones.Meanwhile, I think I know what you mean by a maximum column width for body text but can you clarify? EEng22:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I meant to mention that I recognize that the article is approaching the image density at which it risks collapsing in on itself like a neutron star, but I couldn't resist tempting fate by adding one more. (Forgot to ping Arid Desiccant.) EEng01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See right—these are all screenshots in the WMF default mobile view (i.e., what someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor and consequently doesn't have any display preferences set will see if they google "Phineas Gage" on their phone). The combination of multiple objects at differing forced widths and the quirks of the Minerva skin which we force on non-logged-in editors (who constitute 99.9% of our readership) is both creating display goofiness such as single-word or even single-character columns where the software gets confused trying to wrap text, and big chunks of whitespace with objects floating detached. Because editors are almost always working in the desktop editor in either the Vector or Monobook skins, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the majority of pageviews are in the godawful Minerva skin on phones—these screenshots represent what the article looks like to more than half its readers.
By "maximum column width for body text" I mean the perennial proposal to limit the desktop display to a maximum width with the rest of wide screens filled with white space or optional sidebars—as almost every other "primarily text-based but with some images" website in the world does—so situations like Image:Gage screenshot 6.png don't arise on wide monitors, . The WMF have been trying (correctly) to impose this particular change since some point around the Dawn of Time, but it's always shouted down by the "waaah, this would be a change and change is always bad, and even if it's a good change the fact that the WMF is imposing it is a violation of our rights and must be resisted at all costs" contingent. ‑ Iridescent08:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In pre-phone days, I ran into this sort of problem with my personal website. Even then different monitors should have this sort of problem. Fixed it by setting a max screen width
Turning the phone sideways makes the formatting equally goofy, albeit in different ways, as the software tries to wrap the text around different entities at differing sizes. It's hard to overstate just how much of a botch-job Minerva is. (It's not really the developers' fault—in 2007 when the iPhone was launched Wikipedia already had millions of articles, all of which had been written on the assumption that nobody would ever see them in any format other than on desktop monitors or as printouts, and the developers were forced to come up with something that would display them on tiny screens without either rendering the page totally unreadable, or crashing Apple and Samsung's shitty proprietary browsers completely.) ‑ Iridescent14:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The file description for that latest screenshot says mobile view, but in fact it's desktop view (on a phone), correct? EEng15:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's mobile view with the phone turned sideways (you can tell when you're in mobile view, as desktop view has the space to the left beneath the sidebar). In the desktop view in Vector (the default which a mobile user will get if they google "Phineas Gage" and then select "show desktop site") the page displays more-or-less as it should—this is the same section in in Desktop view with every other setting left unchanged. Unfortunately there's no way for a reader on a mobile device to set desktop view as the Wikipedia default—the next time you open your browser Wikipedia will revert to Minerva—so one has to work on the assumption that every reader who visits a page on a mobile device, will be served with the mobile site. The pageview figures back that up—you can check for yourself in the pageviews tab in history to see that each day about 1200 readers get the page in Minerva, and only about 800 in one of the desktop views. ‑ Iridescent17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
OK. I'm very interested in fixing any issues that manifest on particular platforms, but please stop saying that X is what half of readers see and so on. It's not. On my phone (iPhone 7 + Chrome, as noted, but actually I've checked several others' iPhones -- different models and various browsers) none of these things you're exhibiting are present. It looks like you've got an Android, and that Android (or some version of Android, or some version of Android with some browser or browsers) is particularly brain dead on some aspects of web page rendering. I mean, look at your first screenshot above (File:Gage_screenshot_5.jpg, Theoretical misuse) -- how stupid does a browser have to be to run a word down the margin one letter at a time? I notice all your screenshots involve quote boxes, so it seems there's something about quote boxes (as opposed to other floating content e.g. images) that interacts badly with Android. Whether that's the fault of the quote box coding, or of Android, I don't know.
With some fiddling on window width, however, I was able get to get the mobile view to display on my laptop in something like what I see in your File:Gage screenshot 7.jpg. Based on what I saw in that rendering, I made a number of.. shall we say.. heroic formatting changes which may perhaps relieve some of the issues you're seeing (in landscape, at least -- if things are OK in landscape I'm really not worried about portrait). I'd really appreciate your letting me know. I'm very interested in this but unfortunately none of my neighbors has with an Android. EEng17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who knows I have a Google Pixel 3a asked me to take a look at the page for Phineas Gage. As of right now, the page looks OK on my Android until I scroll down to the heading "Chile and Californa (1852-1860) whereupon it looks like some of the ugly pictures in the margin of this talk page. (I took a screenshot, but don't want to deal with the wikipedia red tape to upload it here.) I didn't check for more display weirdness beyond that heading.
Ping Kobnach. Oh, and does it always somehow involve a quote box, as seems the case in all of Iridescent's screenshots seen in this section? Or does it also happy with images when there's no quote box involved? EEng14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a skim-through, in mobile view on the stock Chrome browser (the view seen by most mobile views, given Android's dominance of the smartphone market in English-speaking countries and the general reluctance of most people to use anything other than the stock apps; 70% of desktop views and 60% of mobile views is the usual accepted figure for Chrome):
The word-wrapping problems seem confined to quote boxes (I imagine because the browser handles them differently). It's happening with both left-aligned (e.g. the "Chile and California" section) and right-aligned (e.g. "Theoretical misuse").
Turning the phone sideways so it's in landscape mode solves the "wrapping around quote boxes" issues, but causes a different issue with inline quotations using the {{quote}} template when it's used near images. Because text in the quote template doesn't wrap but is instead constrained in an invisible rectangle defined by other nearby objects, the quotations display as a long narrow strip. This doesn't make the page unreadable, just unsightly, so I wouldn't consider it a major issue, but it's something to be aware of.
While it doesn't cause problems with wrapping, because mobile view generally defaults to showing images centered rather than alongside the text, it makes the display a bit weird, particularly in sections like "life" which include a lot of tall thin images; it to the reader it looks like a long parade of centered images surrounded by whitespace, interspersed with the occasional paragraph of text. (Which brings us back to where I came in; MediaWiki, in both desktop and mobile view, does not like tall thin images).
Because the majority of readers are seeing Shitty Mobile View rather than the desktop site, making the mobile view less unpleasant for readers is something the WMF do take seriously. User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (and possibly User:Isarra) are much better placed than me to talk about what's actually being done to try to address the problems with SMV; I have no input at all into its design and my interaction with it is limited to variations on "if you make a significant change to the layout check it looks OK on the mobile site otherwise you'll have an endless stream of good-faith IPs trying to fix what appears to them as an error". ‑ Iridescent08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well to repeat again, I use Chrome as well but see none of the problems you're getting, probably because I'm in iPhone instead of Android. I'd be thrilled for the article to be used as a vehicle for either improving the way pages are rendered to the browser (including, as with e.g. quote boxes, fixing whatever it is about the way they're coded that causes such phenomena), or for developing recommendations for ways to code pages to avoid or ameliorate these problems, but beyond that I don't know what else I can do. EEng13:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About 40% of page views are on the desktop site. Everything else is either mobile web (~57%, and up during the last few months) or the apps (a couple of percentage points). Because mobile users have a lower number of pages-per-session, that's probably more than 60% of readers.
AFAICT the design team is mostly working on mw:Desktop improvements at the moment, and will pick up general mobile work again later. My bet is that they'll want to settle the transition away from OOUI first. (Anything you see about Vue.js is related to that. OOUI is the thing that brought us the Big Blue Button and "oversized" (fingertip-sized) tick boxes. Vue.js will not take those away.)
The big things are already pretty well known, and they're not things that can be fixed in software. There is no good way to display a 10-column table on a screen that is smaller than a dollar bill/pound note, and the best solution to their display is to not put a bunch of wide tables in articles. {{Episode list}} is on thousands of pages, and will always be hard to read on a smartphone. Fixing that requires redesigning the template, which requires editors who are willing to develop a consensus in favor of legibility and accessibility instead of the way we've always done it. It probably wouldn't be hard to redesign it as a vertical list, but getting the change implemented would require a lot of effort. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WAID is more or less correct (though I might dispute particulars).
We've had some of the technologies (WP:TemplateStyles, and generically our sitewide skinning systems) that would correct the images above for some time. Offending templates probably need someone to show up on the associated talk pages and make a reasonable 'complaint' as to the offensiveness of their display (for example, {{quote box}} could be 100% width for displays less than 500 px). For things like <blockquote>, a task on Phab or adding a rule for a clear above the tag to MediaWiki:Mobile.css/MediaWiki:Minerva.css would be preferable and can be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Common.css or at WP:VPT or on Phabricator. (Aside: Please engage on Phabricator.)
There maybe needs to be a little give and take on some aspects. Should we allow all users to specify a width in all template invocations these days? I'm not sure. I want it "just so" on my display doesn't work for some things like width below a certain resolution, so allowing someone to set width in the template? (Because the alternative is to use !important in the TemplateStyles CSS, and that kills all personal customization you might want in your personal CSS at that point stone-dead due to the order in which MediaWiki adds styling to its output HTML.) There's also some give and take about what browsers can support. For example, I made a change today to a template to add CSS that is only supported for 95% of readers. Should I be responsible for the other 5% having the exact-same display and a beautiful page? I don't know. (I do know that Edkoter prior to his flameout cared about the 99.99% or something dumb like that.) Consider for example what happened when we attempted to fix this exact problem on the main page in February(1) or an earlier attempt in 2018(2).
One thing you can do to find where the messes are more easily is just to use a skin that isn't Vector or Monobook on all platforms you use Wikipedia on, which I think leaves Minerva and Timeless (and Modern but we don't talk about that one anyway). (These skins were not designed to be responsive. When patches were provided recently to make them so, at least one community member objected saying that it would be disruptive, essentially killing that effort.)
Sorry if this Izno beautiful prose. If there's a specific change you want to a template, please feel free to ping me or another of our HTML/CSS/Lua-minded admins or template editors to a template talk page and I can see if I can hack it. --Izno (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the time you took to respond but -- no doubt because of my complete ignorance of all this newfangled interweb stuff -- I'm puzzled by some of what you're saying. Since the vast majority of readers are not logged in, how can the choice of skins come into it? What am I missing?And I simply don't understand why fixing the awful formatting near quote boxes is hard. Why can't they be made to behave exactly like images, which don't manifest these problems? EEng02:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assert(ed) positively, if not clearly, that I think quote boxes can be fixed, but that it just requires some attention to the template in question. (And some discussion about how the template should act at which resolutions, and some discussion about whether users should get to be arbitrary in how they use the templates on specific pages, among concerns of usability for savvy-CSS users.)
Digression: In case it wasn't clear earlier, the reason we couldn't make these fixes before TemplateStyles (which are reasonably new but not really now) is that we did not have access to CSS media queries at a per-template level, so the best we could do was make templates as responsive as possible with inline CSS, or put CSS into the site stylesheets. (The latter is just a bad option for templates which are not widely used enough to accept the associated performance penalties.) For example, with quote box, with inline CSS you can either choose to make it 100% width always or you can make it 100px always, but not both varying on some other factor. Another issue plaguing all web developers is that web browsers have not advanced at the same rate, and even with consistent feature sets do not have a standardized implementation (only the API defined by the CSS specifications), as evidenced by the fact you can't see the problems above with iPhone and Chrome.
how can the choice of skins come into it Well, the 60% on mobile see Minerva, so there is an obvious pro there for using that skin in that you-as-an-editor will [probably] see such issues directly and can know to fix them or alert others. (Of course, Minerva has some harsh cons for editors.) The 40% on desktop see Vector, but if you're on desktop you're probably going to miss these issues because your screen has the resolution for it. You-as-an-editor can choose to use those skins on the other form factor and then you might get a sense of how we haven't adjusted to the mobile world (and should have, it's just the same Not Enough [Knowing] Volunteers problem at the end of the day). I happen to use Timeless, so I bump into broken stuff regularly and just haven't self-motivated to fix it since I know it's not used by the masses. Infoboxes for example will sometimes show the highlighted issues on Timeless, as will quote boxes and some images and sidebars (but not on Minerva, where the skin takes care of it [and probably shouldn't--separation of concerns lines]). --Izno (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think my dim brain is just beginning to grasp -- tell me if this isn't right -- that different platforms select different skins without the user having to log in or indeed do anything. Suddenly a lot makes more sense. So tell me this, in clear terms for my little brain: I'm not committed enough to go switching skins all the time to check things, but if I had to pick one skin to set my preferences too, which would be the best vehicle for me to do the greatest good for the greatest number, what skin would that be? (I use either Windows 10 + Chrome or iPhone 7 + Chrome).As mentioned before, I'm happy for the article to be used as a poster boy for a complex, dense layout that stresses the system, and to participate in experiments in improving things. And with that I think there Inzo need to take up any more of your time at present. EEng03:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Different platforms: Almost. Any mobile domain (that's https://lang'''.m'''.wiki*.org) will provide Minerva and any desktop domain (that's https://lang.wiki*.org) will provide Vector to the user who has not logged in. Minerva is the default skin on mobile even if you are logged in on mobile, though you can force it to your selected skin by moving to the other domain (for which there is a "Desktop" link at the bottom of the page, or you can remove the .m from the address bar).
I think you can best get a sense of what's going on by setting your skin to Minerva or Timeless. The former comes with pain for editors: a lot of the bells and whistles you have scripts for you probably will not be able to access (for example, I can neither use TW nor move a page trivially in Minerva; you will surely see other scripts you use missing). The latter has a little bit of that but more likely will throw you off because it has anywhere from 1 to 3 layouts depending on resolution as well as a fixed-width content display (the fixed-width idea is the same as in Minerva).
If you find you can't get over the chasm of one of those two skins, you can still stick to your current skin and then switch into those by adding ?useskin=minerva or ?useskin=timeless at any time (I use a separate script that keeps me in those skins if I decide I want to leave the page I'm currently on--that's the badly named persistentParams).
There is a corresponding "Mobile" view link at the bottom of the page if you want to flip back and forth.
There is the final option of fixing the content width of your current skin as well (Vector, Modern, Monobook) to some reasonable (or perhaps unreasonable) width, to get the Vector tools with a Minerva-on-desktop feel. --Izno (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying Minerva and Timeless as you suggested and now I'm more confused than ever. Everything looks absolutely awful in those skins on my laptop, whether desktop or mobile is selected; and on my phone, I can't sort out what I'm seeing between which skin I've selected, whether I'm seeing mobile or desktop mode, and of course there's portrait vs. landscape. And I spent a good deal of time, at a number of different articles, trying to get a handle on what selection is causing what. So I'm afraid I'm giving up for now. Here's what I know: <and at this point it appears I fell asleep at the keyboard...> EEng'
I was assuming that was some intentional piece of symbolism and you were meaning to say you knew no more about the subject than when you started. ‑ Iridescent07:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the smoothest I've ever seen someone get the EFM bit, especially given that you don't show up much at the usual boards. Well done! Also, congrats on getting all of your permissions back after Cyberpower's oopsie - I know we can trust you with EFM, but I'm not so sure about 30/500. In case you weren't aware, there's a mailing list that you'll probably want to subscribe to as well. creffett (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Dr.K. disliked the attention and tagged it for deletion under WP:CSD#G6 (only supposed to be for routine housekeeping, not for potentially disputed deletions) with the rationale "This page serves no encyclopedic purpose", and admin Anthony Bradbury somehow agreed both with the rationale and the speedy-deletion criteria. I'm deliberately not linking the user names to avoid them applying the same tag-team tactics to this talk page. But regardless of whether the deletion was a valid application of the speedy rules, it's hard to imagine the list surviving a serious deletion discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Yeah, G6 is definitely a stretch there... I was amused to discover there’s a User:Iridescence who predates their more famous near-namesake, although they’re not around much these days so limited confusion is liable to arise. P-K3 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it was odd that Dr. K nominated it, and very odd that it actually got deleted, it seems to have been a misunderstanding -- see my link near the top of this thread. David, I really did mean to create a helpful way for people to sort out vaguely remembered colleagues with confusing names. Why do you think it wouldn't survive a deletion discussion? Seems to me it has at least as much encyclopedic purpose as Wikipedia:Queen_Elizabeth_slipped_majestically_into_the_water. EEng01:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because in the stubby form in which it was nominated it could easily be misinterpreted as intended only to make fun of some editors' names, and that's the way I'd expect a discussion to take it, regardless of protestations to the contrary. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, it was only a day old; I was going to add some text to explain the function. But I'm not worried about someone's overzealousness. Can I create a new list, with explanation, to help people like me remember that JzG who is Guy isn't that other Guy and so on? EEng14:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wearing my "performer of 13,000+ deletions" hat rather than the "person who thinks Wikipedia typically takes both process and 'I feel offended by this obviously inoffensive comment' complaints way too seriously" hat, the best thing to do would be to create it in your own userspace, and make it very clear (in a sincere way, not in a snidey "if you're offended it's because you don't get the joke" way) that it's a genuine attempt to address an issue and not an attempt either to make fun of other people's usernames nor to sneer at people who aren't wiki-insiders and as a consequence aren't aware that Outriggr isn't a secondary account of Riggr Mortis. If and when it's ready to move to WP:-space, do so under a neutral title.
(It's spelled Berserkeley, actually.) I'm honestly astounded that anyone could have interpreted that list as anything but what it was -- an aid for the perplexed -- but go figure. As it happens I grew up in Berkeley in the 60s and 70s (and don't get me wrong, I'm proud to have been part of that [125][126][127][128]) so I can handle myself with those types. But so that we may prepare for the battles ahead, can you diff a few instances of the behavior you desribe (unless, of course, you're confusing me with this EEmg)?By the way, the essential argument isn't Perhaps you have an impaired sense of humor (though I do sometimes use that as a shorthand) but rather Your idea of what's amusing, whatever that happens to be, isn't binding on the rest of us. EEng20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC) (And if you are in a position to answer my last query about Android formatting at #Shoehorning, I'd appreciate that too.)[reply]
You seriously need diffs to illustrate you have a reputation—whether deserved or not—as someone who acts like a dick and then plays the "it was all a joke, you just have an impaired sense of humor if you don't find it funny" defense? Whether or not your critics are right to think so, a sizeable chunk of your talkpage history consists of variations upon "I get that you're trying to be lighten the tone but please ease off, out of context it just looks like bullying particularly to newer editors and people unfamiliar with Wikipedia's internal culture". (I'm not going to spend my time wading through histories but I'm fairly sure that on at least one occasion I've made that very comment to you, possibly even with that exact wording.) I'll check the shoehorning issue now. ‑ Iridescent08:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I confuse people all the time, but not because of my name. (Actually I confuse people because of my name a fair amount, too.) --JBL (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually clicked because without my glasses I thought it said Holden Chapel, but since it's you'll I'll give it a go. I usually make little edits that are easily reverted, so feel free. I'm not proud. EEng23:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. Grew up in 70s Ireland when grammer and fancy English things were not a priority, so dont know the rules; help appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just taking a break to ask if you found what I'd done copacetic. I'll continue after a talk with me old mum, and maybe a movie with my boyfriend. OK, maybe it will be tomorrow. My aim is generally to simply re-express what's there, though now and then I'll cut a bit of detail; I try to do that in standalone edits so you can restore if you want. Let me know if you see any problems. EEng01:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I knew...too many words, which is why asked for review...you are trimming without losing too much colour (I do like my colour, but cutting rept is ok). V happy so far, go talk your aould wan. Ceoil (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't want to lose the color; it's the fat that we seek to excise. (Yuck.) But concise writing takes work, and few can do it. As Mark Twain (or Benjamin Franklin, or someone) said, "I apologize that this letter is so long. I did not have time to write a shorter one."Mom's all squared away, as is dad. They've been divorced 40 years but they live next door to each other; it's very convenient. EEng04:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article I wrote after running into the story in the course of other research. It's rare that I get an opportunity to link so I couldn't let it pass. EEng18:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit sensitive about my ability to spel in English, not something I ever got the hang of, though by better half was a queen bee back in the day. Maybe I lucked out. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you probably know I take 'em where I find 'em, and it's all in the spirit of fun. I'd say that in this case it's your typing more than your spelling. I'll get back to the article today or tomorrow. It's longer than I'd realized. EEng22:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy with the progress from this side. Might have to invest in a barnstar or something. Hugely appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whew indeed. Brilliant man. Thank you so much, the page is drastically improved. I owe you three Guinness', at least!!! Sound as a pound. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, people change as they grow older; I know I have stayed closed to g/f was with for 8 years...the spark had gone but still care. Its not easy man, but have met the love of my life since. My point is I really respect couples that part on good terms.
Re words, am aware of "elegant variation", which I think is where I think we first met, but damn it, cant escape the gravitational pull. Which why have called in heavies like you. Ceoil (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your changing it back again
I'm leaving the office right now to go out for 4-5 hours and don't have time to edit Wiki more at the moment, but we can't reword that sentence to imply that Floyd died because Chauvin put his knee on his neck. See a quick explanation here after another editor made a similar edit: User_talk:AzureCitizen#George_Floyd's_lede_rollback. Please consider reverting it for those reasons. I'll circle back later to take up the conversation further if need be, I'm just literally walking at the door at the moment... regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you juxtapose two facts like that the implication is there whether you make an explicit connection or not. But I've reworded. EEng16:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the re-wording, that works. Yep, I agree that even when split into two sentences, there's some implied connection there. When the RM on changing the name from "Death of..." to "Killing off..." closed the other day, some editors started changing the very front of the lead from "X died..." to "X was killed by Y....", and breaking the sentence in two was the quickest remedy. Now that you've changed it back to "died," I hope it sticks. Amazingcaptain was exceedingly polite about it, but passions are running very high on this topic for others. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing "46-year-old" with "middle-aged" in George Floyd article's lede
Hi,
Do you think we can replace "46-year-old black man" with "middle-aged black man" as 46 year old would take away a reader's attention? The sentence is kinda long and we can remove some facts from there. Moreover, I was also going to remove the MPD fact. :) --Amazingcaptain (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's going overboard. There's a reason that old-school news stories always give the ages of persons reported on if possible: "Police said that John Smith, 18, snatched the purse of Mary Mitchell, 82..." There's nothing like a person's age to give you a gigantic amount of information about them in a tiny space; right away you're able to begin forming an image. Gender is comparable, but of course you almost always get that for free from names and pronouns so it's not an issue. So I'd absolutely leave it. EEng18:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just... can't stop staring at the pageview graph of Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators. So many questions come to mind. and also that picture should garner more accolades imo --Mvbaron (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the picture at right depicting such a dilator? It seems somewhat... aggressive, and I'm worried about the purpose of the serrated-teeth structures of the lower part. --A D Monroe III(talk)01:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amended Complaint: "The officers made several attempts to get Mr. Floyd in the backseat of their squad car by pushing him from the driver's side. As the officers were trying to force Mr. Floyd in the backseat, Mr. Floyd repeatedly said that he could not breathe. Mr. Floyd did not voluntarily sit in the backseat and the officers physically struggled to try to get him in the backseat. The defendant went to the passenger side and tried to get Mr. Floyd into the car from that side and Lane and Kueng assisted. The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed."
LA Times: "Chauvin and Thao soon arrived, and all four officers made 'several attempts to get Floyd in the back seat of their squad car by pushing him.' Chauvin pulled Floyd out of the squad car and Floyd went to the ground face-down, still handcuffed."
USA Today: "The officers attempted to get Floyd into a patrol car, while Floyd said he couldn't breathe. Chauvin and Kueng tried to get Floyd into the car from the passenger seat while the other officers tried pushing him from the driver's side, according to court documents. When that didn't work, Chauvin pulled Floyd out of the passenger side of the car and Floyd 'went to the ground face down and still handcuffed,' the complaint said."
When putting him in the car didn't work, they took him out of the car. Makes sense.
The Old Grey Lady just skips it altogether: "As they tried to walk Mr. Floyd to their squad car, he stiffened up and fell to the ground. Mr. Floyd told them he was not resisting arrest but was claustrophobic and did not want to get in the back seat of the car, according to the arrest affidavit. Soon, Mr. Chauvin showed up, with Mr. Thao at his side. Mr. Chauvin quickly took charge. Cellphone video showed that Mr. Chauvin placed his left knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck. Mr. Lane held Mr. Floyd’s legs, and Mr. Kueng held his back. Mr. Thao stood between the officers and onlookers, according to charging documents."
I'm not sure whether the above is meant to be an action item for me. I've been meaning to say: great work on straightening out the chronology. EEng23:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For talk page watchers, this thread is about Killing of George Floyd. That article and the many related articles (e.g., George Floyd protests) have proposals where consensus is as-yet unclear, and it would be very helpful if more editors would register their opinions to help move us towards consensus (regardless of what those opinions are). Thanks. This public service announcement brought to you by Levivich[dubious – discuss]00:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Engvar and MOS
Hi, I'd always assumed AmEng was used in MOS, simply because it was the first to appear when the page was initially under construction. Tony(talk)05:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you see, MOS (and therefore MOS:ARTCON) doesn't apply to MOS, indeed doesn't apply to anything outside article space. (Exception: ACCESSIBILITY, though nominally a MOS subpage, applies everywhere.) It's probably a good idea that each individual essay or policy be self-consistent, but MOS is so sprawling that's probably impossible anyway, and its internal variety is a fun reminder of the Wikipedia salad bowl. EEng13:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it me, or does "Engvar and Mos" sound like an early 20th century detective drama series? "I say, Engvar old chap, bit of a sticky wicket over here." "Yes, I can see what happened there Mos, bit of a top-ho there." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Just re. Talk:Killing of George Floyd#Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020. I was originally planning to open up an RfC for this anyway, simply due to the lack of consistency, then you mentioned you'd be interested in making it in your recent response and I think it'd be better if you made it.
I wanted to mention two points which I hope you'll take into account when drafting:
Although I'm fine with "US" on this page in the meantime, for the purpose of an RfC I think I'd prefer better consistency. You mentioned your preference for "US" rather than "United States". One point I get raised here is the ignorance of English-speakers (Americans, Brits) in not really learning a second language, unlike much of the rest of the world. I don't think there should be a special exemption to allow "United States" to be abbreviated. It's a weak point, but I feel it creates a slippery slope. You could also allow exemptions for more well-known abbreviations (like "UK", "USSR"), but then you end up with questionable ones like "UAE", "HK", "NZ", "AUS"). There's also the point that what abbreviations we think are easily recognisable may not apply across all readers -- on that note, this is why I think "New York City" should also be "New York City, US" -- we don't know what terms are recognisable to which readers, and the additional 2 characters isn't really wasting infobox space. Although most probably know California and NYC are in the US, London in the UK, Paris in France, I don't think there's any reason to assume and omit.
I recognise your point about infobox space and practicalities, so hopefully you can consider this point and come up with a working solution, and/or provide options in the RfC. Whatever the outcome is, I don't think it should be a per-article decision, for the sake of consistency and preventing pointless debate -- I can't think of any reasons why this should differ in the infobox from article to article. And I'm aware I used "US" in my above bullet - it does appear cleaner there. I have no clue which guidance should be adopted in which cases. Unless a well-reasoned policy can be made, it's probably better to leave it to each article, I suppose.
Non-infobox text should not be included in the policy. I think WP:GUIDANCE accurately sums up why I think that should be left a per-article decision. Some articles deserve context of country, like George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom. Others less-so.
Just my POV. Hope you can consider the points and come up with a working solution. If you do go ahead and make the RfC, please let me know.
Finally, regarding: I'd prefer United States personally – At least between now and the presidential inauguration I'd prefer anywhere but the United States, so if you'd like to make a seven-month house swap I'm game. I'd like to retract such implication, though I appreciate the offer. We have plenty of problems on this side of the pond, but at least civilians don't get tear gassed by the government for a photo op. I like to enjoy my morning stroll gas-free :D ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I said I'd initiate a initiate a proposal for a MOS change "when things die down", that means not days from now and probably not weeks from now, but months. Getting something like this changed, if it can be changed, is WAY more complicated than just posting an RfC. As I've rubbed in your face already, I've been around the block a few times, and I know how hard this will be. Just posting an RfC out of the blue is certain to fail. The first task is to quietly discuss with the opinion-making MOS elite. That alone will take quite some time and right now, as you can appreciate, Floyd matters are absorbing most of the time and energy I can devote to WP. After allowing 24 hours to elapse for comment I anticipate no problems in installing this change on the Floyd articles, but a project-wide change will have to wait. Ping me in a month and if the spirit moves me and the stars appear auspicious, we can get started. EEng15:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Countries in infobox
Hey. You mentioned that there was a conversation on this in archives, but we didn't find it the last time. Just wanted to let you know that I did finally find it, it was in WT:NCGN, here, in case you're interested. The discussion was prompted by one editor mass-removing "US" from infoboxes due to their interpretation of WP:USPLACE. Only that mass-removing editor appeared to be in support of this interpretation. The conclusion seems to be that it makes sense to include, for the same reasons I argued, and implicit consensus for inclusion was shown by analysing a diverse range of GAs/FAs (after the infobox subheading). Just thought you'd be interested. And letting you know that, uh, I've affixed this great achievement to my personal Wikipedia CV. three weeks and 1200 edits' worth of experience -> EEng, per usual, is correct is a mighty achievement I must say ;p (friendly banter disclaimer) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see by what's going on at WT:MOS#Removal_of_"UK"_from_location_field_in_infoboxes there's something about this topic that makes editors act like cats in a bag, so you'll understand my warning that this wouldn't be easy. The discussion you link notwithstanding (though it helps), what would be needed to put this issue to rest once and for all is a new discussion (probably RfC, eventually) preceded by getting MOS elites on board first. EEng14:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see what you meant now. esp re. all the little nuances applicable to each country. Must say, it is surprising to me that this hasn't been hashed out and standardised by now, given it has been so many years since the project began (indeed, a decade after the discussion I linked).
I don't feel that UK discussion is going to lead to the standardised guideline I hope for. Doesn't look like anyone is close to changing their minds on the issue. Just as an example from that discussion, plenty of people would oppose to standardising omission of 'Scotland' in favour of UK, while others (like myself) would oppose having both (eg "Edinburgh, Scotland, UK"), as well as solely having Scotland. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee?
I suppose it's possible, but my username is based on a typo I commonly make. The V isn't even important, except after I sent that very first email I realized it would distinguish me from all the other chimpanzees. Except I was writing to one, not from one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: My mistake, allow me to clarify. Fuzheado has so far ignored mine and Bagumba's comment. I view their reopen of discussion as "meh", but their reversion of the move as unjust, as no one has ever supported the current article title on the talk page, and it's out-WP:MOS in many ways. So, I'm asking you, as one of the most experienced editors,[注 1] to weigh in on what I should do next. I think that discussion being reopened and the move are separate issues from perspective of WP:IAR. But I need outside opinion, and help. I believe we're doing a disservice to readers by leaving it at this title in the face of clear WP:consensus, regardless of state of discussion. But, I can easily be wrong, and I remember: nothing is "urgent",[注 2] there is WP:NODEADLINE, WP:CCC. So, is this worth a protracted debate over, or should I just "take the L" as the kids say? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!19:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing my bot's misplaced notice from Talk:8′46″ – I'm in process of debugging that now. If you're interested in the gory details, see this.
Oh, and my quick opinion of the above is that WP:SNOW never falls in controversial topic areas. Let the discussion run for a full week. wbm1058 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: I think you're conflating the issue of the close reversal with the page move itself. As stated...I view their reopen of discussion as "meh", but their reversion of the move as unjust. I don't think it's a big problem to have it on a "second best" title for a week, given the popularity of the page, and then, if by some miracle of procedure, another name, like 8m46s, wins the day, we go with that. Having it on a title everyone thinks is bad for a week, probably the week of the article's life where it will be most read, seems strange to me. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!20:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't know from close reviews and so on, but I've made a post at the article talk which I hope will move things forward. If things go as planned I think there will be clear consensus very quickly. Since this is really just about typography (sort of) and not the usual arguments like Peking vs Beijing and that sort of thing, maybe we can act on the consensus without waiting a week, if that consensus is clear enough. EEng20:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Psiĥedelisto, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "everyone" thinks the current title is bad. Seems like an acceptable title to me. Perhaps not the best title (opinions vary on that, it's why we have discussions) but not bad... 8'48" would be an actually bad title.
Reviewing the page move history:
at 19:15, 2 June 2020 Fuzheado created page 8'46" (start)
at 06:27, 13 June 2020 Psiĥedelisto moved page 8′46″ to 8 minutes 46 seconds (Moved per requested move on talk page. Non-admin closing early due to clear consensus. (WP:SNOW))
at 15:44, 13 June 2020 Fuzheado moved page 8 minutes and 46 seconds to 8′46″ (improper SNOW CLOSE, no consensus, and early close - undoing move until proper procedure followed)
So your "snow" move lasted all of seven minutes before someone else decided that it was a "technical" matter that the title should include "and" between the minutes and seconds. The whole point of "requested moves" is to avoid such frequent, disruptive page moving. The original title, or the close variant of that, lasted a full week before the RM was opened, so it is not at all clear that it's such a bad title that it must be moved immediately. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is absolutely an inappropriate title. 4′33″ is called that because that is literally -- those very characters -- the name of the musical composition the article discusses. Not so here. EEng21:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng and Wbm1058: Wow! You're telling me this title was chosen by Fuzheado? And this same editor ignored my comment and that of another admin on the talk page, and has made no arguments as to why their preferred title fits the WP:MOS? So, in sum—Fuzheado is not an uninvolved admin? I never would have even considered it possible. I assumed some new editor chose this obviously incorrect title. Stunning—now, finally, what's gone on here makes sense. To (incorrectly, in my view) use procedural minutiæ to keep an obviously incorrect title on the page for seven days because some editors dissented to another title. And let's note that Fuzheado did not attempt to defend their title in the thread at all, against the multiple editors assailing it. Curly quotes are not allowed. Minutes and seconds are not to be marked even with straight quotes. So, yeah, I definitely don't think I got out of your post what you were hoping I would. Or is the argument that Fuzheado has all the time in the world to undo closed requested moves in which they are heavily involved as the main party!, but none to discuss on the talk page why they are correct per the MOS? They need seven days to formulate their killer argument as to why curly quotes are allowed, and quotes should be used for minutes and seconds, on one of the most read pages on the site right now. This revelation is too much for me, I can't believe it. Is this a cause of action for WP:AN/I? I suppose it is, yes, if they continue ignoring pings? So, let's try this one, and I'll also invite them here on their talk page. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!23:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gather there's some grievance over the history of the moves of this article, but I'm sorry, I don't know anything about that and I'd be lying if I said I could invest the energy needed to come up to speed. I put a chunk of time into moving the discussion towards resolution, and that's going to be my contribution. Sorry if you expected more from me. I disappoint people on a regular basis. EEng23:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Nice job editing the Atlanta shooting page. You are making it better. A couple of comments. 1. I think there are two investigations. The header you edited is in the singular, though. 2. Why is internet inlined here ... isnt that an overlink? Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:644A:43B5:4DD3:1CF3 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was going to unlink internet but got distracted. If someone reading Wikipedia doesn't know what the internet is, they'll need more than a link. EEng01:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree that it seems like the only thing that should have changed is the colors, but the fact is that everything was neatly well-formatted before, and afterwards there's all kinds of strange whitespace in the College section. (This is all on my platform, of course.) EEng15:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the changes (with your assertion: "everything was neatly well-formatted before", which seems to be an opinion rather than a fact, apart of being unpolite towards me), you can go back to the previous edit or add the colors yourself. It's your decission. I already gave you the proof in that link. Clear enough, I guess. Don't blame for things I never did. End of discussion for me. - Fma12 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. Your link doesn't show what things looked like before your edit; this one [134] does, and this one shows things after your edit [135]. You added some code which you think does some particular things, but which apparently has side effects you don't understand. I'm telling you, and you're going to need to believe me even if you don't see it on your platform, that it did mess up the layout (on a typical-sized laptop running Chrome on Windows 10) by introducing a lot of half-full lines in the College section that aren't there in the version just before your edit; that's not an "opinion". Since I have every reason to believe that your intention really is to improve things, and we're always learning and improving our skills as editors, I thought you might be interested to figure out why this was happening in this case so that it won't happen again, especially since it appears you're making similar changes to other templates/articles; perhaps what I'm saying will ring a bell, and you'll have an insight into what's going wrong.Or, as seems to be the case, you can interpret my communication as some sort of attack and just press on making mindless changes you apparently don't fully understand without caring whether they improve things or not. As you say, it's your decision. EEng16:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On my platform as well, I must say the template as much worse after the changes, with many misalignments, looking very amateurish overall. The colors themselves (the intent of the change) are now ugly and intrusive, when before they were subtle and helpful. --A D Monroe III(talk)03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your support, surely you don't mean to call Harvard's beautiful crimson ugly and intrusive. (But count your blessings: it narrowly missed being magenta [136].) EEng03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the humor in that reply, for those that don't (there's always someone), I'll point out that my ugly and intrusive comment meant using that color scheme for text. Bold, even glorious colors tend to make reading the text annoyingly difficult. --A D Monroe III(talk)19:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least Harvard knows what its color is. One of my almae matres can't seem to figure out whether it's Pantone 290 or 292. Anyway, I think using crimson for the navbox header but not for the interior parts is a reasonable compromise, both because of the formatting issues and for readability of the content. I'm curious why coloring some of the list entries makes the formatting go wonky, but not curious enough to make any serious efforts to debug it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... such as this? I know they're a repetitive pain in the ass and that cases like this one should be rightly laughed off, but still if you're taking the time deal with it also add/change the answered=yes parameter so it doesn't pollute the ER request queue, which is full enough as is. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about the queue thing. I should have changed it to Answered and then immediately archived.Ya' know, there ought to be a way to set some parameter, on a highly active talk page like that one, to cause ERs submitted on that page to not be enqueued, on the assumption that the page is so active that ERs can be handled locally. Or maybe, as a backstop, with the parameter set ERs won't be enqueued unless they go unanswered for X days. I recognize this would probably be more trouble than it's worth, but you see my point. EEng03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resisting arrest
Resisting arrest typically happens before the arrest - they're not escaping arrest, they're resisting BEING ARRESTED. It goes "reasonable suspicion" to "detained" to "probable cause" to "arrested.
As of the phrase
All right, I think you've had too much to drink to be driving. Put your hands behind your back for me
He was "detained" Anything that happens between "detained" and arrest would be legally known as "resisting arrest". I'm putting that part back.
@EEng: - Good catch though, we should take the time to get this right.
While I appreciate your taking the time to contact me, we editors are not in a position to make such determinations, regardless of our experience or expertise. What the sources say is that Brooks tried to break free, wrestled, struggled, tussled, scuffled, and so on. I don't see any reliable sources stating, as fact, that he was resisting arrest. EEng23:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: You are entirely right (and I hadn't thought of it) that I should not interpret. I plead guilty. :) That said, there are news sources using the term "resisting arrest.
The CBS piece just quotes unnamed "officials" and "police said" the day after the incident. That leaves the LA Times. I'd be interested to see the whole paragraph, but honestly given the intensity of interest in this case you'd expect numerous sources for something like this. (That's true for everything in the article, and a serious problem we have is that's it's chock-full of low-quality local news/breaking news sources when, at this point, much better sources are available.) Please drop by the museums. EEng03:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The former Atlanta police officer who shot Rayshard Brooks in the back after he resisted arrest and ran off outside a Wendy’s fast-food restaurant will be charged with felony murder, according to a Georgia district attorney." Levivich[dubious – discuss]05:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I screwed up on the talk page of "Killing of Rayshard Brooks" and in doing so, I confused you and all the other editors who are all working hard on that article. I have made corrections, but I want you to know I am very sorry for my screw up & hope it didn't waste too much of your time. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My normal level of confusion is so high that I doubt you could do anything to add to it in any significant way. You draft is very good -- a big improvement. Please keep helping out. EEng21:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think these new userboxes I made fit your aesthetic
À
This user supports utilisation gratuite, c'est-à-dire, gratuitous use of French.
Ç
Æ
In re gratuitous use of Latin, ego sum in favorem funditus; viz., I am 100% in favor.
So considering that our dear leader has recently taken to using the term "Kung flu" to describe the pandemic, are we to suppose—see above—this is a case of great minds thinking alike, or is he reading this page? For my money "moo goo gai pandemic" would have been the smarter choice. Paul August☎21:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, everyone, I've been happy to host this discussion over the past days, but I think it's better if it continues in a more conventional setting, so I've moved it to WT:MOS#WP:ERA,_MOS:STYLERET,_MOS:RETAIN. (ERA is really part of MOSNUM but I think this is a more global issue, intersecting as it does ENGVAR and STYLERET.) (signed) Your host, EEng21:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's in bad taste, but now's probably not the best time. Also (#1) we'd have to get it to GA. Also (#2) I haven't participated and haven't read the arguments so far, but offhand my inclination is that it should be merged to ... somewhere. EEng03:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no bet. Also, on reflection there will be some small % of editors who will accuse us of trying to minimize what Chauvin did. EEng22:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brooks
Friendly feedback, this is an unfortunate choice of place to take a stand even if you are within the letter of WP:TALK. Visual jokes on the talk page of an article about a recent homicide are crass at best, and based on your extensive record of carefully considered editing I am optimistic that you will step back and re-assess. VQuakr (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your taking the time to drop by. I am not taking a stand, though I suppose Bus Stop may choose to – we shall see. Maybe some people can edit on topics laying bare the worst humanity has to offer, day in and day out, without a laugh break, but I'm not one of those stoics. I'll note that I am regularly thanked for these little gestures – and not just by the disreputable rabble who hang out here on this wretched hive of scum and villainy – so I'm afraid I'll take those thanks over the complaints of Mrs. Grundy.BTW anyone who didn't like that joke most certainly won't like [138]. EEng00:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng is contributing to the talk page in EEng's usual style. If you don't like the contribution, you can either comment to say so in the discussion, or just ignore it. One of those two options takes no effort and doesn't waste other editors' time. --A D Monroe III(talk)00:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Harvey Oswald inclusion in Far-left terrorist category
You mentioned in the revert comments that you would like a source for this claim. Are you wanting a source to say that he was a terrorist for killing the president of the USA? Or a source that says he was an american Marxist & communist?Dig deepertalk02:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its penetrating investigations are complemented by in-depth reporting. Harvard's catalog adds candidly – AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP – Frequency note: Irregular[139]. EEng14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of few things as pathetic as being kicked out of Wikipedia, and then writing about Wikipedia from the outside. What a sad, meaningless existence one must live to have time for that. I hope TDA is at least getting paid for this.
I'm not gonna lie that I think it would be hilarious to get them to print something Sokal-esque, outing EEng as...I dunno...a paid agent of the Wyoming government or something. Whatever is silly enough to be obvious nonsense but serious enough to get published. GMGtalk18:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Do you mean you've not yet been mentioned in a source? I once apparently reverted a senior advisor to the president. You gotta step up your game. GMGtalk00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see that you've been given a hard time offsite regarding your recent editing on a high-profile article.
However, I do have to agree with other editors above that the images you added to the talkpage discussion there are inappropriate to the serious context of that discussion, to such a degree that I have removed them. As I did once before, and as others did above, I'll suggest that these humorous interpolations be reserved for contexts to which they aren't jarringly unsuited in tone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen that one. I'm actually working on an article at the moment, so I'll leave it to others to deal with the crop crap. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unrelated to the above ... I was planning to move this page, after the MfD closed as Keep, from "Editors who may be confused" to "Editors whose usernames may be confused." I think that's a better title for the page, and likely to avoid, um, confusion, since the reference is to mix-ups of usernames and not people's addled mental states. After having posted the above, I decided it would be too much for me to make that change unilaterally and maybe look like I'm quashing another joke, so I'll just leave the idea here instead. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't think it's allowed for me to reply at JMF's talk page. Even PermaLink/966748849 was ill advised, I do believe...the rev. I'm talking about is PermaLink/966741182. As far as deleting the thread, I do respect your advice, really, and under other circumstances I'd take it, but it's been nothing but attacks and misrepresentations from JMF, in my view. Trolls email me little manmultiple times a day in retaliation for my activism against QAnon/8chan, which I haven't even done too much of lately, yet the emails keep coming. It's one of my ignored phrases on Twitter, along with little boy. I want there to be a record he said this, and an admin read it, and decided it contravened WP:CRD. I don't want it swept under the rug, because if he's willing to say this to me, who knows what other slur he's willing to call another editor who upsets him. This can't be worked out without an apology from him, and even then I'm going to avoid interaction as much as possible. It's really upset me. Wikipedia is something of a safe space for me, free of the personal attacks I suffer everywhere else online, and it's been violated. If that sounds overly SJW to you, or millenial, or leftist, or whatever, I'm sorry, but I'm not in a good place mentally right now after, well, what is mentioned at the end of my article, about me leaving the Philippines, my home of six years. I was diagnosed with major depression probably due to an adjustment disorder as it happened in February and many days all I manage to do is edit this site, and on days I don't, I do nothing or next to it. This is on top of WP:ASPERGERS, diagnosed since age 15, and OCD, which I'm not on anything for as I don't like any of the options and my obsessions don't bother me. Sorry to bombard you with info you probably don't care about, I just want you to know where I'm coming from. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!00:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm really sorry this is all happening. Look, can you just take my advice (i.e. delete your post at ANI) just temporarily? Let me see what I can do because – again – ANI should be your last resort. If I fail you can always repost at ANI. EEng00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John Maynard Friedman ANI clsing summary
Well said. I appreciate the positive efforts you've made toward resolving that incident. You certainly make my job as admin an easier one. So, thank you, EEng. Keep doing good. El_C12:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too used to it. My parole officer says that put the final touch on my community service hours so as soon as the ankle bracelet's off I'll be back to my usual appalling self. EEng14:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, since I don't want you to regret your kind words, I want to be sure you understand that...
OK, this [145] was not sincerely meant, though it had a message. (The implication that the things he wrote at ANI were somehow P's fault was the last straw.)
The lesson? I really am the nicest guy in the world, just like you thought, and willing to go to some length to help my fellow editors, but there's a certain kind of IDHT that gets my Irish up. (I must say these partial blocks do save a lot of drama.) EEng15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: Buried in this rambling post [146] is a point I've made before, which is that I've never understood why we go to the trouble of redacting PAs and legal threats and so on. I think it's better to just collapse or strike them; otherwise others are left to guess what's in them, and newbies can't learn from them. EEng15:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revdelete Vanisaac's comment. It remains in the permanent revisions for all to see. Sorry to see that Bison-X continues to be unhelpful by personally attacking you. I have warned them against continuing to do so. El_C16:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but even without revdel someone has to dig a bit to find what was said, so instead they imagine things; not a big deal but, as I said, I've always thought keeping things out in the sunshine is best. As for me, well, as someone once said [147], EEng who, and I'm fairly confident that he would agree with me on this, seems pretty much flameproof, and who is quite capable of breathing hilarious-but-scorching flame himself when the need arises. [148]. So while I appreciate the sentiment there are others who need the defense more, and anyway I don't think any advice you give BX is going to sink in. EEng17:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My advise remains: to have some decorum to context. I try to view things from the viewpoint of the victim when there's victimization. Anyway, no further admin intervention is needed at this time, so I don't feel obliged to keep going on about this with them. Otherwise, they are free to bring to review anything they see fit at any time. El_C17:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the purpose of such a surgical block is to reduce drama, and imposing such a block silently achieves that very nicely, I think. The blocked editor finds out about the block in due course if need be, and if they object they can contact the blocking admin directly – unlike with a normal block, which restricts the editor to their own talk page. (If policy doesn't actually allow such silent blocks it should, I think.) EEng05:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you agree that the block reduced drama but in retrospect I handled notification badly for this. For what it's worth and I'm sure you know already, I blocked you because you were interrupting a discussion which otherwise looked to be quickly heading for resolution among the offended parties, and while I'm sure you meant to help, their reactions to your comments should have shown you were not; I blocked when you started commenting what looked to me like parting shots. My apologies for not saying so then; I should also have said so in the discussion: clearly everyone else wasn't aware because they kept asking you to leave when you couldn't reply. Honestly I had not interpreted that the policy requires a notification, I spend most of my blocks on sockpuppets who as a rule I don't notify. Thanks to you both for the reminder. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Partial blocks are still new. We are in uncharted realms. Norms of decorum (that was for you, EEng) are, at this time, poorly-codified. What may seem intuitive may clash with the longstanding block policy. Still, editors in good standing deserve a notification with any sanction whatsoever, I think. Not that this is a big deal. It isn't. For my part, I welcome the input and intervention of other admins to this incident. El_C15:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skip the drama
Hey, I saw your comment. I like the approach of directly being able to communicate with admins. Sometimes, I feel that someone is breaking a policy but I'm not sure and putting something on WP:ANI is definitely very accusatory (as if you know for sure they're bad). What kinda things did you mean by "skip the drama"? I'm curious to know your thoughts! VRtalk18:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean any time you think you can get done what needs doing by contacting an individual admin, you should try that. ANI is perhaps the most-watched page on the project, and every thread opened siphons off a huge amount of editor energy just from people reading it. EEng19:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's clearly something very weird going on, with Lea Luboshutz, Russian violinist, being the #5 most-watched page, barely edged out by Draft:Lea Luboshutz. And the main page, which is #1, actually never changes, being nothing but transclusions of other pages which host the actual content. EEng20:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you care, the explanation is fairly uninteresting. Someone who'd been here long enough to know better moved WP:Sandbox to Draft:Lea Luboshutz, taking all its watchers with it. Those people who are genuinely watching it will have unwatched Luboshutz as soon as the edits started showing up on their watchlist, but 99% of the Sandbox's watchers are zombie accounts who checked "add all pages I edit to my watchlist" when they set up their original preferences and subsequently made a test edit to the sandbox, and never edited again so it remains on their watchlist. (At the time of writing, the sandbox has 19,069 'watchers', only 733 of whom are actually active.)
The reason Main Page has so many watchers is simple; while the MP itself never changes, Talk:Main Page is one of the most active talkpages on the project and because of the way Mediawiki handles watchlisting, the two come as a package deal. ‑ Iridescent17:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. I must say that seems a bit subtle for general use. Don't you think it could lead to accusations of misquotation? EEng03:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd use it when someone misstated something. "You quoted the source as saying x, but what it actually says is "xyz", which is not the same." Of course I'll never remember the code or where to find it, and I'll be too lazy to go hunting. But I could see the usefulness. —valereee (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense (the part about using it for when someone misstates something, not that part about you being lazy). EEng16:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted you have recently devoted time and focus to the Jeremy Bamber articles, EEng. I have several printed sources, and can delve. If you need any sections expanding or facts citing, let me know. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Of course I wouldn't dream of doing anything substantive on White House without you, but first ... remember Moors Murders? There are (literally) 20 books on my shelf that have been waiting a year for me to get back to that. It'll be a big job, and you're gonna need to contribute too! I thought the pandemic would be a perfect opportunity to get deep into that, but turns out there's a lot of things needing doing during a pandemic if you really look for them. But I'm committed to following through on Moors.So for now, on White House I'm just trying to clear out the underbrush. It's impossible to read, much less comprehend, because of the haphazard organization, the jumping around in time, and the tone/overdetail problems. But, again, getting into real substance will have to wait until Moors is put to bed. (Actually, two things have already come up you might be able to address: (1) there's a confused paragraph on the parents' estates -- see the {explain} templates; (2) search the word grandmother -- which grandmother disowned him?) EEng04:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well *coughs* (non-COVID-19) the firm I work for is considered an essential public service, EEng, so I had and have to work through the pandemic (not that I get public applause). I actually don't have this article on my watchlist, but may add it back. Just read sections and noted you were devoting focus. As for the Moors Murders article, it seems to have stagnated, I'll delve into that again going forward. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've read and annotated two or three of the main works on the Moors case, but there are several more to go before I can even begin to take stock. Somewhere we (you and me and Levivich and several others) did talk about a general plan for things that needed to be done; the one I remember in particular is the article completely fails to address social impact of the case. All in good time. EEng23:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
June Bamber was the daughter of Leslie and Mabel Speakman. They had two daughters, but no son. Pamela married Robert Boutflour in '47; June Nevill Bamber in 1949. Therefore, as both married farmers themselves, the family wealth and property was to be bequeathed (I believe) between their daughters' families. The will was changed with David(?) Boutflour's encouragement in September of '85, with Jeremy Bamber removed as a beneficiary. This link may be of interest. --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. As you can see the same kind of ownership impulses are bubbling to the surface as those which caused so much trouble on Moors, so batten down the hatches. EEng02:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think I receive the nautical direction. Aft it is. On top, though, I have to add that greater emphasis needs to be added to the "Jeremy innocent" advocates' claims.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may very well be right about emphasis problem; the problem is that, as it stands, it's impossible to absorb what the article currently contains -- much less evaluate it for balance -- because of its constant jumping around.From what you say you seem to be ready to give special attention to the hatches aft, which is good because we don't want any aft holes getting in the way of whipping this article into something like readable shape. EEng02:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I devote focus on one article at a time, typically, as I am sure you know. I'm more than wiling to devote focus upon areas of concern for yous. I will refocus on the Moors Murders article too in short time. El_C a collective focus is what we all wish for. Deja vu means something different to me... --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's "should HAVE used the {{FBDB}} template", you illiterate.[FBDB]EEng22:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC) And stop calling me illiterate. My mom and dad have been married for 75 years![reply]
I figured it might be a heavily overused joke that everyone got really sick of or something. While I figured it had to be a joke, I wasn't 100% sure.. So you got me. Of course I may get you back some day. - Alexis Jazz04:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you for bringing a civil and engaging comment in the article's talk page. At least you read something about Pedro II, instead of basing yourself in guesswork or a simple dislike about something in the text. That's refreshing. I might have a couple of issues with your opinion, but they have a foundation. --Lecen (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bishonen | tålk15:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking for my advice on something, I'm happy to do what I can, but if I'm your reality check you need to get out of the house more. EEng15:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a long tenure user who has been vexing me. Should probably just let it go. This way I don't act rashly. I prefer to not stir drama, but they seem to be into stirring. Have you ever posted to AE before? I thought you could, you know, give feedback on process. You know, what's it like? --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm unable to figure out precisely who or what you're talking about, and I have very little experience with AE or, indeed, much of anything Arbcom-related. My advice would be to outline the issue quietly on the user talk of an experienced admin you trust, and get their fresh-eyed evaluation. EEng18:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if this is what I now think it is (G.S.?) I'd let it go this time. This user has a strange preoccupation with rehashing archiving mishaps, as if they were capital offenses. If he keeps it up he's gonna get in hot water, but as things stand I think a formal complaint will end with no consensus, he's just a crotchety old grump, something like that. If I've got the wrong situation, let me know. EEng21:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today I learned that a tattletale is also part of a rope
You can find it all inside, no need to wrestle with your pride. No, you ain't losin' your mind, you're just at AE. They can lead you to yourself, or you can throw it on the shelf, but you know you can look inside for Arbcom, oh yeah. Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My dear @Levivich:, if your intent has been to vex me, you have failed utterly. Actually, I rather like you, even though I many times disagree with you. You add a certain, ineffable, je ne sais quoi'. --Deepfriedokra(talk)21:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grade inflation at harvard
Asking about your recent edit here. What makes this a "shock statistic", other than that some may be shocked to learn that it is a statistic? How would you like it to be contextualized? Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the context you want was already provided by the previous sentence on the page. The sentence I added to the page was simply-stated and factual information. Of course various people may disagree about whether it is a positive or a negative fact. So why shouldn't it be included? Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the history of a 400-year-old institution should include this year's percentage of A's? EEng21:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's been a while since anyone made a pass at me. Incidentally, you must have completely exhausted yourself preparing that report; just to lighten your load next time, it's not necessary to notify editors who are merely tangentially mentioned in a report. EEng14:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eeng, I thought the expectation was to always alert other eds when you mention them, regardless of venue? It's how I would like to be treated, so.... but thanks, you're right, I find documenting long running low intensity problems of that sort to be hard, since the community seems to ignore them if you don't paint the whole picture. And sometimes even if you do... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, it's not a problem, just trying to (as I said) lighten your load next time you write a 100K ANI report. (I was amused that you quoted my "Uh oh". That was a very complete report.) The rule (as stated in the box at the top of the ANI page) is to notify anyone you are "reporting", which presumably means the person(s) at whom you are trying to direct the community's wrath. Notifying others (who will probably be pinged, depending on the technique by which you mention them, and on their preference settings) is probably optional, and in fact I could see an argument that pinging all the person the reportee (if that's a word) has tangled with might be seen as canvassing. In practice, though, I've never seen anything like any of these questions be a real issue. EEng18:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng..I don`t understand what you meant by " says the IP who has made 80 post " I may have quoted you incorrectly word for word but it`s essentially what you said..I just don`t get..what is that supposed to mean ? Why did you say it ? Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment here [154] was intended to highlight the fact that you were dispensing advice along the lines of "Behavior X won't get you very far on Wikipedia" to an editor with literally 500 times the editing experience you appear to have. EEng23:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn`t you just say that instead directing a borderline personal attack at me ? this guy who is constantly referring to himself as "we" isn`t exactly endearing himself to others..I was just trying to point that out 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We" (meaning Wikipedia – ""We do this", "We don't do that") is appropriate when explaining the project's fundamental rules and practices on which there's no debate whatsoever. When there's a living accused person, or likely to be one later, "we" don't label a death murder without an official determination on that point. As Stephen Leacock put it, "Newspapermen learn to call a murderer an alleged murderer and the King of England the alleged King of England to avoid libel suits." EEng02:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could have just said that..actually if someone had said that from the beginning I`d have never said a word..I don`t appreciate the condescending attitude toward me regarding my 80 edits..the "we" thing was just plain obnoxious the way it was used..do not include me in your group because it suits your purpose..
Can you at least explain the red links to me ? Some lead to page does not exist other to editors with 100`s if not 1000`s of edits..it`s confusing..
I'm sorry, but I don't know what red links you're talking about. My very strong suggestion to you, if you want to contribute to the project, is that you create an account, which will give you credibility. If you have further questions about how Wikipedia works or how to edit, the Teahouse is a great place to ask. EEng20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just taking a stroll by fawiki (to remove some cross-wiki spam), when I tripped their abuse filter. Apparently Google translate thinks that their phrase for "abuse filter" is more properly translated as "sabotage factory" (see, for example, w:fa:ویکیپدیا:پالایه_ویرایش. I vote we call the edit filter the sabotage factory from now on. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like something from a novel about the dystopian future. There'd "Lawgivers", "Eliminators", a "Sabotage Factory" (for some reason) and so on.Actually, I figured out the factory. My translator's giving Sabotage refinery where I think you're getting Sabotage factory. So I think it goes mw:Extension:AbuseFilter -> refinement:sabotage -> sabotage refinery -> sabotage factory. No idea where eliminators came from, but whatever they are we should have them here for sure.
I see also that regular expressions comes out (after a round trip into Farsi) regular phrases, and this gives me an excuse to tell a story. When my advisor – who for 50 years almost single-handedly created and nurtured the computer science program at <name of breathtakingly prestigious institution of higher learning redacted> – finally announced that he would retire someday (though he didn't say when exactly) there was a big celebration. I mean, not a celebration because people were happy he was retiring, but a celebration of CS at <prestigious institution> in honor of him.Somehow I got the responsibility of creating a <myadvisor>-themed crossword puzzle for the program booklet – you know, something fun. I really got into it, and even if I do say so myself it was terrific. Much of it was lofty and inspirational. For example, one answer was the name of his wife, who happened to be the director of undergraduate admissions; the clue was "She supplies the fires to be lit". But other items were, shall we say, more earthy; for the answer "RE" (which in computer geekery means "regular expression") the clue was "Visage of those who get enough roughage". Whether my advisor ever worked this puzzle I do not know. EEng23:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calling EEng a "real skunk" is not a personal attack. But calling him a "fake skunk" would be. And if you smoke too much, you might call him a "skank funk". And think that it's funny. Anyway, EEng, there's deodorant for that, bro. And better to stick with edibles. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whole civil issue is one that needs to be TNT'ed and rebuilt because it is the policy that is wholly dependent on the whims of the corrupt administration. While I agree with the outcome of the ANI here, that saying "your edit is X" is not the same thing as saying "you are X." I was blocked for saying, "Your edit is X" because an admin said, "if you say an edit is X, that means the person is X" and I was blocked for a personal attack.Sir Joseph(talk)21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well AFAICS you were blocked once for Jimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project[156] and once for So in other words you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in being anti-Israel[157]. Those are personal attacks -- not the worst by far, but still personal attacks. And context matters. EEng21:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to that one. I was referring to a block by El_C. And, I am also TBANNED right now for calling out an edit, not an editor, yet the discussion didn't make that distinction. And with El_C, the distinction wasn't made at all, because if I say, "your post is idiotic" then that means you're an idiot for posting an idiotic post. Which I think is incorrect, because even smart people can post an idiotic post once in a while. Sir Joseph(talk)23:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed the nomination on hold. Please ping me at the DYK nomination once the merge discussion has been closed, and I'll restore the tick. Should be a brief wait since there appears to be consensus against the merge. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen an officeholder's infobox use the image upright function before. That's why I deleted it: I thought it was a mistake. But if you're confident it belongs there, that's fine with me. --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Woko Sapien: It definitely is incorrect; it contradicts the way we display the portraits of every other person with an officeholder infobox, and makes the margins on the left and the right of the picture excessively large. MOS:IMAGESIZE is a guide to sizing images that exist on their own; this image is in an infobox, and the image should be sized appropriately to it. I changed it back. — Tartan357(Talk)05:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Sapien came to his senses, and there's still time for you to do the same. MOS:IMAGESIZE certainly applies to infobox images (I should know, because I wrote it), and margins have nothing to do with it. An image's appropriate size isn't based on how long it's been a certain way, or the way "we" display portraits in other articles; the reason, in fact, that you seldom see upright in infoboxes is simply that it wasn't available until a few years ago. This is a near-closeup with the subject filling most of the frame, so that at upright=1 she appears startlingly large. See Barack Obama and Joe Biden for images with other compositions appropriately presented at upright=1, and Lionel_de_Jersey_Harvard for a good example of a portrait appropriate at reduced size. But hey, the article has way worse problems than a lead image that bores into you like the Big Brother is watching you posters in 1984, so you can rest easy.
I'm certainly willing to come to my senses. Could you please be more specific about which part of MOS:IMAGESIZE you're referring to? It seems to me that it's about how to scale images using the upright parameter, not what sizes are aesthetically appropriate. IMO, it's simply too small at 0.8, which is why I thought to check the scaling in the first place. The time for which the current size has stood – as well as the way almost all other infobox portraits are presented – is reflective of consensus to an extent. My concern is with the size of the image rather than the use of the upright parameter. That said, I agree that it's a bit big and would be willing to meet you in the middle at 0.9. On a general note, while the use of upright instead of a fixed width makes sense to me for the reasons you wrote in the MOS, the practice is uncommon, even for newly-created content. Forgive my ignorance, but has the width parameter been deprecated in any way? — Tartan357(Talk)08:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your willingness to discuss. Before we go any further, we need to be all looking at the same thing, so if you could check at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering that Thumbnail size is set to 220px, then you'll be a the standard base size i.e. upright=1 will mean width 220. Also, make sure your browser zoom is 100%. Now then... These discussions are necessarily subjective, but certainly portrait-shaped images should be at width less than upright=1. In fact the original default size for portraits was 0.75, but that's too much typing so I usually just use 0.8. However, other considerations do come in. For example, the Biden and Obama images are from further back, with full torso and much more background -- by contrast, Harris's photo is so close in, a bit of one shoulder is out of frame. To me, the key for a portrait is to bring out the character of the face, and Harris even at 0.8 gives us plenty of that. So I'd really suggest sticking with 0.8. But if that keeps you up at night how about 0.85?
Re has the width parameter been deprecated in any way?, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean fixed-width parameters (i.e. expressed in pixels), then yes, they're deprecated in favor of upright. If you mean the width parameter in infoboxes specifically, well yes they're deprecated by implication by the general deprecation of specifying fixed widths anywhere (with certain special exceptions); but as mentioned, for technical reasons upright wasn't available in infoboxes until recently, so fixed widths have persisted in infoboxes largely because people don't know there's an alternative. EEng02:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the default settings. This seems plenty reasonable to me. I was focused more on the size of the image rather than the size of her head in the image. I still think it seems a bit small, but perhaps other infobox photos need to be shrunk. I won't get in the way of you changing it back to 0.8, and I appreciate the explanation, since you've obviously worked on this a lot. I'll probably be using the upright parameter more often from now on. — Tartan357(Talk)04:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if you feel that passionately about it, sure. But it sort of feels like splitting hairs if we're negotiating the thousandths place. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a newly cropped version of her Senate portrait. It's wider and has less of that zoomed-in effect the previous one had. Hope that can settle things.--Woko Sapien (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, helpful is, in fact, my middle name: E-helpful-Eng. Did I provide a reference? If I did I don't remember. To be honest it's from my personal knowledge, though anyone with even the most basic knowledge of 20th-century California school architecture can see at a glance that the edifice in your photo cannot possibly date from before the the 1980s. But for all those sticklers out there I did dig up a cite [158] (search Thousand Oaks) and BTW here's what T.O. (as locals call it) looked like when Harris attended: [159].Since it was you I skipped my full lecture on filler images (my favorite ones to hate being exterior shots of courthouses where so-and-so-the-serial-killer was tried) but I will make one particular point: unless there's a very strong reason, "location" shots should be from the relevant period, not taken decades later after the place has undergone who-knows-what transformations. We should be providing either authentic images or no images, especially when they're of such marginal import even under the best circumstances. EEng06:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard any locals call it "TO" when I was dating Berkeley ladies while attending college in San Francisco back when Harris was attending Thousand Oaks. But there can be little doubt that your original research is vastly superior to mine, because you are a much smarter fellow than I am. Thanks also for sharing your philosophy about photos of historically significant buildings. I will be sure to rent a time machine next time instead of trying to portray what the building looks like in 2020, since you decree such images worthless for our readers. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't template the regulars. --TryptofishAnd don't regulate the templars either. --Tryptofish
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring on a guideline is far ruder, and far more destabilising on top. EEng should know better than to try forcing a guideline rewrite by edit-warring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Francis Schonken: I left that message on your talk page, because I hadn't notice that you had also left the same message here on Flyer22 Frozen's talkpage as well. I thought that also warranted pointing out. I'm sorry you thought my messages to you were rude, that was not my intent. I think it's important, when we see editors not treating each other as well as we might to point that out. (EEng can vouch for that.) And I don't think doing so is rude. Paul August☎15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken: I personally don't mind getting templated, because it tells me right off who I'm dealing with. None of us needs instruction or reminders about appropriate behavior, certainly not from you. But you need some. When someone puts a lot of work into something via localized, bite-sized changes, it's incredibly rude and dismissive to simply revert it all at once with meaningless edit summary like
too many changes that seem counterproductive on first sight, were never discussed, or are far from getting talk page consensus, or any combination of these rationales[160]].
"too many" is not a reason to mass-revert multiple changes, nor is that they "seem" counterproductive "at first sight", or "were not discussed". They can't ALL be unhelpful. Feel free to give them a second look (i.e. actually look at them) and revert or build on individual changes selectively, with actual reasons. But mass reversion of multiple others' work because you don't want to take the time to review is not OK/
We need something like a swear jar for every time someone skirts NPA by calling an edit "idiot:. point of order, needs an "ic" at the end. not agreeing with the description. just a once upon a time English major --Deepfriedokra(talk)20:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Slightly o/t, and asking EEng's indulgence): Deepfriedokra, nah, and I'm sure you're not a descriptivist, and you have to admit, "idiot template" is much pithier, has better meter, and fits the tone better here, so I'd argue it is "correct". OTOH, if you want to propose an "irony jar" (as you previously alluded), you can sign me right up. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it's fun indeed, I'd actually appreciate it if people would focus more on F.S.'s mass reversion without giving a cognizable reason (linked in my rant above) than on the templating. (Though both are symptoms of valuing form over substance, of course.) EEng21:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody did, on 7 August 2005. Its content was, verbatim, "The last person who edited this page (not including me!) is a BIG FAT IDIOT!". It was deleted four minutes later. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EEng, I came across this carving while visiting a church in Derbyshire recently. Wondered if you could help me to work out what's going on in it, I can't quite make it out. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)11:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, yes, it's frustrating isn't it? I just can't get my head around it. They say two heads are better than one - if only someone would be willing to donate theirs to help solve this conundrum, it might give me some relief. GirthSummit (blether)20:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, I'm afraid not - you've got the right church, but the carvings aren't mentioned in the listing. I've checked Pevsner, but he doesn't shed any light either. If I go there again, I might see whether I can gather any oral accounts to satisfy my curiosity, but of course that would be OR for our purposes. GirthSummit (blether)00:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not many can handle hardwood with such mastery; clearly, a devotional work. I can't quite make out what's happening on the backside though. Lev!vich00:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you posted here looking for help but I'd say it's at the church itself that you'll find the succor you need. EEng01:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and thanks anyway. In an entirely unrelated note, I was thinking about creating a list of all of Zeus's mortal lovers. I started out with high spirits, but I'm afraid that my enthusiasm rather fell at io. Such is the nature of editing here I suppose. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)01:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like it's a bishop blessing someone, possibly a Confirmation. Not sure about the person behind, but bishops usually have a companion of some sort. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey - when you said deathless, I thought you meant 'will be remembered forever'. I hadn't realised he was still alive, that's cheering. His Irish ballad was was always my favourite, my dad used to sing it to us in the car, thirty plus years ago now... GirthSummit (blether)14:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, EEng, you asked (at ANI: [166]) for me to give you diffs, so here goes. Before anything else, please let me begin by saying that I'm not talking here about stuff that is particularly bad. As I said before over there, I don't see anything that you should be sanctioned for, not by a mile. So this is picky stuff, as opposed to serious complaints, because I don't have any major complaints. So none of this is going to be NPA violations or the like. And please do not feel like you have to defend any of it, because none of it is a big deal. I've been avoiding WP except for where I think I can be helpful in improving the culture of how editors communicate, and that's where this falls, plus, I'm saying all of this to you as a friend. And because I'm not trying very hard, I found these three nitpicks by just scrolling upwards on your talk page.
So, nitpick number one: [167]. I suspect that you were in the right. But referring to someone as "the IP with 80 edits" isn't engaging on the merits of the argument, but rather, WP:BITE. Yes, I know the IP had just elocuted "Don`t go there..it won`t you far on Wikipedia", a brilliant statement if ever there was one. But you didn't prove anything by refuting it. You once made an eightieth edit, and I once did, too. That's what "punching down" is.
Nitpick number two: [168]. It looks to me, again, like you were right, and you were talking to someone who was being told repeatedly by multiple editors that they misunderstood our file policies, and who was doing some WP:IDHT, albeit politely. You called what they had done "sophomoric". Yes, I know that quite a few experienced users said right here in your talk page section that it did not meet the threshold to be a PA. And that's not what I'm claiming it was. But if I say that it was not generous of you to have said it that way, I'm right about that. You aren't required to be generous in that way, and you don't need to. But you also won't be diminished by choosing to be generous that way.
Nitpick number three: [169]. Another in your long and illustrious line of ANI illustrations. Yes, I know that you get "thanks" for them. Yes, I know that I do them all the time in user space (and I did it once at ANI, and have ever since regretted that I did). I don't know much about the editor who needed, um, suction (isn't that another section here?), but I can guess that they were less experienced than you and I are. I wish that you would just stop with those ANI illustrations, entirely.
In none of these instances were you in the wrong. You don't have to do anything I tell you to do here. And, given that it's just a website anyway, it's no big deal. If you want, you can choose to be generous. Or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just glancing over this I can see it will be an interesting exercise. I suppose I have an unconscious flowchart for response modes, depending on the history of the issue, the other user(s)' history and behavior, the goal, and so on, and it will be fun to try to explicate that using these cases, and (who knows?) maybe modify it. However, it won't be fast. I didn't get much sleep last night because my lumbago was acting up[1] and for the next two weeks I'll be supervising a construction project in my building. Somewhere in there I'll get started, but not today and not tomorrow. Maybe I'll add some cases of my own. EEng21:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
^I actually don't know what lumbago is but it sounds like a good excuse.
By all means, sleep on it. And really, it doesn't require any sort of response at all. Certainly not worth an extended discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19 made him do it 👿...not directly, but the lockdown has its affects...not unlike cabin fever and it can be worse than alcohol. At least with alcohol, you pass out when you've had too much...but with cabin fever, you get worse and more active over time. The only cure is for Tryptofish to come back to WP, and for EEng to regenerate our round table discussions so he can yell at the kids and tell them to get out of his yard. That will help release some of the pressure cooker frustration he feels and makes it easier to measure one's comments when faced with WP editors who just don't get it. AtsmeTalk📧13:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the difference: Someone without generosity of spirit would point out that you should have said "effects", but someone with generosity wouldn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. And so here we come to the crux of the matter. To me, generosity of spirit would be to have the respect for my visitor to assume (option 1) that she would appreciate help with getting affect versus effect straight, or (if it's just a momentary lapse) that she will get a chuckle out of a little joke I might make exploiting the fact that affect can in fact be a noun; and indeed if you weren't such a shitty prof[1][FBDB] you'd know that a laugh, like almost any form of emotion, helps a lesson sink in. (Fear works too but is harder to induce remotely than it is in the classroom. And the dean has reminded me several times that love is off limits.) An ungenerous spirit would assume (option 2) that Atsme's got a fragile, easily-bruised ego which asks nothing more than to be allowed to spend a lifetime floating in a warm bath of blissful ignorance. Let's ask Atsme which one she is: Option 1 or Option 2. (And please be serious, Atsme. This is actually an important conversation.) EEng20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19 lockdown made me do it...or better yet, it was a conservation conversation starter. Whatever, it affected me profoundly; but nowhere near the way it effected EEng. Now...back to your question, surely you know I'd go with Option 1. I'm the Timex that takes a licking and keeps on ticking!Uhm, carry that ball to the finish line carefully. (That didn't help, did it?)AtsmeTalk📧22:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that what we have here is an example of how online text humor can be misunderstood. My intention when I wrote that was to make a joke: I was (apparently) implying that it would be kinder not to point out the error – and yet, I was pointing it out. Irony. Now, maybe EEng is calling my bluff, by pretending that he thinks I actually meant what I said, and if so, well played, my little EEng.[2]
But as for good teaching techniques, I was always an enthusiastic practitioner of humor during classes. (When lecturing about opioids, I've been known to imitate a woman having an orgasm.) But – and I have a very big butt – jokes made at a student's expense are most definitely not helpful to learning. Indeed, quite the opposite. Your dean should have told you that. But of course, university administrators are generally nitwits. At least the ones who have any wits at all.
And, since this is an important conversation, that does translate to Wikipedia. Making a joke at the expense of another editor (unless you know that it's someone like Atsme, who will get the joke) can be a rather ungenerous thing to do. (If you've never seen an undergraduate who is furious because they think that you were talking down to them, you are lucky you missed it. Even if you meant well.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Atsme, but I'll give an honest answer. I don't mind good-natured pointing out of errors or even good-natured ridicule for errors from someone I believe basically likes and respects me. I don't like seeing people being intentionally hurtful to people they disagree with. I didn't like this but I also didn't like seeing this (third one of many). Both felt unnecessarily mean. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (and for those too lazy to click), of the two diffs you just gave only the second is by me. As to that one, I believe you're talking about
Oops, I got the wrong part of the diff
where Editor A saidmost editors spend a lot of time on Wikipedia doing something that is of little benefit to themselves
and I said
Change "little benefit to themselves to simply little benefit and the point is well made.
– yes? But that wasn't directed at, or any kind of comment on, Editor A, or even on editors in general (though I can see how it could be misread as that latter, and that's my fault – I myself had to think for a second to reconstruct what I was saying). It was simply a statement that the procedure under discussion is so complex, yet of so little benefit, that only if editors see their work here as useless in general would they bother doing this particular useless thing. So there's nothing mean about it.
Yes, only the second diff is by you, but no, that wasn't the one I didn't love. It was actually a defense of/kind word to me in response to the first diff, by another editor. The thing I objected to was "Don't worry about it, Valereee. The singular of "admin who barely squeaked through RfA" is not "editor whose opinion anyone pays attention to""
To be clear, I sincerely appreciated the defense/kind word. One of the really helpful things men (I don't think I'm assuming) here on WP can do is object to women being pummeled by other men about some stereotyped issue like women being inept at technical things. Not that I'm not that, but it's not because I don't have a penis. It's because YAWN. So I appreciated you coming to my defense. I just didn't like that it was done by making a comment about how difficult that RfA had been. —valereee (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear you don't have a penis, val, but if you need one, there are websites that can help you find one in your local area. E may have a recommendation. I also thought that RFA line violated the below-the-belt and glass-houses rules, a rare yellow card. Lev!vich00:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the acknowledgement about the RfA line. But the sarcasm about supposed penis envy is appalling, sexist, and stupid. Not funny. Valereee, I'm sorry that you were replied to that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee can express herself on this if need be. These days there's entirely too much of people imputing hurt feelings to other people. Jesus Christ on a crutch. EEng19:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, I took it as a joke. I didn't read sarcasm or penis envy into it. (In fact I searched the page to see if I'd missed something else. This page has the word penis on it seven times. Now nine.) —valereee (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, thanks, I'm glad that you feel that way. As to the celibate saint on a crutch, regardless of whether or not valereee was offended by it – and I'm glad that she wasn't – I was offended by it, myself. And I still am. I think I have a reasonably good sense of humor. If it was a joke, it wasn't funny, and I'm not the problem here. So if your (EEng's) reaction is to be offended by what I said, as opposed to what I reacted to, then that's the problem. If there is any take-home from this discussion, it's that humor does not always make for a positive contribution to a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last year you went to bat for an editor who told another editor to go fuck himself with a dildo covered in sandpaper and hot sauce (among other colorful statements), and when the community told you to drop that particular stick, you retired. (Not your current retirement; this was a previous one.) A few days ago you were joking with the rest of us about a child performing oral sex on a priest. When you say you're offended by my joke, you are being completely and totally insincere. Lev!vich21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have my prior history wrong on some of those points. But there is a difference here, between those earlier jokes and this one, and it's a pity that what I've been trying to say, very sincerely, isn't getting across. What MPants said was directed at a drive-by IP troll who was spouting Nazi sympathies, and I trust that that would not describe an established female editor. And the Saint John sculpture joking was not directed at any editor (unless that childkneeling person is an editor here). Yes, I have a sense of humor. But humor varies, depending on the target. And you completely and totally do not seem to understand the distinction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is my talk page and I forbid either of you from continuing this branch of the conversation. If you two fell out I don't know what I would do. EEng22:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thank you. But getting back on topic, I really do hope you will give serious thought to what I said about the targets of humor. Again, I'm not accusing you of anything there, but just passing along what I hope will be useful advice, going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I shouldn't have done it with a lady present, but I feel OK with that being my response to Editor A's Not everybody is as inept as you, and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" (which particularly got my goat because, in fact, the plural of anecdote actually isdata). I felt it was a effective reminder of his responsibility to comport himself in a manner befitting an admin; if you want to hear that I regret it maybe a bit, that's true. I'm not a fucking saint. EEng01:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:EEng#Warning - A bullshit warning of the kind E often gets, responded-to with an "IP-with-six-edits" comment, then humor being used to diffuse defuse conflict.
My point? Atsme is the only one who appreciates fine poetry. And humor is useful. But then I have a whole thing on my userpage about that, so I'm rather biased on the subject. Lev!vich04:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a bit of a false dichotomy is being created here. Are we being offered the choice of self-classifying ourselves into exactly one of two categories, one being self-important people who openly prize ignorance, and the other being people who grant advance license to being teased over immaterial typographical errors, even where this might distract from substantive discussions? If that choice were posed to me, my response would be mu, in the sense popularized by Douglas Hofstadter in Gődel, Escher, Bach. I understand the point that EEng is making, but I'm not sure that he is making it affectively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dichotomy hyperbole obviously.
Not a day goes by that each of doesn't see at least one talk post that distracts from substantive discussion by its unintelligibility, vacuousness, or whatever. By comparison, a little joke at least has some redeeming qualities, for those who choose to let it.
If you put "Template:Larry" into the search box, and let it offer suggestions, there are a bunch of them, for persons with that first name. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the way Commons media are embedded into pages on other projects, Commons needs to work differently to other projects. They do not necessarily follow the policies of Wikipedia or other projects. Please stop citing Wikipedia policies on Commons, where those policies do not apply.
(Posted here because of this: “If you want to contact me, drop a line at w:User talk:EEng. I'm here very seldom.”)
You mean policies like Use common sense? I realize that's a foreign concept at Commons, common sense being in such short supply over there, but I venture there so seldom that I keep forgetting. EEng16:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brianjd, what is the Wikipedia policy that EEng has been accused of mentioning on Commons? If it's WP:VANDALISM, you yourself said, EEng said that good faith edits are never vandalism, which matches my understanding of the word “vandalism”. P-K3 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unpleasantly reminded of an incident some years ago, when I found the culture at Commons to be even more problematic than that here at en-Wiki (which, in my current state of mind, is really saying something). An en-Wiki editor got blocked at Commons over what was basically a mis-communication, and vented at the Commons admin over the admin not having understood something that they should have understood. In return, the en-Wiki editor was called a "racist", and when I pointed out that this was an inappropriate thing to say, I was threatened (unsuccessfully) with a Commons block myself. Facepalm . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa...colour me fazed! Mellow Yellow Electrical Banana, or somesuch, sounds like a good name for LSD, back in the day. Nowadays, we must be concerned about our Mings...er, minds. Higher phase order sounds like something from Star Trek. Kirk to Scotty: "Shift us to higher phase order!" Scotty: "Aye, Captain, 'tis faster than warp speed!" Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!23:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think common sense is specifically banned on Commons, but I forget the link. But it was foolish not to upload the crop as a new image, which should be done in all but exteme(ly useless) cases. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just because you're a fine-arts junkie and all into vases and stuff. But I'm afraid even your criterion of extremely useless is not going to save us – check out c:User talk:EEng#Photo_cropping. (Ouch – I did unthinkingly cite some WP guidelines there.) EEng21:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some prefer the switch, others prefer the crop.
EEng is officially allowed to crop this one further if he should like.
That always seemed problematic to me, since if the image at Commons changes in some way then your article suddenly displays a closeup of the person's shoulder. EEng22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except even any change can screw up the CSS image crop thing, and they do allow some changes (even if no one can seem to explain what those allowed changes are). So as usual it's all a house of cards with half-baked rules not-solving the problem. EEng22:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry but you misspelled the correct word - it's not immortality - remove the "t" - surely it was a slip of the left index finger. It happens. 😂 AtsmeTalk📧21:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phineas Gage
You are displaying serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues here, the history off that page is just you reverting editors who have made changes. Do I need to raise this at ANI or are you going to slow down and start co-operating? GiantSnowman10:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone knows that an ANI thread of that nature will consist of a lot of hostility with no resolution. My advice is, instead, to have an RfC about any content disputes, and to expect all editors to accept whatever consensus emerges from that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Interesting. In your contemplated complaint will you be supplying diffs, citing guidelines, and addressing the merits of the edits themselves (as I have been doing), or will you make accusations without evidence, claim that guidelines say the opposite of what they say, and mindlessly assert that what you happen to have seen in other articles is the way every article has to be (as you have been doing)?
You made three edits yesterday. Two were directly contrary to guidelines and completely inappropriate:
In this edit [171] you removed the subject's middle initial from the infobox header, justifying that change (after I reverted) with the incorrect statement that "we use name of article" [172]. In fact, Template:Infobox_person provides that If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the |birth_name= parameter, include them here.
In this edit [173] you used a script to change the established format for access dates in references (in violation of MOS:DATERET), remove a hidden note intended for future article improvement, and alter direct quotations. Apparently you failed to review the script's changes before saving; Tsk tsk.
In the third edit, you changed the article's opening from
Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was ...
to
Phineas P. Gage (July 9, 1823 – May 21, 1860) was ...
This is a matter of editorial discretion; MOS:BIRTHDATE endorses both approaches (given that the full dates are given both in the infobox and in the article text proper). The article has long been the way it is, I think it's the better way, and have explained why [174]. You boldly changed it and I reverted, but instead of giving reasons you simply restored your preferred version with the meaningless statement that your approach is "standard for ledes" [175], by which you apparently mean that's what you've seen in other articles so that's the way it has to be, as if the guideline doesn't exist. Any actual... ya know, reasons for your change? I seem to recall your fellow admin David Eppstein addressing this question at some point, so perhaps he will have some comment.
On top of everything else, in violation of WP:MINOR you marked all three edits as minor, which none of them were. I would have thought though that an admin with such an extensive record of script gnoming and creation of literally thousands and thousands of stubs on soccer players would know better.
Your kind of blind minsitrations perhaps, on average, improve typical ill-developed junky articles that have grown by hook or by crook without careful attention by experienced editors, but when you run into a highly developed article you should think twice to be sure you know what you're doing – not just close your eyes and hit <SAVE>. Our esteemed fellow editor Beyond My Ken put it very well [176]:
The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all... Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article... Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on.
P.S. The foregoing was mostly for the record. What would really happen at ANI, I humbly predict, is that someone will point out that you've made no attempt to discuss, after which someone else will, if we are lucky, add a Burma-shave:
NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave
Are GiantSnowman and/or TheRamblingMan (indistinguishable in this specific behavior) still going around using automated date-conversion scripts? The only way I found to keep them at bay was to use a very specific use-date template for all articles I create. (That is, if you really want numerical archive-date and access-date, add the highly-obvious parameter |cs1-dates=ly to the {{use mdy dates}} template.) GiantSnowman's alteration of three direct quotes in the pursuit of date standardization shows the danger of unchecked scripts for this purpose. Anyway, I totally agree re the point you actually mentioned me for: that year ranges can be adequate in the lead sentence even when more precise dates are known, as long as those dates are expanded later. MOS:BIRTHDATE "if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't want to dash anyone's hopes, but after a look at it, it does seem to me that MOS:DASH indicates that chapter and page ranges should be done with n-dashes rather than hyphens. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A costume that requires you to text a wikilink to the uninitiated might be the nerdiest thing I've ever heard of. Definitely a cape. I'm thinking something that communicates the pretense and possibly self-delusion of non-bias...hm...that takes me to Bill Barr... —valereee (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The general principle here is great, but I would say combine a checkmark on the chest with a cloak that has a load of crosses on the bottom of it. Preferably a really long cape that you keep stepping on, to represent all the contrary viewpoints you're ignoring. ~ mazcatalk19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well played. Magnificent, in fact. I am awarding you the Steisand Effect Order of Merit, with Oak Leaves and Silver Rivets. (Allow 4 to six weeks for delivery. You pay only shipping and handling.) EEng04:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which Office? I loaded Word and turned the volume all the way down and now when I click on "DO NOT PRESS" I can hear the clicking sound but nothing else happens. Should I try Excel? Lev!vich21:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Assistencia.jpgIt looks like you're on EEng's page. Would you like help? * Suggest a witty DYK hook * Write a thigh-slappingly humorous essay * Troll him with an aggressive template message
Mr Spock was our first clue back in the day:"May I say that I have not thoroughly enjoyed serving with Humans? I find their illogic and foolish emotions a constant irritant."AtsmeTalk📧23:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGF means I'm supposed to assume you're trying to help, and of that I have no doubt, but at the same time WP:CIR says that I don't have to blindly pretend you know what you're doing, which you don't.
I made an editorial decision that the reader's experience would be improved by adding |upright= to adjust the size of the image [177], though in doing so I unthinkingly used |thumb= instead of (as called for by WP:IBI) using |frameless= – sorry, force of habit.
Instead of simply correcting thumb to frameless (as – I repeat – called for by WP:IBI, which you are citing) you mindlessly reverted my change [178]. So, yeah, you didn't (as your edit summary claimed) "fix" anything; instead (as I said [179]) you fucked it up.
I realized my mistake and reinserted the size adjustment using frameless[180].
And now you're here telling me that the article is listed in Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax (apparently one of those categories gnomes use to give them something to do so they can feel useful) and therefore is susceptible to being fixed again. In other words, apparently having nothing useful to do, you plan to spend your time "fixing" something that isn't broken, and in fact is in complete compliance with the guideline you yourself cited: WP:IBI.
And after all that you've got the nerve to suggest that if *I*feel the image needs to be displayed in a non-default ratio then *I*should ask at {{infobox academic}} for support of |upright=. No, if *you* want to clear your stupid categegory then *you* ask at {{infobox academic}} for support of |upright=, after which *you* can go around removing |frameless= (or whatever floats *your* boat) without messing up the appearance of the articles involved.
In the meantime don't fuck with what the reader sees just to clear your stupid misbegotten category. Productive editors have precious little tolerance for this kind of mindless gnoming. Got it? EEng05:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most kind of you. I'll leave it to MB to alter the article to take advantage of it, thus notching down that silly list by one. EEng18:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the list, I don't know why, if the issue matters that is, we don't just unleash a bot on it. It could take care of most cases without issue, where alternative parameters exist. 86,514 pages is way too much for human review - and for something that can be automated is likely a great waste of peoples' time. Seems like a task designed for the machines, as long as one pays the server bills and gives it some thanks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's simpler than that. AFAICS, it used to be that there was only an |image= parm in infoboxes, so the way you sized the image or added an alt was to use the extended image syntax in that single field. At some point someone got it in their heads that this was undesirable in some way (in just what way no one seems to know), and began adding separate |image_size= and |image_alt= parms to the infobox templates, so that you wouldn't need the extended image syntax. (Again, in what way it helps anything to not use the extended image syntax isn't clear.) But they didn't do this to all infoboxes, so in infoboxes that hadn't been augmented you still had to use the extended image syntax.Meanwhile, some do-gooder got the idea to create this "Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax", implying that there's something actually wrong with using the extended image syntax, so that other do-gooders (as seen above) get the idea they should seek out and kill its use even where that removes function such as image size. It's all a complete waste of time. Until someone can explain why not, the extended image syntax was, and is, fine. It did, and does, what's wanted. It can just stay. No one needs to do anything. No infoboxes need new parameters. No category is needed. No bot or human review wanted. Complete waste of time. EEng18:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the existence of convenient parameters to size images by absolute numbers of pixels encourages editors to do so, inappropriately, when they should be using upright= relative sizing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I share your feelings about this. Over time, I've become increasingly dissatisfied with the let's-police-technical-details-that-have-no-value-for-our-readers mentality that has become a part of Wiki-culture (especially in templates and categories). If I wanted to be charitable, I would note that we have a lot of editors who are on the spectrum, and who are drawn to these things. (And before anyone blows a gasket, I hasten to add that I have no idea about, nor am implying anything about, the editors in this dispute. Also, there are many on-the-spectrum editors whose work I appreciate very, very much.) But I wish those editors would stick to tasks that are actually helpful to our readers. And, regardless of the underlying reasons for any editor's work, there is too much pointless creation of distractions for editors who actually want to contribute content, and too much tolerance of it. Worse, the trivia police tend to revise guidelines that no one else pays attention to, and then they say "but look what the guideline says!". Sighs loudly.
And as I ponder this annoyance, I also want to formally and officially apologize to you for that time, years ago, when I gave you a hard time over the formatting of the Gage page. In hindsight, I was wrong. What matters is what our readers see. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since in literally 5 minutes I'll be getting in the chair for a root canal, that's a particularly well timed bit of pleasant news. EEng22:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think it's a mixed bag, generally speaking. The difference between infoboxes using |birth_date=, |BirthDate= or |DateOfBirth= doesn't matter either to the readers - the output is the exactly the same. But it's a slight pain in the ass if every other infobox uses a totally different parameter name and doesn't support the aliases. That's one area that should probably be kept consistent, so editors don't need to waste time reading docs after their chosen parameter doesn't output anything. Considering 'value for readers' is a hazy line; taken literally it's likely the majority of wiki-activity isn't productive, including most work on Category:Wikipedia backlog and various tracking cats, project-space pages, discussions, essays, templates, cats, etc. And maybe it isn't, since no matter what area of the wiki people stop working on (maintenance, administration, or others) the project always keeps going, apparently without novel noticeable issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hive mind to the rescue
One of you (talk page stalker)s will know this... Within the past few months I told a story about a school board meeting when I was in high school. It wasn't here, but I can't think of where. Might have been a user talk or article talk or WP talk. Anyone recall? EEng05:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember this! Something about not decorating biographies with photos of replacement school buildings for a school with different buildings that the student had attended? But I don't remember where, either. It doesn't seem to have been my talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how the mind connects things. That would have been a discussion with Cullen328 re Kamala Harris, and your recollection seems right, but I think the discussion branched off somewhere else, which is where I made the post I'm looking for. EEng05:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading your anecdote. Something about how brilliant you were in arguing your case before the school board, even though "the man" tried to get you to shut up. In the end, everyone recognized how right you were. But I do not remember the exact context. We tangled a bit about the childhood of Kamala Harris. I had been in Berkeley and had taken photos of her childhood home (remarkably unchanged) and the school she had famously been bussed to. You were quite harsh about my school photo, saying that any ignoramus (not quoting precisely) should know by the characteristic California school architecture that the school had been completely rebuilt since Harris attended, and that my photo was ignorant crap. I tucked my tail between my legs, slinked off, and did not object to removal of the photo from the article, since I was clearly up against a more formidable intellect. Anyway, I hope this helps refresh your memory. Always happy to try to be of assistance. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
slinked off – Surely you mean slunk off. (Dig – dug; cling – clung; sling – slung; slink – slunk.) I too am always happy to be of assistance. EEng09:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me check my files: peddlers... pediatricians... pedicabs... Wow! Nothing on pedantry. I've got pederasty – will that do? EEng05:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That link to the earlier discussion makes for interesting reading. So EEng has had a "career as an irritant". And here I always assumed that he did it for free. So, Mr. Know-It-All, your high school principal "kept a tarantula in his office named Harriet". What a strange name for one of his offices! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He had just the one. One day I asked the school psychologist, who was an accomplished calligrapher, to make a little placard: Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate, which I then glued to his (the principal's) door. I understand it stayed there until he retired. It was an unusual school. EEng05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I imagine that you made it particularly queer.[FBDB] So for that image you want me to find, do you want a photo of me teaching, or of you teaching? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered something else. Somehow I came into possession of the guts of a little music box, like this , which played <click here>. One day I got into his office and screwed it to the back of his desk next to where he sat. He loved it. He'd crank it for students in hot water. EEng20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng—could take a look a the last half dozen edits at Malcolm X? I don't think I am getting through to User talk:Desslock97 whom seems to be tightly focussed on inserting a Malcolm quote into an irrelevant section of the article that concerns his separation from the Nation of Islam. I've tried an edit summary on my revert plus two posts on the users talk page. The user's latest attempt adds a new subsection and text unsupported by the accompanying ref—interrupting the flow even more. Suggestions welcome—or perhaps a touch of your humor might work. — Neonorange (Phil) 14:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stated on my talk page I was willing to move it to a different section or add it in some way into the article. I don't agree that it should just be outright removed, considering it has multiple credible sources (huffpost and a .edu website, both which have been used extensively in various wikipeda articles for various people) backing what he said. I don't understand what you mean by that shouldn't be added to the Malcolm X wikipedia page. What he said about media and race should absolutely be included on his wikipedia page. Desslock97 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I think you're not getting is that just because something's sourced doesn't mean it should be in the article -- see WP:VNOTSUFF. The section of the article where you keep making the insertion does involve the media, but it's about how the media covered MX, how EM was jealous of that, and so on; MX's thoughts about the role of the media in society has nothing to do with it.Nor does it belong anywhere else in that particular article, which isn't an enumeration of random things MX thought or said. wikiquote:Malcolm_X would be an appropriate place to lodge this material. EEng02:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UTP fly
Totally unrelated to anything in particular, I vaguely remember seeing a fly image on someone's user talk page once, and on mouse over, it'd move to a different spot (that old gag). I thought it was called "McFly" or something like that, and it was a template, but it's not {{McFly}} and I can't find it now. Anybody remember what I'm talking about? Lev!vich03:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EEng. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Celestina007, I received your email. The user right you asked about is completely unrelated to the issue you stated. I don't know how I can help you without knowing what the articles in dispute are. EEng04:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, I had thought somehow it might help in curbing paid editing. I’m currently not sure how EFH works, Theoretically, I was thinking perhaps with EFH if an editor created any article pertaining to Nigeria I’d somehow be notified about it & closely examine the article & its creator. I wasn’t sure, that’s why I thought it wise to ask you for guidance on how it worked since you have great experience in this field. Thank you for your time & your response, I think for now i’d just stick to my normal method of nabbing UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I was going to ask you what UPE (which you mentioned in your email) is, but I realize now it's Undeclared Paid Editing. At first I thought it was Universal Primary Education and I couldn't imagine why you'd be against that. EEng14:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said I could notify 15. I said 14 to be equal, but I figure you're about as neutral as they come so you're the 15th. I don't expect you to say anything, but if you do I expect it to be funny. Roy McCoy (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I come up with any zingers I'll be happy to share them, but don't hold your breath. There's not a lot of available raw material in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Here's a free sample:
"I demolish your reasoning" or "Your argument collapses"
Well it seemed a particularly un-useful post, from long ago, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to put it on the shelf. EEng05:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Funny thing, there was a time that someone or other would step in to say we're supposed to give Trump the benefit of the doubt because, oh, maybe he's just pretending to be a deranged sociopath. People seem to have gotten over that.Meanwhile, in other news (since we're on the subject), the more severely mentally challenged of the stable genius's two older sons turns out not to know what a vaccine is [182]. Now to be fair, a lot of people don't know what a vaccine is, but most would have the sense not to go on network TV blabbing about it without at least looking in a dictionary first. Of course for that you need to be able to recite the letters of the the alphabet in the right order. EEng06:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just abbreviated John the Baptist and Light came upon me. What came out might surprise –or not?!– some people in Jordan. They're promoting the country as "the other Holy Land", which is perfectly fair, with the Baptism site a magnet for tourists (i.e. Sunday pilgrims). Me personally am convinced it's a sign from the Divine, as there's no such thing as a coincidence under His sun. Especially not in abbreviations. MtPbwy, Arminden (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Caption competition
We can have a pretty good guess what these two are thinking about each other, but what exactly? I'll start off with "Free image? Only dumb people give away work for free, that's like the stupidest idea in the world evaaaaaaaah" Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't get what you're saying, but I'll just note that the file description for that photo says President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. I don't know what a pull-aside is and, frankly, with Trump in the mix I don't want to know. EEng13:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your revert of my edit at WP:NPA for the following reasons.
First of all, it is inappropriate to revert, on policy as well as article pages, without an explanation of the objection to the edit. Saying “no consensus” or especially the novel “needs much broader consensus” is not a valid explanation. This is explained in multiple places including WP:DRNC (“Don’t Revert due solely to No Consensus”).
There is no requirement for establishing any particular kind of consensus prior to editing a policy page, much less a “far broader consensus” than satisfying those who choose to participate in a discussion per BRD.
The edit I made is fully consistent with the spirit and intent of the policy page. It’s just adding another explicit item to a list that the page states is not exhaustive so it’s no longer implicit. Makes it less vulnerable to misinterpretation.
If you have a specific objection to adding this to NPA please explain at the policy’s talk page. Thank you. —В²C☎03:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I pretty much agree with [183] everything you're saying, including the sarcasm, I think both of us could probably do better to marshal some serious response to what is clearly WP:POINTY behavior or WP:FORCEDINTERPRET BS. That nonsense needs to be shut down. Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might get a kick out of this.[184] No piano line is so important that you'd have to take your hand off your pint at any point. with thanks to martinevans for finding Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I was discussing this on IRC with someone, and I don't really know where to ask onwiki. I figure you may have some interest and background (and some of your TPS', Eppstein probably, might put me onto the right track if I'm astray), and adding a few bytes here surely can't hurt: is it just me or most of our maths articles a bit difficult to follow? I have some okay background, not research-level or anything but ug/olympiad, but I still have to think trying to follow articles on concepts I do reasonably understand (or so I hope!). Many times I think it's just the articles trying to cram every form of notation into the very first example, adding a bit of bloat and making it longer to get to the point, other times it's the style of writing, or lack of structure.
There's always WP:SOFIXIT, but I don't really understand what our maths articles are trying to do, so I may just be completely mistaken on what an appropriate math-related article would be. Are we trying to educate? Or just provide information on a topic? If the former, unlike even advanced physics articles where they can be written in a way where one can read and follow an entire article (even though they may not be able to do a single problem afterwards), it seems a bit difficult to word many areas of maths assuming little prerequisite knowledge? Still, I feel like we fall short even on basic articles. Euclidean distance, for example which I recently saw, is something we first learn in early/mid teen years (in the school system anyway), but some of the notation on the first few lines one wouldn't encounter till much later. There's just no structure here. If the latter, well, who are we catering for? I can't imagine such articles are useful to people until they already know a topic 'well-enough', and know enough notation (maybe equiv to end of first year knowledge here) to actually follow what the article is saying. Personally, I feel like an interested 14 year old should be able to dig into a geometry article, follow up to what they know, and still learn something new? Necessarily, I'd think that means cutting down on notation at times to improve accessibility?
FWIW, we have a good number of very well written maths articles, too. So not saying it's all of them. I recall some good ones re discrete maths. But just feels like whenever I stumble across one, on average it's not written in a way that's easy to follow. And I don't know what "the right way" to format them even is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we trying to educate? Or just provide information on a topic? – For better or worse (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK):
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects ...
In other words, our target audience is apparently trained mathematicians who, for unaccountable reasons, have momentarily forgotten what Euclidean distance is while remembering everything else. Now consider something written by the late lamented Andrew Gleason:
It is notoriously difficult to convey the proper impression of the frontiers of mathematics to nonspecialists. Ultimately the difficulty stems from the fact that mathematics is an easier subject than the other sciences. Consequently, many of the important primary problems of the subject—that is, problems which can be understood by an intelligent outsider—have either been solved or carried to a point where an indirect approach is clearly required. The great bulk of pure mathematical research is concerned with secondary, tertiary, or higher-order problem, the very statement of which can hardly be understood until one has mastered a great deal of technical mathematics.
I think the combination of the two explains your (quite common) experience of our math articles. Of course, on top of all that, a lot of our articles are incomplete or just plain badly written, and in math or science – unlike (say) history – a single hiccup on a key point can make the entire rest of the article unintelligible. What to do about all this, I do not know; better minds than mine, say David Eppstein's, have put more thought into than I have. EEng16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This complaint about technicality of mathematics is a common one, both here and elsewhere: see the famous incident of Euclid, Ptolemy, and the royal road to geometry. Usually when I see this sort of complaint on specific Wikipedia articles it indicates that the complainer doesn't appreciate that some important topics in mathematics really are necessarily difficult, but I think the two examples above about Euclidean distance and happy numbers are indeed more technical than they need to be. Some of us really do put a lot of effort into making mathematics articles accessible, but it's difficult to write both nontechnically and informatively on these topics, and some other editors are more enthusiastic about putting in as much technical detail as they can. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, wow, that is neat! Current version turned out even better than I was mentally picturing an improvement to look. Nice touch on swapping out the main image too - the old one had wayy too much going on as the intro pic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly understandable, and nothing that a good drink cannot ameliorate. And, of course, all discerning editors have a liking for fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of weird actually. I've been editing for three days and until this moment no one -- no one -- seems to have noticed or reacted in any way. I mean not a single sign of life. It's like one of those sci fi movies where they board a vast, derelict spaceship and wander the empty halls. It's almost creepy. EEng03:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that as well. When I went to post this I had to read through the last few posts here to see if I was doubling up. I am a little surprised there have not been any overblown reverts/threats. In a good way mind you! PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course -- good reverts and friendly threats. The article is so stuffed with WP:YOUDONTSAY and WP:CORNCOBS and circumlocution that if I were the suspicious type I might think it was a Republican plot to reduce voter participation by lulling the electorate en masse into a a state of stupor lasting through Election Day. EEng04:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without distinction based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field. Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement.
I just posted because the inclusion of 'skills' seemed very weird. I certainly don't think we should give people a by because they're skilled, but this possibly could be interpreted to say that we can't ding them because they're unskilled. Am I being obtuse? —valereee (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I share your sentiment about google url debris in general (especially when it's surfaced onto the rendered page), I find the new text search feature quite handy when used judiciously. EEng18:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptoid
I can't find the sentence in WP:EL that says Skeptoid is "not the sort of thing we link to", especially since it is "pretty good". Please help. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
one should generally avoid providing external links to ... Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. I said it's pretty good because it's lively and incorporates the latest research instead of rehashing the usual tired fictions about Gage being a vagrant psychopath and so on (though it does contain some minor fictional flourishes of the author's own). But there's nothing factual in it not already in the article. EEng18:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
THE OBSERVERS WERE NOT ALLOWED INTO THE COUNTING ROOMS. I WON THE ELECTION. I DID. ME ME ME. SHOUTING IN CAPS MAKES YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT. MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WERE SENT TO SQUIRRELS! WAAAH! WAAAH! WAAH!
I'm puzzled by something, and I'm hoping some among my glittering salon of (talk page stalker)s can explain. Here goes...
Everyone knows the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election from poor Donald Trump. But why didn't they steal all those Senate and House and gubernatorial races while they were at it? I mean even just in Georgia... since they rigged the presidential count in Georgia, why didn't they rig the two Georgia Senate races too? Then they'd control the Senate. EEng22:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the perfidy of American voters, supporting a variety of people, versus blindly supporting a "party". What were they thinking? Each politician is an individual, with their own (hopefully) worthy beliefs? Perish the thought, what a novel concept! Perhaps voters wished to "form a more perfect union". Such dreadful revolutionary thinking....Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!23:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YOU NEED TO SHOUT IN CAPS! IT MAKES YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT! IF TRUMP DOES IT, IT MUST BE TRUE! On a more serious note (is that allowed on this page?), I just don't just want Trump kicked out of office, or even just dragged out of the White House in handcuffs on tax fraud charges ... I want the entire concept of supporting Trump to be comical as saying you like to have sexual intercourse with hamsters. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with hamsters? (I'm trisexual: I keep trying, and trying, and trying.)
About all those down-ballot races, I've actually found myself wondering along the lines of a bit of a conspiracy theory of my own. Why did the pre-election polls get Colorado right, but so much else wrong? Is it because Colorado uses a paper ballot-based system, rather than touch-screen machines? Yeah, the election was stolen, but by the GOP. Really, some voting machines are crazy easy to manipulate without leaving a trace. (Now Tryptofish takes off tin foil hat.)
Maybe I'll eventually calm down, but anyone who says that they are pro-family and pro-life while defending the separation of little children from their parents at the southern border does not deserve to breathe oxygen. I know we should all make an effort to reach out and heal, but I'm having a hard time getting there.
But then again: Dems have got to stop talking about defunding the police and similar idiotic shit. Sorry, but some of our wounds are self-inflicted. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish:, per #3: I am with you. It's as though once an infant is born, no care, thought or support is given to its continued existence. ("Supporting life" would include pre-natal care, family leave, access to food, housing and medical care.) It's dreadful to consider the cruelty and trauma inflicted on these children. This is an "anti-family" stance, which has tormented innocent children and their helpless parents. Distressed, Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!01:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Republicans care so very, very much about children before they're born, but they don't give a shit about them after they're born. EEng02:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the truth. A number of years ago, a study showed that the states with the most restrictive abortion laws, also provided the least amount of public assistance to single mothers, etc. Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good god, you and Fowler&Fowler are both completely mad. [Reaches for wordsmyth.net.] Around the bend. Batty. Cuckoo. Mental. Suffering from rabies. Bishonen | tålk15:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not going to get involved in the actual thread because I don't care, but I take issue with because readers not mentally defective, from whatever geography or culture, will know without being told that an American vice-president-to-be is (duh!) an American politician. You know and I know that the US has the "native born" clause, but there's no reason for readers elsewhere to know that and in most countries it's not wildly unusual for politicians to be citizens of other countries owing to the complex rules governing who got what citizenship when the British, French and Portuguese colonial empires collapsed. (Until a couple of years ago Boris Johnson was a US citizen, there was a minor diplomatic incident recently when UK government minister Nadhim Zahawi was banned from entering the US owing to his Iraqi citizenship; and you have people like Claire Hanna who serve in the British parliament without even a dual let alone a sole British nationality. I'm sure the same is true in every other former colonial power and most former colonies, as well—probably half the adult population of Macau and Hong Kong are officially Portuguese or British citizens.) ‑ Iridescent16:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get both sides. I also have an extreme aversion to lecturing people on grammar. I was taught that it’s something you should never do to an adult as correcting grammar is something that you do to children, so when doing it you’re effectively treating someone like a child. It’s basically one of the rudest things you can do in English. Anyway, all that to say, I get why you’re pissed off (I see MelanieN commented on it, so I’ll ping her for my take here 😅.)On the merits, I actually disagree that “we do this for everyone” is a bad argument. Consistency of style on major articles helps us create a house voice of sorts, which in turn makes us seem more professional and helps the reader know what to expect in an article in terms of structure. Consistency is more reader friendly.That being said, if I had to build the entire system from scratch I’d dump it for largely the same reasons you (EEng) are describing. Ignoring the citizenship context, of course a member of the US Senate and VP-elect is an “American politician”. In the cases Iri is describing, I’d actually argue fairly strongly that commonwealth nationals serving in the Parliament of the United Kingdom are British politicians even without citizenship in the UK/colonies or nationality: if they’re elected by the British public to serve in a British political body, they are a British politician regardless of nationality/citizenship issues. They might be a Canadian or Aussie or Bahamian as well, but that wouldn’t change the fact that they are also very much serving as a British politician. The question of their citizenship in such cases would be worth mentioning, but I’d see that as something to do in cases where such issues arise. Also, on the Hanna topic, I get why calling an Irish person a British politician might not be ideal, so skirting around it by not mentioning anything in the lead seems the most diplomatic way.TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Memory?
I've wanted to ask this for a while now. But... Special:Diff/987768637. And your various other edits where you pick a time in an obscure 4,000 view video or a two-sentence quote from page 386 in some text. Is there some special bookmarking app I don't know about, or some memory pill, or what's going on here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean stuff like this [188]? Believe it or not I carry it all around in my head (see right); when I was in college the dean said I was a "coal mine of information". It all started after I was struck by lightning at 5 years old. Modern science has failed to explain it. But don't worry – I am sworn to use it only for good, never for evil. EEng06:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AND NOW BIDEN IS GONNA DESTROY ALL THE COAL MINES OF INFORMATION! I WANNA SAVE ALL THE COAL MINES OF INFORMATION!
Well, that certainly brings a whole new meaning to "electrical engineering"! Somehow, I envision that it hurt the lightning bolt far worse than it hurt you. (The dean, however, may have been thinking about black lung.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's happening?
And now my life has changed in oh so many ways My independence seems to vanish in the haze
Top of the morning to you, Ringo Paul!! I wanted to share a few thoughts about recent trends, and what I find extremely disconcerting about WP these days. I think you've noticed it, too. I'm speaking of the subtle transition in the way a few of our admins are swinging their mops. It appears more like duty creep that has transitioned from a focus on fighting vandals and stopping disruption to the cognitive restructuring of editors by using their tools to control the narrative. What ever happened to "Think different"? Is WP becoming a homogenized project because of groupthink, and what appears to be either a lack of or suppression of creative thinking skills and free thought? It's one thing to keep the prose in our articles dispassionate and neutral but doing so should neither prevent it from being engaging, nor absent of all significant views - but that is exactly what's happening. Engaging readers is how we capture their interest vs alienating at least half of them with a large dose of WP:POV creep. Of course, WP will survive and grow because of the trivia and COI articles that inundate us now, but what are we growing into? In my experiences, citing a WP article in a discussion becomes a battle over fact and opinion because WP is considered unreliable and is quickly dismissed which drives our readers to seek knowledge elsewhere. Do you see that as a potentially dangerous trend? The internet itself is a trend and serves as the host for trends, all of which are driven by popularity. Someone somewhere is building a better mousetrap, and if it turns out to be more reliable, fact-based and neutral which is what WP started out to be, what will happen then? How dependable is the loyalty of WP volunteers, especially when we're being treated like disposable nobodies under the control of thought police? Just a few thoughts from an over-thinker. Atsme💬📧12:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, Atsme's opening reference is to my recent confession (at AN) that I am actually Ringo Starr.EEng
I'm not in a position to actually narrow it down to a particular diff because of an ongoing discussion, so I'll just say Jimbo's TP is full of examples. Also to consider is DS AE in general because unilateral actions can be made at an admin's sole discretion, and cannot be overturned by another admin as is the case with normal blocks or t-bans. Granted, we have some excellent admins but it only takes a few aggressive types to influence an entire process. When admins start modifying PAGs to fit their POV, and have become so involved in a topic area that they form preconceived notions about particular editors and how they think that editor will act in a situation, that's prejudice. In the big picture, it's the calm before the storm. It's one of the initial steps to homogenization. Another initial step is the limiting and deliberate selection of what resources can be cited for inclusion of information/material. Take it from there, maestro. Atsme💬📧15:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, for whatever reason I do very little editing in DS areas, so I'm only vaguely tuned in to what you're talking about. I also stay away from the ol' Jimbo talk page, and from the sound of things that's the way it should stay. I'm concerned at your distress, but I'm struggling to find a way to relieve it. EEng04:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my limited experience, sweeping statements about the "declining state of Wikipedia" usually have their origins in very specific disputes concerning certain articles, WikiProjects, topic areas, editors or admins. For example, I don't think we can judge the quality of the entire project based on a dozen articles on the current political situation in the U.S.
I can understand not wanting to name names and escalate this currently abstract discussion but it's important to ground statements about the quality of Wikipedia with specific examples so one can evaluate the merits of the argument being made. Just my 2 cents. LizRead!Talk!06:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's keep this going. It's funny how tempest in a teapot cases can end with a one-way ticket on the WP:POV railroad,choo-choo but not a total loss if it provides further fodder for future filings.WP:5Fs On point: AE/DS, one need look no further than the words "discretionary", "unilateral", "preventative", and "backsliding into past behaviors", all of which are defined in a rather muddled and dubious fashion or simply as generalities with countless loopholes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't adminship created for the purpose of fighting vandals, socks and stopping real disruption? Nowhere in our blocking policy does it say that it's acceptable to drop the ban hammer for the following reasons: WP:DONTLIKEIT, cognitive restructuring, Wikipedia:PREJUDICED, or WP:POLD, relevant or not. EEng's probably thinking - You kids get off my lawn!! So I'm thinking I'll make him a sign that reads Keep off the grass! and one for me that reads Keep off my ass! Following is my rendition of AE/DS in action: you make a wisecrack or spout off something under the DS umbrella that an admin doesn't like, and your ass gets blocked at their discretion, despite your comment having one or more of the following descriptors: [FBDB], [stretch] or [hyperbole]. That's how bad things have gotten. Credit's due where it's earned so I'll just say Excellent way to disincentivize productive editors! I realize that nobody gives a big 🐀 about what I think, and neither do I for the most part, so back on point - the biggest problem with DS/AE is that an admin's action can't be overturned without an act of congress,[hyperbole] accompanied by some and eating a big ole helping of . In hopes of defusing the chilling effects of allegations such as woke editors being enablers of the "scorned", I will just point out that blind alliances are what enable the accuser to make such degrading comments with impunity, especially if it stems from prejudice, misconceptions and WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise. Isn't it time for the community to make a few tweaks here and there, and put things back into proper perspective? I'm not the only one who recognizes that we have problems in that area that need fixing; it goes right up to 4 members of ArbCom. KK stated:But I believe this would be better addressed in a case request about discretionary sanctions, which is yet another thing we've been meaning to take a look at for a while. This would be an excellent opportunity for us to revisit the whole issue. Ok Ringo (who, as a kid, looked like Paul), it's your turn to beat your...drum, just the drum! Atsme💬📧15:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000: I think this is headed in the right direction.DFO
Atsme, Just so you know, there is somewhere on Wikipedia a log of AE/AN/ANI cases and it tracks subject/admins involved and political issue and how the cases were resolved. It's not just Wikipedia topics that are biased. And the bias is so pervasive that at times Wikipedia isn't fun to edit anymore. I've been here since 2005 I think and it was fun to be around. Now it's strategic editing and trying to avoid certain editors who you don't want to interact with. (and just so you know, in some areas, people won't come to your defense because they don't want to go against the groupthink, or also don't want to ruin their image.) Sir Joseph(talk)00:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately for some, it hasn't been recently updated as it is an indictment of several conservative-minded editors. This paranoid theme that admins and editors are a cabal makes no more sense than QAnon crap. If editors that wish to push the concept that everything is a conspiracy against their belief system want to push that POV; they’re going to have drop that line and find a new path based on actual Wikipedia guidelines, reality, and good faith. I considered entering the recent AE filing a few times (something I’m not shy about) – but found no reason as Atsme was making my case against her in every edit. Coupla years ago, Drmies told her that other editors would start making a record of her hapless claims (paraphrasing). There is no deep state. There is no cabal. Just stick to the facts. I’ll finish by saying that Atsme is a far, far better editor than I and of value to the community. So long as she avoids anything remotely political. And couldn't our host find a better Beatle than Ringo? Perhaps someone in the Chrysomelidae famliy?O3000 (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, a specific example illustrating the declining quality of Wikipedia relating to Atsme's comments about unilateral DS AE actions may be when you gave me apparently false advice about my AE appeal and said that I was lucky to not be blocked. When I asked you to confirm that my appeal actually met WP:BANEX, you did not respond.[191] New editors will not be able to casually participate here under these conditions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity - my concerns are not about editors who identify as conservative or liberal - I couldn't care less about one's ideology when I'm editing - it's about editors and admins who do care, take it personally and feel the need to act on it by pigeonholing their opposition as right-wing (which, btw, is a WP:PA), and then slapping a gag order on them without ever specifying a valid reason for it; a throw shit against the wall approach. I have actually defended a few of my detractors/opposition at AE when I perceived an injustice and will also be the first to lend a helping hand in RL. It's not about the politics for me, it's about the party 🎉🎊.
I'll take it one step further...(which is what my critics hate most about me)...things have gotten to the point that some editors have even cited controlled surveys to gage intelligence levels of people who watch certain news channels, and when such a survey is conducted by academia, and aligns with their POV, it's considered a RS for statements of fact. That has to stop because it is all about IDONTLIKEIT, and the ugly hand of bias reaching out to slap GF editors who are simply copyediting, or trying to achieve NPOV. EEng got a little taste of it himself at Talk:Joe Biden but because he's openly not a fan of Trump and is known as Jesus Christ superstar,affectionately he was not nailed to the cross as I probably would have been, for Christ's sake. I believe a big part of it is prejudice based on preconceived notions that my editing is politically motivated. I have been wrongfully accused of that simply because I disagree, (or is it because of the gender gap)? Another major issue is the overuse of keyword identifiers, like the ones commonly used by so-called media bias experts, in a terribly flawed process. WP editors are using that same process. Certain words or "talking points" send Paul Revere galloping off to warn the village, and the troops arrive with muskets loaded![stretch]
Regardless, it's simple bias that keeps certain articles scrubbed, full of trivia and noncompliant with NPOV relative to criticism. Quite frankly, it's poor editorial judgment when we have unwieldy articles filled with trivia, peacock words, and other material that fails WP:10YT. The essay or guideline supplement WP:RSP is being used improperly, and actually conflicts with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. And that's just for starters, so back on point - the DS-AE brigade is causing more harm than good because prejudice is the Lon Chaney of bias,an old folks analogy and what I perceive to be the motivation per The Critic that Levivich linked to above. Atsme💬📧16:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does Lon Chaney mean? He's in everything? Anyway, why are administrators automatically permitted to participate in conduct disputes? It's puzzling that we're combining the duties of editorial oversight and interpersonal mediation...these aren't related skills. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my view admin are neither for conduct disputes nor for editorial oversight. The purpose of an administrator is, or rather should be, to push a button that we cannot let everyone push because the risk of abuse or misuse is too great. The buttons are "protect", "delete", and "block". An individual editor is, or rather should be, allowed to become an administrator because the community thinks they will not abuse or misuse a button; i.e., they will only push it when they are supposed to; i.e,. they will only push the button when consensus says they should push the button, regardless of their personal opinions. Admin are, or rather should be, chosen for their ability to understand and comply with consensus when it comes to the pushing of those buttons. Discretionary sanctions turns this upside down, by allowing admins to choose when to push the buttons, and to create entirely new buttons of their own. DS turned admins from being an implement of consensus to being a police officer, judge, jury, and executioner. This has been disastrous, as a small group of people (less than a dozen) have appointed themselves essentially the babysitters of entire topic areas. The conscious and unconscious biases and prejudices of this group of people, who are only human, inform their enforcement decisions, and thus determine when sanctions are imposed and when they are not, and thus determine who gets sanctioned and who doesn't, and thus determine who edits and who doesn't, and thus entire topic areas take on this small group of people's particular interpretation of NPOV, to the point that even outside observers perceive the palpable bias in our articles. Why does such a small group of people have such outsized influence? Because we let them. Editors fail to resolve problems among themselves; instead of doing the difficult work of compromise, they punt disputes to a group of self-appointed "parents"; then they complain about the parents' decisions. I think this should change, which is why I participate regularly at ANI, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. (And by extension, in RFAs, Arbcom elections, and WMF Trustee elections.) "Take the power back." Lev!vich18:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ping in Iridescent for wise observations on the above. (And I want them to know that I did make a feeble attempt to archive in preparation.) EEng09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to read through all the above gibberish; what is the actual question? If it's about a general right-v-left, that isn't a particularly useful exercise; Wikipedia is a global project, and the definitions of "right wing" and "left wing" are culture-specific. (To pick an obvious piece of low-hanging fruit, if a member of the British Conservative Party were to espouse most of the US Democratic Party platform, they'd be expelled in fairly short order as an extreme-right entryist.) ‑ Iridescent10:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the crux of the problem is unilateral action taken at an admin's sole discretion in the name of DS-AE, which means the action cannot be overturned by another admin. Worse yet, DS are being/have been customized to address certain behaviors of editors that have been/are being analyzed by the same few admins; therefore, unlikely to escape prejudice or their own biases and that equates into being involved. To get an AE block or t-ban removed, an editor is forced to either grovel to the enforcing admin, or endure the AE process wherein detractors have been known to cast aspersions and launch PAs with impunity - not fun, especially when it's a POV content issue and not actual disruption. There are no time limits on discussions, so the opposition who may be losing an argument can yell "BLUDGEONING" and an admin can block/t-ban the effective editor to silence them. Bias or prejudice are strong arguments for involvement, and so is patterned behavior that might also include the "study" of an editor, if not admin HOUNDING, which again speaks to "involved". How do we eliminate these problems - especially when trust is lost - keeping in mind the ideological bias on Wikipedia, which is another aspect of the problem that results in disproportionate blocks & indef t-bans against those editors whose views may not align with the acting admin's views? Atsme💬📧15:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(All obviously with "just my personal opinion and not in any official capacity" disclaimers.) I personally think discretionary sanctions are thoroughly abused, and that their use in practice is almost never justified. They were intended as a fast-track mechanism to deal with obvious cranks and obsessives and with diehard editwarriors in obvious problem areas, not as a general mechanism by which people who know how to play wiki-politics can use pseudolitigation to knock people who disagree with them out of play to allow a preferred version to stick around long enough to become the default.
All that said, I'm utterly unconvinced that the alleged "ideological bias of Wikipedia" exists. To me, the supposed "bias" is just a reflection of the fact that Wikipedia aggregates sources from around the world, not just from the area under discussion, and that English Wikipedia's editors break 40% US, 60% other; as such, when it comes to political topics our coverage of European and Canadian topics appears skewed to the right since we're giving due weight to American opinion, and our coverage of US topics appears skewed to the left because we're giving due weight to non-US opinion. This is particularly true when it comes to modern US political topics; it's hard to overstate how loathed the current incarnation of the US Republican Party is by even their traditional allies on the right in Europe. (Current leaders are holding their tongues publicly until he's out of office so as not to provoke diplomatic incidents, but it's fair to assume that e.g. former UK Conservative Party leader Malcolm Rifkind's on-the-record description of Trump as "Repulsive … so coarse, so vulgar, so insulting to friends as well as to foes … I find him a really exhausting experience and one that does no benefit to his own country reflects what Johnson, von der Leyen, Merkel et al are saying in private.)
If there is a systemic bias on Wikipedia, it's not a systemic bias towards either the right or the left, but a systemic bias towards the values of industrialized societies; to paraphrase something I recently said on my talk page, if the WMF genuinely believed that the opinions of everyone in the world was of equal value than 1⁄3 of each article would be dedicated to the Communist view of that topic and significant chunks of every article on any popular-culture topic would give due weight to the "sinful frivolity which will make you burn in hell" hypothesis.
TL;DR: When it comes to discretionary sanctions, unless it would be obvious to any reasonable outside observer that applying DS is appropriate, it almost certainly isn't. Think of them as a WP:PROD process for editors: if there's any good-faith objection it ought to go to a discussion. Alleged anti-(whatever) bias doesn't come into it and I'm not convinced such a thing exists. ‑ Iridescent18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AE and DS are an example of "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em". For every complaint of DS-gone-evil, there's a counter-example of DS-finally-solved-a-problem. In one fish's opinion, GMOs are the poster child for the latter. But then again, it depends on which "side" one is on – there is no shortage of anti-GMO POV-pushers who would classify me as the "people who know how to play wiki-politics [and] can use pseudolitigation to knock people who disagree with them out of play to allow a preferred version to stick around long enough to become the default." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer living without DS/AE for the reasons I stated. I agree with Iridescent for the most part. My primary concern is relative to the rejection of significant views from our articles based on DONTLIKEIT, resulting in the purposeful omission of material, or because a particular partisan media echo chamber refused to publish it for whatever reason. After all, a scandal is not a scandal until it has been published by media; a rather pompous POV, don't you think? I'm not referring to verifiable scientific information; rather, my focus is on biased news media, and how we tend to accept at face value whatever scandal clickbait media decides to publish - not to mention RECENTISM. Another problem is our limited access to RS behind paywalls (a growing problem), an issue that I've brought to Jimbo's attention for a couple of years now, hoping something could be done to avoid the inevitable dilemma. Volunteers working in AfC and NPP need access to those sources for verifiability, but oh well. May the force be with you!Atsme💬📧21:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask whether I think it's "a pompous POV" to consider something as "not a scandal" until published sources say that it's a scandal, I'll tell you what I think. Outside of Wikipedia, I suppose yes there is something rather self-congratulatory about the assumption that something isn't real until self-appointed media arbiters declare it as such. And similarly, there's something obnoxiously Warhol-esque, and/or Kardashian-West-esque, about equating fame with relevance. Long-forgotten: "I think, therefore I am."
But if we're talking instead about Wikipedia (which no one should confuse with the real world!), I think that we damn well better have a preponderance of reliable sources calling something "a scandal", before we call it "a scandal" in Wikipedia's voice. There's nothing pompous about that; in fact, it ought to grow out of a certain humility about editor fallibility.
You and I largely agree about recentism on Wikipedia. My personal way of dealing with recentism has become one of staying away from topics where it presents a risk. Someone else's problem, not mine. Your mileage may differ.
But I posted the previous comment largely because I feel that this discussion is trending in one direction, and that it would benefit from some push-back. Do I think we should deprecate pay-walled sources? Absolutely not! Frankly, there is something anti-intellectual about the concept: nothing is real unless Google finds it. I still believe in libraries with paper books.
I appreciate that you distinguish between verifiable scientific information and controversial public affairs. Like you, I despair of Wikipedia's ability to adequately deal with the latter. And I agree that clickbait is idiot-bait. (See: I'm repeatedly trying to identify common ground. Perhaps I'm very trying!) I've heard other editors say (I've lost track of who, sorry) that we should move away from characterizing recent events and towards just saying what happened. I like that idea. But I think there's a lot underlying "we tend to accept at face value whatever scandal clickbait media decides to publish". If the claim is that the current consensus is to present clickbait as fact, while a minority of honorable editors are being mistreated, sorry, but I don't accept it on face value. I know that's not what you want to hear from me, but we may have to agree to disagree. (As I write this, I'm hearing over the radio that "thousands" have turned out for the Million Moron March I mean Million MAGA March. Yes, that's still where my mind is at, at present. Keep me away from political mainspace content.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference between our perspectives is that I want the full scoop as someone who was trained in old-school journalism when neutrality, accuracy and journalistic ethics meant something unlike what we see today in some of the clickbait opinion journalism - it's day and night - whereas your perspective is more personal, particularly where politics are concerned. I'm not being critical of you, it's your perspective and I respect that, but I don't feel obligated to either share it or agree with it. I also don't harbor any ill-will toward anyone for having a different perspective from my own, but that sentiment isn't always reciprocated. I will joke about any politician at the drop of a hat, I don't care where I am or who I'm talking to, be it Trump or Biden. My Italian Momma, who could be a little crude in her forthrightness, taught me a long time ago that nobody is better than anybody else because we all have to wipe our butt after we take a dump. Talk about humbling...maybe we all need that little reminder from time to time. Atsme💬📧01:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to get the full scoop! (That's caramel corn, if anyone's wondering... --Tryptofish)
Be careful about looking for a full scoop while wiping your butt!
But seriously, it's certainly a good thing for both of us (and for anyone watching) to respect one another's perspectives even when those perspectives are not shared. You may perhaps want to consider that, whereas from your perspective you are seeking the full scoop (sorry, I can't stop smiling at that one!), other editors who have been in conflict with you (and I don't mean me here) see it as having an idiosyncratic view of what is or is not a reliable source (as Wikipedia defines reliable sources) and that you are too slow to drop the stick (drop the scooper?) when consensus goes against you. I try my level best not to consider myself to have any extra sway about neuroscience content based on my professional background, and I would suggest that your professional journalism background doesn't make your views about journalism any more valid for Wikipedia's purposes than the views of editors who are journalistic laypersons. My sincere advice, but you obviously don't have to take it.
I disagree that my perspective is more (or less) personal than anyone else's (and I think I'm entitled to say when my perspective has been characterized in a way I disagree with). Everyone who cares about public affairs has a personal perspective about it. And if people (or fish) are discussing and expressing personal political perspectives in Wikipedia user space, that's different than expressing it in mainspace or on content noticeboards. And I take very seriously my obligation to set my personal perspectives about politics aside when it's anything reader-facing. As I've now said enough times to fill up multiple scoops, I've been taking the position that editing about American Politics is someone else's problem, not mine. And just prior to my having decided that, our host EEng (this is EEng's talk page, isn't it?) will doubtless remember my taking a "let's not violate BLP over Trump" position here (and here). When it comes to content (and heck, even !Russian hookers), I'd say I've tried pretty hard to set the personal aside. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, it's not unusual to believe that about oneself or one's position - but it works both ways. You said, other editors who have been in conflict with you (and I don't mean me here) see it as having an idiosyncratic view of what is or is not a reliable source. That's expected when the opposition has no other argument to support their position - they target, freeze, personalize & polarize (Alinsky rule #13). And if there's no smoking gun to justify a case at one of the drama boards, they plant one by prepending every diff with an aspersion knowing that few, if any, admins/arbs will actually read the diffs in context, if at all. I have dared to cite PAGs that support my position whereas the opposition argues their respective opinions which typically align with the majority. Today's prevailing attitude is that left-leaning news sources are more reliable. Sorry, but I disagree with the whole RSP rating system - it is flawed. ALL news sources should be approached with caution because they all contribute to issues relative to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. Journalists are not scholars. The alliances/loyalties that grew from some of the older news sources still remain, but now that we have the internet, more people are being exposed to the same facts but from different media perspectives. You can believe one perspective is more reliable than another but that doesn't make it so - only corroborated, verifiable facts matter. Surely we can agree that the bias on WP leans left, and that left-leaning editors are equally as aggressive as their opposition but left-leaning editors have more protection because of the sheer numbers, especially when like minded admins are editing side by side with them in a like-minded majority. Don't Stop The Carnival!
Let's say we're doing damage control and we come across the research conducted by The Critic, or we read our own ideological bias on Wikipedia and cited sources, and we are already aware of the hegemony of the asshole consensus, and WP:RSP. What do you think we should do when we read all the online media criticism about WP? Simply ignore it? Just today I Googled criticisms +Wikipedia, and came across this article, (a source I'm not familiar with), but out of curiosity I looked at RSP and confirmed that it was indeed deprecated. There was an RfC and another brief discussion at WP:RSN. Soooo...what are your thoughts about it? Oh, and before I forget (a simple FYI), I also participated in that same DYK discussion that you provided diffs to above. My diffs are here,here,here, and here.Atsme💬📧19:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atsme. Just quickly about your last point, about the DYK discussion, yes I know that you participated there too. My reason for linking to my own participation in it was in regards to the fact that, despite my rather unambiguous personal views about Trump, when I took part in a discussion about something referring to him that would appear on the main page, I set aside my personal views and took the position that we needed to be meticulous about BLP and not imply anything about him that was unsubstantiated.
As for the rest, I really don't want to get into further discussion about it. I understand what you are saying and I'm confident that you understand what I am saying. Let's please leave it at that. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra Consider the 1998 address to UNCF, by VP Dan Quayle, who stated: "And you take the U.N.C.F. model that what a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." Amazing words of wisdom...some brain cells died in the cause...Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!02:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proving that my talk page has grown to the point that it is no longer necessary to make new posts, but rather simply reference prior posts: [193]. EEng03:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :::Thanks for asking deities, saints, etc., to assist in closing the WP:ELEM thread at ANI. It seems that your heartfelt pleas (and those of others) were answered. Lighting a candle...Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!04:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point...I think the aliens might be searching for some tasty? food, if they beamed up "the real" DQ! You are obviously a connoisseur of fast food...ninth favorite? You made me laugh, thanks! Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!04:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EEng—I see that David Eppstein recently granted you template editor rights. Your edits at {{Talk header}} were a serious breach of WP:TPEBOLD; it is not at all acceptable to just go ahead and modify a template with 500,000 transclusions just since you think you can improve the wording. Please familiarize yourself with the expectations for editing template-protected pages, or you are likely to lose the right. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have a reason for the revert over procedural threat. This is a respected editor with thousands of template edits.--Moxy🍁21:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this regards the series of edits starting at [194]. Sdkb, my vague recollection is that past interactions with you have been perfectly pleasant, and I'm sure that will continue, but right now you need to calm down and read the very guideline you're citing. TFEBOLD has nothing to do with anything here because it's about disputes, which this isn't – except to the extent that you've chosen to create one by pretending that every change requires prior consensus, which as we're about to see is false.
The applicable guideline is actually WP:TPECON, which gives a detailed outline of the kinds of template changes that require prior discussion – none of which even conceivably applies here – and then specifically calls out "copy-edits of any sort" as among "changes that can almost always be made unilaterally". So contrary to what you claim, editors can in fact (as you put it) just go ahead and modify a template with 500,000 transclusions just since you think you can improve the wording, because that's what copyediting is. In sum, you have (a) raised a completely specious procedural objection to my changes but (b) given no substantive objection to them whatsoever. Got any? EEng23:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)EEng, I've had pleasant interactions with you in the past as well and I'm sorry to have to give you such a harsh warning off the bat, but TPE is a highly advanced right and it's your responsibility to familiarize yourself with the requirements. Your edits gave me concern that you are not approaching template editing with due caution and respect for consensus, and your reply here reinforces that concern.
TPEBOLD was the shortcut I intended to cite, specifically the The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply line, given that you prefaced one of your edits with the summary BOLD EDIT:. That section continues by reiterating the point that any edit that might be controversial should be discussed first; your edits were clearly in that category, given that the definition of an uncontroversial edit is one that could not be disputed and I dispute that your edits were an improvement. Regarding TPECON, the line Copy-edits of any sort. (Just be sure you're right!) reads to me as clearly referring to grammatical fixes, not things like the addition of the Ask questions, get answers sentenceyour edits. If this were a template with a few thousand transclusions, things might be more flexible, but at 500,000 transclusions, it's very clear that prior consensus is expected for that sort of edit.
More generally, I very much understand that there's a learning curve when you're beginning something new, but especially given that David Eppsteingranted you the right despite your not meeting the WP:TPEGRANT criteria, this was your chance to show your willingness to take in constructive feedback, and I'm not seeing that here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. TPECON is just a rough guide. The idea is generally that allowing the opportunity for discussion is preferred when editing high visibility templates, but it comes down to ones best judgement on the changes really. It also slightly backfires sometimes because many times nobody cares enough either way, or instinctively prefers the status quo, so stuff remains shit. I think you, too, have had experiences with this. I don't have much of an opinion here, other than to say either way I don't think it deserves an overly hard spanking - after all, a new admin recently made a bold change on the Main Page and got less for it.As for the change itself, I think it's an improvement in the wording. More generally, EEng has a certain eloquence with words that I think is useful in the template namespace, so I'm glad he's a template editor. Hopefully for his next trick he turns his talk page purging into a bot to more broadly blankclean up the talk page banner mess. In the meantime, perhaps it's worth popping these now-reverted changes onto the talk to discuss? As I say, I think they are clearer. That may be the productive way forward. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to invite Iridescent to comment on something, and they're always complaining about load times so I thought I'd make at least a token effort. EEng09:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see ...
I understand that WP:TPEBOLD is what you meant to reference, but that doesn't make it any less inapplicable, because it's an injuction against abusing the TPE right to gain the upper hand in disputes, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing. The issue here is when to get prior consensus, and that's covered at WP:TPECON.
Copyediting may read to you as grammar fixes only, but it's not. See Copyediting.
There was no addition of the Ask questions, get answers sentence; I simply gave the existing sentence its own bullet. [195]
The fact that I drew attention (by calling out BOLD in the edit summary) to my one edit which was even arguably substantive [196] does not mean I thought it would be controversial. I didn't and I don't.
Your reasoning is entirely circular: I shouldn't have made the edits because they're controversial; they're controversial because you disputed them; you disputed them because I shouldn't have made them. Like it says at WP:TPEDISPUTE:
A template editor should not revert the edit of their peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged. It is the responsibility of the reverting template editor to demonstrate their revert is not out of sheer reflex.
So one more time: do you have any specific objections to the edits themselves (other than your mistaken comment, addressed above, about the "Ask questions, get answers sentence")? Otherwise, as you can probably tell by the other comments here, you're beginning to look silly by continuing to harp about process instead of discussing substance, and your feedback, though well-intended, is misguided.
Instead of blindly mass-reverting to make a point you should have built on or adjusted what I did, or selectively reverted. For example, you can't seriously be suggesting that the template should continue to tell readers where to go to find disputes (For disputes, seek dispute resolution), the absurdity of which Eppstein has so succinctly illustrated above.
You are right regarding the "ask questions" sentence; I misread the way it displayed in the diffs and I apologize about that. I think the point holds up with other examples, but I'm going to strike that, as well as serious at the top as a gesture of goodwill. I still urge you to be more cautious, though, especially when you're editing a template that appears at the very top of roughly 1 out of every 6 article talk pages on Wikipedia, and to seek discussion first next time.
The specific objections I have to the edits is a separate discussion to the procedural one here, and I wish editors would not mix them as it benefits neither. A discussion on the talk page was just opened, and I'll participate there. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the strikes and so on, but still this thread has been a complete waste of time. You should have just commented on the edits and saved everyone all this distraction; if you wanted to say, in opening such a discussion, "might have been better to have have discussed these changes first", that would have been fine. The high transclusion count, where those transclusions are outside article space, is of no significance unless you think the result is affirmatively objectionable, not just capable-of-being-improved (and I'll not that most participants at the talk page seem to think that the changes were improvements on balance over the old text, so in point of fact it would have been better for you to have left them while further improvements were discussed). EEng07:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Civility
Is not a joke, its a policy. You could have said what you wanted in a way that would not have antagonised.
Hi EEng. I know you didn't change the caption from "official portrait". That was done when the photo was changed from the uncropped version to the cropped one (which was a poor assessment of consensus, IMO). I didn't mean to suggest that you did that. Also, I didn't say you don't know what MOS:IMAGESIZE means. I chose my words carefully knowing that you wrote it and have used it to justify similar changes in the past. ― Tartan357Talk05:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I shouldn't have handled this the way I did. I'm genuinely trying to understand IMGSIZE now but am just not seeing the details in it that you're invoking. I'll listen if you're willing to try explaining it further at Talk:Joe Biden. ― Tartan357Talk23:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your abject apology and pound of flesh are accepted, and I have recalled the killer robot drones. I'll answer over at Talk:JB. EEng11:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to use the limerick! I might tweak it a little bit - do feel the last line could be punchier, but go with the version you like best. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs23:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smart. It might work as "truthful whimsy" -- see Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool's_Main_Page#The_Ground_Rules. Perhaps the entirety of the text/caption for the image could be simply and only the limerick, with the link behind it taking the reader to the article. But the article needs work, really it does. I'll be happy to help but with the Harvard Archives closed it may be tough to do a good job. That's unfortunate, because my spidey sense tell me that [199], being a scrapbook by alumni, might have interesting biographical details. By the way [200][201][202][203][204]. (She apparently spent a lot of time at the beach.) EEng13:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, personally I've always found the ol' dinner-and-a-movie the best bet. Museum and concerts can be good too. Unless you were introduced by a friend, make sure someone knows where you're going and when you expect to be home. See also [205]. EEng03:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(off on a tangent; this one was something along the lines of 'what offends religious people') A friend's father used to sit in church and when the congregation was called to take communion would whisper "Now is the time for the ritual cannibalism." Parishioners sitting nearby did not appreciate this. He was a complete jackass, but funny's funny. —valereee (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hand on a stick thing that Napoleon has in the picture seems an ideal instrument for eating soft fruit while being made Emperor. It must have been hot with all those furs and robes so snacking on some delicious grapes or cherries dangling from the fingers must have been welcome refreshment. Fruit played an important part in Bounaparte's career prior to this anyway. We all recall that he promised the citizens of Paris that they would have "A whiff of grapefruit". Simon Adler (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you have relatively high visibility, at least where Wikipedia subject matter is politically sensitive. Because every change here is more or less permanent, the ship has already sailed, but I urge you to consider the fact that Wikipedia is somehow the most reliable source of consolidated information on the Internet. I get the jokes, the cynicism, the memes, all that, but you are providing an extremely transparent, highly visible profile of personal bias.
The best practices for information sourcing on Wikipedia provide some protection, but they're not bulletproof. An explicitly partisan affectation by the editors undermines the mission of objective truth, and aggravates the environment in which objective truth is a matter of partisan contention. IRSpeshul (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See that's the problem with these extremely transparent, highly visible profiles of personal bias: look how aggravated the environment is getting. I'm not one to get into an argument about mathism with a mathist (or, as I believe they prefer to be called, "mathematician"), but we have a lot of articles about math, and we don't want to give the impression that we tilt pro-mathian or are some kind of math-wing website. Levivichharass/hound07:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree 100%. Everyone has biases. Neutral editing means putting your biases aside when editing (when editing content, anyway), not pretending you don't have any. EEng06:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also the original comment comes off as being much like the people who say "I don't have an accent, it's only those people in [other country/other part of same country/other side of tracks in same city] who have accents". Which is to say, un-self-aware. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out how to write this sentence for the life of me. The words "Syrian Kurdistan" refer to three non-contiguous areas in Syria. How do I write that without "refer to"? "Syrian Kurdistan is three non-contiguous areas..." is wrong. "Syrian Kurdistan are three non-contiguous areas..." is wrong. "Syrian Kurdistan refers to three non-contiguous areas..." is poorly written. Please help. Levivichharass/hound07:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think those aren't the names of most of those places any longer (the "cantons" lasted for about three years), and by the time this sentence is written, the names will change again. Levivichharass/hound17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone! Those are great suggestions. One thing I should have mentioned is that the sentence at issue is the first sentence of the article, defining "Syrian Kurdistan". Do my learned colleagues think there is a problem with starting an article with "Foo is divided/comprises/consists of ..."?
As you can see, this an application of the difficulty stemming from Levivich's First Postulate of Asian Regional Politics: "For any two Asian countries 'Foo' and 'Bar', there exists at least one centuries-long conflict involving 'Fooian Bars' and at least one centuries-long conflict involving 'Barian Foos'." Levivichharass/hound17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to that article, if I understand it correctly, "Syrian Kurdistan comprises three non-contiguous regions" and "Syrian Kurdistan is composed of three non-contiguous regions" are preferable to "Three non-contiguous regions comprise Syrian Kurdistan". nagualdesign18:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Syrian Kurdistan is a term of reference more than an actual thing, I prefer that you retreat back to refers to. If it was a defined political entity, you could say it consists of or is comprised of (comprise in my dictionary applies to both the elements and the compound), but to my ear it is annoyingly passive (who did this comprising? when did the separate regions comprise themselves together?). The term is divided into is only proper, I say, if there are two parts, not three, but the passive voice still grates. The article as it is today leans me to the term ... refers to. Great question, thanks. Marty Mangold (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:ERA
Aw shucks! Thank you for the thank you.
So it was for nothing that I dived into a muddy foxhole after posting that because any change to the MOS (but to MOS:ERA in particular) usually results in a squadron of B52s loaded with napalm in response. :-D --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review
You probably think there's no real truth except what you read in the papers? Look deeper. If someone (me, for example) disagrees with you they may be making an objective (not subjective) observation.
Your group of administrators are behaving like peer reviewers but you aren't treating the matter as factual. You are one level removed, and probably emotionally vested in your viewpoints. That is Cognitive Dissonance and it's very hard to get past. Are.u.sure (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.
Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd
References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died
The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings
A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've been blocked from the Floyd articles and their talk pages for a reason, and continuing your crusade on people's talk pages is going to get you blocked completely. You need to accept what a dozen experienced editors are telling you: you're making a fool of yourself and wasting people's time. If you can't bring yourself to direct your efforts to less fraught topics then Wikipedia can't use you. EEng06:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiaspaul, I keep meaning to get back to this to continue the conversation, but I need some quiet time. Remind me if you get impatient, because I don't want to lose this opportunity. EEng00:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm busy as well and have a huge backlog. I don't expect this to be implemented soon (although this certainly would be great, even if only partially implemented), but the idea and variations on it are on record now and therefore easy to refer to in other discussions.
Sorry I misinterpreted the point of your message. For some reason, I thought you were suggesting mentorship. I was unaware that you were suggesting that I warn him or get him to find something else to do. I just finished one of my last semesters of college, and I am on a nasty medication right now. I am unsure if getting him to do new things will be effective in preventing disruption because he seems to be having issues with just about everything. Even if I was certain that redirecting his interests would help, I do not think I am the person to do this because I have never been so involved in a situation like this before. Thank you for your time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I tried to fix it up somewhat... Have at it. There's a "Lincoln Smiled When He Died" SPA/LTA from the UK that keeps on adding miles & miles of text about how Lincoln smiled when he died to any and all somewhat-associated articles...and that is what some observers said but the walls o'text & overloaded cites on the matter certainly don't belong wholesale in an article about Leale. Cripes I'm surprised someone hasn't said they saw angels come down and sing hymns around that bed in the Petersen House...but I digress. Just wanted to say thanks for looking in on it. Shearonink (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
American politicians
Though I've restored American into the intros at Joe Biden & Kamala Harris. I doubt I'll overly protest, should your revert those restorations. Afterall, your preferred version will likely get more attention, as those two bios will continue to get increasing attention. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I steal this Atsme? I still have a lot of colleagues to bore with unimaginative greetings cards, so I would like to shamelessly co-opt your creativity. Can we come to some arrangement? I will do anything..LOL. Si Simon Adler (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I was a teenager (back in the day), I had a friend called Denis who had a paper round. He used to complain about how much he hated one customer, who had a subscription to the Sunday Times (famously heavy with loads of glossy pull-outs), because they were the only household he delivered to on a particularly long street, and they lived right at the end of it so he had to go all the way down there, deliver one paper that earned him about 5p, then come all the way back to carry on with his deliveries. For some reason, as I scrolled down to the bottom of your talk, I thought of Denis for the first time in years.
Anyway, back on task: I don't have any beautiful pictures, coloured backgrounds or fancy code in curly brackets to deliver, they were all too heavy to carry all the way down here, but I do have a plain-text message: I hope you have a splendid holiday season, doing whatever you like (and are allowed) to do. May 2021 be different. All the very best to you and yours. GirthSummit (blether)19:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For a moment I thought the heading was Happy holes but then I looked again and was disappointed.I'm sure Denis would have felt better about it if, instead of being paid a pittance, he was making those delivery for nothing – bringing a ray of sunshine into the life of a forgotten shut-in, as you're doing. EEng22:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Let's call it "conditional", as opposed to "temporary". But metaphorically lifting a metaphorical glass with a genuine friend is always a condition that I'll show up for. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time. Listen, I have a question. I've always wondered what Ceoil means. Did you used to copyedit paintings, or what? EEng19:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its the Irish for music, sometimes or not spelled with an "i", depending from which part of the country your from. Best enjoyed with crack.[209][210] - this combination of words being a very common banner above pubs, and not what ye Americans might think. But "Ceol, Caint agut Craic" means "music, talk and banter". Yes, I know, too many jokes :) Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I do live in the area, and find these objects interesting (delighful?) I don't think I have anything to contribute per se, but of course I'll be happy to copyedit. I still remember, after many, many years, finding one such inscription:
I once did stand Time was I stood as thou dost now / and viewed ye dead as thou dost me. / Ere long you lie so low as I / and others stand and gaze at thee.
Its incredible how bitter some of them are. But yeah, not delighted with the photo offerings there atm. Would have been in CT this x-mass, but plague. Plan to revisit southern Maine maybe this summer, all going well, so might take some pictures. A stone that stands out, from first visit to Maine c 2013 was an 1780s? headstone that read, basically, "ye all laughed at me when I was alive, but then ye all died much younger than me, and look at me now, and the size of my fucking tomb." Ceoil (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks. That is exactly the one; I even remember the stone. I was actually going to say Concord, because a friend in college was a docent at Minuteman National Park and gave us a tour. That tells me I've been carrying that around in my head for 42 years. The human mind is amazing. But I still can't remember where I put my glasses. EEng05:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, and Happy New Year!! Quick question - what is a respectable Google Scholar h-index relative to notability? Atsme💬📧13:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to all for your input. I vaguely recalled former h-index discussions which have remained dormant in my memory (what's left of it) for some of the reasons I've read above; i.e., qualifying factors. Worse yet, I can still feel the effects of the fireworks, and the after-ring is louder than my tinnitus. 🧨🎆🎇 It has nothing to do with the celebratory liquid that flowed past my lips last night - or was it this morning? 🍸🍹🥂🍾 That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 🤕 Atsme💬📧21:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with you? Conjunctivitis is when you write a long sentence and it goes on and on and you use and and/or or a lot. EEng07:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always welcome WP:ASTONISHME contributions, but this case seems borderline on the reader likely already knows score. At least I think it's borderline. Not sure. I guess definitely borderline. Maybe. But anyway, I think we can avoid that question once we realize that WP:ELEVAR is also in play – saying the planets, when we could just name them, needlessly makes the reader jump through a little hoop. Take a look at what I did. EEng07:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ovinus, current events divert me, but if I don't get back to Talk:PGage by, say, two weeks into the Biden administration, please ping me again. EEng05:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the image out of curiosity, and if I were to !vote on it, which I won't, I'd say delete purely on grounds of extreme ugliness. If I were discussing people in a serious setting, I would never judge them based on what they look like, but for the purpose of my comment here, ewwww!, talk about human garbage! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cage, Gage, Shiiiit!
When I start making jokes, I can really get on a roll! --Tryptofish ... nice!! --Sandwichmaker123
I don't know if you have access to Netflix, but they have a new comedy series hosted by historian Nicolas Cage, called The History of Swear Words. Episode 2, examining the topic of "Shit", includes a segment about Phineas Gage. I think it's not very accurate, but... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Historian Nicholas Cage? Stealing the Declaration of Independence and discovering a secret message on the back from the Illuminati does not make one a historian. Mgasparin (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well for what it's worth, I think it's funny now, but when I first read your comment above (without clicking on the link), I just assumed that there must actually must be a historian with the same name. Paul August☎22:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to award this barnstar to you in recognition of your glorious dragonslaying efforts. Although I actually constructed this for you years ago, I didn't award it to you at the time because I felt that it may not have been appropriate. But, in a world gone mad, I ultimately decided to follow the advice of the eminent scientist E. Lathrop Brown. Please consider this a testimonial in appreciation of your commitment to bring a bit of light and laughter to this dreary place. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM01:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make someone not not laugh, say do not laugh. I didn't not laugh, but I did revert the change - it is possible that the editor dug up the old newspaper article and expanded the section using it, but given the context, I am suspicious. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to actually revert you (ha!) because "an unable president" has got to be the worst of all worlds, and I was going to say in the edit summary that "unable" is an adverb not an adjective. But I looked it up, and unable is listed as an adjective, apparently in every dictionary, although some note "not before noun". This is blowing my mind. I thought "unable" always modified a verb, or acted as a "helping" verb, almost always accompanied by the preposition "to", and almost always modifying the verb "to be" (is unable to, was unable to, has been unable to...). I thought that's what an adverb was. But turns out it's an adjective, even though it never modifies a noun (The unable car? The unable tree? The unable president?). Help me. Levivichharass/hound22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That photog should get a Pulitzer for snapping the shot just a split-second before the sniper pulled the trigger. EEng03:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your complaint
What exactly should I stop in History of photography? You seem to be complaining about a line I wrote when I edited an article years ago. I'm not sure which article I then used, but it was from an art historian who seemed qualified enough, and was also mentioned in another wikipedia article. It was apparently not good enough for you, so you removed some content I wrote, but apparently not all. I didn't care enough to put this back or to discuss it. Your whining about this only feels like an invitation to put this back in. Let's forget whatever I used as a ref then. Is this Taylor and Francis ref good enough for you: [214]? I could also look up whatever books included this concept, but if you just intend to remove everything that doesn't agree with you, please let me know in advance.Joortje1 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the Shroud of Turin is some kind of photograph has been thoroughly debunked. Here's what an actual scientist -- an expert on the history of photography -- said about it [215]:
Such claimants tend to draw upon the wisdom of hindsight to project a distorted historical perspective, wherein their cases rest upon a particular concatenation of procedures which is exceedingly improbable; and their 'proofs' amount only to demonstrating (none too faithfully) that it was not totally impossible ... The assertion that photography was the secret production of an isolated artistic genius may offer a compelling drama to those eager for sensation, but it belittles the practice of science ...
So yeah, unless you have multiple, expert sources for this outlandish claim, I'll keep removing it. (Hint: Workers who publish their work through vanity presses don't count as scientific experts.) EEng17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now a word from the guy who just fell off the stool at the end of the bar
You guys hear the one about Trump and the sheep caught in a fence? Of course you didn't because you'd actually have to interact with "working-class" regular joes in a "personal" social situation somewhere "locker room humor" and "guy talk" are "permitted" and then you'd still have to "make friends" with MEN instead of hanging out with "males" and pretend to like them!
BADABING!
You males/females can surely take jokes as well as you make them, right? I'm sure you can and that means you're not liking me right now because your "jokes" are about as funny as one would expect from "jokesters" that don't even have the sack to TELL JOKES on a "talk page" despite being the "Untouchables" of the Wikipedia World. Or at least English Wikipedia, anyway. And in "talk space". And on the "largest" but yet "loneliest" talk page in the whole history of the "community".
The last place anybody really "important" and "powerful" around here will ever need much less want to be and therefore catch the little males trying to act like big men in their "locker room" where they share "jokes" via Wikimedia image files and hyperlinks to online social media like YouTube and pretend to like other "editors". Or at least other "socks".
And here you are still "joking" about an ex-president so stupid and crooked and vile and hateful and racist and everything else "intellectuals" and "academics" so "liberal" and "tolerant" and "mature" and "ethical" and "respectable" in THEIR personal lives and professional "careers" just can't STAND in a "politician" they HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THEIR EYES AND EARS AND TYPING FINGER(S) (index only, I'm guessing) and their MINDS AND "MOUTHS" off DONALD JOHN TRUMP FOR 20-25% PERCENT OF THEIR WIKIPEDIA "TENURE". Oh yes. Are you "guys" ever glad HE'S out of the "public sector". I wonder how TWITTER'S "bottom line" is liking "Biden". You know him, right? Got any good jokes about Biden beating Trump who beat Hillary who beat...Bernie Sanders yet? Better get on the Biden Bandwagon. He's your BOY!
Ah the delicious irony and no-jokes-necessary for the comedic timing and native humor of "intellectuals" and "academics" that a "generation" or two ago "grew up" (that just means got taller) and went off to "college" (and not a mile or a minute farther from Mommy and Daddy than absolutely necessary so they could still walk Junior to class the first day or at least "stop by" his dorm room...for the weekend) and plumb forgot to GO HOME pretending to hate a northeast Democrat "globalist" billionaire limousine liberal "white nationalist" lifelong New Yorker big city boy that insists on "Donald" that mopped up the floor with Hillary by going straight-up SAUL ALINSKY on the "Clinton machine" 0for "Sleepy Joe" the Blue Dog of Delaware.
And having to act "happy" about it here in the "locker room" or just ignore the unintended consequences of that laughable "Democratic" primary "election" process (minus the "caucuses" where "consensus" creates the "final count") where "winner takes all" starts and WINNING A PRIMARY ELECTION "DEMOCRATICALLY" DOES NOT GET YOUR NAME ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT UNLESS YOU HAPPEN TO "WIN THE PRIMARY" EVEN IF YOU LOST "SEVERAL STATES" AND "ELECTED OFFICIALS" AND "ELECTION OFFICIALS" AND "JOURNALISTS" CAN'T FIND "EVIDENCE" OF "ELECTION FRAUD" ANYWHERE AS/AFTER MILLIONS OF "AMERICANS" HAD/HAVE THEIR PRIMARY VOTES "COUNTED" BUT NOT "COUNT" AT ALL UNLESS THEY VOTED "BIDEN" IN THE "PRIMARY". "DISENFRANCHISING" EVERY SINGLE NON-BIDEN PRIMARY VOTER AND ALL TO "PROTECT DEMOCRACY" FROM A LAME-DUCK LIBERAL AS THE DAY IS LONG "REALITY SHOW STAR" THAT'S A HUGE THREAT TO???? WHO EXACTLY BESIDES AN IRANIAN "GENERAL" OFF THE RESERVATION TRYING TO CONDUCT A "COUP" AND
MILITARY "INSURRECTION" IN "WMD-FREE" IRAQ DID "TRUMP" POSE AN "EXISTENTIAL THREAT" TO AS PRESIDENT AGAIN?
I'm sorry. I got serious during "happy hour" and started "yelling" posting in "all caps" and we all
know where and when that sort of communication stared being described as "offensive" and even "hate speech".
I wonder if "young people" on college campuses see the "irony" in being "taught" that all caps on a screen where the "hate speech" gets erased every time an "app" is closed is YELLING and that YELLING is BULLYING and BULLYING is VIOLENCE while actually yelling and screaming inches from and straight into a stranger's face "on the street" without knowing a thing about him or her except that he or she is facing them and therefore MUST be on the "other side" is just "free speech" and "peaceful protest" and "civil unrest".
Got any mpegs or jpegs or pithy little witticisms or better yet some double entendres or personal anecdotes or "tongue in cheek" references to historical events "analogous" to something you'd "like" to see happen to "Trump" or maybe "the right" as a whole?
Or are you saving those for "Harris"?
I sure hope you folks do all your Wikipedia "volunteer work" on your own time, internet-enabled devices and internet access and have the receipts in your names - in the real world names - to prove it and don't live in "public housing" and never, ever take your paid job "work" home with you or your "charity" home "work" to your "workplace(s)" with you. Cause I got a feeling your "jokes" get much worse and and a lot more "graphic" and the "images" don't exist online or at least on the "light web" to make them "sight gags" and I don't think you have any of the necessary resources to "Hillary" your way out of public records requests that won't and can't be made so that records requested are "responsive" unless the lparty "requesting" them knows knows what is there to "respond" so the right "request" is made.
Ever heard of "Jeopardy"? Ever wonder why anyone would name a "quiz show" that forces the contestant to do all the talking "under duress" would be called
"Jeopardy" and have most "duress" and the highest "paydays" - potentially - by far? And a 50/50 "chance" of "losing it all" on the final question "bonus round" going in as the "leader"?
Probably because they had experience with subpoenas, grand juries, discovery, the "hot seat" etc. And "personal communications" on "public property" including devices without "paper trails" that still produce "public records". And the "documentation" that they are "work-related".
Remember old Sleepy Joe xoesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor, too.
If you think the fact that Biden is the oldest president in US history is "idiocy" and "trivia", why don't you remove the same fact from the article about Donald Trump? I think consistency should be one of our goals here. Felix558 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Felix558, it belongs in the article somewhere (and without looking, I'm confident it's there); the idiocy consists in thinking it belongs in the already-very-overburdened lead. I encourage you to get it removed from the lead of the Trump article as well. EEng03:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EEng#s While you are obviously entitled to discuss this matter, you are not entitled to make unilateral changed, especially when you see that most users disagree with you. You seem to be in the minority and most users think that the media coverage and discussion about him being the oldest is such that it merits inclusion. Please discuss before you unilaterally remove it again. I not, I will have to report you to the edit-warring pageEccekevin (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eccekevin, report away. The longstanding lead (at least back to late November [216] -- I didn't check further than that) does not include this, and you're attempting to force it in because you misunderstand the nature of the Wikipedia consensus process. EEng20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was on track to the be the oldest president since the moment he was elected; the fact that he took office yesterday doesn't make this suddenly some new and amazing fact no one thought of before. EEng20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'on track' means nothing. Yesterday, he became the oldest sitting president in the 230 year history of the United States. Clearly, most users think it deserves a mention, especially given the media and online overage around his age (as a reminder, Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions).Eccekevin (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is about reasons, not headcounts. And as demonstrated at the article talk, if we used a count of sources as the criterion then we'd be putting the rescue dogs in the lead as well. EEng00:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, in many jurisdictions dogs are required to be on the lead. While you're here, V, you might pop over and have a talk with Eccekevin about BRD. EEng01:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. And don't think I forgot about you-know-what. Right now I'm working on User:Levivich/Seussipedia[reply]
Well, we're all getting older. As for arguing, I'm still waiting for any actual arguments over on the talk page. EEng01:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false parallelism. People.com, CNN, and Countryliving(UK) are not really the same standard as all the national and international newspapers listed above. Please find a better argument.Eccekevin (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are in the 'Entertainment'. 'Celebrities' and "Animals' sections, not politics. Very different tone and importance. Not all sources are equal. But if you want to argue for its inclusion, don't let me step in your way. That is not what this discussion is about, this seems like whataboutism. Eccekevin (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So in what passes for a constitutional crisis in Canada, Richard Wagner gets to stand in as the person who does nothing until a proper replacement can be found? I'm jealous. If only US politics could be so boring. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian media tries to make it sound like a constitutional crisis, but it's quite a non-event within Canada. I in favour of the abolishing of the office. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save my praise until the page reaches 1 MB (1,048,576 bytes). Mixing decimal and binary units is highly distasteful. You end up having to use words like "mebibyte". *shudders*nagualdesign01:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad to write that today when asked by an uninvolved editor to review this dispute, I unfortunately noticed some problematic comments on Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14#Infobox.
So, do you actually believe that it's not possible to find a published reliable source for Biden's chairmanships and so on, or are you just being difficult? EEng 13:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
In attacking the personal motivation of another editor, this does not assume good faith, which is required of all editors. Surtsicna challenged unreferenced material in the infobox, and the sources provided by other editors in the discussion did not verify the challenged material. WP:UNSOURCED says that the burden of adding sources is on editors who want material added. Surtsicna has no obligation to lift a finger to find a reliable source, and whether they believe that task will be easy, hard, or impossible, the requirement for editors who want the material added to provide sources remains. These dates are not obvious or well-known facts, and this type of information often needs correcting by fact checkers, so that challenge is completely legitimate, even if that editor would also prefer the material be removed for other reasons. The above response only serves to antagonize the other editor, making them less likely to contribute to the project in the future, less likely to be agreeable to your suggestions, less likely to help you, more likely to respond in an negative and unproductive way, less able to think clearly, and more likely to prolong your dispute. More productive responses in this context include:
Providing the requested sources, which you actually did the next day after another go-round.
Agreeing that the challenged material should be removed.
Asking for more time to find the requested sources; Surtsicna was willing to leave the material in place with citation-needed tags in the meantime.
Proposing that different text be added.
Saying nothing, which would be far better than responding with a personal attack.
To be blunt, seriously believing that there aren't complete and definitive sources for the chairmanships of Senate committees brings into serious question your competence to edit this article. Seriously. Did you even try? [35] EEng 05:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that the sources provided by another editor failed to verify the challenged material, a reasonable inference is that it might be hard to find such a source. (Though that did not turn out to be true in the end.) As I pointed out earlier, Surtsicna had no obligation to try to find such a source, and it is unfair to conclude that failing to identify the requested sources when that burden does not fall on this editor is a demonstration that this editor lacks the skill to do so. There isn't even a requirement that editors who do the useful work of challenging unreferenced, unobvious material have any familiarity with sources relevant to a topic. Attacking the competence or intelligence of another editor in this way is unacceptable. Productive responses to errors by other editors include fixing partial errors, reverting large errors, politely pointing out mistakes on talk pages, and allowing that even the most brilliant people make mistakes sometimes. If an editor is chronically and grossly incompetent, eventually it will be worth discussing that as a problem, but not until these more productive responses have not worked, and not in an uncivil fashion. Verbal abuse is not a productive way to notify volunteers about their mistakes, and verbally abusing a volunteer over a mistake they haven't even made, which is what happened here, is even more demoralizing.
I'm considering pinning a little box to the top of this page: "It has been X hours since Surtsicna falsely claimed that everything in an infobox needs to be in the article as well." EEng 15:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is another unacceptable comment which is snarkily attacking another editor. Assuming good faith on the part of two editors who have completely opposite interpretations of a guideline leads me to conclude that either one has made an honest error, the guideline is unclear, or there is some other complexity yet to be uncovered. A productive, AGF response might be to quote the part of the policy you are relying on, explain your logic, and ask the other editor if you are missing anything. Another AGF response might be to ask the other editor to quote the part of the policy they are relying on, or to clarify their reasoning if they have already quoted. In this case, if you had done either, I think you would have found that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes has two sections which say different things about the disputed question. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that infoboxes should not have any facts which are not in the text of the article, and WP:INFOBOXREF (which you quoted) encourages that but implies that there will also be some cases where editors do legitimately decide to include facts in the infobox but not the article. Instead of identifying this contradiction and bringing it to the attention of other editors for resolution, your response instead demoralized an editor who is being productive and trying to build consensus and improve the reader experience, whether or not you or I agree with that editor's suggestions.
(added) I should also note that one of your comments cites WP:CIR, which specifically says in WP:CIRNOT not to label someone as incompetent, as this is a personal attack.
I hope that in the future instead of tearing into other editors, you can express disagreement in a more productive and civil manner. I hope that you will use the "assume good faith" guideline as a reason to stop and calmly consider the possible legitimate reasons for an editor's actions, including miscommunication and that you yourself might not have a complete picture. I usually find the latter is true for myself. You are clearly a smart person and like the rest of the community of volunteers I'm trying to keep motivated, have many valuable contributions yet to make. Thanks for reading, Beland (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beland, I'm sad you wrote too. Mostly TLDR, but in passing:
I think you would have found that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes has two sections which say different things about the disputed question – No, actually,I would not have found that, as you yourself discovered after posting here (see [218]), although you strangely omitted to return here to post the traditional Oops! My bad! Maybe next time you should more carefully consider that you yourself might not have a complete picture.
Surtsicna was told over and over and over and over and over, with links to the guideline and/or quoting it, that not everything in an infobox needs to be in the article. Nonetheless he or she stubbornly insisted on repeating that idea. And repeating it. And repeating it (in multiple threads, as I recall). AGF doesn't require us to close our eyes to what is obviously either a CIR failure or just plain willful blindness.
My comments about the chairmanships weren't about whether sources were in the article, but rather whether they exist at all. Surtsicna said I do seriously believe it is not possible to find published reliable sources about all these people preceding or succeeding Joe Biden in the given date ranges, and I said (yes) To be blunt, seriously believing that there aren't complete and definitive sources for the chairmanships of Senate committees brings into serious question your competence to edit this article, because that's true. And, frankly, if you can't see how absurd it is to imagine that there aren't definitive sources for Senate chairmanships, then you aren't competent to be sticking your nose into this matter. Really.
specifically says in WP:CIRNOT not to label someone as incompetent – No, it says it's generally inadvisable to call a person incompetent. I applied my judgment. And look! It worked: [219]! Too bad S., like you, was unable to bring himself/herself to come out and say, "Oh, now I see. I guess you were right. Sorry I didn't read more carefully."
cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
Atsme 📣 📧 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard regarding incivility at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:GENDERID_and_death. The thread is Incivility_from_EEng. .
Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This feuding between you and Fae has to stop tonight before it goes too far. Please refrain from responding to bait. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
-3580144.png)
Atsme Talk 📧 02:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_IMG_7187.JPG)
Atsme Talk 📧 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Really, on ANI?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
.jpg)
.jpg)
_logo.png){kind=logo}
) But I am curious if your preference is only concerning dashes/hyphens. Why, for example, would you prefer 
. (Sadly, I was forced to retire my Tarage sock in a huff late last year.) EEng 23:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Atsme Talk 📧 15:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
_(2).jpg)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vernon Coleman. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.91.66 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making constructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be verifiable and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the main page. Repeated good edits may result in featured articles or nomination for adminship to keep you away from article writing. Thank you. creffett (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
is too obvious, our photos of Soviet purges 
aren't obvious enough, and we don't even have a photo of Miss Conduct. EEng 22:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
.JPG)
.jpg)
EEng 00:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks#Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
Of course I may get you back some day. 
EEng 01:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack by EEng. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=spacer}
I also thought that RFA line violated the below-the-belt and glass-houses rules, a rare yellow card. Lev!vich 00:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
.JPG)
Facepalm . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
, which played <click here>. One day I got into his office and screwed it to the back of his desk next to where he sat. He loved it. He'd crank it for students in hot water. EEng 20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
.jpg)
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
[stretch] or [hyperbole]. That's how bad things have gotten. Credit's due where it's earned so I'll just say Excellent way to disincentivize productive editors! I realize that nobody gives a big 🐀 
about what I think, and neither do I for the most part, so back on point - the biggest problem with DS/AE is that an admin's action can't be overturned without an act of congress,[hyperbole] accompanied by some 
and eating a big ole helping of 
. In hopes of defusing the chilling effects of allegations such as woke editors being enablers of the "scorned", I will just point out that blind alliances are what enable the accuser to make such degrading comments with impunity, especially if it stems from prejudice, misconceptions and WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise. Isn't it time for the community to make a few tweaks here and there, and put things back into proper perspective? I'm not the only one who recognizes that we have problems in that area that need fixing; it goes right up to 4 members of ArbCom. KK stated: But I believe this would be better addressed in a case request about discretionary sanctions, which is yet another thing we've been meaning to take a look at for a while. This would be an excellent opportunity for us to revisit the whole issue. Ok Ringo (who, as a kid, looked like Paul), it's your turn to beat your...drum, just the drum! Atsme 💬 📧 15:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
party 🎉🎊.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[118]](https://commaand.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/dutxsgwx0aijgn5.jpg){kind=link}
![[120]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/?oldid=413103170#File:Ruby_shoots_Oswald.jpg){kind=link}
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-6458340-1419757976-3627.jpeg.jpg){kind=link}
![[159]](https://berkeleyplaques.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ThousandOaksSchool_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
-3-2.jpg){kind=link}
Self-trout Firestar464 (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
