Jump to content

User talk:EEng/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:EEng

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 16 March 2021 (OneClickArchiver adding Just checking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

One of the seven dwarfs

Heh. If you hadn't added "garner" in your initial edit I would have added it myself. It is my unfavorite. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it may still be needed in some dopey places? We learn that "In 1912, the telephone came to Garner." I wonder did it stay? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest . EEng 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I have to admit that I'm not good with garner (small g), either. Here's another we've got an entire article for. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you?

I am running into a problem again at DYK and trying to get in another entry for April 1st. I know the holiday is also dear to you. See Susan Montgomery Williams. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Stanley Kubrick

This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Laser_brain, while I appreciate the invitation this isn't something I feel strongly about, so I think I'll sit this one out. EEng 16:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

People ask strange things

I thought that was kind of self-explanatory already! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Bleary

I should have remembered that the standing order for MOS edits is "if in doubt, revert first, ask questions later". So to the extent that I doubted your good faith, I withdraw unconditionally. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It was not revert first, ask questions later so much as the fact that the inserted text literally and exactly began as shown here:
Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk pageApply beforesection link making the change.
EEng 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Manzanar

baby buggy video

Hi, quick note. Wasn't trying to edit war with you about that video. I think the video is helpful and we aren't here to only show "safe practices" on Wikipedia. But the adding after you deleted was simply I thought I didn't click save right because when I reloaded the page in another tab shortly after adding the video it was gone. I thought I did something wrong, didn't notice until I saw the history that you deleted it so quickly. You seem to feel strong ownership of that page? Didn't try to step on you or anything, sorry about that. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I assure you I feel no ownership of the baby buggy page. But when other editors tell you that your self-made video doesn’t improve an article, you should listen. EEng 12:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That skeleton

That skeleton image isn't some unknown long-forgotten burial, but a photo of the exhumation of the cemetery of the Catholic graveyard of the Church of St Michael the Archangel in Sanok. Sanok is somewhat politically sensitive—it lies right at the meeting point of traditionally German/Austrian, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian/Belarussian and Jewish areas—and the EEML gang are pretty much guaranteed to take offense (or at least, to feign offense) once they make the link. Given that Commons is in no danger or running out of photographs of skeletons, you might want to use one a little less sensitive unless you have a blinding urge to be scraping assorted East European nationalist editwarriors off your talkpage for the next six months. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, all the good skeleton pix – to be effective it's got to give the impression that the subject dropped dead in harness – seem to be from someone or other's sacred burying ground, so since I've been using this one for years (and so have other people – I'm an influencer, apparently) I think I'll just stay the course and take my chances. But I appreciate the heads-up. EEng 17:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Derrick Morris

On 23 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Derrick Morris, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Derrick Morris received a new heart in 1980 his chances of survival were slim, but he lived another 25 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Derrick Morris. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Derrick Morris), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Tiddlywinks, not Tidles

"Enclosed Instructions for Use: Each player receives a large brand and a corresponding number of small brands. At the beginning of the game place the opened cup in the middle of the table, which is best covered with a thick blanket. Each participant places the small marks on the tablecloth at the same distance from the cup. In turn, each participant is then snapped once, i. with the big mark is pressed on the edge of the small mark so much that the latter falls through a jump in the cup. Anyone who has brought one of his brands in the cup, may snap again. Once a mark falls off the table, it must be returned to its starting point. Who brings all the brands in the cup first, has won." (Google translation from German)

Apparently (see section header), we expect such typos. Thanks, as always, for giving me a tittery, tiddly, tickly giggle.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not archive this page because of its size (above section). To save my edit above, it took me 1h30m52s, during which time I read War and Peace twice. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah fine, whateva, but who wins the saucer of Vollmilch?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Please do not archive this page because of its size (above section). To save my edit above, it took me over 6 hours, during which time a wandering senile beachcomber was able to agree two phenomenal trade deals, one with the Drug Enforcement Administration and one without.
Size does matter. Atsme Talk 📧 01:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but EEng does have the most beautiful hands. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The only thing that holds true about hands applies to measuring a horse. And speaking of horses...a gal entered a bar in Texas, and noticed a cowboy with his feet propped up on a table. She marveled over the size of his boots and was inspired to approach him. She boldly asked him if what they say about Trump's small hands is true, then could the opposite be true about men with big feet? The cowboy grinned and said "Shore is, ma'am," and invited her to his bunkhouse. She was curious enough to accept his invitation. The next morning as she was leaving the bunkhouse, she handed him $300. He blushingly accepted the money and with a big grin thanked her saying, "Ain't nobody ever paid fer mah services before." She retorted, "Oh, don't be flattered. Use that money to buy yourself some boots that fit." Atsme Talk 📧 15:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
With all the money Trump claims to have, it would seem he's been on the receiving end of a lot of those payments over the years. EEng 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Heza blue collar billionaire. Great name for my next gelding. Atsme Talk 📧 12:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Blue collar? Maybe. Billionaire? No reliable sourcing! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess the real question here is..... "does the Donald wear big gloves?" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I suppose those would be little mushroom gloves. Which, wouldn't you know it, are actually a thing: [1]! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, how tasteful. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that's the first time I've seen "Trump" and "tasteful" in the same thought. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of "tasteful"... Atsme Talk 📧 15:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
And the first time I've seen "Republicans making jokes about a Democrat" and "tasteful".... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
"Yabba-Dabba-Democrat"!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC) ... thank you, Private Eye

Zu gross thread 99--

With sincerest apologies to Rammstein

So cut this back it's not to late
Life's too short and I can't wait (for the page to load)
Please cut this back, oh don't see
It can't be read; i t   j u s t   w o n 't   l o a d.  Dlohcierekim (talk)

Infamy, infamy...

in the open and w/o disguise.  Dlohcierekim (talk)

Hello. You have been mentioned in dispatches at Auggie's gaff. There'll always be an EEngland! (talk)

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." EEng 16:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I followed that link, and at first my antimalware software didn't want me to go. I bravely persevered, and I noticed that they call the page in question Phineas Cage (sic). Somehow, that seems fitting for a site like that. I wonder if he's related to Nicholas. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Glad someone was braver than I.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Braver? Maybe just stupider. (Why is my computer screen telling me to give it my credit card numbers?) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess I'm not so interesting as others. Boring, that's li'l old me.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
That is weird. I think you're getting the security messages because you're using https in the address. As far as I know, there is no certificate, so you should just use http. Sole Flounder (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
And talking of "Infamy, infamy"... wow, things are already hottin' up in the search for a new Hilary. That's the kind of hype that, in the UK, we reserve for something really tacky. Almost as exciting as the recent UK Final of Love Island. My money's on that Chickenlooper. Alistair-Cooked-to-a-frazzle-already-123 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Circular reasoning

It might be circular, but it's very neat and self contained. Koncorde (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you visited The Museums lately? EEng 13:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Will the Circle Be Unbroken?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I find museums, like circles, leave me feeling tired and emotional. Koncorde (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I might politely suggest that the honourable Mr Eng refrain from commenting on a dispute about the criminality of concise language. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. As you probably know but just forgot, it's best to use Edit summaries just to summarize edits. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this seems to regard this edit [2].
Why? EEng 04:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, I like to use edit summaries to store old passwords for when I no longer need them any more. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, no! How pallid a universe if we so limited out edit summaries.-- Deepfriedokra 06:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiprojects on Harvard University

"Sorry, but if this is included then there's no conceivable Wikiproject that wouldn't be included"

whats wrong with including many wiki projects ?

Hi RJJ4y7. If the Harvard University article carries a WP:Wikiproject neuroscience banner, then it would have to have banners for all the following: African and African American Studies, Anthropology, Applied Mathematics, Applied Physics, Art, Film, and Visual Studies, Astronomy, Bioengineering, Celtic Languages and Literatures, Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Computer Science, The Classics, Comparative Literature, Earth and Planetary Sciences, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, Economics, Electrical Engineering, English, Environmental Science & Engineering, Germanic Languages and Literatures, Government, History, History of Art and Architecture, History of Science, Human Evolutionary Biology, Linguistics, Materials Science & Mechanical Engineering, Mathematics, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Music, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Philosophy, Physics, Psychology, Romance Languages and Literatures, Slavic Languages and Literatures, Sociology, South Asian Studies, Statistics, Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. Those are just the departments of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Then you'd also need banners for every branch of medicine, law, business, government, divinity, engineering, education, architecture, and any number of things. Then the banners become meaningless. EEng 12:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


im aware of this but my question is what is wrong with that?

i mean the perpose of banners is to notify those groups of interest to work on the project, dont we want as many peolpe to work on articles as possible? RJJ4y7 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The key is "groups of interest". The goal of banners, as EEng notes, is to get people who are especially interested in a fairly specific topic that they have chosen. For example, Harvard is a school that a significant part of a location, so it's relevant to schools and that location. You seem to have a particular interest in adding {{Neuroscience}}, and WP:Neuroscience identifies itself as "A collaborative team of editors aiming to create high-quality neuroscience articles". I don't think Harvard is a "neuroscience article" even if some people there study that topic. Now that you know several editors dispute this general approach, consider asking WT:Neuroscience what those already involved there feel would be useful and relevant. DMacks (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

acknowledged RJJ4y7 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Golden State Killer sections sent into oblivion in 2019

It appears that this series of edits on 2019-02-28 should have cut-and-pasted a bunch of sections from Talk:Golden State Killer into Talk:Golden State Killer/Archive 1, but instead sent them to User talk:Example/Archive 1, which was then blanked on 2019-04-03 on User:Guy Macon as "It should not contain any actual archived content" without any attempt to return the content to the correct page. Then, just to confuse things, that page formerly named User talk:Example/Archive 1 was moved to User talk:Dartslilly/Archive 1 by User:Dartslilly on 2020-01-05. So the archived sections are now sitting in the page history for User talk:Dartslilly/Archive 1. Do you want to restore them to Talk:Golden State Killer/Archive 1 or should I? (I caught this because the page move from Original Night Stalker referred to a discussion that wasn't in the archives.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

From User_talk:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver it appears this happens now and then. I'm too old and cranky to touch something like this. Perhaps someone in my glittering array of talk page stalkers will be able to handle it. If nothing happens here after a while, raise it at WP:VPT. EEng 20:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Closeapple: Just wanted to be sure you saw the above. EEng 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did. Thanks! I've just been too preoccupied to think about what order those should go back into the right archives in; it shouldn't be too hard once I look at it though. Will probably need to split it because there were relevant discussions both before and after a page move. --Closeapple (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding appropriate notification

[I posted the following at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing on September 20 and to an administrator the following day, but as yet have received no reply. I've been supposing that in the continued absence of a response I'll repost it at the Teahouse (and not at the Village Pump because I don't want to put it both places), but want to stay as high on tippy-toes as I can while trying to get through this minefield. Can you offer any advice (other than to shut up and do nothing) and perhaps clarify the unclear policy? Thanks.]

(1) An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

Does this mean "at any one (but not more than one) of the following", or "at any one or more of the following"? Could the sentence be revised to make this more clear?

(2) The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, [...]

I sense a conflict here and again request clarification. Before reading this, I compiled a list of previous editors of the page concerned, there being a few more than a hundred. I didn't include some of the editors, not because of the content of their edits but because their edit was very minor, or came from an IP address with no contributions link, or had "bot" in the name of the editor. The list should thus serve from the viewpoint of neutrality. I could go back and include even the minor one-timers and the bots, though this seems unadvisable since the given example is of editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article. There seems to be a possible conflict between selection and quantity, however. If I don't notify all the past editors of the page to avoid writing to too many (however many that is – this too could perhaps be made more clear), then I have to make a selection, and selecting seems problematic. If I select using some random method (none of which I have in mind), what's to say it's really random? And if I select an equal number of editors expressing a certain disposition and those expressing another, then what's to say I didn't include the ones I like and exclude the ones I didn't, even if I included the same number from both categories? Would it be best to simply notify all the prior editors, including the minor one-timers and the bots, or should I use my present list in which these aren't included (which would be in accordance with the example). Thanks for any information and/or advice, and I hope the uncertainty in the two points mentioned can eventually be clarified in the WP:APPNOTE text. If one or more persons have asked about these things before, that would seem even more appropriate. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  • You're worrying too much. (1) Use your judgment but be restrained. (2) Notify the most recent 5 to 15 substantial editors found on the contributions list. Five if it's no big deal, 15 if it's controversial. Not a hundred. EEng 15:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm worrying less now, thanks. (1) The text could easily be "any one" if that was intended. "Any" does not limit, but I won't go hog-wild and will try to avoid the appearance of doing so. (2) Okay, 5 and 15. I assume that's your opinion and that others might differ, but I'll respect yours. I was going to make it 14 rather than 15 for the sake of equality, but the policy says that notices should be sent to "those" (?) rather than strictly to "an equal number of those". It would then seem that 8 good guys and 7 bad guys would be acceptable, though one might take exception to 9 and 6. Thanks again. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I'll make it 14. Better halfway safe than indefinitely banned. –Roy McCoy (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

talking

"This is a crisis. A large crisis. In fact, if you got a moment, it's a twelve-storey crisis with a magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24-hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof, saying 'This Is a Large Crisis'. A large crisis requires a large plan. Get me two pencils and a pair of underpants."

You need to control your temper and language. There is nothing wrong with my edits. Hmains (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Interested stalkers may wish to visit User_talk:Hmains#For_the_last_time. EEng 04:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hah! You should have heard the words I had for Trump after reading this. THAT's a NPA violation! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Dermophis donaldtrumpi

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I had looked at the DYK discussion early on, but didn't stick around. Seeing it now, good grief, it looks like death-by-overthinking, or maybe by something else. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Bunch of fraidy-cats. EEng 23:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
We have all the best fraidy-cats. We have so many fraidy-cats that soon you'll be getting sick of so many fraidy-cats. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Awe...

Your "I rest my case" video at the top of your user page links to an unavailable video. Bummerrrrr. Nice user page, btw. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Curator appreciates your bringing this matter to our attention. Information Adjustments has taken appropriate steps. EEng 05:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my edit based on misunderstanding about the article size. (I'm sure that I had concluded this by being led there from somewhere else, but that was yesterday...) While we're both here, would you please assist this relative ignoramus by informing her how to calculate/assess/find automatically the actual size of the finished article? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The usual tool for this, I think, is the one at User:Dr pda/prosesize. It provides a link in the sidebar that you can click to calculate any page's size. You have to save first; it won't work while you're editing. But because Wikipedia:Writing better articles is somewhat official (part of a guideline), it would probably be best not to add unofficial user page software links to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The Great and Powerful Oz prefers the "Page statistics" link found on any page history page; then once you're on the page stats page, search the string prose. Since it's linked from page histories I think it counts as official, and it doesn't require installing anything (plus it gives a lot of other useful stuff). EEng 07:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah - thanks to both of you. Any chance of including this (as a footnote to the 50KB size guide perhaps) in the style manual? As a relative newbie to anything more than occasional small edits, I seem to find myself wading through pages of Wiki help trying to find what I need sometimes. (I must admit that I'm usually more focussed on content than the tools and should probably dedicate more time to the latter sometime!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Go ahead and add it! But stop fo-cussing; it's impolite. EEng 07:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I was just brought up that way (-cussing)! Will do. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I have made a few changes to several pages where article size and splitting are mentioned, and did find that Prosesize tool referred to as well as another user one - so I threw caution to the winds and copied them onto another page as well...
Now, on a related but separate matter, talking of size - back to where my enquiries into size and splitting articles started. Long story short (having originally being led to some work on a "great-great-great-grandchild" of the Immigration article), does anyone reading this feel inclined to contribute to a discussion I started on the Immigration talk page here? Someone at the Teahouse suggested that I post a query on some of the related Project pages to attract interested editors, but looking at those pages, I'm not sure they're the right place to post. Any other suggestions? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I took a glance and the only thing I'd say is that I wouldn't get too focused on size as a reason to split an article. I'd look first for ways to trim excessive detail throughout. EEng 06:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I probably didn't make it clear, partly because I got temporarily diverted by wrongly calculating the size of the article and then wondering if it needed further splitting based on its apparent size. I wasn't really considering doing any further splits myself, just mainly trying to initiate discussion on what gets left behind in the parent article, and (related) how to deal with the same topic being dealt with in multiple places - which sometimes start off the same and then someone adds or changes something in one place and not the other, etc. etc. And (as a side issue) there's inconsistency amongst articles which deal with the relationship between immigration and crime. Perhaps I should delete and rephrase most of what I wrote in that section on the talk page to make it a bit clearer (and shorter). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. For better or for worse, I've re-worded my post over there. I know I get too wordy sometimes - but I think I have clarified the issue for myself a bit, anyway. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Good luck. Bear in mind that the topic is a controversial one, so while WP:BOLDness is still the order of the day, be prepared to back off and discuss if there is resistance. EEng 04:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been doing a bit of editing on the two pages, as per my comments on the talk page there, but have confined myself to the mechanics of transclusion and the principle of which bit to include in the parent article at this point. I do intend to review some of the structures and content of related articles, but don't worry, I'm well aware of the potential for controversy so will be treading carefully. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of news outlets in general

An older computer loading EEng's talkpage (2019, colorized)
 – SemiHypercube

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of news outlets in general. Levivich? ! 01:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Also: my computer had four microprocessors but after loading your talk page I'm now down to three. Levivich? ! 01:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the ping. Indeed, saw it via CD. Interesting idea, though haven't really had time to process it. As a friendly albeit frustrated aside, it took multiple tries to read and respond to this message. As someone who sometimes connects via lousy wifi , lousy computer, mobile, etc. (and who has had trouble even with none of the above) I find this talk page often unusable for its [arguably, I guess] intended purpose. Maybe 500k would be a reasonable already-quite-large compromise? :) FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Added bullets altered threading style

Hi EEng, fairly minor point, but I'd like to understand your addition of asterisks in front of my post of 07:57, 9 Feb two posts prior. This change also converted Nil Einne's properly threaded column 1 ':' into an asterisk as well, thus stylistically unifying our two posts and making the threading harder to follow, imho. Such alterations are sometimes helpful and I do them myself on occasion, but in such cases I like to see an edit summary with something like, "Technical TPO violation to improve threading, for <reason>." As I say, nbd, and you probably had a good reason, but I'd just like to know what it was. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It seemed like a series of parallel comments was accumulating so I bulleted them to bring out the parallelism. However, not having had my coffee I apparently put a separate bullets on each of your paragraphs. I've fixed that now. EEng 20:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your recent behaviour on the Jeanne Calment page

For your information, see below.

Help wanted for references to Garoyan's thesis

A large part of the sections on Jeanne's Calment daily routine at the nursing home, and about her medical history there, are cited to Georges Garoyan's 1990 thesis: Cent-quatorze ans de vie ou la longue histoire de Jeanne Calment, doyenne d'âge de France, published at the Aix-Marseille university. Does an editor have access to this document? We should review the citations, provide exact pages and quotes, and perhaps improve translations. — JFG talk 11:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Remember, you are what you eat. --Tryptofish
In other words, you, with the support of EEng, have randomly trashed the article without first reading the single most important source on Jeanne Calment. You have thereby deprived researchers of valuable Wikipedia information (most researchers, whether supporters or critics of Calment, cannot read the French sources). You ask belatedly for help, but why should anyone now trust you and work with you? This once-excellent article is a lost cause. Both of you, take this as a lesson for the future how not to behave on Wikipedia, please. 86.162.86.5 (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
If you think that's bad, try closing a longevity-related AfD, particularly as "no consensus". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie has been there, done that, and gotten the t-shirt. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
You should also see the flat-earther nuts that came out in email to support their POV on what Auguste Piccard saw in his balloon ride, after I semiprotected it. "Cling to your water pear religion as best you can ... The lengths the ball cultist will go are hysterical" !? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

all of these discussions are old, and don...

...'t need to be on my talk page anymore.

My typing is not as accurate as I'd like, and sometimes I hit the enter key when I meant to hit an apostrophe (maybe I'll hack together some custom Javascript so it doesn't post an edit when I press enter in the edit summary box; it doesn't do it in the main edit box after all.)

Hey EEng! I've just returned, but I've noticed a hundred or so edits while I was on my hiatus, but I decided to give myself some time away from the wiki to reflect. I've planned them in .txt documents, and I'll be back and post them after I get them organized. I haven't lost my passion yet! Hopefully I've got a bit more sense now.

But I must sincerely thank you. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:GPS Hospitality

Good morning E Hope you had your coffee,

I sent this draft for review, If you are the reviewer please let me know what I have to do to improve in order to be accepted, also there is a section in Burger King franchises (at the bottom) and GPS Hospitality for ref of why I started this article ~ thanks ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mitchellhobbs. I'm afraid I don't do much draft reviewing and don't know the procedures. Perhaps someone watching this page will step in to help. EEng 16:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Cool, Thanks EEng Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
GPS Hospitality ~ Thank you Mitchellhobbs (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Notre-Dame fire

Well, I understand you guys prefer disorder in images... I otherwise like order in images layout... Why too much empty blank spaces in page ? when my way could resolve a better approach all images together... Then a space between symbold like € of currency and numbers give a better reading... https://imgur.com/gpJRc6y --88.70.23.126 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your screenshot shows you're using an unusually wide window, so what you're seeing is atypical. Whatever your personal taste, WP house style is that nonalphabetic currency symbols are not followed by a space -- see MOS:CURRENCY. EEng 21:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's amazing

Kevin Hart - has to be something here for the Museum. Atsme Talk 📧 20:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User page

Enjoyed your comments on Trump. Although I am from Canada, I do watch the ABC Evening News and feel slightly nauseated by his behaviour! We feel your pain. This is a real test to see if your Founding Fathers put enough checks and balances in the Constitution to protect America against tyranny. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, would make a great gameshow.... Tyranny! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
LOL Agreed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Tyranny? Do you mean Trudeau? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, isn't he that dishy young pop singer?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
LOL...Remember hate, lying, greed and bragging about your fornications, adultries and sex abuse are not Christian regardless what the Religious Right says! In any event with all the evidence of wrongdoing Impeachment now seems inevitable. I plan to tune in! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) PS I am planning a WP article on this topic.

June 2019

Information icon Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Apparently, the article needs to be only as clear as you deem appropriate. SMP0328. (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

We've worked together too long for you to template me. Your edit summaries -- please look at them -- were somewhat fractured so that they didn't really explain why you were adding all that verbiage. I've made a new change -- far more concise -- which I think you will find satisfactory. EEng 06:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Herbert Schachtschneider

June
cornflowers
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you - sorry, a bit late - for the hook help for Herbert Schachtschneider. You are very welcome to go over my stalled nominations and help further to increase attraction. Two of "mine" made the stats in June without help, one for the exquisite pic (the second), the other because she starred as the Buhlschaft, but there are countless others ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for J. J. Stiffler

On 28 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article J. J. Stiffler, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that J. J. Stiffler's "unparalleled" and "landmark" Theory of Synchronous Communications (1971) sprang from NASA's need for power-efficient synchronization of data transmission for its space probes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J. J. Stiffler. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, J. J. Stiffler), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC notice (low priority)

Based on your participation in an earlier discussion, you are invited to comment at WNGH-TV#RfC about TV and radio station style variances. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on my technical proposal.

Hi EEng, I was hoping you could share your thoughts on my Edit Values technical proposal before I actually present it. It can be found here [[3]]. Thanks! May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy to. EEng 22:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Stalkers may wish to take the time to comment. EEng 04:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This stalker's sense of masochism has strict bounds. — JFG talk 23:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So your safeword is FRAM? EEng 13:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm allergic.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Laura Ashley Hall

You see this guy? He's an anchor, people leave him alone.

Hey EEng! Can you tell me why the redirect (not saying you had anything to do with it{lol}) goes to Murder of Jennifer Cave? I don't know how to fix redirects thats why I'm asking. Thanks

The above is what I wrote off the top of my head ~ having read further down the article I see what hall has to do with the murder. The only reason I'm leaving this edit here is ~~ this question ~ 'Can you redirect to a spefic section in an article and if so how? Thanks EEng ~mitch~ (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"You go to Europe and the roads are opposite". My word, this must rank alongside "what did the Kurds ever do for us in Normandy?" comment, as a breath-taking pinnacle of intelligent analysis. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Anchors away! ⚓️

The three scallywiggins, they washed their mizzens,
And hung them out to dry,
"Ahoy, Martinevans, did you not hear,
The scallywiggins washed their mizzens?"
"What?! Washed their mizzens, the old scallywiggens;
I smell a rat close by!"
"Yo, ho, me hearty, that’s not a rat,
It’s a Tryptofish ready to fry."
YOU KIDS GET OFF MY SEA LAWN!

Atsme Talk 📧

Ok, following is an example of the WP:Anchors I was referring to for use in the Museum. Click on "The Wisest Man Who Ever Lived" where there's a link to Rigsby's commencement address OR if you prefer, you can bypass that one, and click this BLP wikilink which takes you to a specific quote boxed discussion on my UTP. I was going to anchor a couple of items in your Museum that I've had occasion to reference but you are the curator, and I dare not trespass without permission. Besides, you may not like the idea, or have a better one in mind. Atsme Talk 📧 01:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, Anchors ya say matey? Me seafarin' ways taught me a lot about real anchors, but WikiAnchors...a whole new beast! Only anchor I see regularly is in my signature...but I like your clever use of anchors. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Well shiver me timbers!! Ahoy, me hearty! It's been a while since we shared some grog. 🍻🏴‍☠️ Collect some killicks, lass - they'll serve you well. All hand hoy! It's time to weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen! Atsme Talk 📧 02:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Please leave my mizzen out of this; I'm very sensitive about it. Is it International Talk Like a Pirate Day again? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Splice the mainbrace, ye old sea dogs!! Or ye'll get a taste of the cat! All together now, me old sea faggots.... 'Twas on the Good Ship Wikimus... etc., etc..... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Help! Somebody's frying my fry! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
And it's not even Saturday. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
And it couldn't be Sunday. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This is taking me back to my childhood: Seafood. See food run. Run food run.. I realize that might prompt the curator to tell us to get off of his lawn, but there's really no reason to get into a snit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Book title: "Balls of Fire" by Jack Benimble
Atsme Talk 📧 12:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Um, you guys do know that the phrase is anchors aweigh, right? Anchors away would mean something like throwing the anchors overboard. Atsme, you're welcome to add anchors to my user page. I recommend that you also use permalinks since the day may come when some snitty admin ties to make me remove all that facetious Trump material which does not, in fact, seriously imply that the President of the United States is a sociopathic moron who has not the faintest idea how anything works [4] (It also does not seriously imply that his vocabulary is that of an eight-year-old -- if the eight-year old was being raised in a brothel.) EEng 11:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I actually wrote a paper once which contained this passage: Fade in. Exterior, daytime. A wharf alongships. Jolly sailors batten down the mizzenmast and bilge-bail the fo'c'sle as they prepare to weigh anchor and shove off for Beantown. Avast of the yardarm, a daft coxswain foists hey on the jim-bob. EEng 11:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as in weigh a pie. But that sounds very unfair. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, EEng. Re: "away" - simply a play on words - as in anchors are a way to link directly - the latter preceded by a play on a proverb I didn't mention, "where there's a Wills there's a way" (my RL surname being Wills). Carry on. Atsme Talk 📧 12:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Adding: while perusing the Museum, one of the images inspired thoughts of a new section. I added an example. Atsme Talk 📧 12:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
New book titles: Arachnoquake by Little Miss Muffet and Bye, baby Bunting by Chris Watts - egads! Atsme Talk 📧 14:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
EEng, please be careful! Atsme just put an anchor in your underwear! [5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Atsme Talk 📧 22:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"Hey you cows, get on my lawn!" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Note: ad voiced by "legendary UK disc jockey" David "Kid" Jensen: [6]

Pace Owl

I noticed the first action of the apparent "Mr Space Owl" sock was to restore a change made by one "Dr Horncastle" here, the latter being a known sock of Eric Corbett. Then there's the odd similarity in the style of username. I think the edit itself was fine, but doesn't this seem like too much of a coincidence? I can't figure out why the Corbett sock would be editing an obscure page like this one (on the day after Mrs Pace Owl was blocked for edit-warring) unless there's some connection. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think even E.C.'s substantial powers of duplicity are insufficient for delivery of so effective an impersonation of a demented Buddhist. EEng 08:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Sockers and Sockmen: 14 Years of Work on Wikipedia (... and that's all the thanks I get). Nice article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Past misdeeds or no, would EC really clearly and obviously falsify the direct text of a source? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes, he'd probably rather get his eyes pecked out by pigeons and doves. Wilhelm Grimm 123 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
All good points. I had no history with EC, just noticed some odd parallels. Good to know it's just my imagination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

~ Happy Holidays ~
~ Have a great New Year too EEng ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

How

I'm not Hafspajen or Chaplin, I do have a question for you. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and ask your question. EEng 08:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)\
Maybe a couple questions but we'll start with why did you revert my edit? Née means maiden name and my edit was correct. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
No it wasn't. That's not what née actually means, the way you wrote it in your edit is not how it should be used, and in any case that information doesn't belong at that point of that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, née means "born". Your edit [7] was not correct, because Jill Biden's birth name wasn't "Jacobs Biden". EEng 08:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Why is this other user chiming in? I am editing the other part of the article as well. Yes, her name wasn't Jacobs; it was Stevenson. However she doesn't use Jacobs. The way it should be written within the article is Jill Tracy née Stevenson Jacobs Biden. You're quick to revert something when it's incorrect as it is. I guess Jill Jacobs Biden would work for the template. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
In articles about other people, we generally only use the common version of the name, the one that is the title of her article. There is no need, for instance, to place great emphasis on her Sicilian ancestry (where the Jacobs comes from), because it's not relevant there. And since you didn't hear it when we said it the previous times, that's not how "née" is used. It doesn't go into the middle of someone's name like that. "Jill Tracy née Stevenson Jacobs Biden" would (ignoring the missing comma) refer to someone now called "Jill Tracy" but whose full birth name was "Stevenson Jacobs Biden". You cannot stick "née" into the middle of a name and expect it to make sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure I have many, even numerous questions for you, DE. Saw you're an admin too. It's not "sticking" née into something. First no one really knows her name, not many anyway. Absolutely no one calls her Jill Jacobs. If you want to fix it, go ahead. It's not right how it is now. Second it's two separate things, fixing the template mention and the one in the article. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
"Jill Jacobs" in the infobox is fine as it is now. It gives her birth name. And Jill Biden has never changed her first name from Stevenson to Jill, so your proposed change is wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You are not listening! Let's assume you are wrong for a minute. One Jill Biden is wrong too. It doesn't even say that. Two we agree her name is Jill Tracy Stevenson (née would go in front of Stevenson) Jacobs (wherever that is supposed to go) Biden. Three you seem quick to dismiss something that isn't right. I guess you could look at other templates and you see there's a standard way to list spouses. Four I guess you have an opinion on Larry Sanger. He doesn't like Wikipedia now and many people are starting to see the site fails in some respects. What say you? Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Howdoesitgo1, but what you're saying makes no sense at all. EEng 09:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess I will have to elaborate for you to understand. Jill Biden's name is not listed correctly on the page we're talking about. You are both right that née means born (maiden name is the name a woman is born with, by the way). I am not right all the time although maybe I am right most of the time. Her name is Jill Tracy (middle name) née Stevenson (the last name she was born with) Jacobs (I guess that goes before Stevenson Biden.

Almost no one you could run across knows her as anything other than Jill Biden. Jill Jacobs is decidedly not her name. Does that make sense now? Also I was saying this site seems quick to allow things that shouldn't be allowed. You were pretty quick to revert something that is wrong as it is now also. I could cite many other big topics that are incorrect on here but those can wait. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Great Ghu! Does the WP:MOS speak to this? I seldom if ever have seen nee used like this on Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
For instance, the article about the lovely wife of Richard NIxon does not contain "née " in the info box. In the lead it's "Thelma Catherine "Pat" Nixon (née Ryan; March 16, 1912 – June 22, 1993)". Elaborate at will, but it seems quite simple to me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks like WP:MOS says neither "yea" nor "nay" on "née ". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Let me help.DFO
In the info box her name would be different, it would be Jill Jacobs Biden. Well look at that, it says Pat Ryan in the info box. Ok, so info boxes are wrong on here it seems. Nevertheless it should say Jill Tracy Jacobs née Stevenson Biden in the article. I guess a bigger topic is that this site, Wikipedia has some problems. Users are deleting information that should be left alone. It's been pointed out that the site is biased now too. It's pretty tough standing up to the revisionists. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Howdoesitgo1, since you seem to be ignoring everyone trying to explain this to you, let me put this simply and in bold: that is not how you use "née", even if there's consensus that "née" is appropriate. If she was born "Jill Jacobs", later became "Jill Stevenson", and is now "Jill Biden", then (if and only if) there were consensus to include every permutation of the name (which there isn't), the correct form would be "Jill Biden, née Jacobs, formerly Stevenson". Your preferred formula of "Jill Tracy Jacobs née Stevenson Biden" would mean that she was christened "Jill Stevenson Biden" but now calls herself "Jill Tracy Jacobs". Given the number of people who've explained this to you, you can't use "I wasn't aware" as an excuse; if you continue to push this you'll be dealt with as we deal with anyone else who deliberately tries to insert incorrect information into a Wikipedia article. ‑ Iridescent 14:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
When the time comes please take it outside. I just had the carpets shampooed and bloodstains can be awful stubborn. EEng 15:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, and that reminds me, I néed to get my knée replaced. Atsme 💬 📧 00:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
[8] O3000 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Jill Biden, née Jacobs, formerly Stevenson seems alright. I note people don't like to discuss things on talk pages. It's incorrect to revert talk pages on Wikipedia, particularly ones about a subject. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
No idea what you're saying, sorry. EEng 22:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Submission to the Museums

Describing the planning of the Suez Canal as "he planned to penetrate the feminine Orient with the masculine Occident in a consumation of progression" is such a gem of machine translation I don't even have the heart to remove it. ‑ Iridescent 21:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The Curator has adjoined your contribution [9] to an existing item also relating to unusual foreign adventures. EEng 23:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't the heart to remove this, either. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
[10] No matter what, they're preserved in perpetuity here in The Museums. EEng 15:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Miss Snodgrass is willing to chat

Hello, dahling! How do yew dooo! Really, my deah, I am SO happy yew recognized me from across that crowded room. Happy to make your acquaintance. I have no hard feelings of cawse! (We are all in the madcap environment togethah, right?) Toodles! Your new friend, you know, the one who has BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, there's that call I've been expecting! Sorry, gotta take this. There are canapes in the fridge. EEng 17:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

6:00 am inspiration

I think it might be a good idea for those who watch the various MOS pages and are active on their talkpages to stop answering general style questions and instead refer them to the language refdesk. My reasoning is that a lot of the negativity directed towards the MOS and its "regulars" comes from seeing the talkpage of a style guideline being used for answering style questions that are not covered by said guideline. This gives the answers the appearance of consensus-based legitimacy and any critisism of that is, I think, totally valid. The talkpages should be for improvement-based suggestions and clarification of existing guidance. No? I'm sending this to several people so please respond on my talkpage. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Inspiration is not striking

Can anyone give me a good DYK hook for Nickey Barclay? There must be some way of linking Fanny and Barbra Streisand in a humorous way; I just can't see it yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm drawing a blank as well. Sorry. EEng 18:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't come up with anything particularly good either. I don't think any puns on "fanny" would be a good idea, especially with BLP. Might be best to go with "...that musician Nickey Barclay collaborated with..." and list some of the famous names. By the way, there are a lot of duplicate links. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think any puns on "fanny" would be a good idea – Why, because Barbra Streisand might sue us to keep people from knowing about it? EEng 01:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
True, I've been proven wrong, or at least unfunny. I'm glad to see that I inspired some better ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333 - I got it!! Barbra Streisand had Nickey Barclay’s Fanny on the album, Stoney End. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Good work! I must be off my game today. Let me sharpen it a bit:
... that one of Barbra Streisand's albums has Nickey Barclay’s Fanny on it?
EEng 01:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Brevity is the soul of wit. Atsme✍🏻📧 02:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There are ENGVAR versions of "fanny" east of the Atlantic which make the hooks more risqué than in the Americas. Not necessarily a showstopper, but something to be aware of. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The more risque the better, I always say. Happy to give those uptight Brits a thrill. EEng 04:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I've gone with ... that two of Barbra Streisand's albums have some Fanny on them? Incidentally, a few years back there was an ANI thread where a bunch of IPs were edit-warring on Streisand's main article and calling anyone who disagreed with them a "Barbra hater" but I can't find it now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
If that's what you're happy with, then suggest moving the wlink as "... some Fanny ...". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Continuing ANI question

Why would removing a valid comment to any editor requesting edit summary comments need to be let go? I actually want an answer as to why deleting someone else's talk page request should be considered acceptable.

When did no discussing become an acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia: both from editors and admins? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

An IP with an extensive contribution history and long user talk page makes one edit without an edit summary, and you go leaving them a warning? WTF? When Serial Number removed your warning, that should have tipped you off to the fact that you were off base. EEng 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What's happening?

And now my life has changed in oh so many ways
My independence seems to vanish in the haze

Top of the morning to you, Ringo Paul!! I wanted to share a few thoughts about recent trends, and what I find extremely disconcerting about WP these days. I think you've noticed it, too. I'm speaking of the subtle transition in the way a few of our admins are swinging their mops. It appears more like duty creep that has transitioned from a focus on fighting vandals and stopping disruption to the cognitive restructuring of editors by using their tools to control the narrative. What ever happened to "Think different"? Is WP becoming a homogenized project because of groupthink, and what appears to be either a lack of or suppression of creative thinking skills and free thought? It's one thing to keep the prose in our articles dispassionate and neutral but doing so should neither prevent it from being engaging, nor absent of all significant views - but that is exactly what's happening. Engaging readers is how we capture their interest vs alienating at least half of them with a large dose of WP:POV creep. Of course, WP will survive and grow because of the trivia and COI articles that inundate us now, but what are we growing into? In my experiences, citing a WP article in a discussion becomes a battle over fact and opinion because WP is considered unreliable and is quickly dismissed which drives our readers to seek knowledge elsewhere. Do you see that as a potentially dangerous trend? The internet itself is a trend and serves as the host for trends, all of which are driven by popularity. Someone somewhere is building a better mousetrap, and if it turns out to be more reliable, fact-based and neutral which is what WP started out to be, what will happen then? How dependable is the loyalty of WP volunteers, especially when we're being treated like disposable nobodies under the control of thought police? Just a few thoughts from an over-thinker. Atsme 💬 📧 12:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, Atsme's opening reference is to my recent confession (at AN) that I am actually Ringo Starr. EEng
How about a couple of illustrative links? EEng 12:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to actually narrow it down to a particular diff because of an ongoing discussion, so I'll just say Jimbo's TP is full of examples. Also to consider is DS AE in general because unilateral actions can be made at an admin's sole discretion, and cannot be overturned by another admin as is the case with normal blocks or t-bans. Granted, we have some excellent admins but it only takes a few aggressive types to influence an entire process. When admins start modifying PAGs to fit their POV, and have become so involved in a topic area that they form preconceived notions about particular editors and how they think that editor will act in a situation, that's prejudice. In the big picture, it's the calm before the storm. It's one of the initial steps to homogenization. Another initial step is the limiting and deliberate selection of what resources can be cited for inclusion of information/material. Take it from there, maestro. Atsme 💬 📧 15:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Problem is, for whatever reason I do very little editing in DS areas, so I'm only vaguely tuned in to what you're talking about. I also stay away from the ol' Jimbo talk page, and from the sound of things that's the way it should stay. I'm concerned at your distress, but I'm struggling to find a way to relieve it. EEng 04:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
What's the buzz? Tell them what's a-happenin'. [11] (From the same collection, here's the last time a group of editors approached EEng about running for admin. I think he misunderstood when I said, "Christ, what more do you need to convince you?" Anyway, it didn't convince him.) Lev!vich 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I prefer an informal atmosphere, so you can just call me Jesus. EEng 06:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
And thus the lumbago: [12]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
In my limited experience, sweeping statements about the "declining state of Wikipedia" usually have their origins in very specific disputes concerning certain articles, WikiProjects, topic areas, editors or admins. For example, I don't think we can judge the quality of the entire project based on a dozen articles on the current political situation in the U.S.
I can understand not wanting to name names and escalate this currently abstract discussion but it's important to ground statements about the quality of Wikipedia with specific examples so one can evaluate the merits of the argument being made. Just my 2 cents. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
There are some good examples discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV-problems on Wikipedia. Lev!vich 06:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok, let's keep this going. It's funny how tempest in a teapot cases can end with a one-way ticket on the WP:POV railroad,choo-choo but not a total loss if it provides further fodder for future filings.WP:5Fs On point: AE/DS, one need look no further than the words "discretionary", "unilateral", "preventative", and "backsliding into past behaviors", all of which are defined in a rather muddled and dubious fashion or simply as generalities with countless loopholes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't adminship created for the purpose of fighting vandals, socks and stopping real disruption? Nowhere in our blocking policy does it say that it's acceptable to drop the ban hammer for the following reasons: WP:DONTLIKEIT, cognitive restructuring, Wikipedia:PREJUDICED, or WP:POLD, relevant or not. EEng's probably thinking - You kids get off my lawn!! So I'm thinking I'll make him a sign that reads Keep off the grass! and one for me that reads Keep off my ass! Following is my rendition of AE/DS in action: you make a wisecrack or spout off something under the DS umbrella that an admin doesn't like, and your ass gets blocked at their discretion, despite your comment having one or more of the following descriptors: [FBDB], [stretch] or [hyperbole]. That's how bad things have gotten. Credit's due where it's earned so I'll just say Excellent way to disincentivize productive editors! I realize that nobody gives a big 🐀 (_*_) about what I think, and neither do I for the most part, so back on point - the biggest problem with DS/AE is that an admin's action can't be overturned without an act of congress,[hyperbole] accompanied by some and eating a big ole helping of . In hopes of defusing the chilling effects of allegations such as woke editors being enablers of the "scorned", I will just point out that blind alliances are what enable the accuser to make such degrading comments with impunity, especially if it stems from prejudice, misconceptions and WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise. Isn't it time for the community to make a few tweaks here and there, and put things back into proper perspective? I'm not the only one who recognizes that we have problems in that area that need fixing; it goes right up to 4 members of ArbCom. KK stated: But I believe this would be better addressed in a case request about discretionary sanctions, which is yet another thing we've been meaning to take a look at for a while. This would be an excellent opportunity for us to revisit the whole issue. Ok Ringo (who, as a kid, looked like Paul), it's your turn to beat your...drum, just the drum! Atsme 💬 📧 15:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Objective3000: I think this is headed in the right direction.DFO
Atsme, Just so you know, there is somewhere on Wikipedia a log of AE/AN/ANI cases and it tracks subject/admins involved and political issue and how the cases were resolved. It's not just Wikipedia topics that are biased. And the bias is so pervasive that at times Wikipedia isn't fun to edit anymore. I've been here since 2005 I think and it was fun to be around. Now it's strategic editing and trying to avoid certain editors who you don't want to interact with. (and just so you know, in some areas, people won't come to your defense because they don't want to go against the groupthink, or also don't want to ruin their image.) Sir Joseph (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I remember that list, it was pretty controversial. Unfortunately I do not think it has been updated since early 2020. PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Fortunately for some, it hasn't been recently updated as it is an indictment of several conservative-minded editors. This paranoid theme that admins and editors are a cabal makes no more sense than QAnon crap. If editors that wish to push the concept that everything is a conspiracy against their belief system want to push that POV; they’re going to have drop that line and find a new path based on actual Wikipedia guidelines, reality, and good faith. I considered entering the recent AE filing a few times (something I’m not shy about) – but found no reason as Atsme was making my case against her in every edit. Coupla years ago, Drmies told her that other editors would start making a record of her hapless claims (paraphrasing). There is no deep state. There is no cabal. Just stick to the facts. I’ll finish by saying that Atsme is a far, far better editor than I and of value to the community. So long as she avoids anything remotely political. And couldn't our host find a better Beatle than Ringo? Perhaps someone in the Chrysomelidae famliy?O3000 (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Report, data. Lev!vich 02:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Liz, a specific example illustrating the declining quality of Wikipedia relating to Atsme's comments about unilateral DS AE actions may be when you gave me apparently false advice about my AE appeal and said that I was lucky to not be blocked. When I asked you to confirm that my appeal actually met WP:BANEX, you did not respond.[13] New editors will not be able to casually participate here under these conditions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For the sake of clarity - my concerns are not about editors who identify as conservative or liberal - I couldn't care less about one's ideology when I'm editing - it's about editors and admins who do care, take it personally and feel the need to act on it by pigeonholing their opposition as right-wing (which, btw, is a WP:PA), and then slapping a gag order on them without ever specifying a valid reason for it; a throw shit against the wall approach. I have actually defended a few of my detractors/opposition at AE when I perceived an injustice and will also be the first to lend a helping hand in RL. It's not about the politics for me, it's about the *<:o) party 🎉🎊.
I'll take it one step further...(which is what my critics hate most about me)...things have gotten to the point that some editors have even cited controlled surveys to gage intelligence levels of people who watch certain news channels, and when such a survey is conducted by academia, and aligns with their POV, it's considered a RS for statements of fact. That has to stop because it is all about IDONTLIKEIT, and the ugly hand of bias reaching out to slap GF editors who are simply copyediting, or trying to achieve NPOV. EEng got a little taste of it himself at Talk:Joe Biden but because he's openly not a fan of Trump and is known as Jesus Christ superstar,affectionately he was not nailed to the cross as I probably would have been, for Christ's sake. I believe a big part of it is prejudice based on preconceived notions that my editing is politically motivated. I have been wrongfully accused of that simply because I disagree, (or is it because of the gender gap)? Another major issue is the overuse of keyword identifiers, like the ones commonly used by so-called media bias experts, in a terribly flawed process. WP editors are using that same process. Certain words or "talking points" send Paul Revere galloping off to warn the village, and the troops arrive with muskets loaded![stretch]
Regardless, it's simple bias that keeps certain articles scrubbed, full of trivia and noncompliant with NPOV relative to criticism. Quite frankly, it's poor editorial judgment when we have unwieldy articles filled with trivia, peacock words, and other material that fails WP:10YT. The essay or guideline supplement WP:RSP is being used improperly, and actually conflicts with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. And that's just for starters, so back on point - the DS-AE brigade is causing more harm than good because prejudice is the Lon Chaney of bias,an old folks analogy and what I perceive to be the motivation per The Critic that Levivich linked to above. Atsme 💬 📧 16:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
What does Lon Chaney mean? He's in everything? Anyway, why are administrators automatically permitted to participate in conduct disputes? It's puzzling that we're combining the duties of editorial oversight and interpersonal mediation...these aren't related skills. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Man of a Thousand Faces (film), PBS...in other words, prejudice assumes many roles in the making of biased decisions. Atsme 💬 📧 18:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
In my view admin are neither for conduct disputes nor for editorial oversight. The purpose of an administrator is, or rather should be, to push a button that we cannot let everyone push because the risk of abuse or misuse is too great. The buttons are "protect", "delete", and "block". An individual editor is, or rather should be, allowed to become an administrator because the community thinks they will not abuse or misuse a button; i.e., they will only push it when they are supposed to; i.e,. they will only push the button when consensus says they should push the button, regardless of their personal opinions. Admin are, or rather should be, chosen for their ability to understand and comply with consensus when it comes to the pushing of those buttons. Discretionary sanctions turns this upside down, by allowing admins to choose when to push the buttons, and to create entirely new buttons of their own. DS turned admins from being an implement of consensus to being a police officer, judge, jury, and executioner. This has been disastrous, as a small group of people (less than a dozen) have appointed themselves essentially the babysitters of entire topic areas. The conscious and unconscious biases and prejudices of this group of people, who are only human, inform their enforcement decisions, and thus determine when sanctions are imposed and when they are not, and thus determine who gets sanctioned and who doesn't, and thus determine who edits and who doesn't, and thus entire topic areas take on this small group of people's particular interpretation of NPOV, to the point that even outside observers perceive the palpable bias in our articles. Why does such a small group of people have such outsized influence? Because we let them. Editors fail to resolve problems among themselves; instead of doing the difficult work of compromise, they punt disputes to a group of self-appointed "parents"; then they complain about the parents' decisions. I think this should change, which is why I participate regularly at ANI, and I encourage everyone else to do the same. (And by extension, in RFAs, Arbcom elections, and WMF Trustee elections.) "Take the power back." Lev!vich 18:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
So... can't we just decide that "everyone who is an administrator is now a 'cleric' with the following powers:..." in order to circumvent arbitration? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm 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.) ‑ Iridescent 10:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the crux of the problem is unilateral action taken at an admin's sole discretion in the name of DS-AE, which means the action cannot be overturned by another admin. Worse yet, DS are being/have been customized to address certain behaviors of editors that have been/are being analyzed by the same few admins; therefore, unlikely to escape prejudice or their own biases and that equates into being involved. To get an AE block or t-ban removed, an editor is forced to either grovel to the enforcing admin, or endure the AE process wherein detractors have been known to cast aspersions and launch PAs with impunity - not fun, especially when it's a POV content issue and not actual disruption. There are no time limits on discussions, so the opposition who may be losing an argument can yell "BLUDGEONING" and an admin can block/t-ban the effective editor to silence them. Bias or prejudice are strong arguments for involvement, and so is patterned behavior that might also include the "study" of an editor, if not admin HOUNDING, which again speaks to "involved". How do we eliminate these problems - especially when trust is lost - keeping in mind the ideological bias on Wikipedia, which is another aspect of the problem that results in disproportionate blocks & indef t-bans against those editors whose views may not align with the acting admin's views? Atsme 💬 📧 15:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
(All obviously with "just my personal opinion and not in any official capacity" disclaimers.) I personally think discretionary sanctions are thoroughly abused, and that their use in practice is almost never justified. They were intended as a fast-track mechanism to deal with obvious cranks and obsessives and with diehard editwarriors in obvious problem areas, not as a general mechanism by which people who know how to play wiki-politics can use pseudolitigation to knock people who disagree with them out of play to allow a preferred version to stick around long enough to become the default.

All that said, I'm utterly unconvinced that the alleged "ideological bias of Wikipedia" exists. To me, the supposed "bias" is just a reflection of the fact that Wikipedia aggregates sources from around the world, not just from the area under discussion, and that English Wikipedia's editors break 40% US, 60% other; as such, when it comes to political topics our coverage of European and Canadian topics appears skewed to the right since we're giving due weight to American opinion, and our coverage of US topics appears skewed to the left because we're giving due weight to non-US opinion. This is particularly true when it comes to modern US political topics; it's hard to overstate how loathed the current incarnation of the US Republican Party is by even their traditional allies on the right in Europe. (Current leaders are holding their tongues publicly until he's out of office so as not to provoke diplomatic incidents, but it's fair to assume that e.g. former UK Conservative Party leader Malcolm Rifkind's on-the-record description of Trump as "Repulsive … so coarse, so vulgar, so insulting to friends as well as to foes … I find him a really exhausting experience and one that does no benefit to his own country reflects what Johnson, von der Leyen, Merkel et al are saying in private.)

If there is a systemic bias on Wikipedia, it's not a systemic bias towards either the right or the left, but a systemic bias towards the values of industrialized societies; to paraphrase something I recently said on my talk page, if the WMF genuinely believed that the opinions of everyone in the world was of equal value than 1⁄3 of each article would be dedicated to the Communist view of that topic and significant chunks of every article on any popular-culture topic would give due weight to the "sinful frivolity which will make you burn in hell" hypothesis.

TL;DR: When it comes to discretionary sanctions, unless it would be obvious to any reasonable outside observer that applying DS is appropriate, it almost certainly isn't. Think of them as a WP:PROD process for editors: if there's any good-faith objection it ought to go to a discussion. Alleged anti-(whatever) bias doesn't come into it and I'm not convinced such a thing exists. ‑ Iridescent 18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

AE and DS are an example of "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em". For every complaint of DS-gone-evil, there's a counter-example of DS-finally-solved-a-problem. In one fish's opinion, GMOs are the poster child for the latter. But then again, it depends on which "side" one is on – there is no shortage of anti-GMO POV-pushers who would classify me as the "people who know how to play wiki-politics [and] can use pseudolitigation to knock people who disagree with them out of play to allow a preferred version to stick around long enough to become the default." --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I prefer living without DS/AE for the reasons I stated. I agree with Iridescent for the most part. My primary concern is relative to the rejection of significant views from our articles based on DONTLIKEIT, resulting in the purposeful omission of material, or because a particular partisan media echo chamber refused to publish it for whatever reason. After all, a scandal is not a scandal until it has been published by media; a rather pompous POV, don't you think? I'm not referring to verifiable scientific information; rather, my focus is on biased news media, and how we tend to accept at face value whatever scandal clickbait media decides to publish - not to mention RECENTISM. Another problem is our limited access to RS behind paywalls (a growing problem), an issue that I've brought to Jimbo's attention for a couple of years now, hoping something could be done to avoid the inevitable dilemma. Volunteers working in AfC and NPP need access to those sources for verifiability, but oh well. May the force be with you! Atsme 💬 📧 21:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Since you ask whether I think it's "a pompous POV" to consider something as "not a scandal" until published sources say that it's a scandal, I'll tell you what I think. Outside of Wikipedia, I suppose yes there is something rather self-congratulatory about the assumption that something isn't real until self-appointed media arbiters declare it as such. And similarly, there's something obnoxiously Warhol-esque, and/or Kardashian-West-esque, about equating fame with relevance. Long-forgotten: "I think, therefore I am."
But if we're talking instead about Wikipedia (which no one should confuse with the real world!), I think that we damn well better have a preponderance of reliable sources calling something "a scandal", before we call it "a scandal" in Wikipedia's voice. There's nothing pompous about that; in fact, it ought to grow out of a certain humility about editor fallibility.
You and I largely agree about recentism on Wikipedia. My personal way of dealing with recentism has become one of staying away from topics where it presents a risk. Someone else's problem, not mine. Your mileage may differ.
But I posted the previous comment largely because I feel that this discussion is trending in one direction, and that it would benefit from some push-back. Do I think we should deprecate pay-walled sources? Absolutely not! Frankly, there is something anti-intellectual about the concept: nothing is real unless Google finds it. I still believe in libraries with paper books.
I appreciate that you distinguish between verifiable scientific information and controversial public affairs. Like you, I despair of Wikipedia's ability to adequately deal with the latter. And I agree that clickbait is idiot-bait. (See: I'm repeatedly trying to identify common ground. Perhaps I'm very trying!) I've heard other editors say (I've lost track of who, sorry) that we should move away from characterizing recent events and towards just saying what happened. I like that idea. But I think there's a lot underlying "we tend to accept at face value whatever scandal clickbait media decides to publish". If the claim is that the current consensus is to present clickbait as fact, while a minority of honorable editors are being mistreated, sorry, but I don't accept it on face value. I know that's not what you want to hear from me, but we may have to agree to disagree. (As I write this, I'm hearing over the radio that "thousands" have turned out for the Million Moron March I mean Million MAGA March. Yes, that's still where my mind is at, at present. Keep me away from political mainspace content.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The main difference between our perspectives is that I want the full scoop as someone who was trained in old-school journalism when neutrality, accuracy and journalistic ethics meant something unlike what we see today in some of the clickbait opinion journalism - it's day and night - whereas your perspective is more personal, particularly where politics are concerned. I'm not being critical of you, it's your perspective and I respect that, but I don't feel obligated to either share it or agree with it. I also don't harbor any ill-will toward anyone for having a different perspective from my own, but that sentiment isn't always reciprocated. I will joke about any politician at the drop of a hat, I don't care where I am or who I'm talking to, be it Trump or Biden. My Italian Momma, who could be a little crude in her forthrightness, taught me a long time ago that nobody is better than anybody else because we all have to wipe our butt after we take a dump. Talk about humbling...maybe we all need that little reminder from time to time. Atsme 💬 📧 01:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Be sure to get the full scoop! (That's caramel corn, if anyone's wondering... --Tryptofish)
Be careful about looking for a full scoop while wiping your butt!
But seriously, it's certainly a good thing for both of us (and for anyone watching) to respect one another's perspectives even when those perspectives are not shared. You may perhaps want to consider that, whereas from your perspective you are seeking the full scoop (sorry, I can't stop smiling at that one!), other editors who have been in conflict with you (and I don't mean me here) see it as having an idiosyncratic view of what is or is not a reliable source (as Wikipedia defines reliable sources) and that you are too slow to drop the stick (drop the scooper?) when consensus goes against you. I try my level best not to consider myself to have any extra sway about neuroscience content based on my professional background, and I would suggest that your professional journalism background doesn't make your views about journalism any more valid for Wikipedia's purposes than the views of editors who are journalistic laypersons. My sincere advice, but you obviously don't have to take it.
I disagree that my perspective is more (or less) personal than anyone else's (and I think I'm entitled to say when my perspective has been characterized in a way I disagree with). Everyone who cares about public affairs has a personal perspective about it. And if people (or fish) are discussing and expressing personal political perspectives in Wikipedia user space, that's different than expressing it in mainspace or on content noticeboards. And I take very seriously my obligation to set my personal perspectives about politics aside when it's anything reader-facing. As I've now said enough times to fill up multiple scoops, I've been taking the position that editing about American Politics is someone else's problem, not mine. And just prior to my having decided that, our host EEng (this is EEng's talk page, isn't it?) will doubtless remember my taking a "let's not violate BLP over Trump" position here (and here). When it comes to content (and heck, even !Russian hookers), I'd say I've tried pretty hard to set the personal aside. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, it's not unusual to believe that about oneself or one's position - but it works both ways. You said, other editors who have been in conflict with you (and I don't mean me here) see it as having an idiosyncratic view of what is or is not a reliable source. That's expected when the opposition has no other argument to support their position - they target, freeze, personalize & polarize (Alinsky rule #13). And if there's no smoking gun to justify a case at one of the drama boards, they plant one by prepending every diff with an aspersion knowing that few, if any, admins/arbs will actually read the diffs in context, if at all. I have dared to cite PAGs that support my position whereas the opposition argues their respective opinions which typically align with the majority. Today's prevailing attitude is that left-leaning news sources are more reliable. Sorry, but I disagree with the whole RSP rating system - it is flawed. ALL news sources should be approached with caution because they all contribute to issues relative to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. Journalists are not scholars. The alliances/loyalties that grew from some of the older news sources still remain, but now that we have the internet, more people are being exposed to the same facts but from different media perspectives. You can believe one perspective is more reliable than another but that doesn't make it so - only corroborated, verifiable facts matter. Surely we can agree that the bias on WP leans left, and that left-leaning editors are equally as aggressive as their opposition but left-leaning editors have more protection because of the sheer numbers, especially when like minded admins are editing side by side with them in a like-minded majority. Don't Stop The Carnival!

Let's say we're doing damage control and we come across the research conducted by The Critic, or we read our own ideological bias on Wikipedia and cited sources, and we are already aware of the hegemony of the asshole consensus, and WP:RSP. What do you think we should do when we read all the online media criticism about WP? Simply ignore it? Just today I Googled criticisms +Wikipedia, and came across this article, (a source I'm not familiar with), but out of curiosity I looked at RSP and confirmed that it was indeed deprecated. There was an RfC and another brief discussion at WP:RSN. Soooo...what are your thoughts about it? Oh, and before I forget (a simple FYI), I also participated in that same DYK discussion that you provided diffs to above. My diffs are here, here, here, and here. Atsme 💬 📧 19:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme. Just quickly about your last point, about the DYK discussion, yes I know that you participated there too. My reason for linking to my own participation in it was in regards to the fact that, despite my rather unambiguous personal views about Trump, when I took part in a discussion about something referring to him that would appear on the main page, I set aside my personal views and took the position that we needed to be meticulous about BLP and not imply anything about him that was unsubstantiated.
As for the rest, I really don't want to get into further discussion about it. I understand what you are saying and I'm confident that you understand what I am saying. Let's please leave it at that. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh my!

"I need a Cure"

I get an email notice about an event - the headline reads:

BIG NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM
Live on YouTube!

What do you think was my first thought? Uh humm. I need a cure, not a curator. Atsme 💬 📧 23:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin

 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

You said I could notify 15. I said 14 to be equal, but I figure you're about as neutral as they come so you're the 15th. I don't expect you to say anything, but if you do I expect it to be funny. Roy McCoy (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
If I come up with any zingers I'll be happy to share them, but don't hold your breath. There's not a lot of available raw material in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Here's a free sample:
"I demolish your reasoning" or "Your argument collapses"
EEng 05:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! But that's not a demolition, it's an office fire. Roy McCoy (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if putting something in the archive was funny or not, but I'm laughing anyway. Roy McCoy (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Well it seemed a particularly un-useful post, from long ago, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to put it on the shelf. EEng 05:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Fine by me. Roy McCoy (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Malcom X#Media attention to Malcolm X over Muhammad or thereabouts

EEng—could take a look a the last half dozen edits at Malcolm X? I don't think I am getting through to User talk:Desslock97 whom seems to be tightly focussed on inserting a Malcolm quote into an irrelevant section of the article that concerns his separation from the Nation of Islam. I've tried an edit summary on my revert plus two posts on the users talk page. The user's latest attempt adds a new subsection and text unsupported by the accompanying ref—interrupting the flow even more. Suggestions welcome—or perhaps a touch of your humor might work. — Neonorange (Phil) 14:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the incisive intervention. I tend to make my explanations too specific—leading to, well, you know, lawyering. — Neonorange (Phil) 22:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I stated on my talk page I was willing to move it to a different section or add it in some way into the article. I don't agree that it should just be outright removed, considering it has multiple credible sources (huffpost and a .edu website, both which have been used extensively in various wikipeda articles for various people) backing what he said. I don't understand what you mean by that shouldn't be added to the Malcolm X wikipedia page. What he said about media and race should absolutely be included on his wikipedia page. Desslock97 (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
What I think you're not getting is that just because something's sourced doesn't mean it should be in the article -- see WP:VNOTSUFF. The section of the article where you keep making the insertion does involve the media, but it's about how the media covered MX, how EM was jealous of that, and so on; MX's thoughts about the role of the media in society has nothing to do with it.
Nor does it belong anywhere else in that particular article, which isn't an enumeration of random things MX thought or said. wikiquote:Malcolm_X would be an appropriate place to lodge this material. EEng 02:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

UTP fly

Totally unrelated to anything in particular, I vaguely remember seeing a fly image on someone's user talk page once, and on mouse over, it'd move to a different spot (that old gag). I thought it was called "McFly" or something like that, and it was a template, but it's not {{McFly}} and I can't find it now. Anybody remember what I'm talking about? Lev!vich 03:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Nagualdesign/Die Fliege. Gerda continues the tradition of placing it on the talkpages of editors who are missed. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice

You have been busy at the Joe article! Looks good, thanks for taking the time to take a look. PackMecEng (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's kind of weird actually. I've been editing for three days and until this moment no one -- no one -- seems to have noticed or reacted in any way. I mean not a single sign of life. It's like one of those sci fi movies where they board a vast, derelict spaceship and wander the empty halls. It's almost creepy. EEng 03:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering about that as well. When I went to post this I had to read through the last few posts here to see if I was doubling up. I am a little surprised there have not been any overblown reverts/threats. In a good way mind you! PackMecEng (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes of course -- good reverts and friendly threats. The article is so stuffed with WP:YOUDONTSAY and WP:CORNCOBS and circumlocution that if I were the suspicious type I might think it was a Republican plot to reduce voter participation by lulling the electorate en masse into a a state of stupor lasting through Election Day. EEng 04:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Look what my evil twin did the other day [14]. And do I get any recognition? NO! EEng 06:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It was only there for a minute. Well played, sir, well played. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It was only there for a minute – As in life. And (also as in life) he didn't even notice. EEng 14:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes one simply doesn't know what to say

...and so one posts a picture. I thought you might enjoy these. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Your contribution will be used to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. [15] EEng 06:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hurrah! I'm honoured. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

MOSNUM date ranges

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".—Finell 19:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant that the note about word-or-dash-but-not-both belongs near the end of the list of bulletpoints, not first. EEng 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hope Ryden

On 27 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hope Ryden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before she became an expert on wild animals, Hope Ryden was an international flight attendant and used her long layovers to observe wildlife in Africa and Asia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hope Ryden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hope Ryden), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just wrote the hook. It's good to see hookers getting some respect. EEng 18:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

As for "generosity of spirit" ...

Tryptofish has generously brought you some spirits.
OK, EEng, you asked (at ANI: [16]) for me to give you diffs, so here goes. Before anything else, please let me begin by saying that I'm not talking here about stuff that is particularly bad. As I said before over there, I don't see anything that you should be sanctioned for, not by a mile. So this is picky stuff, as opposed to serious complaints, because I don't have any major complaints. So none of this is going to be NPA violations or the like. And please do not feel like you have to defend any of it, because none of it is a big deal. I've been avoiding WP except for where I think I can be helpful in improving the culture of how editors communicate, and that's where this falls, plus, I'm saying all of this to you as a friend. And because I'm not trying very hard, I found these three nitpicks by just scrolling upwards on your talk page.
So, nitpick number one: [17]. I suspect that you were in the right. But referring to someone as "the IP with 80 edits" isn't engaging on the merits of the argument, but rather, WP:BITE. Yes, I know the IP had just elocuted "Don`t go there..it won`t you far on Wikipedia", a brilliant statement if ever there was one. But you didn't prove anything by refuting it. You once made an eightieth edit, and I once did, too. That's what "punching down" is.
Nitpick number two: [18]. It looks to me, again, like you were right, and you were talking to someone who was being told repeatedly by multiple editors that they misunderstood our file policies, and who was doing some WP:IDHT, albeit politely. You called what they had done "sophomoric". Yes, I know that quite a few experienced users said right here in your talk page section that it did not meet the threshold to be a PA. And that's not what I'm claiming it was. But if I say that it was not generous of you to have said it that way, I'm right about that. You aren't required to be generous in that way, and you don't need to. But you also won't be diminished by choosing to be generous that way.
Nitpick number three: [19]. Another in your long and illustrious line of ANI illustrations. Yes, I know that you get "thanks" for them. Yes, I know that I do them all the time in user space (and I did it once at ANI, and have ever since regretted that I did). I don't know much about the editor who needed, um, suction (isn't that another section here?), but I can guess that they were less experienced than you and I are. I wish that you would just stop with those ANI illustrations, entirely.
In none of these instances were you in the wrong. You don't have to do anything I tell you to do here. And, given that it's just a website anyway, it's no big deal. If you want, you can choose to be generous. Or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Just glancing over this I can see it will be an interesting exercise. I suppose I have an unconscious flowchart for response modes, depending on the history of the issue, the other user(s)' history and behavior, the goal, and so on, and it will be fun to try to explicate that using these cases, and (who knows?) maybe modify it. However, it won't be fast. I didn't get much sleep last night because my lumbago was acting up[1] and for the next two weeks I'll be supervising a construction project in my building. Somewhere in there I'll get started, but not today and not tomorrow. Maybe I'll add some cases of my own. EEng 21:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ I actually don't know what lumbago is but it sounds like a good excuse.
By all means, sleep on it. And really, it doesn't require any sort of response at all. Certainly not worth an extended discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • COVID-19 made him do it 👿...not directly, but the lockdown has its affects...not unlike cabin fever and it can be worse than alcohol. At least with alcohol, you pass out when you've had too much...but with cabin fever, you get worse and more active over time. The only cure is for Tryptofish to come back to WP, and for EEng to regenerate our round table discussions so he can yell at the kids and tell them to get out of his yard. That will help release some of the pressure cooker frustration he feels and makes it easier to measure one's comments when faced with WP editors who just don't get it. Atsme Talk 📧 13:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    And here's the difference: Someone without generosity of spirit would point out that you should have said "effects", but someone with generosity wouldn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hmmmm. And so here we come to the crux of the matter. To me, generosity of spirit would be to have the respect for my visitor to assume (option 1) that she would appreciate help with getting affect versus effect straight, or (if it's just a momentary lapse) that she will get a chuckle out of a little joke I might make exploiting the fact that affect can in fact be a noun; and indeed if you weren't such a shitty prof[1][FBDB] you'd know that a laugh, like almost any form of emotion, helps a lesson sink in. (Fear works too but is harder to induce remotely than it is in the classroom. And the dean has reminded me several times that love is off limits.) An ungenerous spirit would assume (option 2) that Atsme's got a fragile, easily-bruised ego which asks nothing more than to be allowed to spend a lifetime floating in a warm bath of blissful ignorance. Let's ask Atsme which one she is: Option 1 or Option 2. (And please be serious, Atsme. This is actually an important conversation.) EEng 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    COVID-19 lockdown made me do it...or better yet, it was a conservation conversation starter. Whatever, it affected me profoundly; but nowhere near the way it effected EEng. Now...back to your question, surely you know I'd go with Option 1. I'm the Timex that takes a licking and keeps on ticking! Uhm, carry that ball to the finish line carefully. (That didn't help, did it?) Atsme Talk 📧 22:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    Actually, I think that what we have here is an example of how online text humor can be misunderstood. My intention when I wrote that was to make a joke: I was (apparently) implying that it would be kinder not to point out the error – and yet, I was pointing it out. Irony. Now, maybe EEng is calling my bluff, by pretending that he thinks I actually meant what I said, and if so, well played, my little EEng.[2]
    But as for good teaching techniques, I was always an enthusiastic practitioner of humor during classes. (When lecturing about opioids, I've been known to imitate a woman having an orgasm.) But – and I have a very big butt – jokes made at a student's expense are most definitely not helpful to learning. Indeed, quite the opposite. Your dean should have told you that. But of course, university administrators are generally nitwits. At least the ones who have any wits at all.
    And, since this is an important conversation, that does translate to Wikipedia. Making a joke at the expense of another editor (unless you know that it's someone like Atsme, who will get the joke) can be a rather ungenerous thing to do. (If you've never seen an undergraduate who is furious because they think that you were talking down to them, you are lucky you missed it. Even if you meant well.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, and I hope your lumbago gets better! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Anagram of Tryptofish
  2. ^ Anagram of EEng
  • Not Atsme, but I'll give an honest answer. I don't mind good-natured pointing out of errors or even good-natured ridicule for errors from someone I believe basically likes and respects me. I don't like seeing people being intentionally hurtful to people they disagree with. I didn't like this but I also didn't like seeing this (third one of many). Both felt unnecessarily mean. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    For the record (and for those too lazy to click), of the two diffs you just gave only the second is by me. As to that one, I believe you're talking about
Oops, I got the wrong part of the diff
where Editor A saidmost editors spend a lot of time on Wikipedia doing something that is of little benefit to themselves
and I said
Change "little benefit to themselves to simply little benefit and the point is well made.
– yes? But that wasn't directed at, or any kind of comment on, Editor A, or even on editors in general (though I can see how it could be misread as that latter, and that's my fault – I myself had to think for a second to reconstruct what I was saying). It was simply a statement that the procedure under discussion is so complex, yet of so little benefit, that only if editors see their work here as useless in general would they bother doing this particular useless thing. So there's nothing mean about it.
EEng 23:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
For anyone having a hard time following, click the second diff and just search on FUCKING UPSETTING —valereee (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear you don't have a penis, val, but if you need one, there are websites that can help you find one in your local area. E may have a recommendation.
I also thought that RFA line violated the below-the-belt and glass-houses rules, a rare yellow card. Lev!vich 00:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the acknowledgement about the RfA line. But the sarcasm about supposed penis envy is appalling, sexist, and stupid. Not funny. Valereee, I'm sorry that you were replied to that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Valereee can express herself on this if need be. These days there's entirely too much of people imputing hurt feelings to other people. Jesus Christ on a crutch. EEng 19:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I took it as a joke. I didn't read sarcasm or penis envy into it. (In fact I searched the page to see if I'd missed something else. This page has the word penis on it seven times. Now nine.) —valereee (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, thanks, I'm glad that you feel that way. As to the celibate saint on a crutch, regardless of whether or not valereee was offended by it – and I'm glad that she wasn't – I was offended by it, myself. And I still am. I think I have a reasonably good sense of humor. If it was a joke, it wasn't funny, and I'm not the problem here. So if your (EEng's) reaction is to be offended by what I said, as opposed to what I reacted to, then that's the problem. If there is any take-home from this discussion, it's that humor does not always make for a positive contribution to a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Last year you went to bat for an editor who told another editor to go fuck himself with a dildo covered in sandpaper and hot sauce (among other colorful statements), and when the community told you to drop that particular stick, you retired. (Not your current retirement; this was a previous one.) A few days ago you were joking with the rest of us about a child performing oral sex on a priest. When you say you're offended by my joke, you are being completely and totally insincere. Lev!vich 21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
FTR I didn't interpret it as a child. EEng 22:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
FTR, neither did I. GirthSummit (blether) 13:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, you have my prior history wrong on some of those points. But there is a difference here, between those earlier jokes and this one, and it's a pity that what I've been trying to say, very sincerely, isn't getting across. What MPants said was directed at a drive-by IP troll who was spouting Nazi sympathies, and I trust that that would not describe an established female editor. And the Saint John sculpture joking was not directed at any editor (unless that child kneeling person is an editor here). Yes, I have a sense of humor. But humor varies, depending on the target. And you completely and totally do not seem to understand the distinction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is my talk page and I forbid either of you from continuing this branch of the conversation. If you two fell out I don't know what I would do. EEng 22:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you. But getting back on topic, I really do hope you will give serious thought to what I said about the targets of humor. Again, I'm not accusing you of anything there, but just passing along what I hope will be useful advice, going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I realize I shouldn't have done it with a lady present, but I feel OK with that being my response to Editor A's Not everybody is as inept as you, and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data" (which particularly got my goat because, in fact, the plural of anecdote actually is data). 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. EEng 01:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng, that's really all that I would ask for. Thank you for that. I mean it. Even if you were a celibate saint. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Gosh, completely forgot about User talk:EEng#re. EEng 04:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Reading this talk page from that point forward is illustrative:
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!vich 04:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that a bit of a false dichotomy is being created here. Are we being offered the choice of self-classifying ourselves into exactly one of two categories, one being self-important people who openly prize ignorance, and the other being people who grant advance license to being teased over immaterial typographical errors, even where this might distract from substantive discussions? If that choice were posed to me, my response would be mu, in the sense popularized by Douglas Hofstadter in Gődel, Escher, Bach. I understand the point that EEng is making, but I'm not sure that he is making it affectively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Dichotomy hyperbole obviously.
    • Not a day goes by that each of doesn't see at least one talk post that distracts from substantive discussion by its unintelligibility, vacuousness, or whatever. By comparison, a little joke at least has some redeeming qualities, for those who choose to let it.
    • I'll forgo further affect/effect quips.
    EEng 03:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    Uh huh...I figured you would. Atsme Talk 📧 03:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Stella Immanuel

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)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Dumber than a rock in the toothpick factory

No rocks here!

This just blew in on the slush pile and I thought it would raise a smile if I reposted it here.

"Dumber than a rock in a toothpick Factory" ie; this is a phrase that was created by myself for saying that someone is unintelligent; not smart; uneducated. this phrase can be used as an insult or a derogatory remark. Use this saying with caution as it will offend and hurt feelings. In fact it could even cause lasting pain an turmoil if not used with extreme caution. But if used in good company this could cause laughter and hilarity and may even cause a peeing incident. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but peeing incidents are unacceptable, unless...by design. I have also concluded that EEng's TP may well be the only true "safe place" to say what one thinks, depending on one's perspective, of course. Atsme 👂🏻 📧 19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the rock-toothpick imagery. EEng 19:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm also a bit confused by that imagery. In fact, isn't that draft a bit like the opposite of that old saying: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? SemiHypercube 15:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to say Denser than a rock in the toothpick factory. The idea being that the density of a rock would stand out against a group of toothpicks in uniform density. In which case it should be "relatively denser". Or perhaps it just sounds silly, and trying to get a discussion out of it here is dumber than a rock in the toothpick factory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hapless nominator: "Oh no!! What have you done to Grandma?!!"
Gleeful closer: "That's the last time she runs for RfA!!"
Personally I would have gone with "blunter than a rock in the toothpick factory". But then folks have often said that I'm "one slab short of a full patio." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how to get this video to open at 2:18. ^_^ Atsme 📣 📧 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Going to the other end of the spectrum, let's start a "vivid folksy imagery" contest. Here's my favorite:
    There hasn't been so much excitement around here since grandma got her tit caught in the wringer!
EEng 16:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought that was Auntie Mabel? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Milman Parry

The following continues a conversation begun at User talk:AndrewFeld:

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?

Oh--and I'm sorry that your section leader in Albert's class was an idiot. You should have told Lord at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewFeld (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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. EEng 01:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. A biography of Milman Parry is currently in the works, by Robert Kanigel, and an article about his death, by Steven Reece, will be published in the journal, Oral Tradition, this Spring, so there will soon be a great deal of new information available about Milman Parry's life, and his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewFeld (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Well why didn't you say so? I'm sure those new sources will allow us to give this point the high-quality treatment it deserves. So I can attend to that as soon as possible, please drop me a message here the moment either source becomes available. EEng 02:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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? Atsme Talk 📧 13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

[21]. And to think they say I'm disorganized. EEng 14:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(And that's about the kindest thing they say... lol.) Harvard graduates... know your limits! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Call T&S! Martin is harassing EEng and me! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
For those who don't know, Harvard graduates are a protected group against discrimination. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"...merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." --Thomas Jefferson

I could not help[Citation Needed] 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.


BTW, here is the source for the Jefferson quote above:[24] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

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? Leviv ich 03:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I wasn't planning to get into it, but since we're here I'll tell you what I think needs doing in that joke, though it's not a coherent plan. A successful joke must incorporate some kind of incongruity in the punchline, usually (though not universally) in the form of a reversal or change of point of view. This is partly why jokes so often have three parts: two set a pattern, direction, or point of view, and the third breaks the pattern or reverses the direction. (The desert island / raft joke breaks the "3" mold, but that's OK because part of the joke is the tedious multiple chances we give vandals.) Now I think the right thing to do in the lawyer joke might be to have the judge do all the citing of shortcuts (to set the pattern) and then at the end the lawyer rewrites the book or something and invokes ANYONECANEDIT, thus turning the tables. I don't have the details worked out, and honestly it's a tricky story to sustain unless the ripostes are truly bang-on to the various shortcuts that get cited, but I think that's the right framework. Having said that, the opening call by the lawyer to REVERT the verdict is the best line of the joke, and I don't see offhand how to put that into the mouth of the judge. EEng 03:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
What if they both cite shortcuts. What do you think of this, quick and dirty:
Jury: Guilty
Lawyer: WP:Revert
Judge: WP:0RR, the jury is sending your client to jail
Lawyer: WP:Move review
Judge: affirms WP:Consensus
Lawyer: (Notavote? IAR?)
Judge: WP:PAGs
Lawyer: {{citation needed}}
Judge: shows him the book
Lawyer: WP:ANYONECANEDIT
Alternate ending: the defendant edits the book and cites ANYONECANEDIT Leviv ich 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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? Leviv ich)
Lawyer: Poll the jury?
Judge: WP:NOTAVOTE
Lawyer: Rv?
Judge: 0RR
Lawyer: DRV?
Judge: FORUMSHOPPING
Lawyer: IAR? (CONSENSUSCANCHANGE? Leviv ich)
Judge: DROPTHESTICK
Lawyer: [...something...]
Judge: [...something...]
Lawyer: [...something about editing a PAG...] WP:ANYONECANEDIT
Defendant: <bolting for the door> WP:Wikipedia does not need me

EEng 22:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I like it! Some suggestions above and also: WP:TTR/WP:DTTR, WP:NORUSH/WP:NOW, WP:SPADE/WP:NOSPADE Leviv ich 00:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I like jailify. You take it from here. Let me know when you're ready for me to look again. EEng 00:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Has the jury reached a verdict?" the judge asks.
"Yes, your honor," the jury foremanperson replies. "The result of the discussion was jailify."
The wikilawyer jumped from his chair. "NOTAVOTE!" The judge shakes her head, "CONSENSUS has been reached."
"REVERT!" exclaims the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "0RR."
"DRV!" the wikilawyer demands. The judge shakes her head, "No FORUMSHOPPING."
"There is NORUSH!" argues the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "The deadline is NOW."
"DTTR!" the wikilawyer asserts. The judge shakes her head, "TTR."
"NOSPADE!" pleads the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "SPADE."
"IAR!" the wikilawyer shouts. The judge shakes her head, "DROPTHESTICK."
"NOTBUREAUCRACY!" retorts the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head and points to a book on her desk, "PAGs."
The wikilawyer grabs the book and tears out all the pages. "ANYONECANEDIT!" he cackles.
"BLOCK!" orders the judge. The court officers to take the wikilawyer into custody.
Seeing the officers occupied, the defendant bolts for the door, yelling, "WP:Wikipedia does not need me!" Leviv ich 02:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty good, Levivich. I think you've pulled it off for this month. But in the future I think it's a bad idea to commit in advance to producing a humor column. I'd suggest making it an "occasional feature", so that when it's ready it's ready. I must say I admire your ability to produce stuff on deadline. I certainly can't do that. EEng 03:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
"...if you display any knowledge of our products we'll fire you" made me LOL. Thanks! Do you think you could like, you know... check my contribs every day and just follow behind me and improve everything I do? Can I send you some work emails to look at before I send them out? Leviv ich 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

coach

Re [25] - [26]. -- Netoholic @ 10:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Good sir, this has gone too far

Talk about "distorted". Eman235/talk 11:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

TILT! EEng 15:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Some gravestones for you!

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. ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Your contribution has been duly entered in the Great Register. EEng 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A complaint about that M2HSS section (well, aside from the one about your support for that crank who demanded it be retitled away from "list of…" because it needed a standalone article and then never bothered to actually write said article, so we're now left with an "article" that has no text whatsoever other than the existing brief summary of the parent article); the quaint identification of the actors' stations in life wasn't some kind of quaint Victorian snobbery, but was done very explicitly by Watts to make it clear that people from all walks of life were equally capable of doing good deeds—a very radical sentiment for the time, when the two main schools of thought were one-nation toryism ("well-educated people have a duty to do great deeds, because the great unwashed are too stupid to do them for themselves") or proto-socialism ("the rich are all crooked and in it for themselves or they wouldn't be rich, so only the poor are capable of decency"). I do keep meaning to get around to doing Watts's biography—he was a fascinating character who pretty much invented radical chic a century early, as well as the guy who Barack Obama cites as his reason for entering politics (all that "Hope" stuff was explicitly a reference to Hope (painting), even if hardly anyone got the reference)—but that's another of those articles that's in such a poor state it would need a complete nuke-and-rewrite and consequently treading on multiple toes. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've never been a fan of the article–list distinction anyway, but I will eagerly support you in whatever reform you propose on that score. If you need any help getting obscure sources on Watts (there certainly are a lot) let me know.
I did not know about Hope -- interesting. EEng 17:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a lot more stacked up to do before I even consider Watts (although I may do some of the more interesting paintings; at the moment we have an odd situation where Hope, Mammon and After the Deluge are at FA quality and everything else is a redlink). If I go back to doing biographies (I don't really like writing them) Zachariah Pearson and Albert Joseph Moore, two Victorian chancers who deserve better coverage than their current atrocious articles, will probably be next.
It's not the article/list distinction that's the issue; it's the fact that the list was intentionally on a subpage so people wanting to read about it would be directed to the page that actually has the story of the monument on it (the histories of the park and the memorial are inseparable, as the former was created to accommodate the latter), but because the redirect has been deleted and the list moved over it, anyone searching for the memorial (thanks to Closer there's a slow but steady stream) now lands directly on the list subpage and assumes that Wikipedia doesn't have anything to say about the topic. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I'm always ready to help. I can get just about anything with no trouble. EEng 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll see your almost everything and raise you everything, with a backstop for those oddities that don't make it into copyright libraries. The South East may be filthy, overcrowded and eye-poppingly expensive, but it has certain advantages. ‑ Iridescent 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Meanwhile I have to rely on Nationallizenzen and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library as I seldom get time to go in a library and the topics I write about are usually better covered in academic journals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, my offer extends to you too. EEng 23:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I'll ask for something in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Well please don't ask in the past. EEng 12:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I visualized this not as a competition, but rather a teaming of complementary collections (British and American). Since I'm at Harvard several times a week it's especially convenient for me, and their stacks are open so I can skim unlimited numbers books and journals for relevant material. Two other points: I wonder if your relationship with BL gives you online access to all their journals, as I have through Harvard (e.g. [27]); and (and it really pains me to say this) I spent a substantial amount of time at BL some time ago and was shocked -- SHOCKED! at the really low quality of the research staff there. I mean astounded. EEng 18:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirect

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 27#Uncontrollable_shitting - I think it should be redirected to potty mouth. Atsme Talk 📧 10:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Russians, I tell you!

Your Highness may want to lend an amused eye to Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Disputed pre-2015 content, by theme, wherein your humble worshipper attempts to argue that the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not an obvious precursor to Donald Trump's election in 2016. Neither was Trump's heroic attempt to sell American vodka to Russians. Oh the humanity! — JFG talk 03:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I try to stay out of American politics articles because sooner or later someone will drag in my talk page and there will be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair. But I think I saw my notes on useful idiot the other day. EEng 04:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Image

Hope you don't mind, but I removed the porta potty image from the ANI thread with my name in it. I don't feel it's fair for the thread which is about me to have this image in it, and could have an effect of subtly serving to portray me in a negative manner. Hope you understand. North America1000 09:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oversensitive. EEng 10:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

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? ‑ Iridescent 15:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Penis or mushroom, IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I get asked that regularly. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
So does Trump. From what Arid Desiccant says, the last erection was in the 1970s so there's a parallel there as well. EEng 17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The Victorians didn't pull their punches
"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.
EEng 04:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This is why we have COI rules. I wonder what it would have said if she had written it. Leviv ich 13:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
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. ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Update

I just found out that Dax Cowart died a little over a week ago, April 28th. I updated his bio. Thank you for your help in improving the article. Atsme Talk 📧 22:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. EEng 04:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Information icon 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. Interstellarity T 🌟 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to thank you on EEng's behalf for providing him with this helpful advice. Since he is a new editor at Wikipedia, I'm sure that he has never heard any of that before. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we can safely say that EEng's page has too much shit? Atsme Talk 📧 11:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
And now, there is Russian interference with EEng's talk page! [FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
OMG, how very dare you!! Trypto you're Finnished here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
^_^ Martin beat me to the punch or did he Finnish me with a punch? Atsme Talk 📧 20:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe EEng has made the following offer.
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.
— Neonorange (Phil) 02:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Ridiculous! It's only...oh my...2MB! Eman235/talk 03:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Tussle over pronouns in a dark alley in East Berlin

Ah-ha! Mister so-called EEngFram! I knew it was you all along. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am unmasked! EEng 20:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah shucks. Never mind. I knew the "Eric Honecker in drag" theme would never really catch on. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC) ... still it's comforting to know that we are a lofty encyclopedia and can rise above all this

You shot first

[28] Mostly, I'm annoyed by the reverts. Consensus position here is not yours, so if you really think it belongs, get some people together to agree with you instead. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In articles, where there's doubt about inclusion of material the consensus principle calls for exclusion by default in the absence of agreement. On talk pages the reverse is true: within very wide bounds the default is to retain things, and the only person who seems to actually object can't formulate what his objection is [29]. There Izno tedious pun on your username coming to mind just now so we'll have to leave that for another time. EEng 15:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you should be thankful that I'm actually your father, otherwise you would have ended up at AE rather than EWN per the below notification. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh I wouldn't subject EEng to AE for trying to have some fun. I'm a monster, but not THAT kind of monster. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
So, not a rancor? Maybe the Sarlacc pit? --Izno (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm really more of a Trade Federation sort of monster. I'll subject you to endless bureaucracy! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

How do I know?

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." Atsme Talk 📧 12:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Some father you are. EEng 03:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS discretionary sanctions alert

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.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

Template:Z33

Please note that, technically, you are perpetually aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area because you've been previously sanctioned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It's clear some people are having trouble respecting others' talk page contributions, so this should help. EEng 02:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Contribute if you've a mind to. j/s Atsme Talk 📧 17:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
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. EEng 19:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

401

Hah!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The 401 is the busiest talk page in North Wikipedimerica, by Annualized Average Daily Talk page visits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Contractions

Um... "Can not" is considered incorrect too.CuteDolphin712 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

CuteDolphin712: I realize that, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style doesn't attempt to teach general English. EEng 06:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it time to call the obstetrician? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
"Once more unto the grammar breach, dear Prince Hal, once more!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
EEng, I'd follow you anywhere, even not on Saint Crispin's Day.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: ping

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. – Levivich 03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

yeah

such a cockup.  Dlohcierekim (talk)
....coming soon to an airport hear you

but look at all those airports he helped liberate from the British during the Revolution. It was yuge.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just in case other TPSs are confused. I think Dlohciere kim Jong-un may be referring to this "embarrassing mess". How amazing. But let's be kind and just call it "a narcissistic travesty". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You know I tried to get to the white house on a self guided tour months ago ~ all I got was a letter ~ REQUEST DENIED ~ it's true ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The U.S. of A. is "cocked and loaded" to be able to "ram the ramparts" (real quotes). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Better call Dr.Bracket and Dixie McCall ~mitch~ (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Holy American pop culture, Batman! EEng 21:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

do you give objective

more glitter  Dlohcierekim (talk)

3rd opinions on user conduct?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, um, well, I'll do my best to help. I suspect the glitterati assembled here will offer their wisdom as well. Or, if it's your idea to send me an email, I prefer not interact off-wiki unless there's a really good reason; you can do that but I'm likely to keep our interaction to the minimum necessary to help you decide what to do. EEng 04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Glitteratic assessment could not hurt. I just don't want to cause needless drama if I'm wrong. I'll put it together and come back. {At least it's not about your favorite subject.)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Apparently I glitter at multiple user talk pages, but I'm guessing this is related to what is at User talk:Doc James. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:Maaaaaaybe. Still awaiting feedback and busy getting my pipes worked on tomorrow. Yes, that is a metaphor.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, I was just trying to let readers here know. I wish you and your pipes all the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
| | | | | | <-- in case you need more pipes, Dlohcierekim. It's uppercase back slash (Mac keyboard), but you must've known back slash is what you'd get before you came here. Atsme Talk 📧 21:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Dlohcierekim: You must have stalked me for more than a week to catch me posting a comment in response to QuackGuru not realizing that I have a longer history on that page than the editor you're accusing me to stalk. I don't have much time and nerve for things like that so again I'm just kindly asking you to cut it out and let be. I don't appreciate your threats and the harm it is doing to my personal well being.--TMCk (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    Well so far this is going swimmingly. EEng 22:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You know I went to a swimming hole ~ just the other day ~ hole ~ the water looks nice and refreshing ~ on a hot summer day ~ until you jump in ~ and find out it's spring fed' and 56° ~mitch~ (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Be careful where you swim. Calm waters aren't always as calm as they seem...especially AN/I during the weekend. Atsme Talk 📧 22:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected ~ ? ~ très froid ~mitch~ (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Never swim in Florida. If the gators don't get you, the flesh eating bacteria or the brain eating amoebas will.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This is all moot now. Let the swimming continue.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You see now why I'm in such demand as a mediator. EEng 03:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
😂 Atsme Talk 📧 03:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Mitchellhobbs - are you an enterprising WP editor? If yes, and you're swimming in Hamilton Pool, then you're close enough to recruit. I've been trying to round-up some WP editors to help me start a WP Group or Chapter (was advised to start with a group). Any interest or know others who might be? Atsme Talk 📧 03:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eeng: Hah! I wish. To continue the "pool" motif, we've jumped in at the shallow end, struck our head on the bottom, and swum, dazed as it were, to the deep end. Now foundering but for the help of a whiz with an ice bucket.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Well D, that explains everything. 😂 Atsme Talk 📧 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
From the latest in glitterati, I see per User talk:Bishonen that this has now been resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Atsme Hmm ` I don't know if I am a enterprising WP editor ~ I do let my girls use my computer some times ` why what did you have in mind ~ I don't go to Hamilton pool very often it's kind of out of the way ~ I find myself closer to Mills pond ~ I have to give the water a chance to warm up a little ~ I guess by the time Saturday rolls around I will grab my bottle of Olay ~ sun screen ~ it seems to work pretty good ~ and the girls seem to laugh historically when I go in for my weekly dip ~ so hey I'm up ~ what do I have to do ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

High quality content alert

You might enjoy the box at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Korea (oldid: [30]), which seems to be the relic of a long-running edit war with a bot —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections

Is it paranoia or just curiosity to wonder if visitors from the Internet Research Agency will show up there? XOR'easter (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Frivolous commentary

A possible example of a tragedy of the anticommons problem: Disused property overtaken by weeds.

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)

It's now in a less-prime point in the thread. Always good to hear from you. EEng 15:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
How does one distinguish prime Wiki-real estate from sub-prime Wiki-real estate?--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
One must consider the possibility that the presence of an eyesore may produce a significant negative impact on the value of any real estate and adversely deprecate its resale value, thus lowering "prime real estate" to "not-so-prime-as-it-once-was real estate".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know where I can get the Wikipedia version of Monopoly? --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't you know it: User:EEng#Monopwiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"Go Directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
In today's environment it's risky to forget the [FBDB]. EEng 02:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You know ~~ ~ I met a frivolous python one time ~ she was very friendly ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Another visit from Dicklyon

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)

It took me a bit to figure out what you're talking about. [31] I wasn't taking sides and neither did the joke. Try to look on the bright side.
If it means anything to you, I hope you don't get blocked, really I do. EEng 22:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I guess. They already let me off with "no collusion, no obstruction"; in other words, not exonerated and with the cloud of BMK still hanging over me. Per not taking sides, see my remarks there about neutrality cowardice. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of geography initiatives

Is any sort of clean-up required here? 80.41.128.7 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That's quite enough out of you, Mr. Smarty Pants. EEng 19:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Mm-hmm. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

Research shows that 15% of it is people asking me to archive. Now and then I do make a pass. EEng 12:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
HeisenbEEng's Principle: it is impossible to add a note to EEng's talk page commenting on its size without changing the size. Disclaimer: this phenomenon is actually closer related to the observer effect than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd guess it's more like 25-40% of editors who are annoyed. But, we are fond of you DESPITE your long talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of making a pass, Liz: Will you marry me? EEng 02:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As to me, I actually appreciate its length. It doesn't load instantaneously, which forces me to slow down when reading stuff on my watchlist. It's a reminder to savor every moment in life, and to appreciate the fact that I don't have to use a dial-up modem anymore. I praise the length of this page! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Surely a most thoughtful and philosophically sophisticated attitude. EEng 03:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh my God, Mendaliv, you'll even defend the length of EEng's talk page. Is nothing beneath you?[FBDB] – Levivich 03:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"Zu groß, zu klein, [Sie] könnte etwas größer sein" --Rammstein-- Dlohcierekim 10:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Synchronicity

(cough)-- Dlohcierekim
Original heading: "Archive this page"

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)

Vanamonde, as you can see, I am either clairvoyant or able to read your mind [32]. EEng 15:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Correcing ping: Vanamonde93. EEng 16:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A commemorative poem

That is truly beautiful. Will you agree to recite it at my funeral? It's tomorrow. EEng 13:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Simple solution...User talk:EEng1, User talk:EEng2 and so on...that way, it's non-stop entertainment with user determined breaks inbetween. Atsme Talk 📧 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

OMG

what happened? ~
Did the world stop? ~ I better grab my children[1] ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Video on YouTube
FYI ~ cygnis insignis' belittled underestimated me it was just an 'opinion' ~ Video on YouTube
Actually, in that video that's me on the left and a certain trio of editors on the right. EEng 02:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I can believe it...and I was one of the 2 females who got up and walked away. Atsme Talk 📧 03:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
EEng bears an uncanny resemblance to Jeff Goldblum. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
That either a personal attack on me or a BLP violation with respect to Jeff Goldblum, though I'm not sure which. EEng 21:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Definitely the latter.[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, as a fan of heartthrobs Jeff Goldblum, David Copperfield, Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, Yule Brenner, Chuck Connors, Richard Boone, and Mr. Peepers, mention of the BLP vio unchained me. Atsme Talk 📧 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You Know ~ my heartthrobs are The California Raisins their so cool and sexy ~mitch~ (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
What is the definition of (cygnis insignis) anyways ~ maybe I should go ask El_C ~ oops I just did ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is it's some kind of odd bird. EEng 18:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You know I had a pet once too ~ we called him Taz ~ he died ~ so we just watch cartoons all day ~ Grrrr on YouTube ~mitch~ (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It is really really tempting to make an article cygnis insignis explaining that it is the motto of Western Australia, is intended to mean "noted for swans", and is in some sense a pun or at least a rhyme. I imagine that our local only-for-the-birds editor has some connection to WA. I suppose I can at least add a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you David Eppstein ~ it is very refreshing ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you ought to duck. Or you might get a goose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
~ Thanks you'all ~mitch~ (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Gary Null

Your carps of the day, monsieur-- Dlohcierekim

Once you've cleaned up the Moors, perhaps you could take a fine-toothed comb to this for sourcing/content mismatch.-- Dlohcierekim 08:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend, I overlooked this until now. Moors will take at least another six months of hard work -- and that's if other stuff doesn't come up, which it already has -- so I'm afraid I'll be unable to help with Mr. Null. EEng 22:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Templating a regular

Welcome!

Hizzles EEng/Archive 13, n welcome ta wikipedia! thizzanx fo` yo contribizzles . Slap ya self. i hizzy you like tha place n decide ta stay fo' sho'. Here is a few good links fo` newcoma:

I hope you enjoy perpetratin' here n being a Wikipizzedian! Pleaze sign yo name on rap pages using four tildes (~~~~), o' just three (~~~); this will automatically produce yo name n tha date fo' sheezy. If you need help, chizzay out Qizzles ask me on mah rap page, or place {{helpme}} on yo rap pizzle n someone wizzle show up shortly ta brotha yo questions. Again, welcome ta this plizace!


May I introduce {{User:Myrtone86/template:welcome-snoop}}. Can't believe it never caught on. – Levivich 02:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Can't imagine.-- Deepfriedokra 03:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome use Bishzilla's template, all! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 04:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC).

Fear of water

Every few days I think about the four sock puppet accounts that were created to assert that a 14th-century medieval composer and poet was scared of water. Is this EEng level of humor? I feel distraught that the world does not know the truth of what occurred... is Machaut really scared of water? Are you scared of water... am I? Maybe the truth is that we're all scared of water? I wonder if that posture has something to do with it... Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the way I see it the guy's either on the verge of belching or is miming that he has heartburn. Otherwise, to be honest, I can make neither heads nor tails of what you're saying. EEng 00:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps he had hydrophobia, not to be confused with aquaphobia, although I find that hard to swallow. nagualdesign 20:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
But no need for trypophobia! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Shoehorning

Shoe
Horn. Not sure why this would ever be used in concert with a shoe, unless you're a clown... CaptainEek Edits 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.) ‑ Iridescent 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire website looks like shit on a wide monitor or in small font size. You'd think 100 million dollars would be enough to figure out how to use a centered div. FWIW, any and all time spent either adjusting layout on a Wikipedia article to "look good", or arguing about what "looks good", is entirely and completely wasted, because whatever adjustments are made to make it "look good" will look completely different to another person using a different device, screen, resolution, operating system, browser, skin, font, or font size, among other variables. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Totes, dude. We should put our efforts into making it look baaad. It will make it more endearing. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sure, but there are some obvious things that are universal truths in web design, and "if you stack a lot of tall narrow images, you're either going to end up with images appearing in the wrong section, or you're going to have to insert a division break which means the images will trail off into a mass of white space" is about as close to a fundamental law as it gets. It's particularly so in the case of Wikipedia, since (a) there's very vocal opposition to a maximum column width for body text so that's unlikely ever to happen, (b) we need to cater for readers on all sizes of display, from 4-inch first generation smartphones to 5120px-width professional DTP setups, and (c) we periodically increase the default value for upright=1 and we haven't done so for a while so are likely to do so again fairly soon. (At the time of writing, Phineas Gage averages 1214 views-per-day on the mobile site and only 879 views-per-day on the desktop site. Try opening it on your phone and tell me if you think the way the images currently render makes it unreadable.) ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
A heavy duty shoehorn used by User:Martinevans123 to get jokes into respectable workaday Talk page threads
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? EEng 22:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I meant to mention that I recognize that the article is approaching the image density at which it risks collapsing in on itself like a neutron star, but I couldn't resist tempting fate by adding one more. (Forgot to ping Arid Desiccant.) EEng 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
See right—these are all screenshots in the WMF default mobile view (i.e., what someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor and consequently doesn't have any display preferences set will see if they google "Phineas Gage" on their phone). The combination of multiple objects at differing forced widths and the quirks of the Minerva skin which we force on non-logged-in editors (who constitute 99.9% of our readership) is both creating display goofiness such as single-word or even single-character columns where the software gets confused trying to wrap text, and big chunks of whitespace with objects floating detached. Because editors are almost always working in the desktop editor in either the Vector or Monobook skins, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the majority of pageviews are in the godawful Minerva skin on phones—these screenshots represent what the article looks like to more than half its readers.
By "maximum column width for body text" I mean the perennial proposal to limit the desktop display to a maximum width with the rest of wide screens filled with white space or optional sidebars—as almost every other "primarily text-based but with some images" website in the world does—so situations like Image:Gage screenshot 6.png don't arise on wide monitors, . The WMF have been trying (correctly) to impose this particular change since some point around the Dawn of Time, but it's always shouted down by the "waaah, this would be a change and change is always bad, and even if it's a good change the fact that the WMF is imposing it is a violation of our rights and must be resisted at all costs" contingent. ‑ Iridescent 08:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Not to be confused with an Alphorn. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

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

recommended in the literature. So, yeah. What concept. Glad to see I and WMF can agree on something. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 09:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't y'all just turn your phones sideways? Duh??! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
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.) ‑ Iridescent 14:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Can I have my Nokia 3410 back, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Nothing's stopping you, they still make 'em ‑ Iridescent 15:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The file description for that latest screenshot says mobile view, but in fact it's desktop view (on a phone), correct? EEng 15:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Nope, that's mobile view with the phone turned sideways (you can tell when you're in mobile view, as desktop view has the space to the left beneath the sidebar). In the desktop view in Vector (the default which a mobile user will get if they google "Phineas Gage" and then select "show desktop site") the page displays more-or-less as it should—this is the same section in in Desktop view with every other setting left unchanged. Unfortunately there's no way for a reader on a mobile device to set desktop view as the Wikipedia default—the next time you open your browser Wikipedia will revert to Minerva—so one has to work on the assumption that every reader who visits a page on a mobile device, will be served with the mobile site. The pageview figures back that up—you can check for yourself in the pageviews tab in history to see that each day about 1200 readers get the page in Minerva, and only about 800 in one of the desktop views. ‑ Iridescent 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC))

OK. I'm very interested in fixing any issues that manifest on particular platforms, but please stop saying that X is what half of readers see and so on. It's not. On my phone (iPhone 7 + Chrome, as noted, but actually I've checked several others' iPhones -- different models and various browsers) none of these things you're exhibiting are present. It looks like you've got an Android, and that Android (or some version of Android, or some version of Android with some browser or browsers) is particularly brain dead on some aspects of web page rendering. I mean, look at your first screenshot above (File:Gage_screenshot_5.jpg, Theoretical misuse) -- how stupid does a browser have to be to run a word down the margin one letter at a time? I notice all your screenshots involve quote boxes, so it seems there's something about quote boxes (as opposed to other floating content e.g. images) that interacts badly with Android. Whether that's the fault of the quote box coding, or of Android, I don't know.

With some fiddling on window width, however, I was able get to get the mobile view to display on my laptop in something like what I see in your File:Gage screenshot 7.jpg. Based on what I saw in that rendering, I made a number of.. shall we say.. heroic formatting changes which may perhaps relieve some of the issues you're seeing (in landscape, at least -- if things are OK in landscape I'm really not worried about portrait). I'd really appreciate your letting me know. I'm very interested in this but unfortunately none of my neighbors has with an Android. EEng 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Tried that nice Hauer family over at No 2049? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • An editor who knows I have a Google Pixel 3a asked me to take a look at the page for Phineas Gage. As of right now, the page looks OK on my Android until I scroll down to the heading "Chile and Californa (1852-1860) whereupon it looks like some of the ugly pictures in the margin of this talk page. (I took a screenshot, but don't want to deal with the wikipedia red tape to upload it here.) I didn't check for more display weirdness beyond that heading.

Kobnach (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Was that landscape or portrait? EEng 12:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
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? EEng 14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
On a skim-through, in mobile view on the stock Chrome browser (the view seen by most mobile views, given Android's dominance of the smartphone market in English-speaking countries and the general reluctance of most people to use anything other than the stock apps; 70% of desktop views and 60% of mobile views is the usual accepted figure for Chrome):
  • The word-wrapping problems seem confined to quote boxes (I imagine because the browser handles them differently). It's happening with both left-aligned (e.g. the "Chile and California" section) and right-aligned (e.g. "Theoretical misuse").
  • Turning the phone sideways so it's in landscape mode solves the "wrapping around quote boxes" issues, but causes a different issue with inline quotations using the {{quote}} template when it's used near images. Because text in the quote template doesn't wrap but is instead constrained in an invisible rectangle defined by other nearby objects, the quotations display as a long narrow strip. This doesn't make the page unreadable, just unsightly, so I wouldn't consider it a major issue, but it's something to be aware of.
  • While it doesn't cause problems with wrapping, because mobile view generally defaults to showing images centered rather than alongside the text, it makes the display a bit weird, particularly in sections like "life" which include a lot of tall thin images; it to the reader it looks like a long parade of centered images surrounded by whitespace, interspersed with the occasional paragraph of text. (Which brings us back to where I came in; MediaWiki, in both desktop and mobile view, does not like tall thin images).
Because the majority of readers are seeing Shitty Mobile View rather than the desktop site, making the mobile view less unpleasant for readers is something the WMF do take seriously. User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (and possibly User:Isarra) are much better placed than me to talk about what's actually being done to try to address the problems with SMV; I have no input at all into its design and my interaction with it is limited to variations on "if you make a significant change to the layout check it looks OK on the mobile site otherwise you'll have an endless stream of good-faith IPs trying to fix what appears to them as an error". ‑ Iridescent 08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Well to repeat again, I use Chrome as well but see none of the problems you're getting, probably because I'm in iPhone instead of Android. I'd be thrilled for the article to be used as a vehicle for either improving the way pages are rendered to the browser (including, as with e.g. quote boxes, fixing whatever it is about the way they're coded that causes such phenomena), or for developing recommendations for ways to code pages to avoid or ameliorate these problems, but beyond that I don't know what else I can do. EEng 13:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
About 40% of page views are on the desktop site. Everything else is either mobile web (~57%, and up during the last few months) or the apps (a couple of percentage points). Because mobile users have a lower number of pages-per-session, that's probably more than 60% of readers.
AFAICT the design team is mostly working on mw:Desktop improvements at the moment, and will pick up general mobile work again later. My bet is that they'll want to settle the transition away from OOUI first. (Anything you see about Vue.js is related to that. OOUI is the thing that brought us the Big Blue Button and "oversized" (fingertip-sized) tick boxes. Vue.js will not take those away.)
The big things are already pretty well known, and they're not things that can be fixed in software. There is no good way to display a 10-column table on a screen that is smaller than a dollar bill/pound note, and the best solution to their display is to not put a bunch of wide tables in articles. {{Episode list}} is on thousands of pages, and will always be hard to read on a smartphone. Fixing that requires redesigning the template, which requires editors who are willing to develop a consensus in favor of legibility and accessibility instead of the way we've always done it. It probably wouldn't be hard to redesign it as a vertical list, but getting the change implemented would require a lot of effort. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
WAID is more or less correct (though I might dispute particulars).
We've had some of the technologies (WP:TemplateStyles, and generically our sitewide skinning systems) that would correct the images above for some time. Offending templates probably need someone to show up on the associated talk pages and make a reasonable 'complaint' as to the offensiveness of their display (for example, {{quote box}} could be 100% width for displays less than 500 px). For things like <blockquote>, a task on Phab or adding a rule for a clear above the tag to MediaWiki:Mobile.css/MediaWiki:Minerva.css would be preferable and can be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Common.css or at WP:VPT or on Phabricator. (Aside: Please engage on Phabricator.)
There maybe needs to be a little give and take on some aspects. Should we allow all users to specify a width in all template invocations these days? I'm not sure. I want it "just so" on my display doesn't work for some things like width below a certain resolution, so allowing someone to set width in the template? (Because the alternative is to use !important in the TemplateStyles CSS, and that kills all personal customization you might want in your personal CSS at that point stone-dead due to the order in which MediaWiki adds styling to its output HTML.) There's also some give and take about what browsers can support. For example, I made a change today to a template to add CSS that is only supported for 95% of readers. Should I be responsible for the other 5% having the exact-same display and a beautiful page? I don't know. (I do know that Edkoter prior to his flameout cared about the 99.99% or something dumb like that.) Consider for example what happened when we attempted to fix this exact problem on the main page in February(1) or an earlier attempt in 2018(2).
One thing you can do to find where the messes are more easily is just to use a skin that isn't Vector or Monobook on all platforms you use Wikipedia on, which I think leaves Minerva and Timeless (and Modern but we don't talk about that one anyway). (These skins were not designed to be responsive. When patches were provided recently to make them so, at least one community member objected saying that it would be disruptive, essentially killing that effort.)
Sorry if this Izno beautiful prose. If there's a specific change you want to a template, please feel free to ping me or another of our HTML/CSS/Lua-minded admins or template editors to a template talk page and I can see if I can hack it. --Izno (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the time you took to respond but -- no doubt because of my complete ignorance of all this newfangled interweb stuff -- I'm puzzled by some of what you're saying. Since the vast majority of readers are not logged in, how can the choice of skins come into it? What am I missing?
And I simply don't understand why fixing the awful formatting near quote boxes is hard. Why can't they be made to behave exactly like images, which don't manifest these problems? EEng 02:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I assert(ed) positively, if not clearly, that I think quote boxes can be fixed, but that it just requires some attention to the template in question. (And some discussion about how the template should act at which resolutions, and some discussion about whether users should get to be arbitrary in how they use the templates on specific pages, among concerns of usability for savvy-CSS users.)
Digression: In case it wasn't clear earlier, the reason we couldn't make these fixes before TemplateStyles (which are reasonably new but not really now) is that we did not have access to CSS media queries at a per-template level, so the best we could do was make templates as responsive as possible with inline CSS, or put CSS into the site stylesheets. (The latter is just a bad option for templates which are not widely used enough to accept the associated performance penalties.) For example, with quote box, with inline CSS you can either choose to make it 100% width always or you can make it 100px always, but not both varying on some other factor. Another issue plaguing all web developers is that web browsers have not advanced at the same rate, and even with consistent feature sets do not have a standardized implementation (only the API defined by the CSS specifications), as evidenced by the fact you can't see the problems above with iPhone and Chrome.
how can the choice of skins come into it Well, the 60% on mobile see Minerva, so there is an obvious pro there for using that skin in that you-as-an-editor will [probably] see such issues directly and can know to fix them or alert others. (Of course, Minerva has some harsh cons for editors.) The 40% on desktop see Vector, but if you're on desktop you're probably going to miss these issues because your screen has the resolution for it. You-as-an-editor can choose to use those skins on the other form factor and then you might get a sense of how we haven't adjusted to the mobile world (and should have, it's just the same Not Enough [Knowing] Volunteers problem at the end of the day). I happen to use Timeless, so I bump into broken stuff regularly and just haven't self-motivated to fix it since I know it's not used by the masses. Infoboxes for example will sometimes show the highlighted issues on Timeless, as will quote boxes and some images and sidebars (but not on Minerva, where the skin takes care of it [and probably shouldn't--separation of concerns lines]). --Izno (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I think my dim brain is just beginning to grasp -- tell me if this isn't right -- that different platforms select different skins without the user having to log in or indeed do anything. Suddenly a lot makes more sense. So tell me this, in clear terms for my little brain: I'm not committed enough to go switching skins all the time to check things, but if I had to pick one skin to set my preferences too, which would be the best vehicle for me to do the greatest good for the greatest number, what skin would that be? (I use either Windows 10 + Chrome or iPhone 7 + Chrome).
As mentioned before, I'm happy for the article to be used as a poster boy for a complex, dense layout that stresses the system, and to participate in experiments in improving things. And with that I think there Inzo need to take up any more of your time at present. EEng 03:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Different platforms: Almost. Any mobile domain (that's https://lang'''.m'''.wiki*.org) will provide Minerva and any desktop domain (that's 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)
Give me my VT100 back. EEng 04:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The second time in as many weeks that specific page has been linked to me. --Izno (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been trying Minerva and Timeless as you suggested and now I'm more confused than ever. Everything looks absolutely awful in those skins on my laptop, whether desktop or mobile is selected; and on my phone, I can't sort out what I'm seeing between which skin I've selected, whether I'm seeing mobile or desktop mode, and of course there's portrait vs. landscape. And I spent a good deal of time, at a number of different articles, trying to get a handle on what selection is causing what. So I'm afraid I'm giving up for now. Here's what I know: <and at this point it appears I fell asleep at the keyboard...> EEng'

I was assuming that was some intentional piece of symbolism and you were meaning to say you knew no more about the subject than when you started. ‑ Iridescent 07:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The solemnity of the encyclopedia versus the enjoyment of editing

I'm trying to help out a fellow editor, and I think the creativity of your followers could be of use here. Natureium (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You're an awful person. Please drop by more often. EEng 23:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
TB, I'm trying to decide whether you're serious or going Natureium one better. EEng 23:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm being dead serious. See the mission of the original creator which has been fervently followed for the last decade. It should have been deleted many times but it's an ARS member's pet article so it isn't. But don't take my word for it just ask one of the regulars in the last RM "Lion vs Tiger" or "Tiger vs Lion" is basically overall a hypothetical match between the two animals and who would essentially win, and is an iconic name for the debate. (diff).
I've long held it is the worst article on Wikipedia and should be deleted, but until it eventually is it is useful for amusement. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
EEng's "titanic versus iceberg" definitely fits the 'who would win a fight' criteria. Natureium (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's the clearest winner for the next article of this class. There likely is ample sourcing so a true original research synthesis of who would win a hypothetical rematch between the Titanic and the iceberg under different conditions would be possible, and that's a defining characteristic of our animal fight articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
What we really need here is a bracket of some sort. creffett (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
1st Round 2nd Round Quarterfinals Semifinals Finals
               
1 Tiger
32 Lion
Tiger
Alligator snapping turtle
17 Alligator
16 Crocodile
Tiger (still bleeding)
Cocaine
9 Coke
24 Pepsi
Coke
Lesnar
25 Brock Lesnar (sub. for Tiger Shark)
8 Great white shark
Tiger feeling no pain
Lawfully possessed wolverine
5 New Hampshire
28 Vermont
New Hampshire
Wolverine
21 Wolverine
12 Tasmanian Devil
Wolverine
Common law
13 Common law
20 Civil law
Common law
Coronavirus
29 Coronavirus
4 Flu
Carole Baskin
Iceberg
3 Bear
30 Shark
Cher
100 duck-sized horses
19 100 duck-sized horses
14 1 horse-sized duck
100 duck-sized horses
Dramha
11 Wikimedia Foundation
22 Arbitration Committee
Drahma
Leopard
27 Leopard
6 User:Leo1pard
Dramha
Iceberg
7 Vice
26 Versa
Vice
Yanny
23 Laurel Third place
10 Hardy
Vice Iceberg
Iceberg  
15 Titanic
18 Iceberg
Iceberg
BYE
31 Indians
2 Scholars
I'm pretty sure Leopard will advance to the next round, not sure who they'll be facing. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we can also fill in Titanic versus Iceberg and Vermont versus New Hampshire based on history. Natureium (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I've decided Iceberg wins. You all figure out how it gets there. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I was really expecting a coronavirus victory here. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
And it was expecting a cartoonishly hot lady virus in the boiler room, but dynamite happens (also, Taz is dead, sorry). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems the coronavirus is resistant to exploding limousine after all, but that rabid wolverine on the horizon is a whole other level of hardcore, I wish it the best in its future endeavours (a real shame about that poor leopard, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
You guys left out Neal Stephenson versus William Gibson. Also xkcd. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
xkcd is varsity and everything I do is junior varsity. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
New Hampshire won in the last round but it won't happen again. Vermont (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This just in: Brock Lesnar has officially assaulted the tiger shark backstage, officially entering the now-official King of the Ring-style tournament! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Careful, we don't need to add GS/Pro Wrestling to the list of things this page should be sanctioned for. creffett (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I was careful, I chose the one wrestler general audiences could see legit knocking out that great white hopeful, EEng's buyrate will thank me later, trust me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the various ethical dilemmas in the Indo-Scholastic War, the cost of airtime and the knowledge that icy wet doom is predetermined for all, they signed a formal suicide treaty and committed mutually assured destruction (because death by fire is the purest death of all). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
In the same spirit of grim resignation and plot expediency, I put the 99% over the 1%. Regardless of our valid first-round feelings, everyone knows horseducks AND duckhorses do the job for bearsharks OR sharkbears. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Presuming we're still hosted in Florida, the wolverine is considered a Class II wildman, so just needs a simple permit to publicly perform. The permit requirements are unfairly complicated, so we can (probably) waive, skirt or ignore them. The thing to know is tigers are flat prohibited in the Wang State, especially those who just tore through enough cocaine to disincarnate Brock Lesnar, so if Common Law Jones somehow nullifies or voids the naturally-psychotic cuddlebunny, it's a cakewalk to the iceberg; nobody is going to pay to watch Law v. Ice, the tiger or wolverine must survive or we're all sunk. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Lightning Round Activated!

This is not a drill.
This is not a pipe.

This is not a drill, this is it, the ultimate semifinal, the penultimate finale, the brawl to end most-if-not-all! In other words, I'm still unsure of why these things started fighting, but will nonetheless continue to take liberties until given (someone else's imaginary) death. So it's an RfC, see, whose icy hand will it be, raised to sink under the sea, giving a thumbs-up to ye, tryin' to holla at me, yadda-yadda gee, hurry up and vote! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And this not a President. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

... and for all you fellow morons, oxy or otherwise... [33]. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

... looking forward to November 3. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
And in case you missed it.... that essential Presidential "Coronorinha Cocktail" recipe in full:
Enjoy!! .... while you still can. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget the splash of hydroxychloroquine. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
And the next thing I remember, I'm waking up on an iceberg next to a strange frozen woman, wondering where my wolverine went. Whooo democracy! Anybody got any coke left? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadly no longer. Maybe you could re-create it in your user space? Didn’t even get a chance to see it.P-K3 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

[34] EEng 00:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The entries were:
  • Dr.K. and DrKay
  • JBW and JWB
  • Confuzion
Apparently Dr.K. disliked the attention and tagged it for deletion under WP:CSD#G6 (only supposed to be for routine housekeeping, not for potentially disputed deletions) with the rationale "This page serves no encyclopedic purpose", and admin Anthony Bradbury somehow agreed both with the rationale and the speedy-deletion criteria. I'm deliberately not linking the user names to avoid them applying the same tag-team tactics to this talk page. But regardless of whether the deletion was a valid application of the speedy rules, it's hard to imagine the list surviving a serious deletion discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks both. Yeah, G6 is definitely a stretch there... I was amused to discover there’s a User:Iridescence who predates their more famous near-namesake, although they’re not around much these days so limited confusion is liable to arise. P-K3 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
While it was odd that Dr. K nominated it, and very odd that it actually got deleted, it seems to have been a misunderstanding -- see my link near the top of this thread. David, I really did mean to create a helpful way for people to sort out vaguely remembered colleagues with confusing names. Why do you think it wouldn't survive a deletion discussion? Seems to me it has at least as much encyclopedic purpose as Wikipedia:Queen_Elizabeth_slipped_majestically_into_the_water. EEng 01:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Because in the stubby form in which it was nominated it could easily be misinterpreted as intended only to make fun of some editors' names, and that's the way I'd expect a discussion to take it, regardless of protestations to the contrary. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
What David Eppstein said. This is a genuine issue and one we've explicitly recognized for years (I regularly get confused by Johnbod and Johnboddie because they edit in similar areas) When you take into account the people whose signatures don't reflect their username but instead are similar to someone else's username such as when JzG is signing as "Guy" in a thread which already includes Guy Macon, it's a genuine issue (particularly as the automatic filter which is supposed to prevent the registration of accounts with similar names to existing editors doesn't appear to be doing its job). However as written, and taking its title into account, I can totally understand someone interpreting it as an attack page. As David Eppstein (almost) says, while the deletion here was technically an abuse of admin tools, one could make a case that it was a legitimate invocation of IAR since there's no possibility that the page in that form would have survived a deletion debate, and as such "reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion" comes into play. ‑ Iridescent 09:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Jeez, it was only a day old; I was going to add some text to explain the function. But I'm not worried about someone's overzealousness. Can I create a new list, with explanation, to help people like me remember that JzG who is Guy isn't that other Guy and so on? EEng 14:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Wearing my "performer of 13,000+ deletions" hat rather than the "person who thinks Wikipedia typically takes both process and 'I feel offended by this obviously inoffensive comment' complaints way too seriously" hat, the best thing to do would be to create it in your own userspace, and make it very clear (in a sincere way, not in a snidey "if you're offended it's because you don't get the joke" way) that it's a genuine attempt to address an issue and not an attempt either to make fun of other people's usernames nor to sneer at people who aren't wiki-insiders and as a consequence aren't aware that Outriggr isn't a secondary account of Riggr Mortis. If and when it's ready to move to WP:-space, do so under a neutral title.
Yes, I know I sound pompous saying all this, but I assume it's not news to you that 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. As such, the Civility Cop contingent among the admins aren't going to extend much AGF in your case, particularly coming less than a week after the WMF Board voted to grant themselves dictatorial powers to ban anyone who doesn't adhere to their Bezerkeley definition of "civility". With Eric retired and Fram too hot to handle, you're likely to be near the top of the list for any self-appointed commissar who thinks that the board (which coincidentally, shortly before dumping this steaming turd onto our collective plate, voted to indefinitely extend their own terms of office and suspend community elections to the board) has appointed them as the vanguard of the Internet Cultural Revolution and is eager to get purging. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(It's spelled Berserkeley, actually.) I'm honestly astounded that anyone could have interpreted that list as anything but what it was -- an aid for the perplexed -- but go figure. As it happens I grew up in Berkeley in the 60s and 70s (and don't get me wrong, I'm proud to have been part of that [35][36][37][38]) so I can handle myself with those types. But so that we may prepare for the battles ahead, can you diff a few instances of the behavior you desribe (unless, of course, you're confusing me with this EEmg)?
By the way, the essential argument isn't Perhaps you have an impaired sense of humor (though I do sometimes use that as a shorthand) but rather Your idea of what's amusing, whatever that happens to be, isn't binding on the rest of us. EEng 20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC) (And if you are in a position to answer my last query about Android formatting at #Shoehorning, I'd appreciate that too.)
You seriously need diffs to illustrate you have a reputation—whether deserved or not—as someone who acts like a dick and then plays the "it was all a joke, you just have an impaired sense of humor if you don't find it funny" defense? Whether or not your critics are right to think so, a sizeable chunk of your talkpage history consists of variations upon "I get that you're trying to be lighten the tone but please ease off, out of context it just looks like bullying particularly to newer editors and people unfamiliar with Wikipedia's internal culture". (I'm not going to spend my time wading through histories but I'm fairly sure that on at least one occasion I've made that very comment to you, possibly even with that exact wording.) I'll check the shoehorning issue now. ‑ Iridescent 08:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking for evidence it's actually a "reputation" and not just the grumbling of a minority of pushy youngsters and middle-aged malcontents. EEng 12:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the EFM club

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)

Green tickY EEng 00:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, Creffett, looks like you jinxed it. EEng 02:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

DCB

See this as to why the edit filter wasn't working. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Moors murders talk page

It remains to be seen where the AE complaint re Eric will end up. But reviewing your contributions on the talk page, I'm just wondering, WTF? I always thought you were cleverer and betterer than what I see there. Can't you manage to disagree without insult and mockery? GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing: Thanks for the kind words, and I appreciate your taking the time. The phenomenon of "civil POV pushing" is often talked about, but less talked about is "civil article ownership". Swarm put it very well at AE:
Obstructing bold edits without citing a specific rationale is disruptive editing. "Specific" means "policy-based". Arguing that "this is X's article, and X needs to have a say" is a policy violation, not a reason to personally attack the editor making the edits. FA's require "stability". But "stability" does not mean "absence of editing". "I don't like your edits", or "this is X's article, don't change it" is not a legitimate content dispute. Illegitimate stonewalling is not what's intended by "FA stability".
At AE you posted only part of my "shut the fuck up" rant, which robs the short bit you posted of context. Here it is more fully:
...by far the easiest thing to do would be to simply STEP THROUGH THE GODDAM EDITS SEQUENTIALLY. In the past 3 days there have been an incredible 110 posts to this thread, totaling 40K of text, all to discuss the abstract existence (but not the substance) of my 150 edits to an article which itself consists, in total, of a mere 65K. Most of these edits are no more complex than
[before-and-after of seven edits omitted]
There, that's seven of them – 5% of the total – right there. They can be reviewed in 15 seconds each, and if you think "officers were drafted to search" is better than just plain "officers searched", or that readers will benefit by knowing about the dog's teeth and kidney complaint, or about how many days past his birthday Keith Bennett was when he was killed, go right ahead and change those things; I'm not married to anything. But in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, at long last you bunch of old ladies stop pearl-clutching and hand-wringing (you gotta love the imagery there) and either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. I've spent far more time in therapy with you lot responding to your hypothetical anxieties than I did making the changes themselves. Really, it's unbelievable.
(I would appreciate it if, over at AE, you'd substitute the above excerpt for your short one, so that I don't have to clutter the page and confuse the discussion by posting it in my own section.) That was July 12.
For a month -- a MONTH -- my edits sat live in the article without a single modification of what I'd done, or comment on what I'd done, or indication of interest in what I'd done, by any of this bunch -- until EC's block expired. Then the gang assembled and moved in. Too many edits! Too fast! This is an FA! Your edits are shit! I didn't look at them but I know they're shit! You need consensus! What bullshit. And now in the last 24 hours both Cassianto and EC have lied -- blatantly lied -- on the talk page about who said and did what.
Even now, at AE, Cassianto's pretending that I simply told him to "shut the fuck up". That's a lie. As seen above what I said (after three days of begging that this bunch look at the edits and give any specific indication of what was wrong with them) was that he should either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. That's completely different. I'm not going to engage him on that at AE because he lies so effortlessly and shamelessly that he'll just keep saying black is white, but if you're in a particularly energetic mood you might point it out yourself.
They're just trying to gaslight anyone, such as yourself, who tries to untangle what happened. Smokescreens are their friends. So yeah, I've been pissed off and have shown it. EEng 17:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors!

Talk page stalkers who have been watching the fun at Talk:Moors murders may be interested to know that it turns out that is "Featured article" is apparently riddled with errors. I've found 22 21 [oops, looks like in one case I missed part of the newspaper story -- The Times has those giant pages in the old days – thanks to SchroCat for catching that] examples of statements in the article not supported by the sources cited – and that's just in the one section (seven paragraphs) I checked. See [39]. EEng 14:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


This is some Stannis Baratheon level fact-checking you're doing there.

- "A harmless courtesy, Your Grace."

- "A lie. Take it out."[40]

You didn't show up for the duel. Also, if you challenge me I'm supposed to pick the weapon. I'll let you be Ryu if you like. Haukur (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

just in case ... Comment

Things have gotten batshit crazy, and I know why!! There's a full moon rising, Thursday 08-15-2019. Atsme Talk 📧 01:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

... you weren't aware of it. Wikipedia:Gravedancing is frowned upon by most. — Ched :  ?  — 09:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You'rea talking about You're talking about the header of the subthread just above this one? What gravedancing? I look forward to a productive collaboration with SchroCat, Cassianto, Eric Corbett, and the rest, all working to together to get this article to at least the Good Article level at long last.
Anyway, I've changed the header to something more neutral. EEng 14:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abortion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

After Talk:Moors murders I don't think abortion will be controversial enough to interest me. EEng 13:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You can always get in on the fun at GMO pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Join WP:WikiProject Dogs - it puts the others to shame. Atsme Talk 📧 19:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
In what way? Do they WP:BITE the newcomers? EEng 19:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like Atmse is being catty. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Grab an umbrella ☔️🌂🐕🐈 - it's raining cats and dogs! Atsme Talk 📧 20:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abortion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You never give up, do you Legobot? EEng 04:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Duodecimal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Duodecimal. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

What did Dewey do now? – Levivich 05:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Believe it or not: Melvil_Dewey#Controversies.. EEng 05:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
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. – Levivich 05:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"Index rerum" – obviously a pervert. EEng 06:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium

Hi EEng ~ can I get maybe a day or two page protection here ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: The best place to ask for protection is WP:RPP. I have made a request there on your behalf. Unless EEng has some mystical power I'm unaware of, he cannot actually protect pages. Though he may act with the impish impunity of an admin, he is in fact just a regular 'ol editor. I think if he ever did run for RfA, the community would devour itself like Ouroboros. Not necessarily saying that's a bad thing... Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder why God chose me to be the vessel burdened with such awesome power. But I have sworn to use it only for good, never for evil! EEng 21:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks CaptiainEek ~mitch~ (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

IRC

Heya, someone joined IRC today under your username, wanted to verify whether it was you or not. Praxidicae (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's me. Who on earth would want to pretend they're me? Horrible thought.
For talk-page stalkers, here's what I'm asking:
After several bad experiences with numbskull admins at Commons, I decided never to upload files to Commons again, except for PD material. I now want to upload a file and have the person I got it from follow up by emailing an appropriate license. On Commons there's a page I can get the license from, fill in the blanks, and forward to the file donor; then there was a permissions@ address to which the donor could forward the license. I can't find the equivalent stuff here on Wikipedia i.e. the license boilerplate, and the address to which the donor should forward the license after I upload the file. (I don't want to put the donor through creating an account and uploading himself.). Clue me in, please.
Can anyone point me to some page explaining this? EEng 13:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Praxidicae and Steven Crossin, I think I have my answer: https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ and permissions-en@wikimedia.org . Thanks! EEng 13:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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. EEng 22:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
You're right, thinking about it, it wouldn't have gone down at all well from anyone. That RfA was even nastier than I expected. I do understand why you generally keep away from them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Too bad, because there is such a great typo at the current RfA right now. – Levivich 04:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP issues

Hey EEng, I've noticed some issues with your user page and talk page I wanted to mention. I would have guessed that you were familiar with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies, but perhaps not. It is a pretty important page worth looking over. Some of the items I noticed (outside the page size issues) are your talk page section Upage, and your user page at the Titular characters and directly below that. I'd imagine there are other areas, but I'll mention those specifically. Now I'm hardly a Trump fan, and I'm sure some folks find humor in some of those things - Still, our BLP policy is pretty well defined. Along with that I'll mention a couple WP:Arbcom motions: housekeeping provisions and the American politics (post 1932). If you're unsure then you may want to read up on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I'm hopeful that you'll want to fix the issues I've mentioned. — Ched (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched, I'd like to step in here in the hopes of preventing escalation. I do realize that the BLP DS apply "in any namespace", but I also do not think that there are really any policy violations here. I hope that you will not pursue this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I kind of like the hippo, though it is indeed a naughty policy-violating creature. Haukur (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm ignorant and thick

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.

Please can you remove the offending jibes about people, [most of whom, I'll remind you, I don't know much about]? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Speaking of the Museum, here's a recent observation about growing old: Remember when your mother said to wear clean underwater underwear in case you get in an accident?
Now you bring clean underwear in case you have an accident. Atsme Talk 📧
Note: EEng pictured right, with his distinctive "Threadgold's Thoroughgrip Garterettes" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I see that DYK is as unwelcoming of attempts to improve the Main Page as TFA can be. Keep trying: the good efforts of MP contributors does not place them above well meaning proposals to improve accuracy and clear English. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of encouragement, Kevin McE. Maile66 and I are old pals, and while in this instance he didn’t see my point (which I probably could have expressed less enigmatically) I interpret his comment as being the opposite of unwelcoming. Please be sure to drop by The Museums while you’re here. EEng 14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"(which I probably could have expressed less enigmatically)" thats like asking penguins to stop stealing stones ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: Speaking of WP:ERRORS, did you really mean "clean underwater", or am I missing the joke? Of course, it's always good to have a change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
A bit of an aside to WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER? I think EEng willed it to keep this thread going. Atsme Talk 📧 20:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much ~mitch~. If I could just paraphrase Saint David of Boatface for a moment: "Over the coming months, the few parts of Antarctica that are ice free, will be the stage on which five million Adélies will build their nests." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC) [41] p.s. "No budgies were inadvertently smuggled in the construction of this thread."
User:Mitchellhobbs's runway debut – the aftermath

Oh my, EEng, WP:YOUDONTSAY
Atsme Talk 📧 04:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all the leads ~ Martinevans123 ~ speaking of budgets ~ my first gig when I was 24 years old ~ was modeling swimsuits (on the runway) ~ the best part of that job, was not the modeling part but back stage ~ all the models (including the females) changed together in one room ~ talk about a wandering eye ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oooh.... aprons to die for I bet, dearie! But one has to be careful with all those paired sachet strolls . Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

EEng ~ I just saw where you got that picture from ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

And, in just case you're visiting UK this Christmas, and you find you're in need of some ... inclusive festive hardware. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
You Brits are truly weird. EEng 21:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes sorry, although it's all relative. In Wales it's even weirder. You Yanks are so smooth, of course: so congrats to your lovely Michelle who strictly blew UK away tonight with her Housewife Etta. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's be kind to Martin. After all, he seems to have gone out of his mind. No point in picking on British intelligence (even if that is an oxymoron). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
How very phone-in dare you!! Let's just have a proper vote on that moron result, shall we? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
But the Russians will interfere. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Fortunately only in the constituency of Tory Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Glen. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not my orbit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Now let's just keep our feet on the ground, shall we. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
EEng, so relieved to report that, just like you at Wiki, the "Queen of Detail" won through in the dance-off!! *dabs eye with hanky, but then suddenly thrusts forward into a Livin' on a Prayer-type air-grab* Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there

You should enjoy this one: Category:Automobiles_facing_left. The Commons is a favorite playground of people doing very unnecessary work. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say this member of the category somewhat stretches the limit of the definition:
Also, to be honest, it doesn't make me really look forward to the driving experience. EEng 02:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Have a quiet word with Musky Muskrat and he'll get you a ride in a Tesla Roadster facing left of Mars. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The curator gets a well-deserved comeuppance

OK, not Harvard-Yale, but a comeuppance nonetheless --Tryptofish
A Dalek at the Doctor Who Experience, Cardiff

[42]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That's your idea of a comeuppance? EEng 22:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Would you have preferred a steel rod through the head? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Iron, not steel, shit-for-brains.[FBDB]. EEng 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
That was then. This is now. (Oh, that's a great redirect for fbdb!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Come to think of it, if you were an engineering major, maybe you didn't learn spelling. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
When I have trouble with comeuppants, I find it's usually I forgot to undo the fly button and zipper. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, come up ants can be very troublesome. I usually reach for my faithful insecticidal anti-Stalin spray of Polish Cum Jam. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Come, come, they don't really make jam out of that, do they? I'd hate to think they spread it on Polish toast. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
No there aren't.--Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, first fine American cuisine and now shit-forebrains. You just reminded me why, in Cardiff, Brains SA is known as "skull attack". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Martin, you just gave me my new favorite image! File:Cardiff PenarthRd bridge.jpg. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Glad to be of service! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't realized how much the people in Cardiff are alienated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Enjoy


Pin oak leaf from the steps of Widener Library

Atsme Talk 📧 21:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The Leaf
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. EEng 22:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. You do know I'm gay, right? I don't want you getting your hopes up. P.P.S. You might enjoy [43].

^_^ Atsme Talk 📧 22:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
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! 😂 Atsme Talk 📧 04:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Obsolete theories of the Hungarian language relations

The feedback request service is not asking for participation in this discussion on Talk:Obsolete theories of the Hungarian language relations. But I am. And this is not the feedback request service. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually an article. I had no idea that was a thing. Today, I learned what's at the intersection of Category:Hungarian language and Category:Fringe theories. This is why I Wikipedia. – Levivich 06:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but all competition for the most obscure and bizarre RfC became moot with "Please comment on Talk:Florida State Road 997" and "Please comment on Talk:List of forestry journals". EEng 08:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Most obscure and and bizarre RfCs at Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Shucks, Trypto, I actually tried to click. Darn it! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, ok...we were just kiddin'.
Atsme Talk 📧
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)
Deep lolness. I just love Wikipedia, don't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Crumbs! Whatever would Homer have said? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

To what page should WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK link?

  1. Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument aka WP:BASH (also candidate for WP:TITLETOOLONG)
  2. Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! aka WP:OMG aka WP:WTF aka WP:WOTTA aka WP:3LA (also candidate for WP:TOOMANYSHORTCUTS)
  3. Somewhere else
  4. Fuckin' nowhere

Usage example: Don't WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK me, I've been editing since you were in diapers! – Levivich 06:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, but if you want a dramatic presentation of what a fucking mess shortcut naming is on this project, see Wikipedia:Shortcut_directory. EEng 06:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow if you scroll through that quickly and skim it, it's like a Rorschach test. I saw WP:BEER, WP:FAMILYGUY, WP:BEATLES. – Levivich 06:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Consider, first without looking where it leads, what WP:X would be a shortcut to. (Porno WikiProject? Something deletionist?) Then look. Surprise! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
No need to get personal dear! WP HOMER is quite a good one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Christianity? EEng 03:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
St Andrewology. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Ha! I was right! You are not dealing with just anybody's fool, Tfish. EEng 04:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely! You are a very special fool.[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I really, truly wish there was a WP:PISSOFF.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Improving the "Kaprun disaster" article

Dear @EEng:

thank you for your statement on the Kaprun disaster talk page: "The article has significant tone and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS problems". I want to help improve the page allthough I am not a native speaker. I would be thankful if you could list the things you think that should be improved in detail and I will see what I can do. If the tone is not correct I want to improve it and will take your suggestions seriously as well as the topic "rightgreatwrongs". Sadly it seems that native speakers are not much interested in editing this specific article so I am looking forward to do my best. Thank you very much and BR --Salzburger Nockerl (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Look at the catgories it is in then back at the image

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1997_Fiat_Coupe_20VT_(4545381753).jpg LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 19:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess Commons:Category:Automobiles with open hoods is the car-porn equivalent of Commons:Category:Category:Bottomlessness (described as the state of partial nudity in which a person has his/her genitalia and/or buttocks uncovered but has torso/breasts covered). EEng 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In case you missed it

Jean Berko has a new short video in the PBS News Hour: https://www.pbs.org/video/bbs-jean-berko-gleason-1577998068/ —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Great video! A real legend.... maybe we should get that user over to see it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
She really is (as someone put it once) a "hotrod granny". EEng 14:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I see

you have regrown you long and luxuriant talk page. May it's curls and swirls continue to astound the world.-- Deepfriedokra 11:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Just checking

So, JIP, I guess this [45] means I won't be getting the $10,000,000? EEng 01:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEng/Archive_13&oldid=1012388303"