This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayaguru-Shishya(talk | contribs) at 22:55, 29 June 2015(→WP:LINK: I answered at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Main points deleted?"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:55, 29 June 2015 by Jayaguru-Shishya(talk | contribs)(→WP:LINK: I answered at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Main points deleted?")
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EEng.
Wikipedia Must Be The Saddest Place on Earth
I have had EEng's talk and userpage on my Watchlist for two months because they are the most fun places on Wikipedia.
Gracious! Don't get a knot in your knickers! The question was rhetorical and did not require a reply. l admit that mischieviousness got the best of me, but in all modesty, even including my overwrought condemnation of these unhappy spreaders of ill tidings the article was immeasurable improved for the concurrent shrinkage of verbosity, steadying of tenses, crookeds made straight, and rough places plain.
For those who may be wondering, Mr. Alanraywiki was giving me a well-deserved scolding for my insertion of the following text into the article on Harvard's Lowell House:
“
At Lowell, the bells were usually rung on Sundays from 1:00 to 1:15 pm by a group of Lowell residents known as the Klappermeisters. But some Klappermeisters were drunk with power, and putting heedless self-indulgence ahead of the welfare of their sleep-starved fellow scholars, would initiate their infernal clanging much, much earlier than the officially appointed hour on that sanctified day of rest; these wicked souls were hated and reviled by each and every creature unfortunate enough to suffer within the radius of action of these sonic torture machines, and thereafter had trouble getting help with their chemistry homework, even unto the twelfth generation.
”
Vandalizing was not really the right word. It was more like creative writing run amok. Let's try to keep Wikipedia more serious, okay? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newly discovered Daguerreotype
EEng, nice job cleaning up my initial, humble effort at reporting the newly discovered Daguerreotype. The LA Times has also reported the discovery, available on their website. I have a copy of the journal article if you'd like to see it. The discovery caused quite a stir on 16 July 2009. The discoverer's website was overwhelmed and they quickly upgraded to a better server. Their experience is reported on their Flickr page.Danaxtell (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lobotomy
Hi,
I've been expanding the lobotomy entry a little bit and, as it's really the first wikipedia entry that I've done and I see that you've done some editing of the page previously, I was wondering if you could perhaps have look over the page to see if the changes that I've introduced so far are ok? Thanks Freekra (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some commentary on Talk which I hope you'll consider constructive. I've got some deadlines over the next 4 weeks so I won't be able to do much more than cormment for now, however. But keep at it, please. EEng (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in awe of your copy editing, it's a real object lesson in how to take sentences that seem ok, but then transform them into something much more fluid and logical. Even though you make it seem easy, I'm sure it takes a lot of time. I think it's an amazing skill and I'm studying your changes closely to try and learn as much from them as I can. Thank you. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, shucks! (blush) The article was (fairly) well organized, and competent at the sentence level, but too much fat -- unimportant details like Ruth Paine drove Marnina from city X to Y, then later drove her from A to B -- OK, we know Ruth was a family friend and friends do such things -- the interested reader could find out details from the refs. Amazing how much tighter things get when you cut even small amounts of stuff like that, which then allows even whole paragraphs to collapse into a single (albeit somewhat more complex) sentence. Again, just for the record for anyone else listening, I have no interest in getting involved in controversy over LHO and JFK -- my intent is strictly to copyedit the article as it stands, neither adding nor omitting anything substantive. Having received no accusatory condemnations from impassioned assassination theorists of whatever stripe, I guess I've succeeded in doing that so far. Thanks for taking the time to compliment. EEng (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gentry McCreary Sr
Thank you for taking the time to explain to me what needs to be done I have given up and asked someone else to pick up where I left off when it comes to placing Mr. McCreary into history for all of his accomplishment.... Your time was very much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for nothing
Well I asked you for some advice, but hey, you couldn't be bothered to do that. Just deleted the request. I'm guessing this is what Wikipedia is like - unhelpful people who delight in being obstructive. You know, I think there are better places to be on the web. Can't really trust anything on here now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WyrmUK (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I transferred your query to the article's talk page, where everyone interested could see it and participate, and answered it there. The basic thrust, however, was that you seem to misunderstand the concept of notability as it's used on Wikipedia. Basically, no matter how competent a firm is and valued by its customers, it there are no significant, independent, third-party sources that have said anything about it, there's no way there can be an article on it, even if it's indeed notable.
Unfortunately your query, and my answer, are invisible now because they evaporated along with the article when the article was deleted. Once an article goes into the deletion-debate process, you have to keep tabs on what's going on or when you come back it may be gone. Where an article is of significant length and perhaps can be saved through extensive rewrite, you can write to an admin (I forget just how) and ask for the old raw text back so you can work on it privately to add notability evidence and so on, then restore the article. But I don't think that makes sense in this case.
I'm sorry your early experience here wasn't pleasant. But when people talk about this or that policy, such as for notability, you have to take the time to read the applicable policy so you can participate effectively in the discussion. (And in the present case, you have to check back soon enough that the debate isn't over, and the article deleted, by the next time you show up.) Just saying over and over that a company must be notable because otherwise a customer wouldn't associate itself with that company isn't going to work. EEng (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Eliot Morison
Hi,
I have done a translation from Spanish to English of the reference for the above article. I am unable, through inexperience, to place it within the article references but I have left it to be copied and pasted on the 'request for translation' page. Best. Richard Avery (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. This is exactly the kind of collaboration and pooling of talents that makes Wikipedia such a wonderful experiment. EEng (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being Tallest is Unhealthy
There are FACTS, and then there are opinions. Here are some FACTS:
Fact: the tallest persons in medical history all died at an age below the median life expectancy for their cohort age group.
Now, if you choose to be uninformed, that's one thing. But to make fun of others who are right, and then to convince others that they are right when they are in fact wrong, is to spread misinformation. I do realize the goal of Wikipedia is not "truth" but "verifiability." However, it should be clear that living to 8 feet tall is not something that has generally been desirable.
Unless, of course, you think the attention is worth the drawbacks. It should also be clear that there is a distinction between being "tall" and being the "tallest." No one says being 6 foot 2 inches is bad. So, enough with the jokes and take some time to respect other people's viewpoints. You may learn something.
Ryoung12222:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ryoung122:
I've removed some of the excess line breaks from your message (above, apparently responding to [2]).
I didn't say that "being tallest" is healthy (or perhaps you mean healthful). Someone said, "In fact, since it's unhealthy, researchers try to limit height," to which I responded by inquiring, "Just where and by whom -- and on whom -- are these creeepy-sounding research efforts, which 'try to limit height,' being carried out?"
Despite what appears to be an attempt to evade your topic ban by not mentioning longevity explicitly, it seems to me you are likely in violation of your topic ban and I've brought that to the attention [3] of someone who's dealt with you before.
Kudos for hitting the trifecta of Wikipedia egotism: an indefinite topic ban [4], a deleted vanity bio [5], even -- and this is a first in my experience -- a deleted vanity category[6].
I've addressed the above to you only as a mattter of form -- in fact it's primarily for the benefit of third parties. Based on a review of your behavior over the years, I'm saying in advance that I will likely not respond to anything further you address to me.
Are you here on Wikipedia to make positive contributions, or make ethnic jokes, as you did this week? And none of what you mention above is a fair or on-topic rebuttal or what I said about the category of "tallest" people, which, by the way, doesn't really fit under the category that I'm not supposed to be contributing to. As for me, it's not a trifecta of egotism: no, the problem is Wikipedia is edited by persons who are not knowledgeable about the subjects they edit. Far from being a "vanity" article, my own article probably should exist, based on outside sources. It's only because Wikipedia caters to the lowest common denominator ("anyone can edit") that it does not, since I have clearly been established as notable. Check out Who's Who in America 2012. I won't see your name in there, but you can find me.
I'm surprised you mentioned your response was for the benefit of others...clearly, it's not. It's for the benefit of YOU. You turned what should have been a discussion about facts into a "me against you" personal issue. That's called a red herring strategy: change the subject instead of admitting you are wrong and made a mistake. As many on Wikipedia allow their own egos to get in the way of the purpose of collaborative, objective, encyclopedic editing, so instead of addressing the FACT that you were doubly wrong in making fun of others for something they said that turned out to be correct (i.e., wrong to make fun and wrong to not research the issue before adding your opinion). Have a nice day.
Blade: You're talking about this? Honestly, I don't think any response to him is needed or even desirable. If you want to engage him don't let me stop you, but don't think you need to do it to defend me. His behavior (past and present) speaks for itself. EEng (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I do appreciate it. We CYBERBULLIES have to stick together, after all, if we're to maintain our stranglehold on those who struggle to bring light and truth to Wikepedia. By the way, a paper you may enjoy: [7]. EEng (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Far from being a 'vanity' article, my own article probably should exist, based on outside sources. It's only because Wikipedia caters to the lowest common denominator ('anyone can edit') that it does not, since I have clearly been established as notable. Check out Who's Who in America 2012. I won't see your name in there, but you can find me." Just have to say since I accidently discovered this thread since it was right above the one I started on this talk page, I have never, EVER, encountered WikiEgo such as this. If this person did have an article, I would ensure this paragraph was included. ~PescoSo say•we all18:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the following as a reason to believe "white supremacists" was the rumor and not just "whites".
The black community in Lansing disputed the cause of death, believing there was circumstantial evidence of assault. His family had frequently been harassed by the Black Legion, a white supremacist group that his father accused of burning down their home in 1929. Some blacks believed the Black Legion was responsible for Earl Little's death. One of the adults at the funeral told eight-year-old Philbert Little that his father had been hit from behind and shoved under the streetcar.[15]
Why, thank you, kind sir or madam. I actually tear up a bit sometimes when I think that he's actually gone. It's amazing -- he started with the Chronicle when my mother was 8 years old
If you search for <!-- in the raw text you'll find notes on ways the article can be improved -- it particularly could use more material on the unique feel of HC's work, and on tributes from others. The NYT obit, SFGate piece, and Pulitzer award must certainly have choice bits that can be mined -- also there's in interview with HC himself cited somewhere. Why not take a stab in your abundant spare time.
P.S. Two items -- paraphrased from memory -- which I particularly remember and have only halfheartedly tried to find (though I suspect the bulk of Caen's text is under the Chron's tight lock and key):
[Early 70s, last item of the day's column -- typical zinger ending a HC column] FREUDIAN SLIP OF THE WEEK AWARD Hubert Humphrey, recalling the wonders of the LBJ Administration to The Tomorrow Show's Tom Snyder: "At least we didn't wash our dirty Lyndon in public!"
...Sign posted in the anatomy lab at Stanford Medical School: "Students -- use only half of brain!"
I understand your concern about the intelligibility of the entry. A more productive approach would be to edit the confusing text rather than to write "huh!" I would encourage you to improve upon the current text and remove the "huh".Iss246 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you understand my concern about the intelligibility of
Fundamental science, in contrast to applied science, is defined as a fundamental knowledge it develops.
then you should have understood my tagging that passage with ''{{huh}}'' [8] and, in consequence, should have known better than to revert that tag with the edit summary "removed vandalism" [9]. Certainly had I any idea what that sentence was struggling to express, I would have rewritten it. But I hadn't, so I couldn't, and the ''{{huh}}'' -- which (it just now occurs to me) you may not realize is valid Wikipedia markup for [clarification needed]) -- should stay in hopes some better mind than mine will be attracted to the problem of decrypting not only that particular passage but the entire mishmash of fractured grammar and repetitive vagary which is the surrounding article,
A review of your edits over time suggests you are a valuable contributor who nonetheless has an unfortunate tendency toward labeling as vandalism others' apparently well-meant edits you happen to disagree with or don't understand. I think this is well illustrated in your discussion [10] with another editor about his adding a link somewhere which you found unhelpful; you labeled his addition vandalism, and he or she rightly objected. In the ensuing discussion you wrote
The point is so many people make bad additions to Wikipedia. I like to undo vandalism and generally protect Wikipedia from bad additions. That is not wasting time. You are the one who wastes time with your minutiae. I want to make Wikipedia better. Maybe what you did is not vandalism in the sense that a writer enters a curse word in a Wikipedia entry. But patronizing users does not make Wikipedia better.
When another editor makes what you judge to be a "bad addition" -- indeed does anything not manifestly in bad faith -- it is not only "not vandalism in the sense of adding a curse word" (as you say above), it's not vandalism at all, because WP:VAND defines vandalism as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". So in future, before typing vandalism in an edit summary please be sure this narrow definition actually applies.
I have about 6000 edits. Often I edit and edit and edit until a sentence or paragraph comes out intelligibly. The first editorial change is only a step in the direction of improving the sentence. It often takes several steps. Occasionally I make a bad edit; so what. Who hasn't? The exclamation "Huh" looked like vandalism, and not a technical term. I would not have dreamed it to be a Wikipedia markup. Maybe it isn't vandalism but it looks like vandalism.
I think you had to go searching through my past edits to find the disagreement you came up with in order give me a "gotcha". That is pathetic. That is what a scheming politician does to his or her opponent, searching through reams of statements the opponent made to find a misstatement somewhere in the haystack. I reversed plenty of vandalism in the meantime. Maybe you had the time to comb through 6000 edits to arrive at your "gotcha". And I started at least 20 Wikipedia pages from scratch. But you choose to concentrate on minutiae. It is you with your searching through the haystack to find fault who is the minutiae person. Moreover the issue of your "gotcha", if I can remember it was, from my standpoint, more about patronizing readers than about minutiae. I have done a good deal of constructive work on Wikipedia. I prefer not to comb through your past edits to find a mistake.
I also think it is far better to do one of two things than to write "huh" even if "huh" is a markup: (a) work on improving the sentence, even a little; (b) write in the Talk page to discuss the intelligibility of the text.
The following markup term would be less ambiguous than "huh": [citation needed], a markup term that is more familiar to me, and easily understood by contributors.
Do you honestly not realize that you're digging yourself deeper? The tag {{citation needed}} is not a substitute for {{huh}}, because one renders as [citation needed] (which is not what I meant) and the other as [clarification needed] (which is). My use of it was exactly in keeping with its purpose, and therefore not subject to your review.
In contrast, your labeling of others' well-meant efforts as vandalism is not only offensive but contrary to WP:VAND, and therefore a fair topic of discussion. This is a bad habit you've manifested for a long time -- searching the string vandal in your talk and contributions pages makes this clear in just a minute or two.
That you seem to think this required some great exertion on my part -- that you haven't mastered WP:INDENT[11] -- that you think it's OK (see above) to jump to the conclusion that markup with which you're unfamiliar must be vandalism -- that you insist on posting identical responses in multiple places because you don't grasp how others will otherwise know you've commented [12] -- all suggest that you not only have much still to learn about Wikipedia (we all do) but that you don't realize that you have much still to learn. Since psychology is an interest of yours you should already be familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I've encouraged you -- as others have before -- to give the vandalism accusations a rest, and you have responded -- as you have before -- by contrasting your lofty and rarefied contributions with others' "minutiae". You flatter yourself. No one cares about your 6000 edits and 20 articles (and you especially should stay away from such statistics, given that you needed 16 edits to do this). We each contribute in our own way but since you force the issue, there's some evidence that my work is far from the fluffy minutiae you comfort yourself by imagining it to be: [13][14][15][16].
You're riding for a fall. Stop crying vandalism where it's not clearly warranted.
People do care about starting articles on interesting and relevant topics in psychology. The Dunning-Kruger effect does not apply here.
YES, I needed 16 edits; I am taking on faith your count because I trust that you looked into the matter. My approach is to write and change and write and change. When I look at an edit I entered I am usually not satisfied, and return to it. In fact, it took me 8 edits (uncharacteristically I went back and counted the number of edits) to work on the bit in fundamental science you identified. I did not have the wherewithal to continue with my effort to locate an apt citation although I was on the trail of one; I simply stopped in order to participate in this colloquy. I am still not happy with my edits on the fundamental science entry. I think the entry should have more detail, including examples from, say, physics and mechanical engineering.
I can understand your upset at my having identified the "huh" as vandalism. I'm sorry for that. I did not recognize the term as a marker. I am much more accustomed to the [citation needed] marker because it spells out exactly what is needed.Iss246 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your impersonation of a clueless Wikipedia editor has been mildly enjoyable until now, but the amusement is beginning to wear thin. Nonetheless I'll continue to play along and pretend you actually think what you posted above substantively engages my earlier comments.
Honestly, I would expect someone who teaches graduate-level statistics [17] (which was getting harder and harder for me to believe until I realized it's probably "stats for psych") to steer clear of claims so directly falsifiable by a single numerical datum, to wit 15 -- as in: over the last 30 days, the 20 started-by-you articles average a mere 15 page visits per day per article -- hardly a sign these are articles people "do care about." This is not what I was referring to when I said "Nobody cares about your 6000 edits and 20 articles" -- my point originally was that quality, not quantity, of contribution is what matters -- but then you just had to respond with an unsupported assertion begging to be refuted, didn't you?
Interestingly, although the denial I have determined myself not to be an example of Dunning-Kruger is normally a nullity (because it could just as well be spoken by a D-K sufferer who, by definition, does not realize it, as by someone who genuinely is competent), in the special case of someone who claims expertise in psychology that same denial actually confirms the very thing it attempts to deny -- that is, that the speaker in fact is an example of D-K.
Why? Because a psychologist who doesn't realize that I have determined myself not to be an example of D-K is a nullity clearly doesn't understand an important concept in his own field (D-K), thereby showing himself to be actually suffering from it! Delicious, isn't it?
Adapting from Dr. John H. Watson, M.D., Late Indian Army: Talent instantly recognizes genius, but mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself.
Please learn to indent your comments per WP:INDENT, so that others needn't constantly adjust your posts to keep the thread of discussion clear, as I have had to do for all your posts to date in what you call "this colloquy". (Good SAT word, that, though too bad it doesn't apply here -- you better check a good dictionary before word-dropping it again. It occurs to me that you may have meant it satirically, but since the entirety of your side of the exchange so far may very well be satire -- it's hard to tell -- this would be satire within satire which is just too much for me to untangle.)
Please start using the <preview> button instead of saving zillions of tiny changes, which clutter up revision histories and make it very annoying for others to follow the sequence of changes. You should not be clicking <save> until you've arrived at text which (a) as an absolute minimum, would be OK to leave as the standing version of the page should e.g. you be suddenly called away to some emergency before making further changes, and (b) ideally, is better (more complete, improved references, nothing removed which needs to be added back) than the existing version.
Please stop using edit as an edit summary. To summarize an edit by saying edit is meaningless.
Please review WP:TM. You seem to think [citation needed] is some kind of Swiss Army Knife for inline tagging. It's not. Surely you can appreciate the spectrum running from
{{cn}}=[citation needed]="This needs a source for verification" to
{{clarify}}=[clarification needed]="This seems comprehensible, but deserves to be expressed more clearly" to
{{huh}}=[clarification needed]="I can't even figure out what this is trying to say."
(Although {{clarify}} and {{huh}}) both render as [clarification needed] in what the reader sees, they send usefully different messages to other editors.)
Last, but most important: I appreciate the apology, and hope this is the end of your unwarranted vandalism accusations. A good rule (though not one I can say I always follow -- but then I don't have people taking me to task about inappropriate vandalism charges) might be to never use the word vandalism if there's any other way to express your objection e.g. "rv incomprehensible addition", "rv unsourced dubious claim", "rm over linking".
Fun time's over -- please make your next response a serious one. Or just stop accusing people of vandalism who haven't vandalized. That's the only thing this entire conversation is about, except of course the various smokescreens you keep raising about "minutiae" and so on.
Nice to meet you, EEng. It's always good to find intelligent life at a television-related article. I do see your point about excess detail in the lede, and there's no doubt that for many readers just learning that the sweater is at the Smithsonian will convey the gist of it well enough. However, let's consider those readers who know little or nothing about the Smithsonian. Saying the sweater is "on display at the Smithsonian Institution" is just imprecise enough to mislead to those readers because it implies that the Institution is a place, or at least is associated with a place, when it's actually a government agency that administers a variety of places. One might say with equal validity that a certain sculpture is on display at the National Park Service or that the Pietà is on display at the Roman Catholic Church. Such analogies may seem like a stretch, since it's unlikely anyone would say those things, but that's because they know better; in the case of the Smithsonian, the misconceptions are rampant. In my experience, a large number of Americans, as well as innumerable non-Americans, equate the Smithsonian with a museum or group of museums on the National Mall in Washington, and I think the current wording might perpetuates such misconceptions. I could be wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe your Pieta and Honest Abe examples are comparable -- if you ask a carabinieri (in Italian, of course) for directions to "the Catholic Church" no doubt you'll get a puzzled look, but if you ask a DC denizen "Where's the Smithsonian" he'll point you in the right direction, not deliver a lecture on the ambiguity of your inquiry. It's nice to gently enhance the reader's understanding of such distinctions where possible, but not at the expense of stultification. The lead's P.S.Q. (pedantic stultification quotient) should be kept especically low, and I don't see any way to import the specific location into the lead without it seeming strained. It's in the later photo caption, though, and there it seems fine.
BTW I dislike the term lede as often used by WP editors. it smacks of pretension (present company excepted of course), especially because it's an import from journalism referring to a somewhat different way of structuring an article than is (or should be) used here. EEng (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do have journalism in my checkered past, so I hope you'll forgive my spelling of the word. My rationale nowadays is that avoiding homographs whenever possible precludes ambiguity, even when misunderstanding is unlikely. Eccentric? Probably.
Asked "Where's the Smithsonian", a DC denizen is likely to ask you to clarify exactly what you're looking for. If he fails to do this, the odds of ending up where you meant to go are less than overwhelming. In any event, your most recent edit elegantly sidesteps the pitfall. Nice job. Rivertorch (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of writing -- thus putting aside dance lessons, Der Fuehrer, London dogs-in-the-park-must-be-on admonitions, and your dentist's x-ray apron (oomph! this thing weighs a TON) -- lead is a general term for the opening of any written work. But lede is newspaper jargon (the spelling, they say, to avoid ambiguity between lead = story opening vs. lead = what a clumsy printer's devil might pi -- not sure I buy this) for an opening in the specific style peculiar to newspapers. But newspaper-style leads/ledes are not appropriate for WP articles, and so neither is lede.
BTW, did you see my changes to the, er, lead of Smithsonian?
I not only saw, I commented above. Am I writing in invisible pixels today or did I set it on my Linotype by mistake? (And no, my checkered past does not extend back quite that far, thanks very much). Rivertorch (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not trying to gaslight me, are you? Either I'm losing losing my mind, or you are (losing your mind that is, not mine -- though if you happen to find my mind I'd appreciate its return) -- or maybe both (though let's not push the panic button just yet). I'm talking about this diff (which includes further changes made just now, actually). Now, um, did you refer to that change above somewhere? EEng (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! You typed "Smithsonian" and I read it as "Fred Rogers"—a common mistake, I believe. (Mutters to self: "Now where did I put that mind of mine?) The edit looks spiffy, and so do the subsequent ones. I didn't look too closely. My watchlist groweth long. Rivertorch (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I thought an earlier post of yours about the use of Ancestry.com was truly excellent, and I have cited it here [18]. If you are interested, you might want to take a look at the RSN discussion yourself and contribute your own thoughts. I am sure they would be helpful. Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
for rescuing the formatting of my recent post at WT:MoS 16:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC) This comment by editor Kevin McE, who has somehow figured a way to timestamp his post without his name appearing -- neat trick!
You're very kind, in light of the quality of the rescue effort -- start with [19] and follow "Next edit" from there a few times to see what I mean. EEng (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard daze
Moving the conversation here, where there might be fewer eavesdroppers than on my own page. I am sorry you have had to resort to "shouting" to elicit a response from me. My long silence is certainly not because of anything you said. Other responsibilities, general overload and frequent crises preclude my doing much more than dabble in editing on WP for now. A more constant and concentrated collaboration remains a distant hope. Thank you for understanding, and please do feel appreciated, jokes and all (or perhaps especially).
An interest in the Cavendish area helped bring me to the Phineas Gage article long before I was aware of your connection with it. I always regarded it as a thoroughgoing, well-organized, high quality job, in addition to telling a remarkable story. Cheers for now, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left without saying anything due to personal reasons and also a lot of burnt out sensation. Right now I am not really sure if I will stay for long or this will be only temporal until I fix a bit the multiple sclerosis article. Nevertheless to hear from a lot of people that still remember me has been a great experience of coming back. I am sure many things will have changed here in wikipedia and the med-project in all this time. I will try to catch up and ask for help if needed...--Garrondo (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were very much missed; I had the awful idea you'd been hit by a car or something. Sounds like it would be best if you just stuck narrowly to the MS article so as to not let yourself get overburdened at first. Feel free to ask for help. EEng (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy and no disclosure
Privacy is important on Wikipedia. If you wish to publish you university address and telephone number on your user page your are free to do so. But be aware that not everyone who uses this site is sane, and it is not appropriate for others to make any comment or allusion about another users's personal information that has not been disclosed by that user. I don't care (and I doubt any others do care about which university if any you attend), but to start to see why this can be a problem spend some time reading WP:ANI and you will soon read vitriol on that page of a similar type that you see with university dons (too Oxbridge for you?) competing for the same funding. The trouble is that if an editor starts to edit controversial pages then information about them could be a matter of life and death (they may after be Liverpool FC supporters[20]). But in all seriousness ponder on this example. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't explain to me why privacy is worthy of protection (whether on WP or elsewhere) and you'll get no argument from me that some here are not playing with a full deck.[1] But that doesn't have anything to do with it, because -- don't you get it yet? -- Lockley didn't make allusion to my personal information. He made a series of jokes in which I actively participated [21]. He violated neither the letter nor the spirit of WP:PRIVACY. It's conceivable you didn't grasp that in the moment, but what you nonetheless should have grasped -- and what absolutely cannot have escaped your discerning by now -- is that I am perfectly capable of handling such a situation myself [22]. And please no lectures [23] about how humor can be misunderstood. Everything can be misunderstood, and I happen to believe that frequent exposure to humor (which draws its power from tensions among competing views of things) sharpens the critical faculties, and thereby aids discussion. Please give the sermonizing a rest now. EEng (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^Porch light out – elevator doesn't reach the top floor anymore – screw loose – lost their marbles – knitting with only one needle – Rolls Royce chassis, moped engine – set design by Norman Rockwell, screenplay by Stephen King.
From a new friend
The Whiffenpoofs poised to perform the Fantasies of Victimization of 1912
EEng, shockingly, I find I quite like you. The change came when I began to put your comments in the voice of Seth Green's character in Party Monster. It's no insult. He's mesmerizing. And when I imagine Seth Green's voice saying the phrases "Naturally I thought Lockley was behind this at first" and "be careful not to feed Lockley's fantasy of victimization" in the same breath, it makes a lot more sense. Now do let's leave each other alone for awhile if you can stand it.--Lockley (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw PM and have only just now checked it out. Your comparison to me took on a disturbing quality when I read, ...which details his friendship with Alig, that later fell apart as Alig's drug addiction worsened, and ended after he murdered Angel Melendez and went to prison, until I realized that the Seth Green character is the friend, not the murderer. EEng (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that hate-turns-to-love thing a lot, though usually it takes years. I'm assuming you've alredy seen [24]. Shall we now, together, tell PBS to go soak his or her head? What a schoolmarm! It's like Atilla the Hun has appeared to dispense justice on my behalf. Saints preserve us! EEng (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Be more careful who you hang out with -- that Binky guy's up to no good.
P.P.S. Pull any more of that Yale shit and I'll have you boiled in oil.
Hey Rich, if you truly believe that these are personal attacks, then why not improve this article by updating it to match your preferences?
is not an attempt to improve the policy page, but rather a taunt to another editor. I will not restore it. But go ahead and do it yourself, if you wish; you're just digging yourself deeper. EEng (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, missed your post until now...) Answer: I don't know and I don't care -- didn't bother me in context. Just please stop being a jerk all over the place. EEng (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft hyphens
They weren't mistakenly removed; that was intentional. See my previous edit summary which stated: "Undid revision 537758394 by EEng (talk); the remainder of the article does not use soft hyphens".
Unless you know of a provision of the MOS that requires them, it's odd to have only the one part of an article using them when I've never seen them used elsewhere.
They break up the text in the edit window, in the middle of words, making it harder for others to decipher what words.
They are of limited utility. Yes, they tell a browser where it could break a word for hyphenation at the end of a line, but the body of the article lacks such a feature, making the quote horribly inconsistent.
Under the principle of consistency, please either add soft hyphens to the rest of the text of the article, or please leave them removed. Imzadi 1979→17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my edit summary, subsequent to yours quoted above:
doesn't matter whether the rest of the article uses s-hyphens -- because quote box doesn't justify (can you figure out how to do that?) wordbreaks are esp. useful here.
The pullquote is selfconsciously highfalutin, incorporating superabundant multisyllabic bombastic verbosity. Combining this with no justification in the quotebox -- and here I repeat that I would be much obliged if you can tell me how to enable such justification -- and the result is an sightly ragged righthand margins (depending on screen size and magnification). & shy; fixes that, and improving what the reader sees outweighs the beauty or consistency what the reader doesn't see i.e. the markup.
I didn't add & shy; elsewhere because I don't see offhand where it would do any good. Your suggestion to "add soft hyphens to the rest of the text," just to mollify some vengeful god of consistency, directly contradicts your other complaint, that & shy; makes source text hard to read. (And that's not an argument in the present case, BTW, because the pullquote is verbatim and subject to little or no editing anyway.)
Markup is there to be used, and here it is put to its intended purpose. If you want to add more throughout the article, go ahead -- though it will have little or no effect on the rendered text -- but do not remove those already there which serve a purpose.
I took the soft hyphens out of 3 articles that had many hundreds each. They do much more harm than good, according to the consensus at the discussion linked above. Probably we should say so in the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago ..., - and did you know that several editors I know enjoy your user page inspiration, unable to decide which pair of image and caption is most to the point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Widener Stacks Reading Room as final exams approach.
Greetings, EEng. I hear springtime in [name of university location redacted for security reasons] is a splendid spectacle and I do hope you're enjoying the hell out of it, getting full value out of your tuition, and making those lifelong connections. Or, alternative to all that, digging your couch. --Lockley (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderestimate my earthly tenure -- my lifelong connections were made long ago. Sadly, the most cherished of those (see Andrew Gleason) ended a while back. EEng (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. Probably pointed you to this before, but if not... you may enjoy Sacred Cod. Comments invited.[reply]
Discussion re what one editor considers a personal attack, and another does not
If you don't like the section header, then delete the whole section. Don't edit my comments.
Struck-out hatnote was added by PinkAmpersand
Sorry, but section headers have visibility and prominence (e.g. in TOC) disconnected from their content and should needn't be allowed to represent your opinion only. For the record, PinkAmpersand's orginal section header was Personal attackEEng (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't do you the disrespect of templating you, so, let me say simply this: I don't really care how bad of a guy Qworty was, or how much he deserves to be banned. (My own opposition is simply because I think a ban to be slightly overkill... however, a lot of users I highly respect disagree with me, and I don't plan on lobbying this.) He could be the epitome with everything that's wrong with Wikipedia and I still wouldn't feel any differently about what you said. You should know better than this, and in my opinion the first admin who saw what you wrote should have indeffed you on the spot until you were willing to agree to never say anything like that again. Not, mind you, because I think you're some contemptible troll, but because blocks exist to prevent disruption to the project, and what you said was clearly and unabashedly disruptive, calculated with the maximum intent to insult. I really don't like making enemies here, so I'd be very happy if this were the last time I felt compelled to call you out for something. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)06:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those who may be wondering, PinkAmpersand is referring to a comment of mine [26] in the ANI discussion on banning User:Qworty. That comment was:
Ban this revolting intellectually masturbating narcissist so he can enter the final phase of his career i.e. teaching high school English or freshman composition while fantasizing about the literary glory that should have been his. "It’s time to get over the Internet. It’s time to get over ourselves." [27] Whatever the fuck that means, you dumbass. EEng (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PinkAmpersand and another editor objected to that post on BLP and NPA grounds, and removed it from the discussion. I would have restored it, with the following comments, but for the fact that the ANI discussion is now closed. My response is the following.
BLP doesn't come into this since no one could possibly interpret my comments as assertions of fact rather than my own interpretation of his behavior; meanwhile NPA must be applied in light of the fact that in a ban discussion we are, inevitably, discussing not content but the contributor. (NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." -- such evidence is present in spades in this case.)
My words distilled the feelings of betrayal and embarrassment Qworty's behavior aroused in me and, I am confident, in other editors. Because such feelings were a predictable consequence of the eventual exposure of Qworty's behavior, expressing them sheds light on the heedless disruptiveness of Qworty's longterm determination to engage in such behavior, and was therefore an appropriate contribution to the discussion about whether to chuck this jerk out on his ass.
However, in light of your concerns I'll rephrase as follows:
Ban this difficult selfabsorbed person (whose behavior raises significant WP:NOTHERE issues), perhaps redicting him to more effective outlets for his talents and allowing him to reflect on his contributions toward improving the lot of his fellow man. I find his recent userpage comments unhelpful in terms of explaining his longterm behavior.
Finally, PinkAmpersand, since you dislike making enemies (as you say), you might think twice before taking on the role of Wikipedia scold. If (as, again, you say) you think a ban for Qworty is overkill then your judgment about editor behavior and appropriate responses to it is seriously flawed.
I understand that you were very angry, and perhaps understandably so, but I don't think that "he had it coming" is an appropriate defense for gross incivility. Your comments were practically the definition of a personal attack, and the fact that you refuse to admit that disturbs me far more than the fact that you said them in the first place (which could otherwise be written off as a "crime of passion"). There is no backing in policy for your "predictable consequence" argument; rather, NPA tells us
The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.
Furthermore, the amount of "serious evidence" (which I agree existed) is immaterial, seeing as your comments were entirely about his personal real-world life.
This is all a moot point now, more or less, but if you're unable to acknowledge the wrongness of your own actions, instead choosing to wikilawyer your way out of it, I must say that I hope you change your ways soon, before you wind up getting yourself blocked for disruptive editing. (Also, how fucking dare you use my !vote to suggest I'm not fit to criticize you? That's practically a PA in itself—deflecting criticism with ad hominem arguments.) Anyways, I'll be disengaging now. Bye. Hope I've given you some food for thought. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)03:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have failed utterly to understand what I wrote, which had nothing to do with "he had it coming", disturbs me far more than the fact of your starting this fuss (which could otherwise be written off as a "kneejerk reaction"). To make it easy for you I'll highlight the nub again:
expressing [such feelings] sheds light on the heedless disruptiveness of Qworty's longterm determination to engage in such behavior, and was therefore an appropriate contribution to the discussion.
I'm happy to repeat that your idea that Qworty shouldn't be banned brings into serious question your ideas about editor behavior and the appropriate response to them. And juxtaposing your more recent suggestion that I should be indeffed makes your poor judgment even more manifest.
Just so you know, by the way, I'm not saying any of the above because I think you're some contemptible troll, either.
Dear EEng, great quote from the EB: Plutarch relates, that before this, upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."
The problem here is that I didn't create this statue; someone else did. I am merely trying to scrape the pigeon excrement off the shoulders.
This all started when someone called me and said they had seen a strange COI notice on the W entry about me. When I went to look, I also saw the COI and tried to engage with Wikipedia's editors to find out why and how it got there. Do you really believe I would make this stuff up about my 12-year-old? Really? I mean, come on!!!!
Nor am I in any way, shape or form worried that the media may see the Talk Page attendant to the Article Page about me. On the contrary, I am in the process of writing an article about this entire affair which I will make sure you get a copy of, if I ever find the time to finish it. Plus, the final chapter of this sage has yet to be written.
However, I did enjoy your Plutarch, in all seriousness. Having spent 7 years of my youth learning Latin (and some Greek), I have a great fondness for the classics. Here is one you may enjoy; it's one of the dicta from the boarding school in the UK that I attended called . . . oh, wait, that information was expunged from the Early Life part of my article. LOL!
Ok, I'll tell you: Winchester College. The saying is, "Aut disce, aut discede. Manet sors tertia -- Caedi."
Well, I'll just have to run that by my Harvard roommate -- he prepped at [elite boarding school] of course -- who naturally was a Rhodes Scholar after graduating summa in a double major combining classics with [other impressive field of concentration]. One time at master's tea just before high table, one of many Nobel laureates who graced our Senior Common Room made a most amusing quip...
Do you honestly not see how immodest you appear dropping lines such as Having spent 7 years of my youth learning Latin (and some Greek)? (All that stuff about my roommate and so on is real, BTW, but I don't trot it out at the drop of a hat -- except when in the private company of elites such as ourselves, of course.)
I sincerely hope you didn't make up the stuff about your daughter, but I have no way of knowing. Certainly many, many people have done such things in similar circumstances. I urge you, for the sake of your daughter, to just withdraw. Drop it. Stop looking at the article. Ask you friends not to look at it and certainly not to talk to you about it. Just forget it.
J.G., the article was created by an IP editor on April 8, 2005, and read as follows at creation:
"Often referred to as the "father of Internet (interactive) advertising," J. G. Sandom founded the world’s first interactive advertising agency, Einstein and Sandom Interactive (EASI), in 1984. It grew to become the largest digital marketing services firm when it was purchased by DMB&B (MacManus Group) in 1994. Sandom continued to manage EASI on behalf of DMB&B through 1996.
From January 1997 through October 1999, Sandom served as Director of Interactive at OgilvyOne Worldwide, where he grew the company from a loss of $2MM to an estimated $100MM in revenues in 30 months, and from 12 “permalancers” to 650 digital marketing specialists worldwide; named “Number One Interactive Ad Agency” – 1999, by Ad Age magazine.
From November 1999 through 2001, Sandom served as President and CEO, and then Vice Chairman of RappDigital Worldwide, the interactive arm of direct marketing/direct response agency giant Rapp Collins Worldwide, an Omnicom Company. Within a year of inception, RappDigital became one of the nation’s “Top Ten” interactive ad agencies, according to Ad Age magazine.
Sandom is also the author of six novels including Gospel Truths and The Hunting Club (Doubleday); the latter was optioned by Warner Bros. for theatrical development. He is currently working on a new novel, The Unresolved, for Penguin/Dutton/NAL."
Jim, what's an IP editor? And I believe you're wrong about the creation date of the Article. I thought it was older. But who knows. That was a long time ago. I can barely remember what I had for dinner yesterday. The article you quote above has several errors in it. “Top Ten” should read "Top Twenty", The Hunting Club was from Bantam - A Crime Line book (not Doubleday, which is, I believe, a sister house), and The Unresolved was a Dutton Children's pub (not a Penguin or NAL book, although they're both sister houses too, I believe . . . but don't quote me on that; they're all consolidated now and there are precious few independents left). Sandom (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sandom, please take my advice. Don't ever look at your article again. Go immediately silent in all these discussions, except for a one-sentence bowing out. It will be better that way. EEng (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I needed a laugh after a determined attack last night by trolling, vandalizing sockpuppets on my user and talk pages. That's the way to convert a Jew to Christianity, huh? Cullen328Let's discuss it05:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have started to move these too. It is well past my bedtime now and I was interrupted for a little while so I will let you carry on otherwise there will be edit conflicts. We should end up with the definitions in "lift order" (same order as they appear in the display - that is not essential for the mechanism to work but it is another way of making life easy for editors). --Mirokado (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your demonstrating how to do this. I saw it once somewhere but later could not locate how to do it. I won't bother worrying about lift order during move -- too stressful -- but we can always reorder later. Thanks again! EEng (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
June 2013
This is a personal attack. Please don't make any more edit summaries like that. The issue you are edit-warring over is extremely trivial, and you are wrong on the MoS issue, but it's ok that you're wrong on MoS. It's definitely not ok to make personal remarks in your edit summaries. Really, please don't do that again. --John (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I appreciate that you think you're keeping me on the straight and narrow, but I stand by my statement, and to underscore that I'll amplify it here: the editor who used to call himself Malleus Fatuorum recently changed his "name" to Eric Corbett; however, I believe it would have been a service to the project had he, instead, changed his name to Malevolent Fatuous, because that would let editors know up front what they might be in for when he appears in any new situation. EEng (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are not only behaving in a way that our community norms explicitly find unacceptable, but you are being rather unfair to Eric. You asked him here to get involved in the article, you then disagreed with some (fairly innocuous) edits he made, and now you're throwing out insults to him. Does that seem fair to you? --John (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop ignoring edit summaries explaining clearly why changes are being made, and reverting said changes with your own edit summaries making misleading or false reference to prior policy or discussions. Behavior such as this wastes the time of editors who actually know what they're doing. If you continue, you risk appearing even more clueless than you already do. EEng (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Will you PLEASE look at the content of the changes you're reverting? You're obviously not paying attention to what the changes actually are, but just reverting as a knee-jerk reaction. EEng (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phineas Gage GA
I've failed the article. User:Eric Corbett has stated on his talkpage that if the article is passed he will take it to GAR which basically means that he has now made it his personal mission to make life hell for anyone who doesn't agree that he is the sole authority to be followed regarding article writing and formatting. I don't wish that for anyone and therefore see no other choice than to fail. This is an immense shame because the article is great and you have done a great job and Wikipedia should be be ashamed of the way you have been thanked for your volunteer work here. I am very sorry it went like this. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·22:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to reconsider. As I said before this doesn't cause me any stress because (a) crap like whether et al. and so on go in italics doesn't really matter and (b) from a review of his edit history, it seems like Malevolent Fatuous (you do know who I'm talking about, right?) gets into stuff like this all the time and always self-destructs, or gets blocked, or holds his breath until he's blue in the face, or whatever. And as for John, well, he means well.
Many good people have put a lot of effort into this so far; sooner or later the article will be re-nominated, and then again there will be a flurry of attention by everyone and his brother, and again we'll have to go through this stuff. So unless there's a deadline I'd prefer we continue.
Anyway, I don't see where MF said he'll "take it to GAR" -- all I see are comments saying stuff like "we're involved in a GAR" i.e. the normal peer review that's part of the GA process. Did I miss something? Anyway, I don't have any fear of any "higher scrutiny".
If you'll reactivate the process, we can evaluate where we are. One thing to remember is that much or most of the stuff being argued about isn't even on the GA checklist. So, what do you think?
I am glad it didn't cause you stress, it did to me. Eric said he would take it to GAR at his talkpage. You are of course right in your assessment of his usual behavior pattern. I think it would have to be renominated to take up the review again. You are right that none of this is on the GA checklist. If I re-nominate it I can't review it myself. If you do it I can, or if you like someone else can do it. I'll look at it tomorrow with fresh eyes. Let me know what you think.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest that in the meantime you just revert your own closing with an edit summary something like "Now not so sure I want to close, want to think about it". If you don't do something like that right away then it will need a new nomination and, I'm guessing, you have to wait a while before doing that. And then, as I said, we'll have to deal with a new influx of knowitalls. EEng (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you post at the Talk of the nom page if someone knows how to undo that manually. I'd be surprised if there isn't. I hate to press but I really don't want to lost the momentum, and since you're the reviewer you're the only one in a position to ask. I'd really appreciate it. EEng (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried but I don't think it is going to happen. You could renominate it right away and we'll take it from there. I would prefer not to review it at a second review, but if you prefer that I do it I will.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·02:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't do that, since it would imply that I am responsible for carrying out the response to the review, which I am neither capable or willing to do. I think User:CurlyLoop will be willing to renominate, and Pyrotec who is a competent and experienced reviewer whose reviews I have myself enjoyed has expressed a willingness to take over the review when he finishes two other ones. I apologize for botching this. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·13:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well damn I was finally sifting through the barnstar list to see the most exact, appropriate one today and I've been preempted. If I gave another one, would it come off as excessive? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we're still talking about Genie, honestly I've hardly done anything really. I started a copyedit thinking Blade was nearly done, but turns out it was just a momentary pause on his part. I think the next step will be the possible split that was discussed a few weeks ago. After that happens (or doesn't) I'll swoop in with my trademark red pencil and overcomplex Brownian sentences. EEng (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you're in the market for another article to get involved with, I'd appreciate your taking a look at Phineas Gage. There have been a lot of formatting and layout changes recently, and images added. And there are some special technical problems on which I'm hoping we can get comment from others. There's some discussion on the Talk Talk:Phineas Gage#technical_stuff but it's a bit out of date. Wanna jump in? EEng (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop replying. Sometimes, I know I'm being goaded and still can't stop rising to the bait. Thank you for your reminder. Unless there are problematic edits to articles (as opposed to talk pages) the matter merits no further response. Feeding the beast is an apt metaphor.
It's good to have a voice of reason around.
On another matter: I'm no good at finding lost minds. But here's the Ming you were looking for:
Remember our long-lived friend (who amazingly, seems to have actually taking his indefinite block to heart)? While this one guy is a rank amateur by comparison, similar lessons apply, especially this one: in general (sad to say) it's too much to hope that the party with whom you are engaged will be convinced; convincing those watching and listening should be your goal. Once you think you've achieved that you can fall silent, leaving your interlocutor to babble on contentedly. EEng (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)CRASH! Oh dear. That thing wasn't genuine, was it? After all, a Ming is a terrible thing to waste.[reply]
Away for a while
I will be away for a while, so please don't be irritated if I don't respond to further comments re Phineas. Good luck with the article! --Mirokado (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all and please let me know when you're back and ready to tackle all this technical minutiae again. Good luck/vacation/travels/whatever. EEng (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that one of your first actions after "returning" was to contact me, so I'm flattered, but I wonder if you may regret it.
There's an editor who's all over WP "fixing" things and who regularly gets angry messages like this [29].
In early November he made "correcting" the Gage article a crusade. It started here (and yes, I was ANGRY) and went from there. See also [30] ("Chris's abuse of the noticeboards and community discussion pages is longstanding ... pattern of responding to any discussion that does not immediately yield the result he wants by starting a new discussion elsewhere.")
You'll be interested in this... remember those long, detailed discussions we had about formatting innovations [31]? Well, here's the thanks I (we) get: [32] (Seach the page for minefield to see the idiotic accusation -- presumably you're part of this conspiracy too. I know you warned me about being too technically daring, but you never hinted at this rabid foaming at the mouth!)
There's a very good editor who -- I hope -- will soon see the light about what's going on here. [33]. Keep your fingers crossed. I don't expect you to just believe I'm in the right about all this. Once Tryptofish gets back to me I'll be going over all of it with him, and you may want to follow and/or participate in that.
I'm guessing you don't want to get involved with the content battle -- I have no worries about how it will eventually turn out -- but if you don't mind I'd like to contact you when sanity has been restored. I have some new ideas for the reflist.
Better find some low-stress corner of WP to hang out in to compensate for all this.
EEng (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Before I forget... One of the first things you showed me -- and I was enthusiastic about it -- was how to move the notes out of the article body (where they interrup the main text) to the bottom of the article within the reflist. However, it turns out that if you do that, then it messes up calling out "sources" from within "notes". So I had to move the notes all back to the main article. Also, I got fed up with citationbot doing stupid things so I copy-pasted all the cites back to in-article templates. I don't want you to think I reversed some of your ideas just for the hell of it.[reply]
Followup: As predicted, the response from multiple editors at COI Noticeboard was variations on What makes this a COI issue? and I see no reason to look at this as a COI issue. Better luck next time. EEng (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
cease your non-stop personal attacks
You have been here way too long for me to have to be posting this in your talk page. Your constant antics and belligerence editing the MX wikipage is not acceptable. Consider this a warning. Whatzinaname (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors in the discussion have pointed out your dickishness, and it's not a personal attack to tell you you're being a dick if you are, in fact, being a dick. So stop being a dick. EEng (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the content dispute, I am in general agreement with EEng, as I believe that the reliable sources support their point. That being said, I would advise both of you to tone down all snarkish and self-indulgent comments. The dispute is over a very minor point. Tone the comments way down, please. Nothing good will come of it. Thanks. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have said this before. [34] Really, quit it, it isn't helpful. I have personally been banned for way less (in fact for nothing at all, but that's a story.) And Whatsy? You too. Starting off by effectively telling editors they are idiots and the article they have worked on is a disgrace is not a good business plan. Rumiton (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who starts out by calling Pulitzer Prize winning historian Manning Marable a "moron" has little credibility for complaining about personal attacks shortly thereafter. Unless one considers Marable fair game as a result of his untimely death. After all, it isn't a BLP violation, is it? Cullen328Let's discuss it05:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, it's Whatshisname, not me, you're talking about. 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
for the giggle. Please go back to that thread and imagine which short posting I could barely restrain myself from responding to with "Only what I read about yo momma!" David in DC (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Next time do something meaningful, don't just revert
There is nothing on any page about the difference between the two, therefore the redirect is blatantly absurd. So instead of just trigger-happy reverting, why don;t you elucidate the rest of mankind about the difference and enrich the WP with your knowledge? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are wondering, we're talking about [35].
Why so angry? Your concern with cutting out redirect (per your edit summaries) are contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN. Furthermore, in your first "cutting out" you eliminated the mention of leucotomy completely, which is inappropriate since that was Moniz' own term (at least originally). It's that elimination I was reverting. I didn't explain the difference between leucotomy and lobotomy because my knowledge doesn't extend to what that is, exactly.
As to "elucidating the rest of mankind", please check elucidate in a dictionary, as well as WP:MOSDASH for the difference between hyphens and dashes. You may want to reconsider your self-awarded evaluation, "This user can contribute with a professional level of English" [36].
I know the difference between hyphens and dashes, and yes, I inadvertently used the hyphen, accustomed to my auto-correct in Word, which I have programmed to change the hyphen followed by a space into an m-dash.
I know what lobotomy is, leucotomy I was not familiar with, therefore I clicked to read about. Guess what? Waste of time, as it took me to lobotomy, which - as already said - I know what it is. Therefore, quoting from the project page that you so kindly pointed me to, "It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading."
You also claim that there is a difference between lobotomy and leucotomy. It puzzles me that in various articles worked on by hundreds of people nobody has ever had the inclination to address this issue.
I do contribute with a professional level of English. But my blood boils when people prefer to revert rather then fixing what they see wrong. So yes, I used "elucidate" where I meant to use "enlighten".
I've taken the liberty of numbering your points above for ease of reference.
1. You're still having trouble with hyphens vs. dashes, as seen (conveniently enough) in your point 2.
2. I am unable to apprehend what you're trying to say here. Did you only just now discover that leucotomy redirects to lobotomy? And hovering over leucotomy gives the hint Leucotomy -- redirects to Lobotomy -- Lobotomy is a neurosurgical procedure... What's misleading about that?
There is indeed a difference between the two, but it's difficult to explain (and in some ways has never been fully elucidated historically). I earlier pled more ignorance than actually is the case, so let me explain a bit. If you look through the article you'll see that the term leucotomy predominates until the start of the discussion of Freeman & Watts, when lobotomy starts being used instead (mostly). This corresponds to the very rough division between Moniz' use of leucotomy (for his hole-in-the-skull technique), and lobotomy for Freeman's transorbital technique, and some back-and-forth use of both terms for intermediate techniques tried by Freeman & Watts, and others, in between. Since most of the article's content deals with social and theoretical points largely independent of the particular technique, it doesn't interfere with the exposition, which is why I've never worked up the courage to tackle this in the article.
4. I didn't revert rather than fix -- the revert was the completely appropriate fix. You inapppropriately eliminated the term leucotomy[37] and I reverted, which fixed what you did. That you subsequently reasserted your "eliminate redirects" preoccupation, and I haven't reverted that as well, doesn't mean there was something else that needed fixing -- it's just what floats your boat, apparently, and I don't see any point in spoiling your fun.
5. As seen here [38], you combine significant confusion on English usage with certainty that you're right -- a deadly combination. In fact your post above also shows serious deficiencies, but it's not my purpose to embarrass you.
5. You seem to think a hit-count-search for two different word orderings shows that one phrasing is as good as another. That's ridiculous, since the issue was which phrasing is better in the specific text under discussion -- not on average in various usage situations Wikipeida-wide.
I don't have to have the last word -- you go ahead and have it instead. It may help bring your blood down from boiling point. By the way -- did you know that Aristotle thought that the brain's only function was to cool the blood? (This turns out to be true only in some people, of course.) EEng (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an hour at a fun party feels like 15 minutes while an hour at a tedious faculty meeting feels like 5 hours, an hour at ANI feels like your life is flashing before your eyes while an hour not at ANI feels like a day in the countryside. If that helps. EEng (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing it's taken so long -- been fretting about that sentence for ages! Strive ever upwards, O Wikipedians, be it just a word at at time! EEng (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another clueless editor drops in to visit
Hello, I'm ChrisGualtieri. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not refactor my comments again and do not make snide personal attacks. Also, do not call editors "nazi"s, because they removed 1900 characters of this.[40] Comment on the edit not the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call another editor a Nazi, but rather a MOS Nazi -- that is, an often ignorant, always arrogant, self-appointed knowitall who finds salve for his insecure ego by pretending that enforcement of increasingly minute and arbitrary rules, over consideration of what looks good and reads well, benefits the project.
As to you, do not fuck with others' comments on article talk pages, as you did -- I've restored my comments and stand by them. You made a run-on, borderline unintelligible defense of certain actions of yours; I responded with "Everything you're saying is nonsense", followed by a bullet-list explication of why everything you had said was nonsense. [41] If you don't like that, then stop posting nonsense.
As already pointed out elsewhere, you spend a great deal of time removing, and issuing warnings about, angry comments directed at you by other editors, e.g. on your talk page. Ever think about why that is?
Making personal attacks and deliberately making up things you know nothing about to attack editors is a problem. You have a massive COI and your ownership is problematic enough, but making up lies is not acceptable. Some misunderstanding completely unrelated to your issue has no place being on the talk page and next time I will report it to an administrator because your hostile attacks of "MOS Nazi" or any type of "Nazi" unacceptable under WP:NPA. Do you understand? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re next time I will report it to an administrator because your hostile attacks of "MOS Nazi" or any type of "Nazi" unacceptable under WP:NPA:
(For those playing along at home here's the edit summary [42] Chris is so up in arms about.) I could change my wording from "MOS Nazis" to "bossy schoolmarmish MOS-haunting tin-ear-for-language knowitalls" -- would you prefer that? Anyway, if you don't recognize yourself in those descriptions, what does any of this have to do with you? And if you do, then how is it a personal attack to describe you in a manner which you agree is accurate?
In any event, here's what I predict an administrator would say about all this:
First, he or she will tell me that -- though it's understandable I was pissed off at you for making a complete mess of an article and then, when challenged, posting a list of nonsense justifications for what you'd done, but falling strangely silent when those justifications were answered -- I should have heeded the better angels of my nature and moderated my condemnation of your absurd waste of my time and your own time.
Second, he or she will counsel you to stop being a crybaby. You fucked up the article, wouldn't admit it, and almost a month later are still sulking because you were called out for it.
As to Making personal attacks and deliberately making up things you know nothing about to attack editors is a problem: What the fuck are you talking about? What can "making up things you know nothing about" even mean?'
And Some misunderstanding completely unrelated to your issue has no place being on the talk page: What the fuck are you talking about here, either?
As to massive COI and ownership... well, I'll deal with those laughable ideas on the article talk page.
Why are you being rude and spiteful? I'm trying to work with you - this is not your article to rule over and I'd much fancy being able to read the actual text with more than 13 characters smashed between two large images and other formatting and size issues. Why will you not discuss this civilly? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing ownership and stewardship -- see WP:OAS. As to "formatting and size issues" (and "13 characters") please post a description of them at the article Talk, in a way others can understand what you're talking about. I suspect you've got zoom set high and/or text size (if you're using IE) set to "Largest" or something. EEng (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, but your assumptions of what I am using is wrong. I'm not going to argue with you about this; it's why I've purposely avoided responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation. You are emotionally and academically invested in the page and it is only out of respect for actual experts on Wikipedia (we have too few) that I don't want any dramatics. I mean no offense and I hope you understand my position. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, whatever. "I'm not going to argue with you about this" -- you don't argue (or discuss) anything. What you do, as just seen, is complain vaguely ("formatting and size issues") but then never explain what you're talking about; you've been doing this for a month without making a single suggestion for anything to change. If telling yourself you're "avoiding responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation" makes you feel better, fine, but the the important thing is that you've decided to move on to wasting others' time instead of mine. Call it selfish if you want. You're practically the Wikipedia poster-boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect. EEng (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You made an improvement to the rendered page - it is not my preference, but it is better. So why would I need to reiterate or argue after its resolution? I see you have asked for clarification on my arguments - and normally I'd be happy to explain further, but you don't want to listen to me. You are an expert on Gage, while I dislike the significant conflict of interest generated by extensively using both you and your co-author's work, I respect your position. If I wanted to be a thorn in your side, trust me, I could, but we both have better things to do than indulge in dramatics. That is why I asked you stop the personal attacks, but I've realized by not responding in kind or getting upset gives more time to you to improve the content. So long as you seek to improve Wikipedia, even just this one page, I'll respect your stewardship. If you really want to make a fight, WP:COIN and a few other places would be a good proving ground to see if those "MOS Nazis" could explain in more detail why your page presents significant problems with its excessive and unnecessary usage of various templates. Your call. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the 100th time:
go to the article's talk page and post a concrete suggestion or description of a problem (e.g. specifically describe the "excessive and unnecessary usage of various templates" you refer to above -- I genuinely would like to know about any potential problems);
or go somewhere to complain about my COI, or my attacks, or whatever;
or just go away.
But do not keep saying here that you've identified problems with the article but aren't going to explain them. It's ridiculous. EEng (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
December 2013
This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Phineas Gage, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This is unacceptablePer WP:WIAPA: "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page." You have been warned three times before about this. This is your final warning about it.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article improvement tags are properly removed when they don't apply in the first place, and I note that, with essentially no changes to the article, they have been repeatedly removed by other editors. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gage info
I've been digging around in the archives for a few hours. I've found so many copies and different stories that are not coming up in Macmillan 2000. It's messing with me. Maybe its new information, maybe its junk, but I've found several different dates and details for Gage's history and that of the immediate area... most puzzling is the sideshow matter. Which I think something is off on... and I think you know what I am talking about. Care to fill me in now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I've never thought that you were anything but well-meaning, if terribly, terribly misguided. However, several times I've decided that trying to get you to understand how completely mixed up your ideas are was a hopeless cause. But each time I somehow decided again that maybe you could be saved. Just a minute ago I was about to hit <save> on the most scathing, sarcastic, humiliating denigration of you imaginable, and here comes this post from you. It's a sign, I guess.
I think I may regret this, but nonetheless I'm going to do it... Do you have Skype? If so I'll email you a Skype ID you can call me on. (Or email me yours.) I think things may go better if we talk like actual people, instead of character names in the Wikipedia Multiplayer Roleplaying Game. EEng (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized ... I need to Skype to you because if you Skype to me you'll wake someone else up (long story). So send me either your Skype id or a phone #. What's the worst that can happen? EEng (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Skype. Sorry. Well, this makes all my searching pretty much useless. I did find minor mentions on things all over the place, even tracking down details on the latter Phineas Gage and his life in a somewhat successful attempt to cover the business matter. Nothing concrete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's late anyway, so perhaps another time. I'm confused ... what does the link have to do with your searching? And what "later Phineas Gage" (there are lots of people named Phineas Gage, believe it or not -- some alive today)? What "business matter"? EEng (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The paternal grandfather, Phineas Gage. Found a mention about when he operated the mill and our Phineas Gage would have been about 5 then. Also found his address and some other tidbits. I'm assuming that you know all this though. I couldn't find any mention of it in Macmillan 2000 and I spent some hours searching the Barnum details and ended up finding some minor things before finding what you already know. Or what I assume you already know. I found over two dozen newspaper reports that variously spell his name and give differing details. Perhaps on Thursday we can talk - I am still horrendously sick and I sound terrible with a bug I caught. If I knew where to look, I could make a more productive scan at the libraries, but I don't know if my efforts are needed at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I still a bit confused about why you're calling the paternal grandfather "the later Phineas Gage", but anyway... We have over 10,000 documents somehow related to Gage or his family or people around him or doctors / schoolteachers / ministers in places he might have been, or ... -- mostly dead ends. I used to have it all in my head but lately been concentrating on the South America aspects so my memory is a bit fuzzy on the older research.
Anyway, as I recall Grampa Phineas ran a mill -- there was a court case re a dispute over a mill pond or something. I even have his will. So whatever you're looking at could be stuff I already have, or not. Every little bit helps.
You mentioned "archives" / "library" -- Which? Where? I assume you're using an electronic database of some kind -- which one? I hope you're feeling better. EEng (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "latter" but yeah, bad choice of words. 10k documents. Well that reduces me to probably 0 unique documents. The chroniclingamerica.loc.gov is where I found some odd mentions. One of interest.[44] I found some interesting sketches in a few places that come from the exhibition of the skull, looks like they didn't bookmark right, but I assume you found them. Was interesting because it compared the woodcut to skull side by side. I live west of you, not by much, but I do happen to be in area that was well connected and a bit preserve happy and had a booming trade at the time. It is likely that documents survived and are accessible, my own library while small has a complete set of some rare books including several from the 17th century just lying around. If I know what exactly I'd be looking for, it'd probably help turn up something. If I waited a month to get Macmillan's book, obviously I'm not afraid of a little legwork. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, its the way in which that article is written stands out to me. It takes very faithfully from Harlow, but the date of death is listed as May 18, 1861 which is rather bizarre. Do you happen to have a copy of that Boston Med Journal from April 1869 or that pamphlet? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Googled it, "The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, Volume 80" page 116 and 117 carries this. Now, I'm not great on interpreting this. Perhaps you can enlightening me, as this seems to be an additional statement from Harlow after the 1868 publication. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you've figured out the piece you linked is a reprint of a piece from the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, which however is not (as you say) any later statement from Harlow, but just a review of Harlow (1868) (listed, BTW, here [45]). As often happens the reviewer was in a hurry -- Harlow 1868 says that on May 18 Gage "went home to his mother" and died May 21, but the review gives May 18 as the date of death instead. Stuff like that happens all the time.
I must thank you for one of the best (and funniest) scenarios of Wikipedia editing I've read. I'm going to be chuckling all day. The cleanup you're doing on MoS is making it actually useful, and I thank you for that as well. I should probably appreciate that more, but it doesn't make me giggle with joy. htom (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well ;P to you too, buster! But isn't yr Okt-fest example still ambiguous? Might the reader not mistakenly conclude that it lasts 1 yr + a few days? Assuming we're past that, what do you think about "Holy Week 2014 begins April 13 and ends April 19" -- conserves column width! EEng (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. The example looks good, although I'm not sure what "Holy Week" is or if it would ever be called "Holy Week 2014". I intentionally chose an example in the past (so it needn't change tense in due course) and that spans two months, otherwise someone might get the idea of re-writing it as "from 13 to 19 April" or something. What about "In 2013, Ramadan started 10 July and ended 7 August"? —sroc💬09:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When faced with a term or phrase (such as Holy Week) with which I'm unfamiliar, I often think to myself, "If only there were some way to answer such questions using calculating machines... A world-wide information storage and retrieval system of some kind... Perhaps computers linked using a kind of telegraphic communication system... with a typewriter-like way entering queries... and some kind of display device by which the machine would present answers...."
Well, last night I decided to stop dreaming and start doing. Click here for a demonstration. Crude, I know, but it illustrates the general idea. I don't think there's any money in it, though. Too bad.
You're right that crossing months is better, and in the spirit of inclusionism (if that's a word) perhaps we should go with Ramadan. More comments there. EEng (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will make sense to you. You asserted, with palpable condescension, that immigrated from and emigrated to are blunders [47]:
There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject. One "immigrates to" and "emigrates from" Consult any grammarian source if in doubt.
Though no possible level of appropriateness to debate on doesn't recommend you as a wordsmith, I would never deny my own fallibility. Thus I double-checked and... guess what? Your prissy 7th-grade English teacher Mrs. Snodgrass was wrong, and my warm and wonderful 8th-grade teacher Mr. Dunkum was right (hi, Mr. Dunkum, wherever you are!): one may emigrate from or emigrate to or (if one prefers) immigrate from, or to, as well.
You've been offered three compelling arguments for why this cannot be but so:
Argument logical [48]: Under your theory this sentence is verboten--
He emigrated from England to America.
because (you say) one can't emigrate to somewhere. And the following is also a no-no--
He immigrated to America from England.
because (according to you) one can't immigrate from somewhere. So, presumably, you would have this--
He emigrated from England and immigrated to America.
inflicted on the reader, and that's ridiculous. QED.[1]
Argument empirical general [49]: As seen here [50] examples of emigrated to are thick on the ground in the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Courts of sundry states of said United States, and the esteemed and honorable Courts Supreme (or other highest courts) of numerous other jurisdictions and sovereignties. High court justices are usually considered exemplary expositors.
And as if that's not enough, no less luminous a legal legend than the great Epaphroditus Peck quoted the digest of a Massachusetts court's opinion thus:[2]
Refusal by an English woman, whose husband had emigrated to the United States and had obtained employment here, to follow him to this country when he reqeuested her to come and sent her money for her passage, was held to be desertion by her, it being found that she had no other reason for her refusal that reluctance to leave her native land. Franklin v. Franklin, 190 Mass. 349; 4 L.R.A. (N.S) 145. See the note to [etc etc and so on and so forth...]
Now, you're not really planning to climb into the ring with Epaphroditus Peck, are you?
Argument empirical specifical[3][51]: Emmanuel College's tablet "In Memory of John Harvard A.M." describes the man as "A member of Emmanuel College who emigrated to Massachusetts Bay...", and later describes itself as "erected by Harvard men ... in the College which fostered his beneficent spirit." Since as is well known Harvard men think they're always right, and Emmanuel men pretty much are always right, this wording (passed by both) must surely be considered dispositive.
The true difference between imm- and em- is a subtle one of emphasis and narrative point of view. These --
John lost his best friend when Bill emigrated to America.
Many of these new immigrants to America had left good friends behind.
Those emigrating from France found it relatively easy to obtain exit papers; those from Germany, less so.
American authorities scrutinized those immigrating from France less carefully than those from Germany.
-- are all fine and all subtly different, and would be irreparably crippled if twisted to fit your Procrustean bed of linguistic over-prescription.
Not everyone shares your high opinion, Mr. Jonesey (assuming you weren't being facetious). Aside from ol' CG (abovebelow) we have this effusive praise: "so snobbish and pigheaded that I could only make it through three sentences until I couldn't force myself to continue." [52] Noting, however, that it was this critic himself who wrote the bulk of my post's opening (i.e. "There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject... Consult any grammarian source if in doubt") I must complement the gentleman on his candid self-evaluation. EEng (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could not have been farther (further?) from Facetious, wherever that may be. Mesmerized was more like it. Gobsmacked. Enthralled. I smile enigmatically at you, and my eyes follow you about your chambers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My attorney will need your address for the restraining order. It would be best if you cooperate. EEng (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Many people leaving Facetious find themselves in Synecdoche (and of course when I say Synecdoche I really mean the greater Synecdoche area).[reply]
Personal attack? You decide! [Section heading not supplied by ChrisGualtieri]
Did you really... and I mean that... need to spend all that time making such a post? Its your time, but I think some of this is a bit ironic. Glad to see you are still floating about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, it took about one Masterpiece Theatre episode. (This current post cost about 1/2 a Modern Family.) You like to mass-update article classes, I like to warn off stubbornly misinformed know-it-alls.
WARNING! Text inside constitutes, according to one editor, a personal attack!
Chief among our differences, CG, is that you seem to think that beautiful portraits (or fine Wikipedia articles) are created by dutifully coloring between lines set out for us by our betters, instead of considering what will please the eye or nourish the intellect. Perhaps you would have asked da Vinci, "Did you really need to spend all that time making such a picture?"?
I'd watch those personal attacks and bearing false witness because I don't tolerate such abuse sitting down. Your comment shows your ignorance and folly - but if you take such pride in burning bridges, far be it from me to tell you that you've burnt the last with I. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Far be it from me to tell you what I just told you.
Second on the list of differences between us is that you think everything's a personal attack. You certainly don't take anything lying down -- you get right in there and issue stern warnings! [53][54] Some of them are even "last" warnings! [55] And "bearing false witness" -- what... gonna report me for violating WP:TENCOMMANDMENTS?
Re "Far be it from me to tell you that you've burnt the last [bridge] with I"... Is that meant to be some kind of brain teaser? It's like a kid saying, "I'm not gonna tell you that mom has milk and cookies in the kitchen."
Followup: you were very modest, startswithj, about your humor-detecting talents. But take heart, there's someone even more humor-impaired than you apparently imagine yourself to be, as seen in the next section. So feel yourself lucky -- as the old proverb says, "I cried because I had no WiFi, until I met a man who had no laptop."EEng (talk)
Note: The author of the below subsequently removed it. However, I'm electing to repost it here as a permanent reminder to myself of how serious can be the sufferings of those afflicted by profound humor impairment. The assertion that my phrase "terrorist threats against local bridges" -- just above, next to another editor's joking "exploding gift" gif -- actually "insinuates" that the text to which it links is a "terrorist schtick" (odd image, that -- better check your dictionary, CG) suggests a poor prognosis.
Warning
Misappropriation and changing the context of any editors text is specifically not allowed. Do not do this EEng. You've lied and put words in my mouth and you are being abusive. Next time, I will take it to arbcom do not dare put any insinuation with terrorism to my comments. You understand?! You've insulted my work and you've lied all it one post, but then you alter my text and flow and chalk it up to some terrorist schtick. I think you owe me an apology. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. CG, I'd appreciate your telling me where I altered your "text and flow" or "lied and put words in [your] mouth". (Since there was no section heading I made it "Personal attack? You decide!" -- and I've now clarified that it's not your heading, if that's what's bothering you.)
Later (10:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)): The patient exhibits a continued preoccupation with removing my post, above, quoting his earlier "warning".[56][57][58] Of course it's best for his recovery that he face the consequences of his actions, rather than run from them.
Stop refactoring and reinserting my deleted text, you are violating the talk page guidelines. I am well within my right to remove my own comments and not have them altered, refactored or reinserted by you to mock. You are being hypocritical because you continue to refactor my text and you scream about "not fucking with my posts". Now calm down - you are only adding fuel to the fire. You've continually altered text and you edit war over nothing. You don't see me constantly bringing up your comment that almost got you indeffed for personal attacks; treat others as you want to be treated and you'll find your interactions on Wikipedia to be more pleasant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those who may be wondering, we're talking about the text removed here [59], which can be seen in context here [60].'
Sorry, I missed this until now. Quoting a post of yours, giving full context, is not refactoring, whether you subsequently deleted it or not. (And in quoting it I noted that you had deleted it.) EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query
Hi EEng. Chris has raised with me the edit you made here. Would you stand by this edit and its like? I do share his concerns with the standard of your interactions. I'd prefer to sort it out with you directly, but if not I would need to go to a central noticeboard, so please consider your response carefully. --John (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by it fully. If you can explain what the hell he's talking about, including the silent shift, from the beginning of the thread to the end, in what's being demanded, please do so -- there. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. It seemed like too much trouble to merge all the adjacent empties (and doing so would create a lot of potential for rowspan mess-ups), so I drew the line where the entire "category" (Information) has empty comments. My motivation was to eliminate the unpleasant visual effect of all those parallel lines blocked together and that's the most important example of it. If you want to extend that to the rest, or revert my one merge, that's fine. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the visual cleanliness, but we should be consistent — both within the table and across tables generally. It actually works well (at least on my browser: Firefox 27.0.1 for Mac OS X) to omit the final cell in a row when it's not needed; it has the same visual appearance without the messy rowspan parameters that are prone to tripping editors up. I'll give that a go but feel free to revert if it doesn't look right. —sroc💬12:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I didn't do that is that IE 11 interprets the lack of the final, empty value as "on this row, that column isn't even there" and expresses that by omitting the right-hand, final vertical line for that cell. In other word, instead of
-------------------
| val | val | |
------+-----+------
| val | val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val | |
-------------------
you get
-------------
| val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val |
-------------
(Here I'm assuming your browser renders this ascii art the same as mine does.) To me that looks a bit odd but better than all those empty cells, but I fear you may get blowback. I suggest you leave it as you have it and brace for reaction.
So you see, we're friends after all. But don't think you've heard the last of me on that stupid year-comma thing. EEng (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see the ASCII art. (How'd you do that?) My browser shows as the first case, but I feared some other browsers would show as the second case (or something else weird). Let's see what happens. (grabs popcorn) —sroc💬14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the more than 50% of the characters in a block of text are hyphen, plus, or pipe, the browser detects ascii art and renders it that way.
More information
Ha ha! Just kidding! If you go back and look, each line begins with a blank. For some bizarre reason lost to history that triggers that stark monospace rendering.
Not sure if you realise that your edit at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers inserted your reply in the middle of Makyen's comment, which I believe is poor form: your reply should be below, after Makyen's signature, to avoid confusion about who wrote what. I suggest you move your reply.
Sorry to always be harping on the negatives instead of admiring all the good stuff you've been doing! I get the sense that you sometimes seem to be in a rush to post your changes and then having to repeatedly edit again and again to patch things up, and there's always the risk that someone will revert, edit, or start a conversation while you're still perfecting your work. Maybe it would be beneficial if you tinkered in the sandbox before posting your finished product for all to enjoy, which might make us all more inclined to praise your work rather than criticise works in progress. I digress. Keep up the good work! —sroc💬14:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 for 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you removed "the definite article", you added a negative byte count pointing to the unlucky number 13. And mentioned it in your edit summary. After a 133 byte edit. At 22:23. Such links are almost always unintended, since numerology is merely a special relationship between a number and some coinciding events.
Fair enough. Just thought if you'd been the type to believe in the hoo-ha, you'd have liked the heads up. I had to ask a Wikifriend to revert mine. It's an awkward request. If you run into any bad luck, hope for sevens. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:30, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Hey, what do you know? Seven minutes between my post and your reply, and an inverted 23 here. You'll be fine. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:32, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
It's fine, of course. I hope my snapping at you a while back didn't make you uneasy about dealing with me, but please consider the context. Over the last six months I've invested many hours reorganizing and massaging MOS (especially Dates & Numbers) to make it more usable and, to my amazement, have received almost no resistance. (Nor have I received much appreciation, but I can live with that.) Except in a very few places which I carefully call out, my intention is only to improve the presentation without changing the meaning. So when, in one tiny corner, I unintentionally did change the meaning, I was a bit miffed to have the C-word waved in my face as if I was trying to pull a fast one. [61] I recognized, even then, that you likely didn't mean it that way, but MOS is such an unpleasant place that I think we should all bend over backwards to keep the tone as pleasant as possible. EEng (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The removal of that "you can" appeared to make it mandatory, which was a bit sudden (and undesirable I think', without having talked through the implications). MOS is powerful, both for on- and off-wiki English. It purports to be a professional authority, and has that capacity (probably it is that already), so it's not surprising that there's tension on a wiki. Cheers. Tony(talk) 07:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree the change was inappropriate -- I just wish more consideration had been given to the fact that it was apparently unintentional.
If you really think that people are using WP MOS as a style guide outside of WP, I think we need a little disclaimer on it somewhere saying that, while anyone's free to use it of course, it has many details peculiar to the needs of WP and issues that arise there, and which may not be appropriate for general application elsewhere i.e. a camel is a horse designed by a committee. EEng (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea how that last statement really is.... better choice of words than I used as well. I'll need to remember that for next time MOS dramas erupt over the addition of the number of auxiliary parameters or data granularity without considering the more meta aspects. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Lizzie died of fright, but I, Kafka Jane, can give a close reading if you wish. Overall, I'd say it looks damn good. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the thread. Now, look! No one is to write on the dramaboard again until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say "Jehovah"! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I edited your comments. I know it's just your way and I didn't think you would mind some well-intentioned redaction, but you can revert if you feel strongly about it. Belle (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was almost instantly reverted and got my wrist slapped, so ignore that. (this is when I use "Sigh", right?. Sigh) Belle (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea how that made my day. While I highly doubt that the ANi report caused you any real-life stress, if it did, then I'm sorry for finding such levity in your troubles. To see a non-troll user make a genuine request at ANi that a user be sanctioned for blasphemy may well be the most hilarious thing I've seen in the several years I've spent here. Wow! Joefromrandb (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reg: One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treddle. ...
... Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope... etc etc Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn! Stretch!
Really and truly, I was asleep the whole time.
My mother's maternal grandmother had the silver tongue of the Irish and used to exclaim, in vexing situations, "Jesus Christ! Don't get your bowels in an uproar!" (among many other things). Actually, she preferred Jesus H. Christ, but my H key was sticking. Anyway, Amandajm's complaint obviously represents Anglican oppression of traditional Irish Catholic folkways.
Meanwhile here (scroll down to the image of the popeyed fish) I was accused of being a Presbyterian antisemite, so I guess I'm all things to all people. EEng (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a closed DYK from about nine months ago where I suggested an ALT and the nominator said something like "I totally and utterly reject your suggestion". I could have sworn I was arguing with William Ulsterman there and then. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Isn't it strange the way we build these mental pictures of each other, without ever having met or even seen each other. If I was Jimbo Wales setting up this madhouse again from scratch, I'd probably make mugshots a mandatory requirement. It really is much more difficult to be offensive when you can see a person's picture (... well unless you're someone like William Ulsterman, of course!). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't technically call you British, I said your language was in the style of stereotypical British banter. I've got a bag of nits, and I'm not afraid to pick 'em. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually ...
I don't know whether Drmies saw this last comment of yours before he closed the AN/I thread, but I'm going to call you on it. Whereas what you said at the DYK nomination could be taken - with considerable assumption of good faith and allowance for your forgetting you were dealing with a lady—or that there is always the option of withdrawing and letting someone else review the nomination—as an attempt to cool things down, that stuff about the OP is amateur psychology of the snidest kind. Do not do that. As my own devout mother says in moments of great stress, "Ye gods and little fishes." Yngvadottir (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did not really see that last sentence; I suppose I was distracted by this kangaroo stuff, and I still don't know what to make of that. But yes, Yngvadottir, you are quite right: I closed the complaint since I did not see it as actionable (though I am astounded at your word choice in that DYK discussion), but that doesn't mean that such low blows are acceptable. They are not, and it's not just amateur psychology, it's a plain old personal attack. The other day I had to warn someone who had told another editor to "go get therapy", and this is no different. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yngvadottir, you're mixed up. I wasn't reviewing the nomination. I twice suggested hooks I thought would do more justice to the subject and twice got long, startlingly defensive responses, as if I'd attacked the subject. Then I said, "Jesus Christ ... don't get your bowels in an uproar", and 100KB of ANI + 10 commenting editors later, here we are. Posting at ANI -- mistaken but no big deal. Continuing to insist that I set out to offend her Christianity, impugned her digestive processes, etc etc, in post after post at ANI, at her own talk page, at my talk page, and at several others' talk pages, is validation-seeking at the project's expense. EEng (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. Lest you think I bear a grudge: [64][reply]
I am afraid you are mistaken. Your last couple of sentences at AN/I constitute a personal attack. The thread is closed and I understand that you do not understand; but do not insult someone's motives in that manner again. It is beyond the pale, and that is that. I trust I make myself clear? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a threat Yngavadottir, is that what you intended? Or best case, like a prissy school mistress trying to assert authority she simply doesn't have? Perhaps you can clarify your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right, stop it you two! Yngavadottir, I know you mean well but I stand by everything I've said in this matter. TRM, remember (not that I always do) that it's usually better to consider your goal to convincing third parties rather than the discussant. Whether or not you've convinced Yngavadottir, others have likely made up their minds and further rounds of posts aren't likely to change them (not that anyone's watching this page anyway!). EEng (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a personal attack. TRM's facetiously scrambled logic and sexist remarks don't change that fact. EEng, this is about that last sentence, about "victimhood" (not about that DYK nom, though I think your tone there lacked collegiality); you should know that this was not OK and you can see Yngvadottir's comments and mine as a warning, non-templated and given with the best of intentions (to prevent further such remarks). Best, Drmies (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I appreciate your well-meant advice, but I stand by everything I've said in this matter and fear no scrutiny. EEng (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to say anything here, but I thought that I should point out the post about ANI at the bottom of User:EEng, that perhaps should be moved here to the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gage had nothing to do with lobotomy. Crikey, Tfish, if there's one thing you should have learned from all that, it's this one fact! Let us speak no more of the matter. But you are always welcome here. Sorry I didn't assign you a bag earlier but you were so far back in the diffs list that I missed you. EEng (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have all, in your own way, lost sight of what really matters, not essential as Wikipedians perhaps, but as human beings: true respect for other people.
Here you are, guffawing, back-slapping, and verbally strutting, because you have apparently overcome an elderly female editor over the matter of whether the family of a recently deceased Christian woman would/ought/might or have any right to be offended at having the name of Jesus used as a profanity.
Oh Wow! (add you own deity's name in place of the Wow!) How funny is that! How totally gloriously funny we have all been here! Pints all round, Boys!
User:AndyTheGrump and all, let me point out to you, again, that while Wikipedia is not a theocracy, abusing religious leaders (by blasphemy, by profanity, by unpopular representation) on the internet, in cartoons, in movie previews and in novels can lead to calls for beheading, can lead to riots, to burning of embassies and the assassination of ambassadors.
You think it is uncalled for to the point of being hilarious that someone has complained about a profanity it the name of Jesus. OK, all you smart-arses! Which one of you is about to go over to the page of some recently-deceased Islamic leader and use the name of the prophet of Islam as a profanity?
Fear breeds caution. You don't have anything to fear from Christians, so any Christian, Christian belief or Christian sensibility is a soft target.
Basically you are a club full of gutless, self-congratulatory jerks without an ounce of common-sense, common decency or human kindness in the whole bloody lot of you! You have all been so terribly terribly clever, and so terrible terribly funny, at the possible expense of a bunch of people that none of you know, but who have recently lost a member of their family and community.
At what point does real life and ordinary accountability become an issue in the Wikipedia ANI Club?
"abusing religious leaders (by blasphemy, by profanity, by unpopular representation) on the internet, in cartoons, in movie previews and in novels can lead to calls for beheading, can lead to riots, to burning of embassies and the assassination of ambassadors". Indeed it can. Do you think that such extreme reaction is (a) a good thing, or (b) a bad thing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:AndyTheGrump, you still don't get it? (shakes head forlornly) I have already apologised for implying that you are short on intellect. I don't see that I can withdraw that, but you do give me cause to wonder. Are you really completely incapable of understanding that if, through fear of reprisals, you are obliged to treat people of one faith with courtesy, then perhaps it might be nice, through respect rather than fear, if you were to treat members of all faiths with similar courtesy? Perhaps this is too complex or too wordy for you. If it worries you, let me know and I will try again. Amandajm (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I treat people with courtesy on merit - and not on the basis that they have refrained from resorting to intimidation. And for the record, I have done nothing whatsoever discourteous to any faith in this matter - instead, I pointed out that Wikipedia does not exist in an environment where such intimidation is acceptable, and that accordingly, such intimidation was an irrelevance. And as for your comments about my intellect, I don't care the slightest what you think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only have I seen a request for editor-sanctions for blaspheming, I am also apparently in a "club" with BWilkins. Talk about firsts! Maybe tomorrow someone will accuse me of being TParis' sockpuppet. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amandajm: I really, really did not mean to offend you, though I did want to get your attention. Please believe that.
Everyone else: Whatever the explanation, and however reasonable or unreasonable, I do believe that this episode is causing Amandajm great distress, and only some compelling consideration (though I can't think what that would be) could justify prolonging that. I need no further defense. So please, just let this be.
Too bad that's not in the rule you cited, nor in any other rule AFAIK. Is this one of those DYK "unwritten rules" we're supposed to absorb by telepathy, or osmosis? EEng (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers - avoiding breaks
Thanks for pitching in at the MOS. I can see what you're getting at in terms of the examples being rendered to the reader. Nevertheless, it is a source of confusion for any editor who looks at the wikitext and sees bad examples. It's not such a big deal that I would argue with you over the issue, but if all you want to do is avoid bad breaks in the presentation, then I'd strongly recommend the use of {{nowrap}} in this case, because that won't confuse editors about when to put non-breaking spaces between numerals and their units. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, if you check the edit history for the past 6 months you'll see I'm the primary architect of much of the format in which most of that page is presented. I say that not to assert ownership, rather as a shorthand way to drive home that I'm very, very well stepped -- too well, as my battlescars attest -- in the ins and outs of MOS' "wheels within wheels", as I put it earlier.
The source text of MOS itself is unavoidably rated either R or NC-17, if you get my drift -- no children allowed. There's no way around that.
Anyway, it's not inconsistent to have additional nbsps beyond those prescribed -- one can always add them where there's a risk of a bad break. The examples MOS gives are often hard enough to grasp without a stray bit hanging over a line break.
And neither is it inconsistent to omit nbsp where the known width of a table column obviates it. Certainly impotent nbsps shouldn't be included just for consistency, when their only effect is to make these examples-within-plainlist-within-tables-with-colspan even more exasperating to maintain.
nobreak has certain advantages over nbsp -- for one thing, on at least some browsers nbsp locally defeats proportional spacing. However, where only two items are involved, an nbsp between them, to "bind" them, is visually and syntactically far easier to digest than a surrounding nobreak. IMO, of course.
And to give you some context, I've got the scars of struggling to make MOS useable dating back to WP:ARBDATE in 2009. That's not to make this a pissing contest, but so that you understand I'm not some n00b who has just wandered in with no idea of the way in which the MOS is constructed. You may have noticed my proposal at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Nbsp only before symbols? (Eg, not for before byte?), or perhaps not. In any case, my suggestion has been awaiting comment on the talk page for a while. This is a wiki that anyone can edit - or at least view the source code - and there's certainly no getting around that, so the R rating does nothing to stop any script-kiddie from seeing what's under the hood and cobbling together some inappropriate replacements in AWB for them to spam across 360 articles an hour. Trying to get the wiki-text in the examples to match best practice is my small contribution to obviating that sort of problem. I sympathise with you in trying to maintain the MOS, but I hope you can see that the maintainer is not going to be the only person looking at that wikitext. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing nbsp everywhere MOS doesn't specifically prescribe isn't best practice. Best practice is helping the layout look good and be easy on the reader's eyes. I don't think you're a noob but I do think you're preoccupied with a non-issue. This is very much like the guy who, a few months ago, wanted a rule that MOS should use British rather than American spellings of metric (or, if you insist, SI) units such as liter/litre -- rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. EEng (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per COMMONSENSE, you're just too funny. I've never seen anyone revert a dummy edit before -- much less twice! [68] The important thing is that through collaborative editing the article is incrementally improved relative to its state when the sun came up this morning. EEng (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm making this the founding entry in the Museum of Bizarre Reversions on my userpage.[reply]
And per any of the measures of most editing, you are patronising, boorish, and certainly nowhere near as good as you think you are. The article hasn't improved much, and some of your edits have been a step backwards: Milligan "later told someone"? that's just laughably poor. I hope not ever to be back here, so feel free to leave some "witty" (tedious and tiresome) comment to close it off. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of amusement here without my contributing anything. Your reversion of a dummy edit is worth the price of admission alone. EEng (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A visit from an editor both angry and clueless -- always a dangerous combination
You clearly love a joke judging by your user page, so take a look at these; Did you hear about the deluded and seriously unfunny editor who thought they improved a featured article by writing like a drunk three year old? These are bloody hilarious! [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], and this. Cassiantotalk19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by all of them, which with perhaps one or two exceptions are straightforward corrections -- for example, the insertion of a missing quote mark [77] and changing [78]
died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, 26 years to the day
to
died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, twenty-six years to the day
You've listed all my edits to this one article, even those obviously appropriate, which implies you're just one of these OWNy editors who can't stand fresh eyes. If you'll say why you think any of them inappropriate, I'll be happy to discuss. EEng (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like fresh eyes, but not the ones with shit in them. Your cliche OWN accusation is also more predictable than your "humour". Oh, and thread properly as it becomes more readable and easier to respond. Cassiantotalk 4:39 pm, Today (UTC−4)
LOL! "And please don't reformat my posts"? That's a nice use of a conjunction to start a sentence EEng. It's edits like that which makes your grammar all the more laughable! Cassiantotalk21:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be hinting that And at the start of a sentence is a blunder, which it's not. But people who take comfort in rigid rules often say it is. As for --
It's edits like that which makes
-- I'm sure you know better, so I'll take it as a measure of the extent to which you're just lashing out blindly. Still waiting for specific comment on any of my edits you complain about above. EEng (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a gesture of respect for the Grammar Nazis and their selfless and untrankful work I made a point of ending my sentence with a couple of prepositions for them to clean up at. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see -- you were giving them something to be angry at. The thing is, a grammar Nazi is someone who actually knows his grammar but applies it inflexibly and thoughtlessly; here we have someone who doesn't even know the grammar.
Did you hear about the boy who was tired of the same old bedtime stories about Australia? He said to his father, "Dad -- what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of about Down Under up for?" EEng (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You missed an apostrophe this time. And a hyphen. For someone who picks fights over grammar and usage, based on age-old grammatical rules that have split opinions, you're certainly having trouble. Still waiting for specific comments on my edits which you complain about in your opening post. EEng (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Die Gammar Nazis (FTW TM) rule at FAC. Got in Himmel. Damned right too. We can't afford to have these casual passers-by mess with our firmament. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get the joke? You are about as funny as a strong dose of syphilis. Gerda, I'm surprised you find this entertaining. This kind of negative exchange is what loses the project editors, losses which you so publicly mourn. Cassiantotalk09:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I probably missed something because I did't see "negative exchange". - Nazi - I just explained in a DYK nom that you better use that word to be "attractive": simply compare views for hooks mentioning "Nazi" and those that don't. - That is negative, but how would we change it? - I don't "mourn publicly", I factually made a note on top of my talk about a loss 3 years ago which prepared me well to take all later ones. I sing praises. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have now breached WP:3RR (you are at 4RR). The talk page thread is open and awaits your comments, rather than edit warring. If you revert again I will have no hesitation in reporting you in the right forum. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh! You won't hesitate!Oooh! I'm scared. Report away, but watch for the ol' boomerang. You're ridiculous. (For those who are wondering, SC's got his knickers in a twist over this [81] -- click back back earlier from there to for some world-class Angry Edit Summary contenders from SchroCat and his co-owner Cassianto -- more from the latter above in this very thread! EEng (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript, 22:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC): Since I ran into this while on another errand a moment ago, I thought I'd insert it here:
Uncle G to Schrodinger's cat is alive: "You demonstrate exactly the sort of non-collaborative non-effort-expending attitude on the part of an editor with an account that makes editing so bad for so many, and that people rightly ridicule in cases like this where myopic Wikipedians foolishly fight to un-write the encyclopaedia. Calling someone who in no article edit did anything but add verifiable content and cite sources intended to support it a "vandal" is almost merely icing on the cake of how unproductive, uncollaborative, and un-Wikipedian that attitude is. ... You're supposed to be a collaborative editor. Stop thinking that your purpose here is no more than to sit in an armchair, mark other people's work, and use the undo tool, without otherwise lifting a finger to help when an article needs fixing." posted on WP:AN#Editor Dr. Blofeld, 03:22 19 December 2012 (UTC)
A different editor responded in far more appropriate terms to Uncle G's rather sanctimonious wailings that failed to take into account anything based in policy, most importantly WP:BLP. Still, always nice to have an admin veer into incivility about one. Anyway, you want me to drag through your ANI performances? Life is too short to do so, but I wonder why you bothered to do it with mine... How pointless to drag up something from 18 months ago. As you probably didn't bother to look into it in much detail, I stand by my response given at the time. As per the above, move on, it only poorly reflects on you, not others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a peep. I can't understand it. Listen, I'm serious. If you think there's even half a chance of getting the hook DYK ... that Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators were abruptly withdrawn after the FDA clamped down on them? through the process successfully, then let's write the article.
In the meantime, do you have any acquaintance with this music-hall comedy duo, and if so, any recommendations on how to get their blood pressure down? See [82] et seq. -- they're like The Rambling Man but without the intelligence. EEng (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC) I just realized that I've run into one of them before [83] -- so angry it's impossible to tell what he's angry about.[reply]
Listen you two, you've now way exceeded my safe daily exposure level of Briticism. Either switch to American mode or quiet yourselves for 24 hr. EEng (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for butchering my DYK hook and then labelling the one I proposed as "highschool-ish". Your arrogance reeks – especially when you speak before you think, because the last time I checked, your usage of phrases like "after is was discovered" and "identical to the that of Haiti" is incorrect. Unfortunately, your latter error actually made it onto the main page – quite ironic for someone who has dedicated their entire WP existence to picking out DYK errors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are wondering, B is complaining about the change from
Ah yes, I see now (underlined above). It's a good example of (a) how hard it is to maintain vigilance against minor errors like that (stray articles and so on) in one's own writing; (b) that hooks once approved should probably sit around for a prescribed amount of time, to avoid last-minute errors. Luckily other editors caught these quickly. While every error is painful, I'd hardly call this a "butchering" -- more like a skip of the knife. EEng (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure which hook you thought had it spelt wrongly so I corrected them all:
... that, although buried in Tutankhamun's tomb, the Head of the Millionaire(pictured) does not appear in excavation records and was found only later, in a box of wine bottles?
Chapter The First: In Which An Editor Complains This His Spellcheck Software Can't Be At Fault
Extended content
I have reversed your 89 uses of the shy template at Jean Berko Gleason, and thought I should explain why. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia search treats all the part-words, each side of the shy template, as separate words, so they appear as a vast number of mis-spellings, Although useful for very long words, such as the example at Template:Shy, it should be used sparingly - the third word of a line, is highly unlikely to need splitting as a line-end word, whilst breaking words across two lines makes them much harder to read. It really doesn't matter if there is a short space at the end of a line, although very long spaces can be confusing as to whether the sentence has come to a premature, abrupt, end or not. - Arjayay (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've put them back. If what you're saying is true then very high-quality typesetting wouldn't break words over linebreaks, as it in fact does. The example at {{shy}} is designed to ensure that it will illustrate the template's function regardless of zoom level, window size, etc., not to limit the template's applicability.
I suggest you modify your spellcheck software to properly understand markup, instead of twisting the markup to accommodate broken software. (Even if the deep-down search machinery picks up "misspelled" word fragments, the higher-level interface could still filter those results to eliminate those mistakenly triggered by the presence of {{shy}}.) If you see shy used three words into a paragraph, by all means remove it. EEng (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the shy template doesn't want all this fuss. It would probably prefer if you could just carry on as if it wasn't there; it doesn't want to be a bother.Belle (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my spellcheck software that is the problem. As stated above, it is Wikipedia's search function that identifies each of the segments as a different word, so they appear in the Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings that WP:WikiGnomes like myself use to try and tidy up the encyclopedia. There is, therefore, nothing I can do about it - other than ask you to only use it where the benefit to the encyclopedia outweighs the problems it causes. - Arjayay (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't really care how "your" software works (and by "your software" I mean the software you're using). Somehow something identifies this article as potentially containing typos. Presumably something then looks in the article for the specific points with apparent misspellings. No matter how the process works upstream, at that point the software could certainly be able to understand that {{shy}} should be ignored and the word evaluated as a whole. If it doesn't know how to do that, push back on those who supplied that software until they fix it. In the meantime do something else; the typos can be corrected when fixed software is ready. Or, if you like, add a template to the article to make your software skip over it. But don't twist the article so you can clear some list. EEng (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain this again, as you are still missing the point:-
It is not "my" software, and it is not "the software I am using". It is Wikipedia's standard, inbuilt, search software, which every user uses, every time they do a search. No-one can "push it back on those who supplied the software" - it is the Wikimedia software which runs this entire project. I cannot "add a template to make my software skip over it" it is not "my software".
FYI I found the problem with this Beta search for rela a common misspelling of real. Yesterday there were 255 uses of Rela and today 256 - doing a "find" for 17 July identified Jean Berko Gleason as the article - because you had inserted Shy templates either side of rela in the word interrelation "inter{{shy}}rela{{shy}}tion". It appears, therefore that there is a conflict between the shy template and the standard search. - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain this again, as you are still missing the point. I am a software engineer with 35 years' experience and a degree in applied mathematics, computer science, and statistics, and I definitely understand what's going on here.
Your description of what you're doing is exactly what I said, above, you must be doing:
Some process identified articles with "likely misspellings". From your description it's completely lunkheaded process -- comparing today's search to yesterday's search -- but if that's what you want to do, that's your business.
Then somehow you looked at the "new" article in your list and saw that what the lunkheaded process identified was an OK word with a legal piece of markup embedded in it i.e. { shy}}. Therefore there's really no misspelling.
So I'm not sure what your complaint is. As you mentioned there are 255 other articles containing instances of the string rela. Are you bugging editors of those articles to remove them too? Do you not have a way, once you've identified a false positive, to accumulate that information somehow so the false positive won't pop up again? If not that's ridiculous.
File a bug report if you like, at Mediawiki (mw:How to report a bug), asking that searches ignore { shy}}, because obviously that's the way the search ought to work. But I'm tired of people running around with mindless "cleanup" scripts that make naïve assumptions complaining that everything should conform to those assumptions so their mindless scripts don't have to be fixed.
From the department of "where have I heard a complaint like this before?", I have to say that, despite the template's shyness over all this attention, well, I've heard a complaint like this before. And, in my non-infinite experience, it's always been about use of the template by EEng, so it doesn't appear to be a situation where numerous editors are running into these complaints. Please understand, I'm not saying EEng is wrong. I'm just saying that this seems to come up repeatedly. EEng, could you please point me to where (perhaps at MOS) any existing consensus was established? And I'm wondering whether it would be helpful to have some further community discussion about how the community feels about use of the shy template. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge my glittering salon of (talk page stalker)s, of which Tfish is one of the select first among equals. Now then...
I openly admin that ragged right margins are something of a pet peeve of mine, and for me hunting them down and killing them is sort of a pastime, one which dovetails well with my perfectionist writing habits -- like my hero Logan Pearsall Smith I'm very happy tinkering with sentences over and over. Usually it starts with a word like antidisestablishmentarianism and then maybe semirepresentational and before I know I'm thinking, "Well, but it'd be easy to just run through and enable hyphenation of all the -tion suffixes." I start by only doing it for words of 12 letters or more, then I figure 11 letters is reasonable, then ... I admit it gets a little overdone.
But here's the thing -- I've run into objections like those above before, but never from anyone who actually showed interest in editing the article, other than on this specific point. Here let me let another another prominent editor speak for me:
The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on.
So, when the day comes that an editor who actually cares about the article in question tells me that he or she finds the { shy}} templates are excessive, in the way, etc., then I'll be happy to talk about. They may even be right! But for now this seems to be the same combination of IDONTLIKEIT with MYONLYTOOLISAHAMMERSOISEETHEWORLDASACOLLECTIONOFNAILS I've seen before.
Chapter The Second: In Which Another Editor Arrives To Insist He Knows How A Certain Template Works
Extended content
EEng does not understand how the template is to be used, in both function and operation. A vast amount of time was wasted because EEng simply does not understand the issue or what other editors indicated despite lengthy explanations. EEng, I removed more than 400 SHY templates from Phineas Gage and you've gone and re-inserted them despite a clear consensus against it. This is disruptive editing and you are being abusive in tone, manner and the very nature upon which you refuse to even acknowledge @Arjayay: or other users UNLESS they meet your standard of "caring about the article in question". If you are incapable or unwilling of collaborating on even the most basic level, then you are not fit for Wikipedia. I think a RFC/U or ANI is in order because this pattern of behavior is grating and benefits nothing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you EEng for reacting so kindly to my comment. ChrisG, if nothing else, your comment points out that EEng's "salon" of talk page watchers includes multiple editors who are concerned about the issue – but Chris, I need to remind you that I tried to have a mediation to solve those concerns, and you (along with everyone else involved) demonstrated a serious unwillingness to pursue dispute resolution, so your newfound interest in RfC/U or ANI leaves me with another case of what I described above as something I've heard before. Been there, done that, not interested any more. I have no interest at this time in seeing anyone brought up for sanctions.
Now, EEng, the one thing I don't find in your reply to me is an actual answer to the question that I asked! I asked for a link to some sort of discussion, perhaps at MOS, establishing a consensus of when to use shy and when not to. But I do appreciate your comments about it being a personal "pet peeve" of yours. If you'd like to give me a link, great, and if not, I'll conclude that your "pet peeve" is the explanation here.
As I said before, I'm really pretty neutral as to what the correct use of shy really is. What I do care about is what I see as a pattern of editors like Chris and Arjayay who have concerns, and these concerns leading to bad feelings all around, and no good resolution of those bad feelings. As I see it, editors who have put in time really working on page content often have insights about what is right for a page, and their opinions should be taken seriously. But right-justification of paragraphs and uniform spacing between words do not strike me as having anything at all to do with page content. It's just formatting, and editors whose main interests are what are sometimes called "Wiki-gnoming" are entitled to be treated with respect, too, when they raise formatting issues.
Early in this thread, Arjayay mentioned using shy only in very long words, and now, EEng also brings up the point about starting to use it in 12-letter words, then using it in shorter words. So here's what I'm thinking about: If we don't have it already somewhere in the bowels of MOS, I'd like to have a guideline added within MOS saying something like "using the shy template in words longer than fill in the blank is fine, but using it in words shorter than that is discouraged". I couldn't care less what fills in that blank, but I want it to reflect the consensus of a representative section of the editing community. Then, EEng can feel confident using the template according to that consensus. If, hypothetically, EEng's "pet peeve" gets the worst of him and he edits contrary to that guideline, he should not object when anyone else corrects him. (And I trust that situation would not come up, in the first place.) And if someone, instead, questions EEng's guideline-compliant use of shy, all EEng has to do is point to the consensus, and the argument ends there. I don't want WP:CREEP, but it seems clear here that a bright line will lead to peaceful editing instead of the disputes that I'm seeing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My late father once created a cartoon in which a man and a woman are on a ship, and the woman is getting sick over the rail. The man speaks. The caption: "Sic transit, Gloria?". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sick transit
Sic transit gloria transitus (Headline, New York Times, March 24, 1937, p.27): "MUSIC AT GRAND CENTRAL. Organ Will Be Played Four Hours Daily This Week" – Those were the days! EEng (talk)
EEng's use of the Shy template only works if you are running Wikipedia on a palm pilot with less line width than the actual word! Not ONE of EEng's "Shy Template" inclusions are needed or are ever going to work! The fact that articles like Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious seems self-evident. Contrary to this, EEng edit wars to include two shy templates in "comprehensive", that is outright disruptive. See: Phineas Gage for more. EEng continues to either not understand the templates purpose or is deliberately using arcane formatting to further lock down articles from editors. Until EEng can show conclusive proof that a Shy template is needed, he should not be allowed to use them. Lastly, Wikipedia's broken intervention system (mediation) doesn't work if EEng will not be a part of it - and Tryptofish's intervention as met with WP:IDHT and later a complete refusal to discuss and advance the conversation by EEng. ANI or RFC/U will put an end to the shenanigans. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Chris, I've been trying to understand for a long time why my use of shy is so wrong, and I think now I understand. "EEng's use of the Shy template only works if you are running Wikipedia on a palm pilot with less line width than the actual word! Not ONE of EEng's 'Shy Template' inclusions are needed or are ever going to work!" So shy only operates if the word in which it's used is too big to fit in one line of the browser window. If the word is shorter than that then shy won't do anything. Have I got it right? EEng (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Though I should also note that most modern browsers do automatically use hyphenated break (same as shy) that comes from a dictionary definition. This obviously will not work for Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious on really small screens. The template's importance is not typically for words, but inserting the {{shy}} into the word will allow a browser which cannot display the unbroken length to do so without extending it off the page. Cases of this are extremely rare by that nature, but they do exist. Note how it works in Template:Shy with wockawocka(repeat). The shy usage is telling the computer that it is okay to make a soft hyphen if it needs it, but it will not unless it really needs it. Try zooming in and zooming out on the text, you can go down to a single "wocka" at high zoom to zero breaks when you zoom far out. Its why all the previous usages didn't work. In certain, also rare, circumstances shy templates are useful in tight spaces with long words in short caption boxes. Though I'm hard pressed to find a word as long as Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in an image caption box... but it probably would require a shy template for 800x600 screens or whatever is the minimum screen size we are supporting for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see the situation clearly now. We might (and I say might) use shy in Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious because, at least conceivably, that might exceed the line width in a browser window; but we shouldn't use shy in comprehensive or overstates because it's extremely unlikely that a browser window would be so narrow. Right? EEng (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Glad to see we aren't talking past one another! Was frustrated by this issue's continuance. Here's a reason why you might need the template for smaller words. Many small image captions, say 200x200 pixels have understandably small caption spaces. For longer words (such as medical, mechanical or other technical terms) will, despite being afforded its own line, extend into the body of the text and overlap it. I recall only one case of this, but the shy template broke it up as per the "wockawockawocka" example. So it serves a purpose, but it is niche. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Markup:{{external media |topic=Box 2 |width=15em |video1= [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg6vc66foXE Andrews shows her effervescence and bubbliness"] }}
To my pleasant surprise, you two actually seem to be making progress. Seriously, EEng, if you can agree to a much more limited use of the template, along exactly these lines, you can save everyone, and particularly yourself, a lot of turmoil. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let us hope. But first, Tfish, I was hoping you might opine on whether CG's explanation of how shy works (I've bolded the key text above) is accurate i.e. that shy operates only when a word -- in its entirety -- is too long to fit in the available line width. I'm puzzled, you see, because if his understanding is correct, then how do we explain what happens when a shy is added to Box 2, as seen in Box 3? Under CG's theory, that shy can't do anything. What do you think?
Markup:{{external media |topic=Box 3 |width=15em |video1= [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg6vc66foXE Andrews shows her effer{{shy}}vescence and bubbliness"] }}
These kinds of discussions are complicated by the variety of browswers. I'd forgotten that some don't implement hyphenation, or that user preferences can turn it off. Therefore, depending on those variables, either
Box 3 (which uses an actual shy, as shown in the markup) looks like Box 2 (which has no shy -- i.e. in this case your browser just isn't doing hyphenation); or
Box 3 looks like 3A (in which I forcibly tore the word apart and inserted a hard hyphen)
If I'm understanding correctly, CG was able (see below) to see one situation on one of his browsers, and one on another.
Chapter The Third: In Which That Same Editor Realizes He Was Wrong All These Many Months, And Blames Some Unspecified Documentation He Read Somewhere Or Other
I tested this on two browsers. Both running 1024x768 and one different systems (one XP one Windows 7), but the XP machine running Internet Explorer 8 used the "Shy" in the third example and my machine running Firefox did not. It seems that if you actually see a break, your browser may have different defining rules and its not just greater length than space in all cases. With that being said... I can live with a shy break in this circumstance. Just not sure how each browser decides what rules govern the usage of shy - but even under the same machine it seems that body text even on a small screen utilized the shy template. So much for the documentation template being clear cut! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized you altered my text again, that's shameful and violates the talk page guidelines. Seems you are intent on being disruptive - just as I informed you of the Shy template in the prior conversation, you really have selective "reading" and decide to grossly alter text as you wish. I had to pull out a machine from 15+ years ago to find an exception that is contrary to the documentation that I read from. Seems you desperately seek to make conflict or stroke your own ego because I went to try and support (with difficulty) your assumption in a manner of resolving past differences, but I guess the whole "fool me once" line is applicable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I was optimistic. Today, I'm disappointed. I agree with Chris that it was unhelpful for EEng to alter Chris' comments, and I'm pretty sure that's what Chris is talking about. Yesterday, when I saw the two boxes about "external video", what I thought was the following: yes, that makes good sense, because in the first box, it's helpful to hyphenate that very long word, whereas in the second box (and the third), there is nothing that really requires hyphenation. Today, I realize that EEng intended, instead, for me and others to look at the second box and think: oh, that needs hyphenating too, because the right margins look so ragged. But the problem is, what I actually thought yesterday, and continue to think today, is that the slight (in my opinion) raggedness of the right margins in the second box is so minor and trivial that I do not notice it, and do not care about it – and I see no reason to employ a template to solve such a non-existent problem. Indeed, on my reasonably large computer monitor, the second and third boxes display identically; the shy in box three does not change the display for me. So, EEng, that's my answer to your question to me. I agree with Chris, and I disagree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First: In terms of my "altering" Chris' comment, are you referring this [88]? Oh, please. Here's what the guideline he linked says
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by EEng (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)]".[reply]
What I did is well within both the letter and spirit. If CG didn't like my putting some of his and my text in bold, he could just calmly say so, and I'd have found another, more awkward way to draw attention to what I wanted to draw attention to what that I was wanting to draw attention. To. We don't always need an indignant lecture. This kind of self-righteous overreaction is what runs all interactions with him off the rails sooner or later.
Second: Please read the "added later" comment I inserted above (next to Box 3A).
Third: No, I did not intend for you to look at Box 2 and say, "oh, that needs hyphenating too". What I wanted you to say was, "Yes, I see that hyphenation can work on words shorter than the line width." Unfortunately, because (as mentioned at Box 3A) it looks like you, Tfish, aren't seeing that because of your browser. But do you believe that some of us do see
All along, I have seen the (soft) hyphen in Box 1, so whatever my browser is doing, it is allowing me to see it there. I still do not see the soft hyphen in Box 3, but of course I do see the hard hyphen in 3A. By the way, it occurs to me that the effects of hyphenation are exaggerated in 15 em boxes, as opposed to normal Wikimedia main text paragraphs. There is no need to "oh please" me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this section is "How shy really works", and I fear we're moving on to "when to use shy" before that more fundamental question has been nailed down. [Hold a second for more... my breakfast is here.] EEng (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC) More later if needed -- looks like this may be getting resolved below. EEng (talk)[reply]
I have a question that I'd like to ask. I would obviously welcome hearing EEng's reply about it, but I'm also directing this question to Arjayay and ChrisGualtieri. Let's say, hypothetically, that future discussion (broader than what can occur here in user talk) leads to a new guideline about shy within MOS. It might say something like: if a word is greater than or equal to N letters long, the shy template is appropriate to use within the word, but if the word is fewer than N letters long, use of the shy template is discouraged. What would you consider to be an appropriate value for N? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind my retitling this section, to correspond to the section prior. Please, if you don't like that just say so and we'll work something out -- we won't need a diatribe on how shameful y behavior has been. Now then... Could we please suspend this just for a bit longer? There's a critical predicate issue (above) which has yet to be resolved. Jut for bit. EEng (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My intended header for this subsection remains: "A question". EEng has, in effect, answered what I asked. I still would like to hear from Arjayay and ChrisGualtieri what they think about it, as I asked the question. How would the two of you define N, even though we all stipulate to the fact that EEng would see it differently? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So wait... are we agreeing now that these statements:
"Shy template only works if you are running Wikipedia on a palm pilot with less line width than the actual word! Not ONE of EEng's "Shy Template" inclusions are needed or are ever going to work!"
"shy only operates if the word in which it's used is too big to fit in one line of the browser window. If the word is shorter than that then shy won't do anything"
I haven't actually agreed to anything, and I'm not asking the other two editors to do that either. Please understand: determining that two editors would assign such-and-such a numerical value to N, changes nothing about Wikipedia consensus. I'm just taking the temperature here of what some editors think. I eventually expect to start an RfC that might establish a community consensus for N, but I'm not there yet. I'm still listening to what you (EEng) are saying.
For whatever one fish's opinion is worth, I'm inclined to regard both of those bulleted statements as incorrect. I tend to think that shy works, with some browser-to-browser and device-to-device variation, when the soft hyphen falls near the right margin, regardless of word length. I do not believe that your uses of shy are "never" capable of working. I do believe that you could be using it a lot less generously. I think that if the community eventually decides how generously is enough, then that will cut down on the kinds of disputes that you keep getting into. And my personal interest here has nothing to do with hyphens, but is instead about decreasing disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the question that I asked in the subsection above, and there has been plenty of time for the other two editors, both of whom have been actively making edits in the meantime, to have responded. (If I'm wrong about that, please don't hesitate to respond and tell me so.) My thanks to EEng for having put up with my comments during this discussion. I don't know, of course, why there weren't further responses. Maybe it's simply difficult to put an exact number on what I called N, and that's OK. But if it's difficult for editors who are interested enough to have come to EEng's talk and raise the issue, then I doubt that it will be practical for me to start a larger RfC and hope to get any sort of consensus, so I'm no longer planning to spend my time on that. And, otherwise, it feels to me just like when I tried to start a mediation case, and all of a sudden, the editors who were clamoring to ban EEng completely lost interest.
Chapter The Fourth: In Which That Same Editor Returns The Conversation, As Always, To How Mean EEng Is And How He Should Be "Shown The Door". Using Sentence Fragments.
So I suggest that everyone should please just move on. This dispute isn't going to go anywhere. EEng, please make a good faith effort to consider using the shy template less abundantly, according to whatever is your personal best judgment in the circumstance, and please consider meeting other editors half way if they want to remove some or all of the templates. Otherwise, do whatever you want. Other editors, please find something else to complain about. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been quite busy as of late, but this is fair enough - Wikipedia's biggest issue is behavior enforcement of long-standing issues that do not individually warrant sanctions. Though I am sure EEng (and many of us) are aware of the ArbCom sanctions surrounding that area. Wikipedia is a very big place and EEng is content to only do a handful of articles at best, its just EEng is not worth the time. Don't take it the wrong way, but I despise EEng's attitude and way of working - its just that finding 10-15 other people who care enough (all at once) to do something like an RFC/U is difficult. It also represents a colossal waste of man hours. We have editors on here that are notorious, but still are present because forcibly making them change their ways or removing them is a lose-lose situation. First for the process you have to go through and second for the actual good work that is lost by all parties involved to conduct that process. I explained why Meditation is bound to fail by EEng's refusal alone - and only ArbCom after lengthy month-long RFC/U is the only way to resolve it or by forcibly showing EEng the door. As long as its more headaches to deal with it in that way then simply ignoring EEng's poor behavior, the latter is the best option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's difficult to reconcile "do not individually warrant sanctions" with "forcibly showing EEng the door", I'm afraid that I don't find what you said particularly helpful. When I offered mediation, it wasn't a one-sided matter of just some parties not wanting to participate. And it would have been easy enough to have set a bright-line parameter for when to use the shy template, and when not. If, for you, Chris, what works best is to truly ignore EEng, then I suggest that you do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A message from a friend
EEng peeping into the world of tiny image captions
Since it's the first time I see thumbs in infobox and someone to defend them, can you please elaborate a bit about it? there is an extra frame shown right in the page. Infobox person usually expects plain filename and not a template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I explained this in my edit summary: [91] i.e. WP:IMGSIZE provides that "syntax such as 300px simply sets a fixed image width, ignoring the user's base preference. In general, do not do this without very good reason; upright=scaling factor is preferred wherever sensible." It may be that some infoboxes allow this guideline to be met without embedding a thumbnail, but unfortunately infobox implementations are very inconsistent and this is the only way I know of that works universally; if you know of some other way by all means swap it in.
Now I have a question for you: what makes you think it's OK to remove something twice on the sole basis that you haven't seen anything like it before, especially since after the first removal its presence was carefully explained to you? EEng (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was perfectly clear and pointed you to WP:IMGSIZE, which explains clearly why upright should be used instead of px unless there's a good reason to the contrary. Your "another approach" was trying to do both at once, which is impossible and makes no sense at all. EEng (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NUMERAL allows 19/nineteen and 30/thirty either way. It's a matter of taste. If you like it in numerals, that's fine -- I was just suggesting. EEng (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
July 2014
Your recent editing history at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You should know better than to behave this way.Orlady (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So should you. Honestly, can't you just let something fun and interesting, like a weird old word almost no one's seen in 200 years, live and grow? [92]EEng (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, something's just come up with "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days" (using my DYK checker tool). Not sure what to do about that. Seems a real shame.Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, that DYKchecker tool is just a tool for use by humans. Humans aren't suppose to let the tool make decisions for them. Humans can -- and do, on a regular basis -- understand that articles are eligible for DYK if they were nominated within the specified time window. Eligibility doesn't automatically expire for nominations sitting on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But then I'm only human, alas. And only mostly idiotic. I'm guessing that it was indeed nominated within 7 days of its passing GA (if that was what's required). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the nom is timely. As you know I never pass up any opportunity to point out that the idiotic 7-day idiotic requirement is idiotically idiotic. So can you complete the review? EEng (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I left a message on the DYK talk page, I didn't expect much to come of it for at least 12 hours, but the deadly duo of EEng and Yoninah performed magnificently, I expected it would need some fixes from me, but you, Yoninah, and Belle fixed all the issues. Thank you very much for getting it done for me, I am very grateful. Best, Matty.00707:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider some of your edits (and edit summaries) non-productive and uncivil. Please respect other users and do not alter their comments. I also kindly suggest you to move your MOS change proposal to a separate topic, so that we can discuss it separately from the original question about the template. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I hope you perceive already in the comments of others since you posted here, absolutely no one agrees with you on this. It's the MOSNUM discussion page and we're discussing MOSNUM. EEng (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I surely see that some people are more interested in your proposal than in the original specific question. So I decided to split the topics (commenting out our discussion). I hope, you do not have objections against that. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that it was sincere. By the way, I'm a fish, not a saint, although I am doubtless trying, and have been told so many times by people who know me well. Don't think of it as indulgence, just as getting along with the general public. After all, this is Wikipedia, where even Randy from Boise may edit, and getting people pissed off at oneself is a much bigger waste of time than is simply holding one's tongue. (Your suggested ice cream flavor nearly sent me to the malfunctioningthose facilities. And they cannot take it out through the door.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how carefully you read the various footnotes but no malfunction -- the only toilets in the entire building, apparently, were at the Mass Ave entrance and somewhere near the main reading room. I've read much of the correspondence between the Titanic and Widener's dedication and it's amazing how intimate an operation was the design of the building. Basically Pres. Lowell and librarian Coolidge and Mrs. Widener and Mrs. Widener's architects worked out all the plans among themselves right down to the light fixtures in the stacks and the radiator valves. No committees, no signoffs, nuttin. The whole thing was designed in maybe 4 months. Another amusing thread is the combination of begging, flattery, threats, and horse-trading employed in scaring up temporary shelving for 600,000 books, between Gore's demolition and Widener's completion, in every possible nook and cranny of the university. EEng (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. An unfortunate limitation of edit summaries as a medium for artistic expression is that once you've hit <enter> you're stuck. My regret here is that I didn't link to Can't Anybody Here Play This Game?. A pity. EEng (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC) But then Picasso (or someone) said form is liberating i.e. if I could revise it, I'd probably still be revising even now, instead of wasting my time usefully editing elsewhere on WP.[reply]
Obviously as a ninjarette (don't highlight that spellchecker, it's brilliant), I don't take three strikes to put somebody out. ("testing showed it was 1.7 times more injurious than a 30mph car crash with modern safety features". You can't argue with "testing") Belle (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Over here in the UK, we often used to play "zero tolerance rounders", but the shot-gun would always jam at just the wrong time! lol. 20:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Shot in the twitten...
Hi – belated thanks for suggesting a more intriguing DYK hook for Henry Michell Wagner! Also for your work at DYK in general. Your thinking was sound: twitten is such a local word that nobody outside Sussex would know it, let alone England. (There was once an article but it got redirected to alley, sadly.) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)08:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I mostly toil in obscurity, and it's nice to know someone out there appreciates these little adjustments. My only regret is that we couldn't say he was "shot in his twitten", which would sound even naughtier. EEng (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. I'm particularly pleased because understatement is not one of my stronger modes of expression. BTW you might be amused by [94] and [95]. EEng (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for HOP Ranch
EEng, thanks for reviewing my DYK nomination. I've edited the article to address your comments and hope you can take a look. I believe I've addressed your comments. Thanks again! Dnforney (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Today's drama-fest will begin at 1400 hours. Refreshments and snacks will be provided for the peanut gallery.Turkish Delight also available.
Without wishing to comment on who's right and who's wrong, I threw together User:Ritchie333/Hit and run editors today, and one point I made in it is that the typical Wikipedia reader won't be too fussed about what citation templates are used in an article. I can barely master {{sfn}}, and even then it's akin to drawing a pentagram on the floor and hope the formatting doesn't cause errors or get reverted. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Referring to caption at right] Dammit, I'm going out. I hate for my tickets to go to waste. Know anyone who can use them? To answer (Ritchie) your question re GA (not FA) delisting, see [96] which incidentally makes some blushworthy comments.
But seriously, I'd be very happy for you to comment on who's right and who's wrong. .
Oppose: that's how we do things round here when asked for a comment (I know you didn't ask me to comment, but that's par for the course too) Belle (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Ritchie: Your essay is bang on. You might want to draw on this by Beyond My Ken (you'll find it linked under Thoughts or something from his userpage):
The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
BMK's thoughts page is generally brilliant - here's another one : "Start with an article that looks like shit and reads like it was written by a high-school dropout. A hundred edits later, take another look at the article – and it still looks and reads like shit. That's because the intervening edits did useful things like replace m-dashes with n-dashes, capitalized the first letters of template names, added interwiki links, vandalized and reverted the vandalism, made sure that bold text was being used as laid down in the manual of style, removed extraneous blank lines and miscellaneous other actions which did not, in any fundamental way, improve the article." Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thin-skinned admin blocks for criticism of himself!
Noting that you are blocking for comments regarding you, I'll let the great John Stuart Mill try to explain to you how ridiculous you're making yourself look:
Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate ... If the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.
In other words, it stings because it's so true, you're mad because you can't think of anything to say in response, and as the person criticized you shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide whether the criticism is appropriate.
I doubt I'll appeal this since there's more use letting it stand as a 48-hour monument to your thin-skinned pettiness. Along those lines I'd appreciate it if you'd note this block in the ANI discussion -- unless you'd prefer others not see your action side by side with the "offense" that prompted it.
P.S. Will you be blocking Nyttend as well? After all, he called you an "amateur" [98] -- that must have stung pretty bad too. Or that mean Ritchie333, who called you "a stereotypical Wikipedian, who makes a large amount of similar changes to pages, despite having had no evidence of being previously interested in any of them" (not by name, of course, but then I didn't call you by name either -- you just seemed to know it was you that I was referring to -- funny, isn't it). Ritchie also mentioned that "One of the reasons hit and run editors have gained prominence in [the area of trivial formatting changes] is that writing the encyclopaedia has become more difficult. The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime". That must really hurt. You should definitely block Ritchie333 for that!
But I'm not sure if blocking someone is that much nicer? I certainly wouldn't condone "personal attacks", but goodness me, compared to what I've been called on occasion, this looks like a rather mild but candid observation. Could Bgwhite be regarded as "involved" in any way here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, perhaps you'll be kind enough to post a mention of this block at the ANI thread. I want it in the record there before it gets archived. Bgwhite apparently prefers to work under cover of darkness. EEng (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgwhite: probably does not agree with your continued snark and attacks, but I do not think changing the header to "Admin blocks for criticism of himself" is appropriate here. It does not seem to follow the talk page guidelines and I've warned you repeatedly for making gross abuses of my own text. Please stop inflaming the situation - this is getting beyond distasteful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change words I wrote. For the record, I had edited the ANI discussion three times and not on the thread you responded too. You were responding to John and Typto's comments. The examples you gave were John's and you took a swipe at John. Your words were directed at all editors editing Gage. Other admins at the ANI page said you did a blockable offense. At least now you are directing your hate at me instead of Chris, John, Typto and everybody else. Just drop it and edit Phineas Gage with Chris. Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: No editor contested the blocked while it was active and no unblock has been requested. Eeng remained blocked for 48 hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed these comments until now, and they bear responding to, just for the record.
As already explained above I was perfectly happy to have been blocked by a thin-skinned bully like Bgwhite. And many more editors at ANI said I did not "do a blockable offense" (to use the words of an editor who has trouble writing English) and scolded Bgwhite for acting in clear violation of WP:INVOLVED.
My words were not directed at all editors editing the Gage article, but rather a small group of self-certain editors who tag-team actual content contributors to maintain their freedom to impose nonexistent "rules" reflecting nothing but their desire to feel they're doing something useful -- regardless of whether or not they actually are.
Magioladitis' clueless non sequiturs, showing he comprehends nothing that came before, make more obvious how blissfully insular is the mindless echo chamber of mutual cheerleading in which this group operates.
It's almost artistic -- the way in which your spare, innocent obliviousness makes my point more eloquently than I could ever hope to make it myself. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have to be blocked -- what a weird way you have of expressing yourself -- but if a thin-skinned bully wanted to further underscore what a thin-skinned bully he is, that would be a great way for him to do it. EEng (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
License to female
Re: DYK prep 2. I was told - by the horse people - that "female" is a term better suited to animals than women, was just invited to a project "women writers" and see that term in a category. How about "licensed women architect?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, saw your tweak in prep 2 of "who undergoes" to "undergoing". It struck me that using "undergoing" makes that hook suggest that the required education is received while the person undergoes the procedure. I know that what you meant there is grammatical and a valid reading of the sentence, but I think the more natural reading of that syntax gives the confusing interpretation I suggest. What do you think? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion is split on that, with no middle ground -- it seems an editor can either love my style, or burn with hatred for it, with no middle ground ever. Submitted for your consideration:
The phrase in dispute was is remarkably small, which leads me hope the teenage girl wasn't someone he was dating -- though that would explain the autonomic hostility. EEng (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making improvements to The Analytical Language of John Wilkins. Part of the reason I created this one was to watch the DYK process unfold (it's an area of WP I have very little experience with) so I hope you'll entertain a newbie question: there are now a couple different hook proposals at the nomination page. What happens to determine which one is the one that sticks? Just add a comment of endorsement to the nom page itself or is there another venue for that? Thanks. --— Rhododendritestalk | 15:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of hook is determined somewhat haphazardly. First, during the nom discussion often some or all-but-one get struck for one or another reason -- as the original nominator your preferences get a bit of extra weight in that. Next, the reviewer may not want to bother verifying several hooks, so may pick a smaller subset, or just one, to verify. Finally, if there are still 2 or more in play, then the "promoter" picks one to send to the main page. So if you much prefer one, or much dislike one, say so. Keep your eye on the nom page.
Sooner or later the article on Celestial Emporium should be merged in to your article, but that can wait.
I wrote a very long paper on Wilkins' Real Character and Philosophical Language about eight years ago, my thesis being that almost everything you read about Wilkins is baloney, because almost no one had access to the actual work until a facsimile was published some years ago. Foucault, who didn't read it, babbles on based on Borges, who didn't read it -- at least he admits it -- and was working from a bunch of other people who didn't read it either. Subbiondo's paper is complete nonsense -- absolutely shameful -- he makes a fool of himself. The best overall by far is Andrade [103], which you can find in a few anthologies. But if this interests you at all, there's no substitute for going through the book itself [104] -- it's amazing. Wilkins is the greatest genius and most wonderful, gentle person you never were taught about in school. This is his magnum opus, but everything he wrote is worth reading, I promise you. EEng (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip re: DYK. I'm bookmarking the link for later. It's not directly relevant to the work I'm doing now (and I have enough of it :) ), but I find these "universal language" ideas fascinating. Is that your interest or did you come to Wilkins another way? I came across Wilkins before I read Borges or Foucault, while trying to learn more about Leibniz's universal character. Unfortunately, I never got around to reading either of the primary texts (Leibniz or Wilkins), but they're on my "down the road" list... --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... are you saying there's a viable (new, etc.) DYK in there? Or just trying to whet my appetite? I've mostly been tinkering hooks in prep for grammar, fmt, and plain good fun-ness. For a while I when through new noms offering modified hooks but it's too taxing, especially because of the stupid system under which noms are organized by the date the article was expanded etc., instead of simply by when the nom was posted -- so you have to search for new things among a week of old stuff. Have you been watching the idiotic discussions about whether to increase the burn rate? [105].
Listen, on PG, it would be really nice if you could participate. There's a detail of Tfish's proposal he's going to have to mock up so we can see it, but after that, when the two approaches are clear we could really use a 3O. I feel he and I are talking past each other somehow (I just don't see what problem he's solving, and there are clearly downsides to what he's proposing) so could I ping you when he and I have agreed the two approaches are being presented with crystal clarity? EEng (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tfish and I never really had a problem. I think I pissed him off because I didn't knuckle under to the know-nothings in the interests of the greater good, as he saw it, plus I lost my temper a few times at you-know-who. EEng (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who says that a caption can't say "Note detached bone flap above forehead" on the grounds of a complete misinterpretation of MOS:NOTED is a know-nothing (in the sense of someone who wants to pretend that they don't know, or don't understand, something when they really do -- and just can't bear to admit it.) I think you missed the origin of all the animosity from this crew over this past year, which started with a string of discussions like [106]. This was my first exposure to the high-handed, semi-informed, hyper-rigid self-certainty of this particular breed of editor. (And note -- oops, there's that word again! -- I only made the OP and the contraption came to life all on its own!) EEng (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eleanor Elkins Widener. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
You appear to be part of a WP:TAGTEAM#Tag_team_characteristics, specifically in the sense of two editors (for now -- I expect more will arrive shortly out of nowhere per the gnome grapevine) "Working together to circumvent the three revert rule". It's not my job to fix your others' tools, and editors don't have to put up with their time being wasted by tools that break things while attempting to make "fixes" of little or no value in the first place. As recently as a week ago [107] AWB make one of its usual boneheaded fixes, and I have no reason to believe "all issues have been addressed", as your fellow tagteamer claimed. The bots deny template is there for a reason, and this is a reason. Why don't you go do good elsewhere on the project? EEng (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my involvement with RSNs and RSN board. I remove unreliable sources wherever I see them. "titanic-titanic dot com" has been used on E.E. Widener, I was going to remove that inflammatory source but before I could, I failed twice as this page was having edit conflicts. I have never used a automated tool, those who do, they mostly edit those pages about which they have no idea, that means none of the content is going to be harmed. There's no proof that I have been favorable to these bots or their operator. I don't even know any of them except Bgbot19 and you are edit warring over a useless tag. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My abject apologies. I've had numerous bad experiences with packs of these "fixers" tagteaming to assert utterly useless, and often format-breaking, changes, to maintain their OCD view of a "tidy" Wikipedia. It was finally suggested to me to use bots deny to avoid such trouble but, apparently, these types can't stand any threat to their hegemony and so want to remove that too. You had the bad luck to walk in on that, and I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Again, sorry.
I appreciate your attention to sourcing in the article. You may have noticed that I indicated my own concerns about titanic-titanic.com via the [better source needed] tag. It's used to support three points: that the valet perished, her burial place, and one of the two uncertain birthdates for her, and I think it's OK to leave those until better sources are found for those. This not being a BLP, and these statements being non-contentious, I think they could stay quite a while even tagged just [citation needed], so I figure that citing a weak source (with [better source needed]) at least gives someone (like you?) a place to start finding a RS that can be substituted. EEng (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Admin Bgwhite is WP:INVOLVED, as he and I have had trouble before re this very article [112] (though I have never told him or anyone else to "fuck off") and on other articles.
I repeatedly asked that the question be raised at the article's Talk page, per BRD. [113][114][115]
Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Bgwhite blocked me [116] seven hours after my last edit, and after another editor had restored the article to "my" version [117]. The article continues to remain in "my" version, with no attempt to change it by anyone including WP:INVOLVED admin Bgwhite. The block serves no purpose.
Your edits weren't exempt from the rules on edit warring, because you weren't removing a copyright violation, a libelous statement, or vandalism. In this context, you were edit warring, and considering this is your second block, 72 hours is a reasonable duration. PhilKnight (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|1=The unblock decline did not address any of the points I raised in my request, which are, again:
That the blocking admin acted in contravention of WP:INVOLVED, given his prior disputes with me regarding that very page and other pages.
That the block was in no way preventative, in that it was made 7 hours after the last relevant edit to the page (during time no other admin saw fit to take action, and despite an ANEW thread being open all that time -- reinforcing the stink of INVOLVED already mentioned).
}}
Discussion
EEng it's not "your" version. Any block to bots that you added was removed exactly because it served no reason as I explained you but you kept reverting me and another editor. The nobots tag on the page is only to prevent bad typo fixing by editors who won;t understand the template you put inside a word. In fact, the template inside the word is not needed since the browser takes care (or at least should care care) of this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line, the template you were warring to remove was restored by another editor, after which you suddenly dropped your efforts to remove it. Whether the template has the precise same list of bots as before doesn't matter -- it lists the bots that have recently done damage to the article, which is all I was trying to maintain. (Talk page discussion might have come up with a narrower list of bots to block, if that was your concern, but you declined my repeated invitations.)
Please stop trying to prove who's right and go spend your time fixing the bugs in your scripts that are the cause of all this wasted effort. EEng (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a second block by Bgwhite. What a coincidence. Do you have any idea how user:Bladesmulti learnt of your lil spat with Magioladitis in order to revert you 11 minutes after your second revert of Magioladitis? It seems like another coincidence. Did they participate in any related discussions about the article? p.s., for future reference, 3RR is a fairly strict limit; once you hit it, you need to take a break or take the matter to talk / another venue for more people to see the dispute and help one way or another, irrespective of right or wrong, unless the article is a BLP or very clear-cut vandalism. John Vandenberg(chat)16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, based on my conversation with Bladesmulti in the section just above this one (#Edit_warring_on_Eleanor_Elkins_Widener) it appears he walked in on the dustup with Magioladitis quite by accident (though I think it would have been better had he stayed out of the firefight, not knowing the background).
Of course you're right about 3RR, strictly speaking, but you'll notice that seven hours after a 15-minute edit war only Magioladitis' old pal Bgwhite saw fit to issue a (72-hour!) block over such a silly matter.
It's also too bad that an unblock request sits for days with no resolution either way. I'm not ashamed to be blocked by a thin-skinned bully like Bgwhite (see #Thin-skinned_admin_blocks_for_criticism_of_himself.21 -- and even less ashamed to be blocked by him twice, since it shows his colors that much more clearly -- but naturally I'd prefer that the record reflect the WP:INVOLVED, punitive, and angry nature of his action.
For those who don't know, Magioladitis is the maintainer (or one of the maintainers) of AWB, which does a lot of good on certain types of articles (those which haven't gotten careful human attention to their formatting) but also a certain amount of bad on other articles (those which have been carefully formatted by humans, sometimes in ways outside the experience of editors like Magioladitis and Bgwhite). What seems to have upset him (or them) is that the article carried a {{bots}} template asking that AWB and certain other bots, which have made damaging "fixes" to the article in the past, spend their time elsewhere. I suspect his hacker's ego is hurt by the idea that his scripts don't have free rein to roam as they please, and his edit summaries claiming "any problems have been addressed" and "tools work after last changes I [made to?] the page" are typical of assurances heard from inexperienced programmers everywhere: "Now I'm sure my code works -- I found the last bug -- trust me!" He doesn't seem to understand that no tool is appropriate for every situation. That's only my speculation of course. EEng (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, with page's current state, no AWB bot will make any unwanted changes. And in fact the bots tags is completely useless there since the only possible problem is a typo fix bug. Since typo fixing is only made by human editors and it is known to be imperfect (for instance, in some cases, there are typos on purpose or "typos" are actually rare words) editors should get any edit before the save. AWB's typo fixing is more of suggestions and less strict rules. I never wrote that I guarantee that AWB does not have bugs and it won't make unwanted changes in future version of that page (or any other page). It is very likely that the entire problem was a misunderstanding but please assume good faith in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the block length of 72 hours based on, exactly? If this repeated re-addition was based on some kind of lack of understanding in the part of EEng, is a 72-hour block meant to be more effective in "re-educating" him than a shorter block? Surely the link provided to User:Bgwhite's edit of 22 August shows he was very clearly WP:INVOLVED? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak on behalf of Bgwhite but just note that the time period is the next bigger after the previous 48-hour block. I do not like if the discussion goes there. I think the best is to find a way to work altogether and I see EEng not helping on this direction. There was no reason to go for 5-6 reverts as there is not reason not to believe me that AWB won't affect the page negatively for the time being since I have tested it before removing the tag. If we all assume good faith and co-operate we will be more productive. Have you seen me making any large scale changes in any of the pages EEng works? No. Because EEng does a wonderful job, as fasr as I have seen, in finding sources. I respect their work but I would like to see a page in a state other editors can get involved too. Anyway, I do not want to open a completely new conversation about everything right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been feeling awful about this since it happened, and I haven't known what exactly to say until now, but I feel like there are a few things I want to say. As EEng knows, 3RR is a serious thing, and I think the final straw was that EEng made two reverts after the notice on his talk page. There was a report at WP:3RRN, and administrators pay close attention to whether or not the reverting stopped after the editor was notified. It seems to me that if Bgwhite had not made the block, some other administrator would have. (And I don't think that requests to go to talk in edit summaries of reverts make the reverts alright.) EEng, please, we need you here at Wikipedia, and you are too smart to get sucked into these edit wars. Please get a hold on the reverting, before we lose you completely. I'm really worried, and I really mean that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well No, Magioladitis, I must admit that I haven't really been monitoring your interactions with EEng. And I only really commented as it's been quite a while since he requested, along what appear to be very sensible lines, a review of his block. Perhaps he'll get a review after about 71 and a half hours have elapsed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the list of requests for block review, and there's a backlog, with 31 such open requests right now, so I doubt that there is a personal snub here. But I have an idea. EEng, just in case you want something to do while restricted to this talk page, how about archiving old threads? Otherwise, you might be going for the world record for the longest user talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've blocked EEng before. That doesn't mean I cannot block him again. I'm not aware of any interaction I've had with him since 7th September. That was to complain that EEng is changing my messages on his talkpage, which he has since changed again (so, warning, EEng has done and may edit by messages here). The interaction before that was August 30th. I believe EEng has a fixation on me, but not the other way around.
I was contacted by two people about EEng's edit war. They also made me aware of this thread at WP:AN3. So, if I didn't make a block, someone else reading AN3 would have.
I've blocked three people (including EEng) in the past week for 3RR, two 72-hour blocks and a 24-hour block.
a) The other two were on the same article. One person was recently blocked for edit warring, thus I did a 72-hour block. The other person had a clean slate, thus a 24-hour block.
b) I did 72-hours for EEng because: He was recently blocked, he reverted 5 times, he reverted three different people, his was disparaging in his edit summaries ("your vague assurances are worthless") and he disregarded the instructions at {{nobots}} on how to apply the template. Remove half of these and it would still warrant 72-hour block. From WP:EW, "Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks."
Unlike what EEng said in his block appeal, the article is not currently at "his" version. This is his last version. This is the current version. They are different.
EEng did ask the question to be raised on the talk page. However, EEng never did raise it on the talk page. On his 5th revert, he did ask this to be discussed again. After the 3rd revert, one doesn't continue to revert, they should ask the question on the talk page. EEng wasn't following what he asked of others.
@Bgwhite: You said: "I was contacted by two people about EEng's edit war." I don't see those contacts on your user talk page. Can you tell us anything about those contacts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, both were by email. Both were sent while I was asleep. I do believe they were sent so I would block EEng. Who/What/Why is not relevant. Admins get notices all the time about somebody's alleged bad behavior. I've been sent emails and notifications multiple times the past month about EEng and not acted on it. This time, he clearly broke the rules, which is why I intervened. If EEng didn't break the rules, we wouldn't be here and that is the only thing to consider. Bgwhite (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgwhite: Thanks very much for the reply. I agree that it doesn't matter who the people were, and I have no doubt about admins getting lots of e-mails. But I think that I can safely infer that the two persons weren't merely spamming every admin they could think of. They likely contacted you because you were the blocking admin the previous time. In no way do I think that this fact affects the validity of the block, so please don't think that I am implying that. However, it does speak to how you are becoming perceived as the admin who is receptive to blocking EEng. For that reason, I recommend that you consider yourself to be "involved" in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the idea behind WP:INVOLVED was that the blocking admin was, or had been, in dispute with the blocked editor in the same article? Saying "if I didn't make a block, someone else reading AN3 would have" looks a bit like saying "WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply if I can save another adnin diong the same job."? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that PhilKnight's reasoning is correct. Although I've said what I said above to Bgwhite, I think that the two existing blocks walked right up to the line of INVOLVED, without actually crossing over that line. Bgwhite never edited the Widener biography page where the reverts took place. In most of the conflicts between EEng and Bgwhite, Bgwhite has been acting in an administrative role rather than as a disagreeing editor, although, just as EEng has, frankly, taunted Bgwhite, Bgwhite needs to start considering, going forward, that he is starting to be perceived as having an involved or prejudiced role. And I wish EEng would drop the review requests, because it would be asking a lot of any administrator reviewing the AN3 report to assume that, had EEng been reverted again, EEng would not have continued to revert, given what had already happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request was declined per WP:UNINVOLVED which reads "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fair comment. Thanks for clarifying that your decline was not "per WP:UNINVOLVED". But I think you should give a clear answer about it, one way or the other. If you think the block is still valid, that's fair enough. But at least we will all have clarity on when it is appropriate to block and when it is not. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John Vandenberg's comment about going over 3RR - there are very few circumstances when that's acceptable, and this certainly wasn't one of them. In this context, I think the block is valid. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is all quite academic at this point, but still enlightening. Magioladitis, you don't seem to have looked at the diff I supplied re INVOLVED [118] -- a discussion in which I asked (not of Bgwhite):
What purpose is served by activating it? Please answer in terms of how articles are improved by highlighting < p>, not in terms of the mechanisms of operation of these tools. EEng (talk) 11:33 am, 22 August 2014, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC-4)
and Bgwhite jumped in out of nowhere to reply
We've been thru this before. You do not like anything about Checkwiki. You've told us to fuck off. You've called us MOS Nazis. We show where in MOS, but you've used MOS is just a guideline/policy and IAR. The funny thing is, one of the reasons Phineas Gage is not a GA is because of your idiosyncratic formatting. The very thing we've been preaching is one of things holding back your GA nomination. Eleanor Elkins Widener is already on the whitelist and won't be checked for <p> again. Bgwhite (talk) 1:35 pm, 22 August 2014, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC-4)
(All false statements on Bgwhite's part, BTW, other than that I did refer to certain editors as "MOS Nazis", for which I later substituted "schoolmarmish know-it-alls" or something like that.) Now, does that really comport with UNINVOLVED's criterion, which reads
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias,
--? Hardly. Bgwhite lost his temper, repeatedly, and still allowed himself to act on his anger in an administrator's capacity. EEng (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I will step in here like a schoolmarmish know-it-all, and say that I stand by what I said earlier, that the block stepped up to the line of "involved" without quite crossing over it, and that Bgwhite should consider himself involved for the future. And beyond doubt, EEng has acted on his own anger as well. Which isn't worth it. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? An admin who says to an editor "You do not like anything about [this administrator's pet project]. You've told us to fuck off. You've called us MOS Nazis" is an "administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias"? Again, you must be joking. EEng (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You and I both have better things to do than to dwell on this, but when you have called other editors MOS Nazis, even if it is later changed to something else, you should drop it for your own sake. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The greater the extent to which one considers what I said offensive (I actually don't, per Mel Brooks) the more obvious is the INVOLVED aspect. EEng (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the BSfMI DYK nomination I stated my preferred hook was ALT2 because you had requested this. Please would you revert/change the result of this edit because I would prefer not to have the term you applied to me there permanently on the record. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually feel bad for the article's creator Northamerica1000, since this deprived his article of the full time in the oven it deserved. Anyone want to propose that the hook be re-run? EEng (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hookers
File:Hooker.jpgHow far from Connecticut to DYK? Original title: "Hooker's Company reach the Connecticut"
Ritchie333, I'm having trouble coming up with an appropriately suggestive pun on this, perhaps because "Parramatta Eels", "Sydney Roosters", and "hookers" make a frightening combination. EEng (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you've got hookers here, and you posted only about adult diapers on my talk page? Be careful your computer doesn't get a virus! (I always knew there was something shadey about DYK.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC) If only you knew... EEng (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right, but I'm going to stay neutral regarding various editor opinions about the hook that was run. People have divergent opinions. Perhaps consider adding a new hook as an ALT4 there! NorthAmerica100015:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking Far Side, because otherwise I wouldn't have known what that is. Anyway, here's one of my all-time favorite somethings. [120] -- sww "Secrets of the honeybee" story. One day at work they almost sent me home early because I couldn't stop bursting out laughing on conference calls with clients etc. EEng (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, that is very funny. Although, of course, that's why they're called Bee Featers. But I must stop droning on. Time for me to buzz off, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. helpful captions show how Wikipedia (any many other organisations) work[reply]
Hm. I thought they were raven feeders. (Linking raven feeders partly on the off chance you don't know about the ravens, but mostly so you can follow it to find out about Charlie's "ignominious end".) EEng (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I've often wondered which end of a raven is the ignominious one. Now we know. And see last hook here [121] -- probably we'll all end up at ANI.[reply]
Please stay with the discussion if you would be so kind. This is a classic example of the spinning wheel of random DYK requirements, depending on who happens by. EEng (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It's a shame how people who actually contribute content have to waste their time figuring out how to avoid being harassed by the technogeeks [123]EEng (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see now that there's quite some background to this whole p tag business -- it would appear I've been caught in heavy crossfire. Anyway, I think the 2nd (72h) block was more egregious. Rule says must blockbrz0101. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, your bad luck. What's weird is that you and I crossed paths with him on exactly the same trivial issue. [124] It seems he never learns. EEng (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even when we disagree about some things, I've gotta say this is great. Notify all the right-wing bigots, the operation they are looking for has been found! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Teenagers don't realize how transparent their psyches are. You may recall my inadvertent suggestion of another potential application of invasive brain surgery, usable right here on Wikipedia. [125]EEng (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the MOSNUM examples for ≥ and ≤ appear in the table (spaced), but when it's a number by itself, is the symbol spaced thus? "If the value is > 15, the procedure is likely to succeed". Or >15? Thx. Tony(talk) 11:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the question of whether and when mixing symbols and text like that is a good idea, I'd think that >, which is standing in for a word, should be spaced on both sides in your example. But that's just a guess, and in some contexts dropping the space on the right side might look better. (This is, after all, about what looks good, not some silly "correctness".) EEng (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks. I've since thought that because operators (+3, −3) are unspaced on the right, that "values of >3 should", "values <3 should", etc should also be unspaced on the right, since they look to me like operators in that context. The visual fails with the "is less than" sign, unspaced, to my eyes; but maybe that's the price for consistency. This seems like a different context to the spaced one in the title here. Tony(talk) 01:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your insult directed at me on the DYK nomination page is not appropriate nor appreciated. I expect an apology from you to be posted on that page. HalfGigtalk11:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an insult, I wasn't talking about you (or anyone else for that matter) [127], and there's nothing to apologize for. However, the fact that you feel compelled to imagine it was directed at you is something you might want to think about. EEng (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK that you misunderstood, but not OK that you can't just say, "Oh, I see, I misunderstood." For the last time: I wasn't referring to you (or, indeed, to anyone), there's nothing to apologize for, you embarrass yourself by continuing to whine about this, so please put a sock in it. As mentioned elsewhere, if you want to have the last word please do -- I'm unlikely to respond because experience shows you're unlikely to say anything new. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't you read the thread linked in my post above, Tfish, and see that it referred to no one. As Martinevans was able to see with ease (see below) this is all in the complainant's mind. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think HalfGig is in the right too, as far as how editors should treat one another i.e. civilly. Unfortunately that has no relevance here, since nothing, nothing in this matter has been in any way uncivil, unless you count HalfGig continuing to make accusations about an imagined slight. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:HalfGig, I too found the grammatical ambiguity in your first hook quite amusing. I assume it was unintentional. It's unfortunate that you took EEng's poking fun at that as poking fun at you. I'm sure you're the type of editor who likes a good Luffa now and again. I'm the true pun-kin head around here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... that architect Mihran Mesrobian (pictured), designer of many historically listed buildings, lost fifteen members of his family during the Armenian Genocide? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that much, really, after seven years. I have a kind of "warts-and-all" philosophy, under which people should be presented with both my sterling moments of idea collaboration, and the times I was a goddam jerk. That way they know what they're dealing with. EEng (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. If he can't take it he shouldn't be dishing it out [128][129]. This guy's always angry. There's no dispute here, just his venting, so there's no dispute resolution to be made more difficult. EEng (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You having the most experience in the petty feud quarter, of course. Actaully, I was going to ask you to take over for me, since you and Bloom are always entertaining to watch. EEng (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo. I've turned over a new leaf, i.e. not arguing the toss with those who will never get it, plenty of them around. But the initial advice stands, start a thread rather than attempt a puerile debate via edit summaries. That way we'll get it all out in the open and neither of you will need to feel anxious or upset. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed you were less of a curmudgeon lately. Keep up the good work. There's nothing to debate, as BMS has made the needed fix, Bloom's incomprehension notwithstanding. EEng (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See [133]] for what all this is about. As with earlier incidents recently (I seem to be making a habit of this [134]]) I'm pleased and gratified to be blocked at the behest of someone so transparently angry [135]. Hopefully this will allow him to cool down. EEng (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, the best thing I can think of is that a very long time ago, an unruly landlord took exception to the music the band I was in were playing, and at the end of the gig told us to not come back while turning a blind eye to a couple of drunks hurling our equipment out into the street, nearly causing injury due to a bass drum flying through the air. When 3RR wars break out, think of tales like that and remind yourself "it could be worse". Happy holidays. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you revert this edit. The comment is off-topic there and makes you look petty. I don't think it contributes to a good working climate, either between the two of you, or in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the suggestion, but decline. I'm not embarrassed to be blocked at the behest of someone like that, but I prefer that the context be on the record. EEng (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sometimes a typo is just a typo, but I'm not sure it's possible to distinguish one from a F.S. without more psychotherapy than my insurance will underwrite. Not intentional, at any rate. EEng (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that before, of course. I like where the doctor says "the bar entered a 'non-eloquent' area of the brain" -- likely Google-translate for the "silent area" – see [138]. What's really amazing about these kinds of amazing survivals is that they're not actually uncommon anymore. See Stone (1999) "Transcranial Brain Injuries Caused by Metal Rods or Pipes over the Past 150 Years". (My favorites: Case IX – "a young left-handed American Marine in a jeep accident near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who had a gear shift driven through his head ... On follow-up examination he was free of gross deficits and was eventually dismissed from the Marine Corps because of injuries to his knee. Some years later it was learned that he did have a dyslexia and had sought the help of a nun who trained him to read" – and Case XIV – "The victim and his friend were intoxicated and attempting a 'William Tell' maneuver ... The arrow was removed by pulling it through the brain along its original trajectory ..." I always find it amusing that details such as "near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", and the nun, are considered somehow relevant.) EEng (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Similarly, when a lumbermill foreman returned to work soon after a saw cut three inches into his skull from just between the eyes to behind the top of his head, his surgeon (who had removed from this wound "thirty-two pieces of bone, together with considerable sawdust") termed the case "second to none reported, save the famous case of the Wikipedia ArbCom sanctions decree", but apologized that "I cannot well gratify the desire of my professional brethren to possess the editor's skull, until he has no further use for it himself." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, but it seems like there ought to be be a better hook in there -- something like "Paradise has been condemned" or "Paradist is going to hell", but I'm drawing a blank. EEng (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I would be pleased to propose that, but that would DSQ me as a reviewer. And it was like Herding cats to get this article up to speed and give it that tick. Maybe you or User:Gerda Arendt can propose it? Since the article would support the hook (that wouldn't evaporate), it would not involve getting another reviewer. And I could just approve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎)13:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace!
"Horrible Horace" Trumbauer
Thanks. I wrote a 52-page paper on Trumbauer in high school, so I'm familiar with a lot of the scholarship. The trouble is, I can see both sides of the argument. Paul Cret was appalled when shown the Trumbauer firm's drawings for the Philadelphia Museum of Art—there were 2 style options for decorating the exterior but the interior volumes stayed the same. This went against Cret's whole philosophy of design, but made sense for a businessman like Trumbauer who had to woo clients. I will always have an abiding affection for Trumbauer, especially his Shingle-style buildings. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said somewhere else, it just goes to show that hookers aren't appreciated, despite providing a much-in-demand service. EEng (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Today is "National shit on EEng from a great height day". Please bring your rotten tomatoes and automated insult generators. Thankyou. Image courtesy of Ritchie333
How prescient of you (see below). In the event, it apparently didn't. So what do you think -- should I file the ritual futile unblock request? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll specify just why you blocked me, I'll consult my glittering salon of talkpage stalkers for advice on whether I should file the ritual futile appeal. EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ked me, I'll consult my glittering salon of talkpage stalkers for advice on whether I should file the ritual futile appeal. EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies:, @Yngvadottir: - I've just had a GA review torpedoed as a result of EEng's block, I don't suppose you've be awfully kind like you were to the Best Known For IP and consider "time served" would you? EEng, I think you've made your point in the AfD (as have I) and we should both leave it alone. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving a talk page
A large pile of composted Talk Page threads can spontaneously combust if not properly managed
You always lift the spirits of those around you. Listen, will you please check your inbox/junk folder and get something useful done while I'm doing my penance here? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If only I could get to the bottom of it! But, irony of ironies, it seems you "can't actually archive your page until the block is expired, because you can't edit the Archive sub-page..." or so come kindly technical chap tells us. Now there's something in need of tweaking. However will you fill your time? A trip to Cornwall never goes amis. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, yes. While he was well-intentioned, I'm afraid our friend fell into what appears to be an endemic trap at GA, which is WP:Reviewing_good_articles#Imposing_your_personal_criteria. Please stay with it. I need your honest opinion on whether you can see these "image and quote" problems. If so, I'll fix them. Either way, after that I'd like to renominate and get a proper (i.e. stick-to-the-criteria) review from you. EEng (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so [145] though you'll need a better source than any of those -- you'd probably find it in the liner notes of one of his albums (not sure if that counts as a RS -- never thought about it). Did you get my email???EEng (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, many thanks. I was thrown by the Google translation of "Berklee" as "Berkley". My knowledge of Czech is pretty limited and I have to guess. But I can't even guess when it somes to Hebrew! Jakubovic's liner notes are often a bit scant, to say the least. Sorry no access to email at the moment, but I will check as soon as I can. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"My knowledge of Czech is pretty limited." I had an instructor once who mentioned that he was going to have a busy term because he was taking over a sick colleague's Akkadian class "and my Akkadian is pretty rusty." I found that endlessly amusing. I mean -- how to do you stay supple in Akkadian? A sabbatical in Akkadia? And how would anyone know? If you just fake it, what are the chances you'll get found out? Glad I could help. EEng (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC) I was a bit pissed off when I wrote the email -- I really thought you were playing with fire at my expense -- so please see past that.[reply]
Dust or not, wouldn't it be wonderful if the Roosevelt dining room still existed? And you've got to assume that growing up in such a vibrant physical environment had some effect on Teddy. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first guess is that he would have got yelled at for knocking over the crockery and keeping mice in the drawers. There's a wonderful incident in which TR, after leaving his last meeting as a Harvard Overseer, told a friend that he'd felt "like a bulldog who had strayed into a symposium of perfectly clean, white Persian cats." EEng (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (and thanks for the fixes and categories). But just wait -- it's up for WP:GA and someone's going to say there are too many quotes, and the sentences are too complex, and ... It's incredible how people who can't write have no hesitation in lecturing others on how it's done. (Just in case he's watching, I'm not talking about the reviewer I was working with recently on another article, but rather another editor who intervened.) Anyway, it really is a beautiful and touching story. This will be the 100th anniversary of his graduation and it's just occurred to me that the old alma mater should give some small recognition of that. First I have to track down that letter from the British officer, which appears to have been entirely forgotten. It won't be easy.
Let me ask you, since Trumbauer's your man... how familiar are you with his papers and so on? Are you in a position to look for a few things over the next coupla months? As it happens June is also the 100th for Widener Lib and I'd like to get that article to FA in time for that, though my limited experience with even GA is, as noted, not encouraging. At the same time I may be in a position to help improve the Trumbaer article, at least with respect to his work on Widener. EEng (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used his papers, although I know they're at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. I didn't do any original research, pretty much relied on what had already been written. I met (the late) Alfred Branham, who took me on a walking tour of Trumbauer buildings in Manhattan. And I have Twilight of Splendor and Rev. Frederick Platt's book. The little I know about Widener Library is from what's already been published. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has 100 DYK credits to his name, all for articles that he himself created, and now he's nominating someone else's work, does he have to submit a QPQ? Or does he get a grace period until he has 5 DYK nominations of other people's work? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered, but if you're coming to me because I'm considered "the expert" then DYK -- indeed all of WP -- is doomed. Nonetheless I'll do my best to resolve this recalcitrant riddle. My interpretation of WP:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria (5) is that, once you have 5 credits for whatever reason, you have to start doing one review for every nom you make. So no grace period for your friend. EEng (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was not the founder. The Colony decided to create New College. Harvard's will gave some (half?) of his estate to the endevor. In return, the colony named the college for him. Read the article. - Denimadept (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are correct as far as you state them, but you misunderstand the use of the word "founder" in the context of John Harvard. I've augmented the article to cclarify [146]. EEng (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently didn't read my edit summary [147], and an article on a bridge article shouldn't be discussing who founded Harvard College anyway. This has been elaborately explained elsewhere as well [148], plus additional citations were added this morning which you seem to have overlooked [149]. EEng (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I'm saying this as one friend to another - leave ANI alone. Rubbing Drmies up the wrong way is likely to result in a block, possibly an indefinite one. Now, don't take that as meaning I support or want you to be blocked - I don't! But the peanut gallery at ANI generally don't tend to evaluate the pros and cons of an editor, and once you've been dragged there a few times and blocked, it's easy for said peanut gallery to think "he's not here to write an encyclopedia" and break out the banhammers. Please, just stick to articles and DYKs - whatever other disagreements we've had recently I can honestly say your work at DYK is a good thing and very much appreciated for keeping the quality of the main page upheld. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I doubt that anyone is going to blocked for rubbing me the wrong way, and I'm not going to block for it. And Ritchie, it wasn't just the peanut gallery, if that's what those folks were: ANI, as I feel I have to explain constantly, is not a forum--and so, EEng, it doesn't matter whether something takes three hours or not. It's consensus plus an admin's judgment, and in this case the admin is me. Few people dislike the forumy peanuty chatter at ANI more than I do--but I hope that there's at least one person in the room who understands that the constant reopening of threads and the persistent shit-smearing in that discussion is, in general and in the long run, what makes ANI the barrel o' crap it is. So, EEng, you made a comment, I (and a couple of others) thought it violated guidelines for talk page behavior, I removed it--and really that's all there is to it. I got no problem with you, and you can complain as much as you like as long as it's not too disruptive. Also, I don't work for Harvard either--does that help? Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What, I should just sit around while ol' BGwhite just makes up stuff up (e.g. that I work for Harvard)? I understand what you're saying, but I feel the best thing you can do (for me, for you, and for WP) is to speak up yourself and say what you think. These people are out of control.
Thanks for the complements re DYK. I'm not mad at you re GA, but I do think you misunderstand what the standard is meant to be there, along with most everyone else at GA, which is why it seems few quality editors care about GA status for articles anymore -- articles get GA status for conforming to very cramped ideas of what articles should look (not stated in the GACR, though) with little regard for whether they're anything anyone would actually care to read. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your contribution to the day's events is of course most welcome. As mentioned to Ritchie above, though, speaking up at the venue is important too almost as important. At heart this intolerance of criticism is a serious threat to the project. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll just have to put Widener behind us, but on the general principle I am in pretty much agreement with your views on GAs; on more than a few occasions (eg: Talk:1988–94 British broadcasting voice restrictions/GA1) I have passed a GA with a comment like "well we've got issues with x, y and z but they're not part of the GA criteria so I'm passing anyway". IMHO the following are not required to pass GA : infoboxes, templates, categories, URLs for print sources that happen to be online, non-free images, audio files, an inline source at the end of each paragraph, links to other articles, any external links .... I could go on.
It would have been nice when you did not use PAs to blemish a nominator on an article. The article was rotten, unsourced and seemed to fail WP:GNG. Thanks to your work to add all kinds of related sources the article is now just rotten and seems to fail WP;GNG. Congratulations with that achievement. The Bannertalk20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks to your work to add all kinds of related sources the article is now just rotten" -- I guess I've been confused all these years, because I thought adding relevant sources is what we're supposed to do. Anyway, the article may be rotten (and it is) but that's got nothing to do with AfD. The article was unsourced, but if you'd simply googled the article title you would have come up with several good sources immediately, and saved us all this trouble. It's not a "PA" to point out that you apparently didn't do that, as WP:BEFORE calls for you to do. You seem to be under a misapprehension about how AfD works -- articles don't pass or fail AfD, rather their subjects do, regardless of what's in the article. EEng (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Eliot Morison was a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. Mason Hammond was one of the real-life "Monuments Men" you may have learned a bit about in the recent film of that title. If you're seriously suggesting they're not reliable sources then I'm afraid there's a gap between us that further discussion will be unable to bridge. EEng (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Sorry if I seemed pissy...
No problem. You didn't seem ... anything.
But I believe I must apologize for bad reverting. Not that I don't like the change; in fact I do. If the sroc's change is finalized formally, I can finally act upon it. But if I acted upon it and then someone spring the same revert on me objecting the bad MOS change, then I'd be unfairly in trouble. Fleet Command (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying out of that one -- these date-consistency wars make my head explode. sroc's a good guy/gal BTW, in my experience, so I'm sure y'all can work it out. EEng (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to explain if you don't know the background. "Longevity" has been target to an amazing amount of POV-pushing and spamming for about 10 years. RY was eventually blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry; see [150] and also [151]. Of course none of that has anything to do with notabilty, except that you can always rely that whatever sources are offered are the most marginal, strained, thin ones you can imagine. There's an overview of the sources at User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#He.27s_baaaaack_(again). If no other sources are added in the next week or so I'll be taking it to AfD. EEng (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. What is AfD again? It's hard to find stuff quickly in Wikipedia's help desk. thanks
"Articles for Deletion", where editors discuss whether a subject meets the minimum notability criteria to have its own article -- see [152]. In rereading that, I find a post by RY which pretty much sums up the bizarre flavor of everything related to him and longevity: he describes himself as "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". Eventually he was topic-banned from longevity (see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Ryoung122) and later blocked indefinitely for continuing to edit in that area via sockpuppets. I believe you'll find that most editors feel that the longevity quagmire, in terms of the amount of community time spent refereeing behavioral problems, has been one of the most destructive and wasteful in WP's history. EEng (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fool! Use the secure channel! I actually did fall asleep in there once and woke up at 1 am. Oh boy do they search you good when that happens. Thanks again for the thorough review. EEng (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[153] -- you might find clicking some of the author links interesting. Last night it was 0F but it's since warmed up to 9F. No end in sight. EEng (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...or even King Kong Pills, Tams, Mazzies, Wobbly Eggs, Knockouts, Norries, Rugby Balls, Ruggers, Terminators, Red & Blue, No-gos, Green Devils, Drunk Pills, Brainwash, Mind Erasers, Neurotrashers, Tem-Tems, Mommys Big Helper and Vitamin T. ShamelessFrank123 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My role at DYK has pretty much settled into copyediting hooks and just adding commonsense commentary where something jumps out at me. That turns out to take a lot of time, so I mostly leave the formal reviewing to others. At least, that's the excuse I use. I'm glad you found my interference helpful. EEng (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DYK question
Thanks for that glimmer of hope! I was just concerned because at Template talk:Did you know the link for 16 February submissions is highlighted red. In the FAQ it says submissions 8+ days old with unresolved issues may be removed. So I take it that is not the case with my submission? It's still valid and just needs review? I am tempted to do more DYK reviewing homework and start helping with that backlog. — MusikAnimaltalk18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved issues means there's something seriously wrong with the article (too short, copyvio, etc.) and the nominator's been nonresponsive. Even then it's more like 8 weeks than 8 days before the nom would typically be closed. Pay no attention to the coloring of the scoreboard -- obsolete for years. Someone will come along in due course and review -- interesting article. (I'm too distracted to do many reviews myself -- I just fiddle with hooks mostly.) But, actually, doing a couple of reviews is a good way to get the feel of things, so jump right in! If you say, in your review, that you're new at it someone will be happy to come along with you and double check you're doing things right. Welcome! EEng (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I won't be ensnared by any glitzy tempting promise of Dr. Young's Anal Dilators! Do you take me for a complete fool?! ... (no need to answer that last one) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to someone (I don't know whom/which), how does "never" doing something scan with "do so"? Or am I reading too much into this? Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "generally these students do so because they feel that copying and pasting is wrong" should read "generally because they feel that copying and pasting is wrong". The whole project was illconceived from the start. EEng (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help, but you know I'm twiddling my thumbs until I get the go-ahead after the latest concerns were raised. Your turn! EEng (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to start another interminable discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, so I'll comment here first. The spirit of your latest edit was fine by me, but the precise wording of the first change could confuse some editors. I undid it, but then decided to leave it for the present. My concern is over an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body and whether people will grasp that it has to be read in conjunction with the next point which allows YYYY-MM-DD in limited contexts. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not participate in the discussion leading to this change, but for some reason was asked to be a kind of neutral implementer of the changes apparently agreed upon. Having said that, I don't see how there can be any confusion, since there is clearly a list of three alternatives, and the second one (which you quote above) doesn't restrict the possibility of using the third one. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding. In any event if you think there's a clarifying change that will help, by all means raise it at Talk:MOSDATE. Better to get things as perfect as possible while it's all relatively fresh in everyone's mind. EEng (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spaced en dash with a range of approximate dates?
The MoS (up to about 13 January 2014) used to call for a spaced en dash if either date in a range of dates contained a space. I see that you were in the middle of that MoS change, but I couldn't find any discussion regarding it. Was there some reason for dropping that requirement, or was it just something lost in the shuffle? There is no specific guidance now for how to correctly format a case like "Otto Schulmklopfer (c. 1819 – c. 1871)", though the example "Dionysius Exiguus (c. 470 – c. 540)" still uses a spaced en dash. I have added spaces to en dashes in cases like this and had them undone, and now find my ammunition disappeared around January last year. Any clarification would be appreciated. Christhe spelleryack03:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check doesn't find that the interaction between c. (& c.) and spacing of the en dash was ever explicitly stated, but anyway I added something [154]. Does that do the trick? EEng (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that clusterfuck but I thought there might be something else, in the absence of which I'll just preserve the text on this as is, but not add this as a ref 'cause I think that to do so will just cause trouble. (There'll be trouble sooner or later on this, of course -- a house divided against itself cannot stand -- but I don't want to be the one to spark it.) But if you think it's helpful go an ahead and add it yourself (as a footnote, I would think) -- it's your funeral. EEng (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is better. I knew that my change was awkward, but I wanted to make the most minimal change possible for it to be correct. As for your next edit, I think we'll have to add a time machine to the DYK toolbox, so people can verify that an article will be created, expanded, or GA-ized in the year after it appears as an April Fools' Day DYK. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fir enough - I stand corrected. The ISQ is not the international standard, but it's still a pretty important one, and you will be hard pushed to find a modern national or international standard that conflicts with the ISQ advice in this regard. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tidying up
Okay, some was just preference but mark up dotted with {{shy}}s and {{zwsp}}s all over the place just doesn't seem helpful. We don't use these normally, why on this page? It just seems confusing. Jimp11:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jimp, I enjoy our work together on MOS:DATES and I'm sure that will continue. But on an individual article it's the editors of that article (which can be anyone, as long as they're willing to take the time to discuss) who make choices about that article, within the limits of MOS and other guidelines and policies. This markup is there because the editors of those articles think it best serves the reader by formatting the article in an attractive way. As allowed by MOS, the {{shy}}s are there to avoid unsightly line breaks where horizontal space is restricted or words are unusually long, and the zwsp is there to allow linebreak after certain punctuation after which, for unknown reasons, some browsers refuse to linebreak. Certain templates, such as {{ndash}} used in place of a literal endash, are there because they makes it easier to tell that the correct symbol is in place.
That fact that you personally haven't seen stuff like this very much has nothing to do with anything. There is no progress without deviation from the norm. If you think things should changed on an individual article, please open a thread on the talk page, or make selective bold edits with explanatory edit summary. As MOS itself says, "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." EEng (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it won't continue. I'm gonna sulk for three months, then I'm gonna cyberstalk you until I can hunt you down ... (jokes). Yeah, no, I get that {{shy}} helps with the presentation but on the very few articles I've seen it used it just seem to go over{{shy}}board. Anyhow, there are two perspectives here. Sure, we've got to consider the particular fans of a given article but, on the other hand, Wikipedia is for everyone (except vandals, the poor and those who've got something better to do (given that they actually do it instead of procrastinating here)) and it kind of seems that weird and/or obscure mark up inhibits editing. As for {{shy}}, though, perhaps it could be tweaked to allow {{shy|anti|dis|establish|ment|arian|ism}} instead of anti{{shy}}dis{{shy}}establish{{shy}}ment{{shy}}arian{{shy}}ism to make the mark up more readable ... but that's an idea for another day. Well, with all my rant about two perspectives, I'll have to admit I'm a bit towards one angle and it's always good to see the other and so I appreciate being torqued into that.
P.S. "we didn't diverge 'from' chimps either", true; I was thinking that but missed the obvious "from other primates". Hey, maybe we did diverged from Jimps ... God help us if so, it wouldn't be good. Jimp14:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding. I've had it up to here (<makes chopping "up to here" motion at own throat>) with editors who, apparently unable to actually contribute, salve their egos by running about "fixing" things that don't need to be fixed, and vanilla-fying layout and formatting they don't understand. My apologies for mistaking you for one of them. I {{shy|L|O|V|E}} your idea for shy -- a beautifully clever extension of the syntax. EEng (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you one of my silent talk page stalkers? How many of you guys are there??? Anyway, that's great! How can I test it? EEng (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are legion. Well, it works exactly like Jimp described; here's a demo:
No government will nowadays admit that it {{Shy/sandbox|main|tains}} an army in order to satisfy {{Shy/sandbox|occasion|ally}} its passion for {{Shy/sandbox|con|quest}}. The army is said to serve only {{Shy/sandbox|defens|ive}} purposes. This {{Shy/sandbox|mo|rali|ty}}, which justifies self-defence, is called in as the {{Shy/sandbox|go|vern|ment}}'s advocate.
No government will nowadays admit that it maintains an army in order to satisfy occasionally its passion for conquest. The army is said to serve only defensive purposes. This morality, which justifies self-defence, is called in as the government's advocate.
OK, I've tested this in the shy-heavy Sacred Cod, first by simply substituting shy --> shy/sandbox (thus testing the old syntax), then by changing e.g. cor{{shy}}po{{shy}}ra{{shy}}tion --> {{shy|cor|po|ra|tion}}. Works fine. What's the protocol for bringing this live? I'll do the documention since you've done the coding. EEng (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. Now tell me if you anticipated this use [156]. It really makes tho whole facility very convenient, especially for e.g an img caption! It seems logical that it ought to just work, but since I doubt you had it in mind when coding, can you double-check? e.g. your implementation might assume some limit on the number of params, which would be a problem in this use unless the limit's very large and/or having too many params gives a very obvious failure for the editor to notice. EEng (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is great. Thanks, and thanks to Jimp as well. Give me a week or so to switch some of my favorite articles over to this new syntax, and if all goes well then I'll document it, OK? By using this at, say, the paragraph level, you get what's been wanted for sometime, which is a lightweight, unobtrusive way of inserting soft hyphens -- essentially you've turned | (outside a template) into that symbol. EEng (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you removed a couple of closing <p> tags that I had added to another user's comment - while I should drop it at this point per WP:TPO, I'd like to point out why I put them there in the first place. The syntax highlighter I use complains about unclosed HTML elements, so I added closing tags. Needless to say, I made only cosmetic changes; those changes also don't interfere with editing the discussion page; and the users whose comments I edited received no notifications as a result. So, I don't see why the tags can't stay. APerson (talk!) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because people shouldn't have to waste their time looking through changes you've to their posts just to satisfy some hypergeek sytax specification which no one in real life cares about -- particularly on a talk page as opposed to an article. No one in their right mind "encloses" paragraphs in <p> / </p> pairs. EEng (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alakazi: I understood that the closing tag could be omitted, but it's pretty hard to special-case this into the syntax highlighter - hence my fix.
@EEng: As I quite clearly stated, nobody got notified that their own posts were edited. Only the watchers got notified, and VPPR is quite a busy page anyway so it would have been drowned out by the other edits made there. Quoting ROWN, For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. It still isn't clear why you thought the addition of four invisible characters made the posts worse. APerson (talk!) 19:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People do watch pages they're interested in, and especially at high-traffic pages with many watchers and frequent edits, useless edits which do nothing but scratch someone's obsessive-compulsive itch waste large amounts of other editors' time by injecting extra fog and confusion into discussions that are hard enough to follow as it is. If the syntax-checker whatnot thingamajig you're using doesn't work right, then stop using it. ROWN is just someone's musing, but TPO is an actual guideline: do not fuck with others' comments without very good reason. Got it? EEng (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a closing tag may be required for proper functioning, depending on what follows the paragraph. (I didn't look at the specific edit being discussed to see if the tag was necessary; this is more of a "yes, some people in their right mind do have to enclose paragraphs in <p> / </p> pairs" kind of note.) I believe it used to work fine without it, but I noticed in September 2014 that it no longer did. Since then, using a <p> without a </p> causes all following paragraphs to be clumped together into one (again, assuming there's no other markup to alter the behavior), even when they're separated by blank lines.
Look at the following:
First paragraph.<p>Second paragraph.
Third paragraph.
Fourth paragraph.
{{-}}
You would think this would produce four distinct paragraphs, but without a </p>, here's what's actually produced:
First paragraph.
Second paragraph.
Third paragraph.
Fourth paragraph.
I've tested this in Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, and all three show a single-phrase paragraph followed by one paragraph containing the next three phrases. Ever since I discovered this issue, I've abandoned <p>, instead substituting {{pb}} to break my paragraphs. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM22:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know, actually, and your timing is perfect as I'm in Berkeley just now so I'll pop down and have a talk with them. If MT had direct contact with the family, which is remotely possible, he could have mentioned it in these materials. EEng (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most ballets
are performed by ballet dancers, right. Let me learn: do dancers "play"? It would not work in German, and I seriously don't know. Can't say "Ray Barra was Romeo", nor "performed Romeo", nor "danced Romeo", no? I tried to avoid a clumsy "the part of Romeo". Perhaps we can drop "ballet" in "narrative ballet"? - If you look at an image in a source, - he was Romeo ;) - Once I am here: I need a review for Missa Dona nobis pacem badly! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dancers "perform" or "dance". For roles, there are two standard formulas I know of:
"Barra danced 'Romeo' [in Cranko's Romeo and Juliet]." (more common in ballet circles, and when readers are expected to recognize characters' names quickly)
"Barra performed the role of 'Romeo' in Cranko's Romeo and Juliet." (more encyclopedic, but wordy)
It's also possible in formal contexts to talk about "interpreting a role," and at least in oral conversation nobody will criticize "he was Romeo in Cranko's version."
Indeed, and thanks for catching it. For some reason stuff like that only happens when I'm being a smartalec. EEng (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting up with my lecture. Having completed my undergraduate studies, my research impulses need other outlets. You happened to be the lucky winner to trigger one of my professorial episodes. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^Consult your doctor before trying this medicine. Symptoms include: a systemic allergic reaction, a worsening of withdrawal symptoms for not placing {{ANI-notice}} in months, and casting the first stone.
MOS dare formats, etc.
"FTR MOS isn't an article so is not subject to its own provisions, and further is a Br/ EnglishAm English Ecumenical Zone -- we vary date fmts, spelling, etc. so everyone feels welcome."
Yes, I know. That said, there are several editors who are constantly gnoming the MOS to make it internally consistent stylistically, and to subtly express their own stylistic preferences.
The provision in question was making the distinction between MDY date formatting in North America, and DMY date formatting most everywhere else. If you follow the edit history, the "correction" immediately prior to my original edit included a lot of language and clarified very little. I inserted examples, which are probably the clearest way of defining the two date styles without resorting to long-winded descriptions. My original clarification used "United States" (equally acceptable everywhere per WP:COMMONALITY), and it was changed to "U S", oddly citing WP:US, not the actual MOS provision, WP:U.S.. Yes, the correction used non-American style choices in the American date style example. Kinda odd, don't you think, especially when WP:U.S. was improperly cited as authority for doing so?
While I recognize that we are trying to make MOS a welcoming "ecumenical zone", it would be nice if we could be stylistically consistent within the same sentence when we are discussing a particular national style choice. And, yes, it is a small thing, hardly worth discussing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost track of who did what in which edit, linking which shortcut, and anyway I don't care. I'm happy with the final result as it is, as least for now. EEng (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember when royals had jesters and dwarfs who were allowed to speak the truth -- make jokes at the monarch's expense -- with impunity? That's you. EEng (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, this edit crossed a line. I know you are eager for the AfD to close, but this edit was borderline vandalism in as much as you deliberately edited the article to make it the subject of an in-joke. Regardless of her suitability to have a standalone article, it is not hard to work out that Dr Thabet is a real person with a real Facebook account and a real Twitter feed. Just sit back and be patient. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second -- it can't be "borderline" and also "cross the line". Jeesh! But I will agree temptation got the best of me. EEng (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oy - I've only used revdel twice and got yanked off to ANI for the first time ever for it. You can't see the diff now because your prayers were finally answered when another admin deleted the article per WP:CSD#G3. I'm sure I could sit down with Dr Thabet and have a nice cup of tea and some chocolate digestives. Maybe I'll bring some Wickedly Welsh Chocolate along. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know about your trouble re revdel, which is why I gave you a hard time about it. Just to, you know, twist the knife a little. I'd stay away from this Thabet character -- she might atomize you into dark-matter interstellar space or something. EEng (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know they say no one's indispensable, but in the case of catchy hooks, you have been the only one doing anything about it. Where have you been lately? I really felt I had nothing but "blah" to work with while assembling Preps 3 and 4 last night. The part about hooks being "hooky" should be written in the rules in blood! Yoninah (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, beating back the philistine forces of Professional Wikiism and Stultified Solemn Dignity [158] has left little time for actual hooking. But I did manage to get in [159]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles R. Apted you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hertz1888 -- Hertz1888 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighting
Well somewhere in my monobook is a script which does precisely what you're looking for, highlighting dabs and redirects and all that jazz. It's most likely to be "Anomie's stuff" but feel free to copy, paste, refresh cache and see how it goes. P.S. Clear out your talk page. Too long by about a factor of five.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your edit summary here, could you clarify your intent? Did you mean to be offensive? If you are trying to piss off other editors - to use your phrasing - why complain at all? It's okay when you do it and you're special? I'm not understanding the message you're sending here. --Pete (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The grrrr of my edit summary distills what the edit itself says: "I'm beginning to see why everyone's so pissed off at you." For example, you keep fussing that date-format choices for particular articles shouldn't be decided at Talk:MOS. That's true -- but nobody's proposing to do that nor is trying to do that. Your "You do understand this, don't you?" was the icing on the cake. EEng (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that - and your incorrect perception - but could you answer my question, please? Evading the point just makes me more curious to hear your explanation. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the answers to the questions in your OP:
Q: Looking at your edit summary here, could you clarify your intent?
A: As already explained, grrrr expressed frustration.
Q: Did you mean to be offensive?
A: No.
Q: If you are trying to piss off other editors - to use your phrasing - why complain at all?
A: Aside from being rhetorical, question is counterfactual since I'm not trying to piss off other editors.
Q: It's okay when you do it and you're special?
A: I don't know what it refers to, but we're all special in our own ways.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm astonished that you don't see how your edit summary could be taken as offensive, but your answers make this clearer. Perhaps you could be more careful in future? --Pete (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're easily astonished, and no extra care is needed. Now stop wasting my time trying to conform my edit summaries (!) to your delicate sensibilities. EEng (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hover your mouse over the link and you'll see it points to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Mikado#behold. If you click on the link you'll see it takes you not only into the Mikado article, but the #behold makes it go specifically to the location of the {{anchor|behold}}, where that particular song is discussed.
Oh, shut up. Over-indenting an earlier comment (as I've done here) makes clear that I'm responding to you, not to the immediately prior post. EEng (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably catch hell for this, but my patience has run out. Will you please stop making personal attacks against The Rambling Man on WT:DYK and anywhere else. I'm dead against blocking established contributors, but other admins are not, as you well know. Attacks don't help your argument, it just means people either think the other party is right or ignore the conversation. Please, do something else. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fucking kidding? Where were you yesterday when he said I "continually accept, even promote, the mediocre"? Making accusations requires evidence, which he has twice coyly refused to give. He's been insulting everyone at DYK on a daily basis now for months, and it's time someone bells the cat. EEng (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I am not happy about TRM referring to DYK as "horseshit" either, but when I look at the arguments presented, his are geared more towards content, and yours seem more geared towards him as a person. Why can't you just get along? I see Bencherlite has presented a pretty good summary of how to quell this dispute, and I would take that good advice at face value. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, he hasn't. He's giving TRM carte blanche to continue his constant denigration of other editors, now including me directly. As I explain here [161] TRM's a liar who says whatever pops into his head. EEng (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A typical cart blanche (note use of "soaked head").
That may be, but given that calling people liars is covered by NPA, if someone continually does it after being asked to stop, they generally end up blocked. Believe me, I know how you feel. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, repeatedly referring to someone's "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre" [162], with the clear implication that I'm doing it on purpose in contravention of policy-- and just to be clear, I'm neither doing in on purpose, nor doing it at all (I don't do DYK reviews nor put prep sets together) -- then refusing to back that statement up, is also a personal attack, but none of the drive-by admins give a shit about that. (It's worth noting, BTW, that none of the admins who regularly hang out at DYK -- all of whom were uninvolved, cared to block.) In case you missed it, check this [163] out to see who's actually working to improve quality at DYK, and who's just complaining. EEng (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't any drive-by; I read the discussions and have WT:DYK on my watchlist (I used to comment there often). You'll also note that I only blocked after the last spat, which none of the other admins saw. If you have a problem with this block, please request an unblock and/or go to ANI—I am always happy to bring any actions I take as an administrator in front of a wider forum. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right, like anyone in his right mind would submit an unblock request or take it to ANI -- not that I give a shit about a 31-hour block, or any block like this really. They're monuments to the dysfunction of the admin system.
But how about if I just ask you: if you read the thread, how do you see this [164] fitting into the picture? Do you think it's OK for an editor (an admin at that) to go around saying things like that (and he's been saying it about me for almost a year) with impunity? See, I don't give a shit about being blocked, but I do give a shit about aspersions about my editing, competency, and adherence to policy and guidelines. So again, please explain how what I said at that diff figured into your decision to block.
And while you're at it, given that you felt block(s) were needed (and they weren't -- TRM and I are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves), please complete your sentence addressed to TRM here --
I seriously debated blocking you as well for blatant baiting.
-- using the word but, as in --
I seriously debated blocking you as well for blatant baiting, but I didn't because _______________________.
You fill in the blank, please. EEng (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. The [name of impressive laboratory device] is warmed up now, so I'll be gone until sometime tomorrow -- take your time.[reply]
(a) Only one person was making personal attacks. (b) You had been warned. I actually came here to warn you, and blocked only after I saw this section. I'm done engaging here. Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so, having ignored both questions, the drive-by admin declares the discussion closed and drives on. So much for WP:ADMINACCT:
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
Only blocking one party in this playground squabble seems a bit unbalanced. I think I'd personally take "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre" as a personal attack. As EEng points out he doesn't "do DYK reviews nor put prep sets together". It's a shame that Old Rambler hadn't "done engaging" a lot sooner too. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. I thought it was EEng's hopelessly juvenile "orgasm" comment that tipped the balance and led you to block him for "disruptive editing"?[reply]
I am unblocking based on "time served", on the T:DYK thread being hatted, and on TRM asserting on my talk that he will not continue the feud, shrugging it off as "a clash of egos". Since we can't leave people blocked when the cause of disruption goes away, I'm doing it now. There now follows a choice of viewing. On BBC ANI, a discussion on censorship between Derek Hart, the Bishop of Woolwich and a nude man, and on BBC Eeng, me telling you this. And now....Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the gesture, Ritchie, but I'd rather that during the dispute you'd taken the time to see what Martin sees so clearly above: TRM attacked me repeatedly (and falsely) with impunity, and when I finally told him to shove it up his ass, I got blocked. EEng (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your wit, constructive sarcasm and edgy humor, your perspective and contributions, sometimes contentious but worth it. I could bet serious money that your wiki-adventures here may someday be the start of a novel novel.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I was talking to Tom's Ulcer, not you. That's what the overindenting is for, remember??? Geesh. EEng (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC) But you're welcome too.[reply]
Sooner or later I will probably visit Cambridge and perhaps we can arrange a get-together. Hope you are doing fine. I'll check out Charles R. Apted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit comment: "Type 'a' when you want 'a', a 'b' when you want 'b' ..."
Are you serious [165]? It's no issue to me (and I will not argue the point), but I couldn't believe that those edit notes make any worthwhile difference. My logic is as follows:
There are those who are familiar with editing tables and for whom the edit summary is distracting.
There are those who are not as familiar with editing tables, but try and notice that they've messed up the table, and then figure out how to fix it.
There are those who are unfamiliar with editing tables and would not notice that they'd messed it up but happen to take note of the edit note. But then they would probably mess up the table in other ways at the same time, even if they'd taken note of the edit note.
There are those who just don't pay attention to anything, including the edit note.
The edit note usefully addresses only the subset of the third bullet who did not mess up the table in any other way. Also, editors do not stay in that category for long (they tend to move up the list fairly fast), and the edit rate of this table is probably not high, especially since the less experienced editors probably do not make many edits to the MoS (at least edits that will not be reverted in their entirety anyway). Given this "nonempirical logic", I'm interested to know whether you've found that the edit notes have made any observable difference? Or are they there mainly to express frustration? —Quondum17:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created that table and have nursed it even since. When I added the warning, problems with people forgetting to adjust the rowspans -- including those not carrying that note -- seem to decrease. It's easy to overlook that the rowspans are there at all, and this acts as an alert. They're certainly not hurting anything and they may be helping, so let's leave them. EEng (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its you who is on the side of the wiki. Beware of trolls who claim they are there to repair the bridge... they are trolls - they don't repair the bridge they just curse those who repair the bridge and note how they would remove the bridge as that would prevent repairs being made. Remember to finish talking when its obvious you are in the lead. Let the uncivil have the last word. This barnstar is for all the great work you do and I don't want you to feel unappreciated. I rarely comment at DYK talk because of the uncivil comments made by those who are not in your league of contributions to the project. You don't need to prove that people are uncivil - its obvious to all. You don't need to show that you are assisting the project - that's obvious too - hence this barnstar. Nil desperandum. Victuallers (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I'm not sure how obvious things were to others, since the only comments (other than equivocal ones) were by drive-by admins grabbing the wrong end of the stick. But here's how you can help, despite your understandable distaste for the atmosphere: comment at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. If we can make basic grammar a DYK criterion, we won't have to listen to Rambling Man's complaining any more. EEng (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My worry is that even if the sulky child is demanding something sensible then why would I support their agenda. The demands won't be complete until we include the silliest of ideas like "lazy redirects"... ???? At some point we have to say that Wikipedia is flawed. Always is, always will be. Getting the main page to FA status is just a crazy idea. If you think that doing "X" would mean that we wouldn't have to listen to uncivil and irrational demands then I do hope you are right, but I fear that you are being over optimistic. Talk at DYK is just toxic - we need to find somewhere else or ignore uncivil comments entirely. I'm trying to do thr latter and others are too, if you discuss there then you may feel alone - but you are not. Meanwhile Well done. Victuallers (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nonsense like "lazy redirects" is... well, nonsense, but I asking that an article linked from MP have no obvious grammar boners does seem realistic. If you haven't already please do comment at the link I gave. I'd appreciate it. EEng (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The controversies section on the Harvard University page
Hi EEng,
This is Helen Yang and I am getting in touch with you regarding the controversies section on the Harvard University page. I don't agree with your statement due to the significance of this federal complaint in that it raises a major civil rights issue that impacts millions of people. Readers have the right to be informed and it is up to the readers to form an opinion either way or simply ignore it, but readers should not be deprived of the privilege of being informed.
Like many, I have tremendous respect for Harvard. I had the privilege of cross-registering at Harvard when I was at MIT and ended up taking classes at the Kennedy School and the law school.
This section will be put back. If you still disagree, we should raise it with Wikipedia to arbitration.
JHY Response - Thanks EEng for your response. As a long time user of wikipedia, I fully understand what wikipedia is and is not. The links your recommended were helpful and confirmed my understanding. To your specific points, the section was added due to its significance and high relevance. Google search would give you almost everything under the sun and if this criteria is used, I am not sure how much of Wikipedia would be left. While your many contributions to wikipedia is admirable, I hope the discussion focuses on the merit of the point itself. If it helps, I am happy to provide evidence to prove my credibility. Best regards, Helen Yang Jianhelenyang (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wasn't saying that anything available via Google shouldn't be in Wikipedia; that would be nonsense. My point is that "readers have a right to be informed" is not a good argument for inclusion of material, because there are other ways for readers to be informed. Time will tell whether this becomes anything more than just another lawsuit -- I note that Google News suggests that after the predictable burst of publicity one month ago, coverage has dwindled to practically zero in the last ten days. This event may very well merit its own article, but for the moment it has zero importance in the 400-year history of Harvard. Questions like this are worked out by discussion among interested editors, never by arbitration. EEng (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JHY - Since we can't seem to agree, I suggest to take it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. By the way, it is a federal complaint, not a lawsuit (although there is a closely related lawsuit). The purpose of wikipedia is to provide the most accurate and relevant information, and it is not right for a particular editor to filter out what he or she doesn't want the users to see - this is what I meant by "readers have a right to be informed". If the significance is the point of discussion, we can continue and I am happy to give you some pointers for further study, but Google News coverage at a given point of time is not the only gauge - do you see media coverage everyday about how many presidents come from Harvard? I am going to give you some time to think about it before I put it back. Also wanted to give you the opportunity to initiate the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if you wish; otherwise I will be happy to initiate the process.Jianhelenyang (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(OK, complaint, sorry.) To see that the unusually large number of US presidents who attended Harvard is significant enough for mention in the article doesn't require ongoing news coverage, because there's been literally centuries of that already, not to mention extensive secondary commentary and even entire books. In contrast, this matter seems to have left the headlines, and it's not clear when if ever it will return, or whether anyone will take notice of it again.
When a new editor arrives out of nowhere with the specific (and apparently only) purpose of inserting a certain thing into a certain article, it almost always leads to that person's frustration. The urgency you exhibit seems to stem from a desire to "spread the word", and that's not what Wikipedia is about. See (along with everything else I've point you to) WP:SOAPBOX.
Two different editors have indicated that they don't believe this material belongs in the article, especially as a standalone criticism section, which is almost always a bad idea (WP:CSECTION). Anyway, this isn't the place to be discussing this. I indicated in one of my edit summaries that you should open a discussion on the article's talk page, and you haven't done that, so in a moment I'll transfer this material there. EEng (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accusation struck
It was actually with reference to the awful choice of hook you promoted for the Grace Kelly filmography, which I subsequently fixed, but never mind. Perhaps now you could remove some of your personal attacks? If not, don't worry. I've supported your proposition, for the numbers. Perhaps now we can bury the axe (not in my head) and crack on with fixing the problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I have this right. I promoted the hook
... that '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|Grace Kelly]]''' won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then retired from acting the following year at the age of 26?
... that [[Grace Kelly]] won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|retired from acting]]''' the following year at the age of 26?
And that's what you called my "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre, or worse" that "is damaging Wikipedia"???[167] I appreciate the strike, but please tell me you see how outrageous -- bizarre, really -- an accusation that was. EEng (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a pisspoor choice of a hook, and I was actually genuinely surprised that you sanctioned it. Believe it or not, that actually flatters you. It was worse than mediocre. It was foremost in my mind at the time I wrote what I did. Who knows, it may be the only one you've ever done to that standard. I also felt like noting that using a search on Template edits is all very well, but you didn't do a search on edits I've made on prospective articles listed in prep and queues. That may seriously slew your claim that I do so much less than you at DYK. But it matters not. I have no further interest in pissing in the wind trying to debate things with you. Your ongoing accusations of me being a bully and a liar are too much for me, much like why I left DYK in the first place, after you'd made it clear that DYK was your place and who was I to be there, complaining about the lack of quality etc etc while you wisecracked your way through everything, abjectly belittling and bullying those with whom you disagreed. It was only when I saw the quality control diminish to nothing that I felt the need to interact again. Now you seem to entirely agree that the quality is appalling, and to see a promoting admin suggest that he moved an article he described as "abysmal" to the main page has been a real eye-opener that we wouldn't have got from this debate if we hadn't have been cock-blocking. Sure, it didn't pan out as I wanted, and I sure as hell never wanted you to be blocked for anything, even the personal attacks, even the repeated liar and the fuck himself and the soak your head (although the latter belongs at kindergarten, as I'm sure you now agree) and the endless "kvetching" (do consider that some of us really don't care for this kind of kvetching). Do us all a favour, agree to move on, as I have offered to do, if you'd like to strike some of the attacks and so on, fine, if not, fine, history will see it for what it is (as you have demonstrated in your keenness to keep the collapsed discussion uncollapsed). If you'd prefer to keep the attacks going, so be it, and I'll have some belters for you. This is my best, last and final offer, do with it as you will. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at some of the things you're saying:
No, it was a pisspoor choice of a hook
If you think linking to Grace Kelly versus to Grace Kelly filmography is anything like a shocking indictment of DYK then you've lost all perspective.
Believe it or not, that actually flatters you. It was worse than mediocre.
Again with the insults you so freely spit at everyone.
Who knows, it may be the only one you've ever done to that standard.
If you don't know whether it's "the only one", then what possible justification could you have had for your comment that I "continually accept, even promote, the mediocre, or worse"? It's nice that you've now retracted that statement—days after you were challenged to back it up and refused to do so—but that you insisted on leaving it in place for so long makes you... yes, a liar if you knew it was inappropriate all along, or... just plain deluded if you actually think it was appropriate i.e. that the isolated example of the mistaken (as you see it) link discussed above justifies such calumny. Take your pick.
[168]Here this just comes across as unnecessarily abrasive; by editorialising a problem, strawmanning those who don't agree, shaming the reviewers and then using it as an excuse to deplore the failings of DYK. Highlighting a problem can be quite useful, as with any constructive feedback, but continuously using fresh examples to advance an argument while indirectly pillorying good faith contributors is disruptive.
This is very much what I've been saying to you for months:
[169]Why do you keep saying I'm happy to have not-so-well-written articles appear? I'm not. I've simply pointed out that the review process as it stands does nothing to prevent that ... The people who participate here already share your concerns about quality, on the whole, so you're preaching to the converted -- and insulting and annoying them at the same time.
[170]If you think DYK criteria should be changed (and I agree they should -- if it were up to me DYK would carry only GAs) make a proposal for a change to those criteria. But you're wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria.
[171]You're not asking nicely but with highhandedbess and sarcasm. "For you Americans, let's call it DYK 101"—go soak your head, will you? I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into—the word toxic comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping.
I have no desire to drive you away from DYK, but I do want you to stop that behavior: Stop belittling other editors for not enforcing standards not in the criteria, no matter how "obvious" such standards may seem, to you (or even me), to be. Instead, help get the criteria changed.
I appreciate your recent support for adding basic grammar as a DYK criterion, and if we can get that to happen, you and I both will have less to bemoan in the future. EEng (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this was not yet another opportunity for you to keep the fight going. I have no interest in you repeatedly and repetitively going over old ground. If you wish to move forward, let's do that, if you don't, just say so, leave the personal attacks and the repeated claims all over the encyclopedia, and I'll know exactly where I stand and where to go next. That you ignored pretty much every sentence of my note speaks volumes in that regard. I will not be watching this page for a response, as it seems fruitless to do so. Moreover I will continue to fix up the articles that are being promoted to the main page via DYK despite some of them being "abysmal" and will comment accordingly. The sooner you realise that your approach has also turned off many editors, and driven some away (myself included, temporarily) , so much the better for you and the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only criticism I've received in this matter is from admins warning me not to call you a liar, and they're right -- I should have called your comments "grossly unfair and contrary to fact", not called you a liar. As for what others think of your behavior I again refer to Fuebaey's comment above. And -- oh yes -- this and this and this and this and this and ... EEng (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the tip on the link-coloring js.[reply]
Going for the record?
For longest talkpage? You ever read this old stuff or you just like scrolling?
I have pursued looking into the recent matter of TRM's misrepresentation of other editors on his talk page after seeing it occur again over the last several days. Please don't participate at this juncture, but I wanted to let you know about it. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your noble effort. Just remember to refer this his statements as "recklessly false and blatantly distorted" instead of referring to him a liar. Also (not that I care) I don't consider anything I said here [172] a personal attack. EEng (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand that you didn't mean it as a personal attack, but as a comment on his behavior rather than the issue at hand, it can be interpreted and perceived as an attack. BTW, it's very difficult for mobile users to contact you on your talk page with your page so long. Have you thought about archiving? Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that went well. It's like water off a duck's back with him. As to the size of this page, I never really thought about mobile devices in particular -- I'll think about it, but I do like leaving history out in the open for all to see. EEng (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wonderful if your efforts bear fruit, but I'm not holding my breath. He seems to be one of those editors everyone just accepts as a fixture, nasty behavior included, and that's led him to believe that he has some kind of special role to play. EEng (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it has produced something. Today, he stalked me to several DYK reviews, inappropriately reopened one and then reclosed it, and generally made a nuisance of himself in the most petty, vindictive way possible, essentially saying by this action, "if you point out problems with my behavior again, I will stalk and harass you forever". This is clearly someone who should neither be an admin nor active in any area requiring social interaction. Don't get me wrong. I share many of TRM's ideas for improving the DYK process. But the way he goes about attacking and misrepresenting people, and then stalking their contribs needs to stop immediately. Like I said, some people have very poor social skills and shouldn't be involved in areas requiring interpersonal communication. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you felt that I stalked you but you need to re-read that section of the policy. You see I was reviewing all DYKs in every queue and prep are (as I have done for some time now) and discovered Shetland sheep which was in a very poor way. Worst of all was that the reference citing the hook was dead. I hadn't noticed this until I'd done some considerable tidy-up on the article, but then re-opened the nomination to request the source be fixed. I took a punt on archive.org and lo and behold, I managed to find an archiveurl, I fixed the article and closed the nomination again. I checked a couple of other recently promoted nominations to ensure that there was no systematic issue with checking the source which referenced the hook. That's not stalking I'm afraid. Most importantly to all of this, the nominator of the DYK itself thanked me for my edits, and that is far more important than anything else here. You failed to assume good faith yourself I'm afraid. As for your last sentence, I agree entirely. There are several people who match your description. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the contribution history shows that you specifically and quite deliberately followed me to multiple DYK reviews and articles after I left a warning on your talk page which you deliberately misconstrued as a threat. In the case of Shetland sheep, you engaged in willful disruption by reopening a closed review for no reason. Above, you claim that the article was in a "very poor way". This is false. The article had just undergone a separate and successful GAR and additional copyedits. I don't think you'll find anyone who will agree that the article was in a "very poor way", that's just nonsense. More seriously, you claim that you closed the nomination because "the reference citing the hook was dead". Again, total nonsense. When the review was completed, the citing reference was live. Links go dead all of the time, so this wasn't a valid reason to close the nom. More importantly, the review page stated that the hook was supported by two citations, so you closed a review that you never read for no reason other than to disrupt it because I had reviewed it. So to recap, 1) two sources supported the hook, of which 2) both were live when the review was originally conducted, and 3) just because one of those sources happened to go "dead" one week after the review does not give you the right to re-open it. Sources go dead all of the time after reviews take place, and that doesn't negate the original review based on a reading of the original live link. More to the point, the fact that another source supported the material ("Source 14 also supports that statement") indicates that you re-opened a review that you never read. This is unambiguous, intentional disruption. I can plainly see now why EEng (and apparently others) have accused you of prevarication. You either truly believe what you have written or you are deliberately lying. I'll leave it to others to judge, but you have zero credibility with me now. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I truly believe 100% of what I said. 100%. But since I only respect the opinions of those I respect, your opinion of me is irrelevant. I improved Wikipedia with my edits. I was thanked for them by the nominator. That is all. Have a good weekend, I'll get back to improving articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: you'll continue to stalk editors who disagree with you and disrupt their reviews, and make false allegations about the reviews and the articles, reviews that you refuse to actually read. You had no business re-opening the Shetland sheep review and you absolutely know it. Your nonsensical explanation above is simply more of the same prevarication that others have accused you of in the past. The review took place with the hook supported by two citations. One week after the review, one of the links to one citation went dead. If you had actually read the review you disrupted, you would have known that. But you didn't read it, because your only purpose was to stalk and disrupt a review that had my name on it. It's really clear what happened and you can't wiggle out of it. Again, if you had read the review you would never have re-opened it. But you didn't read it because you were only trying to disrupt DYK's with my name on it. I think it is pretty clear from this incident, the incident with EEng, and the last week's worth of discussion on the DYK talk page where you attacked and misrepresented multiple editors, that you are not improving Wikipedia but disrupting it. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no translation required. It was exactly as I wrote it. If you think I'm lying, do something about it. The article is much better than it was when I found it. As are many others. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been speaking solely about your actions which involved disrupting a DYK review, not an article. You know that of course, but once again, you avoid the central topic of discussion and attempt to distract and evade. Not exactly the behavior of someone who is being honest, is it? Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As so often happens in these cases the deficit itself prevents him from seeing it. It's a shame, too, because he's clearly competent in other areas. EEng (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking shouldn't be the goal here -- it should be an end to the belittling of other editors. But the general principle of the essay you linked certainly applies here. EEng (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[176] Let's see.. KWW blocks The Rambling Man, Georgewilliamherbert blocks KWW, someone unblocks them both... I was going to take my 5-year-old nephew to the circus, but I think I'll just take him to ANI instead -- it's better than a circus. And how is Philip Seymour Hoffman a BLP??? (I know the answer, actually, but the whole thing is insane.) EEng (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Big deal. I got blocked by a fragile-egoed admin because I called a group of editors "self-satisfied roving enforcers" -- one of whom was the blocking admin himself. [177]EEng (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must come back and read your user page. And bring a sandwich or two. Very nice to see your work on the Harvard template, the last two days you and some other drifter have made a mess...I mean a fine addition of nuts and bolts of exceptional proportion to the celestial recordings and historical record/ramblings of this previously forlorn map nestled within the world's finest encyclopedia. Yale, eat your heart out (but your turn will come Yale, your turn will come). Randy Kryn11:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to thank you for your Harvard navbox efforts. But as I was adding additional entries I began to think we need a philosophy on what to include and what to leave out, because it's getting way too big. As an easy example, I think there can probably be just one "athletics" entry, linking to Harvard Crimson, from which the user can proceed to all the individual teams and facilities -- I don't think it helps the reader to bloat the navbox with a direct link to every sport. That example's easy, as I said, because the reader looking for Basketball will know that Athletics is the right first step; other such trimming might not be so easy.
Darn, you got serious on me. This goes to the philosophy of template size, I'm of the more-is-better philosophy as long as the links are relevant. These templates, by their nature, provide a map to the pages on Wikipedia. The athletics section, for example, gives the reader an overview of what Harvard offers as its program and instantly shows them where to go without a side trip. Harvard Crimson isn't a name known by the world at large, so some may think that something called the Harvard Crimson is the only athletic program at the University and not bother to seek further. The template is coming close to completeness, so the size is set-in-stone at that point. It seems an appropriate size for the prominence of the subject. How about getting rid of the image (one way to attain much more horizontal space)? That should reduce the template a bit, and make up for the size-additions of the new entries. Wasting time on Yale? Don't let the Yalies hear you! Randy Kryn13:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we made the change re athletics as I'm suggesting, we'd probably have an "Undergraduate life" group, with the Houses and freshman dorms and just a link called "Athletics" taking you to the Harvard Crimson article. There'd also be a link to a list of undergrad activities. List of Harvard College undergraduate organizations -- now there's a bunch of things that certainly can't all be imported into the template.
I don't think it's a matter of space, since it's collapsed, unless it's so big it fills more than a reasonable screen-size. The problem, rather, is that it becomes so dazzlingly big the user can't find anything. Part of the problem is deciding what the template is for. Is it to allow the reader to find a specific item he's looking for? He could use Google for that. Is it to help him browse around Harvard to become familiar with it? Is it just to impress with zillions of links? I guess I realize I don't know the answer. I leave it to you to use your judgment.
Just looked at the Yale template and it does combine the sports into one name, but prefaces it as "Teams":", so that should do it. I'll make that change. That template shows a mascot, I don't know if Harvard has one. Let's see how that looks. Good find on the list. Randy Kryn13:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work. I have to say I prefer some of the Yale navbox's choices better. Also, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to have the main groups be FAS, Law, Medicine, Divinity, Business, KSG, etc., then distribute most stuff to their appropriate home among those. For example, the Law Review would be under Law instead of "publications", which is a jumble now, I think. Each dean would be under his school. And most of all, that giant pile of "Research centers" would be broken up. That still leaves a lot of miscellany that would have to be under "Other" or "University" or something, but I still think this would be better. I'm tempted to sandbox it -- what do you think?
That sounds extremely good. It's your vision, please create it like your envisioning it, it will be fun to see. Sounds very well organized. Randy Kryn18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, two things: first, I'm not using the different indicators of hierarchy (* vs **, bold, newline breaks within * list) consistently; the distribution of institutes and museums to faculties/schools wasn't as easy as I thought it might be, and even once that's done as well as possible a lot might still belong in the university-level bucket. Would you like to have a go? I'm pooped on this for now. EEng (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just now had a look at the template, very good work! That must have taken a great deal of time and thinking. Will look at it more closely next time I'm on line. You deserve some kind of Crimson award, if I knew how to code better. John Harvard is spinning in his grave (from pride and/or prejudice). Congrats. Randy Kryn14:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that looks excellent! I don't know much about the place yet, but I can offer a couple naïve comments: Should "Harvard College libraries" be listed under the College rather than FAS—or alternatively, should there be a Libraries section with the College's subgrouped? Does the Provost merit an entry? Is there a list of historical provosts somewhere so I can see how many are bluelinkable? Other than that, thanks! It's a big, complicated place, and it can't have been easy to try to wrangle it into this array. FourViolas (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like many old and venerable institutions, Harvard has a body of insider slang and organizational quirks designed to identify and exclude the uninitiated, thereby heightening the sense of mystery and enhancing brand value. The Harvard Law School's library is called the Law School Library, the Harvard Medical School's library is called the Medical School Library (actually Countway Library of Medicine, but the important thing is it's a "Library of Medicine") but the libraries of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences are called, collectively, the Harvard College Library, for historical reasons. Similarly, the primary executive body of Harvard University is called The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Someday when you're older you'll understand; see also [178].
Provosts are a relatively new innovation at Harvard, but the University provost probably belongs. Beyond that, with a few exceptions everything in the template is there just because it was there before; I mostly just juggled stuff around. A lot of it probably shouldn't be there, especially the miscellaneous institutes and suchforth -- Harvard has zillions of those and they can't all be listed, likely not even restricting to the notable ones. (Because of Harvard's sophisticated media machinery almost everything it does ends up being notable.) EEng (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Lord St. Simon"
Regarding the query in your edit summary on The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, the Baring-Gould commentary to NOBL describes "Lord St. Simon" as a "solecism," because St. Simon was a second son. But if that is so, it is a solecism that was perpetrated by Conan Doyle (or should I say Dr. Watson?) himself, and so we probably should feel comfortable leaving it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I remembered that B-G had said something about this, but I'm at that age where I'm sometimes too lazy to get out of my chair to go find out exactly what. Thanks for taking the time. But who's this Conan Doyle? EEng (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. You made a series of bold edits at WP:LINK. Many of these edits left out a lot of important material, changed the tone of the guideline, or moreover, changed the meaning of the guideline. As in my first revert[179], I encouraged you to engage in a Talk Page discussion.
Especially for bold policy/guideline changes, it's of the utmost importance to discuss them instead of WP:EW. You could just simply state what are your desired changes, explain your rationale, and see if there is consensus for your changes. Your recent changes, they are not "minor tweaks" to the existing guidelines, but change the tone, meaning, and readability of the stable version.
Mass-discarding the careful work of others is not the way to go either.
Are you really claiming that this edit [180], which moves a bullet point from the General points on linking style section to the Lead section section (with a very slight change of wording) "left out important material, changed the tone of the guideline, or changed the meaning of the guideline"? How?
Articles on technical subjects might demand a higher density of links than general-interest articles, because they are likely to contain more technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context.
from General points on linking style to Overlinking and underlinking? Did that "leave out important material, change the tone of the guideline or change the meaning of the guideline"? If so, how?
Do not create links in order to highlight or draw attention to certain words or ideas in an article. Links should be used to help clarify the meaning of linked words, not to place emphasis on the words.
-- to this --
The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize: do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas.
(which says the same thing in half the words) "leave out important material, change the tone of the guideline or change the meaning of the guideline"? If so, how?
Even if, as you claim, "many" of these edits "left out important material [etc etc and so on and so forth'", that's not all of them, yet you removed all of them. There's now a talk page section on this, so please list there the diffs you feel aren't helpful, saying specifically why. (My edit summaries already why I think they are helpful -- in most cases these are copyedits to reduce bloated verbiage, merges of duplicate statements, and so on.) EEng (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpeg){kind=small}
I do see your point about excess detail in the lede, and there's no doubt that for many readers just learning that the sweater is at the Smithsonian will convey the gist of it well enough. However, let's consider those readers who know little or nothing about the Smithsonian. Saying the sweater is "on display at the Smithsonian Institution" is just imprecise enough to mislead to those readers because it implies that the Institution is a place, or at least is associated with a place, when it's actually a government agency that administers a variety of places. One might say with equal validity that a certain sculpture is on display at the National Park Service or that the Pietà is on display at the Roman Catholic Church. Such analogies may seem like a stretch, since it's unlikely anyone would say those things, but that's because they know better; in the case of the Smithsonian, the misconceptions are rampant. In my experience, a large number of Americans, as well as innumerable non-Americans, equate the Smithsonian with a museum or group of museums on the National Mall in Washington, and I think the current wording might perpetuates such misconceptions. I could be wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop ignoring edit summaries explaining clearly why changes are being made, and reverting said changes with your own edit summaries making misleading or false reference to prior policy or discussions. Behavior such as this wastes the time of editors who actually know what they're doing. If you continue, you risk appearing even more clueless than you already do. EEng (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
.JPG)
Rumiton (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ChrisGualtieri. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
--Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
Atsme☯Consult Agent 99 14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
_(7055853255).jpg)
Eman235/talk 22:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hertz1888 -- Hertz1888 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Eman235/talk 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}