Thank you for your contributions, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. Please do not continue to engage on talking on Lockley's talk page, thank you. (This was sent from my iPhone, sorry for any errors)Binko71100 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As explained at User talk:Lockley, you don't know what you're talking about, either in the matter of my interactions with Lockley, or in the question of whether redirects should be tagged as orphans. Your participation has served to muddle the facts and give Lockley the idea he's be wronged somehow. Take more time to understand what's going on before wading in -- perhaps if you were using a full-sized device you'd be more able to get the "big picture" of the situation. EEng (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop introducing jokes into articles/talk pages. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles/user and talk pages may lead to you being blocked from editing or lead to other consequences. Sorry if this warning template didn't make sense, but this is for your yet continuing improper/rude humor, not for anything having to do with redirects and such. Binko71100 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was Sam Butler that wrote,
Man is the only animal that laughs and has a state legislature.
Were he alive today, he's have written instead,
Man is the only animal that laughs and has Wikipedia admins.
(The above is not meant to impugn all admins -- the vast majority of whom comport themselves with grace, good humor, and sound judgment -- but merely those such as you.) You modified [1] the warning template (which warns against jokes in articles) to make it look like humor in discussions is also forbidden. While it is frequently recommended -- and properly so -- that care be exercised when employing humor in discussions, if you think anyone is going to support your laughable (get it -- laughable?) idea that humor in discussions is an actual no-no, then you need your head examined.
(For the record I have once or twice let temptation get the best of me and made a joke edit to an article -- e.g. [2] -- but that's not what's going in here.)
Wait a minute, Binko! You're not even an admin! You have 130 edits; you registered two weeks ago and immediately created a faked user page [3] and started (Special:Contributions/Binko71100) issuing ban warnings, and within 45 minutes of your own account's creation set up the userpage (revid 532065406) of another new account -- only 2 minutes after that other account was created [4] and before that account's very first edit (revid 532065177, and see Special:Contributions/Sullivanriley) -- and then quickly changed that account's userpage [5] to a little stub that doesn't reveal that you're the one who initially created it. That account made just enough edits to be autoconfirmed.
Then suddenly you're an instructor in the Antivandalism Academy [6], you're congratulating Lockley on his great work [7], and soon he's consulting you [8] about me, and of course you give him unconditional support (though completely erroneous advice) [9] followed by the bizarre warnings to me above.
I have absolutely no relation to any Wikimedia accounts besides this one and one with my IP address (I first began editing in 2008 sometime) that I used to use quite often before creating this account. By 'ban hammer,' I meant requesting bans of repetitive vandals. Lockley was just someone doing a nice job with the New Pages queue and a friend of mine suggested he deserved a barnstar. A week or so later, this issue came about. I wasn't worried about redirects, I was worried about your history of demeaning and rude jokes on other user talk pages. Talk page or article, doesn't matter. Mean/inappropriate things are unacceptable. As for Sullivanriley, I was both testing as well as welcoming the user, as I hadn't been active in a month or so. Just what I have to say, sorry for the late response, as I have a life, you know. - Binko71100 (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... And how did you come to know of Sullivanriley's existence, two minutes after that account had been created and apparently before it had made even a single edit? Also, I'd be interested to know how you and Baldy Bill became friends, given that he was almost entirely dormant since his account was created abt 2 years ago, until he suddenly became active about 2 months ago? EEng (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you should know, there is a log of new users, as well as a display showing when new accounts are created in Recent Changes. Baldy_Bill and I became friends because we both frequently work on the new pages queue and the defcon measurement going with it. Soon we began to just converse with eachother and collaborate naturally. -- Binko71100 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't know. I'm satisfied that (on the evidence here, at least) that you're neither a sockpuppet nor a puppetmaster and assuming that's correct, I'm sorry to have troubled you. Please try to be less strident. EEng (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued, offensive comments regarding me and my contributions here are not productive, nor helpful to me. How is it constructive to continually tear a person and his/her work down? It provides an opportunity for conflict and ugliness which should not be the aim here. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)18:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of a legion of editors who have tried at length to explain to you how Wikipedia works, to no avail. My comments have been limited to the inappropriateness of much of the material you've added to articles, and to the fact that you misunderstand guidelines. EEng (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. I was pretty sure you wouldn't let us down on the Godwin's Law front, and you didn't [10].[reply]
EEng, On reviewing most of your record, it seems that most and/or nearly all of the articles that you, yourself, have created have no notability. In the several that I looked at, you have anywhere from 1-5 references on them. They are not notable, yet you have been one of my top attackers here. I think that speaks for itself. You might look at your own work to improve rather than continuing to tear down that which I did. There is no credibility in someone who has multiple issues in their own writing, yet who goes to extremes to attack others. I have addressed this with you to some degree in the past, though it is necessary to bring it to light again as it is unproductive and unconstructive. You have never had one good thing to say about me or my work. I do not expect that to change, and in fact, I expect the worst abuse from you, but know that it is not appropriate or professional. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AO, I'm afraid I'm gonna ignore your advice. Daniellagreen, what "speaks for itself" is that you think notability is determined by nose-counting references, regardless of content or quality. Other than posting unreadable, grotesquely bloated material on non-notable subjects, the entirety of your contribution to Wikipedia has been long, tiresome plaints about the mistreatment you've suffered here, each stuffed to bursting with repetitive strings of big in/un words: unprofessional, inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstructive, unprofessional, unproductive, unprofessional, unpleasant, unprofessional, unhelpful, unprofessional, unnecessary, unprofessional, unprofessional, unprofessional, unprofessional -- you're like a walking thesaurus of victimization. (And Wikipedia editing isn't a professional pursuit, BTW, so as with everything else you've got the wrong end of the stick on that.) Your constant refrain is that if everyone doesn't start treating you nicer you'll turn your back on the project and never return. But that never happens, so just how much more abuse do you intend to submit to in your quest for martyrdom? EEng (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The controversies section on the Harvard University page
This is Helen Yang and I am getting in touch with you regarding the controversies section on the Harvard University page. I don't agree with your statement due to the significance of this federal complaint in that it raises a major civil rights issue that impacts millions of people. Readers have the right to be informed and it is up to the readers to form an opinion either way or simply ignore it, but readers should not be deprived of the privilege of being informed.
Like many, I have tremendous respect for Harvard. I had the privilege of cross-registering at Harvard when I was at MIT and ended up taking classes at the Kennedy School and the law school.
This section will be put back. If you still disagree, we should raise it with Wikipedia to arbitration.
JHY Response - Thanks EEng for your response. As a long time user of wikipedia, I fully understand what wikipedia is and is not. The links your recommended were helpful and confirmed my understanding. To your specific points, the section was added due to its significance and high relevance. Google search would give you almost everything under the sun and if this criteria is used, I am not sure how much of Wikipedia would be left. While your many contributions to wikipedia is admirable, I hope the discussion focuses on the merit of the point itself. If it helps, I am happy to provide evidence to prove my credibility. Best regards, Helen Yang Jianhelenyang (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wasn't saying that anything available via Google shouldn't be in Wikipedia; that would be nonsense. My point is that "readers have a right to be informed" is not a good argument for inclusion of material, because there are other ways for readers to be informed. Time will tell whether this becomes anything more than just another lawsuit -- I note that Google News suggests that after the predictable burst of publicity one month ago, coverage has dwindled to practically zero in the last ten days. This event may very well merit its own article, but for the moment it has zero importance in the 400-year history of Harvard. Questions like this are worked out by discussion among interested editors, never by arbitration. EEng (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JHY - Since we can't seem to agree, I suggest to take it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. By the way, it is a federal complaint, not a lawsuit (although there is a closely related lawsuit). The purpose of wikipedia is to provide the most accurate and relevant information, and it is not right for a particular editor to filter out what he or she doesn't want the users to see - this is what I meant by "readers have a right to be informed". If the significance is the point of discussion, we can continue and I am happy to give you some pointers for further study, but Google News coverage at a given point of time is not the only gauge - do you see media coverage everyday about how many presidents come from Harvard? I am going to give you some time to think about it before I put it back. Also wanted to give you the opportunity to initiate the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if you wish; otherwise I will be happy to initiate the process.Jianhelenyang (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(OK, complaint, sorry.) To see that the unusually large number of US presidents who attended Harvard is significant enough for mention in the article doesn't require ongoing news coverage, because there's been literally centuries of that already, not to mention extensive secondary commentary and even entire books. In contrast, this matter seems to have left the headlines, and it's not clear when if ever it will return, or whether anyone will take notice of it again.
When a new editor arrives out of nowhere with the specific (and apparently only) purpose of inserting a certain thing into a certain article, it almost always leads to that person's frustration. The urgency you exhibit seems to stem from a desire to "spread the word", and that's not what Wikipedia is about. See (along with everything else I've point you to) WP:SOAPBOX.
Two different editors have indicated that they don't believe this material belongs in the article, especially as a standalone criticism section, which is almost always a bad idea (WP:CSECTION). Anyway, this isn't the place to be discussing this. I indicated in one of my edit summaries that you should open a discussion on the article's talk page, and you haven't done that, so in a moment I'll transfer this material there. EEng (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must come back and read your user page. And bring a sandwich or two. Very nice to see your work on the Harvard template, the last two days you and some other drifter have made a mess...I mean a fine addition of nuts and bolts of exceptional proportion to the celestial recordings and historical record/ramblings of this previously forlorn map nestled within the world's finest encyclopedia. Yale, eat your heart out (but your turn will come Yale, your turn will come). Randy Kryn11:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to thank you for your Harvard navbox efforts. But as I was adding additional entries I began to think we need a philosophy on what to include and what to leave out, because it's getting way too big. As an easy example, I think there can probably be just one "athletics" entry, linking to Harvard Crimson, from which the user can proceed to all the individual teams and facilities -- I don't think it helps the reader to bloat the navbox with a direct link to every sport. That example's easy, as I said, because the reader looking for Basketball will know that Athletics is the right first step; other such trimming might not be so easy.
Darn, you got serious on me. This goes to the philosophy of template size, I'm of the more-is-better philosophy as long as the links are relevant. These templates, by their nature, provide a map to the pages on Wikipedia. The athletics section, for example, gives the reader an overview of what Harvard offers as its program and instantly shows them where to go without a side trip. Harvard Crimson isn't a name known by the world at large, so some may think that something called the Harvard Crimson is the only athletic program at the University and not bother to seek further. The template is coming close to completeness, so the size is set-in-stone at that point. It seems an appropriate size for the prominence of the subject. How about getting rid of the image (one way to attain much more horizontal space)? That should reduce the template a bit, and make up for the size-additions of the new entries. Wasting time on Yale? Don't let the Yalies hear you! Randy Kryn13:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we made the change re athletics as I'm suggesting, we'd probably have an "Undergraduate life" group, with the Houses and freshman dorms and just a link called "Athletics" taking you to the Harvard Crimson article. There'd also be a link to a list of undergrad activities. List of Harvard College undergraduate organizations -- now there's a bunch of things that certainly can't all be imported into the template.
I don't think it's a matter of space, since it's collapsed, unless it's so big it fills more than a reasonable screen-size. The problem, rather, is that it becomes so dazzlingly big the user can't find anything. Part of the problem is deciding what the template is for. Is it to allow the reader to find a specific item he's looking for? He could use Google for that. Is it to help him browse around Harvard to become familiar with it? Is it just to impress with zillions of links? I guess I realize I don't know the answer. I leave it to you to use your judgment.
Just looked at the Yale template and it does combine the sports into one name, but prefaces it as "Teams":", so that should do it. I'll make that change. That template shows a mascot, I don't know if Harvard has one. Let's see how that looks. Good find on the list. Randy Kryn13:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work. I have to say I prefer some of the Yale navbox's choices better. Also, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to have the main groups be FAS, Law, Medicine, Divinity, Business, KSG, etc., then distribute most stuff to their appropriate home among those. For example, the Law Review would be under Law instead of "publications", which is a jumble now, I think. Each dean would be under his school. And most of all, that giant pile of "Research centers" would be broken up. That still leaves a lot of miscellany that would have to be under "Other" or "University" or something, but I still think this would be better. I'm tempted to sandbox it -- what do you think?
That sounds extremely good. It's your vision, please create it like your envisioning it, it will be fun to see. Sounds very well organized. Randy Kryn18:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, two things: first, I'm not using the different indicators of hierarchy (* vs **, bold, newline breaks within * list) consistently; the distribution of institutes and museums to faculties/schools wasn't as easy as I thought it might be, and even once that's done as well as possible a lot might still belong in the university-level bucket. Would you like to have a go? I'm pooped on this for now. EEng (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just now had a look at the template, very good work! That must have taken a great deal of time and thinking. Will look at it more closely next time I'm on line. You deserve some kind of Crimson award, if I knew how to code better. John Harvard is spinning in his grave (from pride and/or prejudice). Congrats. Randy Kryn14:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that looks excellent! I don't know much about the place yet, but I can offer a couple naïve comments: Should "Harvard College libraries" be listed under the College rather than FAS—or alternatively, should there be a Libraries section with the College's subgrouped? Does the Provost merit an entry? Is there a list of historical provosts somewhere so I can see how many are bluelinkable? Other than that, thanks! It's a big, complicated place, and it can't have been easy to try to wrangle it into this array. FourViolas (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like many old and venerable institutions, Harvard has a body of insider slang and organizational quirks designed to identify and exclude the uninitiated, thereby heightening the sense of mystery and enhancing brand value. The Harvard Law School's library is called the Law School Library, the Harvard Medical School's library is called the Medical School Library (actually Countway Library of Medicine, but the important thing is it's a "Library of Medicine") but the libraries of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences are called, collectively, the Harvard College Library, for historical reasons. Similarly, the primary executive body of Harvard University is called The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Someday when you're older you'll understand; see also [12].
Provosts are a relatively new innovation at Harvard, but the University provost probably belongs. Beyond that, with a few exceptions everything in the template is there just because it was there before; I mostly just juggled stuff around. A lot of it probably shouldn't be there, especially the miscellaneous institutes and suchforth -- Harvard has zillions of those and they can't all be listed, likely not even restricting to the notable ones. (Because of Harvard's sophisticated media machinery almost everything it does ends up being notable.) EEng (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about the intelligibility of the entry. A more productive approach would be to edit the confusing text rather than to write "huh!" I would encourage you to improve upon the current text and remove the "huh".Iss246 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you understand my concern about the intelligibility of
Fundamental science, in contrast to applied science, is defined as a fundamental knowledge it develops.
then you should have understood my tagging that passage with ''{{huh}}'' [13] and, in consequence, should have known better than to revert that tag with the edit summary "removed vandalism" [14]. Certainly had I any idea what that sentence was struggling to express, I would have rewritten it. But I hadn't, so I couldn't, and the ''{{huh}}'' -- which (it just now occurs to me) you may not realize is valid Wikipedia markup for [clarification needed]) -- should stay in hopes some better mind than mine will be attracted to the problem of decrypting not only that particular passage but the entire mishmash of fractured grammar and repetitive vagary which is the surrounding article,
A review of your edits over time suggests you are a valuable contributor who nonetheless has an unfortunate tendency toward labeling as vandalism others' apparently well-meant edits you happen to disagree with or don't understand. I think this is well illustrated in your discussion [15] with another editor about his adding a link somewhere which you found unhelpful; you labeled his addition vandalism, and he or she rightly objected. In the ensuing discussion you wrote
The point is so many people make bad additions to Wikipedia. I like to undo vandalism and generally protect Wikipedia from bad additions. That is not wasting time. You are the one who wastes time with your minutiae. I want to make Wikipedia better. Maybe what you did is not vandalism in the sense that a writer enters a curse word in a Wikipedia entry. But patronizing users does not make Wikipedia better.
When another editor makes what you judge to be a "bad addition" -- indeed does anything not manifestly in bad faith -- it is not only "not vandalism in the sense of adding a curse word" (as you say above), it's not vandalism at all, because WP:VAND defines vandalism as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". So in future, before typing vandalism in an edit summary please be sure this narrow definition actually applies.
I have about 6000 edits. Often I edit and edit and edit until a sentence or paragraph comes out intelligibly. The first editorial change is only a step in the direction of improving the sentence. It often takes several steps. Occasionally I make a bad edit; so what. Who hasn't? The exclamation "Huh" looked like vandalism, and not a technical term. I would not have dreamed it to be a Wikipedia markup. Maybe it isn't vandalism but it looks like vandalism.
I think you had to go searching through my past edits to find the disagreement you came up with in order give me a "gotcha". That is pathetic. That is what a scheming politician does to his or her opponent, searching through reams of statements the opponent made to find a misstatement somewhere in the haystack. I reversed plenty of vandalism in the meantime. Maybe you had the time to comb through 6000 edits to arrive at your "gotcha". And I started at least 20 Wikipedia pages from scratch. But you choose to concentrate on minutiae. It is you with your searching through the haystack to find fault who is the minutiae person. Moreover the issue of your "gotcha", if I can remember it was, from my standpoint, more about patronizing readers than about minutiae. I have done a good deal of constructive work on Wikipedia. I prefer not to comb through your past edits to find a mistake.
I also think it is far better to do one of two things than to write "huh" even if "huh" is a markup: (a) work on improving the sentence, even a little; (b) write in the Talk page to discuss the intelligibility of the text.
The following markup term would be less ambiguous than "huh": [citation needed], a markup term that is more familiar to me, and easily understood by contributors.
Do you honestly not realize that you're digging yourself deeper? The tag {{citation needed}} is not a substitute for {{huh}}, because one renders as [citation needed] (which is not what I meant) and the other as [clarification needed] (which is). My use of it was exactly in keeping with its purpose, and therefore not subject to your review.
In contrast, your labeling of others' well-meant efforts as vandalism is not only offensive but contrary to WP:VAND, and therefore a fair topic of discussion. This is a bad habit you've manifested for a long time -- searching the string vandal in your talk and contributions pages makes this clear in just a minute or two.
That you seem to think this required some great exertion on my part -- that you haven't mastered WP:INDENT[16] -- that you think it's OK (see above) to jump to the conclusion that markup with which you're unfamiliar must be vandalism -- that you insist on posting identical responses in multiple places because you don't grasp how others will otherwise know you've commented [17] -- all suggest that you not only have much still to learn about Wikipedia (we all do) but that you don't realize that you have much still to learn. Since psychology is an interest of yours you should already be familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I've encouraged you -- as others have before -- to give the vandalism accusations a rest, and you have responded -- as you have before -- by contrasting your lofty and rarefied contributions with others' "minutiae". You flatter yourself. No one cares about your 6000 edits and 20 articles (and you especially should stay away from such statistics, given that you needed 16 edits to do this). We each contribute in our own way but since you force the issue, there's some evidence that my work is far from the fluffy minutiae you comfort yourself by imagining it to be: [18][19][20][21].
You're riding for a fall. Stop crying vandalism where it's not clearly warranted.
People do care about starting articles on interesting and relevant topics in psychology. The Dunning-Kruger effect does not apply here.
YES, I needed 16 edits; I am taking on faith your count because I trust that you looked into the matter. My approach is to write and change and write and change. When I look at an edit I entered I am usually not satisfied, and return to it. In fact, it took me 8 edits (uncharacteristically I went back and counted the number of edits) to work on the bit in fundamental science you identified. I did not have the wherewithal to continue with my effort to locate an apt citation although I was on the trail of one; I simply stopped in order to participate in this colloquy. I am still not happy with my edits on the fundamental science entry. I think the entry should have more detail, including examples from, say, physics and mechanical engineering.
I can understand your upset at my having identified the "huh" as vandalism. I'm sorry for that. I did not recognize the term as a marker. I am much more accustomed to the [citation needed] marker because it spells out exactly what is needed.Iss246 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your impersonation of a clueless Wikipedia editor has been mildly enjoyable until now, but the amusement is beginning to wear thin. Nonetheless I'll continue to play along and pretend you actually think what you posted above substantively engages my earlier comments.
Honestly, I would expect someone who teaches graduate-level statistics [22] (which was getting harder and harder for me to believe until I realized it's probably "stats for psych") to steer clear of claims so directly falsifiable by a single numerical datum, to wit 15 -- as in: over the last 30 days, the 20 started-by-you articles average a mere 15 page visits per day per article -- hardly a sign these are articles people "do care about." This is not what I was referring to when I said "Nobody cares about your 6000 edits and 20 articles" -- my point originally was that quality, not quantity, of contribution is what matters -- but then you just had to respond with an unsupported assertion begging to be refuted, didn't you?
Interestingly, although the denial I have determined myself not to be an example of Dunning-Kruger is normally a nullity (because it could just as well be spoken by a D-K sufferer who, by definition, does not realize it, as by someone who genuinely is competent), in the special case of someone who claims expertise in psychology that same denial actually confirms the very thing it attempts to deny -- that is, that the speaker in fact is an example of D-K.
Why? Because a psychologist who doesn't realize that I have determined myself not to be an example of D-K is a nullity clearly doesn't understand an important concept in his own field (D-K), thereby showing himself to be actually suffering from it! Delicious, isn't it?
Adapting from Dr. John H. Watson, M.D., Late Indian Army: Talent instantly recognizes genius, but mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself.
Please learn to indent your comments per WP:INDENT, so that others needn't constantly adjust your posts to keep the thread of discussion clear, as I have had to do for all your posts to date in what you call "this colloquy". (Good SAT word, that, though too bad it doesn't apply here -- you better check a good dictionary before word-dropping it again. It occurs to me that you may have meant it satirically, but since the entirety of your side of the exchange so far may very well be satire -- it's hard to tell -- this would be satire within satire which is just too much for me to untangle.)
Please start using the <preview> button instead of saving zillions of tiny changes, which clutter up revision histories and make it very annoying for others to follow the sequence of changes. You should not be clicking <save> until you've arrived at text which (a) as an absolute minimum, would be OK to leave as the standing version of the page should e.g. you be suddenly called away to some emergency before making further changes, and (b) ideally, is better (more complete, improved references, nothing removed which needs to be added back) than the existing version.
Please stop using edit as an edit summary. To summarize an edit by saying edit is meaningless.
Please review WP:TM. You seem to think [citation needed] is some kind of Swiss Army Knife for inline tagging. It's not. Surely you can appreciate the spectrum running from
{{cn}}=[citation needed]="This needs a source for verification" to
{{clarify}}=[clarification needed]="This seems comprehensible, but deserves to be expressed more clearly" to
{{huh}}=[clarification needed]="I can't even figure out what this is trying to say."
(Although {{clarify}} and {{huh}}) both render as [clarification needed] in what the reader sees, they send usefully different messages to other editors.)
Last, but most important: I appreciate the apology, and hope this is the end of your unwarranted vandalism accusations. A good rule (though not one I can say I always follow -- but then I don't have people taking me to task about inappropriate vandalism charges) might be to never use the word vandalism if there's any other way to express your objection e.g. "rv incomprehensible addition", "rv unsourced dubious claim", "rm over linking".
Fun time's over -- please make your next response a serious one. Or just stop accusing people of vandalism who haven't vandalized. That's the only thing this entire conversation is about, except of course the various smokescreens you keep raising about "minutiae" and so on.
Nice to meet you, EEng. It's always good to find intelligent life at a television-related article. I do see your point about excess detail in the lede, and there's no doubt that for many readers just learning that the sweater is at the Smithsonian will convey the gist of it well enough. However, let's consider those readers who know little or nothing about the Smithsonian. Saying the sweater is "on display at the Smithsonian Institution" is just imprecise enough to mislead to those readers because it implies that the Institution is a place, or at least is associated with a place, when it's actually a government agency that administers a variety of places. One might say with equal validity that a certain sculpture is on display at the National Park Service or that the Pietà is on display at the Roman Catholic Church. Such analogies may seem like a stretch, since it's unlikely anyone would say those things, but that's because they know better; in the case of the Smithsonian, the misconceptions are rampant. In my experience, a large number of Americans, as well as innumerable non-Americans, equate the Smithsonian with a museum or group of museums on the National Mall in Washington, and I think the current wording might perpetuates such misconceptions. I could be wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe your Pieta and Honest Abe examples are comparable -- if you ask a carabinieri (in Italian, of course) for directions to "the Catholic Church" no doubt you'll get a puzzled look, but if you ask a DC denizen "Where's the Smithsonian" he'll point you in the right direction, not deliver a lecture on the ambiguity of your inquiry. It's nice to gently enhance the reader's understanding of such distinctions where possible, but not at the expense of stultification. The lead's P.S.Q. (pedantic stultification quotient) should be kept especically low, and I don't see any way to import the specific location into the lead without it seeming strained. It's in the later photo caption, though, and there it seems fine.
BTW I dislike the term lede as often used by WP editors. it smacks of pretension (present company excepted of course), especially because it's an import from journalism referring to a somewhat different way of structuring an article than is (or should be) used here. EEng (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do have journalism in my checkered past, so I hope you'll forgive my spelling of the word. My rationale nowadays is that avoiding homographs whenever possible precludes ambiguity, even when misunderstanding is unlikely. Eccentric? Probably.
Asked "Where's the Smithsonian", a DC denizen is likely to ask you to clarify exactly what you're looking for. If he fails to do this, the odds of ending up where you meant to go are less than overwhelming. In any event, your most recent edit elegantly sidesteps the pitfall. Nice job. Rivertorch (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of writing -- thus putting aside dance lessons, Der Fuehrer, London dogs-in-the-park-must-be-on admonitions, and your dentist's x-ray apron (oomph! this thing weighs a TON) -- lead is a general term for the opening of any written work. But lede is newspaper jargon (the spelling, they say, to avoid ambiguity between lead = story opening vs. lead = what a clumsy printer's devil might pi -- not sure I buy this) for an opening in the specific style peculiar to newspapers. But newspaper-style leads/ledes are not appropriate for WP articles, and so neither is lede.
BTW, did you see my changes to the, er, lead of Smithsonian?
I not only saw, I commented above. Am I writing in invisible pixels today or did I set it on my Linotype by mistake? (And no, my checkered past does not extend back quite that far, thanks very much). Rivertorch (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not trying to gaslight me, are you? Either I'm losing losing my mind, or you are (losing your mind that is, not mine -- though if you happen to find my mind I'd appreciate its return) -- or maybe both (though let's not push the panic button just yet). I'm talking about this diff (which includes further changes made just now, actually). Now, um, did you refer to that change above somewhere? EEng (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! You typed "Smithsonian" and I read it as "Fred Rogers"—a common mistake, I believe. (Mutters to self: "Now where did I put that mind of mine?) The edit looks spiffy, and so do the subsequent ones. I didn't look too closely. My watchlist groweth long. Rivertorch (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have started to move these too. It is well past my bedtime now and I was interrupted for a little while so I will let you carry on otherwise there will be edit conflicts. We should end up with the definitions in "lift order" (same order as they appear in the display - that is not essential for the mechanism to work but it is another way of making life easy for editors). --Mirokado (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your demonstrating how to do this. I saw it once somewhere but later could not locate how to do it. I won't bother worrying about lift order during move -- too stressful -- but we can always reorder later. Thanks again! EEng (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will be away for a while, so please don't be irritated if I don't respond to further comments re Phineas. Good luck with the article! --Mirokado (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all and please let me know when you're back and ready to tackle all this technical minutiae again. Good luck/vacation/travels/whatever. EEng (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that one of your first actions after "returning" was to contact me, so I'm flattered, but I wonder if you may regret it.
There's an editor who's all over WP "fixing" things and who regularly gets angry messages like this [23].
In early November he made "correcting" the Gage article a crusade. It started here (and yes, I was ANGRY) and went from there. See also [24] ("Chris's abuse of the noticeboards and community discussion pages is longstanding ... pattern of responding to any discussion that does not immediately yield the result he wants by starting a new discussion elsewhere.")
You'll be interested in this... remember those long, detailed discussions we had about formatting innovations [25]? Well, here's the thanks I (we) get: [26] (Seach the page for minefield to see the idiotic accusation -- presumably you're part of this conspiracy too. I know you warned me about being too technically daring, but you never hinted at this rabid foaming at the mouth!)
There's a very good editor who -- I hope -- will soon see the light about what's going on here. [27]. Keep your fingers crossed. I don't expect you to just believe I'm in the right about all this. Once Tryptofish gets back to me I'll be going over all of it with him, and you may want to follow and/or participate in that.
I'm guessing you don't want to get involved with the content battle -- I have no worries about how it will eventually turn out -- but if you don't mind I'd like to contact you when sanity has been restored. I have some new ideas for the reflist.
Better find some low-stress corner of WP to hang out in to compensate for all this.
EEng (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Before I forget... One of the first things you showed me -- and I was enthusiastic about it -- was how to move the notes out of the article body (where they interrup the main text) to the bottom of the article within the reflist. However, it turns out that if you do that, then it messes up calling out "sources" from within "notes". So I had to move the notes all back to the main article. Also, I got fed up with citationbot doing stupid things so I copy-pasted all the cites back to in-article templates. I don't want you to think I reversed some of your ideas just for the hell of it.[reply]
I've been digging around in the archives for a few hours. I've found so many copies and different stories that are not coming up in Macmillan 2000. It's messing with me. Maybe its new information, maybe its junk, but I've found several different dates and details for Gage's history and that of the immediate area... most puzzling is the sideshow matter. Which I think something is off on... and I think you know what I am talking about. Care to fill me in now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I've never thought that you were anything but well-meaning, if terribly, terribly misguided. However, several times I've decided that trying to get you to understand how completely mixed up your ideas are was a hopeless cause. But each time I somehow decided again that maybe you could be saved. Just a minute ago I was about to hit <save> on the most scathing, sarcastic, humiliating denigration of you imaginable, and here comes this post from you. It's a sign, I guess.
I think I may regret this, but nonetheless I'm going to do it... Do you have Skype? If so I'll email you a Skype ID you can call me on. (Or email me yours.) I think things may go better if we talk like actual people, instead of character names in the Wikipedia Multiplayer Roleplaying Game. EEng (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized ... I need to Skype to you because if you Skype to me you'll wake someone else up (long story). So send me either your Skype id or a phone #. What's the worst that can happen? EEng (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Skype. Sorry. Well, this makes all my searching pretty much useless. I did find minor mentions on things all over the place, even tracking down details on the latter Phineas Gage and his life in a somewhat successful attempt to cover the business matter. Nothing concrete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's late anyway, so perhaps another time. I'm confused ... what does the link have to do with your searching? And what "later Phineas Gage" (there are lots of people named Phineas Gage, believe it or not -- some alive today)? What "business matter"? EEng (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The paternal grandfather, Phineas Gage. Found a mention about when he operated the mill and our Phineas Gage would have been about 5 then. Also found his address and some other tidbits. I'm assuming that you know all this though. I couldn't find any mention of it in Macmillan 2000 and I spent some hours searching the Barnum details and ended up finding some minor things before finding what you already know. Or what I assume you already know. I found over two dozen newspaper reports that variously spell his name and give differing details. Perhaps on Thursday we can talk - I am still horrendously sick and I sound terrible with a bug I caught. If I knew where to look, I could make a more productive scan at the libraries, but I don't know if my efforts are needed at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I still a bit confused about why you're calling the paternal grandfather "the later Phineas Gage", but anyway... We have over 10,000 documents somehow related to Gage or his family or people around him or doctors / schoolteachers / ministers in places he might have been, or ... -- mostly dead ends. I used to have it all in my head but lately been concentrating on the South America aspects so my memory is a bit fuzzy on the older research.
Anyway, as I recall Grampa Phineas ran a mill -- there was a court case re a dispute over a mill pond or something. I even have his will. So whatever you're looking at could be stuff I already have, or not. Every little bit helps.
You mentioned "archives" / "library" -- Which? Where? I assume you're using an electronic database of some kind -- which one? I hope you're feeling better. EEng (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "latter" but yeah, bad choice of words. 10k documents. Well that reduces me to probably 0 unique documents. The chroniclingamerica.loc.gov is where I found some odd mentions. One of interest.[28] I found some interesting sketches in a few places that come from the exhibition of the skull, looks like they didn't bookmark right, but I assume you found them. Was interesting because it compared the woodcut to skull side by side. I live west of you, not by much, but I do happen to be in area that was well connected and a bit preserve happy and had a booming trade at the time. It is likely that documents survived and are accessible, my own library while small has a complete set of some rare books including several from the 17th century just lying around. If I know what exactly I'd be looking for, it'd probably help turn up something. If I waited a month to get Macmillan's book, obviously I'm not afraid of a little legwork. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, its the way in which that article is written stands out to me. It takes very faithfully from Harlow, but the date of death is listed as May 18, 1861 which is rather bizarre. Do you happen to have a copy of that Boston Med Journal from April 1869 or that pamphlet? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Googled it, "The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, Volume 80" page 116 and 117 carries this. Now, I'm not great on interpreting this. Perhaps you can enlightening me, as this seems to be an additional statement from Harlow after the 1868 publication. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you've figured out the piece you linked is a reprint of a piece from the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, which however is not (as you say) any later statement from Harlow, but just a review of Harlow (1868) (listed, BTW, here [29]). As often happens the reviewer was in a hurry -- Harlow 1868 says that on May 18 Gage "went home to his mother" and died May 21, but the review gives May 18 as the date of death instead. Stuff like that happens all the time.
Too bad that's not in the rule you cited, nor in any other rule AFAIK. Is this one of those DYK "unwritten rules" we're supposed to absorb by telepathy, or osmosis? EEng (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that glimmer of hope! I was just concerned because at Template talk:Did you know the link for 16 February submissions is highlighted red. In the FAQ it says submissions 8+ days old with unresolved issues may be removed. So I take it that is not the case with my submission? It's still valid and just needs review? I am tempted to do more DYK reviewing homework and start helping with that backlog. — MusikAnimaltalk18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved issues means there's something seriously wrong with the article (too short, copyvio, etc.) and the nominator's been nonresponsive. Even then it's more like 8 weeks than 8 days before the nom would typically be closed. Pay no attention to the coloring of the scoreboard -- obsolete for years. Someone will come along in due course and review -- interesting article. (I'm too distracted to do many reviews myself -- I just fiddle with hooks mostly.) But, actually, doing a couple of reviews is a good way to get the feel of things, so jump right in! If you say, in your review, that you're new at it someone will be happy to come along with you and double check you're doing things right. Welcome! EEng (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop and desist from making any further changes to MOSNUM guidelines related to binary prefixes You do not have any consensus for those changes. You have three editors saying there is no consensus for the change, please listen to them. Fnagaton15:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At [30] all but you agreed to removal -- in no small part because there was no discussion (much less consensus) for adding it in the first place. That you and another mysterious sleeper account keep whining there's no consensus doesn't change that. If you want to reopen the discussion, go ahead.
What's so pathetic is that this isn't even about what the guideline tells editors to do -- we all agree that the guideline should continue to say that IEC prefixes shouldn't be used. But you're obsessed with retaining a functionless side statement that they're "rarely used" in the real world -- a statement that many question and which has no place being a manual of style in the first place. You seem to come out of retirement every few years just and only to push this tiny point [31] and it's ridiculous. Now please keep your complaints on the guideline discussion page, not here. EEng (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong because "21:59, 21 July 2015 Arthur Rubin I don't see a consensus for removal". Also I don't agree to the removal. Also Fnagaton doesn't agree to the removal. You do not have consensus for the change, stop forcing it. You are edit warring without engaging in talking about the change. If you persist I will have to contact the admins.Glider87 (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What AR says in an edit summary isn't binding on the rest of us, and I note he hasn't repeated it (nor repeated the revert) so I suspect he's thought better of it. Your disagreement is of no consequence -- just because you, who participated not at all in the discussion, show up after it's all over and express disagreement, doesn't undo what the rest of us have, with hard work, done. If you want to open a new discussion, do so, but for now the matter is resolved according to what three out of four participating editors agreed, the fourth giving no policy-based reason for dissenting. EEng (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How odd that this issue has suddenly attracted not one but two editors whose entire existence on WP is limited to waking up every few years to press just this one pathetically trivial point [32]. I'd appreciate it if you'd limit your complaints to the guideline's talk page. EEng (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please keep your fractured-English idiocy off my talk page? Casually pinging these two discredited SPAs, obviously hoping they'll come to your assistance elsewhere, is an actual example of the canvassing you've been accusing me of elsewhere. EEng (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is Arthur Rubin's reluctance to accept the consensus. If he intervenes again, I think the tag is needed. If he doesn't, I will do as you suggest. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is AR realizes there is consensus after all, but if he expresses doubt again do not switch to the dubious tag -- that just creates one more thing to argue about. Instead we'll just go back to talk page and handle it there. EEng (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to continue reverting the sock, but AR is a legitimate editor. For now, I will do as you ask, and take it up with him on the talk page if needed. I have to say I admire your patience - mine is wearing thin. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not when they simply repeat press releases, with absolutely no indication of independent reporting of their own. Please keep this to the article's talk page. EEng (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very inappropriate to copy what I wrote to another page without asking me first. Never seen this being done before. We're not allowed to edit others's comments, and that's what it looks like. Please don't do this again.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely appropriate, as long as context is maintained so other will not be somehow misled, and it's done all the time. EEng (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to offend you. This topic of this page is EEng, not Harvard, so I was moving it per WP:TPO#Off-topic posts because I wanted to continue the discussion about Harvard. I did fail to note what I'd done on the HU page—I'll fix that. FourViolas (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bystander comments: Not everything published in a newspaper or on TV news program is a secondary source. News-publishing content varies from primary through tertiary. It is right to consider the underlying sources, among other factors, in making this determination. But by default, news reporting and investigative journalism (as opposed to opinional material, including columns, editorials (except where they contain neutral analysis), op-eds, movie reviews, etc.) are presumptively secondary (though of low-to-middling quality for most purposes, compared to books from reputable academic publishers, and other high-quality sources). Otherwise, WP would just collapse overnight, with millions of source citations being questioned at once. Ergo, it is WP:POINTy to challenge whether a piece of journalism qualifies as secondary, or is otherwise a useful source in the context, without good reason. (That said, there are often enough good reasons.) There's no policy to this effect, it's just WP:COMMONSENSE. The point being, it's probably not productive to get into personality conflicts about why a source was challenged or whether it should be. Try to address the concerns raised by the challenge. If this challenge seems bogus and like it may be POV-skewing attempts, see the reliable sources noticeboard. If there's a widespread pattern of pointless challenges, that's a user behavior issue for ANI. But we assume good faith, so odds are the challenger had an actual concern that should be addressed. Not every issue is legitimate, upon examination, but raising one generally is. Just my take on it, of course. PS: The older journalism sources are, the more likely they are to be treated as primary, too. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of drafting an essay outlining the key provisions of the DATEFORMAT guidelines and their order of priority as I see it, taking into account the comments you and others have made. The draft can be found at:
I would value your input before presenting this to a wider audience. I don't anticipate this becoming a guideline itself, but it would be nice if it had broad support and could be cited to hopefully curtail needless arguments in the future. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but at least it puts my understanding on the record.
Any suggestions on a succinct (non-comical) title would be helpful, too.
I took my usual scalpel to it, and I hope you feel it helped. Feel free to revert or modify. How about DATESUMMARY?
Listen, your opinion would be valued at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Discussion_of_individual_edits_.282.29 (and forward from there -- a bit of a slog I'm afraid). Please comment on the individual edits, if you care to, but more importantly on the question of whether the best way to proceed is to leave the edits in, and modify the few that may be problematic versus discussing every little change in advance. Beyond the 12 changes discussed at the link I just gave, there's all this work [33], which I went ahead with given that none of the "opposition" would engage in any meaningful way on the first 12. I'd very much appreciate your opinion on whether I'm off base in all this. EEng (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your surgery. I've sewn a few patches up so feel free to have a look and see if you think it's a hatchet job.
I'm off right now but will return to the linking discussion, hopefully later today; I'm sure you'll give me a friendly reminder if I forget! —sroc💬02:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have pursued looking into the recent matter of TRM's misrepresentation of other editors on his talk page after seeing it occur again over the last several days. Please don't participate at this juncture, but I wanted to let you know about it. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your noble effort. Just remember to refer this his statements as "recklessly false and blatantly distorted" instead of referring to him a liar. Also (not that I care) I don't consider anything I said here [34] a personal attack. EEng (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand that you didn't mean it as a personal attack, but as a comment on his behavior rather than the issue at hand, it can be interpreted and perceived as an attack. BTW, it's very difficult for mobile users to contact you on your talk page with your page so long. Have you thought about archiving? Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that went well. It's like water off a duck's back with him. As to the size of this page, I never really thought about mobile devices in particular -- I'll think about it, but I do like leaving history out in the open for all to see. EEng (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wonderful if your efforts bear fruit, but I'm not holding my breath. He seems to be one of those editors everyone just accepts as a fixture, nasty behavior included, and that's led him to believe that he has some kind of special role to play. EEng (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it has produced something. Today, he stalked me to several DYK reviews, inappropriately reopened one and then reclosed it, and generally made a nuisance of himself in the most petty, vindictive way possible, essentially saying by this action, "if you point out problems with my behavior again, I will stalk and harass you forever". This is clearly someone who should neither be an admin nor active in any area requiring social interaction. Don't get me wrong. I share many of TRM's ideas for improving the DYK process. But the way he goes about attacking and misrepresenting people, and then stalking their contribs needs to stop immediately. Like I said, some people have very poor social skills and shouldn't be involved in areas requiring interpersonal communication. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you felt that I stalked you but you need to re-read that section of the policy. You see I was reviewing all DYKs in every queue and prep are (as I have done for some time now) and discovered Shetland sheep which was in a very poor way. Worst of all was that the reference citing the hook was dead. I hadn't noticed this until I'd done some considerable tidy-up on the article, but then re-opened the nomination to request the source be fixed. I took a punt on archive.org and lo and behold, I managed to find an archiveurl, I fixed the article and closed the nomination again. I checked a couple of other recently promoted nominations to ensure that there was no systematic issue with checking the source which referenced the hook. That's not stalking I'm afraid. Most importantly to all of this, the nominator of the DYK itself thanked me for my edits, and that is far more important than anything else here. You failed to assume good faith yourself I'm afraid. As for your last sentence, I agree entirely. There are several people who match your description. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the contribution history shows that you specifically and quite deliberately followed me to multiple DYK reviews and articles after I left a warning on your talk page which you deliberately misconstrued as a threat. In the case of Shetland sheep, you engaged in willful disruption by reopening a closed review for no reason. Above, you claim that the article was in a "very poor way". This is false. The article had just undergone a separate and successful GAR and additional copyedits. I don't think you'll find anyone who will agree that the article was in a "very poor way", that's just nonsense. More seriously, you claim that you closed the nomination because "the reference citing the hook was dead". Again, total nonsense. When the review was completed, the citing reference was live. Links go dead all of the time, so this wasn't a valid reason to close the nom. More importantly, the review page stated that the hook was supported by two citations, so you closed a review that you never read for no reason other than to disrupt it because I had reviewed it. So to recap, 1) two sources supported the hook, of which 2) both were live when the review was originally conducted, and 3) just because one of those sources happened to go "dead" one week after the review does not give you the right to re-open it. Sources go dead all of the time after reviews take place, and that doesn't negate the original review based on a reading of the original live link. More to the point, the fact that another source supported the material ("Source 14 also supports that statement") indicates that you re-opened a review that you never read. This is unambiguous, intentional disruption. I can plainly see now why EEng (and apparently others) have accused you of prevarication. You either truly believe what you have written or you are deliberately lying. I'll leave it to others to judge, but you have zero credibility with me now. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I truly believe 100% of what I said. 100%. But since I only respect the opinions of those I respect, your opinion of me is irrelevant. I improved Wikipedia with my edits. I was thanked for them by the nominator. That is all. Have a good weekend, I'll get back to improving articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: you'll continue to stalk editors who disagree with you and disrupt their reviews, and make false allegations about the reviews and the articles, reviews that you refuse to actually read. You had no business re-opening the Shetland sheep review and you absolutely know it. Your nonsensical explanation above is simply more of the same prevarication that others have accused you of in the past. The review took place with the hook supported by two citations. One week after the review, one of the links to one citation went dead. If you had actually read the review you disrupted, you would have known that. But you didn't read it, because your only purpose was to stalk and disrupt a review that had my name on it. It's really clear what happened and you can't wiggle out of it. Again, if you had read the review you would never have re-opened it. But you didn't read it because you were only trying to disrupt DYK's with my name on it. I think it is pretty clear from this incident, the incident with EEng, and the last week's worth of discussion on the DYK talk page where you attacked and misrepresented multiple editors, that you are not improving Wikipedia but disrupting it. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, no translation required. It was exactly as I wrote it. If you think I'm lying, do something about it. The article is much better than it was when I found it. As are many others. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been speaking solely about your actions which involved disrupting a DYK review, not an article. You know that of course, but once again, you avoid the central topic of discussion and attempt to distract and evade. Not exactly the behavior of someone who is being honest, is it? Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As so often happens in these cases the deficit itself prevents him from seeing it. It's a shame, too, because he's clearly competent in other areas. EEng (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking shouldn't be the goal here -- it should be an end to the belittling of other editors. But the general principle of the essay you linked certainly applies here. EEng (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[38] Let's see.. KWW blocks The Rambling Man, Georgewilliamherbert blocks KWW, someone unblocks them both... I was going to take my 5-year-old nephew to the circus, but I think I'll just take him to ANI instead -- it's better than a circus. And how is Philip Seymour Hoffman a BLP??? (I know the answer, actually, but the whole thing is insane.) EEng (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Big deal. I got blocked by a fragile-egoed admin because I called a group of editors "self-satisfied roving enforcers" -- one of whom was the blocking admin himself. [39]EEng (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. You made a series of bold edits at WP:LINK. Many of these edits left out a lot of important material, changed the tone of the guideline, or moreover, changed the meaning of the guideline. As in my first revert[40], I encouraged you to engage in a Talk Page discussion.
Especially for bold policy/guideline changes, it's of the utmost importance to discuss them instead of WP:EW. You could just simply state what are your desired changes, explain your rationale, and see if there is consensus for your changes. Your recent changes, they are not "minor tweaks" to the existing guidelines, but change the tone, meaning, and readability of the stable version.
Mass-discarding the careful work of others is not the way to go either.
Are you really claiming that this edit [41], which moves a bullet point from the General points on linking style section to the Lead section section (with a very slight change of wording) "left out important material, changed the tone of the guideline, or changed the meaning of the guideline"? How?
Articles on technical subjects might demand a higher density of links than general-interest articles, because they are likely to contain more technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context.
from General points on linking style to Overlinking and underlinking? Did that "leave out important material, change the tone of the guideline or change the meaning of the guideline"? If so, how?
Do not create links in order to highlight or draw attention to certain words or ideas in an article. Links should be used to help clarify the meaning of linked words, not to place emphasis on the words.
-- to this --
The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize: do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas.
(which says the same thing in half the words) "leave out important material, change the tone of the guideline or change the meaning of the guideline"? If so, how?
Even if, as you claim, "many" of these edits "left out important material [etc etc and so on and so forth'", that's not all of them, yet you removed all of them. There's now a talk page section on this, so please list there the diffs you feel aren't helpful, saying specifically why. (My edit summaries already why I think they are helpful -- in most cases these are copyedits to reduce bloated verbiage, merges of duplicate statements, and so on.) EEng (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't answer there, just as you haven't answered here. You just keep repeating your refrain that "important stuff" was left out, without pointing to anything specific. EEng (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Besides, you seem to have a wrong idea about the significance of using Edit Summaries. Although necessary (WP:FIES), they do not serve as a tool of debate or negotiation. Please see WP:REVTALK according to which one should avoid "using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. It also says that if you "notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself." Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no edit war. You're obsessed with some rigid protocol you imagine we're supposed to follow. If you want to discuss the edits themselves, fine. If not, fine. But either way, please stop the lectures on how you think Wikipedia works. EEng (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions
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 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.
In the thread between yourself and user:AlbinoFerret that started with a post at 01:01, 7 July 2015 and
ended with your comment at 16:34, 7 July 2015. AlbinoFerret is correct (link)
Please read the last paragraph of WP:CONLEVEL and consider if your defence covers an edit of this magnitude, or if you insist that the revet had been discussed and agreed, then justified in the edits less the revert, or even just the changes on the 12 July.
For example on the 12 of July among the changes you made you changed the names of the redirects to this page, that are displayed as short cuts at the start of the guideline. This is a big issue and usually would be discussed in a section on the talk page before such a change was made. In this case you made the change in a series of consecutive edits without clearly stating in the edit history what you were doing -- which is misleading.
If someone reverts your changes do not press on regardless, you need consensus before you can make changes and a revert implies you do not have consensus. This page -- as are all MOS pages -- is subject to discretionary sanctions:
1.2) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
and then consider a comment by you in a [linked diff you copied to my talk page "A enormous amount of time has been spent attending to your vague and largely unintelligible complaints." with the large edits you have been making to the page. I do not think they meet the standards expected of Wikipedia editors or those laid down by Arbcom in this Arbcom case.
PBS, your analysis is a triumph of superficial formalism over substance.
I didn't (as you say) "change the names of the redirects to this page, that are displayed as short cuts at the start of the guideline." I removed some redundant text and move the two shortcuts that were associated with that text to another part of the page that said the same thing—which happened to be the lead paragraph. This is obvious from the diff itself [47], and there's nothing "misleading" about it. Your accusation is ridiculous.
When I made the first batch of changes, Moxy asked on the talk page, "Why have many of the main point of the subpages deleted? I think having all the main point here is much better then having to run all over to find them." I asked him what he meant, and he responded, "All the main points on linking... the do's and don'ts should be listed. Best not to make our readers have to run around to 12 sub pages just to get the main points on linking." I asked him what he meant by that, and went permanently silent. To this day I have no idea what he was talking about.
Then Albino Ferret pops up "I just looked at the page, it was a very big edit to a guideline page without any discussion. That much change should have had at least a discussion of not an RFC to determine if there was consensus for making it." I asked him, "Do you have anything specific to say about any of [the edits]?", and he, too, went permanently silent.
That leaves GS. For five days he refused to say anything specific at all about the edits. Finally, after much begging, he made a list of largely vague and/or unintelligible comments. (Despite what you say, there's nothing personal about saying that -- his English is good but not great, and he frequently misunderstands the meaning of words.) I gave a detailed explanation for each of his questions, to which his response was to go back and complain about who reverted who, and say there should be an RfC.
Boson then opened a separate little discussion on each edit, just as GS had been ridiculously demanding, and opened each mini-discussion with an analysis of the edit, in each case concluding it was appropriate. GS' response was, as usual, nothing, except to say he wanted an RfC. Two days later, after much more begging, GS did post something to each mini-discussion, in most cases finding (apparently for the first time) that he agreed with them. (Too bad he couldn't have figured this out way back in the beginning.)
In those cases where GS disagreed, I again (now for the second time) gave a detailed explanation, in response to which, as usual, GS said nothing... except of course that he thought there should be an RfC.
Then Tony1 commented that he thought the changes were improvements, and that an RfC was not required. GS' response was to claim, ridiculously, that he still wanted an explanation of the changes (which both Boson and I had supplied -- and I'd done it twice).
In summary, this is a long series of individually small edits, the intent of which is to improve the organization and presentation of the guidelines, not to change anything in its substance; if a change inadvertently did make a substantive change, that should be easy to fix, possibly after some discussion. But the three objecting editors have refused to discuss. Two completely declined to participate at all, and the third (GS) makes a pretense of participating, but in fact simply ignores what the other three of us have said, repeating over and over that there needs to be an RfC. I stand by my statement to GS that "A enormous amount of time has been spent attending to your vague and largely unintelligible complaints", because that's the case.
But he certainly made a good move in forum-shopping his complaint about a so-called edit war—a week ago—to you. I think it's appropriate to quote another admin's stern advice to JS in a somewhat similar situation [48]:
I think it would be best if you went back to focusing on content rather than on other editors, and quickly. Long posts complaining about others like the above are one of the reasons [another editor had restrictions placed on his editing], and you seem to be following in their footsteps.
Too bad you've indulged this bad habit of his, instead of redirecting his efforts to consideration of the actual edits at issue.
EEng (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please also see my comments here [49]. It's one thing to explain stuff like this to Albino Ferret (if I really have to) but it's not amusing when an admin is unclear on such not-so-subtle distinctions.
Even when we disagree about some things, I've gotta say this is great. Notify all the right-wing bigots, the operation they are looking for has been found! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Teenagers don't realize how transparent their psyches are. You may recall my inadvertent suggestion of another potential application of invasive brain surgery, usable right here on Wikipedia. [50]EEng (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... that architect Mihran Mesrobian (pictured), designer of many historically listed buildings, lost fifteen members of his family during the Armenian Genocide? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Similarly, when a lumbermill foreman returned to work soon after a saw cut three inches into his skull from just between the eyes to behind the top of his head, his surgeon (who had removed from this wound "thirty-two pieces of bone, together with considerable sawdust") termed the case "second to none reported, save the famous case of the Wikipedia ArbCom sanctions decree", but apologized that "I cannot well gratify the desire of my professional brethren to possess the editor's skull, until he has no further use for it himself." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wrote a 52-page paper on Trumbauer in high school, so I'm familiar with a lot of the scholarship. The trouble is, I can see both sides of the argument. Paul Cret was appalled when shown the Trumbauer firm's drawings for the Philadelphia Museum of Art—there were 2 style options for decorating the exterior but the interior volumes stayed the same. This went against Cret's whole philosophy of design, but made sense for a businessman like Trumbauer who had to woo clients. I will always have an abiding affection for Trumbauer, especially his Shingle-style buildings. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dust or not, wouldn't it be wonderful if the Roosevelt dining room still existed? And you've got to assume that growing up in such a vibrant physical environment had some effect on Teddy. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first guess is that he would have got yelled at for knocking over the crockery and keeping mice in the drawers. There's a wonderful incident in which TR, after leaving his last meeting as a Harvard Overseer, told a friend that he'd felt "like a bulldog who had strayed into a symposium of perfectly clean, white Persian cats." EEng (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (and thanks for the fixes and categories). But just wait -- it's up for WP:GA and someone's going to say there are too many quotes, and the sentences are too complex, and ... It's incredible how people who can't write have no hesitation in lecturing others on how it's done. (Just in case he's watching, I'm not talking about the reviewer I was working with recently on another article, but rather another editor who intervened.) Anyway, it really is a beautiful and touching story. This will be the 100th anniversary of his graduation and it's just occurred to me that the old alma mater should give some small recognition of that. First I have to track down that letter from the British officer, which appears to have been entirely forgotten. It won't be easy.
Let me ask you, since Trumbauer's your man... how familiar are you with his papers and so on? Are you in a position to look for a few things over the next coupla months? As it happens June is also the 100th for Widener Lib and I'd like to get that article to FA in time for that, though my limited experience with even GA is, as noted, not encouraging. At the same time I may be in a position to help improve the Trumbaer article, at least with respect to his work on Widener. EEng (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used his papers, although I know they're at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. I didn't do any original research, pretty much relied on what had already been written. I met (the late) Alfred Branham, who took me on a walking tour of Trumbauer buildings in Manhattan. And I have Twilight of Splendor and Rev. Frederick Platt's book. The little I know about Widener Library is from what's already been published. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fool! Use the secure channel! I actually did fall asleep in there once and woke up at 1 am. Oh boy do they search you good when that happens. Thanks again for the thorough review. EEng (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[56] -- you might find clicking some of the author links interesting. Last night it was 0F but it's since warmed up to 9F. No end in sight. EEng (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...or even King Kong Pills, Tams, Mazzies, Wobbly Eggs, Knockouts, Norries, Rugby Balls, Ruggers, Terminators, Red & Blue, No-gos, Green Devils, Drunk Pills, Brainwash, Mind Erasers, Neurotrashers, Tem-Tems, Mommys Big Helper and Vitamin T. ShamelessFrank123 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you removed a couple of closing <p> tags that I had added to another user's comment - while I should drop it at this point per WP:TPO, I'd like to point out why I put them there in the first place. The syntax highlighter I use complains about unclosed HTML elements, so I added closing tags. Needless to say, I made only cosmetic changes; those changes also don't interfere with editing the discussion page; and the users whose comments I edited received no notifications as a result. So, I don't see why the tags can't stay. APerson (talk!) 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because people shouldn't have to waste their time looking through changes you've to their posts just to satisfy some hypergeek sytax specification which no one in real life cares about -- particularly on a talk page as opposed to an article. No one in their right mind "encloses" paragraphs in <p> / </p> pairs. EEng (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alakazi: I understood that the closing tag could be omitted, but it's pretty hard to special-case this into the syntax highlighter - hence my fix.
@EEng: As I quite clearly stated, nobody got notified that their own posts were edited. Only the watchers got notified, and VPPR is quite a busy page anyway so it would have been drowned out by the other edits made there. Quoting ROWN, For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. It still isn't clear why you thought the addition of four invisible characters made the posts worse. APerson (talk!) 19:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People do watch pages they're interested in, and especially at high-traffic pages with many watchers and frequent edits, useless edits which do nothing but scratch someone's obsessive-compulsive itch waste large amounts of other editors' time by injecting extra fog and confusion into discussions that are hard enough to follow as it is. If the syntax-checker whatnot thingamajig you're using doesn't work right, then stop using it. ROWN is just someone's musing, but TPO is an actual guideline: do not fuck with others' comments without very good reason. Got it? EEng (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a closing tag may be required for proper functioning, depending on what follows the paragraph. (I didn't look at the specific edit being discussed to see if the tag was necessary; this is more of a "yes, some people in their right mind do have to enclose paragraphs in <p> / </p> pairs" kind of note.) I believe it used to work fine without it, but I noticed in September 2014 that it no longer did. Since then, using a <p> without a </p> causes all following paragraphs to be clumped together into one (again, assuming there's no other markup to alter the behavior), even when they're separated by blank lines.
Look at the following:
First paragraph.<p>Second paragraph.
Third paragraph.
Fourth paragraph.
{{-}}
You would think this would produce four distinct paragraphs, but without a </p>, here's what's actually produced:
First paragraph.
Second paragraph.
Third paragraph.
Fourth paragraph.
I've tested this in Chrome, Firefox, and Safari, and all three show a single-phrase paragraph followed by one paragraph containing the next three phrases. Ever since I discovered this issue, I've abandoned <p>, instead substituting {{pb}} to break my paragraphs. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM22:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that in the Koto Okubo AfD, myself and other users have been tagged as single-purpose accounts by you, even though some users clearly aren't, while other users who clearly are have not been tagged. Conveniently you haven't tagged people who are in agreement with you. An explanation? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. I might have overlooked him because of someone calling him "not a WOP" just after his comment. Corrected now. EEng (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny to see you on the other side of this debate lol. Seems like you found the one independently notable person and it gets swallowed up in the mass of AFD listings. I've offered a middle ground (one that every supercentarian article, even the deleted ones should consider). I've found a source for the sculpture here but it's not a reliable source. The artists' page doesn't have her listing there either but it can be found in this book. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what the fanboys might think I'm intellectually honest. Based on the talkpage discussion it seem like there may be sources not yet in the article, so why not wait? EEng (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep instead as I did find an actual source. The point of waiting is that's why the fanboys argue for every article: there possibly exists sources so wait and let them be found. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Now we have to wait for someone to come along and do the review. It can't be me, because I suggested one of the hooks. EEng09:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
…for the good back and forth at the Finals club page. Have a look at my User page to see if we have any further affinities. I could certainly use your sense of humour. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript. An endearing, and beloved Christmas gift to this old Prof and editor, is a mug of the bard's best, which unreservedly violates WP:Absit Inuria, a favorites of which are the sentiment, that "I do desire we may be better strangers," and the diagnosis of our fellows having "not so much brain as earwax" (apologies, in this rush, without act and verse). Cheers again. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A word of advice: Once you've escaped with your life from an ANI thread (i.e. it's been archived with no action), you tempt fate -- really -- by drawing attention to it again by commenting in the archive. The best thing that can happen in that case is absolutely nothing -- nobody cares -- and the worst thing is you can upset the hornets' nest again. Please take my advice and never do that again.
"FTR MOS isn't an article so is not subject to its own provisions, and further is a Br/ EnglishAm English Ecumenical Zone -- we vary date fmts, spelling, etc. so everyone feels welcome."
Yes, I know. That said, there are several editors who are constantly gnoming the MOS to make it internally consistent stylistically, and to subtly express their own stylistic preferences.
The provision in question was making the distinction between MDY date formatting in North America, and DMY date formatting most everywhere else. If you follow the edit history, the "correction" immediately prior to my original edit included a lot of language and clarified very little. I inserted examples, which are probably the clearest way of defining the two date styles without resorting to long-winded descriptions. My original clarification used "United States" (equally acceptable everywhere per WP:COMMONALITY), and it was changed to "U S", oddly citing WP:US, not the actual MOS provision, WP:U.S.. Yes, the correction used non-American style choices in the American date style example. Kinda odd, don't you think, especially when WP:U.S. was improperly cited as authority for doing so?
While I recognize that we are trying to make MOS a welcoming "ecumenical zone", it would be nice if we could be stylistically consistent within the same sentence when we are discussing a particular national style choice. And, yes, it is a small thing, hardly worth discussing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost track of who did what in which edit, linking which shortcut, and anyway I don't care. I'm happy with the final result as it is, as least for now. EEng (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember when royals had jesters and dwarfs who were allowed to speak the truth -- make jokes at the monarch's expense -- with impunity? That's you. EEng (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, nice job cleaning up my initial, humble effort at reporting the newly discovered Daguerreotype. The LA Times has also reported the discovery, available on their website. I have a copy of the journal article if you'd like to see it. The discovery caused quite a stir on 16 July 2009. The discoverer's website was overwhelmed and they quickly upgraded to a better server. Their experience is reported on their Flickr page.Danaxtell (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been expanding the lobotomy entry a little bit and, as it's really the first wikipedia entry that I've done and I see that you've done some editing of the page previously, I was wondering if you could perhaps have look over the page to see if the changes that I've introduced so far are ok? Thanks Freekra (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some commentary on Talk which I hope you'll consider constructive. I've got some deadlines over the next 4 weeks so I won't be able to do much more than cormment for now, however. But keep at it, please. EEng (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain to me what needs to be done I have given up and asked someone else to pick up where I left off when it comes to placing Mr. McCreary into history for all of his accomplishment.... Your time was very much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dapub12 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I asked you for some advice, but hey, you couldn't be bothered to do that. Just deleted the request. I'm guessing this is what Wikipedia is like - unhelpful people who delight in being obstructive. You know, I think there are better places to be on the web. Can't really trust anything on here now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WyrmUK (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I transferred your query to the article's talk page, where everyone interested could see it and participate, and answered it there. The basic thrust, however, was that you seem to misunderstand the concept of notability as it's used on Wikipedia. Basically, no matter how competent a firm is and valued by its customers, it there are no significant, independent, third-party sources that have said anything about it, there's no way there can be an article on it, even if it's indeed notable.
Unfortunately your query, and my answer, are invisible now because they evaporated along with the article when the article was deleted. Once an article goes into the deletion-debate process, you have to keep tabs on what's going on or when you come back it may be gone. Where an article is of significant length and perhaps can be saved through extensive rewrite, you can write to an admin (I forget just how) and ask for the old raw text back so you can work on it privately to add notability evidence and so on, then restore the article. But I don't think that makes sense in this case.
I'm sorry your early experience here wasn't pleasant. But when people talk about this or that policy, such as for notability, you have to take the time to read the applicable policy so you can participate effectively in the discussion. (And in the present case, you have to check back soon enough that the debate isn't over, and the article deleted, by the next time you show up.) Just saying over and over that a company must be notable because otherwise a customer wouldn't associate itself with that company isn't going to work. EEng (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have done a translation from Spanish to English of the reference for the above article. I am unable, through inexperience, to place it within the article references but I have left it to be copied and pasted on the 'request for translation' page. Best. Richard Avery (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. This is exactly the kind of collaboration and pooling of talents that makes Wikipedia such a wonderful experiment. EEng (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the following as a reason to believe "white supremacists" was the rumor and not just "whites".
The black community in Lansing disputed the cause of death, believing there was circumstantial evidence of assault. His family had frequently been harassed by the Black Legion, a white supremacist group that his father accused of burning down their home in 1929. Some blacks believed the Black Legion was responsible for Earl Little's death. One of the adults at the funeral told eight-year-old Philbert Little that his father had been hit from behind and shoved under the streetcar.[15]
for rescuing the formatting of my recent post at WT:MoS 16:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC) This comment by editor Kevin McE, who has somehow figured a way to timestamp his post without his name appearing -- neat trick!
You're very kind, in light of the quality of the rescue effort -- start with [57] and follow "Next edit" from there a few times to see what I mean. EEng (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the conversation here, where there might be fewer eavesdroppers than on my own page. I am sorry you have had to resort to "shouting" to elicit a response from me. My long silence is certainly not because of anything you said. Other responsibilities, general overload and frequent crises preclude my doing much more than dabble in editing on WP for now. A more constant and concentrated collaboration remains a distant hope. Thank you for understanding, and please do feel appreciated, jokes and all (or perhaps especially).
An interest in the Cavendish area helped bring me to the Phineas Gage article long before I was aware of your connection with it. I always regarded it as a thoroughgoing, well-organized, high quality job, in addition to telling a remarkable story. Cheers for now, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left without saying anything due to personal reasons and also a lot of burnt out sensation. Right now I am not really sure if I will stay for long or this will be only temporal until I fix a bit the multiple sclerosis article. Nevertheless to hear from a lot of people that still remember me has been a great experience of coming back. I am sure many things will have changed here in wikipedia and the med-project in all this time. I will try to catch up and ask for help if needed...--Garrondo (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were very much missed; I had the awful idea you'd been hit by a car or something. Sounds like it would be best if you just stuck narrowly to the MS article so as to not let yourself get overburdened at first. Feel free to ask for help. EEng (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.
Article improvement tags are properly removed when they don't apply in the first place, and I note that, with essentially no changes to the article, they have been repeatedly removed by other editors. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pitching in at the MOS. I can see what you're getting at in terms of the examples being rendered to the reader. Nevertheless, it is a source of confusion for any editor who looks at the wikitext and sees bad examples. It's not such a big deal that I would argue with you over the issue, but if all you want to do is avoid bad breaks in the presentation, then I'd strongly recommend the use of {{nowrap}} in this case, because that won't confuse editors about when to put non-breaking spaces between numerals and their units. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, if you check the edit history for the past 6 months you'll see I'm the primary architect of much of the format in which most of that page is presented. I say that not to assert ownership, rather as a shorthand way to drive home that I'm very, very well stepped -- too well, as my battlescars attest -- in the ins and outs of MOS' "wheels within wheels", as I put it earlier.
The source text of MOS itself is unavoidably rated either R or NC-17, if you get my drift -- no children allowed. There's no way around that.
Anyway, it's not inconsistent to have additional nbsps beyond those prescribed -- one can always add them where there's a risk of a bad break. The examples MOS gives are often hard enough to grasp without a stray bit hanging over a line break.
And neither is it inconsistent to omit nbsp where the known width of a table column obviates it. Certainly impotent nbsps shouldn't be included just for consistency, when their only effect is to make these examples-within-plainlist-within-tables-with-colspan even more exasperating to maintain.
nobreak has certain advantages over nbsp -- for one thing, on at least some browsers nbsp locally defeats proportional spacing. However, where only two items are involved, an nbsp between them, to "bind" them, is visually and syntactically far easier to digest than a surrounding nobreak. IMO, of course.
And to give you some context, I've got the scars of struggling to make MOS useable dating back to WP:ARBDATE in 2009. That's not to make this a pissing contest, but so that you understand I'm not some n00b who has just wandered in with no idea of the way in which the MOS is constructed. You may have noticed my proposal at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers #Nbsp only before symbols? (Eg, not for before byte?), or perhaps not. In any case, my suggestion has been awaiting comment on the talk page for a while. This is a wiki that anyone can edit - or at least view the source code - and there's certainly no getting around that, so the R rating does nothing to stop any script-kiddie from seeing what's under the hood and cobbling together some inappropriate replacements in AWB for them to spam across 360 articles an hour. Trying to get the wiki-text in the examples to match best practice is my small contribution to obviating that sort of problem. I sympathise with you in trying to maintain the MOS, but I hope you can see that the maintainer is not going to be the only person looking at that wikitext. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing nbsp everywhere MOS doesn't specifically prescribe isn't best practice. Best practice is helping the layout look good and be easy on the reader's eyes. I don't think you're a noob but I do think you're preoccupied with a non-issue. This is very much like the guy who, a few months ago, wanted a rule that MOS should use British rather than American spellings of metric (or, if you insist, SI) units such as liter/litre -- rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. EEng (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a peep. I can't understand it. Listen, I'm serious. If you think there's even half a chance of getting the hook DYK ... that Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators were abruptly withdrawn after the FDA clamped down on them? through the process successfully, then let's write the article.
In the meantime, do you have any acquaintance with this music-hall comedy duo, and if so, any recommendations on how to get their blood pressure down? See [58] et seq. -- they're like The Rambling Man but without the intelligence. EEng (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC) I just realized that I've run into one of them before [59] -- so angry it's impossible to tell what he's angry about.[reply]
Listen you two, you've now way exceeded my safe daily exposure level of Briticism. Either switch to American mode or quiet yourselves for 24 hr. EEng (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for butchering my DYK hook and then labelling the one I proposed as "highschool-ish". Your arrogance reeks – especially when you speak before you think, because the last time I checked, your usage of phrases like "after is was discovered" and "identical to the that of Haiti" is incorrect. Unfortunately, your latter error actually made it onto the main page – quite ironic for someone who has dedicated their entire WP existence to picking out DYK errors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are wondering, B is complaining about the change from
Ah yes, I see now (underlined above). It's a good example of (a) how hard it is to maintain vigilance against minor errors like that (stray articles and so on) in one's own writing; (b) that hooks once approved should probably sit around for a prescribed amount of time, to avoid last-minute errors. Luckily other editors caught these quickly. While every error is painful, I'd hardly call this a "butchering" -- more like a skip of the knife. EEng (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure which hook you thought had it spelt wrongly so I corrected them all:
... that, although buried in Tutankhamun's tomb, the Head of the Millionaire(pictured) does not appear in excavation records and was found only later, in a box of wine bottles?
Since it's the first time I see thumbs in infobox and someone to defend them, can you please elaborate a bit about it? there is an extra frame shown right in the page. Infobox person usually expects plain filename and not a template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I explained this in my edit summary: [62] i.e. WP:IMGSIZE provides that "syntax such as 300px simply sets a fixed image width, ignoring the user's base preference. In general, do not do this without very good reason; upright=scaling factor is preferred wherever sensible." It may be that some infoboxes allow this guideline to be met without embedding a thumbnail, but unfortunately infobox implementations are very inconsistent and this is the only way I know of that works universally; if you know of some other way by all means swap it in.
Now I have a question for you: what makes you think it's OK to remove something twice on the sole basis that you haven't seen anything like it before, especially since after the first removal its presence was carefully explained to you? EEng (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was perfectly clear and pointed you to WP:IMGSIZE, which explains clearly why upright should be used instead of px unless there's a good reason to the contrary. Your "another approach" was trying to do both at once, which is impossible and makes no sense at all. EEng (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider some of your edits (and edit summaries) non-productive and uncivil. Please respect other users and do not alter their comments. I also kindly suggest you to move your MOS change proposal to a separate topic, so that we can discuss it separately from the original question about the template. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I hope you perceive already in the comments of others since you posted here, absolutely no one agrees with you on this. It's the MOSNUM discussion page and we're discussing MOSNUM. EEng (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I surely see that some people are more interested in your proposal than in the original specific question. So I decided to split the topics (commenting out our discussion). I hope, you do not have objections against that. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that it was sincere. By the way, I'm a fish, not a saint, although I am doubtless trying, and have been told so many times by people who know me well. Don't think of it as indulgence, just as getting along with the general public. After all, this is Wikipedia, where even Randy from Boise may edit, and getting people pissed off at oneself is a much bigger waste of time than is simply holding one's tongue. (Your suggested ice cream flavor nearly sent me to the malfunctioningthose facilities. And they cannot take it out through the door.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how carefully you read the various footnotes but no malfunction -- the only toilets in the entire building, apparently, were at the Mass Ave entrance and somewhere near the main reading room. I've read much of the correspondence between the Titanic and Widener's dedication and it's amazing how intimate an operation was the design of the building. Basically Pres. Lowell and librarian Coolidge and Mrs. Widener and Mrs. Widener's architects worked out all the plans among themselves right down to the light fixtures in the stacks and the radiator valves. No committees, no signoffs, nuttin. The whole thing was designed in maybe 4 months. Another amusing thread is the combination of begging, flattery, threats, and horse-trading employed in scaring up temporary shelving for 600,000 books, between Gore's demolition and Widener's completion, in every possible nook and cranny of the university. EEng (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eleanor Elkins Widener. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
You appear to be part of a WP:TAGTEAM#Tag_team_characteristics, specifically in the sense of two editors (for now -- I expect more will arrive shortly out of nowhere per the gnome grapevine) "Working together to circumvent the three revert rule". It's not my job to fix your others' tools, and editors don't have to put up with their time being wasted by tools that break things while attempting to make "fixes" of little or no value in the first place. As recently as a week ago [64] AWB make one of its usual boneheaded fixes, and I have no reason to believe "all issues have been addressed", as your fellow tagteamer claimed. The bots deny template is there for a reason, and this is a reason. Why don't you go do good elsewhere on the project? EEng (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my involvement with RSNs and RSN board. I remove unreliable sources wherever I see them. "titanic-titanic dot com" has been used on E.E. Widener, I was going to remove that inflammatory source but before I could, I failed twice as this page was having edit conflicts. I have never used a automated tool, those who do, they mostly edit those pages about which they have no idea, that means none of the content is going to be harmed. There's no proof that I have been favorable to these bots or their operator. I don't even know any of them except Bgbot19 and you are edit warring over a useless tag. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My abject apologies. I've had numerous bad experiences with packs of these "fixers" tagteaming to assert utterly useless, and often format-breaking, changes, to maintain their OCD view of a "tidy" Wikipedia. It was finally suggested to me to use bots deny to avoid such trouble but, apparently, these types can't stand any threat to their hegemony and so want to remove that too. You had the bad luck to walk in on that, and I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Again, sorry.
I appreciate your attention to sourcing in the article. You may have noticed that I indicated my own concerns about titanic-titanic.com via the [better source needed] tag. It's used to support three points: that the valet perished, her burial place, and one of the two uncertain birthdates for her, and I think it's OK to leave those until better sources are found for those. This not being a BLP, and these statements being non-contentious, I think they could stay quite a while even tagged just [citation needed], so I figure that citing a weak source (with [better source needed]) at least gives someone (like you?) a place to start finding a RS that can be substituted. EEng (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that much, really, after seven years. I have a kind of "warts-and-all" philosophy, under which people should be presented with both my sterling moments of idea collaboration, and the times I was a goddam jerk. That way they know what they're dealing with. EEng (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, but it seems like there ought to be be a better hook in there -- something like "Paradise has been condemned" or "Paradist is going to hell", but I'm drawing a blank. EEng (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I would be pleased to propose that, but that would DSQ me as a reviewer. And it was like Herding cats to get this article up to speed and give it that tick. Maybe you or User:Gerda Arendt can propose it? Since the article would support the hook (that wouldn't evaporate), it would not involve getting another reviewer. And I could just approve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎)13:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fir enough - I stand corrected. The ISQ is not the international standard, but it's still a pretty important one, and you will be hard pushed to find a modern national or international standard that conflicts with the ISQ advice in this regard. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for putting up with my lecture. Having completed my undergraduate studies, my research impulses need other outlets. You happened to be the lucky winner to trigger one of my professorial episodes. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. Please do not continue to engage on talking on Lockley's talk page, thank you. (This was sent from my iPhone, sorry for any errors) Binko71100 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Please stop introducing jokes into articles/talk pages. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles/user and talk pages may lead to you being blocked from editing or lead to other consequences. Sorry if this warning template didn't make sense, but this is for your yet continuing improper/rude humor, not for anything having to do with redirects and such. Binko71100 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I do see your point about excess detail in the lede, and there's no doubt that for many readers just learning that the sweater is at the Smithsonian will convey the gist of it well enough. However, let's consider those readers who know little or nothing about the Smithsonian. Saying the sweater is "on display at the Smithsonian Institution" is just imprecise enough to mislead to those readers because it implies that the Institution is a place, or at least is associated with a place, when it's actually a government agency that administers a variety of places. One might say with equal validity that a certain sculpture is on display at the National Park Service or that the Pietà is on display at the Roman Catholic Church. Such analogies may seem like a stretch, since it's unlikely anyone would say those things, but that's because they know better; in the case of the Smithsonian, the misconceptions are rampant. In my experience, a large number of Americans, as well as innumerable non-Americans, equate the Smithsonian with a museum or group of museums on the National Mall in Washington, and I think the current wording might perpetuates such misconceptions. I could be wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Izno (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Eman235/talk 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
_(7055853255).jpg)
-en.jpg){kind=link}
