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]
Your reply here reminds me of one of Mark Twain's quotes: "Anybody can have ideas—the difficulty is to express them without squandering a quire of paper on an idea that ought to be reduced to one glittering paragraph." — President Lethe (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And your post reminds me of the old joke about the ambiguous letter of recommendation: "You will be lucky if you can get this man to work for you." EEng21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1]. 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.
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]
Maybe this will make sense to you. You asserted, with palpable condescension, that immigrated from and emigrated to are blunders [4]:
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 [5]: 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 [6]: As seen here [7] 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][8]: 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." [9] 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! [10][11] Some of them are even "last" warnings! [12] 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."
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]
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]
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? [14]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]
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 [15] 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" [17] -- 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]
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]
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 [23] (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. [24][25][26]
Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Bgwhite blocked me [27] seven hours after my last edit, and after another editor had restored the article to "my" version [28]. 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).
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 [29] -- 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]
Oh, please. If he can't take it he shouldn't be dishing it out [30][31]. 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]
It's more convincing when the person warning about "edit warring" isn't one of those doing the reverting. You're obviously angry about other things. [33][34]EEng (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See [35]] for what all this is about. As with earlier incidents recently (I seem to be making a habit of this [36]]) I'm pleased and gratified to be blocked at the behest of someone so transparently angry [37]. 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]
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]
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.
^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.
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 [38] has left little time for actual hooking. But I did manage to get in [39]
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 [41] 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" [42], 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 [43] 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 [44] 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]
Seconded—although, to be fair, it seems our colleague's primary concern was actually that the article would lead to sweeping bans on meat consumption, and that incensed meat lovers, driven savage by frustrated bloodlust, would seek gory revenge at health food stores. FourViolas (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I stand with User:Softlavender. You're talk page is hilarious! Well done at getting into so many hilarious scenarios and being able to be both serious and humorous as needed!
You deserve every single one of these that you get:
Hello E. I got a chuckle out of this though I am not sure if that will be the reaction of everyone. Should someone start editing from the great beyond I think a new SPI report (that would be a spookpuppet investigation) would need to be opened. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk17:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sooooo tempted to type something on that page and have Ritchie explain his way out of that (yes, fingers would be pointed straight at him when queried). Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Words fail. When you unblock me, please make sure your entry in the block log makes clear the nature of your original action in instituting the block; the words "outrageous", "tone-deaf", "absurd", "ridiculous", and "incompetent" would all be good choices. EEng (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A 48 hour block would have been appropriate for the shitty attitude you have been laying down at ANI. While it may be fun and jokes you were getting into topics that did not involve you and grinding your axe. You were adding heat to situations that did not need heat added to them. The indef was over the top, but your behaviour was not so innocent either. The block was excessive but did not occur in a vacuum. Really if a reasonable length block has been made it would have stuck, so don't act too self-righteous. HighInBC16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC: Pardon me, but what in the world are you talking about? "Grinding axe" -- huh? Here's every ANI post I made in the week before the block. Which ones are in any way inappropriate?
If you're one of these people who thinks that humor doesn't have a useful purpose, including (or even especially) in difficult situations, then please add yourself to the list of admins whose experience of the world is sufficiently limited that you should probably leave behavioral blocks, other than obvious vandalism, to those with a broader perspective and more social clue. EEng (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept your false dichotomy. The fact is you are going to topics that don't involve you and taking up space commenting on things that in no way help the situations. I don't think that thinking this is annoying and unhelpful means I don't think humour has a useful purpose. Your humour is taking the form of telling people off. If I have made your "list of admins" that is too bad, but perhaps consider that your behaviour is also a factor. HighInBC16:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC: Again: huh? Of the three posts above, one was an image adding harmless comic relief to the otherwise dreary ANI landscape, and the other three were absolutely serious comments on what was going on (though (d) also carried my notorious ribbing for Drmies). So false dichotomy or not, I must insist that you answer: which of those justified my being blocked? That's a very serious charge, so either put up or shut up. Or do you, like Nakon, just shoot from the hip, and stonewall when called to account? EEng (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a trout may have been sufficient. I know you are having trouble seeing your comments as disruptive, not sure how I can convince you otherwise. HighInBC18:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, or maybe a small supply of trouts. EEng is often frustrating and exasperating. But I am pretty sure that we dont have a policy that makes that in itself a cause for an indefinite block.·maunus · snunɐɯ·18:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HighInBC: Oh, I see. First you cast this as "a difference of opinion on what justifies an indef block" [53]. When that turned out to be ridiculous, you wanted 48 hours. Now it's a trout. Have you no idea how corrosive to the project are this kind of careless and imperious pronouncements on the fate of us peons?
Yes, I'm having trouble "seeing [my] comments as disruptive", because you've dodged my repeated demands that you say what talking about. And now that Nakon has issued a full (and very gracious) retraction and apology [54], you're alone in insisting that I did anything wrong at all. So you have two choices now: admit you were just shooting your mouth off, or make it obvious you're one of those people who has to always insist he's right, no matter what. (I put that last bit in big-bold so that, since you undoubtedly will continue to bob and weave, it will be obvious to everyone, at a glance, what's going on here.) EEng (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are to be commended for graciously accepting Nakon's apology. Now, that seems like an odd thing to say, but around here, some people are only interested in perpetuating the drama no matter what. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM (a fellow back pain sufferer) 21:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, it is obvious from HighinBC's comments that he is a prime example of what I have been saying for years about administrators around here. Their first rule- Protect their own. High's defense of a outrageously bad block which was followed by a pathetic defense that no one but the hardcore administrators will ever defend. What Nakon did is just another example of why administrators are allowed to get away with almost anything whereas we editors get routinely shafted on a regular basis....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely puzzled by HighinBC's views, because I have always regarded High as someone with good judgment (and I'll refrain from suggesting any relationship between height and cough syrup). I guess it just comes down to the difficulty of assessing humor online. EEng, I hope your back feels better soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. While you guys are at it, you might take a look at Nakon's reversion (here) of my clearly constructive changes (which, while fit subjects for discussion as all edits are, certainly don't deserve a high-handed no-edit-summary trashing). Perhaps this is Nakon's subtle way of underscoring the need for effective mechanisms for recall of heavy-handed admins who, having made essentially no edits in six months [55], suddenly appear out of nowhere to throw their weight around in situations they know nothing about, then mysteriously go silent when called to account. EEng (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the edits to Deletion process. Looks pretty strongly like a rollback by mistake, so I've assumed as such and undone it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I fully agree with IJBall in this edit; I'm happy to remain blocked as long as it take for Nakon to come to his senses. Wikipedia doesn't need me nearly as much as it needs to come to grips with the problem of this kind of admin. EEng (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately a cramped ride in a crowded taxi recently left me with a herniated disk. It hurts like the dickens, so until it's treated on Monday I have to get up every 2-3 hours and walk around to relieve the pressure on the spine.
If you look at my block log you'll see I'm quite used to this kind of crap, and I hope it won't sound wrong when I say I wasn't worried for a second about how this would turn out. I appreciate your taking the time to get the ball rolling on clearing things up, and when this is all over please take a few moments to visit the Museums. EEng (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I wasn't worried about the long term either, since this case is clearly that of a bad block but, as you say, I simply wanted to get the ball rolling to resolve this as soon as possible given always the on-wiki constraints. Thank you for your kind words EEng and for the invitation to the museums. Very interesting places indeed. :) I wish you a speedy recovery and a Happy New Year! Dr.K.07:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked, as this is clearly an unjustified block and current consensus agrees. Blocking for that reason, without discussion, was not acceptable. Discussion will carry on at AN, I'm sure. WormTT(talk) 09:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I considered leaving you blocked a couple of people suggested (and you agreed), but I refuse to see a bad block stay in place until the blocking admin sees the light. Especially as the blocking admin hadn't posted for 3 hours. If you want to take it further, go ahead, I'll be willing to comment in any forum you bring it to. WormTT(talk) 14:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment, and then I'm going back to suffering horizontally for a few hours instead of vertically... With regard to this comment [56] by IJBall: Obviously Nakon make a mistake, but it was a mistake no admin should ever, EVER be making. Consider the exchange which Nakon cited [57] as the basis for blocking me:
Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.
Drmies: "Next time just post on EEng's talk page. Not only do they know a thing or two about Wikipedia policy, they also have lots of time on their hands."
EEng: "Drmies, shouldn't you be cabaling with your fellow Arbcom-ers?"
Next to my comment, I posted the image you see at right. Someone who can't see that Drmies was teasing me, and I was teasing him/her (I'll figure out which someday) back, shouldn't be an admin, much less (as Nakon is) on the OTRS and UTRS teams.
Add to this the facts that...
everyone knows that Drmies is perfectly capable of taking care of himself/herself;
Nakon, asked to account for his actions, still failed to see the absurdity of what he'd done, pointing to the completely innocent exchange (quoted above) as justification for the block; and
Nakon, by blocking both my email-this-user and my talkpage access, was forcing me to appeal my block through the very UTRS system for which he is one of the gatekeepers...
...then we have here either grossly poor judgment or heedless arrogance. Take your pick.
Hey EEng, sorry I missed the party--that was a bad block and I suppose Nakon knows this by now. FWIW, I enjoyed your comment, as wrong as it was--when you made it I was either doing dishes, singing karaoke, reading Paul Theroux, or sleeping--or all four simultaneously. The secret ArbCom cabal doesn't meet anymore on Fridays (don't tell anyone) in part because of all the young people, like Kirill, GW, Keilana, and DGG; Friday nights it's usually dancing and then Waffle House. I'm obviously not invited to those events. Again, my apologies for that block; may we have many more fringey conversations together. Try not to get a spike through your head. Happy Saturday morning, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I doubt Nakon understands how wrong what he did is (though of course he understands everyone else is telling him it was wrong). I suspect he rationalizes it as just a minor mistake. You know me well enough to know I don't give a whit, for myself, about being blocked, but the demoralizing effect of this kind of behavior on the rank and file is substantial. You have a forgiving nature, but please consider what I said at AN [58]:
I don't think it aggrandizes my momentary martyrdom to say that the outcome of this thread will tell us plebians once and for all whether admins are subject to even the most minimal standards of accountability, or can do whatever the fuck they want with no meaningful consequences, ever. Imagine if I'd been a new user—score another one for editor retention!
I, and many others I'm sure, would like to see you take the lead in not letting this end up just another monument to uncontrolled admin misbehavior. If I may suggest you might start by emailing Nakon and making clear to him that he's expected to participate in the AN discussion. EEng (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a few hours today looking into Nakon and his actions. He's not a bad admin, he's hard working and a massive benefit to the encyclopedia. It just seems that last night he went... off. I've put detailed explanation of the issues at his talk page - but given his history, unless he comes back and goes off the deep end, I don't believe that anything is going to come out of this. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes, and as far as I can see, this is a one-off mistake. I'll be keeping an eye on what happens and may well have more to say. WormTT(talk) 15:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Worm. EEng, I have not seen the AN discussion (unless I edited from my phone, in which case I don't know what I did, haha) but I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holy bleep, EEng! I was logged out throughout this entire fiasco, but now that I've seen it, I am appalled at what happened to you. Heck, you've said way worse to me, and I don't have a problem with anything you said to me. There was nothing remotely block-worthy here. At least this particular admin came around to making a genuine apology, which I think does count for something. In any case, your literal pain in the back sounds far worse than the figurative pain in the neck, and at least there was no iron through the skull, so I wish you a rapid recovery, even though you clearly never lacked for a spine! Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around in Wikipedia for a while now, love EEng's humor, and don't know the particulars of what the current dispute is about, but my two cents is that an indefinite block is way too much punishment, that we need sharp guys like EEng in Wikipedia if only to help others think, and that EEng does contribute to the encyclopedia. But I haven't examined this subject in depth -- it is my two cent opinion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of in-depth examination was the problem here, Tomwsulcer. As an ArbCom member I charge more than two cents for my opinion, of course. Kelapstick, what's our going rate? And do we accept gold nuggets and bauxite? Drmies (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could charge more than my two cents for an in-depth examination, but I'd probably fall asleep mid-examination on this one. Good idea to keep me off of ArbCom for the foreseeable future; better yet, we'll pay you ArbCom members in 100% pure bauxite for your judgments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner or later I'll probably visit Boston again. Right now, I'm promoting my new novel Jakk's Journey about, as you may have guessed, a high school boy who builds a spaceship, flies to Betelgeuse, meets sexy aliens, has adventures, and learns how to become a human! Sooner or later Jakk may get a page in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no previous knowledge of Nakon, but I see that he may in fact be an Obotrite leader who flourished 954 – ca. 966. Well he's certainly not flourishing now, I'd say. I'm sure it's very easy to react, on the spur of the moment, to comments at AN/I which don't immediately appear to be constructive. But in this case, I think a lot of editors who have been watching from the sidelines, think he may have made what is commonly termed "a mistake". I'm just wondering if he should admit that, or even offer some kind of apology as a result? Or maybe he thinks that admins all "reside in a "ringwall" of fortresses"? And that whatever mistake one administrator makes can be neatly corrected by the prompt action of a second administrator? It would be nice to know. Just as a detail of medieval Slavic tribal history, of course. Remnant Visa 123 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. well I obviously should have checked before I started writing this! He has done the very noble and polite thing and offered an unreserved apology. And that's something that, in general, is rarer than hen's teeth around here. I have great respect for that and I applaud him for his honesty. A Tanner Vims 123 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...Wow. Rather odd, sociologically speaking, that a mouse click and a few comments from a rhinovirally impaired Internet user could have caused such consternation among so many. Glad to have you back, EEng, and please don't take it out on your poor fellow invalid; as AirmanVents notes, we don't say sorry to our friends when we hurt their feelings as often as we should, and those who do so are greatly to be admired. Pip pip, rest well! FourViolas (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EEng sorry to see what happened, personally I appreciate your sense of humor. Anyway I've taken the liberty of restoring your page headers, and also all of your old messages have been moved to User talk:EEng/Archive 3. So your talk page is fixed a bit better anyway. Good luck with things --Jules(Mrjulesd)21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint, but as most of know I prefer to let it all hang out, so for the moment I've restored everything. However, I promise to do at least some archiving soon, or maybe reorganize into subpages. Not just now, but soon. Thanks to everyone for their marvelous performances in the latest production of Through the Looking-Glass, and What EEng Found There. EEng (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aagh! (Tryptofish runs crying from the room.) It breaks my computer again! (And are you sure you want to talk about letting it all hang out in a discussion about it being too long? Sorry, I couldn't resist!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should have plenty of time to concentrate on you User Page and Talk Page from now on, EEng, "fnarr, fnarr".... A Rams Invent 123 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. but now very pleased, of course that your Talk Page is a reasonable length, at last. oh no! ... where's that new "dislike button" again? [reply]
Jimbo announces Greatest Stature Award, to be given annually in honor of EEng
I'm at a birthday party in London for Wikipedia – surrounded by the celebrities like Jimmy Wales and the WMUK crowd, cutting the birthday cake. They have a visualization of Wikipedia running on a big screen here and I was watching the edits just now. I recognised many of the topics and was especially tickled when I saw an edit to Phineas Gage pop up. I said, "I bet I know who did that – it must be EEng". I was right – don't you ever stop tinkering with this thing? Anyway, thanks for beavering away to provide the cabaret while we party on... Andrew D. (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even on the toilet, apparently... (Caption by EEng) "...now if I can just tamp down this blasting powder into this hole..." (Caption by ME123)
The day may come when I'll switch to maintenance mode for Gage, but not likely soon. Research continues.
Until recently I thought I toiled in obscurity, except of course for my periodic trips to ANI. It was a shock, therefore, when during the recent fiasco an editor commented that "Blocking an editor of EEng's stature is [something] [somethine] [something]". So apparently I've got stature—my mother is so proud! If you send a self-addressed, stamped envelope I'm giving free autographs for a limited time.
That visualization thingee is cute. I'm sorry to be missing the party. Re your userpage photo, I've been meaning to mention that I was in London recently (30% Gage research, 70% pleasure -- my favorite place in the world) and for the first was able to fit in some followup at BL. When I saw that sculpture of Newton out front I was instantly reminded of this quote from him:
I keep [a] subject constantly before me, and wait 'till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light.
That's the one. When I first saw it, in situ, I honestly thought it was a guy on the toilet. I thought, "Why does the British Library have a statue of a guy on the toilet." EEng03:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ArbCom motion, suggestions Hewitt makes on talk pages should be "brief", and Hewitt was reminded that he is still restricted from self-promotional editing per the original ArbCom case. The posted references do not contribute to the argument and are self-promotional. Do not act as the enabler of Hewitt. If you restore the material I removed again, you will be restricted from doing so. —Ruud19:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ruud Koot, please lay off the threats against another experienced, good-faith editor i.e. me. What the restriction says is [60]
The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP (Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.
Hewitt's original post was indeed brief [61] and even if you think it wasn't, that doesn't excuse what you're doing. If you want to mark it "edit request declined" that's fine; or if removal of his complete post is justified, that's fine; or if you think he's violating his restrictions then take that to the appropriate venue. But you should not be materially altering another's post [62] in a way that misleads others as to its content (in this case, making it look like he posted proposed text without sources -- inappropriate though those sources seem to be).
I think Hewitt's a crackpot, but that doesn't excuse your heavyhanded actions at the article talk, or your highhanded attitude here, and I expect a response per WP:ADMINACCT. David Eppstein, if I'm missing something in all this please enlighten me. EEng20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hewitt may or may not be a crackpot but he's also a sockpuppeteer, heavy self-promoter, and problem for the project. Hence his ban. If left to do what he wants he will filibuster the Gödel talk page into unusability; see the "arguments" links in the archive navbox of the talk page. So in this case, I do think it's reasonable to remove the comments (or move them to arguments). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, removing Hewitt's post might be fine, but check the third link in my OP -- what was done was to silently modify his post very substantially, and that seems inadmissible under any circumstances -- wouldn't you agree? EEng20:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. You fail to see the tactic Hewitt is employing here: he posts a semi-legitimate point for discussion and then uses this as a coatrack for self-promotion, disrupting the talk page in the process. If the post is removed completely, he will claim that he is being "censored" and revert back to sockpuppeteering, causing more disruption to the talk page. Those references are tangential to the argument, and removing them thus do not "substantially alter" his argument. If he notices his self-promotionalism is not allowed to stand, he may eventually give up on this, without being able claim he was mistreated. Do not allow yourself to be played as pawn in Hewitt's game. —Ruud21:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't asking if you agree, I was asking David Eppstein, whose comments so far support simple removal of Hewitt's post, or moving them elsewhere -- but not altering them. Inclined as Hewitt is already to claim he's being mistreated, you're giving him more ammunition by altering his post to remove the sources he'd included. I see nothing anywhere justifying such modification. Everyone can see the sources are self-promotional, so why don't you just let his post speak for itself (possibly assisted by a comment you add)?
I still haven't heard anything from you about your dickish threat against me. Admins who throw their weight around are a real hot button for me. EEng22:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that material is left to stand, it would incentivize Hewitt to post more of such material in the future. If the material is removed, it might discourage Hewitt from posting such material in the future. The latter would minimize the disruption of the talk page.
I consider the removal of this material arbitration enforcement. I will use my administrative tools to make sure this material stays removed, if necessary. I prefer not letting it come this, and am required to warn you before I would do so. If you disagree with my interpretation of the restrictions placed upon Hewitt, I suggest you take your issues to the ArbCom here. —Ruud23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An admin upholds one of the five pillars without throwing his weight around.
Again with the threats ("I will use my administrative tools to make sure this material stays removed, if necessary. I prefer not letting it come this, and am required to warn you before I would do so") instead of engaging what I've said. I guess I can add one to the count of highhanded dick admins who resort to threats as a substitute for engaging what another has said.
Just as I predicted, your altering of Hewitt's post has given him one more thing to complain about [63]. While he'd complain no matter what, this way a bystander (unable to see what the refs were) might mistakenly believe the refs were appropriate, and sympathize with Hewitt. Great work, Mr. Admin. EEng14:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that wasn't one of my better efforts. WPO: where they also wikigroan. I was trying to say that they now have Gawker as competition. As for the latter part, woopsy, I was misremembering this. I hope that my errors didn't dampen your moo. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite bit is "Wikipedia’s principled editor’s are in no moo." EEng05:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC) I'm (ahem) principled, so watch it with the comments, insects![reply]
You may recall that Jeffrey Dahmer was killed during a fight in prison. So... What did Jeffrey Dahmer say just before the big fight in prison where he got killed?
Ready?
"Aah -- I used to eat guys like you for breakfast!"
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See 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.
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. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, look, another high-handed member of the "admin 3%" drops in to deliver an arrogant lecture on his backward understanding of how things are supposed to work, leavened by ominous threats. See [65]. EEng14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Original section heading by OP: "Conduct Concerns"
Recently I've noticed that a number of your comments this month have not met the expectations outlined in our civility and no personal attacks policies. Examples include referring to a user as a "prick" and "completely tonedeaf"multiple times, using images and captions to insult other users (1, 2), making personal attacks towards others, and general incivility on a policy discussion page. (e.g. "The last time [you] had to deal with [me]"? Was there another time you gave a high-handed lecture showing you have a backwards understanding of how things are supposed to be done? You don't "have" to deal with me, and as NE Ent so effectively explains below, you're arguing in support of those who have kne-jerk reverted in violation of PGBOLD, so perhaps you should leave the refereeing of minor squabbles over nonsubstantive changes to those with a better understanding of guidelines, policy, and just-plain-how-things-are-done.") Such comments are not appropriate and don't contribute to a constructive editing environment. Please stop with this behavior or your account may be blocked. Best, Mike V • Talk17:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear for bystanders, all those links relate to my criticism of the bullshit behavior of admin Bbb23, who (surprise!) canvassed you to come to his aid. [66] Thanks, but I don't need any lectures on appropriate behavior. Bbb23's kneejerk reversion (without substantive comment) of multiple other editors' contributions, and subsequent refusal to participate in discussion, doesn't contribute to a constructive editing environment either, and it's healthy for someone to point that out; if Bbb23 doesn't like it, he should cut out that kind of behavior. I'm sure he's an effective checkuser and vandal fighter, and in the capacity I'm sure he has your respect, but out in the wide world of real editing (where one deals with actual other editors, not SPAs and vandals needing mass reversion [67]) his knowledge and behavior leave much to be desired. When an admin behaves as he has—papering over his own bad behavior with even more bad behavior, including high-handed block threats—most editors just knuckle under, but someone needs to bell the cat. Quoting myself [68] :
And let me be clear: I have no problem with 97% of admins, who do noble work in return for (generally) either no recognition or shitloads of grief, only occasionally punctuated by thanks. But the other 3%—whoa, boy, watch out!
The comment you left above is a continuation of the behavior that I've asked you to stop. I have blocked your account for 3 days. Mike V • Talk19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow -- just this morning I was groping for an example of unintentional self-parody, and here you've served one up on a silver platter. If you were shocked that I didn't bow and scrape in your presence, then you must have missed this userbox at the top of User:EEng:
Welcome to the 3%! Further to the quote I gave earlier (above), here's more [69]:
When users do something that administrators don't like, but when the users not only disagree but have the temerity to object to the sanctions levied against them by administrators, is this an unacceptable dissent against the powers-that-be that must, always, be quashed by any means necessary?
We say "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "The benevolent dictatorship encyclopedia that docile and compliant rule-followers can edit as long as they remember their place and are always properly respectful towards ADMINISTRATORS." So, please, if that's not the message you want to send, just let these userboxes go. And if you want to boot a user off the project for not being here to help build the encyclopedia, please do it for a more substantive reason than that the user refuses to say "Uncle" when confronted by admins. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked for a personal attack or harassment. Where is the personal attack? Saying behavior is bad is not the same thing as saying someone is bad. You should unblock.Sir Joseph(talk)19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism and commentary is fine, however it must be undertaken in a constructive manner. Mischaracterizing my comments by changing the header title to "Another admin drops in to lecture and threaten", claiming Bbb23 was acting with a "bullshit behavior", improperly suggesting that Bbb23 was canvassing me to engage in the conversation despite not engaging in the conversation, and using uncivil language, such as "lectures on appropriate behavior", "Bbb23's kneejerk reversion", and "high-handed block threats—most editors just knuckle under, but someone needs to bell the cat" is poor conduct towards other editors and is not permitted. EEng was warned that this behavior was not appropriate, but still continued. I don't feel the block should be lifted. Mike V • Talk20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us here at Wikipedia have gotten used to EEng's rather acerbic and, shall we say, direct style, and like him for it, and while I'm kind of nodding my head here, I continue to think EEng is a valuable addition to the Wikipedia community, who may be in need of lessons in ettiquete?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Jesus. If "Bbb23's kneejerk reversion" is now part of a block rationale, block us all. What a shite block, a complete kneejerk reaction, utterly bogus, high-handed admin behaviour that needs to be called out, it's utter nonsense. And that, folks, is just the opening sentence of my memoirs of reading utter tripe on Wikipedia. Hardback due out just in time for Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mike V, after your warning ("conduct concerns") on this page, EEng posted this in response. He also made a few innocuous edits on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, but I'm sure your block had nothing to do with those. You blocked for his response to your warning, and I don't think that was reasonable. The response wasn't very polite, indeed. It didn't defer to you as admin. The worst of it was that he changed your header, which is certainly inappropriate. But was it a disruptive edit, enough reason to block? No. Mainly it was an explanation of his criticisms of Bbb23. It didn't contain any personal attacks against Bbb23 or anybody else AFAICS. I've unblocked. Bishonen | talk21:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Well thanks, Bishonen -- not because I care a whit about an enforced break per se, or about my block log (I got over that long ago), but because it's nice to know that there are at least some admins who will stand up to the 3% who think that being an admin entitles one to imperiousy demand that the rest of us show deference to their superior status, and cower and beg for mercy at their whim, whether what they're saying conforms to policy and guidelines or not. EEng01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, I was logged out during all the fun! I'd like to propose two actions. First, I think EEng should be blocked again because when I clicked that link he gave to Bbb23's user contributions, it made my Firefox hang up, and we certainly cannot have that. Secondly, I propose that we tattoo [FBDB] across any available portion of EEng's anatomy. In one fish's opinion, both Bbb23 and Mike V are, on the whole, excellent administrators and very helpful members of the community. What happened here, however, was what seems to happen all too frequently on Wikipedia: people getting pissed off over stuff that would seem unimportant after a good night's sleep. Ironically, Mike V's initial warning was good advice. Ironically too, EEng is cognitively incapable of following that kind of advice (something to do with brain damage at Harvard), and believe me, I've tried many times to no avail. Unfortunately, when Mike V observed EEng's response, he overreacted. Bish, as always, and I do mean always, got it right. EEng was disrespectful but not disruptive. Group hug. Now where is that tattoo needle? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about re-imposing a block for having a too long talk page? Is that a blockable offense? Surely there should be some fingerwagging!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tripping up Tryptofish's browser => BAD, EEng, bad bad bad, you should be tattooed bigtime for such horrors. (Me, too, for extending an already too-long talk page)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About an hour ago I figured that, while blocked, I might as well spend some time doing what some of you desire so much, which is to trim this page. Unfortunately, a few trims into the project I realized that silly ol' Bishonen had unblocked me, so if it's still too long complain to her. EEng01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or block this EEng joker for being more of a truth-to-power curmudgeon than me. Horning in on my territory? This will not do. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, this talk page reminds me of a long beard:
Well, what else is new. My two cents is that EEng is a valuable addition to Wikipedia, if a bit difficult at times, although I've sometimes considered that maybe he should be blocked for having a too long talk page. Just kidding. Just saying' hello, EEng, hope you'll be back soon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this -- it's perfect for an upcoming talk on Gage in pop culture. It's vaguely similar to a youtube video I grabbed about six years ago (now no longer posted, AFAICT) in which the US is metaphorically Gage (a stockbroker named "Phineas Geiger" in the vid, for some reason) and the WTC attack was the iron-bar-through-the-head turning America/Gage into an irritable, unpredictable, bullying, angry psychopath etc.
I have a feeling that Trump would actually like being compared to an iron rod. So is your viewspike detector a Geiger counter, or a Gage gauge? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to David Eppstein: I did use it in my talk, to good effect, because it shows the extent that Gage can be invoked without introduction in at least some circles. (I also found some tweets in which people say things like, "I'm gonna go all Phineas Gage in a minute!") You may also have noticed I've used it at The Museums. EEng08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The love goes right back atcha, Deryck Chan. I like your close—"with a reminder that editors – admin or not – should refrain from causing unnecessary antagonism in discussions, and from placing disproportionate emphasis on following processes"—with the understanding that the antagonism (mine, at least) was a direct result of that disproportionate emphasis on process over substance. Not sure you realize it, but I got blocked by one of those high-handed process-fixated admins over this—see [71]. And proud I am of it, too. EEng17:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. have you visited The Museums lately?[reply]
No, I wasn't aware of your very short recent block until reading your reply above. It simply adds to the farce of the whole fiasco... Deryck C.21:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the bar through the brain [72]. Anyway, you were warned it was tasteless. The great thing about Harvard topics is there are always people wandering about saying droll things:
That's one hell of a user page you've got there. I tried to print a copy out (in case my internet goes down), but I don't have the required 63 pages to get the whole thing. I'm off to the store in the morning to buy paper. Anyhow, here's a Trump-sized reward for having a liberal sense of humor. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about User:EEng, don't you mean "Trump's ego"? If you mean the little star at the left of the box there, don't you mean "Trump's genitals"? EEng00:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Colonel Wilhelm Klink, I stole some of your images,[reply]
I am the only one here to receive an email (via "Email this user") from Hillbillyholiday reading something like --
Dear Mr Eeng,
Just came across our "eeng" article what was recently updated by User:Colonel Wilhelm Klink. Not sure if it's owt to do with you but sounds a bit like a HOECS to me! Don't forget, online pedophiles can actually make your keyboard release toxic vapors that make you suggestible ... [youtube link redacted]
This email was sent by user "Hillbillyholiday" on the English Wikipedia to user "EEng". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
Oh, Lord, I walked right into that one. But please, no more such emails. I almost reported you at ANI as a compromised account. EEng05:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Toxic vapors? You smell like hammers? Fuck this, I'm going to bed."
I'll respond to this now; I saw it here yesterday, and I still don't understand it. I get the whole "Klink is a stalker" thing, but the rest is just a bit too far out there for me, and, given the nature of this conversation ("online pedophiles", "compromised account", "yuck"), it can't be pleasant. Ignorance is bliss, right? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 15:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what all this is. I think you got dragged into it only because you happened to be near the top of the page's edit history. I hope this won't cause you to drop your membership in my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng16:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think any of it had anything to do with the good Colonel. And when the proprietor said "Oh, Lord, I walked right into that one", I took it to mean that it was a joke that EEng understood and I didn't. So I did some searching online, and the sentences in question come from an episode of some British comedy TV show. (I have no idea why any of it is considered funny. I suppose that it just means that the sun has set on the British Empire. At least it made me feel slightly better about TV in the US.) The episode was very controversial, because it centered on jokes about pedophilia. And that is why I said "yuck". (At least I am happy to see from the image here that a certain political candidate is reading about it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only understood in the sense that by that point I'd realized ME123 was involved, which explains anything. EEng01:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Then you are so much more perceptive than is WMF's software for identifying IP addresses. Good for you! OK, so here is what is going on. The entire population of Wales (the nation of Welchers, not the co-founder of that website) has been viewing your talk page, and thus, the large spike in viewings. These people have four national characteristics: a tendency to cough up hairballs when they speak, hillbilly-like tendencies, inexplicable sense of humor (and it's not worth bothering to try), and warm feet. That explains everything (although I admit that my explanation requires explanation). In any case, the good Colonel has nothing to be worried about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In his edit summary, our hillbilly friend calls me a "butty boy". So, after posting about pedophilia, he calls me a "boy" and refers to my posterior. Wow! Don't they have farm animals in Wales? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's unusual... I had always considered Wales to be one of the more grounded countries. Perhaps being so close to England is finally taking its toll. And, oddly enough, I received a pamphlet in the mail today urging me to -- get this -- "save the whales." (!) Have I done anything to piss off British conservationists? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC) That was never here. Please excuse my ignorance. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm RexxS. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
If you're not interested in discussion, then please keep your ad homiems to yourselfRexxS (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "RexxS is simply behind the times -- see note at..." and linking to a recent (July 2016) guideline change which you apparently missed [74] isn't a personal attack. You're being ridiculous. (And we'll leave it to others here to judge whether, in this context, saying "You're being ridiculous" is a personal attack.) EEng21:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by admin once more gets the wrong end of the stick, and drops by to threaten and lecture
Seriously. The guy can't even get the grammar right when giving you a warning about MOS sanctions. It's either irony or a paradox or something that I haven't thought of yet. In any case, I've unsuitably indented my reply a la EEng, just to ensure you know I'm replying at you innit an' not dat uvver fella. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I've responded in detail on your talk page [75]. (Connoisseurs of forum-shopping Wikilawyers taking advantage of the credulity of random admins may want to follow that link.)EEng21:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, you have more than once altered text on a talk page posted by another editor against their objections. You justify that by stating "Unfortunately there was no way for me to restore the edits by other editors that J-G removed without also removing his comments;" removing others comments against the objections of others is a breach of WP:TALK. After their comments were restored, if you though that such a restoration was unjustified, you should have asked an uninvolved administrator (either directly or indirectly via WP:ANI) to intervene. Edit warring over the content of article pages is disruptive, edit warring over the content of talk pages is unnecessary and disruptive (hence the rules over not altering other people's comments). Alter another person's comments on a talk page (other than those small changes sanctioned by WP:TALK talk) and I will take administrative actions. Is that clear? -- PBS (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, looks like we've got another live one with a bad case of WP:IDHT on top. What has happened to Wikipedia to make such people the ones we give the mop to? And since when has admin privilege been required to take obvious corrective actions that aren't actually uses of that privilege? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, PBS (since you have trouble following talk page discussions) D.E. is talking about you. Is that clear? EEng06:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, your failure to even acknowledge the unusually strong condemnation by one of your fellow admins, above, of your behavior in this matter adds to the accumulating evidence calling into question your fitness as an administrator. EEng03:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your [(user:Jayaguru-Shishya)] comments because, in the same edit in which you made them, you deleted and refactored others' comments. One notices PBS has stopped defending you. Get a clue. EEng15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never "defened" user:Jayaguru-Shishya. So stating that I have "stopped defending [user:Jayaguru-Shishya[" not accurate. I reminded you of my previous warning of MOS descretionary sanctions (User talk:EEng/Archive_2#Notification of Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions) and under those sanctions I placed a specific restriction on you not to delete other editors tal page comments. I did this because you seem unable to understand that deleteing other's comments against another editors objections is a direct breach of WP:TALK. I have responded now because you seem to be self justifying you breach of WP:TALK.
Despite you suggestions that an involved administrator ought to be an arbitrator in this issue, it is univolved admins, or as you put it "Drive-by admin[s]", that are preferred for such interventions (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
If it makes you happy to get the last word in then you most likely will, but unless you behave in such a way as to warrent my intervention under the MOS discressionary sanction, I so not intend to engage in further correspondence over this issue. -- PBS (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, look, the drive-by admin pops up to threaten and lecture again!
It's somehow not surprising that you and your little pal J-G are still whining about this two weeks later, because you're both clueless.
Uninvolved is fine; drive-by, which is what you are, is someone who doesn't bother to understand (or, as is increasingly obvious in your case, is incapable of understanding) what's really going on before issuing pompous lectures and threats. For the nth time, it was J-G who removed and refactored others' comments, not me; I undid his removal and refactoring of others' comments, and for that you're giving me grief, because you're clueless.
I repeat what your fellow admin, David Eppstein, said about your actions in this matter: "What has happened to Wikipedia to make such people the ones we give the mop to?" i.e. you're unfit to be an admin, because you're clueless. I notice you became an admin in the old days when that status was essentially anyone's for the asking. It's unfortunate that the voices in the wilderness pointing to your "consistently poor judgement" and predicting that you would "certainty abuse adminship" weren't heeded.
When you're excited either your spelling or your typing deteriorate; slowing down might lead to improvement in those areas, and possibly in your thinking processes (though I can't be sure of that). I'm glad to hear that you plan to stop embarrassing yourself by posting further here, and will (I guess) just go do whatever it is you do when you're not encouraging Wikilawyers and wasting the time of editors who know what they're doing. EEng07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page may contain nuts, nuts, jokes about nuts, and nuts who converse with a nut who often concerns himself with nuts. Be aware that epinephrine shots are unavailable, although, judging by this page's content, shots of alcohol are quite bountiful, as are those ever endearing "cheap shots", which will be handed out to all attendees on a regular basis. Page may also contain copious amounts of corn and cheese.
"Fussing" is insulting. Implying I'm a bigot who thinks "cross-dressing is somehow wrong", if that's what you were trying to do, would be egregiously insulting. When all I did was take the time to provide an in-depth review, and pick the hook where I anticipated there would be the fewest problems, there is no need to be that offensive. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nuts!
For those playing along at home, the OP objects to this post of mine. Even members of my glittering array of talk-page stalkers—all connoisseurs of half-baked, fly-off-the-handle malapropistic[1] indignation, of which we get a lot around here for some reason—will enjoy an Eats, shoots, and leaves belly-laugh when they absorb this one. I proposed the DYK "hook"
Wearing clothing is a human characteristic. An animal can't be a transvestite, or a cross-dresser, really.
Then after some back and forth, I chided you for your continued
fussing that cross-dressing is somehow wrong.
And then you came here to pop your cork, saying that I had implied that you're "a bigot who thinks 'cross-dressing is somehow wrong'". I implied nothing of the sort. You should review MOS:WORDSASWORDS, wherein is explained the difference between my implying that you think
For those playing along at home, Maile's talking about this DYK item:
... that Juanita's Galley was noted for a "fabulous" breakfast, potluck, the proprietor's "unpredictable disposition", and a 40-person brawl featuring car jacks, pipes, steel bars, a fishbowl and an ax?
Like screenwriters, we hookers labor largely in obscurity. By taking time out to visit, Maile66, you've brought a ray of sunshine into the life of an otherwise forgotten shut-in. EEng00:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. How come I always attract the attention of admins with under 10K edits who haven't edited in years except to come out of the woodwork to give me the benefit of their gentle minstrations? EEng00:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't anything wrong, just Nakon thought there was -- remember, he's the one with the "cold medicine" excuse. Follow the link he refers to here [76] to see the original comment. EEng17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've recreated your userpage as of immediately before the AE posting, minus the disputed section, at User:EEng/temp; feel free to just cut-and-paste it as you see fit. Intentionally created in your userspace rather than mine, to allow you to vanish it just by slapping {{db-u1}} on it if you don't want it hanging around. ‑ Iridescent23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I knew something good would come from all of this, and maybe some of that good will be that someone will change the name of that image asap (blp and xyz being taken into account) not to mention that maybe you should throw some obscuring moondust on your caption there. Randy Kryn01:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...on the other hand (the one holding a blue umbrella), if the young woman does employ herself in our oldest and most honest profession, this is about the best thing that could happen in promotional terms, and my apologies to her for going on about it so. On the complaining page EEng pretty much accused me of being full of lust (per my user/useless name), and, full disclosure, I had no retort or canonical abode to escape such a ludicrously self-evident charge. Randy Kryn12:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Hookers chose their name, this woman may have known nothing of this and was on the street hawking blue umbrellas, a semi-trendy tattoo parlor, and Oz slipper knock-offs. Aside from chivalry of some kind and feeling protective of Wikipedia, I pushed at this issue a little because of the humorous irony which EEng pointed out. During a discussion about BLP violations out popped, totally separate from EEng's content, the biggest BLP violation on the site. That's entertainment. Randy Kryn00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your comment assumes that there's something shameful about being a hooker, and is thus a form of hate speech. I'm reporting you at AE. EEng03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like Robert Anton Wilson's definition of the professionals: 'tantric engineers'. Could be a category name. Congrats on the page come-back, I hope the lady in red appears within it, a story to tell your grandchildren. Randy Kryn 3:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I complained here about the userpage. Didn't really do anything about it. Expected Hillary to win, and for it to become a shrine. Of... "hilarity"! Anyhoo, things will surely work themselves out. The financial markets aren't exactly spelling "doom-and-gloom".[77] Don't believe the hype! Cheers :> Doctalk08:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I missed quite a party! It could never have lasted, I guess. I suggest you put your creative energies towards political cartooning; the Crimson keeps advertising for a contributor, or you could go for national syndication. FourViolas (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In American education there's something called "the P.E. Syndrome": the observation that a disproportionate number of Physical Education teachers become, ahem, administrators such as principals and vice-principals. Why? Because P.E. teachers have no lessons to prepare and no homework and exams to grade, leaving ample time to take the supplementary courses in educational theory required to move up through the ranks. As they say, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym" – and then become principal, I guess. There's a similar phenomenon here at WP, and it's especially obvious when you look at the contributions history of the clue-challenged admin who opened that ridiculous discussion. EEng17:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC) (P.S. No disrespect meant to the many good principals, vice-principals, and coaches out there -- just pointing out that, as in policing – and WP adminship, for that matter! – there are a number of bad apples that make the rest look bad.)[reply]
I go off Wikipedia for a week, and I miss all the good stuff, sadly. What a ridiculous mess: some Wikipedians just do not have a sense of humor. When I said above that you were going to be deported, I had no idea that it would be true. And of course they got it all wrong: they should have archived this talk page instead. Well, I'm glad to see that EEng's sense of humor has not been quashed. And don't get me started about P.E. teachers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... you get yourself into a lot of trouble, don't you? I suppose that's the ever-present risk of this type of humor: there are always people who cannot find it in themselves to tolerate it, and those people sometimes have the will and the ability to do something about it, even if it flies in the face of what is ultimately the greater good. On a positive note, that printed out copy of your user page I have has greatly increased in value! I would put it up on eBay, where I'm sure it would fetch thousands, but the sentimental value is simply too much. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the discussion end with saying you can put your user page back, minus some cuts and giggles related to the esteemed leader? Please raise the curtain again, the crowd out here is getting rowdy and none the wiser. Randy Kryn11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Flattering! But that so-called essay (a one-sentence essay) was deleted in 2013 on my own request, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect", where I stated I regretted ever putting it in Wikipedia space. Somebody has pointed the redirect WP:WADR to WP:WikiSpeak#WADR, which the "essay" was anyway redundant with, so all is good, Ritchie333; you can still use WP:WADR in conversation. (If you want to amaze yourself, check out WT:WADR for some of the lamest waste of timediscussion and greatest stubbornness over nothing I've seen in all my years here. Appropriate in a twisted way, I suppose.) Bishonen | talk16:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed it is (your opinion being of value, that is, although I also agree about the brilliant part), and thank you! The office pool is now open for estimates of the time that will elapse before some defender of the wiki will come along and want me blocked or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should, on request, email people each one little little bit of The Old Museums for them to add to their user pages. Kind of spread it around. EEng22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(For those playing along at home, this is re [79].) Perfect. Now it can truly be said that I've been blocked so many times, it's a joke. EEng18:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, from now on, nobody can accuse you of having the most idiosyncratic sense of humor on the project. You have been surpassed in terms of utter weirdness. And once again, I missed all the fun! Only one second, and I wasn't even here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know your improvements to the Fred West article are appreciated from the heart, EEng. Sometimes overlapping information and personal lexicon can be overlooked. Seasons Greetings, too. Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[FBDB]Even though I'm on Arbcom, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.
Well, I won't do it that way again -- wasn't intending to -- but I was absolutely serious in what I said here [80] and will periodically remind DYKers of it until people seem comfortable simply ignoring those of his comments that deserve ignoring. Whatever the value of some of his complaints, they are largely (and perhaps completely -- more than completely) outweighed by his insistence on drowning them in a sea of trivial niggles. It's a shame, because he has an eye for potential problems but no sense of priority. EEng04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your substantive point, but a nasty presentation risks distracting from it. (FYI, I'm forever recused on anything TRM-related, so my arbship really is irrelevant here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd characterize my presentation as forceful, but your point is valid and I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for visiting, Your Arbship. (BTW, I pointed out to Drmies the other day that one anagram of Arbitration Committee is Motto: recriminate a bit. Perfect, don't you think?) EEng04:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...as the proposer, I am not actually wanting this to pass. I rather want to lay the issue to rest against a tendentious argument. Thanks for your support by so clearly opposing (one of the odder thanks I've given another editor, to be sure). Happy New Year. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)01:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn, as any member of my glittering array of talk page stalkers will attest, I specialize in not giving people the opposite response to the counterfactual strawman they didn't propose. Have you visited The Museums? EEng01:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost nudged you to be more civil over this thread at the time, suspecting that your opening comment might just goad the other editor into being elaborately defensive of something that didn't matter, and I see this has now happened. Someone made an edit without being aware of policy, we made them aware of policy, they went silent: you should WP:DROPTHESTICK at that point. Civility policy is there to avoid wasting everybody's time with unnecessary arguments, as much as anything. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[For those playing along at home, we're talking about this reversion [83] and this talk page thread [84]] Oh, please. Mr. Dyspeptic called fixing the typo uttrerly in a quotation "the edge of vandalism" and "deliberately destructive" because (he still says even now, though he can't seem to explain how) the error is "textually significant". EEng18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
For those playing along at home, this concerns a discussion at Talk:DYK which a certain dyspeptic editor has repeatedly tried to close, because in his opinion it's not useful [85][86], notwithstanding that the discussion was immediately ongoing (e.g. witness the timestamps on the left side of those two diffs, showing that others had commented just minutes before the unilateral "closes").
Unhatting [87][88] a discussion which was inappropriately hatted, so that it can continue, is not "reverting to a preferred version". In fact, our mutual friend's latest "close" even removed another editor's post—my post, if you can believe the nerve [89]. So if anything, it's our dyspeptic friend who is "reverting to a preferred version". Next time, get a clue before butting in.
And the discussion's not off topic. While you may be unable to comprehend it, we're discussing the extent to which politically charged hooks are appropriate. The fact that we're having a little fun along the way, or that you personally are unable to share in that, makes it no less true. Welcome to Wikipedia! EEng23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever way you look at it, you continually reverted TRM in violation of 3RR, and you shouldn’t because it’s against policy and can get you into trouble. So please desist. And a heads up – TRM has continued the conversation on my talk page and I’ve decided to report him to AN3. When they look into it, they may or may not have something to say to you as well. Hence my note to you. Schwede6618:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66, looks like you got your hand slapped for trying to do something sensible—welcome to adminship! As you've now learned, our dyspeptic friend has a talent for busybody fussing about nothing, followed by wasting others' time trying to salve his bruised ego by proving he was right—yours is not the only talk page he's posted to about this. He's like Malleus but less clever. (Tip: watch out for anyone who pluralizes forum as fora[90].)
Just to make sure it's clear on the record, I'll point out again that he repeatedly declared the discussion at an end just minutes after others had posted to it [91][92], which is completely inappropriate, and it's no kind of edit warring that I unhatted every time so that discussion could continue. And (importantly) at one point he deleted a post of mine [93], which is completely beyond the pale. It's a great example of the confrontational shit-stirring which earned him both a desysopping and an editing restriction prohibiting him from "insulting and/or belittling other editors". EEng05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For taking up the cause at University of Texas Tower Shooting, which, although you may not know it, was started by a brand new editor from basically scratch, and was probably the best first article I've ever seen. It's good to see the thing stick and get substantive attention from an experienced editor, which is exactly how this whole thing is supposed to work. TimothyJosephWood16:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it was; some of it wasn't. After the draft was made into an article, I did a bit trying to walk the user through the merging process, which they began, but haven't yet completed. Admittedly I've knowingly let a lot of duplication of content sit in mainspace for a while, but the editor seemed enthusiastic and competent, if intermittent, so I figured I would let nature run it's course, and mentor as best I could, since the experience would probably be a valuable one for them. I'll take a look at the article's talk and look toward getting more involved over the next week. TimothyJosephWood16:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Charlies are from the same home town. I grew up with (older) neighbors who knew him. I've heard anecdotes about him from people who knew him and I actually got caught by a cop egging the church he went to. (The cop was protestant and Irish, so he let us go when we gave our excuse as "it's a catholic church").
I like being able to wrap the vicious insultjoke itself into the link, but the tooltip is a great idea which I will be shamelessly stealing from you this weekend.
I've already been accused of using my links (I have two, the other one is here) to hide my personal attacks. To be fair, I had used the text "Shut your stupid pie-hole" as the link text, so not exactly a huge leap there. But it got me to thinking: who, in the grips of a red-hot, raging butthurt would think to try to avoid a block for insulting someone? No-one. So who would put thought into it, and try to be more devious by insulting people with phrases linked to a page which serves only to make it clear they didn't really mean that? Well, the odd moron might, but frankly anyone with some creativity can insult the living hell out of another editor without ever getting so overt as to be blocked. Hell, without even the person being insulted realizing that they're being insulted. It's not hard, and it's not like you're on the spot: you can plan a good insult for hours without anyone knowing that you're not just busy IRL. So I'm curious as to whether anything like that has ever actually happened.
Both you and I independently thought to make "joke" tags of some short. Shirly, we can't be the first. I'm wondering if, buried deep within the dark and musty depths of the ANI archives or the Arbcom archives, is there a case of an editor making a "joke" tag and then actually trying to use it to get away with hurling a bit of nastiness around? One of these days, I'll put on my fedora, strap on my whip and go spelunking for answers, I think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.04:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN, I want to act shocked, but I've been on the internet before. Did they actually argue that that wasn't a personal attack?
For future reference, if I ever say something that implies there is a minimum level of intelligence which is universal in humans; No. I'm not willing to bet on it.
I've seriously considered the possibility that everything he "writes" is computer-generated. It's like he's paid by the word. I'm also tickled by the "Greetings, Earthlings!" flavor here [94]. Have you visited The Museums? EEng14:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should stop baiting the army of ipsocks - you can almost see how he cringes at having his own words fed back to him.... but it's not worth risking a 3rr violation. It has cheered me right up, though. Hopefully some admin will close the afd soon and put the article out of its misery. --bonadeacontributionstalk18:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about. This back and forth as we home in on a subset of the subject's publications which concisely reflect his artistic outlook is Wikipedia collaboration at its best. EEng19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in your hand, then yes! By the way, I just noticed that one of your categories, just below, turned into an italic font, and thus: [95]. Clearly, the humor-impaired have you in their sights! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So in this case "deletion" means that the categories are still there and in use, but if you click on a category name you go to the parent category and have to click again on the "Redirected from" link to see the actual list of pages in the category? And some editors think that making this sort of "improvement" counts as constructive activity on Wikipedia? Hmm. (By the way, EEng, your "most illegible bachelor" joke on the Ozee AfD made me actually laugh out loud. So thanks for that.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you fell for the ol' "My ma and pa have been married for 35 years!" bit. I have to thank you for the "illegible bachelor", however; I'll add it to my bag of tricks. EEng01:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In space, no-one can hear you archive EEng's talk page. But it doesn't load any faster there, either. Thoughts of Julian, and Phineus prior to his becoming shish-kabob. I heard somebody stole her smartphone, and started posting all kinds of steamy stuff on some Harvard dude's talk page.
Ritchie333, and how exactly do we gage (no freaking pun intended!!) the level of necessity where EEng is concerned? He's off the charts, affectionally speaking. Ok, so my curiosity led me to the following discovery - a purely mathematical computation demonstrated below (and I'm no math whiz):
Total of EEng's archives, 4 mind you, only 4 TP archives totaling 859 kB beginning with the 1st archive thread dated 13 November 2008, Thursday (8 years, 3 months, 28 days ago), and the last archive thread dated 24 October 2016, Monday (4 months, 16 days ago) which averages out to be 2 archives/YEAR. Now get a load of this...the current TP total is 1626 kB - nearly double the size of all 4 archives. I wonder if he takes the time to tie his shoes, or maybe he wears Sperry Topsiders. Regardless, I'd say the man is growing in popularity, wouldn't you? Gotta love it!! Cheers Atsme📞📧22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well clearly EEng is compensating for something with the size of his talk page. Mind you, your user page has you hob-nobbing with the stars on an ego trip; when are you going to put up the picture of "Sacred Betty Wills and The Pope in an audience at The Vatican", "Supreme Overlord Betty Wills with Kim Jong Il at the Best North Korean Rally in the World ever (volume 3)" and .... of course .... "Dedicated Wikipedian Betty Wills sharing a 'fun' moment with Jimbo Wales" (although who the "fun" was being had by is left as an exercise for the reader". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would upload them tomorrow if I could remember where I put my image archives!! I'm pretty sure my papal days date back to when I was 10 or 11, determined to become a nun. Fortunately, time wounds all heals, and the rumors about the "cloth" finally caught up and frightened a lot of parents. I really was "saved", so my aspirations went from being a patron of the church to aspirations of becoming the first female jockey at Churchill Downs. My main obstacles were the many talented male jockeys. As for Kim...I'll be kind and just say I never really liked "Gangnam Style". Now Jimbo is a different story...if he looked more like Julian Assange, we would not be having this discussion...which reminds me, I have a few words I wouldn't mind sharing with Pamela Anderson. Atsme📞📧23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think your humour's quite intelligent, actually. Indeed, the comparison here is that this guy appeared to be writing serious computing history drafts, and got stung by admins who didn't have his sense of humour. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your edit summary here [96], I will thank you to attend to your own regardles and leave mine unmolested. EEng00:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I've been considering this for sometime. As to what I've been considering, I mean starting over. I don't like how we've generally left things between us because of how we've butted heads at the MOS:IMAGES guideline. Because of that, it now seems that there is some tension between us when we are involved in the same discussion; I don't think I'm imagining that. Anyway, I see you around often enough and appreciate the work you do. And I'd rather be on good terms with editors, unless they are the few who I have a significant tempestuous history with and I know we will never have a decent working relationship. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor requested the discussion was made an RfC as we appeared to be going round in circles. There is some point to it, I might add, even if you do not agree. I will thank you for responding, though. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A change of this kind needs to be treated as a proper RfC and closed by a non-involved person" is what another editor said, because you seemed to be trying to close the discussion yourself with your own proposal as the conclusion. This is a nonstarter and a waste of time. Sorry, but I'm grumpy tonight and you really should have realized this by now. EEng00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah - well go ahead and cake it on...but wait for the best part: the icing on the cake...yep...WAIT FOR IT....and just keep waiting cuz it may never come. It needs a hook that only EEng can provide. Atsme📞📧19:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought he was kidding EEng, and then I realized the new forum will be held in the newly formed Angry Mob Court presided over by none other than Judge Roy Bean. Their main objective is to lighten the load of ArbCom. Atsme📞📧20:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hola, I have fixed[97][98] two cite errors you introduced[99][100] in January. Months after the fact, it took me about 30 minutes to hunt them down (WikiBlame was no help for this purpose). Please watch for introduction of this type of cite error, especially when making major edits to well-cited articles. Gracias, adios. ―Mandruss☎21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made 170 edits which removed 25% of this badly overdetailed article, and the only thing that went wrong was that I accidentally killed two sources? I think I should get a medal. Nonetheless this vexes me, as I do try to be careful in such things. Thanks for noticing and fixing. EEng02:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if only people got what they deserved, here and everywhere. Thanks for making 170 edits which removed 25% of that badly overdetailed article, assuming that's what happened (I haven't conducted that review). ―Mandruss☎07:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, turns out that was just the decrease in raw source size. I checked just now, and in terms of rendered text, the reduction was to 8,200 words from 13,200, a decrease of 40%. And to my astonishment, I got almost no pushback. It was amazingly bloated. EEng17:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Great! Last time I was only in the top 300[101]. Presumably 100 of them died off after following the advice in my medical contributions. EEng18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for harassing other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Astoundingly atrociously poor block - Given the tenor and context of that ANI discussion, one would think that a bit of leeway should be provided for emotional outbursts rather than resorting straight to a punitive block.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree WaltCip as I was far more offended by the unwarranted allegation of racism. I thought blocks were to be used to end disruption, yet in this case, it appears the disruption of changing an entire categorization norm and the unwarranted allegation of racism remains a nonissue. I am very disheartened over this block. Atsme📞📧14:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes some of us act like disruptive pricks, and sometimes we tell others when they do. A block can be a handy reminder to dial it back down. I know I've had a few bad blocks, too. This will pass. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either myself, or the blocking admin, requires a refresher in English. Probably myself.Jrcla2 was offering a way to see what you're doing as the result of a cultural difference rather than you just being a disruptive prick. Where in this is EEng actually calling Djln Djln a "disruptive prick"? My reading of this is that EEng is telling Djln that Jrcla2 was suggesting an alternative explanation for Djln's inability to understand the issue that did not resort to calling Djln a "disruptive prick". The reason for EEng to bring this up is obviously the fact that Djln telling Jrcla that they are being "borderline racist" is an extremely prick-like thing to do in response to a non-prick-like explanation. On top of the fact that making mass changes to categories is (or could be readily construed as) disruptive. I.e., In other words "you're Irish and so might not understand American Football" does not deserve the response of "that's racist". I can't really think of another way to spell this out. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Dude's interpretation is 100% correct (and despite WaltCip's comment, emotionalism played no part in what I posted). Like His Arbship said,
EEng (despite his block log, which is not as bad as it looks at first glance if you understand it)...
It's a shame this is happening on a Sunday, when so many of my glittering array of talk page stalkers are, of course, in church; think of the bon mots we're missing out on! EEng17:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, while I've warned EEng about inappropriate jokes in the past, if this diff is really your sole basis for a 48-hour block (I assume it is, given that it's the only diff you've offered in your block notice) it's one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. Please reconsider it—the drama of an arbcom case will waste everybody's time and the result of any such case is an utterly foregone conclusion. ‑ Iridescent17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John, This looks like a good case for you coming to this page and posting something like, "Hey EEng, this was not helpful or constructive." That would be about as effective as a surprise block, minus the extra drama. ~Awilley (talk)18:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen enters, stage left, to the relief of cowering talk page stalkers.
I've asked User:John to lift the block, as I think it was based on a misunderstanding — basically, I agree with Mr rnddude's comment here — and have notified him that in case he isn't online, I'll do it myself. He doesn't seem to be, so here goes: you have been unblocked. Bishonen | talk17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, Bishonen. Our sovereign lord Jimbo chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of the Arbitration Committee, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save Jimbo!EEng18:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say post a humorous comment at this sub-thread review of your block, but, I'm afraid of it earning you another block. Personally, I'd just leave an "Overturn block" and sign. Slightly taunting. That's just my sense of humour though. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd of commented sooner, just got around to this (I stalk only when I see a lot of activity in a short amount of time, which usually means some of the best entertainment on Wikipedia). I read the discussion, think all people who over-categorize should be topic-banned, and finally came to your perfectly reasonable assessment of the situation and just the appropriate amount of EEngness EEngitude to catch the editor's attention enough for things to be better absorbed. I'd say "nice work", and we've all learned a bit more about the way all points of view have to be considered by everybody, as far as is possible. Randy Kryn19:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is actually how I have always related to the slang use of the word: Prick (slang)#PsychologyThe prick, in some crazy way, is feminine....The prick does not play by the rules: he (she) is a narcisstic [sic] tease who persuades by means of attraction and resistance, not by orderly systemic discourse. The latter interpretation is harmless and how I've always perceived its use. In fact, my fun Wiki❤️ banner confirms my position, so I hope there's no chance of blockage if I use them as [FBDB]. Atsme📞📧18:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I did not in any way suggest the other editor was a prick (whatever the interpretation of that). I was saying that another editor was trying hard not to do that. EEng18:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated here, for the enlightenment of those assembled, from User talk:John (where the discussion was peremptorily hatted immediately after this post):
Do you get some sort of kick out of causing disruption by using gendered obscenities, EEng? If not, why don't you go and learn from your lucky escape instead of joking about it like it was some sort of badge of pride? Also, do you stand by your comment I highlighted in the diff above? If you do, I agree with The Rambling Man that you may quickly work up to another block. If you don't, you should reflect on what a fool you've made of yourself and the degree of disruption you have caused with your unsolicited intervention at AN/I; two blocks and one unblock, so far. --John (talk) 6:07 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Answers:
do you stand by your comment I highlighted: If you're talking about [103], yes I do.
Do you get some sort of kick out of causing disruption by using gendered obscenities I take no more delight in obscenities than in any other words chosen to do their job. But I'm fascinated by this idea of gendered obscenities. I notice you didn't object to my saying, earlier in the same thread, of "Oh for fuck sake"; is that OK because you see fuck as ungendered? If so, I think that's very narrow of you: what if it's a gay male fuck? Or a lesbian fuck (if there is such a thing, I guess)? I think you need to reflect on your heterosexist biases.
disruption... two blocks and one unblock: Well let's see... one of the blocks was the one you imposed; the unblock was an Arbcom member reversing the block after giving you time to do it yourself; and the other block was someone who got understandably pissed off at you for imposing the block which the Arbcom member reversed after giving you time to do it yourself. So really, I think the disruption's all on you.
reflect on what a fool you've made of yourself: Speaking of reflection, look in the mirror.
unsolicited intervention at AN/I: Is there solicited intervention at ANI? Can I get on a list???
your lucky escape: If Trump ever needs a new press secretary, you'd be a great candidate.
badge of pride: If there's any pride, it's at being part of a community robust enough to self-correct so promptly and decisively.
Alas, I am late, as usual, to the block party. (But no, I wasn't in church.) So, if I follow the situation correctly, it is OK to say "fuck" or "cunt" (the latter having been an entire ArbCom case a few years back), but no good to say "prick". I'm not sure that I can figure out my own thoughts on this, but I am simultaneously in agreement that it's good to be "part of a community robust enough to self-correct so promptly and decisively", and yet also wishing for more WP:CIVIL. Facepalm Anyway, I'm glad about the self-correction, and sorry that it was needed in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have been astoundingly atrociously cockblocked for pussy-grabbing other users. Once the cockblock has expired, you are welcome to make welcome advances. If you think there are good reasons why you should be uncockblocked, you may request an uncockblock by first reading the guide to unappealing cockblocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{fbdb|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
PS: Check out the hatnote at the top of Cockblock. It's museum-worthy! --Tryptofish (talk) 9:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Honestly, I think that the behaviour of a few admins involved here was completely unacceptable (and to think we nearly had a WP:WHEEL situation too). I just read the hatnote, however, and it made me laugh. Anyway, there we have it - another block for your hall of fame, eh EEng? [FBDB]Patient Zerotalk13:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you land in a place that is prickly at best,
And feathers get ruffled – you've disturbed someone's nest;
Be cautious when offering friendly advice,
Or you'll suddenly find your two orbs in a vise.
Lessons are learned, but to do so takes practice,
To avoid getting pricked when you land on a cactus. Atsme📞📧
Yes, thank you. I also shot the scene with the parakeets, which took place about 50 ft. from my window...and heard the sounds that accompany the ruffled feathers as the birds played their game of thorns. Atsme📞📧04:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my - I didn't mean to come across as 🎣 for a compliment but thank you! I was actually eluding to the sounds of squawking Caribbean parakeets with their feathers ruffled which can be quite loud and boisterous...not unlike whistle britches' recent outburst. [105]Atsme📞📧16:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See that? Start a talk section about pricks, and the discussion goes quickly to size. But no, it's actually "awesomely annoying". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone out there who does not believe temptation is placed in our paths to test us, please consider that there is, right now – today of all days – an ANI thread centered on this user. Talk about potential for gendered obscenities! EEng02:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For those in a hurry, I've taken the liberty of putting the proposal highlights in bold. -- EEng
Have you made your 3-month proposal anywhere? If you haven't started an RFC about it somewhere, then I guess the first thing to do would be to figure out where the RFC ought to be located, and whether similar ideas have already been rejected. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, I really do think it would be highly salutary, but it would be a seismic shift in policy. If a number of very respected editors got behind it informally, and work out some details (like what counts as being out of the headlines, so to speak) then we could propose it formally. But I'm not holding my breath. EEng23:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There could simply be a rule that no article at Wikipedia can rely upon any source that is less than three months old, except to update information that is outdated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think we want to forbid an article on a new asteroid or something. Maybe it's things in certain topic areas? What we'd be trying to prevent, I guess I know it when I see it, but it's hard to define. EEng06:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Randomly chiming in here: the topic areas this proposal should affect, in my opinion, is politics and crimes. Too many times do I see hastily made articles all revolving around these areas of interest as soon as the ink dries in the presses. I do not believe crimes, in this context, should extend to terrorist attacks. Some editors may be turned off by the 3-month time period, others by how to go about policing this policy. But I believe you have a truly brilliant idea going on here; hopefully, this is pursued further. I offer you my support!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to choose a sample set of articles as test cases, or imagine hypothetical articles. I was considering the case of a trial with political implications where the defendant is acquitted – not reporting the acquittal for three months would not be ideal.
The nature, frequency and quantity of news has changed so much in the last decade I wonder whether this is a solution to that problem or a band aid. Or maybe a solution to a problem distinct from this other problem. Whichever it is some solution is necessary. The short-term and long-term effects of editors using breaking news articles to shape perception and even reporting in some cases are significant, not only in terms of disruption but it attracts exactly the wrong kind of editor. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three months is excessive, but a cool-off period of 3 days on creating articles based on political "breaking news" would be most welcome. That would help "break" the tyranny of the headline-grabbing news cycle. Asteroids are apolitical, so astronomers are safe. — JFGtalk08:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Followed from ANI, but it sounds like a reasonable idea. I have seen so many articles pop up within hours of breaking news only to be abandoned within a week or two. Generally though the initial AFD it is all the historic significance of this or that, we MUST keep it etc etc etc. Then dead. Three days sounds a lot easier to swallow and get people to agree to I think, perhaps even up to five but might be a bit much. BTW Chelyabinsk meteor would disagree with you. Clearly the asteroid was working with Obama to attack the Russians. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three months, it said. I warmed up my snotty responses for this, then discovered (after waiting for this page to load, and scrolling for hours) that it isn't block related. It is the basis of a good idea though. -Roxy the dog.bark15:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think of this idea as a temporary "embargo" on creating an article on new topic. The idea is to avoid the huge waste -- in terms of editor time, frequent ANI visits, AfD disputes, sockpuppetry, etc. -- that often comes with editing an articles during the initial period when there's new stuff coming out all the time, arguments about conflicting sources, high emotions, and so on.
My original idea was that something would need to be "out of the headlines" for a stated period before we start an article on it. This way, lots of sources are available, erroneous "breaking news" reports which turn out not to be true are in better perspective. I don't quite see how to define that though. For American topics of national interest, this might mean something like there's been no front-page story on it in the NYT or Washington Post or [insert more here] for X weeks. This would have to be carefully defined if endless arguments are to be avoided.
So here's another idea, weaker but much easier to define. How about if an article on topic X is embargoed until the initial sources are at least time=T old? That doesn't mean the topic's not still in the headlines but at least it will have some maturity and perspective, and notability issues will be much clearer. How about that? If T was even ten days that might help immensely.
Imagine all the trouble that would have been saved if the Comey article was just being started now. And who is served by an instant article on the first day something like that happens? A mess of conflicting claims and quotes from various people, first unbalanced one way, then the other. Our readers could turn on CNN for that. We're an encyclopedia for the ages, not today's news. That's why Wikinews is a separate project.
Here's another example. Sometime in the next 48 hours someone's gonna create an article with a title like "Proposed impeachment of Donald Trump". Now, I have little doubt such an article will be created some day. But what will the edit history and Talk page of such an article look like if it was started today? And how, in these first ten days, would such an article serve our readers any better than reading the news? EEng16:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One day I am gong to write the essay WP:TRUMPSCANDALAFD, because its basically guaranteed at this point. NOTNEWS has no teeth anymore, and while Wikinews exists, I'm under the impression that it is basically dead. I personally would very strongly support some sort of pause-period that would avoid TRUMPSCANDALAFD, but the fact that many of these articles are snow kept even when they are in horrible shape suggests to me that we aren't likely to get consensus for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see my impeachment example was ill-chosen, because it's too diffuse a topic. I think the idea makes the most sense for "event" articles like Comey's firing, disappearing airplanes, and so on. Let's keep brainstorming. EEng17:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To help with the brainstorm, here are some recent examples:
2017 Mexico–United States diplomatic crisis – Hastily created in the heat of testy exchanges between two North American presidents at the end of January, one of them performing a rage quit (oh joy, a red link!). Nothing happened since. Article is dangling, with a feeble attempt to shoehorn some minor thing in February, that not even the Lügenpresse calls a "crisis".
Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official) – Dude was arrested for child trafficking and assorted sex crimes, obviously doesn't meet WP:PERPETRATOR notability standards for criminals, but lo and behold, he once supported Trump so he gets his 15 minutes of fame and the AfD mob is tending towards a strong keep, because reasons. With a three-day cool-down period, I bet this scumb** would have remained in well-deserved obscurity.
In summary, my hunch would be to suggest a 3-day ban on creating new articles based on "breaking news" in the political domain. People could still add such stuff in existing articles, but at least they would get some eyeballs to evaluate due weight, and we might avoid AfD drama, link-spamming of navboxes or See also sections in dozens of marginally related articles, and monstrous cleanup tasks when finally the pile of rambling "he said-she said" quotes has to be sorted and summarized into something vaguely encyclopedic and readable (while being accused of censorship). Another bonus: existing articles on controversial subjects are often restricted to some degree, whereas new articles are a free-for-all until an admin wakes up and slaps an 1RR/DS restriction which nobody understands, and we spend more time explaining the sanctions than editing or even arguing the merits of the edits... Thoughts? Choice of venue? Popcorn? — JFGtalk23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse complaints from someone who (and I am not making this up) thinks I'm part of a conspiracy to suppress or soft-pedal anti-Trump material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, all of these "recent examples" have to do with, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... news stories which make Trump look bad! Holy crap what an amazing coincidence! A suspicious person might get the idea that the purpose behind this proposal is NOT to actually address any existing problem on Wikipedia, but rather to prevent the media reports on the Trump presidency from being written about on Wikipedia, for as long as possible. I mean that would explain a lot, but, you know, AGF and all, I'm sure nobody would be that cynical, so this correlation between the proposal and the news-that-makes-Trump-look-bad must be just a coincidence! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Marek cut it out with the ABF snark, will you? During campaign season, there were plenty such "breaking news" about Hillary Clinton's alleged misdeeds or disease or whatnot and they damn well shouldn't have gotten their own article either. Shit doesn't care which way the wind blows. — JFGtalk08:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly the point JFG. You weren't running around demanding that we "embargo" news stories when Clinton was in the news, where you? If I'm wrong about that, my apologies. If I'm right than my ABF snark stands.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Your "evidence" is circumstantial at best. Nothing is ever as black-and-white as chronic ABF-failers make them out to be. The world just ain't that simple. ABF is nothing more than hyper-cynicism, a tendency to suspect foul play when there is any explanation that could justify the suspicion. The community has done everything possible to prevent this kind of thinking and set the bar higher, as evidenced in the first bullet of the nutshell at WP:AGF. You are not even close to the clear evidence required there. I don't know whether the instigator of this initiative has a rep for Trump POV-pushing (have you shown that?), but I know damn well I don't and I don't think many of the others interested in this do either. Now try to get a grip and stop it, please. No stick ever needed dropping more. ―Mandruss☎16:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that at all and nowhere have I said that. I *do* think that the reason why JFG (and a couple others) are so gung ho on this proposal IS because they're annoyed by all the Trump-looks-bad stories that have come out recently. How else do you explain his ... peculiar, choice of examples? They're all exactly what I say they are - recent Trump-looks-bad news stories. You? I think your intentions are good and noble, but yeah, these guys are trying to use you. Anyway, since this has no chance in hell of succeeding, that's all from me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what their motives are. Trump looks like an incompetent narcissistic idiot whether an article on something he's done appears right away or three days later. So our only question is whether we're going to squander the substantial resources sucked up during those first three days, or conserve them. (Please note that I'm not saying Trump's an incompetent narcissistic idiot, just that he looks like an incompetent narcissistic idiot.) EEng21:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Your recurring aspersions are disappointing. For the record, I spent countless hours defending the primary season pages of both Democratic and Republican parties against vandals and sneaky bad-faith editors, and I have dozens of witnesses who appreciated my work then. At that time, the most aggressive were Bernie Bros spewing all kinds of nonsense theories against an imagined cabal of paid Hillary shills. So, the examples I choose today are Trumpian because that's what shows up on the radar. Rewind a year to springtime 2016 and I'd be busy whacking a different set of moles. Apologies to EEng for bludgeoning his neatly-collapsed thread, but I won't stand to be disparaged. — JFGtalk23:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of the fact that we have WP:NOTNEWS, I have long been bothered by the same things, and I think this would be a very good idea. So now, I'm going to rain on the parade. Never gonna happen. There are simply too many other users who will show up at an RfC and say no! no! because they love to do instant news edits, plus all the others who never like anything that would be a change. It will never get consensus. Just won't. But I'll take you up on the popcorn. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So would we define breaking news as "all sources which form the basis of the topic's notability are less than X days old"? (Let's keep the X flexible for now.)EEng00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another argument favouring such a cool-off period: in the heat of the news cycle, as mere mortals feverishly scan their TV while editing, reporters who missed the initial scoop come and pickup further clues on Wikipedia, resulting in a fertile breeding ground for citogenesis. Very hard to track down in the brouhaha, although I'm pretty sure it happened. Optimists call it collective intelligence… — JFGtalk01:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging a coupla random wise people for their thoughts. (I'd like to start the discussion small, so this is a random subset that comes to mind -- don't be offended if I left you out.) Iridescent, Bishonen, Drmies, Dweller. EEng15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I seldom engage in such articles either, but we all see/deal with the fireworks related to them at the noticeboards. EEng17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I will never look at sparrows the same way again, alas!) There are more urgent things that need to be improved with the way Wikipedia operates than putting a time delay on political news articles (see my user page). But I agree that when a Wikipedia article is at the top of Google News, there is enormous pressure encouraging some editors to be amateur opinion journalists here at Wikipedia. Even for longstanding Wikipedia articles, such pressure is often evident, but it gets magnified a hundred fold for new newsy articles. A time delay might make things a bit more boring behind the scenes at Wikipedia, but sometimes boring is good (just ask Elon Musk!). Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this unfold and wanted to wait a bit to see what other had to say before weighing in. Here's my opinion: Wikipedia is not the news because it does not give a hoot about Homicide #17 of Oklahoma City, the lorry that overturned on the M6, or the three hoodlums who skipped school and are now raking leaves in the park. Wikipedia rights about whatever is notable. When the stabbings happened at Ohio State, I didn't read any other opinion piece from what we call the news service, I read our article on it (granted, it was 18 hours old by the time I got around to it). James Comey's dismissal is definitely notable, and so was Brexit and Deepwater Horizon. Putting a delay in creation that is longer than a reasonable 48 hours does not do an ounce (kg if you're metric) of good. I feel that if anything should be proposed, it should be a 30 day deletion insurance: If an article with a credible hint of notability (think A7) is created and does not qualify for any speedy deletion criteria (e.g. Attack page, advertising, gibberish) and has at least X reliable sources at the bottom, it may not be nominated for deletion for at least a month. Something like that. Remember when United Express (exercised their rights) threw David Dao off the 3411? AE3411 ended up being notable, and Dao was deleted. By trying to enforce NOTNEWS while being oblivious to the world going crazy over the situation, they nominators basically ensured a Keep !outcome and took up a lot of time that could have been spent improving the article. About now is the time to check for SUSTAINED, and to nominate the articles if those editors still desire. And they all went on to SNOW uphold at DelReview as well (quite predictable, and a little bludgeony given the number of proper editors who !voted) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and notable events are covered here. (I notice Danielle "cash me ousside" Bregoni has a redirect and no article). TLDR: if its notable it stays, and AfD should be forbidden under specific circumstances to prevent time wasting. Thats what I think. d.g. L3X1(distant write)21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account both this thread and the parallel thread at ANI, there's at least some hope for some version of something like this getting some serious consideration. Who would like to be pinged when I'm ready to start seriously shaping a proposal (which might be a week+ from now)? Add your ~~~ (three ~s) below, please. Pinging Drmies, Softlavender, Ritchie333, David Eppstein to see if they can be tempted into helping. Others, feel free to ping in others you think can help.EEng03:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where should this generic proposal be submitted? In closing the ANI thread, NeilN suggested WP:VPP. Thoughts? I'm not familiar with proposing site-wide RfCs. Hopefully it doesn't end up at WP:PERENNIAL. My hunch would be to suggest this in a limited-scope subject area, such as US politics, so the community could ascertain its effectiveness on real-life cases without disturbing the bulk of Wikipedia. Is there a venue for this? WT:WikiProject Politics/American politics perhaps? That place looks strangely inactive. — JFGtalk02:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Village Pump, but let's worry about that after we know what we want to propose. I'd like to do this here, "between friends", before widening the circle. EEng03:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait until there's a fleshed out proposal before I offer an opinion, but I did want to comment to say VPP is really the only possible venue (short of a specialized RfC page that is cross-posted to WP:CENT, WP:VPP, etc - a CENT posting will also be needed). Anything less public than VPP doesn't have the broad reach necessary to change something as well-grounded in broad community consensus as our base notability guidelines. ~ Rob13Talk03:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to continue constructive conversation here. For the moment, please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc. None of that can be known until there's an actual proposal to discuss.
I'm pretty busy for the next couple of weeksmonths, so it may be some time before I can give this the attention it deserves in order to develop a viable proposal. I'm the meantime I'm gratified by the thought being put into the discussion, which will help make whatever we come up with as good as possible.EEng
This 3-day proposal that is starting to take shape may actually make WP:NOTNEWS a legitimate policy again. Has anyone else noticed that the main arguments at AfDs for new political or crime-based articles are usually defended with WP:RUSH? It defeats the very foundation of NOTNEWS because keep voters claim sources will soon arise which, by the way, also conflicts with WP:CRYSTALBALL. With three days, sources that may exist will actually exist.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's another great argument to ensure consistency of purpose: inform readers, be neutral, and dare I say combat rampant tabloïdism. — JFGtalk02:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect illustration of the usefulness of the proposed cool-down period: press writes a story, editor creates article, spams it into visible places, regulars take notice, some open an AfD, others "enrich" the piece by coatracking every possible related subject. Meanwhile the same news story is copied into said related subjects. Several talk page discussions get started in parallel, replete with WP:PA, WP:LAWYERS and WP:ABF, then a week later some poor souls will pick up the crumbs and clean up the mess while dodging calls of censorship or WP:TENDinitis. If such a proposal ever has a chance to pass, the time to act is now. — JFGtalk02:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would just freeze it in an arbitrary state. Better to have nothing at all for a period.
Collapsing comments from people who don't read instructions i.e. what it says at top of this very thread: "Please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be opposing this proposal, beit 3 months or 3 days—I want Wikipedia to be up-to-date, and even with all the trouble, an artificial cool-down period seems like a detriment to the project's reputation. I realise the current political climate in the US is a lot, but a pivotal shift in policy is not the way to respond to that. El_C02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What part of For the moment, please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc. None of that can be known until there's an actual proposal to discuss do you not understand? If you think the only question is "3 months or 3 days" they you obviously didn't read the discussion above -- in fact, you didn't even read the bolded bits. EEng03:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. And For the moment, please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc.? I guess you just disagree with that too, it seems. EEng03:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This whole cooling off period is counter-productive to building an encyclopedia. You want people to edit this site and they edit stuff that they are interested. Right now, this stuff with Trump is hot. Will that mean that a few articles get created that shouldn't? Absolutely and there is a tool for that: WP:AFD. However, having a lot of editors focused on a subject that is likely to be of historic importance (e.g. Russian interference in the US election), sure makes it easier for that editor 5 to 10 years down the road to make a WP:FA. Moreover, getting what are very likely historic but current events in as good as shape as possible will only help the reader today. Don't fix what isn't broken My 2 cents.Casprings (talk)
Oh for god's sake, could you at least have read my plea at the top of this thread before commenting? EEng03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casprings: If you're motivated by building possibly a WP:FA "5 to 10 years down the road", then surely you can wait 2-3 days to get started. Or to push the "breaking historic news" into the lead of related articles. We can't judge what will be historical while we have our noses rubbed in today's mush. — JFGtalk08:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TGS about our NOTNEWS policy which may well make Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn a candidate for prod or even G11 when stacked with WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BREAKING and BLP policy overall. It's very disconcerting to see the frenzy, and it may very well clear a path for the same thing to start happening with the Clinton investigations et al. Lawdy, things are bad enough now trying to clear the WP:NPR backlog. Atsme📞📧03:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll add, there's real breaking news regarding Anthony Weiner sexting scandals - WaPo, CNN, LA Times, etc. published earlier today that he pleaded guilty, but it has gone unnoticed in WP. [108] I think it demonstrates that proposed waiting period for breaking news shouldn't be an issue, and that the motivation to create "breaking news" stubs may be political which isn't helpful to the project. Atsme📞📧03:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nobody can control which subject attracts the creativity of WP editors… We can't deal with politically-motivated smear jobs by blocking Tendentious Faction 1 on odd days, and Tendentious Faction 2 on even days. With the cool-down proposal, it doesn't matter which way the wind blows: readers and curators alike would get back a precious part of their sanity and life-wiki balance. — JFGtalk08:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note on historical value of news – Our colleague Casprings made the following argument over at the previous thread:
The key point about breaking news is that we can't judge today whether they will be historically significant. History has a pesky tendency to erase the details and focus on the essentials. So with those example, I bet that the WP:10YT situation would have "Dismissal" as a section of the James Comey article, "Russian interference" renamed either Events leading to Donald Trump's impeachment or Great Russian Hysteria of 2016–2017 (depending how history actually unfolds), and the "disclosure" article merged into a couple sentences of that one. — JFGtalk08:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first there has to be verifiable evidence that a crime has been committed per WP:V, especially when a BLP is the topic. Politically motivated breaking news that cites anonymous sources could damage the credibility of the project if it turns out to be unsupported or fake news for bait & click. Our job is to make sure WP:V and WP:NPOV have been satisfied. Example: the breaking news about Weiner clearly has staying power - the man pleaded guilty so we're not dealing with allegations from anonymous sources. The only question at this point is whether or not he'll serve time and for how long. Politically based allegations disguised as "breaking news" which are obviously published by propagandists using anonymous sources can easily turn out to be an effort to boost ratings and/or increase click revenue. At the very least, if "breaking news" is going to remain in the WP landscape, a waiting period makes sense as does enforcement of our PAGs regarding such information. The main objective should be to preserve the credibility of the project and reduce the potential of unsustainable activity at AfD and ANI. Question - would it help, if it is even possible, to automatically direct articles into draft space that involve allegations of crime or are considered "breaking news", especially that which is politically motivated and includes information that fails V? I know there's a template for breaking news that should be used, but rarely is. Atsme📞📧15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2017 United States-Saudi Arabia arms deal should be a paragraph in Saudi Arabia–United States relations. Interestingly, even a supporter of the article in the inevitable AfD debate says: I think this article should've been created in another two weeks. Or a month. But the notability of this arms deal is clearly significant. Deleting this particular article is pointless. And here we hit the crux of our modest proposal: if the arms deal gets more coverage in the next weeks or months, it may be spun off as its own article, but if it remains a one-day news story, then it will have been properly documented in the relevant article from the onset, and a lot of editor time and content duplication will have been saved. — JFGtalk11:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll likely have more luck getting this adopted if you add a list of exceptions. Example: A story that appears above the fold in every major world newspaper. --NeilNtalk to me03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say in passing that, even though this effort is temporarily dormant (see next ===-section below), people are welcome to add thoughts which may help in fashioning a proposal. Now then... Your suggestion seems to concern mostly the idea (mentioned somewhere above) that a short embargo will help put notability in better perspective, and in particular avoid starting articles on topics which turn out to be flashes in the pan. (Your point, I assume, is that if it's above the fold on most major newspapers, it's almost certainly notable -- and I agree with that.)
But notability isn't the main point of an embargo. The main point is that the reporting of breaking news is often chaotic in the extreme, especially in the early days. The point of the embargo is to give the reporting a bit of time to settle down, so things can be a little bit in perspective, early spurious reports can be weeded out, etc. Take a look at the first version of 2017 Resorts World Manila attack, started 9 hours ago [109]. It reads: On June 1, 2017, Resorts World Manila in the Philippines was the subject of a terrorist attack initially believed to be perpetrated by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Well, that wasn't true. What good does such an article do the reader? In fact, right on the Talk page is the following thread:
Has anyone actually read that this may not be a terror attack [110]?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It may very well not be a terrorist attack, but so far ISIL has claimed responsibility (whether that be true or not) so they are regarded as the probable perpetrators until something else is proven. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Sigh... this is why breaking news stories need a small waiting period to sort the facts. I find it terribly problematic that we cannot even confirm whether this is a coordinated attack by ISIL or a robbery gone wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
What was missing here, but often seen in such situations, is angry edit warring over conflicting narratives by people watching different news feeds and therefore in different states of up-to-dateness. EEng03:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to choose between putting forth a proposal that shuts down the perceived problem completely and a proposal that helps mitigate the issue and has a chance of being adopted. --NeilNtalk to me04:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump orb, whereby a meme about the inauguration picture of a counter-terrorism center got more coverage than the aforementioned center, which doesn't even have an article yet. Even without creating that, the natural insertion point was Riyadh Summit 2017 (a much shorter article than the picture story).
Another example: Talk page for June 2017 London attack[111], and the consequent ANI thread [112]. This is a typical struggle for control of the narrative of a breaking event, with tussles over interpretation of early sources etc. EEng06:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng & JFG instant news is like "instant grits"...tasteless and without substance. I prefer homemade grits that have substance and are seasoned with a bit of salt and real butter. Seriously, we're seeing the same feeding frenzy in WP editors that we're seeing in the hungry fake news journalists pundits who are losing their jobs because they've caused their respective network ratings to plummet. No news is better than fake news. Atsme📞📧01:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng - most recently the 3 from CNN and not so recently The Ascent of Punditry, pg 19. Having worked with CNN as a field producer back in the day, it strikes a special cord for me to see the deterioration of ethical journalism. Some of the sources used by MSM are less credible than those used by WP, and that's sad. Atsme📞📧02:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The resignations are a sign that standards are being uphelp. While I regret the complete loss in the last 20 years of the formerly iron wall between straight reporting and commentary (in both broadcasting and print) you can't seriously be proposing that CNN offers "fake news". EEng02:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is a sign that standards are being upheld but based on my first-hand experiences I'm more inclined to believe it was the result of them getting caught and publicly exposed. But who the hell knows what's true anymore? The repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act (in 2013, I believe) is when journalism started going to hell in a hand basket. When the Director of the FBI calls out the NYTimes for inaccuracies, and undercover cameras capture producers saying the reporting is all about ratings, I can assure you, it's a hard pill to swallow, especially for someone like me who swore the oath of ethical journalism and accuracy in reporting, and did so from an emotionless, matter-of-fact POV for many years before and after retirement. Regardless, I still maintain faith that things will iron out, and it's one of the reasons behind my supporting your proposal for a latency period before publishing "breaking news". We're dealing with a ratings race so it's not surprising that news organizations are trying to be the first to broadcast the scoop and now that the restrictive laws have been repealed, they have all kinds of leeway to say whatever the hell they please with -0- consequences. Atsme📞📧03:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is on my mind, but it will be some time before I can get to it. But I will... eventually... and you'll all get pinged at the appropiate moment. EEng03:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to appreciate the good examples being added to the list above now and then. When the time for the revolution is ripe, they will help in shaping a proposal. Our day will come, comrades!EEng23:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have advocated in the past for an essay entitled WP:TRUMPSCANDALAFD, but I am hopeful one day that your proposal will make it unnecessary. And I apparently advocated for it on this page, ah, well, its been a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, you should really know better than to make a "joke" which is nothing but a personal attack, even if it is against someone from the extreme right. Comments like this are not relevant to the article or the dispute and can do nothing but make the situation worse. Fram (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy, I'm very disappointed in you. Can you imagine the bullying she suffered during her formative years? EEng14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How did my comment make the situation worse? Honestly, it's so distressing to have your sympathy for someone's plight labeled a personal attack. And her extreme right views have nothing to do with it; I think Subcommandante Marcos has an idiot name too (the difference being, of course, that he apparently inflicted it on himself). EEng14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, drop it. Mocking people for their name is what one expects from a 7-year old child. If you continue like this, you will be blocked. Fram (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, running around on a horse smoking a pipe and calling yourself a "Subcommandante" is what one expects from a 7-year-old child (well, maybe not the smoking). Honestly, haven't you got some vandalism to fight or something? If you continue like this, you will make even more people laugh. EEng17:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may have fooled one gullible admin, and you may fool others as well, but your pretense of innocence is only making you look worse. If you want to insult people, do it offwiki.
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.
For those playing along at home, this concerns the following segment of the current ANI thread re the article Pets of Vladimir Putin. The portions redacted by CambridgeBayWeather [118] as "BLP violations" I have underlined:
I do not think Putin would be interested at all, but right now there are a lot of cases in Russia when people are jailed for twits etc. The signals typically come from, um, unstable whistleblowers. I am not currently in Russia, but still...--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Good thing for Trump we don't jail people for twits here in the US. EEng 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Putin is too busy running the White House to be bothered with these editors.Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Content note: Article contains the passage: Three dolphins applauded the president for feeding them fish, while the walruses even shook his hand.EEng 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I prefer Adorned in white overalls to resemble a bird, Putin did manage to get some cranes to fly. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a shame the title of this thread isn't something like BITEy behavior at Pets of Vladimir Putin. EEng 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
[... Irrelevant intervening posts omitted...]
I voted to keep the article since it is as good as the other similar pages, some of which I was already aware of. Who knew Putin's dog is tracked by Russian GPS? Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Wait... Donald Trump is tracked by Russian GPS???EEng 19:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Setting aside the dog crack (which I agree is purely a personal insult, but a harmless one against as public a figure as it is possible to be), in what way was it a BLP violation for Legacypac to suggest that Putin is running the White House? Negative speculation about current political events is a very different thing than a personal attack. Also, CambridgeBayWeather, when you redact others' comments even for good reason you should be careful to do it in a way that doesn't make those editors appear to say something they never said. Your edits make it look like EEng removed someone else's joke, rather than what actually happened, which is that he made a joke and some busybody decided that ANI is too serious a place for jokes. For your future busybody-work, you might find the {{Redacted}} template helpful. But I think the bigger problem here is that too many people want to be the thought police of Wikipedia. This attitude is a big part of what makes Wikipedia as hostile as it can sometimes be. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given a current effort to BLP ban me going on a ANi, this post on my talk page is pretty unwelcome, especially since no one can see what I said. In about 5 minutes someone is going to point to it as proof I can't be trusted. There are enough RS to build an article on the specific ideas you deleted. Google "Putin's pet" or "Putin's dog" and enjoy. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does Stephen Colbert count as a reliable source because he's pretty well said that Putin is running the white house and the comment by EEng about Russian satellites tracking Donald Trump is nowhere near anything approaching from miles away being a BLP violation. Uh, it's the insinuation that Trump is Putin's dog that is the issue, I'd say that's two steps up from being his cockholster. We're all being tracked by Russian satellites, are we all BLP violations? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng knows me well enough to know that I consider him a wiki-friend, and that I consider the current US administration and the alt-right to be... otherwise. But having watched the ANI stuff and the two talk sections here, I think that it's possible that no one is entirely in the right. I don't think that the ANI comments were bad enough to have made this much of a stink over (but I do appreciate that CambridgeBayWeather was very courteous, unlike... someone else). Then again, just because an editor may make certain jokes, does not mean that they should make those jokes, and certainly not that they need to make those jokes. I do not go as far as to say that ANI is too serious a place for jokes. I've even made some jokes there myself. But WP:CESSPIT ain't for nothing. It's the Wikipedia place for lost souls, people (real people!) who may be idiots or jerks, but who are nonetheless likely to be upset about something, and being an idiot or a jerk does not mean that they need to be made more upset, or deserve it, or that doing so helps anyone else. EEng, going from ANI section to ANI section to make snarky, albeit clever, comments is likely to make somebody upset. It's not helpful. Now I know that you usually brush off my advice, but I also know that you are very smart (almost as smart as I am), so please think about being a bit more judicious about your ANI comedy routine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptability of comments isn't determined by the most sensitive one or two admins looking on. As CBW noted at AN, this material stood for more than 24 hours, during which several admins posted to the thread, unknowable other admins perused it, and finally, an admin closed it – all without acting on these "BLP violations".
I have a question, while we're on the subject: even assuming that Putin is too busy running the White House to be bothered with these editorsis a BLP violation who's the LP who's being besmirched? Is it Putin? Trump? Reince Priebus (who's supposed to be running the White House)? Putin's actual dogs?
EEng02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. for CambridgeBayWeather: I do appreciate your courteous attitude. And P.S. for Tryptofish: they're not snarky comments, just fun stuff meant to lighten the mood (when they're not actually making a point re the topic of the post, which is most of the time, actually).[reply]
I agree that acceptability of comments is not determined by a few admins, or at least shouldn't be. But I think that you will see that I was not concerned about offending admins. Although a small number of them may, in fact, be lost souls, most are not, and should be expected to be measured in their propensities to be offended. The lost souls about whom I was talking are non-admin users, and I stand by what I said. And I, too, am underwhelmed by the theory that the Putin comment was a BLP violation. As for snark, I accept that you do not intend them to be snarky. But they do read that way sometimes, and perhaps you do not realize that. And, as I said, it's frequently unhelpful to try to lighten the mood when other people are not... in the mood. And as for your effectiveness in lightening the mood, I'd say, based upon the reactions you have gotten here, don't give up your day job. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was/am not attempting to get anybody banned or blocked on BLP grounds. Both comments were minor and removing the one by Legacypac was probably too much. The one by EEng seemed to me to imply that one was the others bitch. I have no liking for either of the two politicians concerned but making those comments without some sources leaves Wikipedia open to accusations of partisanship. Disparaging comments about politician A are removed immediately but those on politician B are allowed to stand is seen all the time and I guess it was one time too many. Legacypac, I'm not going to reply on your talk page, unless you want me to, as I think that it would just make things worse. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq10:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partisanship on articles is a problem. Partisanship on talk pages (and ANI is a talk page) is not so problematic, and is definitely not something that should be redacted. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, what BLP says is Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Information. Information. When someone says, "Who knew Putin's dog is tracked by Russian GPS?", a response of "Wait... Donald Trump is tracked by Russian GPS???" is not information. It's not an assertion of fact. It's a joke. No one with common sense would actually think I was actually suggesting that Trump is a dog, much less Putin's dog. What I might have been implying beyond that is left to the reader's intelligence, but it's at best a puckish thought, not any kind of information as covered by BLP. Same goes for Putin is too busy running the White House. Thinking that stuff like this, outside article space (not that either of these would be found in article space) needs to be hunted down and stamped out stems from an absurd misunderstanding of the purpose of BLP. It's a tiny minority of admins who worry about this -- that should tell you something. EEng23:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, strongly. As I see it, it's not a BLP violation if no reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no non-notable (thus not in the public eye) person is besmirched by it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Small but critical adjustment to what Tfish has said: The key point here is not that no reasonable person would believe it to be true, but that no reasonable person would interpret it as intended as a statement of fact in the first place. EEng07:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that was it. See, the problem is that my fellow editors respect me to the point of veneration, and simply assume that any edit I make is ipso facto correct – see [119]. So if I want someone to check what I've done, I have to raise a ruckus. I hope you checked (assuming you actually understand how all those moving parts in pending changes work, which I'm not sure anyone does). EEng19:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably employ more classic new editor tricks, like... if anything on my watchlist uses the word "truth" in any way shape or form, I'm 100% checking it. TimothyJosephWood19:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your recent ornithological question at WP:ANI
Re: Go ahead and snark, but for what it's worth, Pardis (as a practicing geneticist yet) manages to fit a nod to the limitations of twin studies [ghastly section, btw] and common abuses of "heritability" into her intro genetics course, while Wilson couldn't resist gambling the credibility gained through a career of stellar entomology on a bunch of cockamamie just-so stories about hard genetic determinism"sociobiology". So. FourViolas (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When someone's entire contribution history looks like [121] I feel comfortable erring on the side of ascribing promotionalism. If you, personally, want to vouch for this person I won't oppose it. Maybe some sunny day we'll come up with inclusion criteria. EEng01:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't actually suggesting she passes whatever impossible threshold of academic superstardom would make her more worthy of the shortlist than Wilson, just griping. This is too complicated to implement, but if I were in charge I'd make a points system: three points for a Nobel or Fields, two for a Pulitzer, one for each NYT bestseller, one for being a fellow of the AAAS or field equivalent, one for being the subject of someone else's course, one-half for each published biography, etc., and then include people with a score of 5 or higher. FourViolas (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)FourViolas, I'm agassed!! Methinks perhaps that criteria may be too encyclopedic for the average encyclopediaphobe. WP would shrink to fewer pages than the # of baseballs (or bananas) that Johnny Bench can hold in one hand. Atsme📞📧00:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I spelled it that way for a reason...I was showing sensitivity to EEng's intellectual faculties by appealing to his sense of humor, which I sensed you would help provoke, you lil provocateur you. It's also possible that FV's words, she passes may have triggered it. Atsme📞📧01:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only talking about the criteria for the super-elite shortlist on Harvard_University#Faculty. For general NACADEMIC purposes, I'd be willing to relax the standard to, say, either winning a Nobel Prize or personally developing a technology which ruins ≥10,000 people's lives. EEng, can you do anything about your TPSs' gassed-ly puns? They stink. FourViolas (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not completely serious, but inclusion on that list rather than inclusion in Wikipedia makes more sense of your Nobel-is-only-halfway scale. Do we get to choose who Harvard hires now? I had no idea we had achieved such power! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we can choose, then let's raise the bar on porn stars and hockey players, too. Is there a Hall of Shame Fame we can use as the minimum requirement for pornies? I think hockey is pretty much the same as soccer, or it may be more relaxed. Atsme📞📧13:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh...since porn is part of the equation, I'm afraid my answer to the sticks and grass-diving question will only get me in trouble, regardless of how innocent it might be. Atsme📞📧23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), listen... I'm very glad you brought this up. Do you know where these editors are popping up from all of a sudden? I really should reach out to them to explain why I'm slashing and burning their added material, but I've just been too exhausted (I'm taking care of my 7-yo nephew all this week). I don't want to drive new editors away, but that stuff was way over the top. Is there an instructor in charge of them somewhere? EEng01:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any of the details about this, but if you are concerned that this is a class project where the instructor needs to be contacted, anyone can ask for help with working things out with the student editors and instructor at WP:ENB or WP:ENBI. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that one in the hand is worth two Bushes. No need for you to worry...he's probably read your user page which in itself is built-in protection against a Trump handshake. Atsme📞📧15:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Puzzle is right. I've been in that discussion, and I did not understand what Drmies meant when he said that, and I have no idea what you mean by what you are saying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember aright, on Wikidata certain datums (!) are considered "claims" until they're confirmed in some designated way. As for the other guy, I'm staying out of that except to note that I see my [FBDB] innovation has found uses I never anticipated. EEng23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, you saw that?!! I'm impressed! Hey, Tryp - it's Friday night and it's happy hour. For the next 3 or 4 hours, we have a license to not care. I blame my OCD for getting me in that mess and for not letting me get out of it...but I'm more befuddled over this, which I imagine few saw in my post at that TP because they're too frigging busy arguing for their own OR. 🍺!!! Atsme📞📧00:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad habit I recently developed when responding to a question/statement in one of the mile long threads I've been subjected to this past week...or has it been a year? Atsme📞📧00:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding like a supremacist...maybe I spelled that wrong...fortune cookies don't solve the hunger you get an hour after eating Chinese food at 2:00am - yes, I did that and at 5 am I was starving - while riding horses down the esplanade of a busy boulevard. Atsme📞📧 00:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)<---I have Ritchie333 to thank for keeping me up with the time. Atsme📞📧00:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your redundant close of the AN/I complaint about DoRD confused me until what you had done suddenly struck me. Very nice!! One of your better ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cough medicine for Ritchie333. Delivered by Dr. Thaddeus Schmidlap, maker of miracle elixirs from the land of Achoo, a small country in the Federated States of Chu.
Me: here was its first appearance on Wikipedia. I also gave Wikipedia "civility police", "Facebook for ugly people" and "Bradspeak". You're welcome. ‑ Iridescent06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent you coined the phrase "civility police" and I felt it my duty to provide the visuals. I will not pursue the others for I fear potential retaliation from FB users, and I don't have a clue what "Bradspeak" means. Atsme📞📧17:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, WP:Bradspeak exists to enlighten you. (Despite appearances, it wasn't intended as an insult—it was an observation that NYB was more dedicated than most to avoiding ambiguity, and that his consequent refusal to use words with more than one meaning led to some extremely odd looking phrasing.) I believe I was also the first person to use the phrase "indefinite doesn't mean infinite" on Wikipedia as well, but I can't really take credit for that—before c. 2007 the block interface had separate settings for indefinite ("we haven't decided when to unblock you") and infinite ("fuck off and don't come back") so when blocking someone the situation didn't need to be explained. ‑ Iridescent17:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know how you have buttons Save changes and Show preview and Show changes when you edit? This adds Show preview and changes in a single button! It's amazing! Seriously, add this to your common.js e.g. User:SoAndSo/common.js:
Ok, so I'm editing this section in Firefox, and at the bottom is Edit summary, Save changes, Show preview, Show changes, Show preview and changes, Citations and Cancel.
I clicked on Show preview and changes and can see what I just typed above but in order to see a preview of what I'm typing now, my only options are Save changes, Show preview, Show changes, and Cancel. I will click on Show changes. Now I have the Show preview and changes option again. How cool is that? ❤️ Thank you, EEng and Writ Keeper!! Wow! Atsme📞📧15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I use Firefox (but in Windows, not Mac), and that never happened for me. Was this your first edit after installing the gadget in your JS file? If so, maybe the new code had not yet loaded until your second try. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense, Tryp. I waited a few days, and here goes. I'm seeing the full menu below Edit summary; i.e. Save changes, Show preview, Show changes, Citations, Show preview and changes, Cancel. I'm going to click on Show preview and changes.....Yep - that was it!! Needed to clear cache. That's what excitement will do for you - I got in too big a hurry to use the new feature and instead of doing a cache check, my check bounced. Atsme📞📧22:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now in Safari browser.
I clicked on Show preview and changes, AWESOME, and now I'm typing this and can see the full menu again, unlike what happened in Firefox. The Show preview and changes remains with each edit. Not sure if it's worth reporting the bug to Writ Keeper although it would save an extra step in Firefox (using a Mac).Atsme📞📧15:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but the lion's share of the credit belongs to the Wikipedia community, which provides the raw material to which I am honored to be allowed to apply such humble talents as I have been lucky enough to be endowed with. EEng03:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC) I don't know if that last bit was grammatical, but it's late.[reply]
It was grammatical, more like fanatical, from our favorite radical, but it will pass along with the gas that keeps your ass in high gear, n'er failing to be witty and tart...(finish the poem 🤓). Atsme📞📧04:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making the question even more urgent: Why are you wasting the time of so many editors? When are you going to get a clue? EEng03:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, I was away for the weekend and only just received it.
I realise that you have a problem with my behaviour. But this is not the place to discuss that. This is about your behaviour.
I'm interpreting your response as meaning that you see nothing wrong with the edit in question, and will continue to make similar ones unless this is escalated, is that a fair conclusion? Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's escalate!
I'm interpreting your response as meaning you're even more clueless than anyone thought. Do you really so need to humiliate yourself that you just can't resist coming back here?
I was away for the weekend and only just received it. – Thanks for explaining. I was counting the hours until I heard from you.
I realise that you have a problem with my behaviour. But this is not the place to discuss that. – Who the fuck are you to tell me what can be discussed on my talk page?
unless this is escalated – Christ, please escalate. It's been a while since one of you grandfathered admins made a fool of himself like this. Always entertaining.
@Andrewa: Things might have changed since whatever halcyon days you are remembering. I feel I can speak for EEng and myself in saying that we do not want the issue escalated because we have things to do and further pointless banter would be very unproductive. However, I guarantee that escalation would achieve nothing apart from providing light entertainment. The way to avoid people poking fun at you is to stop wasting time. Regarding Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, you have made 97 edits since 14 August 2017—has anything been achieved? Of course you are welcome to waste your time however you like, but WP:TPG is important—1,019 people watch the page, of whom 95 have checked the talk page recently; in all, the talk page has been viewed 2,598 times in the past 30 days. That means the pointless banter is wasting a lot of other people's time. Please find something useful to do. If you really really really want to continue, make an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had it in mind that an escalation might be useful as a vehicle for Andrewa learning something, but experience shows that's very unlikely so, yes, it would indeed be a waste of time. [User:EEng#s|E]]Eng04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you are quite right, the bar on personal attacks is lower than it once was, and consensus is clear that your post was quite in order. Perhaps that is one reason we have concerns about contributor retention... but that's a discussion for another time.
I think you're trying to say the bar is higher, but that's OK (and I don't agree, by the way – we've just stopped trying to police personal interactions the way grade-school teachers patrol the playground). Anyway, this wasn't resolved in anyone's favour, because WP:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning. But we might say it was resolved in favour of a principle – the principle that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about whining. I'm glad you learned something, but I dare not ask what that is. Now please stop wasting my time and go deny the antecedent, or affirm the consequent, or accentuate the positive, or whatever it is you think you're doing, somewhere else. EEng22:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We must mention EEng at NPOV-N since he's mentioned that others have mentioned mentioning him and we don't want to be left out of the mention tension.Atsme📞📧13:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, SBHB - you simply have to mention it. Was not that style of mention mentioned to you as we have intentionally mentioned in the mention tension convention while you attempted suspension, unless enforced abstention was your contention? Atsme📞📧16:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is more reasonable: A. Someone has a recent grudge from an encounter with installing Windows B. I seem to remember raiding a cult hideout and they had this projected on the wall over their altar. L3X1(distænt write)18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the discussion and hope your advice got through. I'll keep an eye. Your ran/rma infection seems chronic. EEng05:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responded here [125]. I wish you'd make up your mind, though, whether I'm a dick or a douche. (Is your confusion that they both go into ladyparts?) EEng18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better me than anyone else; it doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I kind of like having the block log I have because it draws the crazies like moths to the flame, thus we know quickly who's who. BTW, he seems to want us to think he's this guy [126]. He's probably qualified for a WP:IMPERSONATE block, but I'm not going to initiate that unless he keeps behaving in a way that embarrasses the real person with that name. EEng01:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I simply googled Carole Chaski Robert Kwasny. It's on the first page of results. I don't think it's him, though. No responsible academic would behave that way; more likely it's someone out to embarrass him and/or embarrass Chaski. EEng02:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the barnstar documentation says, for lightening the mood, defusing conflicts, and generally making Wikipedia a better place to be. Including this. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you sent Thanks, I thought I ought read this talk page. My first reaction was "how can one editor be so talented?" Then the answer hit: no effor required—each night you tilt Wikipedia and next morning les noix roll in—as if this were Orange County. User:Neonorange (Phil) 07:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My second post is almost a duplicate, but not quite. A clue is to be found by clicking on the subject line of that second post. — (Phil) 11:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you sent thanks I thought I ought read your talk page. My first reaction was "how can one editor be so talented?" Then the answer hit: each night you tilt Wikipedia and next morning les noix roll in as if this page were Orange County. Neorange (Phil) 07:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to commend you for your great sense of humour, as well as for your exquisite taste for NOT adding a picture of a boomerang in the ANI thread. Dr.K.03:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with most of them; I tend to err on the side of more information rather than less when I write articles as (as I'm sure you know) it's much easier to cut later than add (and also a sort of a defense against casual tagging ... I think I put in the names of the pathologists because a) I wasn't sure how often I'd have to refer to the writers when I began that section and I didn't want to keep saying "the pathologists" and b) I've had people tag that sort of thing with {{who}} a few too many times). I was sad to see those bits about the black water go but ... it has been over four years now and I have not found anything about what happened with the lawsuit over it, so I guess all we need to do now is note it and move on.
I did, however, restore the "mechanics of the body removal" because it's a subtle way of debunking one of the so-called "mysteries" of the case intended to suggest paranormal involvement, i.e. people who think themselves clever and ask "If they had to cut her body out, HOW COULD SHE HAVE GOTTEN IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? HUH? HUH?" With that explanation in the article and cited to a reliable source, people can link to our article (as a lot of web forums do) and quote that part and shut that down real quick. (I also read somewhere, but haven't found an RS repeating this, that (rather sensibly when you think about it) the rigor mortis was so advanced they couldn't pull the body back through the hatch without severely damaging it in the process).
(BTW, maybe I should take the time now to apologize for things I said during that long war we had over at DYK two summers ago. So, I'm sorry). Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the wise man said, Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. Good writing often springs from the dynamic between a writer who who writes too much and an editor who cuts, chooses, and prunes.
Don't worry about the other, Daniel Case. As I'm sure you know I've been on the receiving end of worse.
This is your only warning; if you trim out blatantly excessive text from a long standing rights description page making the text far more digestible and less complex for the average reader, as you did with this edit, I shall have to praise you again.
Seriously, I saw the edit summary and immediately assumed it was vandalism. But, the edit summary was perfect. Nicely done on trimming that text down! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I counted the number of "blah"s, and you should have had one more. (By the way, I have all of the best "blah"s. When I get done, you'll have so many "blah"s that you'll be getting tired of so much "blah"ing. Everyone else has fake "blah"s.) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did have to add a bit of text back in [127]. Feel free to change it however you wish, but this bit is important because many of the people we want having autopatrolled are not familiar with project space, so we rely on other people to let admins know that they should have the flag. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The illustration with the caption "Drawing" (it's quite interesting if you click on it once, then click on "More details" to enlarge it so you can see the details), and the one of Saltholm lend themselves to captions about Wikipedia. – Corinne (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So where I am from we used to give rope for mere possession of a running brand (Mac10s were ok, you can't hurt anyone with them) but duffing is okay if you rustle goats in odd numbers. (!) So you might want to get a GPS tracker for this goat. And that link is on purpose for 2 reasons: a goat is a goat and a ram is a sheep with an attitude; FCA doesn't make a GT model for the 1500.
A few weeks ago I was behind a 3500 with RAM written like a foot tall in the tailgate and a badge that looked about 10 inches wide. Any clue what I could have seen??
Per the discussion at ANI, you are hereby deleted from this world for wasting the 1 millionth edit on ANI. If you wish to appeal this deletion please contact the creator of the universe, whoever that may be.—CYBERPOWER(Chat)17:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for an image that would illustrate wasting edits, or time, and I came across The Idler (1993). I love the quote from the Ethos section:
On the practice of idling, Tom Hodgkinson writes:
[a] characteristic of the idler's work is that it looks suspiciously like play. This, again, makes the non-idler feel uncomfortable. Victims of the Protestant work ethic would like all work to be unpleasant. They feel that work is a curse, that we must suffer on this earth to earn our place in the next. The idler, on the other hand, sees no reason not to use his brain to organise a life for himself where his play is his work, and so attempt to create his own little paradise in the here and now.[1]
Just to be clear, the edit that dare not speak its name removed by Ivanvector was just a link to the latest Sassy Trump video. I'd link to it here again, minus the title, if I hadn't been threatened by Ivan. For anyone who's interested I've posted it on my talk page. Ask for me tomorrow, and you may find me a grave man. nagualdesign16:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EEng. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Not a Sassy Trump video, since I was barred from linking to the latest one, but a musical mashup from October last year (with no mention of any allegations of molestation, paedophilia, necrophilia or any other such BLP violating content, it's just a bit of fun): DONALD TRUMP : The Muppet Show Mashupnagualdesign22:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A stable genius.
A bit of off-Wiki comic relief from all the huffing and puffing that fills Wikipedia talk pages: There's been 3 more Sassy Trump videos released in the last couple of weeks. I won't link to all 3, but this one had me in stitches: Sassy Trump sings 'The Star-Something Hmm-hmm' I'm surprised more people don't do funny voiceovers. Maybe it's my puerile sense of humour but I find them hilarious. Bad Lip Reading never fails to amuse me either. nagualdesign22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I share your sense of humor about that (and everyone knows I'm a stable genius). I liked the "no collusion" one too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns).
The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?”
The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”.
The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?”
I think it's absolutely tasteless for Legobot to have placed this notice directly under a turkey-in-oven photo. EEng14:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to know, why is the Phineas Gage article not at the very least recognized as a GA? In my opinion, it deserves its own tier of "GA-ness" or "FA-ness". Something like Bully! article status. Is there anything I can do to help amend this? I do not possess the heroism (or patience) to navigate the depths of your talk page for a similar discussion so I apologize in advance if I am not the first to ask these questions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The very small amount of attention that has been given to [the article] can only be explained by the fact that it far transcends any case of recovery from injury of the head that can be found in the records of surgery. It was too monstrous for belief ...
Wow, I just looked through Phineas Gage<badump-tssss> and it does indeed appear to be quite a robust, well covered, well illustrated article. Outstanding (used both as an exclamation and I literally think it stands out in comparison to many other articles). --A Fellow Editor (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Buttinsky) I totally agree with you TGS and AFE. I can't overemphasize the engaging prose by our one and only EEng, an editor I admire and consider to be extraordinary in so many different ways. I would definitely be among the FA reviewers if PG became a WP:FAC. Atsme📞📧19:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy will need a lot of popcorn for that. I think the reason is that, once one opens the edit window, the page turns gag-inducing. I've given our fine curator a lot of grief over that in the past, but have since lost my appetite for doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to reopen some bad history here. I just think credit should be given for what, in my opinion, surpasses any article I have read on Wikipedia thus far. Honestly, a review just seems like a formality at this point but I can start one if that is the issue. Good idea or doomed to fail? Thoughts?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain whether it's doomed to fail, but it is very likely doomed to elicit drama, because that bad history includes a lot of editors who (unlike me) continue to hold a grudge. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what it takes NYB! I am going to ask around to find an experienced GA reviewer who would take the case. I still presume this review would just be a formality but I hope I can trust any issues beyond my control -- like with sources I do not own -- will be dealt with professionally by the article's main contributors. Resentment be damned; such a well-researched piece is worth whatever drama a few editors want to stir up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head—
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.
First let me say that, while I can't deny I'm the editor most responsible for what you see in the article, many others helped substantially and even indispensably. And anyone who says they don't enjoy, just a teensy bit, seeing their work recognized is fibbing – but at what cost? Please let's not rush into anything. Someone (not me) nominated for GA in 2013, and guess what? Click to find out. I fear that in any renewed effort (whether GA or FA), what will happen is...
someone will say there should be fewer quotations, because most articles have fewer quotations, and that quotations shouldn't have links, because otherwise someone might think that the links were in the original 19th-century quotation;
someone will say there should be fewer images, because most articles don't have many images;
someone will say the citation system should be changed, because most articles use some other citation system, whether it would do good service here or not;
someone will say et al. should be italicized;
someone else will say et al. should not be italicized;
someone will say the sentences should be broken up into short declaratives, that you shouldn't use dashes, and that you can't start a sentence with However or But, because their seventh-grade teacher Miss Snodgrass told them so;
someone will say the markup is too complicated (see post above in this thread), without considering what the markup does;
someone will say there should be fewer notes, because most articles don't have notes;
someone will say that the article's not balanced because (and I am not making this up) it doesn't repeat various things things said in a children's book.
In short, there will be plenty of people advocating for the principle that an "anodyne consistency of style" is what makes for a quality article. And those are just from memory. I don't know if I feel like going through that again. Then of course, the article's not my property and it's not my decision to make.
Wow, that ANI about the earlier GAN made my head explode! (Certainly wasn't just a formality.) Maybe it would make for a good reply to that survey about ANI posted below. Maybe not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No attempt will be made by me to cite analogous nominations, as after ransacking the literature in quest of such, I learn that all, or nearly all, soon came to a fatal result.
EEng - it's Happy Hour, and all I can do to refrain from sharing my candid thoughts. I can relate to what you've had to endure. (pause to retrieve a chilled mug of... use your imagination). I try to steer clear of things I'm not young enough to change...and I can't understand how in the hell that wonderfully composed and exceptionally well-written article doesn't meet the criteria for FA, never mind GA. Having said that, I understand why you don't want to be subjected to the drill, and decided instead to let it be what it is. Sometimes we just have to stop arguing and simply let them be wrong. Atsme📞📧22:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EEng I'll refrain from this topic for a few weeks. I apologize for causing any grief over what I thought was a bit more straightforward than it turned out to be. I don't know if there is some major politicizing or a grudge match keeping you away from the credit you deserve on the Gage article but I would appreciate if you re-evaluated after a period of time to see if you are up for a GA review.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my eyes, my 👀, my !! 🙈 Wish I hadn't read that! The nerve of those people!!! Atsme📞📧 15:29, December 2, 2017
And look how TheGracefulSlick is now harassing one of those poor people! [133]EEng03:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Reminder: There will be a meeting of the white males immediately after next week's Masonic Rites. If your Trilateral Commission duties will prevent you from attending, please let me know.[reply]
You can't please all the people all the time, I guess: someone was just telling me that they're disruptive and I should stop. Fooey, I say! EEng22:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...now you may have insulted the culture of my people. Stand by for withdrawal of any pickled herring in your possession. Alternatively, watch the 312-minute cut of Fanny and Alexander three times. Bishonen, please block EEng for the rest of the year for cultural insensitivity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting at the ANI (although the discussion was closed and may be considered bit ill-timed because of that, but whatever, it's fine...). I gained good amount of community feedback (including yours), and I will take it to heart, I will honor it, apply it, learn from it, and carry on positively. I appreciate your input very much, and I thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to repeat what I said on Tony1's talk page, I don't really blame you, because you were just imitating the widespread triggerhappy practices you've seen at ANI regarding so-called legal threats. And you're to be commended for trying to make amends. EEng04:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done all I can. The trial stuff probably should be streamlined more, but to be honest all the twists and turns give me a headache. I'm going to have to leave it at that. EEng20:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you remember the fix for the Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named xxxxx? See Barbara Taylor refs. I bookmarked the fix somewhere, but I can't recall where. Atsme📞📧20:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I'm pretty sure that among the pile of stuff at User:Atsme/common.js there's some code which does this. I get it as well and have learned to ignore it unless I'm cleaning up an article's refs. If you look in User:EEng/common.js you'll see the code I have to do the same thing (stolen from someone, I have no idea who). Try temporarily blanking your common.js and the message should disappear. If it's any comfort normal readers won't see the error because they won't have the js. EEng21:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the culprit is importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); Not sure why it shows up as an error or if it's really necessary to fix it but with that script gone, the error disappears. Apologies for any confusion I that js script may have caused. Atsme📞📧21:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{citation}} defines an anchor by default, so it is not (necessarily) an error in that case. It is possible to add |ref=none to suppress the anchor, I keep meaning to document that! {{Cite book}} etc only define an anchor if the |ref= param is set. In that case it is an indication that the intended link to that citation is missing so correcting the problem will probably improve the article. I like the "no errors, no warnings" mantra when adding content or programming, so I would always fix such a message. --Mirokado (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My only response:
A Game Warden is walking along a beach one morning when he spots a man with a bucket of lobsters.
The Warden walks up to the man, flashes his badge and says, “You’re in big trouble, buddy. Poaching lobsters is a serious offense.”
The man answers, “You’ve got it all wrong, these lobsters are my pets! Every morning I take them out for some exercise.
I let them swim around in the ocean for a few minutes and then whistle them back in.”
The Warden looks at the man skeptically and says, “Okay then, prove it.”
The man proceeds to throw the lobsters into the ocean and both he and the Warden stand there waiting.
After a couple minutes the Warden looks at the man and says, “That’s long enough, now whistle your lobsters back in.”
The man turns to the Warden and says “Lobsters? What lobsters?”
So, David - I ask...What error? Atsme📞📧22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh, you said it in terms of the death penalty, which is administered as a part of law, so that made it a legal threat. Alas, you're a goner. If only you had merely threatened to kill someone, that wouldn't have been a legal threat, and no admin would care. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are about to be the recipient of a WTF Block...maybe
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid?
Now that you're a mature an adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable,
they're collectable!! You are already well on your way to surpassing Trump International! Atsme📞📧21:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to this. I'm surprised I've never heard of the case before. Looks like this wouldn't need much to bring it to GA, and it would make a good DYK, especially wrt his being denied access to an attorney. I'll give it a going over next year, but in the meantime any chance you can revive the U Virginia link, currently 404? EEng00:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize you'd reverted the punctuation at Sacred Cod—I thought I'd simply somehow missed it. Regardless, you're wrong—it's not about the punctuation being in the original or not, it's about what the period is punctuating. The period logically punctuates the enclosing sentence, not the quoted fragment, which is not a complete sentence that can be terminated on its own. I'm not going to editwar over it, but you are totally misunderstanding the "logical" part of "logical quotation". Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!00:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this has its root in this discussion [137]. Apparently the OP doesn't want an answer, so I won't waste one. EEng04:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was no question to "answer", and my edits had nothing to do with attribution, so they have zero to do with that discussion (they had to do with MOS:LQ and MOS:DASH). You link to an article, I read it, and I correct the MoS errors I find—and you accuse me of bad faith for that? Why the head games? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Things other than questions can be answered, most editors seem to resolve LQ's contradictory provisions the way I do, and no one's accusing you of bad faith. Obviously you wouldn't be here if not for the discussion I linked. EEng11:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"most editors seem to resolve LQ's contradictory provisions the way I do"—uh ... no. I have no idea where you pull these magical statistics from, but I've read, written, and FA-reviewed more than enough articles to negate that statement. If that were the case, you would then have is a hodge-podge of quote fragments, some with the period inside and some out depending on the source rather than the logic of the sentence, which looks broken to the reader (who then may decide to "fix" it by putting them all either in or out, either breaking source–text integrity or MOS:LQ altogether). Surely this is not difficult to understand. MOS:LQ is meant to solve a problem, not cause one.
"Obviously you wouldn't be here if not for the discussion I linked."—obviously I wouldn't have clicked the link, but that's as far as you can stretch the logic, implying this is a dispute somehow carrying over from another discussion. Is that how you take it? Is it a grudge you carry over from that discussion that led you to revert all my edits? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!11:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your long experience at FA is disconnected from what most editors do, because most editors have no interest in that echo-chamber of rule-bound minutia-hunting unrelated to what makes an article something people would actually want to read. My experience is that most editors (unless they ignore LQ completely, and who can blame them?) simply follow its opening precept – Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark – and ignore its confusing, prissy, and contradictory examples, which in many cases produce jagged-looking results.
Over at Talk:MOS you've been huffing about "contextualizing quotations" and the sanctity of attribution and so on, while meanwhile (and I am not making this up) in the article in question you actually changed the wording of a direct quote [138]. Really???
The way the source was format, it didn't appear to be a quote. I made a mistake. Whoops!—sorry. That doesn't exceuse the rest of this (it wasn't a single revert), and that sigle error was not why you reverted everything else—including the comma from the date formatting. Seriously?—is that acceptible anywhere?
I think you mean "have it in for", but anyway I harbor no hostility toward MOS – in fact, I'm the primary contributor at MOSNUM [139] and primarily responsible for its organization and presentation. I reserve my hostility for people with cramped and dwarfed ideas about what constitutes good writing who try to impose those ideas on everyone else. As we're seeing at Talk:MOS, LQ's provisions really are, um, shall we say "suboptimal", so I think the sense-talking is going in the other direction. Sorry about the comma on the year, I guess I got distracted by your changing a direct quotation in that same edit.
I believe my talk page stalkers are no longer enjoying this, so please do have the last word now. I'm sure there are many more featured articles which will get thirty views per day waiting for you to write them. EEng06:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh ... what we're seeing at Talk:MOS is that every commenter without exception is telling you your interpretation is wrong. Not one has said anything resembling the idea that LQ's provisions are "suboptimal"—only that you're having the most puzzling trouble with what's totally clear to the rest of us. What's now more surprising is that a contributer to MOS:NUM would revert to a non-standard date format (covered in MOS:NUM) and not fix it even after pointing it out. "Have it out for" is perfectly standard English, by the way—it's not in the least hard to find real-world examples of it. You're really bending over backwards trying to look me bad, aren't you? It'd be nice if you looked at this as a "how can we solve this?" issue, rather than "how can I beat this fucker?" Your last comment makes it clear that'll never happen. Hey, talk page stalkers—EEng keeps calling on you to pile on me. What's holding you back? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!03:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, didn't notice you were still here. You can find unselfconscious examples of irregardless as well. When someone invites you to have the last word, you do know that's a test, right? EEng20:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When someone politely invites you to correct an error you've reverted, one doesn't expect you to invent English prescriptions at them to make yourself feel better. How many days are they to stay uncorrected, Top-MOS:NUM-Editor? As well as the MOS:LQ errors you've finally gotten around to admitting were your error? Or do we just get more of your headgames as you play The Ultimate Comeback? Given the mess at Talk:MOS, one would expect a little humility at this point. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!02:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
correct an error you've reverted – huh? When someone invites you to have the last word, you do know that's a test, right? EEng05:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about your bullshit in article space—you're playing head games. Why is playing head games so much more important to you than fixing your fuckups? That's a rhetorical question. Just fix your fuckups. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!06:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the fact that telling someone to correct an error you've reverted makes no sense, since an error that's been reverted has thereby already been corrected. Head games – that's such groovy vernacular! So with it and hip! I dig it, daddy-o! But hey, dude, when someone invites you to have the last word, you do know that's a test, right? EEng07:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reverted any of his edits, and I'm not about to start—he's been accusing me of bad faith from the get-go. I'm not about to feed that by giving him the excuse to accuse me of editwarring. He's made it clear he doesn't want me touching his article. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!15:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage my glittering array of talk page stalkers to take a look. Myself I'm going to just keep watching for now. I long ago decided to let my block log stand as a monument to the 3% of admins who are fools or jackasses (with one or two exceptions, of course) so I don't have the emotional investment many others do. EEng22:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Later clarification: What I meant is that there are one or two exceptions among the admins who have blocked me; among admins in general, 97% are emphatically not fools or jackasses. 16:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on some of the comments I've read about block logs, we should be proud of them. One argument I've seen more than once over the years is that we should want to keep them in public view because it exposes the insanity that plagues WP. Atsme📞📧16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...for comments in your edit summaries. You have a block log? Well, I'll get some popcorn, put on some background music, put my feet up and read the novel for myself. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 13:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP lacks an "against my better judgment barnstar",[140] this red barnstar is for the new and revolutionary policy in the Manual of Style that you devised for attributing quotations, and any similarity to a Soviet star[141] is accidental and not even worth mentioning in a footnote to a footnote. Perhaps this award will jinx us and the improvement will be reverted, but you can at least briefly enjoy this thingy, as much as such things can (or should) be enjoyed. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this? I love it. User talk:Oshwah#Vandal part two. I wonder if two vandalisms equal one positive, and three become negative, like numbers. (From looking at Oshwah's talk page, I have concluded he is a saint. Invariably polite and helpful, no matter what people say to him.) – Corinne (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have BIG plans for the April Version of the Signpost but it is super duper secret and I can't leave it on your talk page because, believe it or not, my edits are being closely watched?!?!?! I can involve all the other talk page stalkers and it will be a lot of fun. Basically, you will respond to interview questions. Before you begin to respond, I will assign you an imaginary character. You will respond as the imaginary character probably would. For example, perhaps you would like to respond as Donald Trump's left shoe. Or you might be a famous sock puppet. Call me crazy, but this will work and no one will know it's you because it will be a super duper secret. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 00:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sickened by the thought of being that close to one of Trump's feet. Oh, and Barbara, you may think it's secret, but the Russians already know all about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although, like the Brittle star, Trump's cake hole doubles as a shit hole, his speech from May last year really resonates with me today, and if I was to elect a representative to stand behind a podium and issue a statement on my behalf this would be it: You Can't Let Them Get You Downnagualdesign00:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be honest. You've been on the internet long enough to know that there's got to be a market for ass-ground corn, and probably a lucrative one. It can't imagine it can be comfortable being either the grinder or the grindee, though. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)07:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - we're being caught up in a "cross-edit" situation here - I wasn't trying to be difficult or "counter edit" (really!) On the other hand - I did have a specific reason for all my changes - including some that you have reverted. Not that any of them are real big deal, just trying to get everything absolutely clear... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're worried about. Your changes were mostly fine, and I made some adjustments. We cool. EEng06:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion
Humerus Meninges The dura mater (Latin: tough mother) or bad
Been meaning to tell you that your Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment is wonderful, but then you already knew that, so why bother. It would be great to adapt this to the stuff I often see in term papers, e.g.,
In a journal article Smith and Jones (1969) stated...
Comment: Given the context we can assume the citation is a scientific article. Had they reported their findings on baroclinic instability using interpretive dance, or in Playboy, THAT would have been worth mentioning.
Reported my research via interpretive dance? No, I haven't, but I'm about to publish a paper on Phineas Gage in The Mark Twain Journal, which is somewhere on the "unexpected places to publish" spectrum, I suppose. Are you asking if I've seen examples like yours? No, but I'd be happy for you to contribute one or two. If you're asking whether it's OK to adapt ASTONISHME to your own uses, absolutely of course. If you're asking something else and I'm not getting it, say it again slowly and use small words. EEng04:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do see that kind of thing all too often when a class project descends on a science page. "Studies have shown that Tryptofish's brain is mushy." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I always assumed it meant "matter", but it does translate as "mother"! Well, under the dura there is the spider-like mother, which is really creepy, followed by the loving mother. After that, I assume, is Dr. Freud. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, MPants at work, your "taxonomy" comment was the inspiration for my taxobox "Cuckoos". Little did I know the templates would cause me grief by being an obstruction to my ability to make it humorous. Atsme📞📧22:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
← Here's a prime example of a superfluous caption in the Rockall infobox that imparts no useful information whatsoever. From a boat, you say? Okay. And which island is that again? nagualdesign00:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad that the current caption says nothing about the camera, lens, and choice of film or digital used for this photo. But at least we might add that the original photo was not level, because of the rocking of the boat, and that it has been cropped and leveled to prevent unsuspecting readers from thinking that the sea is usually tilted in that vicinity. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is about [146], and it looks like Coffee has taken a "break" after things didn't work out the way he expected [147]. That happens a lot with admins coming down with a crash from a power high. I wish Coffee well but this kind of behavior – including (and I am not making this up) believing he can tell other editors that they may not, on an article talk page, "allude to, nor joke about" something [148] – is completely unacceptable.
Perhaps the most salient point made in the AE discussion was one made by Mendaliv, to wit that the purpose of Discretionary Sanctions is to protect discussion by preventing disruption, not to preempt discussion, for crying out loud. Coffee's inability to understand that after more than a decade, combined with his gung-ho bull-in-the-china-shop Messiah-complex attitude that I have to enforce this policy[149] – no, actually, there are plenty of other admins around to enforce it – are a deadly combination. This incident reinforces what I have said before: that the best thing for the project and for Coffee would be for him to resign under a cloud, or if he fails to do that, for him to be desysopped. EEng21:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still of the mind that some minor tweaks to Blocking policy would help immensely, and I wish you would consider contributing to our attempts to make things better for all - admins and editors alike - which basically establishes some consistency and clarity in current policy wherein unfettered powers result in a handicap to editor retention. When you get a chance, please take a look at how changes were adopted back in 2006 at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal. Fair compromises have been/are still being offered at User:Atsme/Blocking_policy_proposal and User:Atsme/Block log proposals. Atsme📞📧15:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I'll try to look in over the next few days, but I may not be able to spare the kind of concentrated brainpower required to catch up and participate meaningfully. EEng00:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing how your brain works, I'm more than happy to get the scatterbrain part of it if a concentrated version is not available. It's like shampoo - regular or concentrate. Atsme📞📧00:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Lather, rinse, repeat part that worries me. Well, I'll do what I can, but it won't be tonight and maybe no tomorrow. EEng00:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: I took a look at the bullet points in that link you provided, and I agree with the first wholeheartedly. I don't understand the second, and I think the third is a bad idea, because it will tie the admin's hands in cases where the technical violation was minor, but it was done in a way that reveals an obvious problem, such as a POV warrior. Personal attacks would, by necessity, be pretty low on the list, and thus relatively minor offenses, but if you check the contribs of a blocked editor like Special:Contributions/TazminDaytime, you can see how just a handful of personal attacks proved beyond any doubt that she was not here to build an encyclopedia, and was utterly incapable of working with others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.02:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MPants - please feel free to add your proposal at the end of the others. What we'll do once others have had a chance to add their own bulleted points, we'll wait a week or so and let it cure, then go back and read over it again, and arrange the most popular bulleted points and arguments into a final draft to present to VP (policy). Atsme📞📧03:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Itsa YUGE island...and a small country on the continental shelf of the Great Barrier Reef. You can see how close it is to reaching it's tipping point so they shouldn't build anymore heavy buildings along the coast - we can already see it listing to one side. Atsme📞📧03:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merci beaucoup! The scintillation, however, appears to have been caused by an aqueously-based short circuit. Ouch! Or maybe I confused a relay with a transistor. (Aren't relays the things they have at the Olympics? By the way, my favorite Olympic event is projectile vomiting.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most deadly school shooting in a long time still getting wall to wall coversge 5 days later and Wikipedia informs us Trump and the FL Governor were briefed? [150] Should we also note Trump watched the coverage on TV while eating cheeseburgers? Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A couple months ago, here, you undid my edit. I had added a comma before a nonrestrictive clause, stating in my edit summary "this relative clause is nonrestrictive". In undoing my edit, you stated in your edit summary "actually it's restrictive".
This is the sentence in question:
Philip Van Doren Stern (September 10, 1900 – July 31, 1984) was an American author, editor, and Civil War historian whose story The Greatest Gift, published in 1943, inspired the classic Christmas film It's a Wonderful Life (1946).
I added a comma just before "whose".
By removing the comma, you are implying that there also is another "American author, editor, and Civil War historian whose story The Greatest Gift, published in 1943, inspired the classic Christmas film It's a Wonderful Life (1946). The trouble is that there was not also another such person: there was only one—namely, Philip Van Doren Stern.
You can have
"the" and a restrictive clause (he was the American author (and so on) whose story The Greatest Gift (and so on))
or "a" and a nonrestrictive clause (unless there was more than one such person—which there wasn't).
I'm putting the comma back.
Thanks for taking the time to read this explanation.
You're right -- it's nonrestrictive. But there's something more fundamental here, which is that English is not a programming language. The humble comma, in particular, enjoys a great deal of usage flexibility, and while some terrifying nun may have convinced you in the 7th grade that you will go to hell if nonrestrictive clauses aren't all give their due comma-setoffs, it's just not so. The restrictive-nonrestrictive distinction is most clearly needed in the ol' classic suspensions such as The man, who was waving at us, suddenly disappeared versus The man who was waving at us suddenly disappeared, but in an article's opening sentence where there's no ambiguity it's not, and the added comma just makes for clunky reading. According to you, various other articles should open:
Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was an American railroad construction foreman COMMA remembered for his improbable survival of an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head. (After all, there are no other American railroad construction foremen remembered for surviving iron rods being driven through their heads.)
Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was an American statesman and lawyer COMMA who served as the 16th President of the United States from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865. (After all, there were no other 16th Presidents of the US.)
Harvard University is a private Ivy League research university COMMA in Cambridge, Massachusetts, established in 1636, whose history, influence, and wealth have made it one of the world's most prestigious universities. (Actually, there are so many ways to parse the function of different bits of this sentence it's not even funny. What's clear, though, is that the extra comma is glaringly inappropriate.)
I'm starting to think the Brits had the right idea with their NN-MMM-YYYY date format (the one in our signatures). Not only is it a more logical order, but it avoids that pesky comma. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep this discussion public so I can learn about the important things in life...like what to wear. I never get RfC invitations to Talk:Sex, nor have I ever participated in it. You could safely say that I have maintained my virginity in that regard...but don't hold your breath expecting to see a bright star in the sky leading the way to an immaculate birth if I do partake. EEng, what's with the omelet banner few can decipher at the top of your page in edit view?Atsme📞📧23:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, I just figured out that the edit notice must have gotten that way during particularly vigorous, um, you know! Steady there! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And before anyone gives me a hard time about it, "computer stuff" is indeed the correct technical term. And on a completely unrelated note, do take a look at the lead image at Visual gag. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll begin by saying I can still smell peanut butter in both nostrils up to 3 ft. away, so (debatably) I don't have a memory issue. I have a where the hell is it issue. I can vaguely recall a TP discussion wherein editors weighed-in and shared their thoughts. It was shortly after that then Can you please confirm, and provide a link? Atsme📞📧21:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, if you want to stick peanut butter sandwiches up your nose, it's your life and I'm not going to tell you what to do, but are you sure they don't have hallucinogenic effects? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! LOL - Hey, Ritchie333 - don't knock it till you've tried it. It's safer than sitting on a mushroom...although it tends to add random partial sentences to one's comments...hopefully now rectumfied rectified. Atsme📞📧22:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you may enjoy this book cover, which seems to show Hillary Clinton cross-examining that scoundrel Mohandas Gandhi (with an American flag in the background no less, so his sainted reconstituted ashes must have been profoundly extradited). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Hillary-ghost is in the process of either appearing or disappearing as Obama watches and basks in the light of Gandhi's halo. The original cover art should be exhibited in a sub-standard but keeping-the-lights-on modern art museum (or the Museum of Bad Art, whose website is worth the price of admission). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[154] "you could fit the people who understand them in a [155] phonebooth."...
Please...no Go Fund Me proposals, or suggestions for senior care. I have looked into vet administration but they don't offer internet. Ok, I admit that it's Friday and I'm bored. Atsme📞📧22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you are following my advice. I don't think that taking him to a vet would help (foot-in-mouth disease maybe). But in his defense, I'm pretty sure I'm (even) older than he is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...but the image of a "potential you" leaving the "home" looks nothing like the "real you". Perhaps that tells us we're only as old as we feel. Ok, Tryp - c'mere so somebody with more expertise than I can feel how old you are...Atsme📞📧00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well Atsme you're invited when you're next passing through! We don't always let bikers in but I'm sure that for you they'll make an exception. -Darouet (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us have worked alongside User:Corinne here and there around the project, or shared a pleasant word with her right on this page. I'm sorry to tell you that Corinne passed away recently.
I came here to say congrats about the Main Page today, but then I saw this. For a brief moment, I hoped that it was an elaborate April 1 joke, but no. I will miss her very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She used to work in combination with Rothorpe and I see that he has not edited since Sept 2017. The 'pedia is a lesser place without their presence. Best regards EEng. MarnetteD|Talk18:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just leaving something fun (which I didn't put there, BTW) you had to remove it with some snooty edit summary [158] so I put it back and scolded you for wasting others' time [159]. What's a nutshell page anyway? EEng01:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page isn’t a nutshell, I meant to say WP:ESSAY in my edit summary. Anyways, try to remain civil in your comments. I don’t know how removing an image could be wasting anybody’s time, but you really don’t have any room to be scolding anyone with your history of personal attacks via your block log. Happy editing and Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm an administrator, I'm just commenting here as an everyday, average, editor (albeit one with a massive fuck-off banhammer, so watch it)...
JudeccaXIII, I get the block log thing so frequently that I have a bit of a canned response for it: You obviously missed the userbox at the top of my user page...
Hello EEng, I apologize for my overreaction. Starting a discussion and then mentioning your block log was completely unnecessary. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, JudeccaXIII, I've been on the receiving end of much worse. It's easy to misinterpret what you see there unless (as David Eppstein pointed out) you also read the unblocks and the associated threads. I seem to have a knack for offending the project's most clueless and thin-skinned admins. Have you visited The Museums? EEng17:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was Tony, actually. I recently took a scan through the museums because the "abandon all hope" line above reminded me of File:Inferno Canto 3 line 9.jpg but I didn't remember where to find the image and I thought the museums would be the easiest way to find that. But it's not there; maybe I was thinking of the pit-mine "... or if you prefer, try ANI." one? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Inferno Canto image has ever graced User_talk:EEng or User:EEng, but admittedly there's been quite a lot of traffic over the years. Hate to say it, but I don't know what you mean about the pit-mine one other, but someone (probably Martinevans123 once added an img of a peat bog on fire. Everything's in the archives somewhere. BTW, getting anywhere on NPC? EEng18:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng I’ve been editing Wiki by phone for the past 3 months, so my screen isn’t as big. After seeing that my scroll bar was tiny and my internet was slow for both of your pages, I clicked straight to new message. Even now, I’m going straight to respond without waiting for the page to load up, so I haven’t viewed anything on your user pages. Until you just linked the museum section. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it was even possible to get to user pages on the mobile app, but apparently it is if you type the namespace:title in the search bar. But yes, navigating through this on a tiny screen sounds painful. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the new poem on your user page about Ode (owed?) to ANI. Where is it from? It looks vaguely familiar, but I'm too lazy to look it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It shows year-by-year occurrences of the phrase "deaf policeman heard the noise" in the English-language Googlebooks corpus; the first appearance shown there is about 1943. More here [161].
Having said that, I poked around a bit and found, Elsie Clews Parsons, "Bermuda Folklore", American Folklore v38 n148, Apr-Jun 1925: 239-266 which quotes a variant (found in Bermuda, of course), but also quotes scraps of it as being heard among "New York boys". So that's what I know. EEng19:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I just googled it, and realized that it can be seen here at Nonsense verse. So I guess it can be attributed to "traditional" and "anonymous". That's really all that I was asking, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll see how long before some airfan says all accident articles have to be uniformly unreadable and stuffed with trivia. EEng02:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, another failure of WP:ASTONISHME. Why not go whole hog and say "US Airways Flight 1549 was a US Airways airline flight, with flight number 1549"? Look how much extra information you're giving the readers by repeating all the words as many times as you can! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I concur with David, and I agree with the things that David wrote in his reply above where I am writing below it. Also, Ryanair Flight 4102's Lead sentence is written differently than the ones stress Boat has been changing, so it's not a good example to follow. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to tell readers that Rome is in Italy. I leave it to the assembled multitude to decide which is superior. EEng01:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried boldly making that change, and several other related changes. (E.g. if we say that some people were treated in hospital for their injuries, is it really also necessary to say, separately and in the lead, that they were transported to the hospital?) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have an essay named after a teacher about how not to insist on every style or grammar thing that you were taught was a mandatory rule in school. I was going to cite it on Talk:Catholic Church, but can't find it for the life of me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found that your quick-footed rhetoric here cut straight to the issue. Cogent, concise, rational, and disposing of a position you disagree with while remaining respectful--exactly what our community discussions could use more of. Snowlet's rap00:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't possibly be insinuating that editors who work hard getting articles to GA and FA level—something I'm moderately well known for not having the stomach to do—and continue to watch over them rather than putting them on the metaphorical mantlepiece like a trophy are narcissists? Or that doing what Arbcom said to do, and discussing a matter on the merits for each individual article, is narcissistic? As I say, I must have the wrong end of the stick and you must be snarking at that talkpage about someone else wasting the time of those who administer Arbcom's increasingly byzantine set of fiats. I just hope I don't get dragged over there; I can't make head or tail of the system, those administering it seem to have all forgotten that we're supposed to be writing (and improving) articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing articles to GA/FA, fine. Keeping an eye on them, fine. Engaging in a years-long battle to the death which drains the scarce resources and attention of the dispute-resolution machinery of the project – with a few rage quits thrown in now and then – to prove that you were somehow mistreated: narcissism. EEng13:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You have been sanctioned for continuing to edit war after being told to stop, being "right" does not give you a pass to edit war as you please. This sanction does not prevent you from editing the talk page and I encourage you to do so.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home...
For several years the image + caption at right have appeared in WP:Manual of Style/Images. Two days ago, a series of edits to the caption began:
I reverted them all as either simply not as good as the longstanding wording, or illogical, or just plain awful. I repeatedly asked that potential changes be proposed first on the talk page; one editor's (an admin!) edit summary was I don't think I'll bother with the talk page: I mean ultimately it's not very important, is it? why waste time on long discussion? as he editwarred in his preferred version again. And I get a page ban? EEng05:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Must be something in the water, EEng - a TB was recently proposed for me based on my civility (yes, civility) and willingness to adhere to DS Consensus needed restrictions, and for asking others please play fair and allow another editor to present proposed text for a highly controversial article. And I've only made 10 total edits to the article in question and 20x as many to the article TP because of the DS. The end of 2017 appears to have kicked off a whole new era of crazy. 😝 Atsme📞📧18:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HA! I just snagged the first April Fools DYK for 2019. It's not that good, but it will do for now. So, friend, how about we see how many you can get created to show up on 4/1/2019. Are you game. Best Regards, Barbara✐ ✉ 12:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was just taking a look at some comments about me at Wikipediocracy (bonus points for anyone who finds that one!), and I found that when I typed "wikipedioc" into Google, the third autofill that it returned was "wikipediocracy eeng" [171]. The first search result isn't even about you (someone abbreviated English Wikipedia), and the second is the old Gage thing. Apparently someone is searching a lot for that one! Quite the search engine optimization! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google eyes...being watched...why not shine a little light on it? A joke, perhaps? Just before I read your comment, that ad popped up on one of the social sites and it made me laugh. My hippocampus did it's job, and I immediately recalled the picture of the red tricycle EEng posted, and voila - here we are amidst all the rapid firing of atsme's confused thinking. I'll delete it if you don't want it following your detective work. Atsme📞📧16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, HorsesAreNice, and sorry for the delay in responding. You might have heard that everything in an article needs to be drawn from a reliable source. In addition, it's almost always a good idea to say in the article, for each fact or passage, what source it was drawn from. That's what the little superscript numbers, like this[5], mean. Those numbers tie in to notes at the bottom ("foot") of the article naming the sources, so they're called footnotes. The way to put footnotes in articles takes some practice to gets used to, so if you have something to add and know the source, you can just put the source in parentheses for now, like this:
Jones discovered Smith Island in 1833. (John Bobson, A History of Explorers, page 5)
Someone else will come along and put it in the usual form, and eventually you'll learn to do that for yourself. Good luck! EEng19:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you explained footnotes, but I still don't know what a foornote is. Searching Google I found this but am still not enlightened. And the old deleted version of foor is no help either. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EEng. I know I've stopped by to say thanks for the smile a time or two before but your finding the clip for "Crush-Kill-Destroy" sets the bar just that much higher :-) Many cheers to ya! MarnetteD|Talk05:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your recent rant visable from space at ANI
Here's a thought. Let's start a separate set of dramaboards just for beauty contests and pro wrestling. Then all of us reality based editors just ignore them completely. Let them argue amongst themselves until they get so pissed off at each other that they quit. Then possibly we can impose the same version of PAGs the rest of the encyclopedia has on them and do away with 98% of the content. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Start with political articles - they need their own pedia. We'll call it wikipedoff which is much better than wikipedon, and we'll refer to those editors as simply POed. Atsme📞📧18:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I generally with you on the wrestling and beauty pageants, they are undoubtedly a significant cultural event for the US going back at least 50 years. Japanese Animation however is entirely another kettle of fish, being a distinct art style in animation, as well as having many (within film and the TV industry) highly influential (to the rest of the world) works. And thats before you get to the 'cultural' aspect for Japan. (I am of course talking about stuff like Nausicaä or Macross and not say to take an example completely at random Kill la Kill) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, it's a simple matter of cost/benefit and signal/noise: given the amount of arguing it creates, Japanese animation imposes too much cost for the benefit and too much noise for the signal. And I'm allergic to mango. EEng14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to make it happen, but I bet that the anime articles would be much more stable and better written if they were all composed by a couple of editors who have no interest in the subject. Same for beauty pageants and most other drama farms. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, User:ChrisGualtieri did fine work in cleaning up a lot of articles. Sadly he has been effectively semi-retired since 2015. Any editor who has an interest in film could handle a standard Anime film article, where the problems lie is when you get into multi-media franchises like (to bring out the big gun) Dragon Ball which has: Manga, Anime Series, Anime live action Films, OVA's, computer games, merch... etc etc. When you add in all the popular culture (and tbf to DB, especially DBZ, it is *ingrained* in modern popular culture to the point where I see people quoting over 9000 memes with no recognition of where it is from) crap and its a minefield. You could get a completely non-interested editor to look at it, they would run screaming. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stood up and cheered at somebody's rant on a noticeboard earlier, and thought it worthwhile to make my annual pilgrimage to the slowest page on the planet. -Roxy, the dog.barcus15:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be bothered to find the diff, but at one point I participated in an AfD or RfC about Dragon Ball and commented something to the affect of (including formatting) "A google search with iron-clad, ultra-specific search terms still turns up OVER NINE THOUSAND hits." I was still getting regularly thanked for that edit for over a week after the fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't it have an infobox? It should! (And by the way, I'm not the one in the center in the photo above. I'm a little off-center. In fact, I'm always a little off-center). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... or for that matter, I suppose, things like this [174][175]. Let's just say my work brings into play an eclectic range of obscure knowledge. EEng02:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ammarpad, and thank you for pitching in as well. It's a shame, though, that perhaps my most important modification [176] (and see right) did not meet with community approval. EEng04:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to long things not being read, this one only took 9 hours and being pushed halfway up the page for the first person to respond to it. Although the response was just telling them to shorten it... Natureium (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I no longer believe this to be true. See math. Natureium (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: 🔥🔥Fam🔥🔥, u no who I am; an enigma! Yain’t not 🙅♂️nobody🙅♂️ be able to figure out who 🤷♂️I🤷♂️ am, but I can tell you I’m the youngest 💵💵💵💵flexer💵💵💵💵💵💵, that’s for sure. I rep the 🔫🔫$treet life🔫🔫 and there tain’t enough rappers in the game right now who rep from the streetz, which is why u should visit my soundcloud, where I’m brining real hip hopity back, fam! Buy my merch, and stop ✋ listening to fake rappers and stop believing the governments lies, fam! They actually lizards! Keep it 💯💯💯💯💯, fam!!!!!1!!!!!!💵Money💵emoji💵💸02:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I keep meaning to tackle that page, but I can seem to muster the "heart" for it. It needs a clarification that it doesn't mean Proper name (philosophy), even if that's just in a footnote, then the salvageable content needs to be merged, per the consensus discussion months ago (maybe that was even last year). And I think there was one bit in it that doesn't actually represent actual practice and directly conflicts with the rest of MoS (I forget the detail, right off hand, other than Randy Kryn was arguing to keep that part). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was the part about using the most familiar name to English readers when choosing a name in a translation dispute. Although WP:ENGLISH, which states that "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)" addresses all titled articles, not just translatable name, in a similar but more inclusive way. My point was that overwhelming use of a name in sources being needed for a change, although that's often argued, should actually be a simple "most common name in English" bar of 51%. Like peanut butter and chocolate mixing well in nature but one is favored because there's more of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I hope you'll archive old threads soon; on my system this talk page takes over 20 seconds to load, and sometimes fails to do so completely. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funplussmart, from your user page I see that you sometimes have difficulty understanding others' intentions, so let me explain that my posts to that thread (after the initial one, which was serious) were meant to add a little humor. Maybe not much humor, but I do what I can with the material available.
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying as meaning that I'm annoyed or upset. I'm not. Good luck in your editing! EEng23:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't think you were annoyed at all. I was just pointing out that the talk page is meant for discussion on how to improve the article. Your comments on the talk page did not appear to be contributing to the article. That's all. I'm not offended at all. Funplussmart (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funplussmart, you are completely correct is saying that article talk pages are only for improving the article. That being said, we have an unwritten tradition of allowing a small amount of humor that does nothing to improve the article. The humor gives us warm feelings towards each other, and makes conflict between editors less likely. It certainly can go too far and in those cases a warning is appropriate. In my opinion, Talk:Air rage#Merger proposal does not go too far, and you should be a bit more tolerant of humor on talk pages. Again, you aren't wrong about our policies on this.
An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician find themselves in an anecdote, indeed an anecdote quite similar to many that you have no doubt already heard. After some observations and rough calculations the engineer realizes the situation and starts laughing. A few minutes later the physicist understands too and chuckles to himself happily as he now has enough experimental evidence to publish a paper.
This leaves the mathematician somewhat perplexed, as he had observed right away that he was the subject of an anecdote, and deduced quite rapidly the presence of humor from similar anecdotes, but considers this anecdote to be too trivial a corollary to be significant, let alone funny. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with you and -sche that we have a lot of weird, unencyclopedic examples that need replacing. I've had this on my mind for years, too, and occasionally replace one. Doing more of that is surely in order. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One example of "things it illustrates for which it's hard to conceive of use cases on the project", from the same page (MOS:SEASON): "Seasons are uncapitalized (a hot summer) except when personified: Old Man Winter's bleak greys relent as Spring begins to show her colors." The example sentence is too flowery, but when would we personify seasons, anyway? The only articles I spot that speak of seasons doing things, like "Spring begins to show her colors", de facto don't use caps: "Shanly had to wait until winter froze the ground to survey a route", "when winter froze the canal". In the few articles which refer to "Old Man Winter", like Jack Frost ("He is a variant of Old Man Winter who..."), it seems like a proper name that would be adequately handled by the general guidelines regarding proper names. Am I missing something obvious, or should that whole sentence just be removed? -sche (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Old Man Winter and so on was one example I vaguely had in mind. Another is certain examples of how to use exclamation points correctly; hard to see where that will ever arise. Also maybe some of the examples in LQ. EEng12:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I give you the article Flying Head. I am afraid I can not narrow the brilliance of this article down to a pithy sentence or two; frankly nearly any two sentences will qualify. I would, however, like to draw your attention to this relatively recent edit comment, which I noticed when looking at the edit history to see whether this article had been vandalized: (no obvious cleanup needed). --GRuban (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether the story can be reinterpreted somehow as Wikipedia allegory. "the Flying Head stole live coals from her and tried to eat them, thinking they were acorns. The results of course disastrous, the Flying Head flees in agony, never to be seen again." [178]EEng17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Three different hotels were built on the sacred site and all three had a short life span and burned to the ground mysteriously." -- "Needs additional citations", indeed. Eman235/talk01:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Connoisseurs of high-handed admin dickishness, attention!
Nah, as much as we enjoy some good drama shit-show on a Sunday evening, cooler heads have prevailed. Now we can flog each other with arguments ad nauseam on whether trying to produce a realistic and informative illustration should be considered copyright high crime. Damn. Our Latin ancestors had it easier, joyously pillaging bons mots from each other. De Natura Deorum as a metaphor of the admin caste?[FBDB] — JFGtalk04:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that acting a little bit fishy is a virtue. That desysop vote really is quite an education in wiki-cultures. It's like "en-Wiki versus Commons: This time, it's personal!" The EU really does dislike the English-speaking world. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sun of May? Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this Sun of York. (I did that from memory, so you better be impressed!) Then again, that's Lords, and we're having trouble with Commons. And since when is Wales part of the English-speaking world? English requires vowels. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you! By the way, Google Translate says that the English translation of Ystradgynlais is: Ystradgynlais. And "Mae'r... " is: "The guilty I flee without a lamb is persecuted." Glad I could clear that up. Isn't teh internets great? Oh, and for those of you seeking an update about the discussion at Commons, it appears that all of us at en-Wiki are racists because we just don't understand Commons. Someone actually said that, and got a whole bunch of "per him" comments after that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so "The guilty I flee without a lamb is persecuted" is actually "The lady doth protest too much." Sounds like you had your whatsit fist in your mouth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As we're talking about our favourite orange-headed goon again, I'd like the peanut gallery to take this edit into consideration and read it in the style of Trump talking off the record to Billy Bush. It seems ... uncanny. Of course, if there is a video of this "episode", I wouldn't be surprised if somebody had uploaded it to Commons (as "own work", naturally), then a bunch of admins !voted to keep it at a deletion request. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish has given you a canvas bag! Spread the Wiki-Love by giving canvas bags to editors who don't put up with administrative BS at Commons!
I'm astounded to read that you've been accused of canvassing over on Commons, which has no rules about canvassing, for posting a simple notice here on WP:AN, as though the English Wikipedia admins and those that follow that page are somehow partisan! Just another example of the kind of thick headed approach that makes me want to spend time doing other things. I suppose if I'd just shut up and fucked off none of this would have happened, but I hope people can see that sometimes standing up for what you believe in, however uncomfortable it makes you feel, really is the right thing to do.
I'll be brutally honest, and agree. (But please stay around. Don't let the jerks drive you away.) I'll add kudos to EEng for the dare that he posted over there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is whether "sometimes standing up for what you believe in, however uncomfortable it makes you feel, really is the right thing to do", yes I agree of course. Tfish, thanks for the praise though when I was a young engineer I had a colleague who had been a Freedom Rider so I've always felt that any standing up or daring I do is peanuts by comparison. EEng19:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is this not canvassing, it's also doing the right thing. I would say to ignore the haters, but I know I don't need to tell you that.💵Money💵emoji💵💸19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had to take a small sip out of each one to facilitate carrying them all without spilling. In the interests of fairness I sipped precisely the same amount from each glass, as you can see. Yes, I know that trays are available at the bar, but Up North we prefer to exhibit our masculinity by carrying as many pints by hand as humanly possible. Don't worry, my cold sores cleared up ages ago. nagualdesign22:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take on Commons. This evening, I thought I'd look for a picture of someone crying (preferably in a humorous way) so I could lighten the mood in an edit war with the picture + caption of "it's NOT FAIR I got reverted!". So I did a Google search for site:commons.wikimedia.org crying and got File:Young female protester cries in despair as the violence spreads during clashes in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 18, 2014.jpg, which is too serious to use in a light-hearted satirical situation. So I back up one level to "Category:Crying women". I then think, "hmm, a grown man crying, preferably in some non-serious content like a momentary and minor knock in a sporting event will do the trick, I'll go up a level to Category:Crying people and look from there". You can't get to "Category:Crying people" from "Category:Crying women". But you can go to "Category:Nude or partially nude women crying" and "Category:Woman crying as she hails Hitler". At this point, I gave up. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so youve noticed two issues - (a) Commons is full of completely inappropriate images for any given search, and (b) (which leads on from (a)) ... Commons is mostly run by fuckwits. Black Kite (talk)22:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're a mess, that's for sure. I've also been finding Google image search essentially useless these days — it fails to find too much of the stuff I'm looking for. Their web search has also deteriorated, but fortunately so far Google Scholar is still ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Commons categories are the most useful way to find something over there... I say that agreeing with the above criticism. Also, remember that Neelix is responsible for basically all of their nude or partially nude categories [181]. Appears to be retired from there, though. Unfortunately not being he added ton of pages on people, historical and living, to commons:Category:Births out of wedlock. The more you know! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably call Mr. Lehrer to be certain, but I believe he would be insulted to be said to have done something in the vein of "crooned"; as I recall, he called "Alma" a ballad, and (as you well know) they need not be crooned. But thank you for your masterful support in favor of the lyrical resolution of that DYK about, well, the loveliest girl in Vienna. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)02:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when I put in crooned I made a mental note to check the denotation, but then I forgot. It's truly the wrong word. I'm glad my efforts to get TH on the front page were appreciated. However, now that the DYK's been rotated off I think I want to modify the article's treatment of the song. Take a look. EEng02:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it looks good to me either way, to be honest, but the changes you made win by a hair; though I tend to be somewhat loquacious when not in article-space, when writing for articles, I favor pithier statements, when possible. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)02:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I reverted the latest comment you (re)-added to ANI as needlessly provocative. While humor when it lightens the mood is helpful, in this case it is just adding oil to fire and I don't see any good coming out of continuing this line. Hope you understand. Abecedare (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your courteous message and understand your point of view, I stand by my post and will reinstate it in a moment. Quite frankly if anyone but Rusf10 had removed it in the first place [183], I'd probably let the matter drop, but since he -- of all people -- thinks he's in a position to pass judgment, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that it remain. I agree it's provocative, and it's meant to be, in the sense of thought-provocative: maybe it will penetrate some thick skulls. Again, thanks for taking the time and I hope you'll drop by The Museums while you're here. EEng09:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As this place gets a faster (and, generally, wittier) response than the village pump .... last Friday I took a number of photos of protestors on the Women's March against Trump. In particular, I have a photo from one young cheerful woman holding up a sign saying, "Fuck off Trump, you absolute prick". I asked the protestor if I could take a photo, she agreed, so I emphasised I would be uploading it to publicise the march (but didn't specify exactly where). I seem to recall people getting hassle for uploading images with blatant profanity on them - something to do with them being put in articles by vandals? Can anyone refresh my memory? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you put such filth on this page, watched as it is by persons of delicate sensibilities and great refinement? EEng01:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, her ladyship had a falling out with Trump over something - wasn't her third or fourth (I forget) husband golfing partners with him at some point? So while the strict education set by the Earl of Scrotum's private tuition sessions would prevent her from using such uncouth terms, I think the general sentiment is probably in alignment with her views. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems in the ANI header and couldn't remember seeing it previously - so I had a dig through the history of the header.
Welcome to the Incidents noticeboard
Just wanted to say thanks for the thankless task of updating that, and making it clear what sort of things ANI is geared towards - good work - TNT💖18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There'sNoTime, but I hope you saw that Natureium and Ammarpad helped as well. Sadly, what I think was my most important single reform in terms of explaining ANI to newbies [184] (see right) was reverted.
I'm not nearly as fancy as TNT, but they can't be unprotected from my understanding (all edit notices are protected). If you're regularly editing them, you could ask for template editor (but Primefac would be the best person to ask about that.) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the protection non-userspace editnotices have cannot be changed easily, and thus they can be created and edited only by admins and template editors. TonyBallioni's suggestion is probably your best bet, short of making an edit request - TNT💖19:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Well, if I ever get back to this someday I'll just edit it/them in my sandbox then ask some credulous admin to copy over to the live version. EEng19:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Natureium said, in each diff, at the top of the left column, and also at the top of the right column, above where is says Revision as of xx:xx, July xx, 2018, there's a link [Restore this version].
Also, in any page history, if you hover over the a given revision's timestamp, a popup menu... um... well, pops up, and under actions there's revert.
One or the other or both of these might be enabled by various of the zillions of preference checkboxes, perhaps on the Gadgets tab, but for the life of me I don't know which. EEng02:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've been nosing around Preferences as well, and I can't find where it's activated. It may be a difference in the skin (I use Monobook), because I don't even have a "Revision as of..." header, and a search for "Restore" on an article's Revision History page comes up empty. (Also, I don't have the pop-up thingee enabled.) I'll look more closely at preferences. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me. I don't have Huggle, Buggle, Twinkie, or Sneezy either. I even turned off the newest Watchlist filters. I'd add a scythe to EEng's image here, but, meh. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nor me. The only tool I use is Hotcat, and don't even know what twinkle or Trixie or whatever those things are actually do. Those new watchlist tools seemed a mess, and I jetisioned them as soon as possible. And a Monobook user as well, it's good to see Monobook has fans. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Vector's not bad, kind of an out-on-the-town Monobook. At least it has the globe and the old stand by's on the left of the page (which is where I like my searchbox, per Monobook). Smart phone? What's that? Mine's kept stupid, and all I use it for is text, photos, and to actually talk to people. My last phone got pickpocketed on Montmartre in June 2017, and I was told they'd be looking for credit card and banking numbers, which have no business being near a phone anyway. Tips: Paris police don't answer their phone, but the chocolate is very good. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I resolutely avoid using my smart phone to talk to people, unless I absolutely have to. Can't stand people who walk down the street buried in their phones (or drive that way!). I got it mainly to check my email (and yes, my notifications here) without going to my computer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have a computer? Stone-age tech. Wikipedia views are near 50-50 now, phone-tablets will be edging ahead shortly. I'm waiting for Holograph Wikipedia, that's when I'll really start to contribute. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello EEng, what did you mean when you stated in your edit summary to this edit reverting mine that you "can't restore [my] other changes"? Is there a problem with the changes I made? Or is it simply that you are not available to do so right now? So long as you are okay with all the other changes, I can simply change the |U2-banned= value back to yes and add information about the topic ban using this diff. Is that acceptable? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nøkkenbuer, yes, that's fine. I was on my cell phone and the diff came out crazy so I couldn't figure out how to make just that one adjustment. I figured you'd notice the revert, which you did. Thanks. EEng15:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected as much and entirely understand, since the diffs sometimes don't render properly and I can only assume it's much worse on mobile. Anyway, the fixed edit can be found here. Thanks for catching my mistake, by the way; I forgot to check the user's talk page. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop unilaterally making the table bigger, uglier, and inconsistent. Take it to talk, but MOS readers shouldn't be subjected to that horror without consensus to assault their eyes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}04:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. Not everyone has a geekezoid super-wide monitor such as the one used to produce your two screenshots [187][188]. For monitors of normal size (or, more to the point, windows of normal size even if shown on a very wide monitor) horizontal space is indeed a precious resource. And consensus has little to do with this, since this is a proposed table in project talk space being actively developed by several editors together. Try narrowing the window to a more conventional size and look again. EEng04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1980x1080 is by far the most common monitor size. And those are zoomed in to 130%. At default size, the difference is even more pronounced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}04:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry that I accidentally deleted your reply there for a second) 1980x1080 is by the most common monitor size. – Apparently not, see [189], and there's much more to what the user sees than that simplified measure. EEng05:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...for your Signpost edits. You are always welcome to edit. Even if one day, every word of mine disappears and is replaced by something else that you have created, it would be welcome. Best Regards, Barbara✐ ✉ 14:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad there were no buns. Those patties just fall flat. Images are welcome if they have a schmear of relevance. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC) (add important missing element Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, leaving out important things, like verbs and relevance, is not good. i fixed mine above. How about you consider your stance toward images in this discussion? :) Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, when a joke falls flat (as this one clearly did), a skilled comedian will drop it from the comedy routine, instead of repeating it over and over in the hope that someone will get it. You asked, I answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it didn't fall flat. Several people thanked me for it. Naysayers are far more likely to speak up, so every wet blanket tsk-tsking I figure there are ten people getting a chuckle. EEng21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, it fell flat. The people who thanked you were inebriated (too much meat, too much serotonin), and if they thanked you for edit warring over it, they were dolts, to boot. And on the off-chance that you actually did give some folks a chuckle, then woo-hoo, you accomplished your objective, and it was time to get out of there before the hecklers started up. Repeating the same joke over and over kinda defeats the purpose. (Too much meat, too much serotonin, too much meat, too much serotonin.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, Chuckles, you do remember who was the first editor to pun on "sauce/source", don't you? (And it was funny when I did it!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
😂 - I got it - sequence of images. Patty steak, patty steak on steroids=👏👏👏
"one-patty steak" is a pun for one party state (humorless dictators).
I think that's a bloody good pun that Jytdog (talk), and it does not reference sauce. I bet you had a semi-chuckle. It's not easy getting a light-hearted politically satirical pun given such poor material. A bun and a burger. Marx never managed it. It's a little gem. I say. It came to me in a flash. Under ten seconds and the masterpun was fully formed. Irondome (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The three patties and "special sauce" at the essay on sources are (i think) playing on sauce/source (say "source" like you are for Bah-ston) with some 45-year old (!) big mac jingle thrown in (two all beef patties special sauce etc). Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Custard Throw at Lord Mandelson by Greenpeace Protester" belongs in The New Yorker's "There Will Always Be an England" department. EEng00:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, Dr. Tryptofish will cure all nervousness. It was this: [191], and EEng gave me a "thank" notification. Ask your doctor if "Template:Round in circles" is right for you. May cause dizziness. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ô Revered Guardian of the Lost Art of Wiki-Fun, allow me to blatantly and not-humbly-at-all self-promote my contribution to this week's WP:TOP25. Sad! — JFGtalk17:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like that Godzilla: King of the Monsters beat out Donald Trump. And speaking of useful idiots, I haven't forgotten about that, and those notes will turn up soon I'm sure. EEng18:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see that you have removed my sources three times. Can you think of any better source that I could use, or do you think I can mention Ardith Dondanville anywhere else in the article? Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, Ardith Dondanville played a "background munchkin child". What would the reader gain by his being listed along with Garland, Bolger, and the other stars of the film? The lack of reliable sources answers that question. EEng10:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chesley Sullenberger. 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.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
OK, seriously, Your Arbship, I respect you as an editor, administrator, and arbitrator [193] (at least I think I do, unless I have you mixed up with someone else) but recently you've developed a most distressing tsk-tsking habit. What are you talking about? I expressed relief that an ANI thread headed simply Q did not, in fact, relate to the looniest of Trump's loonies. Since it's the edit summary that is the apparent focus of your concern [194] you could have revdel'd the e.s. and left unmolested the post itself, which is obviously harmless. As it is you've let remain in the page history the very thing you object to i.e. the e.s. EEng04:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The use of humor to leaven the atmosphere on the noticeboards is a fine thing; I do it myself from time to time. But the appropriateness of particular remarks or images is always subjective. Last week, I knew that I didn't want to look at a picture of a pus-laden ("pussy") eye every time I peeked at ANI, and at least one other person had posted the same thing. The replacement photo you posted was arguably funnier or arguably an irrelevant distraction and I let it go.
In last night's instance, you posted a comment about the ambiguity of "Q" in an already closed thread. Like you, I'm glad that the ANI thread didn't turn out to be about Q, or for that matter about Q or Q or Q. The edit summary troubled me, largely because my feelings about QAnon are exactly the same as yours. I don't think it qualifies for rev-del (there are rules about that), and I'm not too worried about it being in the page history because no sane person will ever look through the page history of ANI, which probably has more revisions than any other page on the entire wiki other than maybe the Sandbox.
Brad is quite right that only an insane person would go through the ANI edit history, because that's what I just did. And Brad is a far, far nicer human being than I am because (a) I'm a fish, not a human, and (b) I'm grumpy and pissed off because I was notified today that I've been editing WP for 10 years and there are kids on my lawn. So I'm perfectly happy with tsk-tsking anytime. So, I looked at the ANI edit and the edit summary, and I'm pleasantly surprised to say that I found it quite clever and not at all inappropriate. And the revised section header for this talk section is absolutely fabulous dahling. But EEng sweetie, please do cut back on the comedy routine at ANI. ANI is the sanctuary for the poor souls with tinfoil hats who are in a state of agitation and on whom humor is lost. Swine before pearls. And humor gets misread on Teh Internets all the time. So please do less ANI humor and check out open-mike night at the comedy club instead. And if you need any help about those spots you're picking, I've got some lotion you can borrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good one, EEng! So would summery style be editing by a hothead? Anyway, just be careful to cover your smartass. Roxy, were you addressing that to Smartse? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So naturally you came to me [197]. As a followup I'm trying to figure out how to work the resonant cavity thruster in as well. I'll keep you posted. EEng01:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see this page has lost none of the juvenile character so many have been complaining about for so long. EEng10:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a powerful incentive. I'll try to give it a rest for a while, but if this keeps up, I'll go forward with proposing changes to sourcing requirements calculated to radically denotable-ize most topics in pro wrestling. These endless phony in-universe novelettes have only been tolerated to the extent they don't interfere with the rest of the project, but that's on the verge of changing. EEng20:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, Galatz drives me crazy as much as anybody with his rigidity and super-seriousness, but also you're not the one he's issuing ANIs on every time a couple of little things get shuffled around (especially when I didn't do the shuffling to begin with), and screaming WP:This, WP:That, and WP:The Other. Just look at it as helping a brother out. Vjmlhds(talk)20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the original question: Though whenever I see the word hermeneutic that's when I reach for my revolver, and honestly if that source is randomly-generated I wouldn't know it, but I suppose it's an RS. However, I don't see in the source anything supporting the use of The Frogs as an example -- I fear this may be SYNTH/OR. EEng18:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey y'all - I'm trying to be serious ... really, really trying...but not as trying as this interaction...so please don't fan the flames. I attempted to drown out the rhetoric, but how the hell does one drown a fish? I expected nothing less from Shock...whose user name is appropriate in this instance...and I actually expected EEng's revolving view but not quite as revolvalutionary as his response to hermeneutic - it gave me hot flashes which require the service of a fan...and that brings us back to my original question and the reliability of the source, and the tune that is now embedded in my head. Atsme📞📧00:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know it wasn't you who has been using the word troll, but I always address comments like mine on that talk p. to both people, so as not to look like I'm taking sides DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be continuing, from both sides. I have removed the irrelevant material. If more is added to that talk page or my talk page, I shall block. The best way of avoiding it is to to reply directly to the other party. DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, but don't look at me -- I'm not the one whining on your talk page. Like I said [202], "It's at times like these that I really feel sorry for high-profile admins like DGG, who get pinged in by people mad they can't get something collapsed or other such trivia." EEng15:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is why WP:DTTR is a thing. I saw this warning and had to check it out, and I can't see anything even remotely resembling "purposeful and blatant harassment". Well, coming from Eeng, anyways. A personal note would have been much better at communicating the ideas I saw expressed at that TP by DGG. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Pants, it seems to me your post would itself a very good place to deploy a blinking fbdb, given that a superficial inspection could lead someone to conclude you were actually threatening to kill someone. Dumbass.[FBDB]EEng16:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, because I am an honest guy, my statement to Iridescent ("Be nice or I'll accuse you of trolling.{{fbdb}") was a reference to Curly Turkey's bizarre accusations (enumerated here [208]) that I had been trolling; but it's certainly not harassment of anyone. Only later was I reminded, quite by accident, that Curly Turkey's animosity apparently goes back to this bizarre discussion [209]. EEng14:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking from experience, humor can get you t-banned or blocked, and it’s very possible that it will come at you from your blind side. It won’t matter one iota if you were templated or warned in a nice way. The target on your back gets illuminated and sometimes the t-ban or block comes just because it can - but you probably already know that. However, in this case, it appears to me the warning is to avoid the appearance of favoritism, and not anything personal - remember, it’s never personal. Atsme📞📧14:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a question - EEng, I read the link you posted above and it led to one of your essays so I was wondering if it would be plausible to create the category Wikipedia essays by EEng which will make them a bit easier to find, or is it forbidden per IAR? Atsme📞📧15:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that as a maintenance category, because it would make it much easier to identify candidates for MfD. (Sound of evil laughter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tryp, for future reference: . You can also leave it playing as a loop in your room at the home. The fish will find it comforting, and it will keep tricksters away. (🔙 see file) Atsme📞📧20:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a squiggly line in the lyrics, that means hold the vowel with vibrato while hitting the notes shown in the tablature. Straight lines mean the same, only without the vibrato.
The little squiggly that looks like a percentage sign missing the bottom degree symbol is a rest and it means a pause with no sound, same goes for the one that looks like a squiggle with a calligraphy pen.
The hashtag looking symbol means to sharpen the note (move it up one semitone), and the little "b" looking symbol means to flatten it (move it down one semitone).
The two little "b" symbols immediately following the big & symbol means that those particular notes should be flattened unless indicated otherwise.
The symbol that looks almost like a hashtag, but with only one branch sticking up and one down with none to the sides means to not flatten the normally-flattened note that immediately follows it.
If a solid note has a flag at the top (or bottom), that means it last half as long as usual (1/4 as long if there are two flags, etc), and the bars between the notes indicate the same thing.
Notes with a dot following them mean to hold it for 1.5 times the normal duration.
A hollow note with no line coming up or down from it lasts four beats, a hollow note with a line (called a stem) lasts two beats, and a solid note with a stem lasts 1 beat.
The row of tablature that starts with the giant "&" symbol is a treble clef and it's where the melody is written.
The bottom line on the top row of the treble clef indicates the E in the middle of the keyboard, with each line and space between lines representing one note (usually 2 semitones higher than the previous, except for F and C) in the C Major scale. Notes appearing above or below it will have one or more lines through them and/or their stems to indicate how far above or below the top/bottom note of the clef they are.
The row of the tablature that starts with the big almost-question-mark looking swirly symbol is the bass clef, and only bassists and pianists care about it.
That's impressive! But what does it mean if the tablature says "go fugue yourself!"? It doesn't mean much, but is usually written on your copy of the music after you've helpfully pointed out to the singer that they were just a bit flat on that last song. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.22:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our little family biker club was named "The Fugums"...we're very musical and quite talented. In fact, we played "Rollover Beethoven" repeatedly while on the way to the Sturgis Bike Rally. That's all I remember...but I do have pictures!! 😂 Atsme✍🏻📧22:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This may be getting a bit too risque, but years ago, when auditioning a female singer for a band I was in, this one girl was really bad. Like, American Idol audition out-takes level bad. After she tried out, our drummer Zach asked her why she wanted to sing for us (she had "sang" a couple of alt-rock/nu-metal songs and we were a prog-metal band) and she literally giggled like a little girl and said "because I like anal." We didn't ask her any more questions (except for the guitar playing asking her for a date).
That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time! Anal=calling you assholes, maybe? I'd like to ask the guitar player how the date went. (Make joke here about happy ending.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hate Picardy thirds. It's like adding an extra chapter to the end of Romeo & Juliet in which the knife turned out to be a prop knife and the poison to be brandy. It is not in any way satisfying because it's not the chord I was waiting for!!! I'd rather end a number on a good blue note any day. At least that adds in some tension that leaves it with a bit of soul. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was "interesting", not "okay". It just sounds like such a damp squib to end a great song on, which probably explains when they finally revived it with Prince Adam, they chopped that whole bit out and finished on a nice big fat F after the last chorus, like a proper rock song (mind you, I can just hear Freddie saying, "now look darlings, that's just far too uncouth, what we need at the end is a bit of ballet my loves....") Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you're talking about [210] and the two edits immediately following it. When one editor makes a change; a second editor reverts saying, "Hmmm, I liked it the way it was"; then a third restores the change saying, "Here are some other reasons the change is a good one" – that's often all that's needed for agreement. Not every minor disagreement needs a big-deal discussion thread. EEng16:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to clarify I do not object to images not having captions but to thumb images not having captions. Since your latest image edits do not have thumb images with no captions but just plain images I have no objection. I didn’t like the gallery at the bottom before and am glad you have changed it. IWI (chat) 12:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment, and thanks for taking the time to explain. However – and this is an important however – the appropriate way to act on your concern would have been to change three instances of thumb to frameless, not to mass-revert everything another editor had done all over the article. EEng13:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on jury duty but I'm sure the glittering salon of talk page stalkers will see to it. Ping me again in a couple of days. EEng21:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not a mind reader so I can only surmise what you intended to send, but on that surmise I think the answer is yes. For now I think it's best ignored. I find it amusing that in the course of just that one page I progress from being a professor of neuroscience at Harvard (which I am not) to being a neurosurgeon (which I most certainly am not). EEng21:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the people on this planet for me to ask a stupid question...I asked YOU!!! 😂 😂 Astonishing. I should've proof-read it...(probably with a few jiggers of 100 proof). My question reminded me a bit of this letter. BTW, Martinevans123, that clip was hilarious! Atsme✍🏻📧00:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My most recent amusing accusation: apparently I'm a paid apologist for the Roman Catholic church. Where's my money, Franky, that's what I'd like to know. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something I missed when I was looking at your contribution history IWI, damn, even here you've said about me being the "owner" and "undoes everything anyone does except grammar" - go back to the talk page and read my responses, try to comprehend it (if you can). Shocking Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, make that parrotfish droppings - it's more realistic since he's closer to being a brain surgeonfish despite his disguise as a tryptofish. He is really, really smart - knows all about seahorses - practically lived 24/7 with them in a fish lab located on the Hippo campus at Weatherford Junior College. The folks at the home where he lives now nicknamed him Neuro, but unfortunately, like Martiin, he still doesn't know you're a rocket scientist, so please go easy on him. He doesn't swim as fast as he once did. Atsme✍🏻📧02:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well played, Atsme. Yesterday, I tried to think of a good play on "parrot droppings", but didn't come up with anything. Oh, and you're lousy at this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You and I must--must--become friends! It is a galactic imperative! You are, maybe, the second person I have found on Wikipedia with a sense of humor, and I desperately need you in my Wp life! Plus I want to steal some of your stuff... I absolutely must have that pyramid for my talk page! If you had any idea how much trouble I have had with exactly the issue of authoritarian editors--well one really--you would swear it had been created just for me! I'm sure they were reading my talk page and simply neglected to tell me they had made a pyramid out of it. I have every intention of becoming one of your 'crazed talk page stalkers', so giving me the pyramid would be a good start! Does it need a US copyright tag--no wait--aaarrgghh!!!--I have been assimilated! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her--why is this here three times? Do you have your talk page set up to purposefully edit conflict?!? How do you do that? I want to do that! I must have you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this is going to require some perseverance. I'm sure you're not implying I'm a stalker--right? That would be bad. That could upset me... ha ha ha (joking--just joking!!). I'm perfectly harmless--well mostly harmless--sometimes I'm harmless--ahhh screw it, nevermind. I require a lot more than a pyramid to do deep breathing with someone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
:-) It's a good thing you do have a sense of humor! (I think I hear those sirens...) Really, I only love you for your pyramid--can I have your permission to steal it?Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already like you--so pssst away! :-) He won't be my friend if I just steal his stuff--I'm pretending to be respectful and all that crap that makes people think you're actually likable. I think I have him fooled--what do you think? How am I doing? Pretty smooth huh? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng: Please stop spending your time (and wasting mine) by criticizing and deleting information. Your actions before and for a good part of today suggest some personal bias for DeVoto: only when I added favorable rebuttable did you let information stand. Now you want secondary sources? (–when this material is already so simple, clear, and strong!) Why spend the time giving advice when you could take it yourself? You want secondary sources, too? Please, go out there, tiger, and get yourself (and the rest of us) some secondary sources! And use your time (and that of others) more constructively, to boot! :) --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, we're talking about this.
You've added random stuff said about DeVoto by McCarthy and others, taken from primary sources with nothing to explain its significance. Yes, I want secondary sources, because that's what Wikipedia wants. I thought you seemed to be going in that direction, but if I'm wrong and after a decent interval you haven't added any appropriate sources explaining what in the world this tells us about DeVoto (other than that McCarthy lashed out at him, and he said some things back – what's the reader supposed to do with that?), then I'm afraid the material will have to go.
No secondary sources being forthcoming, I've removed this material. Interested stalkers may want to take a look. EEng04:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your intentions but your judgment as to what's helpful and so on does not control. If Paleofacts wants to "run off to the media" to highlight his own stupidity that might help others avoid repeating his mistakes. Feel free to comment on my post, but removing it is a no-no -- see WP:TPO. EEng06:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is in the real world. It is a no-no to do anything on Wikipedia that would give a person the opportunity to run off to the media and say that they had been treated badly. Paleofacts was blocked for making legal threats, the thread was closed and there was no need for the snarky comment on it.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If "doubling down" means I make it my habit to know what I'm talking about and don't suffer fools gladly, then yeah. Removing is fucking with. Dispense your platitudes elsewhere and don't do it again. EEng14:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to EEng's world; a world that not only rotates on its axis, it teeters on the brink of [fill in the blank].
Are you still here? You're not in my world, which is full of the pleasures of research and writing and interactions with the clever. Now one more time, and more forcefully: take your witless attempts at repartee elsewhere. You'll be welcome back when you can suspend your impulse to police others' interactions. EEng17:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you hear about the bad thesaurus? Not only is it awful it's also awful. I'm not humorless or unamused I just didn't want that permanently on the discussion page. Best, User:Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, this regards the two image to the right of the table of contents here [211].
I appreciate your dropping by to explain, Barkeep49, but in all seriousness, why not have it permanently on the page? Why not let others enjoy the joke? And -- perhaps more importantly -- isn't it fair play to let new volunteers know what they're in for? I'm also puzzled as to why you removed the image but not the anagram.
Heh, better than Saint Jude as a patron, I suppose. I think it's funny, but I suspect you've had enough people remove your pictures from Wikipedia talk pages that you know it might take Saint Jude to get that picture back. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because, in all seriousness, I don't think jokes should permanently be left on project discussion pages. Clearly I'm not the only one who feels this way given the second revert. If new volunteers can get the task ahead of them by reading the reviewers guide they're supposed to read before asking for the PERM, or don't understand it when they have the mop, well then maybe NPP isn't for them? Also for one brief shining moment this year getting the backlog to 0 was a realistic thing. It's a shame we didn't get and keep it there so I'm not even sure the reference is correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in all seriousness, I think jokes should permanently be left on project discussion pages (well, semipermanently -- nothing goes on forever, other than my user page). And why not? Project pages are Wikipedia's brainstorming rooms. Why shouldn't there be something on the bulletin board to lighten the daily grind? Here're a few that have been in place for ages [212][213][214]; I've been told they make people smile even after many encounters. I'm sure there are others I can't bring to mind.
As for the second removal, well, the page has 125 active watchers so that leaves 123 editors who didn't remove it. Must everything be reduced to the tastes of the stuffiest member of the group? Articles are by design conservative: if in doubt, leave it out. But talk pages are the opposite: within extremely wide bounds all voices are welcome. I added the image to communicate, Hey, I know it seems a hopeless and endless task sometimes, but we're all in this together so let's keep rolling that rock up. That's as valid a comment as any -- seriously.
And you still haven't explained why you left the anagram. Tell you what... let's wait and see what happens with that. If no one removes it, then we'll take that as tentative evidence that our fellow editors are not as humor-averse as you think, and we'll put back the image and see what the other 123 editors think. Deal? EEng03:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the joke.[reply]
Here are some ems without the ad homin. They come in handy when you have to take yourself to ANI - they melt in your mouth, not in your hands so you’ll have clean hands if ad hominems start to flow. Atsme✍🏻📧03:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are old electrical engineering jokes. On what charge? The judge had him conducted to a dry cell. For reasons I vaguely recall some historian of science once elucidated, the terminology of EE is particularly prone to such stuff. It's been a while since I linked to this vaguely related disgusting talk [217]. EEng22:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Embarrassed, tries to change the subject: Bah, humbug! I challenge you to an inverse duel. (Wonders: is that where each combatant points the gun at himself?) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you didn't take Math 55. But it was a risky move on my part. As pointed out in The Harvard Lampoon Big Book of College Life forty years ago, if you want to fake intellectuality and get away with it, the best subdiscipline to operate in is French philosophy. You can make up quotes and attribute them to some invented French name with complete impunity e.g. "The true depth of spiritual revelation is known better to the meanest peasant than to the most exalted royal. – Bertrand Doisneau". No one will contradict you, trust me. Try it yourself. LaFromboise. Bouthillier. Demaret. It's easy. EEng20:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would have chosen the word startling. Here's the worse part: it's a "featured picture". Thanks for sharing... um... I guess. EEng03:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the file page at Commons to see the list of en-wiki pages where it's used, and it's truly impressive how much this one shows up in user space. Confirms my suspicions about so many editors talking out of their asses. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - the focus of the screenshot is User talk:EEng#Had a ball - it has nothing to do with size - size doesn’t matter. Atsme✍🏻📧20:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)...of the PAGE - size of the page doesn’t matter. 23:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to ANI? Prophet, sage, Rosemary and Ham Open a thread, about you and I Bias the discussion as much as you can Have them all call for an indef block Prophet, sage, Rosemary and Ham With TPA revoked and a global lock Then you will win the ANI game.
Hah! I had previously said "All things being equal, if my saltiness at my talk page encourages other editors not post edits like those I was responding to, then mission accomplished."
Uh-oh again! (Or are you pulling that French philosopher trick on me again?) Maybe it's because I graduated after they dropped the Latin requirement. (Yes, I know Plato was Greek. I knew him personally.) Or should it have been Platonically? They all fail my spell checker. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that EEng has now been reclassified as a "good egg". Perhaps someday, someone will explain the difference between an egg and an eng. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My next RfC would target the term "bloody hell" :D But seriously man, this message is to commend you for your absolutely rollicking, sarcastic and brilliant comments on the RfC. And I know why you supported the listing of the RfC at CENT :D You just love to have the popcorn ready when a good drama is taking place. Have fun man, Lourdes00:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I'd tell you to fuck off[FBDB] but that's been overused lately. Seriously (!), often those comments are best which require the hearer/reader to pause to figure out what exactly is meant (if, indeed, any one thing exactly is what's meant). Since humor trades in contradiction and incongruity, it's a good vehicle for that, plus it's fun. Like it says on my user page:
One should beware of those who cannot or will not laugh when others are merry, for if not mentally defective they are spiteful, selfish or abnormally conceited ... Great men of all nations and of all times have possessed a keen appreciation of the ridiculous, as wisdom and wit are closely allied.
We may note in passing that Donald Trump has absolutely no sense of humor whatever. That doesn't stop him from being a stable genius, of course. (I've been pushing that one lately.) EEng02:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the length of your TOC is reaching the length of my talk page, would you consider making a TOC for your TOC? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration :) Lourdes09:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My pleaseure [219] but I was thinking of re-adding it to WT:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers, just to see if the small group of naysayers have realized that those with the narrowest sensibilities aren't the arbiters of what's acceptable. What do you think? EEng18:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you have to remember that with the folks at NPP, their middle name is "Take it down!" I will say that when it comes to Wikipedia anagrams, my masterpiece is Arbitration Committee = Motto: Recriminate A Bit. EEng20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Special:Preferences and click on the "Gadgets" tab. Then scroll down to "Appearance". Near the end of that section there should be a box to check off that says "Strike out usernames that have been blocked". Makes it very easy to see who is blocked. Both that option and the one above it should not be optional and should be on by default. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq15:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CambridgeBayWeather, thank you for taking the time to drop by. As it is I knew about that feature and have it activated already. (If it's the default, that's a change from years ago, I guess.) I assume you're bringing it up because of my mention at ANI that admins should be more explicit in reciting who's been blocked. But the strikeout feature doesn't really solve the problem because (a) you still have to nose about looking for the signature of various people who might have been blocked and (b) the block might have expired by the time you're looking at the thread. EEng18:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your attempts to inject your attempts to inject humour into that discussion, and I know it doesn't look good for me to only be posting to ANI and a policy talk page that at this point might as well be ANI. But I really am just that busy IRL at the moment (specifically until 11/21) that creating articles is out of the question, while signing into Wikipedia to see and respond to the latest drahms is ... well, it doesn't take as much time as writing articles. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, I'm inclined to just let it lie unless/until it comes up again later. The idea had some merits, but I think it got both mired and entrenched. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein 😊, but orange you glad there are no Seville grapes? I guess we could simply say something more civil, like "Are you (town in Austria) out of your mind? (then we wouldn't be restricted only to user TPs...maybe...and then it wouldn't be uncivil...depending on which admins weigh-in when you get hauled over to AN/I kicking and screaming Austria, Austria!!). Which reminds me, the other day I read the following comment: “what rhymes with orange”. I replied, "no it doesn't."Atsme✍🏻📧16:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a related wonder about yet another Arbcom candidate who is a designer tech and Uncyclopedia admin using what some stuffy editors may consider uncivil edit summaries like: ([Hissing noises]), (weird padding stuff hell if I know), ((harej thought putting this here would be a good idea. Look at him. Look at him and laugh.), (I have no idea yay!), (I'm way too tired to be funny, so all you get are serious answers... I'm sorry.), and (TESTY TESTY THINGY). I was going to suggest that she use [FBDB] until I read (→Question from Carcharoth: I hate enwp's horrible template structures. Also answers. And hatred of this template. And answers.). I’m seriously thinking of voting for her, technically speaking. Atsme✍🏻📧05:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it kind of didn't exist for years, we just formally closed it now. There were around 44 cases filed to MedCom in the past year, and absolutely none of them were accepted. There were only 8 accepted requests from 2015–now, 3 of which were closed as successful, and 1 (the last) as "partly successful".
Arbcom is like this. If you look at past cases and then the current state of the wiki - and run it against the usual criteria for success in arbitration/dispute resolution, what you come up with is that Arbcom rarely solves disputes, rarely fixes behavioural problems, it just papers over them temporarily until the users are unblocked, commence socking, or someone else picks up the baton. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone at ANI just took a quote of "fucking" being used for emphasis ("blindingly fucking obvious"), but removed the following adjective so it sounds like people copulating in a manner so hideous (or so amazing) that onlookers are struck blind. It's begging for your attention. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your parents marriage certificate wouldn't actually prove your legitimacy. As for literacy level, true story, one of my wife's extended (male) cousins got accidentally married to the groom at the wedding he was witnessing, due to the registrar writing the names in the wrong place on the certificate. 10 years before same sex marriage was legalised..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you're being such a stickler I'll point out that something written on a certificate doesn't create the fact it purports to reflect. But still it's an amusing story. EEng22:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stalkers may wish to keep abreast of this discussion
If you'll just commit to making no more reverts over this dispute, I'll unblock you right now, as I said on ANEW. Just drop it and move on, and go about doing whatever else productive you desire. Courcelles (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, when I first saw your talk page crossed out on my watchlist (I use the "strike out names of blocked users" option mentioned in an earlier thread) I was confused. Looking at this issue, however, I think there's no need to edit war over one thumbnail compared to the countless others you've done. Until you appeal or your block expires, however, it's going to feel so different. SemiHypercube✎18:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those playing along at home, the image at issue is this one...
... appended to an ANI thread that had been an absurd waste of time (including – and I am not making this up – a side debate on whether someone saying Jesus F. Christ might prompt Pakistan to block Wikipedia) with the hope that the participants – who had been continuing an almost identical dispute elsewhere – would think twice next time.
TParis removed the image, calling it "not helpful and not needed") [224].
TParis again removed my post, now calling it "an attack" [226].
Soon after, an innocent third party routinely archived the thread. I went to the archived thread and again restored my post [227].
That should have been the end of it, but ...
TParis again removed my post as a "personal attack", intoning impressively "this is an admin action on an admin noticeboard", as if that means something [228].
Then came a few more rounds in which the normally sensible Ivanvector reverted what he mistakenly thought were "images added to archive" [229] and the often-sensible Johnuniq warned me "do not edit archives" [230] and that I was "bullying" [231].
TParis only seems to have made three reverts ... no block will be forthcoming from me as they stopped behind the "bright line". EEng did not.
Well no, actually. I made two reverts at ANI, three at ANI/Archive996 (yesterday), and one today. So no crossing of the bright line, if that's what matters.
TParis' removal of my post was a clear violation of WP:TPO, which provides "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection". I was simply restoring what had been improperly removed. I explained what I was doing repeatedly, with links to governing guidelines, in my edit summaries. I also explained in a discussion TParis himself opened[233], with no response from him or anyone else.
As Legacypac succinctly put it [234], He restored his own comment - against inappropriate removal. Hardly an edit war. Bad block.
SemiHypercube, I agree that "there's no need to edit war over one thumbnail". But that's not what this is about. As I said elsewhere
Is the presence of this image worth fighting over? – No.
Is the principle – that clueless admins who don't seem to know their place as admins, and don't seem up on basic guidelines like WP:TPO, ought to be held to account and schooled if necessary – worth fighting over? – Yes, because admins like that do a lot of damage.
So sure, Courcelles, unblock me. But if someone again removes my post (which I somehow think is unlikely – funny, that) I hope you'll actually read the links above and participate, with a fresh mind, in the ensuing discussion. And I'd appreciate your unblock comment including a permalink to this thread.
Am I supposed to be impressed by your vocabulary? It takes some kind of "something" for brains to consider a joke to be worth edit warring over. Suggestion: give yourself a voluntary WP:1RR at WP:ANI. All the admirers of your comedy style will surely be happy to restore images on your behalf. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, I'm surprised you're not getting this. It's nor about any particular bit of content. It's about the small number of admins who think everyone else has to join them in the loneliness of whatever cramped and dwarfed intellectual box they happen to inhabit, and push others around to enforce that idea. Funny how fast he fell silent once he knew what a fool he'd made of himself – didn't say or do a thing once the ANEW post was opened. The interesting question whether whether he's learned anything, though from experience with this particular specimen the answer is likely to be no. On the plus side he seems to have found real-life people over whom he can exercise his authoritarian impulses, and doesn't bother productive editors at Wikipedia very much anymore. EEng12:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of what you would call "klar", please let me try to explain what I am getting at. I'm not defending him. I'm not saying he was right. I'm not addressing anything here to him. I've long been clear about the importance of admins not overreaching or being bossy. But him edit warring does not justify you edit warring. You weren't disputing about some important free speech principle. You were disputing about a joke. If someone else had restored your image and caption, that would have spoken more loudly about how the community feels than if you had done it all alone. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles:: This block should simply be removed as, at this point, punitive not preventative. No one has re-re-re-re-reverted (or whatever) the page to the pre-EEng state, so there is nothing for EEng to go back to editwarring over, even assuming EEng had brain damage and didn't realize that doing that would be disruptive and just result in a longer block. And EEng shows no signs of reverting warring about anything else or doing anything else disruptive. Ergo, whether the block was initially valid or not (I see someone[s] above suggesting otherwise on one basis or another, which I haven't looked into), it presently serves no purpose. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that image isn't a depiction of when the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie... because I'm not seeing any amore. Ok, so cry "uncle" and be done with it. Spring break doesn't roll around until March. Atsme✍🏻📧21:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Bells will ring ting-a-ling-a-ling, ting-a-ling-a-ling
If you say you didn't really make more than 3 reverts at ANI (only the first two were on the page, the next were on an archive) are you saying you won't continue reverting if you are unblocked, since you tried staying within the 3 revert limit? Especially since you asked Courcelles to unblock you? SemiHypercube✎22:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say I didn't make more than 3 reverts at ANI – I actually, in fact, didn't make more than 3 reverts at ANI.
If any of this bunch remove my post again, I'll do what I guess I was supposed to do in the first place, which is to open an ANI thread re a clueless admin who thinks he's entitled to remove others' discussion posts on personal whim, with shifting made-up justifications (as if there's anything to discuss about that) and, as time permits, a minor side topic on people who pile onto a tag-team revert war without first finding out what the fuck they're reverting. I don't think such a discussion will be necessary, however, as the removers have all apparently realized the error of their ways and wandered off; or, if one of them does try it again, perhaps he'll be blocked for failing to discuss and editwarring instead, and that will be that. (I expect this kind of behavior from the likes of TParis and Johnuniq, but Ivanvector, I'm disappointed in you: you should have taken the time to figure out what was going on before throwing your weight in with those in the wrong.)
Yes, ANI would have been the correct venue, rather than revert warring. But as you've said you won't revert if the content is removed again, you are hereby unblocked. Courcelles (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An admin upholds one of the five pillars without throwing his weight around.
But then, better than any venue would have been for a particularly clueless admin to have kept his nannying impulses to his busybody self in the first place. "This is an admin action on an admin noticeboard" is about the stupidest piece of admin bravado bullshit I've heard in a long time – and I've heard some whoppers. As predicted he's seemingly forgotten about removing my "personal attack" and just wandered off. EEng06:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC) P.S. At right is my favorite image for this kind of clusterfuck. Perhaps someone will try to remove it.[reply]
Before I move this thread to the Museum of the 3%, I call on TParis to explain his conduct under WP:ADMINACCT ("Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"), given that he called what he did "an admin action on an admin noticeboard" [235]. EEng13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request, I am outlining my rationale for removing your comments. Despite your selective reading of WP:TPG, the guidelines permit the removal of personal attacks and trolling at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#EDIT. Your image is an attack at both editors in the dispute that calls them both foolish; which they may be, but it's still a personal attack. As you've used WP:ADMINACCT to compel my response to your question, I assume it means you agree I acted solely in an admin capacity and I maintain my WP:UNINVOLVED status with regards to you. If you have any other questions, feel free bring them to a noticeboard.--v/r - TP16:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly, I expect my talk page to get blown up by the fan club. My lunch break is over, so ya'all will have to accept my timely responses later.--v/r - TP16:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to speculate that you know how ridiculous your claim is but simply have no shame, but on balance I think you honestly don't know how foolish you are.
The image I posted – a pie fight captioned "Visual metaphor for the above discussion" – communicates nothing different than if I'd said, "The above discussion was like pie fight." I know you're unable to comprehend this, but that was a humorous post with a perfectly serious goal: getting the participants to think twice next time. If you think that's a personal attack your judgment is seriously, seriously flawed.
Your original rationale for removal was "Not remotely helpful and most definitely not needed" [236] Only when challenged did you switch to "personal attack". Apparently you just make stuff up as you go along.
From the time I made my post to the time you first removed it, 15 hours passed during which 86 edits were made to the page [237], including by admins Bbb23, Courcelles, KrakatoaKatie, Ivanvector, Zzuuzz, Boing!, 78.26, Jayron32, and Fish and karate. None of them saw a problem, apparently, but you! You know better! And of course the bounds of acceptability are determined by the one observer, out of dozens, with the most dwarfed faculties of comprehension and the narrowest sensibilities. Just kidding -- as mentioned before [238] we aren't bound by your blinkered, impoverished view of what constitutes useful commentary.
Your explanation is ridiculous, as expected. If you don't want to end up like MikeV, Coffee, Fred Bauder, and other bygone self-appointed enforcers of their personal tastes, I suggest you find somewhere off-wiki where you can release your pent-up busybody impulses without bothering the rest of us.
And no, I do not agree you are UNINVOLVED with regard to me, because in removing my post you were not acting in your capacity as a WP:ADMIN, but rather in your capacity as WP:IMACOPANDYOUWILLRESPECTMAHAUTHORITAY. Admins have no special standing to evaluate others' posts; you merely wrapped yourself in your magic administrative security blanket in an effort to intimidate [239].
Not worked up in the slightest, but when one of this particular species of admin persists in begging to be made a fool of, who am I to disappoint? EEng16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I spent the last thirty-minutes scrolling to get down here (only to scroll back to the top to click on "new section"). I just want to say that the phrase you fashioned is a fitting motto for AN/I. A shame that too few seem to heed it. I felt that notifying you of this fact was non-urgent, hence my lateness in stopping by. Though now that it's done, it's irretractable. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unofficial anagram of ANI1st runner-up
Mr. Nude Dude is referring to what you see at left and right.
The amount of punch that is packed started making me a little suspicious. I realize that this is the person that masochism is named after, but I also see that it is marked as citation needed. Could it be a superior case of creative vandalism? Looking into the page history, the content was added by Mightyfastpig in 2007, sourced to what is now a dead link: [241]. In 2009, the source was tagged as "unreliable source?": [242]. In 2014, the source was removed entirely: [243], and about a month later it was tagged as citation needed: [244]. And in 2013, an editor expressed skepticism on the talk page about whether there really was such a baroness, but never got a reply: [245]. Does this look to you like something that might be worth raising an issue about, or should I just figure that it's expected for the page subject? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your note. My grandfather served in that war as well, in a sense: by the time his ship arrived on the other side, the armistice had been declared. But he got his citizenship anyway!
I find the story of Lionel Harvard very affecting, like a short, tragic fairy tale that begins when the hardworking pauper is discovered to be the lost heir to the throne. I've now seen a great deal of unpublished correspondence to, from, and about him, and he quite clearly had an unusual effect on those he met – a very gentle soul, apparently. As a friend of his wrote, "[He] seemed a living symbol of all that was best and brightest in Harvard itself, manifested to us briefly after three hundred years" – it's the briefly that gets me, like the end of AI when David's mother is brought back to life for just a single day. EEng22:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "you've got death threats" message template would be a major boon for the busy editor. Or maybe we even need a new icon alongside the existing "bell-end and push-up bra"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I note that you reverted my reversion of your deletion of text indicating that gradual pressure drops can go undetected. This phenomenon is actually of enormous importance. It has been implicated in a number of crashes where the plane sails on, incommunicado, while the crew, and passengers, inside are unconscious or dead
The body is quite unable to detect low oxygen levels other than losing consciousness because the urge to breath is controlled by rising CO2 levels not falling O2 levels. This is something drummed into every trainee pilot from day one. I myself, with fellow students, was taken up in a hypobaric chamber to 25,000' on oxygen and then switched to air and allowed to lose consciousness just to demonstrate that it cannot be detected, even when you know it is going to happen.
In the case of the cosmonauts the dump valve was located out of site under one of the seats, it got missed after venting the cabin. If the crew had been able to detect low O2 levels then they would immediately have reached under the seat to close the valve. Its location was a little awkward but they knew how to do it because it was used for extra-vehicular activities. On the ground, the only symptom was no radio contact, this happens naturally during re-entry and should have been restored in the parachute phase. It wasn't but the diagnosis at the time was not hypoxia. It was only on opening the completely undamaged capsule that they realised the cosmonauts were dead.
The points that have been deleted are actually very important and need to be a part of the story. I'm not going to enter a reversion war but please have a think, do some research and consider how these phrases might be better worded. Ex nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you want the reader to understand that slow pressure drops might go unnoticed by occupants as they slip toward unconsciousness, but the two removed bits do a bad job of that. The first said:
Failures range from sudden, catastrophic loss of airframe integrity (explosive decompression) to slow leaks or equipment malfunctions that allow cabin pressure to drop undetected to levels that can lead to unconsciousness or severe performance degradation of the aircrew.
This passage is simultaneously trying to explain that decompression can be fast or slow and that slow decompressions can go unnoticed by personnel. But those are two separate (if somewhat related) ideas and trying to squeeze them in to one sentence confuses them. Furthermore, while undetected in this case is meant to mean "undetected by personnel's senses", in the reader's mind it may also imply that no sensing equipment detected the pressure drop either. If you want to makes the fast-slow point, and the undetected-by-the-senses point, make them explicitly and separately.
As for the cosmonaut passage...
On June 30, 1971, the crew of Soyuz 11, Soviet cosmonauts Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patsayev were killed after the cabin vent valve accidentally opened before atmospheric re-entry. There had been no indication of trouble until the recovery team opened the capsule and found the dead crew.
... it completely buries the point. "There had been no indication of trouble"... where? To controllers on the ground? To the cosmonauts? If the latter, how would we know, since dead men tell no tales? And anyway, why are you telling us this? Oh wait! I know! I think you're trying to say that the position of the bodies indicated the men had not been alarmed and had simply slipped into unconsciousness lying in their seats. If so then say that, and then remind the reader that this illustrates how hypoxia can creep up on you. EEng04:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever noticed that "smock" is a lot like "mock" with an extra "s"? That makes it easier to mock someone over a smocking accident and helps keep America smoke free.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, you'll have to wait until Christmas. Tryp - do you use FedEx? Email me instead of sending the risotto. That would be an unusual present, indeed. Atsme✍🏻📧20:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C. Now that I have sufficiently put thee in a good mood, I was writing William H. West (policeman) and was hoping some other people could lay eyes on it, especially the Arresting of Grant section, which looks more and more awkwardly titled to me the more I look at it. I know I tend to mince words when I write, so if anybody feels that section should be expanded or rewritten per the sources I would appreciate it, esp. as I will be AFK for a couple days. (TL;DR I want to take this through DYK and the article is too 40% short per rules :) Thanks, L3X1◊distænt write◊03:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons all too painfully obvious, this will make an extremely timely DYK, and I am happy to be involved. However, we are going to need much higher-quality sources -- none right now is a serious scholarly work. While Grant was one of the least interesting presidents (a separate career from his military one) there are undoubtedly several book-length studies and zillions of papers. Some of them must have this. I'm busy just now but if someone will take a stab at finding sources I'll join in tomorrow. I can get my hands on almost any paywalled source instantly, and anything in print within 24 hours if needed.
I forget the DYK rule -- AFAI recall we have a week (?) to get it to 1500 characters and nominate, and after that we'll have another few weeks to improve it while it works its way along DYK's long alimentary canal. EEng04:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalkers -- your help is needed! We need a high-quality source for the assertion (in William H. West (policeman)) that sometime in 1872 President US Grant was arrested in Washington DC for driving his carriage too fast. I think in this case "high-quality" is going to have to mean a source that gives clear citations to the primary material supporting this idea; none of the sources currently in the article does this, and this newspaper article from 1908 cannot possibly be taken as reliable for anything beyond a statement that West told this story. Maybe one of you will look somewhere I'm not thinking of. (I'd say I'm about 33% of the way through a thorough search, which is as far as I can go without a trip to the library.) EEng03:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This morning (Saturday) on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, there was an interview with the Executive Director of Grant's presidential library, and he described exactly that event. If you track it down at the NPR website, there should be a transcript there. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you restored this. Removing a contribution to a talk page was not an action I took lightly, I'm assuming you can appreciate why someone might have done that; please consider how others can use this form of 'comment' to paint user's comments with their indignation (i.e. blowback). All very cunning mind you, a post to a thread to which reply is not directly possible and insists on attention to itself. cygnis insignis04:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cunning isn't the word that I would use. Desperate is more like it, after seven days and 40 posts over a comma. Anyone can respond by adding another post. I confess to calling emphatic attention to the plea, "Jeez! All this argument over a comma???" EEng05:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EEng, you may be right about reverting me and I'm not going to argue the point further. But you made 4 reverts within 2 hours to that article. This is just a friendly reminder regarding 3RR, because I appreciate your valuable contributions. Also, I didn't get a notification about being reverted -- be sure to use the 'undo' link if that's the reason. Gap9551 (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When a group of editors are all working together happily, and sending thanks to one another along the way, there's no problem even if some proportion of the edits are straight reverts. EEng23:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the Youtube source, I feel that it isn't reliable in this case per WP:EL/P. A common issue is "Videos must be carefully screened for copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER, WP:COPYLINK, WP:YT). The creator of the video must be verifiable as an official channel for the source. Do not link to copyright violations in citations, even if they reproduce information, such as news reports, that might otherwise be considered reliable." Even if the video is about a documentary, we are promoting the user's Youtube channel by including this reference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgekid87, I was responding only to the concern expressed in your edit summary [252] ("a single youtube video is an insufficient source to support the relevance of including derogatory comments about another person...") which said nothing about copyvio. Even if the particular Youtuve posting is a copyvio (or -- as I think is the case now that I look -- we can't determine that it's not a copyvio) that doesn't change the fact that it's obviously authentic and therefore reliable for Jeanne/Yvonne's own words. It's little unclear what to do in a case like that, since we're not supposed to link to a copyvio but to use it as a source we'd still have to cite it somehow (I guess describe the source without linking to it?). Anyway, though I know no French I get the impression this [253] has the same Van Gogh quotation, and I think we can infer there's no copyvio issue. EEng03:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huggums537 (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng and edit warring. Thank you. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Atsme☯Consult Agent 99 14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm RexxS. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
If you're not interested in discussion, then please keep your ad homiems to yourself RexxS (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(14579600847).jpg)
Gotta love it!! Cheers 
Atsme📞📧 22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Leprof 7272. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Don't do this, and don't do this. Needlessly insulting the user isn't helping anyone. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Anyway, I'm glad about the self-correction, and sorry that it was needed in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
.gif)
.jpg)
Atsme📞📧 16:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.
No need for you to worry...he's probably read your user page which in itself is built-in protection against a Trump handshake. Atsme📞📧 15:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you trim out blatantly excessive text from a long standing rights description page making the text far more digestible and less complex for the average reader, as you did with this edit, I shall have to praise you again.
.jpg)
_at_Disney%27s_Animal_Kingdom_(16-01-2005).jpg)
I'm surprised more people don't do funny voiceovers. Maybe it's my puerile sense of humour but I find them hilarious. Bad Lip Reading never fails to amuse me either. nagualdesign 22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Buttinsky) I totally agree with you TGS and AFE. I can't overemphasize the engaging prose by our one and only EEng, an editor I admire and consider to be extraordinary in so many different ways. I would definitely be among the FA reviewers if PG became a WP:FAC. Atsme📞📧 19:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
!! 🙈 Wish I hadn't read that! The nerve of those people!!! Atsme📞📧 15:29, December 2, 2017
Atsme📞📧 22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
So if I have blocks on my mind, I guess that makes me a blockhead! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
nagualdesign 09:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
nagualdesign 23:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
but they don't offer internet. Ok, I admit that it's Friday and I'm bored. Atsme📞📧 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
...but the image of a "potential you" leaving the "home" looks nothing like the "real you". Perhaps that tells us we're only as old as we feel. Ok, Tryp - c'mere so somebody with more expertise than I can feel how old you are...Atsme📞📧 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Buttinsky) For some reason, I didn't think a flight could suffer, (anthropomorphism) and I certainly didn't think a 737 could pilot a flight...especially while suffering. Atsme📞📧 19:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
_(15979271986).jpg)
.jpg)
— JFG talk 04:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
[FBDB] nagualdesign 00:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
—PaleoNeonate – 22:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
![[141]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_flag_red_star.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[155]](https://pics.me.me/telephone-telephone-there-was-a-fad-in-the-1950s-called-10483694.png){kind=link}
![[187]](https://i.gyazo.com/bfd1d7a3a66d49cec5d7533564dc1a5d.png){kind=link}
![[188]](https://i.gyazo.com/f6772791366ec33c433075d54ce8a337.png){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg)
