Jump to content

User talk:EEng/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Phineas Gage

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

Thanks! I appreciate the appreciation. I've put off updating the cites too for long, because I haven't had the patience to learn the markup, and there are so many decisions needed about reference style and so on. I wonder if (after I make a go at learing the ins and outs myself) I might ask for your guidance on technical points and/or for help in actually putting the cites into markup (there will be scores of them!). Kelley paper I haven't studied carefully, but it seems to present a visualization method for brains and skulls in general, using Gage only as an example; I don't think it claims any new analysis of the path of the tamping iron, which is the critical issue. Also, in Figure 4 the tamping rod appears to be much smaller than the 1-1/4 inch diameter of Gage's tool -- note the US quarter also shown, which is just under 1 inch in diameter. But I could well be wrong on all of this, and I haven't been in touch with the authors. Thanks again for taking the time to contact me. EEng (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation voodoo is documented at Wikipedia:Citation templates.
If you need a hand, come and grab me.
The important aspect of the Kelley article is that the multimedia in it can be integrated into our Wikipedia article, if it would be useful.
He contacted us at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Phineas_Gage_skull_replication, and I have spoken with him briefly via email a while ago. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

For future use, whenever you have need:

I thought I'd give this to you, for use at the right time: The Empire of Celery

Very thoughtful of you indeed. It will occupy an honored place in my armamentarium. EEng (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention... this useful professor! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, EEng. You have new messages at User talk:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver.
Message added 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Per your suggestion elsewhere, go ahead and set me up for archiving, but nothing automatic -- I'll do it myself via one-click. EEng (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Dummy edits

For those who are wondering, the following exchange regards these two edits -- the first a serious (and perfectly appropriate) one by Edokter, and the second a followup dummy edit I made riffing off his edit summary:
[1] Edit summary (Edokter): i and 1 are too alike
[2] Edit summary (EEng): (dummy edit) You're saying 1 and i are too?
I keep forgetting, however, about the small minority of WP editors with congenital humor impairment, and the even smaller minority who seem to want to spoil the fun for everyone else. I'm not sure, even now, if Herr Doktor gets the joke.

Please stop making dummy edits for messaging. These edits, as well as the ones required to clean up the added spacing, add unnecessary load to the servers and polute the history. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop dispensing hidebound, clueless scoldings. Your notion of what constitutes "load to the servers", and your idea that there's a "requirement" to "clean up" a single space added to a page as part of a dummy edit (as, unbelievably, you actually squandered server resources to do -- twice! [3][4]) are delusional. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Humor is a legitimate way of furthering the project by increasing the pleasure of (at least some of) those who edit here. If it doesn't tickle your personal funnybone, just ignore it. If, on the other hand, you don't even grasp the humor intended then there's a serious clue problem in play here. EEng (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you done? OK, so I missed the joke. That is no reason to repeat a nonsense edit. Edit summaries are not ment for messaging. And yes, stray spaces can cause disruption in diffs; that is why I remove them. And I resent being associated with nazis; that is personal attack! -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you missed the joke. Three times. Even after your attention was called to it directly. Next time, before scolding an experienced editor with your nonsense about server load, think about whether it's you who's confused. Your continued fussing about an extra space at the end of a line shows that you have no grasp of technical issues at all.
I've restored the words Herr Doktor (in the phrase I'm not sure, even now, if Herr Doktor gets the joke) because otherwise people might think that I actually did compare you to a Nazi. It's beyond weird (paging Herr Doktor Freud!) that you seem to think that addressing you that way, after your dyspeptic lecture in direct contravention to well-known and accepted editing practice (see H:DUMMY#Methods), somehow does that.
Lighten up, smarten up, think more, scold less. EEng (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not like any allusion to any German figure of authority! I can take a joke, but this truly offends me. I have made note of it on ANI. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You equate all German authority figures to Nazis. Noted. EEng (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there any other possible implication? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
My addressing you as Herr Doktor ironically combined your username Edokter with the old-time German academic tradition of showing excessive deference for degree-holders, regardless of how absurd their declamations may be. It was intended to prompt you to reconsider your high-handed posture, and as already explained has nothing to do with Nazism. It's entirely your choice to continue to insist that it does -- not to mention an affront to Germans.
I repeat: Lighten up, smarten up, think more, scold less. And stop insulting Germans. EEng (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) I'm not sure what the Nazi reference was supposedly, but you two are bickering like an old married couple about null edit summaries... Really? Please, both of you just Let It Go and get back to important things. I know you are both much better than this. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm better than this, but he keeps coming back to dig himself deeper. EEng (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • He's better than this too, so just Let It Go because it's really not worth bickering over who got the bigger of two identical cookies. I honestly could dig through all the policies and find conflicting ones on what you two are bickering about and you are both completely right and completely wrong. You're not going to change or fix anything and this is one of those things that #NobodyCares about to put it bluntly. :) Now, get back to work! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, but just so it's clear, I'm gonna keep leaving the occasional dummy edit, with amusing edit summary, here and there. I refuse to be oppressed by the humorless minority! ...Comment re One-click Archiver moved to new section below... EEng (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a honeymoon, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Who you calling a Nazi??? EEng (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"Look out! Here comes the Master Race!!" (.... sound of tap shoes sprinkled with machine gun)....... Martinevans123 (talk)
When they made you, ME123, they broke the mold. EEng (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
... eternally, in the wiki mold, alas .Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of edit summaries...

[5]. EEng (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your talk page/his talk page

Drmies has closed the AN/I thread, but I did want to apologize for misunderstanding where the discussion with Edockter took place -- obviously I screwed up, and should have been more aware of the circumstances before I commented.

Again, my apologies. BMK (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have no problem with repeating my apology on AN/I if you'd like me to -- I just didn't want to re-opena closed thread. BMK (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Apology heartily accepted, and I appreciate your taking the trouble. No need for a public mea culpa, but next time I'm dragged to the stocks by one of these fragile egos or hypervigilant nanny-scolds, I trust you will help keep the mob at bay as appropriate. There's a silver lining, anyway: after a few more inoculations of these crybaby accusations (assuming I survive) the community will be completely desensitized, and I'll have the lofty status of Corbett -- free to call people cunts with impunity. EEng (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, since people (unfortunately) judge you by the outcome of previous ANI episodes, if you're inclined to add a clarifying coda I won't discourage you. EEng (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm just out the door for a doctor's appointment, but I will do so when I return. BMK (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Say hi to Herr (oder Frau) Doktor for me. EEng (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Who's bitter? See [6]. EEng (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I've never thought of Eric as very "lofty" ( - "Beneath the facade of his National Health glasses smoulders the fire and passion of a cold toilet seat.") Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Holland and Smith liked that his physical appearance (gauche and childlike) made him stand out (they likened him to the accident-prone sitcom character, Frank Spencer). It was decided that these attributes fitted the character perfectly. EEng (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW Herr Doktor Mies (and apologies if this is a repeat)... You're not a neurologist by any chance, are you? Even if not, I'm always looking for physicians to comment on Phineas Gage (the article, not the man), especially the anatomy and physiology, which are out of my expertise. EEng (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, Dr Mice, you need that article on your watchlist like you need I don't know what. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He just wants all the fun for himself. Your comments would be appreciated. EEng (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
ah yes.... "A man with the strength of an army.... the wisdom of all the scholars in history..." MrNeutron123 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OneClick idea

Listen, while I've got you I had an idea on one-click -- how about if it doesn't add the target page (the archive page) to your watchlist? Not a big deal but I think most would prefer that.

Yeah, I have both those checked, but so do most people. My suggestion is that one-click ignore that setting and not add the target (archive) page to the watchlist. But now that I think about it, maybe it's not worth bothering with. EEng (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I certainly agree with overriding your local setting for pages you edit, but I'm not convinced at this point it should override the setting if you are creating a new page. Let me sleep on it, I might add individual preferences to override those per user. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me be clear. What I was suggesting was that when you click on the "Archive" link in some page Talk:Foo, so that it moves that section to Talk:Foo/Archive_5, then Talk:Foo/Archive_5 not be added to your watchlist (i.e. if it's on your watchlist leave it there, but if not don't add it) because it's annoying to have these archives cluttering up the watchlist.
Your comment makes me think that if, on this particular invocation, Talk:Foo/Archive_5 is being created new (because Talk:Foo/Archive_4 was full) then maybe, just in this case, Talk:Foo/Archive_5 should be added to your watchlist, as a kind of notification that you've incremented the counter (which might be interesting... for some reason I can't think of) -- it's no problem to remove it from the watchlist in this one case. (This would be if Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist is checked; if not checked, then don't add new archive pages to watchlist.)
But really, this is more trouble than it's worth. I'm much rather see you spend your time on a checkbox-based one-click, so that you can check multiple sections and have them all one-click over to the archive in a single go. EEng (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Currently, the live version of the script won't increment the counter or respect maxarchivesize although the beta does. The reason I haven't pushed beta to live is I have some RL stuff keeping me from making a change I want to make before it goes live. As far as whether or not it adds them to your watchlist, I'm thinking of adding a Twinkle style "settings" page anyways so it would be no trouble to add these settings as well. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Good work, carry on! You're right about Herr Doktor, of course, but you of all people understand what it's like to be set upon, again, by a knowitall scold who knows nothing of what he's talking about. His RfA complained of very much this same behavior -- eight years ago! -- and in the RfA discussion itself he exhibited it quite clearly. EEng (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, Erwin can be very difficult to work with at times, but I've worked with him enough to know that he does have best interests of the wiki in hand. He's not always right, and he (like I and you) has difficulties understanding that and figuring out how to fix whatever wrongs may have occurred due to that. It's human nature. Poking him over something petty that I agree with him that you shouldn't be wasting time doing is petty and part of the reason you've had issues before. Him reverting those edits is also petty and unproductive as they don't hurt anything either if they are true null edits (spaces added to the end of the page, I didn't check if they were, but the parer chops them all off anyways if they are). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't endorse your view of what happened. He made a fool of himself by delivering a high-handed lecture on something he knows nothing about ("server load" and so on) then, when called on his foolishness, doubled down by making an even bigger fool of himself. Then he doubled again, and again! And then this nonsense about Germans.
There's a great paper on people who don't know enough to know how little they know: Dunning-Kruger effect. After eight years here -- as an admin, no less -- good faith isn't enough: one should, by then, understand the contours of ones competence. And this guy don't. As mentioned, not only was this precise behavior discussed by others in his RfA, but he displayed it directly during the RfA itself. EEng (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit on Gage

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

This book doesnt appear in Worldcat, or either of the two university libraries I can quickly check directly, however it is on Amazon[7] and reading lists[8]. I've found the book in Google books as sbharris mentions, and the text of p 59 reads:
With her son-in-law and the major of San Francisco, who happens to be a physician, standing by as witnesses, Phineas's coffin is unrecovered and carried to a shed. There, Dr. J. D. B. Stillman, a local surgeon, removes the skull. The huge fracture on the forehead is unmistakable. Dr. Stillman removes something else from the coffin-the tamping iron that Phineas carried everywhere, even to his grave.
John Vandenberg (chat) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

No, go ahead and transfer what you like. SBHarris 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I've summarised this discussion at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Burial_of_the_rod. --John Vandenberg (chat) 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I have regretfully reported your edit warring

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

Please can we keep the image off the article, and have a discussion about this? I would hate to loose EEng because he was blocked for preventing what he believed to be a copyright violation. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Final warning: if this is a copyvio, I'm sure other people will remove it. EEng doesn't need to break WP:3RR for wiki's sake. Anything else that looks like a 3RR vio will result in a block William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Re [9]. Nonetheless, the warning stands. You're not a one-man crusade against copyvio William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Re [10]. This isn't a court. Don't expect a formal process. WP:BURO William M. Connolley (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Chebyshev's inequality

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

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

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

Phineas Gage

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

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

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

That's why I was asking you first, I guess! EEng (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the article. It is great to have a free article from McMillan summarizing his point of view, instead of having to buy his book. I'll try to read it if I have time (as you say time is what always lacks :-) ). Nevertheless it still seems more of the same. We already know what McMillan thinks, but the problem is that from my point of view it is probably far from consensus among experts. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Zapruder

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

Discussion continued at Talk:Abraham Zapruder.

AfD participation

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

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

Re: Broken Springs

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

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

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

As you'll see above at User_talk:EEng#AfD_Participation I've already sworn off AfDs; I'll now redouble my determination. But now that you're here, could you take a look at [11] and see if you can help somehow? EEng (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do (Flow Notation System for rap)

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

Most things that arrive at deletion debates really don't belong on Wikipedia, but this is something that I think does belong here, just not yet. To be on WP it has to have been written up in a "reliable source", among other things, and that just hasn't happened yet that I can see.
Wikibooks is like Wikipedia in that "anyone can edit." But I don't know whether they will take it either -- don't know what their rules are. Their mission is to develop teaching materials and "how-to" stuff, and since FNS seems to be a tool for helping write rap lyrics, it seems like something that might fit there -- again, unless it's too new. I just spent a few minutes over there and I have to say I found it confusing. Why don't you post a query at [12] -- describe a bit about the FNS, provide links to the blogs and so on with details, and ask for help finding if/how it can be used on Wikibooks. I don't think Wikibooks has nearly as many people involved as on Wikipedia, so you may need to be very patient. And if the answer is that FNS is too new to be included, try not to be too disappointed.
Also, I don't know if your account here on WP will also work on Wikibooks -- if not, just add your question by editing as an IP editor for now. There's a way to make your WP account work all over the various Wiki projects but I don't know how it works. Good luck.
EEng (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. One other thing: be careful about copyright. I doubt the system itself (the particular uses of X O and so on) is copyrighted, but be very careful that your description of the system is in your own words. Once you get a response to your original question, ask that before you start actually contributing over there. Also, you better save a copy of the WP article on your own computer now, before it's deleted, so you can use it as a starting point as you write something for Wikibooks. And finally, if you have come to agree that the WP article needs to be deleted, so say at the AfD debate to save everyone trouble.

Strange rant

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

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

Note to the curious: I've been away for about six months and was welcomed back by the above. I did figure out what this Aleguasp person is frothing about, though it has nothing to do with me. [13] EEng (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Phineas Gage for Good Article status

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

Please sign with four tildes

Please make sure you sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). I've had to add your name on two separate occasions where you only left a time stamp (five tildes).[14][15] These conversations can be hard enough to follow as it is. Thanks. —sroc 💬 14:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't guarantee that I'll never err on that score again. If I do you can post a complaint at the WP:AdministratorsWrongNumberOfTildesNoticeboard. EEng (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I hate that noticeboard. I think that every user on wikipedia has been there at least fifteen times. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
You must be the most desperate and lonely talk page stalker there is, to be hanging around my talkpage. EEng (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Geez, just a friendly reminder. —sroc 💬 16:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I know, sroc, but think about it. As seen on this very page I've been editing for about 6 years. Likely this one-two punch of typographical irresponsibility was some fluke of fatigue or situational distraction, in which case there's little point mentioning it. Or perhaps it's a longstanding habit -- but then no doubt I've been scolded about this before over the years, and further exhortation won't help. (For the record first explanation is the correct one.) So was it really worth the trouble of posting here and pasting in two links to prove that I did it twice and me getting the little red notification and the clicking on the orange YOU HAVE NEW MESSAGES and reading what you said and responding and then my poor talk page stalker having what few brain cells he has remaining taken up by this and ... You see my point?
A far more sensible way to handle this would be to say, "Hmm... These discussions are so complicated it's a good bet EEng looks at the revision history to see what's been posted in which threads. So as I add his username to this post he signed incorrectly, I'll include a little message in the edit summary, sometin' like Hey, EEng, can ya' be a bit more careful to oount your tildes -- I got better things to do than sign your posts for you! with maybe a little wink icon.
Imagine how much less trouble that would be, though of course at the risk I might not see your message in the edit summary. But that really wouldn't be a disaster.
EEng (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot you would see the ping when I added your name on the talk page, so I thought I'd drop a brief note to make sure you saw it the second time. (I would have thought you might have paid a little more attention after the first time.) Anyway, it's not a big deal, as you say, so was this really worth another diatribe? I'd written 3 lines on this to your 16, so who's building on the molehills? A simple "Noted" or "Saw that" would have done. —sroc 💬 07:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, my psychiatrist is away so I've run out of diatribe -- pharmacist refuses to dispense more without a prescription. EEng (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Herb C & Counterculture

Are you concerned with semantics? I was referencing the fact that HC's terms became associated with the language of the counterculture. Please share your thoughts and deeper rationale for reversion. Best wishesLearner001 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding "counterculture" injects a slight hint of limitation of his language contributions. Since the two examples that immediately follow are beatnik and hippie I think the counterculture aspect is already well illustrated. EEng (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Where is the counterculture aspect well illustrated? It's not a big deal, and I'm no expert on Caen. I'm just trying to provide historical linkage for some of the terms. Learner001 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, "the two examples that immediately follow are beatnik and hippie" -- doesn't that illustrate the counterculture aspect of Caen's language influence? EEng (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Going back to your first note, I can see the point of not doing anything that might be seen as "limiting" his much larger contributions to a few remarks. I'll come up with something and run it by you. Best wishes Learner001 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

Hey you! Comeer!

I've updated the Jack and Ed Biddle DYK. I'm willing to pass it as is, but I proposed a couple of ALTs as well. I really think that the story's about them and the hook should reflect that. Ive seen counter-examples, but I'm not sure the buried lead works in this example (now, if you get a chance, Bright Shining Lie... THAT'S how you bury a lead!) Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest -- it had been so long I'd forgotten about this. I disagree about the hook though -- see the nom page. EEng (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. From your userpage I think you may be interested in [16] if you're not already familiar with it.

DYKUpdateBot

I don't know what the rest of the thread was about, but I was referencing this: [17] Belle (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean ice cream has no bones? EEng (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Margaret Rodgers

While the term "secret weapon" is good in the media, it's overkill in the section about honours and accolades. There is already a quotation from Sandeman regarding her association with the media, in the relevant section of the article. The second quotation from Sandeman is not "media focussed", but can be seen in a general way. Margaret's influence went a lot further than presenting the diocese well in the media. A great deal of her influence was behind the scenes. Amandajm (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just discovered that you used the quote to create a hook. No. The positioning of that quote is an anti-climax to the archbishop's statement, whereas, without the "secret weapon" quote, Sandeman's quote complements and summarises the archbishop's statement in a manner that the archbishop himself could not do. Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
We don't need "positions" -- it was just a suggestion. EEng (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

On the Corfu hook (Prep 1)

As to the amount of gold, the print source (several actually) state it in kilograms. I have no objection to adding troy ounces except that it would probably push the hook over the limit.

I disagree with the term "using" insofar as the claim wasn't used to satisfy the ICJ judgment. The claim stemming from the judgment was settled at the same time that the claim to the gold was settled. Arguably, the judgment wasn't really satisfied, but that's another topic entirely. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary the final settlement had multiple shells being shuffled around. Without agreeing or disagreeing with what you say, if what you say is true, then "settled with" is just as wrong as "satisfied using". The fact is my first impulse was to pull this from prep because the article's discussion is so confusing, and I think I should have gone with the impulse. I have to run out for a bit so I'll post a pointer to this at WP:TDYK. EEng (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this despite the pressure to finish the prep before the update was due, and moreover for taking the time to critique the writing rather than rejecting it outright. I genuinely do appreciate it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to say so. Astonishingly, not everyone sees it that way. [18] [19] EEng (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Einstein and the Date format

Thats a nice quote, but this isn't really about trying to "claim" anyone as a certain citizen or not. The facts are that he was a citizen of multiple countries. But the reality is that only one of those countries is an English speaking country, the United States. Therefore since this is the "English Wikipedia", just as we do with spelling differences, the article should use the date format of the English speaking country that the subject was a citizen of. There appeared to be some ambiguity in the wording of the MOS that a few people interpreted incorrectly. So much so that despite being in the minority, an admin decided to close the RFC as "no-consensus". I believe we need to make this part of the MOS more clear so that there is no ambiguity as to its meaning.--JOJ Hutton 18:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a nice quote, and it wasn't meant to be about citizenship claims. It's about silly worries about trivial things. EEng (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
One mans nonsense is another mans worry. Can't have guidelines not being followed over nonsensical wording. The intent of STRONGNAT is clear, we just need to make the wording clear as well. Otherwise what's the point of even having guidelines if people can ignore them? JOJ Hutton 20:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
If the intent is clear nothing more is needed. Nothing should be added to MOS unless it's clear (a) that there's a chronic issue that comes up over and over and editor time is being wasted.

This discussion needs to take place at Talk:MOS and its subsidiaries, though it's not something I'm interested in pursuing myself. EEng (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

John Crittle

What happens when you wikilink Jesus too much

Thanks for your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/John Crittle. However, it's now gone to Prep 4 using ALT2. I agree with you that ALT3 is the better hook. As it is "my" hook (okay, so is ALT2), I'm reluctant to intervene. Perhaps you might like to? After all, if ALT2 is okay, ALT3 should also be acceptable. Edwardx (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I just never miss an opportunity to get my 2 cents in re the stupid "new content" fetish which makes everything a rush. Honestly I've got too much of a rep for interfering so I'm not inclined to do anything, unless you feel strongly. EEng (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Nah listen up there, bhoy. 'Sno good gitten all a-feared a' them there fearsome crittlers, y'a hear! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT3 is rather better, so please interfere for the good of our readers! Edwardx (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. I wonder if we should link Jesus. That'd put the cat among the pigeons! EEng (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
".. and Rule Number 7, No Dress Designers!". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I preferred ALT2 to ALT3 myself, but I'm too busy fixing up The White Album to argue the toss, so knickers to the lot of you. :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder could we possibly rename “Did You Know” as “Reg Smeaton’s Extremely Fascinating Corner”? I think that such a name much better conveys the necessary degree of studious gravitas. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Deckmyn vs Vandersteen

"Rejected" is a typo, I suppose? The template looks really strange, as if other things went wrong as well. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Mystery solved [20] EEng (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

My wiki-meetup

I don't mind that generally as it's just banter between friends, but putting it on DYK talk where the interplay will be harder to come by (even if somebody cares to look) doesn't make DYK look very friendly to other female editors and encourages the sort of interactions from complete strangers that I'd prefer to avoid. (There, that's you told, don't make me come back with the cat). Belle (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I overstepped -- we wouldn't want to Belle the cat, would we? EEng (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Blinkered

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/124517?redirectedFrom=Myopic#eid

The OED gives A. adj.

"1. Of, relating to, or affected with myopia; short-sighted, near-sighted."

but it goes on to say

"2. fig. Lacking foresight or intellectual insight; unimaginative." (first use 1894)

I was of course using it figuratively. Interestingly the OED gives as one of its quotes in support of A.1:

"1891 G. Meredith One of our Conquerors III. i. 8 Your Moralist is a myopic preacher."

So presumably the subject of the sentence really was short-sighted.

What I really meant and should have used was the figurative use of "blinkered" ("horse for courses").

-- PBS (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course. EEng (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Trouble with upright

Hi, where is this showing as a problem? Many infoboxes are not expecting the full image syntax, just the image name, so some of the options are not valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The syntax
|image = HarvardUniversity WidenerLibrary ExteriorFront c1915 cropped.jpg{{!}}upright=1.3
works fine at [21], but if you paste that exact text into the infobox at Eleanor_Elkins_Widener it doesn't respond to the upright parameter (try upright=3 in both articles), and thus I'm forced to use the image= {{image}} syntax you see at [22].

It's a shame because upright respect the user's size preference, which px doesn't, and I always use upright for imgs within the article, but I've struggled to get infoboxes to work with it. Any help you can give would be appreciated. EEng (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The infoboxes are different. Widener Library uses {{Infobox library}}, but Eleanor Elkins Widener uses {{Infobox person}}. Both recognise an |image= parameter, and both push the value of that through to Module:InfoboxImage, but they do that in different ways. In particular, {{Infobox person}} has code to force |upright=1 even if you use {{!}}upright=1.3 Techniques which "hide" parameters by using {{!}} are somewhat hacky and not guaranteed to work, which is why many infoboxes (these two included) provide other parameters besides |image=, such as |image_size=|alt= etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
TLDR. I understand the infoboxes operate differently; I said that in the text I added to the WP:IMGSIZE. So is there, or is there not, a consistent way to use upright in infoboxes (other than |image = {{image}} or can only geeks figure out how to do it? EEng (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Looks like this [23] works, at least for infobox person. EEng (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no consistent method. But I really don't think that your extra note is on the right page. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size is concerned with images in text, not images in formatted boxes. It also deals primarily with images that are specified using the full image syntax. A recent edit of yours added the {{image}} template, but boxed images can be formed using several other methods, such as the many different techniques used in infoboxes. Even between infoboxes that use a "standard" technique like Module:InfoboxImage, there is variation, as we have seen. WP:IUP is for general considerations - the place to point out quirks of the image syntax of an infobox is in the documentation for that specific infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree it's a bit awkward, but if we're going to encourage use of upright we need to also help them not waste time trying to apply it in certain situations where it's problematic. Give a me a day or two to think of a different approach. EEng (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted that change you made to IUP. The evidence is that there is no problem with upright=, there is only an issue as to how specific templates implement it. -- Netoholic @ 19:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Our goal is to help editors use upright, and if there are cases where trying to add it will cause confusion and frustration it's our job to help editors deal with that -- it doesn't matter whether the "fault" is with upright itself or with the templates. Why not chill a bit while I do a few experiments? EEng (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already fixed {{Infobox library}}. How about you chill while you experiment. Two people here have objected to your change to an official policy page... that means its your turn to establish a change to that page. -- Netoholic @ 20:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, except one of those two left the change in place, so maybe it's not such a big deal either way for a day or two. Calm down. Anyway, of the infoboxes under discussion library wasn't the problem -- it was person. But if it helps you sleep at night to revert, be my guest. EEng (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
As predicted. [24] EEng (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Infobox_person just needs an {{{image_upright|}}} parameter added so that the default can be overridden without resorting to hard-coded px size (ie image_size= should be deprecated). I know why they have it at upright=1 now, because most images of people are in portrait orientation. I'd say take it up on the talk page there. Let me know and I'll back you up and even provide a sandbox version if needed. -- Netoholic @ 20:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I seemed pissy and thanks for seeing past that. Look, is there something we can do to move all infoboxes toward accepting upright? Arguments like "it's hardcoded at 1 because most images of people are portrait orientation" show a complete misunderstanding of what upright is for -- see WP:IMGSIZE. There are lots of reasons for using upright <> 1, other than portrait versus landscape. Unfortunately I won't be able to help with the technical aspects (without a large investment of time to come up to speed) but if you're saying it will help for me to get the ball rolling via a post at Talk:infobox person I'll do that. EEng (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the main barrier is the name of the setting being called "upright" rather than something logical like "scale". For example, I'm trying to implement it in Template:Infobox software and have met confused resistance on that talk page. I know what upright is for - to respect user preference - but the setting in the context of the confined space of an infobox does result in it being an issue of portrait vs landscape, since there is a give-and-take between making the image large enough without pushing the data in the infobox down too far, and finding the "right" default value on each particular infobox can be a challenge. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose if we want to be really bold we could first propose that scale be added to the general WP:EIS as a synonym for upright, and then just use scale in new applications like infoboxes, to save confusion. I don't care too much what the default scale/upright is in any given situation, just so long as it can be overridden. (BTW, though, if proof was ever needed of the insanity of many of the people tinkering in the bowels here, it's that if you specify upright with no parameter, you get the equivalent of upright=0.75 instead of upright=1. What kind of mind would come up with that?)

So what to do next? I do think it's a worthy goal to make upright generally usable -- it's amazing how completely confused people are, and angry about it Talk:Phineas_Gage/Archive_3#Image_widths. EEng (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well it was designed to address "upright" images (ie portrait orientation) so that's probably why it defaults to .75, though its like it was a half-incomplete line of thought. Oh and if you want to see more irrational anger about image widths, check out Template talk:Infobox software#removal of hardcoded image px sizes. Its almost useless. Though there was one good thing out of that conversation, a link to mw:Requests for comment/Square bounding boxes that shows some of the issues we've talked about here might someday get addressed. -- Netoholic @ 08:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Tabnit

Hi, thanks for your time on this one. I've found a very detailed new source which i've added to the article, and made a suggestion on the DYK page.

Am quite keen not to misrepresent the King here, as if we cross him we will apparently "have no posterity all thy life under the sun, and no resting-place with the departed."

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's an unusual but not unknown class of risk when working in DYK -- see [25]. EEng (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
"Delusions, irresistible envy, enslavement, paralysis, or death" huh? Yep, seems to describe the life-cycle of a wikipedian pretty well. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sad to say, but now that you point it out that's true. I'll be in touch with a new or revised hook. EEng (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi EEng!

Thanks for your help on 100 prisoners problem and Jonathan Quinn Barnett. I do want to keep up the QPQ work, as it's fun. Couple of questions. First, I found some earlier history of COI submission of DYK, and found that it was connected to the history of the page where I got the idea that it might be encouraged. But these two histories merge and then don't go anywhere else. So, it seems that there is no reason for me to take the view of nominating DYK on my own new articles. Do you mind if I nominate DYK on my (hypothetical) good articles, or use WP:COOP to find uninvolved editors willing to review new COI articles for nomination? Second, we already have had a good agreement that CitizenShipper is notable and we worked out most of the content concerns that were brought up so far. Can you work with me on what concerns you have about the RS that appear and how they are used? I will help with DYK when I can. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Luddites

See what I mean ;-) Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User:EEng#A_rolling_stone_gathers_no_MOS EEng (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Meter and a yard

An approximation surely close enough — for land mines, hand grenades and horseshoes. Good edit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What's a Meter] (see your section heading)? EEng (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Informal tracking of the stats

Although I don't always agree with your views as expressed on the DYK talk page, I appreciate the record you are keeping of the number of nominations and approvals. Over the time you have done it, the number of unreviewed nominations has crept up from around 200 to around 300. Three hundred is the equivalent of a three week delay. Periodically I have made suggestions on the discussions page about ways of reducing the backlog but at the moment everyone seems too concerned with making sure that nothing in any way dubious/contentious gets through, especially with a peripatetic ediitor whose objective appears to be to prove reviewers are incompetent.

The chief problem seems to be that nominations exceed reviews. A requirement that every nomination (except the first five DYKs as now) required a QPQ review would solve this problem but you and others might argue that forcing people to do QPQs in this way doesn't lead to higher quality reviews. Adopting my suggestion might have the effect of reducing the number of non-creator nominations, no bad thing in view of the backlog, but on the whole might raise the standard of reviews. Few people seem to do voluntary reviews, perhaps hindered by the atmosphere of criticism. I could discuss this on the DYK talk page but nobody there seems much interested in improving the flow of nominations and decreasing the backlog. By the time it gets to the front page, a "new" article is often many weeks or months old and I think this is a shame. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the appreciation -- this seems to be the first attempt to keep any kind of systematic record at all. I'm pleasantly surprised since, frankly, I've been anticipating someone saying, "What are you cluttering up the discussion page with those stupid stats for?"
  • All other things being equal, naturally prompter reviews are better, but I really don't see why it matters, per se, that the content be super-fresh-new, or even new at all -- in fact I think the "new content" preoccupation at DYK is a phony distraction.
  • I do think it's paramount that WP not be embarrassed on its main page by foolishly wrong hooks, but I also think that one editor's CONSTANT harangues and carping is very poisonous.
  • I can't quite tell what you're proposing -- it seems to be "every nomination (except the first five DYKs as now) required a QPQ review would solve this problem" -- but that seems to be what we have now! Please clarify.
  • I don't like the idea of requiring reviews from everyone, period, because I think the best way for someone to learn to perform a review is to first be the subject of a few reviews. Here's what I'd propose:
  • First 5 noms (self-noms or not): Free [maybe this should be first 3 noms instead -- whatever...]
  • Next 5 noms: One review required
  • After that: Two reviews required, if there's a backlog (some details need to be worked out here, of course -- and we don't want people sitting around holding onto articles, waiting for the backlog to clear)
Either that or, if we want to have inexperienced people do reviews as QPQ starting with their very first nom, then we need some kind of mentoring or double-check by more experienced reviewers. Either way we have to ask the more-experienced to do more. I know this sounds complicated but I don't see any way to avoid this while maintaining quality. EEng (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, every time a philanthropic nominator nominates somebody else's article, the gap between the number of reviewed and non-reviewed hooks gets bigger. I was thinking that for the first five nominations made by a new-to-DYK editor, the inexperienced DYKer would not be asked to do a review. After that, a review would be needed for every nomination, whether it was a self-nomination or a nomination by someone else. People like Oceanh who make a lot of nominations would then be required to do a lot of reviews. Nobody would be able to game the system by getting their friend to nominate their articles because the friend would then be required to do a review. The gap between the number of reviewed and non-reviewed hooks would be steady, leaving some extra reviewing work for those nominations where second opinions are needed. Anyone who chose could voluntarily do some reviewing to bring down the backlog. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Only other use on the web?

Ah yes, "spectral presentments": [26]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

On Talk:St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York, you've removed, perhaps accidentally, Ad Orientem's important and highly relevant comment. I was going to revert you, but I think it best for you to replace that piece. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Accidental on my part, sorry -- I see Ad Orientem's restored his comments. EEng (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I kinda figured it was a mistake. By coincidence I spent part of this morning picking myself up after tripping over my keyboard in an unrelated CSD/AfD fiasco. $#YT happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Could have been worse -- could have been an ANI fiasco. See also the hatnotes at `Collapse. EEng (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's face it EEng, even your best articles are unnotable rubbish ... but it's now all becoming clear why that is. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

creep?

You are missing my main point, which is that mosnum would become one whole lot simpler if it adopted the ISQ as default, stating exceptions as considered necessary, and not inventing new rules over and over again. Is that really instruction creep? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"American way, How did it start? ... Cop kill a creep! Pow pow pow!" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It's CREEP unless it's clear (a) that there's lots of controversy that needs settling, and (b) that ISQ indeed usually gives the answers we would want. So far I'm not even seeing (a), and (b) can't become clear without a lot more discussion, almost certainly with actual issues as examples. EEng (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe the simplification is justified even without proof of controversy. I suspect that ISQ provides much of the advice on units that is now in MOSNUM, but I accept some discussion is needed for this to be accepted, which is why I keep raising it. The main exceptions would be selected use of traditional American units in American articles and traditional English units in English articles, and mosnum's insistence in using ambiguous prefixes for MB, GB etc. Not only would it result in a simpler mosnum, which would benefit Wikipedia as a whole - it would also reduce the time needed for future mosnum discussions by providing a clear starting point. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You creeper, you

Was this edit summary intentional?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeepers Creepers! EEng (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Widener Library

The article Widener Library you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Widener Library for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Martinevans123 -- Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEng/Archive_1&oldid=1142981452"