User talk:EEng/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Template:Did you know nominations/1960 Laotian coups

Hello,

Your contributions while reviewing the above were most welcome. Will you be returning to this nomination to complete the review?

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My role at DYK has pretty much settled into copyediting hooks and just adding commonsense commentary where something jumps out at me. That turns out to take a lot of time, so I mostly leave the formal reviewing to others. At least, that's the excuse I use. I'm glad you found my interference helpful. EEng (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Most ballets

are performed by ballet dancers, right. Let me learn: do dancers "play"? It would not work in German, and I seriously don't know. Can't say "Ray Barra was Romeo", nor "performed Romeo", nor "danced Romeo", no? I tried to avoid a clumsy "the part of Romeo". Perhaps we can drop "ballet" in "narrative ballet"? - If you look at an image in a source, - he was Romeo ;) - Once I am here: I need a review for Missa Dona nobis pacem badly! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Dancers "perform" or "dance". For roles, there are two standard formulas I know of:

• "Barra danced 'Romeo' [in Cranko's Romeo and Juliet]." (more common in ballet circles, and when readers are expected to recognize characters' names quickly)
• "Barra performed the role of 'Romeo' in Cranko's Romeo and Juliet." (more encyclopedic, but wordy)

It's also possible in formal contexts to talk about "interpreting a role," and at least in oral conversation nobody will criticize "he was Romeo in Cranko's version."

Thanks for Ray Barra, it looks very good! Wish I had time to teach myself how to GA review DNP. FourViolas (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, for language and review! (Not GA, only DYK, and EEng did it!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Translation

Hello EEng,

There are a number of interesting articles in the French and German versions of Wikipedia that do not exist in the English version. I would like to translate some of them. Is it possible? If it is, could you tell me how I should proceed?

Thanks. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Examen Intelligentia, glad to hear from you. That is a very valuable service for the project, though there are some special difficulties, especially that the Wikipedia in each language has its own rules on sourcing and notability, so that adjustments may be needed in bringing the article across. However, if you have the translating skills, don't let that worry you -- perhaps we can team you up with someone who will look at these other issues after you translate.

I'm traveling now and won't be home until next week, so please be patient while I think how to proceed. By the way, how do you feel about translating from English into another language? I'll be in touch next week. EEng (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to help. To answer your question, I would very much like translating articles from English into other languages (mainly French and Spanish). I would be happy to receive any suggestion. I also have an interest in the Mesolithic cultures of central Asia. Some have no article devoted to them in any version of Wikipedia, and I would like to write about them. However, that would represent a non-negligible investment of time and I would like to know if this project would be of interest to Wikipedia before I get started. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, Examen Intelligentia, I'm back. Since you seem to be a new editor (new on the English Wikipedia, at least) and this can be an intimidating place, I figure I'd hold your hand a little to help make your first experience here a rewarding one. (There will be plenty of opportunity for unrewarding experiences later -- trust me.) To start, do you have an article in mind? Please give the url of the source article in the foreign-language Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, take a look at WP:Translation#How_to_translate. EEng (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,EEng. "Jules Lefèvre-Deumier". is the first article I would like to translate. It is short and therefore suited for a first trial. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Examen Intelligentia (talk • contribs)

OK, I did a quick check and (although there are no explicit sources in the French version) the subject appears to be notable by English Wikipedia standards. I've copied the French version to your sandbox, which you can reach via the "Sandbox" link at the upper right of any Wikipedia page, once you're logged in. So get translating! When you're done, let me know and I'll take a look. EEng (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you EEng. The article is very short and lacks information relevant to his biography. For example, his staunch opposition to the death penalty is not sufficiently underlined. Can I feel free to expand the text by adding information that I deem appropriate? I would of course provide sources. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Now, the formatting of source citations can be a bit intimidating. If you aren't familiar with the technicalities, just do it like this for now:

John Smith was a pioneering circus owner. (Jones, Pioneers of the Circus, 1953, p. 222) He thought elephants were fun. (Smith, Elephants through history, 1977, p. 42) But his success was limited by his hatred of clowns, acrobats, animal trainers, and the public in general. (Smith, p. 227)

I'll come in later and recast the cites in one of the accepted forms, and so you'll see how it's done. EEng (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

EEng, I forgot to say that I left a first draft of the translation on my sandbox. Much still remains to be done. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Don't overlook that the titles of his works need translating too. EEng (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello EEng. I see that you have moved the article from my sandbox to Wikipedia's main body. I thank you for that, but it may have been a little premature since the article was by no means finished. I wanted to make a number of additions and provide sources. Well, I suppose I can do that by editing the article. One other thing; your username appears as the page creator. You will think I am vain but, since it is my first contribution, I would like to have mine instead. Could you make the changes? Examen Intelligentia (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't think about the "creator credit" -- if this can be fixed it will require admin tools, so paging Drmies to see if anything can be done. As for the article not being "finished", don't worry about that. Keep working on it as you like, and other editors will drop in from time to time to make their own contributions. For example, you'll notice I translated the title of the first entry in the "Publications" list, but I'm not sure if the formatting's right. If not, sooner or later someone will drop by and conform it to WP:Manual of Style standards. That's the beauty of Wikipedia collaboration. Keep up the good work -- you're doing great. EEng (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You asked me recently if I was interested in translating from English into another language. Do you have an article in mind? Examen Intelligentia (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You may regret having offered: my pet article, Phineas Gage. EEng (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Call me stupid, but I don't know how to link an article to its friend in another wiki anymore. Site id? Sitelink? Did they change the engine on Wikidata? I liked the old one better. OK, I see it. As far as I'm concerned, translated titles aren't necessary; if they're added they should be in parentheses. The creator name, I can't change that. The only thing we can do is for you to copy it to your user space, then delete the existing one, then move it back into userspace. A bit cumbersome but not impossible. Clicking on the first version (EEng's copy) now will show it to be French, and clicking on your "first draft" version will show that you in fact made the translation, but yeah, it won't show up under your creations. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The old in-article interlanguage links have been supplanted by Wikidata QRX-super-duper-intergalactic something-or-others -- see Help:Interlanguage_links#Wikidata for how to add links to the mysterious "central data repository" (the Orwellian term by which Wikidata sometimes refers to itself). EEng (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, E.I., if you want you might start a little "Articles I've translated" list on User:Examen Intelligentia. EEng (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, add the title like EEng did. Only thing I would do different is I'd translate the title but not put it in italics, since it's a translation of the title, not the title of a translation. But I'm picky. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Don't worry about the creator credit, it doesn't matter. As for Phineas Gage, I agree with you that it is an interesting article. However, it already exists in all languages I know and many more that I don't know. Instead, I will translate Syzygy (mathematics). It's an important concept in mathematics which, strangely enough, does not have an article in the French Wikipedia. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it's woefully inadequate. Not to press, but if you could bring across the following 11 paragraphs from the English version, that would be fantastic:

• first paragraph of "Accident";
• last paragraph of "Chile and California";
• first paragraph of "Death and Exhumation";
• first 3 paragraphs of "First-hand reports of mental changes" (through "he was 'no longer Gage' ");
• "Later observations" (2 paragraphs)
• "Exaggeration and distortion of mental changes" (3 paragraphs).

Again, I hope you don't mind my asking, but I've been wondering for a long time how to deal with the versions of the article in other languages, and you seem like the right person, if you don't mind my saying. If you do the text, I'll insert the citations. C'mon -- it'll be fun! EEng (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll translate the paragraphs you mention. I can translate into French, Spanish and German. I would prefer French, since I am a native speaker. Could you copy the article to my sandbox? And, please, could you explain to me how you do it, so that I won't need to bother you each time I translate an article? Examen Intelligentia (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My goodness, I'm glad I ran into you. There's no trick to using the sandbox, but there are some technical things about how to give proper attribution to the source version of the article which I just don't feel like explaining right now (been a long week). I've set up the Syzygy text in your sandbox. Why don't you work on that and when you feel it's ready I'll explain how to transfer it over to fr.wikipedia in the appropriate way -- and so that you get creation credit! Meanwhile, I'll patch together the bits of Gage article for you to translate. I really appreciate your being willing to do that. EEng (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I will create the Syzygy article on fr.wikipedia rather than translate it. I am not completely satisfied with the existing version. It is too short, almost no mention is made of David Hilbert and, unless you are a specialist, you will have a hard time understanding why he introduced this concept in the first place. As for the Gage article, I'll start translating as soon as you have the text ready. By the way, I hope you will excuse my curiosity, but what got you interested in that article, are you interested in neuroscience in general or do you just find the man's weird story fascinating? Examen Intelligentia (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

EEng, I have somewhat expanded Jules Lefèvre-Deumier, could you have a look? My main source is [1]. However, I don't know if I can link to it due to copyright considerations. Your opinion would be welcome. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Since it's hosted on the official website of the university where it was published, there's no reason to think it's a copyvio. I've added a formal cite [2]. I just guessed at the specific page ranges but you'll see how to change that. I should say that the specific syntax I use for cites is not what you see in most articles, but I find it disciplined and elegant, and it's compatible with the usual <ref></ref> syntax if others come along and want to add their own cites the usual way. If you find citations intimidating you can simply type them in parentheses right in the article text at the appropriate point, then ask me to come behind you and cast them in formal form. Pretty soon you'll get the hang of it.

While he has nothing to do with my professional work, Gage is sort of a hobby for me, though a very serious one -- see User:EEng#My_special_research_interest. I fell into it by accident years ago. I've almost got the text ready for translation, but not quite. I'll let you know (and thanks again for being willing). EEng (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Salut EEng, je n'ai pas oublié la traduction de Phineas Gage que je t'ai promise. Fais-moi signe dès que tu auras quelque chose de prêt à traduire. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hi again, EEng. I haven't the slightest idea why my last post was in French, I must be very tired. Also, I just wanted to say that if you have anything ready, I can translate it this week-end. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I have one more step to do, which is to convert the citations to a format acceptable on fr.wp. Then it will be ready for you to apply your magic. I'll try to finish that by tonight, but if not it may be Saturday morning. EEng (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, Examen Intelligentia... Whew! A lot of work converting the templates and citations -- hope I got everything right. It's in [3]. I tend to write rather complex sentences, so feel free to do whatever's needed to put it in appropriate tone and style for French. When it's ready to "go live", copy-paste it to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage with an edit summary reading "Text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage translated into French" (except say that in French!). Of course, contact me with any questions.

One more time: T-H-A-N-K Y-O-U-! EEng (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you EEng, and sorry for taking such a long time to reply. I have just been given a difficult job to complete within a short deadline. But I am not forgetting you. I will start translating as soon as possible. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Examen Intelligentia, please don't apologize. Take your time. EEng (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New example

Regarding this comment: I'm not sure why you haven't responded to my numerous requests that we do exactly that and find a different example. The extended back-and-forth that has been going on is precisely what I was hoping to avoid. Unfortunately various participants seem to think that a new example will somehow reverse existing precedent established over the years through notability discussions on different articles. Although this is not the case, the absence of this particular example won't invalidate years of discussion on its applicability, either. So looking for an example which won't require so much time negotiating is, I believe, the simplest course. Note there is no need for you to send me a talkback message. isaacl (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't attempted to craft a new example because there are apparently subtleties to notability policy that I don't appreciate. (I've got a bad case pf sciatica just now so maybe I'm just not trying hard enough.) I'm just trying to facilitate the conversation. Why don't you suggest a substitute? EEng (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, James clearly has wandered into a discussion where he has little or no understanding of the relevant concepts, history or established precedents. Getting drawn into extended (and increasingly personalized) exchanges with him is a distraction; this is an editor who said two days ago that lack of notability is not basis for deletion (!). Andrew on the other hand is familiar with the concept of notability, but somehow thinks WP:ROUTINE is something new and threatening to entire classes of established articles; he needs to be gently shown otherwise, even if he ultimately opposes the examples. Having given this some thought overnight, I think the best way to proceed is to follow Masem's suggestion: we need five or six examples of routine coverage that are clearly not significant, and each example should be shown in the context of an actual linked newspaper article (current online newsite, Newspapers.com, or Wayback Machine). Conversely, we should also show five or six examples of significant coverage that is clearly not routine; again, the examples should be shown in the context of actual linked newspaper articles. The examples should not be limited to, nor dominated by sports topics, and should include several topic areas where WP:ROUTINE commonly comes into play. The question then arises, should the examples be embedded at WP:GNG or WP:EVENT (with a cross-reference at WP:GNG)? Reactions to the idea of linked examples of both significant and routine coverage? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is better to have a separate page on what constitutes significant coverage that the "General notability guideline" section on the notability policy page can refer to. isaacl (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've been working on it, but it's hard to know what areas with which others will find issues. Maybe an example that relates to daily events would be better, since this would more clearly exclude, for example, daily weather reports, while not excluding hurricanes. isaacl (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Get Out and Push Railroad

On 3 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Get Out and Push Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Get Out and Push Railroad required passengers to help its trains over the steeper parts of the route? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Get Out and Push Railroad. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Get Out and Push Railroad), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Clio (Hendrik Goltzius)

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI report

Hi. I noticed you archived my report before anyone looked at it or replied to the thread. Given that this is the first time I have reported anything there, I assumed at the very least I may get some feedback regarding this, whether it be to tell me that I was wrong or to direct me to the right place. Please could you clarify as to why this was done. Thank you. Robvanvee 10:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun. I've restored it to the live board. EEng 18:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think I raised the issue at the right place? Robvanvee 19:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that there's been no apparent activity from the IPs in the last few days means there's nothing to do. EEng 22:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ultra?!

Now you've done it. Supercentenarian lists are bad enough. I predict, with a high degree of confidence, that GNG will soon be foisting ulracentenarians on us, who win their heats by lasting past 120. And it will be on your head. :) David in DC (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Monopwiki

You mean I can get paid $200 for editing?! Where? Where? Whoopee! (And do I get Workfish's compensation for dealing with you at Gage?) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The $200 is from your day job. Editing costs you (and not just money). EEng (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely—"abrasion" falls under insurance code #40 on this list. Give me a call at 1-800-SUE4CASH. FourViolas (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You, back to your studies. Do not take on too much‍—‌trust me on this. It's way too easy to do. This is not your high school. EEng (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

SUE FOURCASH! I went to high school with her! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Making sure

I want to make extra sure that you have noticed everything that I said here: [4], because I am going to take it very seriously. No sense of humor from me about it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

SPA tagging, again

Yet again at an AfD, you have tagged users who disagree with you as SPAs but not those who do agree with you. The very person who started the discussion is an SPA but you have not tagged them. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop whining. I tagged editor names I happened to recognize, plus one that was redlinked (implying it was new, which on investigation it turned out to be); I didn't scour the page to check everyone's contribution histories. If I missed someone, by all means WP:SOFIXIT. EEng (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You tagged the ones you disagree with, which you've done before. If you're going to do it, do it neutrally. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll tag SPAs I happen to notice. If you know of others and want to tag them too, do it. Maybe if you weren't an SPA yourself you'd know more about how things are done around here.

You may now consider me "officially notified" of your complaint, so do not post it here again; if you still feel aggrieved, ask some admin you respect, or take it to ANI, where comic relief is always welcome. EEng (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Heavens above, maybe you should use Twinkle? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You think? EEng (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Irony

Hi EEng.  In the RfC about Phineas Gage, you mention "<irony></irony>" tags.  I tried using it in my sandbox and it didn't seem to do anything.  Is it for real, or was it just a joke?
Richard27182 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a joke (though there have been serious proposals that English adopt an "irony mark" e.g. an upside-down exclamation mark).

Your input would be welcome at the RfC, with the personal request from me that if you do, in fact, find the markup a problem, that you (a) be specific about the problems you see, and (b) be willing to stick around and participate in making the markup simpler without degrading the article's appearance. I'm sick and tired of disappointed (though not surprised) to see the many drive-by denunciations by people who can't be bothered to say what exactly the perceived problem is, or what should be done about it. Contrast that behavior to that of editor John Vandenberg (in the thread right after the RfC thread) who actually rolls up his sleeves and finds solutions. EEng (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

EEng, I understand how the RfC can be frustrating for you, but I will ask you again to refrain from dismissing the opinions given by editors who have responded to the RfC in good faith. I previously suggested to you that editors may just be getting tired of replying to you when you continue not to accept anything that they say; there comes a point of diminishing returns. They do not have to find solutions, just to give their input. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not frustrated, since the RfC is showing precisely what I thought it would i.e. that if you ask a vague, one-sided question you'll get vague, one-sided answers; accordingly I've modified my wording above. I didn't say that those commenting must "find solutions" (as you imply I said) but rather that, as a minimum, they do have to say "exactly what the perceived problem is"‍—‌I'll even settle for dropping the "exactly". There's no way anyone commenting can be tired of replying, since they haven't replied, at least not in any substantive way‍—‌see e.g. here. EEng (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well then, from the Department of Diminishing Returns, I'll point out something where I see irony. Here, I said that I was sympathetic to you, by acknowledging how the RfC could potentially be frustrating for you. I was saying that in a friendly way, trying to indicate that I could see it from your perspective. But you did not accept what I said in the spirit that I said it: you argued instead that you are not frustrated. A few days ago at the RfC, I said: "I'm sincerely sorry that you feel that way." And I was sincere. But you snapped back at me: "It's not how I 'feel'—​it's facts." And you went on to dare me to respond to something where I, myself, have no intention of responding, per diminishing returns. If this is the way you react to editors who are trying to treat you collegially, well, that's ironic. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never doubted your good faith and good wishes and sincerity, but here the sympathy is misplaced. Nor was I snapping. You asserted to me that "If you seriously think that I did not spend enough time discussing things with you first, before opening this RfC, then you are incorrect" (and you threw in the ol' "You do not own this page" gratuity as well). I challenged you to back that up and you refuse. Conclusion: you can't back it up, diminishing returns or not. You've gone off half-cocked with this RfC, inviting complaints on something you've never substantively discussed yourself. EEng (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I find it ironic that your edit summary for that comment was "sorry, no". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what's ironic about it (and please, if you find irony in my failure to find irony, don't point that out). Can we please quit it with the meta-meta-subtext deconstruction analysis of edit summaries, and just get back to improving the article? Right now we have an RfC going vaguely about whether the markup makes the article "hard to edit", but despite the fact that you instigated that RfC, you've never said what particular aspects of the markup should be discussed for change, either before the RfC or during it, excepting our discussion of changing the referencing system, and another editor's desire that the linebreaks be removed, which was done. EEng (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've explained those things way more than you are giving me credit for here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So you keep saying. Either your memory is faulty, or mine is. Please provide a diff where you said, "I see the markup uses Technique T, with which I'm unfamiliar. Could you explain its function, and then we can discuss whether it's worth the added complexity?"‍—‌other than our recent discussions of (a) linebreaks and (b) referencing. EEng (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that my memory is reasonably adequate, and I suspect that your memory is not so much faulty as selective. I don't think that you should need diffs, and I hope that this never escalates to where diffs are needed, because I will have them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A polite request shouldn't be met with coy mumbling re "diminishing returns" or ominous talk of "escalation". If you've got the diffs, please provide them (two or three will be sufficient). If the concerns they express haven't already been resolved by changes made since, they'd be a good place to start actual constructive discussion of what to do to make the article easier to edit, which is your expressed concern. That's reason enough for you to find them. EEng (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And here's some "drive-by irony" for ya. Dontcha' think? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC) (Looks like four wikipedia editors trapped in the same Brooklyn cab).

Like you're ever been to Brooklyn. EEng (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Not that I have either, come to think of it.

Like you're ever been to Ystalyfera. (Only in my dreams, naturally). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Like you're ever been to Ypsilanti. EEng (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Shucks dude, you got me there. "The women in Poughkeepsie take their clothes off when they´re tipsy. But I hear in Ypsilanti they don´t wear any panties". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "... bumpity, bump, know what I mean? Say no more."

The Gage of success

As much as I regret making your bleeping talk page even bleeping longer, I want to say, from the bottom of my fishy heart, how happy I am at the progress we have made with those Gage references. I think that you and I really did work together, and we came up with a very significant improvement to the page. It wasn't easy, but I'm delighted that we got there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Struck, sadly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I really wish you wouldn't put messages like this here on my talk page. You're tarnishing my hard-built image as an abrasive and difficult editor. EEng (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I never said that you weren't abrasive or difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the implication of collegial cooperation was there nonetheless. Even you had to say "come to think of it..."‍—‌imagine how easy it would be for a casual observer to get the wrong impression. A reputation is a valuable thing and requires nurturing and protection. EEng (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Note for and humor-impaired editors who may stumble into this thread: the foregoing is sarcasm.

Have half a barnstar, each of you! Eman235/talk 20:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm going to half-decline that, for the time being. After posting here, I looked back at the Gage talk page, and found to my immense disappointment that the abrasion and difficulty have returned full blast. And, sadly, I'm not joking about that, not one bit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well which is it (see edit summary)? EEng (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

[5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be going pretty damn well over there, EEng. We'll soon have those Doubting Thomases and Luddite ne'er-do-wells put firmly back in their places. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of bullying

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Accusations of bullying. Thank you. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of case at ANI about your behavior on a talk page

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding creation of toxic editing environment through bullying and other obstructionism. The thread is Time wasting, ad hominem, obstructionist, bullying, poisoning the well at WP:CIVILITY talk page.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. SageRad (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Effectiveness

Effectiveness brings trolls :) Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm . . . .

@EEng and Legacypac: Have you noticed the class of articles represented by List of living former members of the United States House of Representatives (V)? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I AfD'd some similar articles "by Age" but now I see there are layers wrapped up in layers here to support this [6] Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Stunningly redundant, and the classifications and subdivisions by age are arguably non-notable. We often see this type of over-classification by categories, but rarely have I seen anything like these multiple over-lapping lists -- except for the longevity articles, of course. At least in the case of U.S. Representatives almost all of the included individual persons satisfy the GNG criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

For a moment I thought you'd said lawyers wrapped up in lawyers, which sounds awful. I'm all for merging/compressing/streamlining such meaningless, fragmented trivia. EEng (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Retaining existing version

Will you please stop knee-jerk reverting me at Wikipedia:Manual of Style and take part in the discussion on the talk page. SpinningSpark 00:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

My edit summaries are clear, and by now you will see that your edit was far from straightforward. EEng 02:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Spreading sunshine and happiness everywhere

You recently removed my section that I posted here...Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks. My section was not off-topic. It offered specific suggestions regarding how the article might be improved. Please undo your edit. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Your text

Hey Rich, if you truly believe that these are personal attacks, then why not improve this article by updating it to match your preferences?

is not an attempt to improve the policy page, but rather a taunt to another editor. I will not restore it. But go ahead and do it yourself, if you wish; you're just digging yourself deeper. EEng (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the relevant Wikipedia policy...was it a personal attack when I asked you to stop being disruptive? --Xerographica (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry, missed your post until now...) Answer: I don't know and I don't care -- didn't bother me in context. Just please stop being a jerk all over the place. EEng (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

{{R}} documentation

You left quite a mess behind, did you not view the page when you finished editing? All the red error messages?

While I understand your wanting to be more concise, what I hear over and over and over again from editors is that the documentation of templates is incomplete or confusing. In attempt to avoid those complaints, I was quite thorough and will be restoring much of what you deleted.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 15:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well let's not panic, D'Ranged 1. I did have to rush off so I didn't have time to attend to the undefined refs, but I'm sure that's easily taken care of. Since you and I are the only two people on earth who seem to care about {r}, let's do this right. Let's take this to Template talk:R and work out what we think will best "sell" this wonderful method. OK? EEng 17:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

D'Ranged 1: OK, there was something weird going on -- the main template page was showing an old version of the doc -- it should have purged long ago based on certain other intervening events, but it didn't. I think that might explain the mess you were seeing. Do things look better now? (That doesn't mean there isn't still stuff we should discuss, like I said in my prior post.) EEng 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Finished major edits of the documentation to include your conciseness. The primary change was to add a "Display" column to avoid a separate Examples section. I restored the note about not mixing styles, as that is a direct quote from the LDR guidelines. I also restored the documentation on how to list the references. If this illustration isn't given, multiple red error messages will appear; also, it's good to have the methodology illustrated for editors just starting out with LDRs. Again, more comprehensive documentation of templates will avoid confusion. I hope this is agreeable?

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 18:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Between us this is now vastly improved, though of course I have a few bold (but minor) adjustments to make, which you should feel free to push back on. As far as showing how the refs get defined, I think the thing to do is to merge R/doc with Template:Refn/doc (which needs a lot of work, though) to form an integrated presentation. What do you think about that? EEng 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

D'Ranged 1, I hope you like my last adjustments. I have to run soon, but something I've done has caused the numbering of the callouts in some of the examples to be messed up, in other words they're not all [1][2][3] or [Notes 1][Notes 2][Notes 3] all the time anymore, some are [2][3][4] instead. I'm sure it's because I've juggled the examples around. I can fix it when I get back, or if you want to be really nice you can fix it. I'm glad we're doing this! EEng 19:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. It wasn't an error, it's just some of the previously-used ref names weren't employed in the examples, so their numbers were skipped. I switched it around so that that doesn't confuse readers. I changed the order of some of the examples back to pages first, then the section, and the flap last. I may be being too picky, but the pages are the more likely examples to be used most frequently. I also adjusted some spacing and eliminated some ;ine breaks in the left column where I thought they were too confusing. The primary spacing adjustments are for the example with all the combinations of numbers, etc. I restored more detailed instructions. Please remember who the audience for these documents is—it's the very newbies that you think will be too confused. Yes, experienced editors don't need all the detail, but newbies certainly do, and this may be the only documentation they ever read about list-defined references, which is why detailing how to list them is also important. No matter the number of links to other articles, many editors won't bother to click them, so I prefer to err on the side of more information rather than less.

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 21:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, and again, this is lightyears better than it was just 24 hours ago. Good for us! But I still want to quibble about the 2nd-to-last line of the usage table. Now think about it: does a newbie need to see three ways to do something, two of them sort of confusing, or just one very clear way? That's why I say we should only give this example:

{r|1=RefName|p1=100|2=Bam|p2=10–14|3=Bar|4=Bas|p4=§C}

The other two examples are things which a more advanced user would think up on his own (and we don't need to help them do that), or which a newbie might see in an existing article. I think if a newbie sees

{r|RefName|Bam|Bar|Bas|p1=100|p2=10–14|p4=§C}

or

{r|1=RefName|2=Bam|3=Bar|4=Bas|p1=100|p2=10–14|p4=§C}}

he'll readily figure out what's going on, just as easily as he would seeing it here in the documentation. Remember, if he finds these in an article he'll be able to see both the code and the output. So I think by keeping the other two examples we're not helping experienced editors, not helping newbie editors, and just making the doc bigger so that the reader is more likely to think, "This is too much to read!"

By leaving out two of the three, we can also leave out stuff like, "The name parameters may also be numbered to ensure accuracy, as shown in the last two examples. Note too that you may group all the name parameters and page parameters, or list them sequentially." Again, why tell the newbie that they may do this or may do that, when all they need is the one, clear way? Why explain all those confusing choices? See what I mean? EEng 01:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

From years of teaching people in corporations how to use customized computer applications for everything from purchase orders to tracking print production projects, I learned one valuable lesson: Never assume a student knows something, even if you think it is common knowledge. The best case I can relate for this is the woman who had been working for a huge ad agency for more than 10 years when I encountered her in a training seminar and discovered that she did not know how to copy and paste! She had been retyping massive amounts of text that she could have easily copied and pasted in numerous applications, e-mails, etc. I can't tell you how grateful she was to learn what I'm sure you consider one of the most basic functions of using a computer. For at least 10 years, this woman had never been shown how to perform this simple function.

Does that help? Imagine, if you will, the "newbie" who happens upon the {{r}} template and sees some convoluted version of it in use. There is no guarantee that they can extrapolate any information from what they see in an article and compare it to the documentation and "connect the dots" for information used in the article version of the template that doesn't appear in the documentation. While we can't include every example, we can include a robust set which will make it easier for an unskilled editor to "connect the dots".

You're basically opposed to what? Three or four lines of code and instructions? Totalling about 500 characters? If you look at the template documentation for the any of the CS1 templates, such as {{Cite web}}, you'll find massive documents that, even in their relative completeness, are inadequate when it comes to covering exceptions and special cases when using the templates. You'll also see that they are documents that are nearly seven times the size of the documentation for {{r}}.

I don't find your reasons for excluding the information as valid as my reasons for including it. I hardly think 500 characters is worth an {{RFC}} but would be willing to participate in one.

All that having been said, even as much as I disagreed with some of your edits, I think they spurred refinements that have resulted in a much better document and I appreciate all your input and effort. Truly, thank you.

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 02:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick update/additional reason for keeping multiple examples. A newbie that sees {{r|1=RefName|p1=100|2=Bam|p2=10–14|3=Bar|4=Bas|p4=§C}} is more than likely to conclude that all the name parameters have to be numbered, which encourages excessive coding that just isn't required. If I'm quibbling over the unnecessary blank space before the ending virgule in the <ref/> tags, I'm certainly quibbling about numbering parameters that don't require it.

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 03:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We certainly don't need an RfC -- surely the only two editors on earth using {r} can solve this among themselves without resorting to violence. This has nothing to do with assuming the newbie knows anything (recall I'm advocating simply allowing him to remain ignorant of fancy alternative)s, and if the advanced editor doesn't know there's such a thing as unnamed parms, or that order of parms doesn't matter, it's not going to hurt them either.

You're right about the extra clutter to the wikicode of the 1= 2= and so on in my "one clear example", but that just brings me to another proposal I was going to make, which is to simply drop the whole thing about bundling multiple refs in one call. After one too many times mixing up the correspondence of the refs and their p='s, I just decided it's better to have every ref be a separate {r}. OK, I'm not really saying we should drop bundling completely (so that the user just has to discover it in the wild), but I really do think it might make sense to banish it to a separate section ("Advanced features"?) at the bottom.

But let's forget that for now. Here's something more useful. What do you think about merging T:R/doc with T:Refn/doc (and the one or two other related /docs I'm not thinking of)? EEng 03:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

While I doubt I'll ever use the bundling feature if the source requires a location parameter, I can see myself using the bundling feature for citations that don't have location parameters, so I think leaving the documentation where it is will be fine. Splitting the information into yet another section/table seems counterproductive. The information is well-organized and is pretty much presented with the information most likely to be used at the top and increasingly complex variations at the bottom. (I'm not fond of where the |group= information wound up; it could be higher up in the table because it's more likely to be used than bundled refs with locations, imo, but that's not something I'm truly worried about.)

As an aside, |loc= would probably have been a better identifier than |p= and its aliases, but that's not a windmill I want to tilt at in this moment.

As for merging template documents, absolutely not. Template docs shouldn't be merged unless the templates are merged, and I don't see {{Refn}} merging with {{R}} anytime soon, if ever. They're very different animals. If you don't really mean merge, but instead want to clean up the documentation at {{Refn}} to make it similar to the {{R}} documentation, have at it; I'm not interested. (I doubt I'll ever use {{Refn}}.)

Lastly, could you please go back to using the {{U|D'Ranged 1}} notifier template in your responses? That allows me to un-watch your talk page, which I have no interest in beyond our conversation here. If you don't use the notifier, I have to watch your page to see your replies. Much appreciated.

—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 04:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, D'Ranged 1, surely you know, from the rave reviews at the top of this page and of User:EEng, that all the coolest people watch here. But if you INSIST I'll ping you.

You're right I didn't really mean merge in the technical sense, but something more like what's seen at Template:Efn-ua/doc and its brethren: a common subpage giving an integrated presentation. Clearly {r} and {refn} are meant to work together (though weirdly Template:Refn/doc presents {refn} as only a workaround for certain obscure problems) so it's natural to explain them together as well.

Right now the {r} documentation answers the question, "Yes, but where are the refs actually defined"? by only mentioning LDRs, but that's too narrow: they could also be defined via {refn} or even < ref>< ref/>. In an integrated presentation, the {refn} part would answer the "Where are the refs defined?" naturally (mentioning, of course, that < ref>< ref/> can do it too).

In fact, look at the table at the top of Efn-ua/doc. See how naturally all those things go together? (Except that bit about {refn} for nested references is crazy.) Am I making any sense? Try to sleep on this before rejecting it. You can reject it tomorrow. EEng 04:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

HMS Anne Galley

Hi, thanks for shortening the DYKN hook here. While content with the change - as background it was scheduled to explode when immediately alongside the Spanish flagship, but did indeed explode prematurely and sank 100 feet short of the target. I'll have another read through the article to see if I can make this clearer in the text.

In passing this was possibly the last fireship ever actually deployed at sea by the Royal Navy (others may have been used against ships in port). However I don't yet have enough sourcing to include that claim in the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

MOS:NUM

That "proper or common name" and "formal name or designation" bifurcation was bugging me, too, and I was going to fix that, but ran out of steam. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We have a Museum for that. EEng 11:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Museum of Lusty Tooters

With compliments to the curator, I enjoyed that museum entry, and I offer the unimportant observation that at least he seems to have made good use of the organ. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought

Since we interacted on Ark Encounter, I am reaching out to you for an opinion, as you appear to be experienced with the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.

It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz; no specialist knowledge is required to be able to contributed to the GAR.

I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Holy Mackerel

Was surprised not to see you react to this week's action (3 edits) at Sacred Cod. Perhaps nothing objectionable took place. Hard for me to tell.

Got your e-mail and will reply. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

When you have certain gadgets enabled, there's a brief moment as a page loads that you think you're clicking on "View history" but it thinks you're clicking on the little star to remove the page from your watchlist. Thus things fall off my watchlist now and then without my realizing it. Thanks for the heads up. EEng 18:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Late to this party, but for me, this is the biggest issue that the project has at the moment. -Roxy the dog™ woof 07:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration? EEng 12:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Outrage over minor things

D00D, what's with the indignation over adding an article about a song about a "popular health food of the time" to WP:WikiProject Health and fitness? And adding an article about a song about food to WP:WikiProject Food and drink? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no outrage, but by your reasoning every love song should be tagged WP:WikiProject Family and relationships. EEng 02:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

At the top of WP:FITNESS: This WikiProject is believed to be semi-active. Activity is slower than it once was. FourViolas (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Standards have dropped a lot in recent years – just look at the Republican convention now underway. EEng 02:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Talk-Page Stalkers

Anyone know why this page (this page i.e. User talk:EEng, not User:EEng) got 2600 views in the last three days? [7] EEng 07:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I did some searching, and came up with nothing. I guess one possibility is a pissed-off Donald clicking on it 2600 times all on his own. I guess it could also be random statistical variation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• 2500 views in the last 24 hours. What in the world is going on? EEng 01:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Summer is almost over and children across the country are preparing for school. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • At risk of sounding vain, User talk:Hillbillyholiday is running at about fifteen times above average as well. Coincidence? Or has my presence boosted page views to record numbers? :O Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 02:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
      • You mean 15 times the average of 5? You're box-office magic! But there is something going on. EEng 02:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Assignation

Sorry about that! and thanks for fixing it. "Assignation" does look awfully funny to a non-specialist, though! --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it does sound like a kind of Linnaean tryst. EEng (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Mari Lwyd hapus

Martinevans123^{Ogof Myrddin o ddirgelwch} ... wishes you and yours:
" Mari Lwyd hapus"

---

All the best for 2015. Have a horse's skull on a stick and a toast tree trolley!

Mari Lwyd hapus Ogof Myrddin o ddirgelwch??? Time for a new keyboard. EEng (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Round here we use human skulls impaled on iron bars.

"Legal disclaimer: no keyboards were knowingly hurt in the construction of this New Year Greeting." Mssrs. Sue, Grabitt and Runne^{"Legal eagles to all the stars"}

These guys are even messier: Dewey Cheatham & Howe LLP -- EEng (talk)

One that "slipped through the net": [8] Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Great to see that your favourite library has a Tiffany lamp to go with those roaring open fires. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Discussion at CIVILITY". Thank you. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

AfnD (Articles for not Deleting)

One old lady article not to AfD Manolita Piña. She actually lived an interesting life and did some cool things. Legacypac (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Soft hyphens

They weren't mistakenly removed; that was intentional. See my previous edit summary which stated: "Undid revision 537758394 by EEng (talk); the remainder of the article does not use soft hyphens".

1. Unless you know of a provision of the MOS that requires them, it's odd to have only the one part of an article using them when I've never seen them used elsewhere.
2. They break up the text in the edit window, in the middle of words, making it harder for others to decipher what words.
3. They are of limited utility. Yes, they tell a browser where it could break a word for hyphenation at the end of a line, but the body of the article lacks such a feature, making the quote horribly inconsistent.

Under the principle of consistency, please either add soft hyphens to the rest of the text of the article, or please leave them removed. Imzadi 1979 → 17:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

See my edit summary, subsequent to yours quoted above:

doesn't matter whether the rest of the article uses s-hyphens -- because quote box doesn't justify (can you figure out how to do that?) wordbreaks are esp. useful here.

The pullquote is selfconsciously highfalutin, incorporating superabundant multisyllabic bombastic verbosity. Combining this with no justification in the quotebox -- and here I repeat that I would be much obliged if you can tell me how to enable such justification -- and the result is an sightly ragged righthand margins (depending on screen size and magnification). & shy; fixes that, and improving what the reader sees outweighs the beauty or consistency what the reader doesn't see i.e. the markup.

I didn't add & shy; elsewhere because I don't see offhand where it would do any good. Your suggestion to "add soft hyphens to the rest of the text," just to mollify some vengeful god of consistency, directly contradicts your other complaint, that & shy; makes source text hard to read. (And that's not an argument in the present case, BTW, because the pullquote is verbatim and subject to little or no editing anyway.)

Markup is there to be used, and here it is put to its intended purpose. If you want to add more throughout the article, go ahead -- though it will have little or no effect on the rendered text -- but do not remove those already there which serve a purpose.

EEng (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining your position on soft hyphens here? --bender235 (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I took the soft hyphens out of 3 articles that had many hundreds each. They do much more harm than good, according to the consensus at the discussion linked above. Probably we should say so in the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

More of the same

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring edit summaries explaining clearly why changes are being made, and reverting said changes with your own edit summaries making misleading or false reference to prior policy or discussions. Behavior such as this wastes the time of editors who actually know what they're doing. If you continue, you risk appearing even more clueless than you already do. EEng (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Editors who know what they're doing" is a category that clearly doesn't include you EEng. Eric Corbett 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And less still you Eric.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion. Which frankly isn't worth much. Eric Corbett 18:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --John (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE look at the content of the changes you're reverting? You're obviously not paying attention to what the changes actually are, but just reverting as a knee-jerk reaction. EEng (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Phineas Gage, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This is unacceptablePer WP:WIAPA: "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page." You have been warned three times before about this. This is your final warning about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If only

User:EEng#If_only_every_day_included_something_like_this EEng (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Vietnamese fish-sauce factory. "He who puns with sauces should take care that he himself does not become a sauce. And when you gaze long into the sauce vat make sure you don't fall in."

My compliments on the appetizer! And if I may, I suggest a pasta course to follow: [9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Have a care, fishman. EEng (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, searching for prawns

Numbers in hooks

Hi, I noticed the change you suggested for my hook. I've been numeralizing numbers over 10 in hooks for many years according to MOS:NUMERAL. Yoninah (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS:NUMERAL allows 19/nineteen and 30/thirty either way. It's a matter of taste. If you like it in numerals, that's fine -- I was just suggesting. EEng (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Seen in Prep 2

Hey there, saw your tweak in prep 2 of "who undergoes" to "undergoing". It struck me that using "undergoing" makes that hook suggest that the required education is received while the person undergoes the procedure. I know that what you meant there is grammatical and a valid reading of the sentence, but I think the more natural reading of that syntax gives the confusing interpretation I suggest. What do you think? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought of that, but dismissed the thought. I guess you're right. EEng (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, you don't need my permission to fix something I "fixed". EEng (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just thought I'd ask in case you saw the opposite of what I had (or if I just needed to get off WP and start my morning coffee). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Boston Society for Gentleman's Improvement

So how big a case does one need for a "phallic stalagmite"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What sort of Piganino are u playing? Serten (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A schweinway, of course. 07:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you stop making puns that subsequently interfere with my sleep? EEng (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Played by Piganini, no doubt.

Sorry, don't mean to bore you. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• In the BSfMI DYK nomination I stated my preferred hook was ALT2 because you had requested this. Please would you revert/change the result of this edit because I would prefer not to have the term you applied to me there permanently on the record. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No offence taken. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Could have been worse. Instead of "BSMI" the article might have been "BDSM". EEng (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Dagmar Herzog's research about the BDM (bald deutsche Mutter, soon German mother) might have been Banned in Boston ;)

You

I hear you consider youself tidy. I wonder. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? EEng (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Just wanted to say I think you are a fine editor, and have my respect. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

GGTF reports: more female admins needed. "Tidy!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

One day, ME123, you will get what's coming to you. EEng (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how long that lasts. EEng (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And I won't be ensnared by any glitzy tempting promise of Dr. Young's Anal Dilators! Do you take me for a complete fool?! ... (no need to answer that last one) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw this and laughed out loud (as often seems to happen with your edits). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you missed part of the museum tour. EEng (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Au contraire!" That was Exhibit A, m'lud. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• In fairness to someone (I don't know whom/which), how does "never" doing something scan with "do so"? Or am I reading too much into this? Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell what you're talking about. Can you be more specific? EEng (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

" ... about 5% of students in India never copy and paste, and generally these students do so because ...." Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess "generally these students do so because they feel that copying and pasting is wrong" should read "generally because they feel that copying and pasting is wrong". The whole project was illconceived from the start. EEng (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I always knew you were tidy. Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What is this "tidy" thing again? Is it some kind of code language? EEng (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Tidying up

Okay, some was just preference but mark up dotted with {{shy}}s and {{zwsp}}s all over the place just doesn't seem helpful. We don't use these normally, why on this page? It just seems confusing. Jimp 11:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Jimp, I enjoy our work together on MOS:DATES and I'm sure that will continue. But on an individual article it's the editors of that article (which can be anyone, as long as they're willing to take the time to discuss) who make choices about that article, within the limits of MOS and other guidelines and policies. This markup is there because the editors of those articles think it best serves the reader by formatting the article in an attractive way. As allowed by MOS, the {{shy}}s are there to avoid unsightly line breaks where horizontal space is restricted or words are unusually long, and the zwsp is there to allow linebreak after certain punctuation after which, for unknown reasons, some browsers refuse to linebreak. Certain templates, such as {{ndash}} used in place of a literal endash, are there because they makes it easier to tell that the correct symbol is in place.

That fact that you personally haven't seen stuff like this very much has nothing to do with anything. There is no progress without deviation from the norm. If you think things should changed on an individual article, please open a thread on the talk page, or make selective bold edits with explanatory edit summary. As MOS itself says, "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." EEng (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it won't continue. I'm gonna sulk for three months, then I'm gonna cyberstalk you until I can hunt you down ... (jokes). Yeah, no, I get that {{shy}} helps with the presentation but on the very few articles I've seen it used it just seem to go over{{shy}}board. Anyhow, there are two perspectives here. Sure, we've got to consider the particular fans of a given article but, on the other hand, Wikipedia is for everyone (except vandals, the poor and those who've got something better to do (given that they actually do it instead of procrastinating here)) and it kind of seems that weird and/or obscure mark up inhibits editing. As for {{shy}}, though, perhaps it could be tweaked to allow {{shy|anti|dis|establish|ment|arian|ism}} instead of anti{{shy}}dis{{shy}}establish{{shy}}ment{{shy}}arian{{shy}}ism to make the mark up more readable ... but that's an idea for another day. Well, with all my rant about two perspectives, I'll have to admit I'm a bit towards one angle and it's always good to see the other and so I appreciate being torqued into that.

P.S. "we didn't diverge 'from' chimps either", true; I was thinking that but missed the obvious "from other primates". Hey, maybe we did diverged from Jimps ... God help us if so, it wouldn't be good. Jimp 14:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I've had it up to here (<makes chopping "up to here" motion at own throat>) with editors who, apparently unable to actually contribute, salve their egos by running about "fixing" things that don't need to be fixed, and vanilla-fying layout and formatting they don't understand. My apologies for mistaking you for one of them. I {{shy|L|O|V|E}} your idea for shy -- a beautifully clever extension of the syntax. EEng (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

EEng, you're just so Tragically Hip. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Good news every­body, I've added this functionality to {{Shy}} in the sandbox. I've been meaning to fork Module:Br separated entries for general use, and this seemed like a good excuse. Alakzi (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you one of my silent talk page stalkers? How many of you guys are there??? Anyway, that's great! How can I test it? EEng (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We are legion. Well, it works exactly like Jimp described; here's a demo:

No government will nowadays admit that it {{Shy/sandbox|main|tains}} an army in order to satisfy {{Shy/sandbox|occasion|ally}} its passion for {{Shy/sandbox|con|quest}}. The army is said to serve only {{Shy/sandbox|defens|ive}} purposes. This {{Shy/sandbox|mo|rali|ty}}, which justifies self-defence, is called in as the {{Shy/sandbox|go|vern|ment}}'s advocate.

No government will nowadays admit that it main­tains an army in order to satisfy occasion­ally its passion for con­quest. The army is said to serve only defens­ive purposes. This mo­rali­ty, which justifies self-defence, is called in as the go­vern­ment's advocate.

Alakzi (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've tested this in the shy-heavy Sacred Cod, first by simply substituting shy --> shy/sandbox (thus testing the old syntax), then by changing e.g. cor{{shy}}po{{shy}}ra{{shy}}tion --> {{shy|cor|po|ra|tion}}. Works fine. What's the protocol for bringing this live? I'll do the documention since you've done the coding. EEng (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I've "boldly" copied the code from the sandbox; it'll work with {{Shy}} now. Alakzi (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful. Now tell me if you anticipated this use [10]. It really makes tho whole facility very convenient, especially for e.g an img caption! It seems logical that it ought to just work, but since I doubt you had it in mind when coding, can you double-check? e.g. your implementation might assume some limit on the number of params, which would be a problem in this use unless the limit's very large and/or having too many params gives a very obvious failure for the editor to notice. EEng (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It takes an infinite* number of arguments, you'll be pleased to know. I didn't anticipate this use, but it'll be no issue for captions and the like. As an exercise, I wrapped the whole of the Wikipedia article in {{Shy|1=}}; it didn't break. Alakzi (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

* Conditions may apply.

This is great. Thanks, and thanks to Jimp as well. Give me a week or so to switch some of my favorite articles over to this new syntax, and if all goes well then I'll document it, OK? By using this at, say, the paragraph level, you get what's been wanted for sometime, which is a lightweight, unobtrusive way of inserting soft hyphens -- essentially you've turned | (outside a template) into that symbol. EEng (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"I ate it up and spit it out.....and I did it shy way". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Perfect pitch as usual. EEng (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Finally got around to adding the documentation [11] EEng (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Amandajm (talk) 12:59 am, Today (UTC−4)

ANI (Bowels in uproar)

You are at WP:ANI#Abuse by User:EEng, but my advice would be to leave it for others to comment because while your comments were unnecessarily colorful, the report is severely misguided and won't go anywhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have closed the thread. Now, look! No one is to write on the dramaboard again until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say "Jehovah"! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I edited your comments. I know it's just your way and I didn't think you would mind some well-intentioned redaction, but you can revert if you feel strongly about it. Belle (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I was almost instantly reverted and got my wrist slapped, so ignore that. (this is when I use "Sigh", right?. Sigh) Belle (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This whole incident reminds me of two editors with similar backgrounds who got into a huge tiff at Talk:Brad Pitt and it all ended with tears and threats to delist the article from FA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

... did someone mention Brad?.... "I've known a few guys who thought they were pretty smart, But you've got being right down to an art" (not you personally, of course, Richie333). your friendly "walking epigram-generating automaton" (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You blasphemer!

You have no idea how that made my day. While I highly doubt that the ANi report caused you any real-life stress, if it did, then I'm sorry for finding such levity in your troubles. To see a non-troll user make a genuine request at ANi that a user be sanctioned for blasphemy may well be the most hilarious thing I've seen in the several years I've spent here. Wow! Joefromrandb (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Joe, where was Jesus Christ Is Risen Today on your scale of entertainment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Enter Reg, cap in hand.

Reg: Trouble at mill.

Lady Mountback: Oh no. What sort of trouble?

Reg: One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treddle. ...

... Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope... etc etc Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yawn! Stretch!

Really and truly, I was asleep the whole time.

My mother's maternal grandmother had the silver tongue of the Irish and used to exclaim, in vexing situations, "Jesus Christ! Don't get your bowels in an uproar!" (among many other things). Actually, she preferred Jesus H. Christ, but my H key was sticking. Anyway, Amandajm's complaint obviously represents Anglican oppression of traditional Irish Catholic folkways.

Meanwhile here (scroll down to the image of the popeyed fish) I was accused of being a Presbyterian antisemite, so I guess I'm all things to all people. EEng (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As a result of your recent extreme censure at AN/I, all of your future edits are required to be voiced by an actor inhaling from a helium-filled ballon. We hope you understand. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You certainly are an unusual character. EEng (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sincere apologies, EEng, you'd really need to watch Harry and Paul's Story of the Twos to get my entire drift there. But in its absence, I guess William Ulsterman will have to do. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a closed DYK from about nine months ago where I suggested an ALT and the nominator said something like "I totally and utterly reject your suggestion". I could have sworn I was arguing with William Ulsterman there and then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha. Isn't it strange the way we build these mental pictures of each other, without ever having met or even seen each other. If I was Jimbo Wales setting up this madhouse again from scratch, I'd probably make mugshots a mandatory requirement. It really is much more difficult to be offensive when you can see a person's picture (... well unless you're someone like William Ulsterman, of course!). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Australorp, an Australian breed

An example of "Australian banter", oh no sorry, it's an Australian bantam. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prize

...for best edit summary goes to AndyTheGrump for Wikipedia is not a medieval theocracy EEng (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Who you calling British???

I say, this is the Best of British. I'm not apologising for being British old sport, nobody ruddy is. We are chaps through and through, and if you don't want to play cricket with us, you're a damn bounder and cad through and through, old sport! (Ritchie)

EEng

The Rambling Man

Gerda Arendt

- note clever disguise Martinevans123

Bellemora

Joefromrandb

Johnuniqt

Drmies

Yngvadottir

Moustache of Panayot Hitov, Bulgarian revolutionary

Ritchie, I demand an apology. [12] EEng (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait a second... are some of you British? Have I stumbled into a nest of Brits? EEng (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A whole hive of Britsock sleepers..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I didn't technically call you British, I said your language was in the style of stereotypical British banter. I've got a bag of nits, and I'm not afraid to pick 'em. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually ...

I don't know whether Drmies saw this last comment of yours before he closed the AN/I thread, but I'm going to call you on it. Whereas what you said at the DYK nomination could be taken - with considerable assumption of good faith and allowance for your forgetting you were dealing with a lady—or that there is always the option of withdrawing and letting someone else review the nomination—as an attempt to cool things down, that stuff about the OP is amateur psychology of the snidest kind. Do not do that. As my own devout mother says in moments of great stress, "Ye gods and little fishes." Yngvadottir (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I did not really see that last sentence; I suppose I was distracted by this kangaroo stuff, and I still don't know what to make of that. But yes, Yngvadottir, you are quite right: I closed the complaint since I did not see it as actionable (though I am astounded at your word choice in that DYK discussion), but that doesn't mean that such low blows are acceptable. They are not, and it's not just amateur psychology, it's a plain old personal attack. The other day I had to warn someone who had told another editor to "go get therapy", and this is no different. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, you're mixed up. I wasn't reviewing the nomination. I twice suggested hooks I thought would do more justice to the subject and twice got long, startlingly defensive responses, as if I'd attacked the subject. Then I said, "Jesus Christ ... don't get your bowels in an uproar", and 100KB of ANI + 10 commenting editors later, here we are. Posting at ANI -- mistaken but no big deal. Continuing to insist that I set out to offend her Christianity, impugned her digestive processes, etc etc, in post after post at ANI, at her own talk page, at my talk page, and at several others' talk pages, is validation-seeking at the project's expense. EEng (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. Lest you think I bear a grudge: [13]

I am afraid you are mistaken. Your last couple of sentences at AN/I constitute a personal attack. The thread is closed and I understand that you do not understand; but do not insult someone's motives in that manner again. It is beyond the pale, and that is that. I trust I make myself clear? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Reads like a threat Yngavadottir, is that what you intended? Or best case, like a prissy school mistress trying to assert authority she simply doesn't have? Perhaps you can clarify your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a personal attack, and no personal attacks is policy, which is why I linked it the first time. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure if it really was a personal attack, EEng would be blocked per the policy. He's not, so clearly it wasn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, stop it you two! Yngavadottir, I know you mean well but I stand by everything I've said in this matter. TRM, remember (not that I always do) that it's usually better to consider your goal to convincing third parties rather than the discussant. Whether or not you've convinced Yngavadottir, others have likely made up their minds and further rounds of posts aren't likely to change them (not that anyone's watching this page anyway!). EEng (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• It was a personal attack. TRM's facetiously scrambled logic and sexist remarks don't change that fact. EEng, this is about that last sentence, about "victimhood" (not about that DYK nom, though I think your tone there lacked collegiality); you should know that this was not OK and you can see Yngvadottir's comments and mine as a warning, non-templated and given with the best of intentions (to prevent further such remarks). Best, Drmies (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your well-meant advice, but I stand by everything I've said in this matter and fear no scrutiny. EEng (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I hesitate to say anything here, but I thought that I should point out the post about ANI at the bottom of User:EEng, that perhaps should be moved here to the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the one in which I unintentionally implied that ANI discussions should be allowed to end in lobotomies? [14] EEng (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

John fixed it. And no, please don't remind me of the Gage page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Gage had nothing to do with lobotomy. Crikey, Tfish, if there's one thing you should have learned from all that, it's this one fact! Let us speak no more of the matter. But you are always welcome here. Sorry I didn't assign you a bag earlier but you were so far back in the diffs list that I missed you. EEng (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Reg, Johnuniq, ^(talk), Martinevans123, Joefromrandb, The Rambling Man, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, User:AndyTheGrump, what we appear to have here is a club, a club to which I do not belong, and which you have, all in your own way, convinced me that I would never ever have any desire to join.

You have all, in your own way, lost sight of what really matters, not essential as Wikipedians perhaps, but as human beings: true respect for other people.

Here you are, guffawing, back-slapping, and verbally strutting, because you have apparently overcome an elderly female editor over the matter of whether the family of a recently deceased Christian woman would/ought/might or have any right to be offended at having the name of Jesus used as a profanity.

Oh Wow! (add you own deity's name in place of the Wow!) How funny is that! How totally gloriously funny we have all been here! Pints all round, Boys!

User:AndyTheGrump and all, let me point out to you, again, that while Wikipedia is not a theocracy, abusing religious leaders (by blasphemy, by profanity, by unpopular representation) on the internet, in cartoons, in movie previews and in novels can lead to calls for beheading, can lead to riots, to burning of embassies and the assassination of ambassadors.

You think it is uncalled for to the point of being hilarious that someone has complained about a profanity it the name of Jesus. OK, all you smart-arses! Which one of you is about to go over to the page of some recently-deceased Islamic leader and use the name of the prophet of Islam as a profanity?

Fear breeds caution. You don't have anything to fear from Christians, so any Christian, Christian belief or Christian sensibility is a soft target.

Basically you are a club full of gutless, self-congratulatory jerks without an ounce of common-sense, common decency or human kindness in the whole bloody lot of you! You have all been so terribly terribly clever, and so terrible terribly funny, at the possible expense of a bunch of people that none of you know, but who have recently lost a member of their family and community.

At what point does real life and ordinary accountability become an issue in the Wikipedia ANI Club?

Amandajm (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"abusing religious leaders (by blasphemy, by profanity, by unpopular representation) on the internet, in cartoons, in movie previews and in novels can lead to calls for beheading, can lead to riots, to burning of embassies and the assassination of ambassadors". Indeed it can. Do you think that such extreme reaction is (a) a good thing, or (b) a bad thing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump, you still don't get it? (shakes head forlornly) I have already apologised for implying that you are short on intellect. I don't see that I can withdraw that, but you do give me cause to wonder. Are you really completely incapable of understanding that if, through fear of reprisals, you are obliged to treat people of one faith with courtesy, then perhaps it might be nice, through respect rather than fear, if you were to treat members of all faiths with similar courtesy? Perhaps this is too complex or too wordy for you. If it worries you, let me know and I will try again. Amandajm (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I treat people with courtesy on merit - and not on the basis that they have refrained from resorting to intimidation. And for the record, I have done nothing whatsoever discourteous to any faith in this matter - instead, I pointed out that Wikipedia does not exist in an environment where such intimidation is acceptable, and that accordingly, such intimidation was an irrelevance. And as for your comments about my intellect, I don't care the slightest what you think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only have I seen a request for editor-sanctions for blaspheming, I am also apparently in a "club" with BWilkins. Talk about firsts! Maybe tomorrow someone will accuse me of being TParis' sockpuppet. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't see my request below #OK, everyone, now stop it. EEng (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa, but in all fairness, I saw it after posting my comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, everyone, now stop it

• Amandajm: I really, really did not mean to offend you, though I did want to get your attention. Please believe that.
• Everyone else: Whatever the explanation, and however reasonable or unreasonable, I do believe that this episode is causing Amandajm great distress, and only some compelling consideration (though I can't think what that would be) could justify prolonging that. I need no further defense. So please, just let this be.

EEng (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

EEng, if stating that you did not mean to offend is intended as an apology, then I accept it. Amandajm (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Shot in the twitten...

Hi – belated thanks for suggesting a more intriguing DYK hook for Henry Michell Wagner! Also for your work at DYK in general. Your thinking was sound: twitten is such a local word that nobody outside Sussex would know it, let alone England. (There was once an article but it got redirected to alley, sadly.) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. I mostly toil in obscurity, and it's nice to know someone out there appreciates these little adjustments. My only regret is that we couldn't say he was "shot in his twitten", which would sound even naughtier. EEng (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Over-use of shy template

Chapter The First: In Which An Editor Complains This His Spellcheck Software Can't Be At Fault

Extended content

I have reversed your 89 uses of the shy template at Jean Berko Gleason, and thought I should explain why. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia search treats all the part-words, each side of the shy template, as separate words, so they appear as a vast number of mis-spellings, Although useful for very long words, such as the example at Template:Shy, it should be used sparingly - the third word of a line, is highly unlikely to need splitting as a line-end word, whilst breaking words across two lines makes them much harder to read. It really doesn't matter if there is a short space at the end of a line, although very long spaces can be confusing as to whether the sentence has come to a premature, abrupt, end or not. - Arjayay (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I've put them back. If what you're saying is true then very high-quality typesetting wouldn't break words over linebreaks, as it in fact does. The example at {{shy}} is designed to ensure that it will illustrate the template's function regardless of zoom level, window size, etc., not to limit the template's applicability. I suggest you modify your spellcheck software to properly understand markup, instead of twisting the markup to accommodate broken software. (Even if the deep-down search machinery picks up "misspelled" word fragments, the higher-level interface could still filter those results to eliminate those mistakenly triggered by the presence of {{shy}}.) If you see shy used three words into a paragraph, by all means remove it. EEng (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I'm sure the shy template doesn't want all this fuss. It would probably prefer if you could just carry on as if it wasn't there; it doesn't want to be a bother.Belle (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Agree. Shy is very shy. Just leave it alone to do its obscure but helpful job. EEng (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC) It is not my spellcheck software that is the problem. As stated above, it is Wikipedia's search function that identifies each of the segments as a different word, so they appear in the Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings that WP:WikiGnomes like myself use to try and tidy up the encyclopedia. There is, therefore, nothing I can do about it - other than ask you to only use it where the benefit to the encyclopedia outweighs the problems it causes. - Arjayay (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Look, I don't really care how "your" software works (and by "your software" I mean the software you're using). Somehow something identifies this article as potentially containing typos. Presumably something then looks in the article for the specific points with apparent misspellings. No matter how the process works upstream, at that point the software could certainly be able to understand that {{shy}} should be ignored and the word evaluated as a whole. If it doesn't know how to do that, push back on those who supplied that software until they fix it. In the meantime do something else; the typos can be corrected when fixed software is ready. Or, if you like, add a template to the article to make your software skip over it. But don't twist the article so you can clear some list. EEng (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Let me try to explain this again, as you are still missing the point:- It is not "my" software, and it is not "the software I am using". It is Wikipedia's standard, inbuilt, search software, which every user uses, every time they do a search. No-one can "push it back on those who supplied the software" - it is the Wikimedia software which runs this entire project. I cannot "add a template to make my software skip over it" it is not "my software". FYI I found the problem with this Beta search for rela a common misspelling of real. Yesterday there were 255 uses of Rela and today 256 - doing a "find" for 17 July identified Jean Berko Gleason as the article - because you had inserted Shy templates either side of rela in the word interrelation "inter{{shy}}rela{{shy}}tion". It appears, therefore that there is a conflict between the shy template and the standard search. - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Let me try to explain this again, as you are still missing the point. I am a software engineer with 35 years' experience and a degree in applied mathematics, computer science, and statistics, and I definitely understand what's going on here. Your description of what you're doing is exactly what I said, above, you must be doing: Some process identified articles with "likely misspellings". From your description it's completely lunkheaded process -- comparing today's search to yesterday's search -- but if that's what you want to do, that's your business. Then somehow you looked at the "new" article in your list and saw that what the lunkheaded process identified was an OK word with a legal piece of markup embedded in it i.e. { shy}}. Therefore there's really no misspelling. So I'm not sure what your complaint is. As you mentioned there are 255 other articles containing instances of the string rela. Are you bugging editors of those articles to remove them too? Do you not have a way, once you've identified a false positive, to accumulate that information somehow so the false positive won't pop up again? If not that's ridiculous. File a bug report if you like, at Mediawiki (mw:How to report a bug), asking that searches ignore { shy}}, because obviously that's the way the search ought to work. But I'm tired of people running around with mindless "cleanup" scripts that make naïve assumptions complaining that everything should conform to those assumptions so their mindless scripts don't have to be fixed. EEng (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC) From the department of "where have I heard a complaint like this before?", I have to say that, despite the template's shyness over all this attention, well, I've heard a complaint like this before. And, in my non-infinite experience, it's always been about use of the template by EEng, so it doesn't appear to be a situation where numerous editors are running into these complaints. Please understand, I'm not saying EEng is wrong. I'm just saying that this seems to come up repeatedly. EEng, could you please point me to where (perhaps at MOS) any existing consensus was established? And I'm wondering whether it would be helpful to have some further community discussion about how the community feels about use of the shy template. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC) First of all, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge my glittering salon of (talk page stalker)s, of which Tfish is one of the select first among equals. Now then... I openly admin that ragged right margins are something of a pet peeve of mine, and for me hunting them down and killing them is sort of a pastime, one which dovetails well with my perfectionist writing habits -- like my hero Logan Pearsall Smith I'm very happy tinkering with sentences over and over. Usually it starts with a word like antidisestablishmentarianism and then maybe semirepresentational and before I know I'm thinking, "Well, but it'd be easy to just run through and enable hyphenation of all the -tion suffixes." I start by only doing it for words of 12 letters or more, then I figure 11 letters is reasonable, then ... I admit it gets a little overdone. But here's the thing -- I've run into objections like those above before, but never from anyone who actually showed interest in editing the article, other than on this specific point. Here let me let another another prominent editor speak for me: The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. So, when the day comes that an editor who actually cares about the article in question tells me that he or she finds the { shy}} templates are excessive, in the way, etc., then I'll be happy to talk about. They may even be right! But for now this seems to be the same combination of IDONTLIKEIT with MYONLY­TOOL­IS­A­HAMMER­SO­I­SEE­THE­WORLD­AS­A­COLLECTION­OF­NAILS I've seen before. EEng (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Chapter The Second: In Which Another Editor Arrives To Insist He Knows How A Certain Template Works

Extended content

EEng does not understand how the template is to be used, in both function and operation. A vast amount of time was wasted because EEng simply does not understand the issue or what other editors indicated despite lengthy explanations. EEng, I removed more than 400 SHY templates from Phineas Gage and you've gone and re-inserted them despite a clear consensus against it. This is disruptive editing and you are being abusive in tone, manner and the very nature upon which you refuse to even acknowledge @Arjayay: or other users UNLESS they meet your standard of "caring about the article in question". If you are incapable or unwilling of collaborating on even the most basic level, then you are not fit for Wikipedia. I think a RFC/U or ANI is in order because this pattern of behavior is grating and benefits nothing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC) First of all, thank you EEng for reacting so kindly to my comment. ChrisG, if nothing else, your comment points out that EEng's "salon" of talk page watchers includes multiple editors who are concerned about the issue – but Chris, I need to remind you that I tried to have a mediation to solve those concerns, and you (along with everyone else involved) demonstrated a serious unwillingness to pursue dispute resolution, so your newfound interest in RfC/U or ANI leaves me with another case of what I described above as something I've heard before. Been there, done that, not interested any more. I have no interest at this time in seeing anyone brought up for sanctions. Now, EEng, the one thing I don't find in your reply to me is an actual answer to the question that I asked! I asked for a link to some sort of discussion, perhaps at MOS, establishing a consensus of when to use shy and when not to. But I do appreciate your comments about it being a personal "pet peeve" of yours. If you'd like to give me a link, great, and if not, I'll conclude that your "pet peeve" is the explanation here. As I said before, I'm really pretty neutral as to what the correct use of shy really is. What I do care about is what I see as a pattern of editors like Chris and Arjayay who have concerns, and these concerns leading to bad feelings all around, and no good resolution of those bad feelings. As I see it, editors who have put in time really working on page content often have insights about what is right for a page, and their opinions should be taken seriously. But right-justification of paragraphs and uniform spacing between words do not strike me as having anything at all to do with page content. It's just formatting, and editors whose main interests are what are sometimes called "Wiki-gnoming" are entitled to be treated with respect, too, when they raise formatting issues. Early in this thread, Arjayay mentioned using shy only in very long words, and now, EEng also brings up the point about starting to use it in 12-letter words, then using it in shorter words. So here's what I'm thinking about: If we don't have it already somewhere in the bowels of MOS, I'd like to have a guideline added within MOS saying something like "using the shy template in words longer than fill in the blank is fine, but using it in words shorter than that is discouraged". I couldn't care less what fills in that blank, but I want it to reflect the consensus of a representative section of the editing community. Then, EEng can feel confident using the template according to that consensus. If, hypothetically, EEng's "pet peeve" gets the worst of him and he edits contrary to that guideline, he should not object when anyone else corrects him. (And I trust that situation would not come up, in the first place.) And if someone, instead, questions EEng's guideline-compliant use of shy, all EEng has to do is point to the consensus, and the argument ends there. I don't want WP:CREEP, but it seems clear here that a bright line will lead to peaceful editing instead of the disputes that I'm seeing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC) PS: I just noticed "I openly admin" (sic) in EEng's reply to me. Wink. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) "A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC) My late father once created a cartoon in which a man and a woman are on a ship, and the woman is getting sick over the rail. The man speaks. The caption: "Sic transit, Gloria?". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Sick transit Sic transit gloria transitus (Headline, New York Times, March 24, 1937, p.27): "MUSIC AT GRAND CENTRAL. Organ Will Be Played Four Hours Daily This Week" – Those were the days! EEng (talk) Monday must be a man - it comes too quickly! ... heard the one about the German vegetarian pessimist? - always fears the wurst. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How {{shy}} really works

• EEng's use of the Shy template only works if you are running Wikipedia on a palm pilot with less line width than the actual word! Not ONE of EEng's "Shy Template" inclusions are needed or are ever going to work! The fact that articles like Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious seems self-evident. Contrary to this, EEng edit wars to include two shy templates in "comprehensive", that is outright disruptive. See: Phineas Gage for more. EEng continues to either not understand the templates purpose or is deliberately using arcane formatting to further lock down articles from editors. Until EEng can show conclusive proof that a Shy template is needed, he should not be allowed to use them. Lastly, Wikipedia's broken intervention system (mediation) doesn't work if EEng will not be a part of it - and Tryptofish's intervention as met with WP:IDHT and later a complete refusal to discuss and advance the conversation by EEng. ANI or RFC/U will put an end to the shenanigans. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Chris, I've been trying to understand for a long time why my use of shy is so wrong, and I think now I understand. "EEng's use of the Shy template only works if you are running Wikipedia on a palm pilot with less line width than the actual word! Not ONE of EEng's 'Shy Template' inclusions are needed or are ever going to work!" So shy only operates if the word in which it's used is too big to fit in one line of the browser window. If the word is shorter than that then shy won't do anything. Have I got it right? EEng (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Precisely. Though I should also note that most modern browsers do automatically use hyphenated break (same as shy) that comes from a dictionary definition. This obviously will not work for Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious on really small screens. The template's importance is not typically for words, but inserting the {{shy}} into the word will allow a browser which cannot display the unbroken length to do so without extending it off the page. Cases of this are extremely rare by that nature, but they do exist. Note how it works in Template:Shy with wocka­wocka­(repeat). The shy usage is telling the computer that it is okay to make a soft hyphen if it needs it, but it will not unless it really needs it. Try zooming in and zooming out on the text, you can go down to a single "wocka" at high zoom to zero breaks when you zoom far out. Its why all the previous usages didn't work. In certain, also rare, circumstances shy templates are useful in tight spaces with long words in short caption boxes. Though I'm hard pressed to find a word as long as Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in an image caption box... but it probably would require a shy template for 800x600 screens or whatever is the minimum screen size we are supporting for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC) I think I see the situation clearly now. We might (and I say might) use shy in Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious because, at least conceivably, that might exceed the line width in a browser window; but we shouldn't use shy in comprehensive or overstates because it's extremely unlikely that a browser window would be so narrow. Right? EEng (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Yes. Glad to see we aren't talking past one another! Was frustrated by this issue's continuance. Here's a reason why you might need the template for smaller words. Many small image captions, say 200x200 pixels have understandably small caption spaces. For longer words (such as medical, mechanical or other technical terms) will, despite being afforded its own line, extend into the body of the text and overlap it. I recall only one case of this, but the shy template broke it up as per the "wockawockawocka" example. So it serves a purpose, but it is niche. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC) External videos Box 1 Andrews sings "Supercal­ifrag­ilistic­expi­ali­doc­ious" So for example we might use shy in this box Markup: {{external media |topic=Box 1 |width=15em |video1= [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg6vc66foXE Andrews sings "Supercal{{shy}}ifrag{{shy}}ilistic{{shy}}expi{{shy}}ali{{shy}}doc{{shy}}ious"] }} External videos Box 2 Andrews shows her effervescence and bubbliness" but not in this one? Markup: {{external media |topic=Box 2 |width=15em |video1= [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg6vc66foXE Andrews shows her effervescence and bubbliness"] }} EEng (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC) To my pleasant surprise, you two actually seem to be making progress. Seriously, EEng, if you can agree to a much more limited use of the template, along exactly these lines, you can save everyone, and particularly yourself, a lot of turmoil. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Let us hope. But first, Tfish, I was hoping you might opine on whether CG's explanation of how shy works (I've bolded the key text above) is accurate i.e. that shy operates only when a word -- in its entirety -- is too long to fit in the available line width. I'm puzzled, you see, because if his understanding is correct, then how do we explain what happens when a shy is added to Box 2, as seen in Box 3? Under CG's theory, that shy can't do anything. What do you think? External videos Box 3 Andrews shows her effer­vescence and bubbliness" Markup: {{external media |topic=Box 3 |width=15em |video1= [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg6vc66foXE Andrews shows her effer{{shy}}vescence and bubbliness"] }} EEng (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Added later by EEng: External videos Box 3A Andrews shows her effer- vescence and bubbliness" These kinds of discussions are complicated by the variety of browswers. I'd forgotten that some don't implement hyphenation, or that user preferences can turn it off. Therefore, depending on those variables, either Box 3 (which uses an actual shy, as shown in the markup) looks like Box 2 (which has no shy -- i.e. in this case your browser just isn't doing hyphenation); or Box 3 looks like 3A (in which I forcibly tore the word apart and inserted a hard hyphen) If I'm understanding correctly, CG was able (see below) to see one situation on one of his browsers, and one on another. EEng (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Chapter The Third: In Which That Same Editor Realizes He Was Wrong All These Many Months, And Blames Some Unspecified Documentation He Read Somewhere Or Other

I tested this on two browsers. Both running 1024x768 and one different systems (one XP one Windows 7), but the XP machine running Internet Explorer 8 used the "Shy" in the third example and my machine running Firefox did not. It seems that if you actually see a break, your browser may have different defining rules and its not just greater length than space in all cases. With that being said... I can live with a shy break in this circumstance. Just not sure how each browser decides what rules govern the usage of shy - but even under the same machine it seems that body text even on a small screen utilized the shy template. So much for the documentation template being clear cut! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Anything you've said in this thread which you'd like to strike or modify? EEng (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I just realized you altered my text again, that's shameful and violates the talk page guidelines. Seems you are intent on being disruptive - just as I informed you of the Shy template in the prior conversation, you really have selective "reading" and decide to grossly alter text as you wish. I had to pull out a machine from 15+ years ago to find an exception that is contrary to the documentation that I read from. Seems you desperately seek to make conflict or stroke your own ego because I went to try and support (with difficulty) your assumption in a manner of resolving past differences, but I guess the whole "fool me once" line is applicable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? EEng (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

[No answer]

Extended content

Yesterday, I was optimistic. Today, I'm disappointed. I agree with Chris that it was unhelpful for EEng to alter Chris' comments, and I'm pretty sure that's what Chris is talking about. Yesterday, when I saw the two boxes about "external video", what I thought was the following: yes, that makes good sense, because in the first box, it's helpful to hyphenate that very long word, whereas in the second box (and the third), there is nothing that really requires hyphenation. Today, I realize that EEng intended, instead, for me and others to look at the second box and think: oh, that needs hyphenating too, because the right margins look so ragged. But the problem is, what I actually thought yesterday, and continue to think today, is that the slight (in my opinion) raggedness of the right margins in the second box is so minor and trivial that I do not notice it, and do not care about it – and I see no reason to employ a template to solve such a non-existent problem. Indeed, on my reasonably large computer monitor, the second and third boxes display identically; the shy in box three does not change the display for me. So, EEng, that's my answer to your question to me. I agree with Chris, and I disagree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC) First: In terms of my "altering" Chris' comment, are you referring this [15]? Oh, please. Here's what the guideline he linked says Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by EEng (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)]". What I did is well within both the letter and spirit. If CG didn't like my putting some of his and my text in bold, he could just calmly say so, and I'd have found another, more awkward way to draw attention to what I wanted to draw attention to what that I was wanting to draw attention. To. We don't always need an indignant lecture. This kind of self-righteous overreaction is what runs all interactions with him off the rails sooner or later. Second: Please read the "added later" comment I inserted above (next to Box 3A). Third: No, I did not intend for you to look at Box 2 and say, "oh, that needs hyphenating too". What I wanted you to say was, "Yes, I see that hyphenation can work on words shorter than the line width." Unfortunately, because (as mentioned at Box 3A) it looks like you, Tfish, aren't seeing that because of your browser. But do you believe that some of us do see effer- vesence in Box 3? Please confirm that. EEng (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC) All along, I have seen the (soft) hyphen in Box 1, so whatever my browser is doing, it is allowing me to see it there. I still do not see the soft hyphen in Box 3, but of course I do see the hard hyphen in 3A. By the way, it occurs to me that the effects of hyphenation are exaggerated in 15 em boxes, as opposed to normal Wikimedia main text paragraphs. There is no need to "oh please" me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) The title of this section is "How shy really works", and I fear we're moving on to "when to use shy" before that more fundamental question has been nailed down. [Hold a second for more... my breakfast is here.] EEng (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC) More later if needed -- looks like this may be getting resolved below. EEng (talk) Enjoy your breakfast, perhaps with some fish sauce, and hopefully with no indigestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC) A question When {{shy}} should be used I have a question that I'd like to ask. I would obviously welcome hearing EEng's reply about it, but I'm also directing this question to Arjayay and ChrisGualtieri. Let's say, hypothetically, that future discussion (broader than what can occur here in user talk) leads to a new guideline about shy within MOS. It might say something like: if a word is greater than or equal to N letters long, the shy template is appropriate to use within the word, but if the word is fewer than N letters long, use of the shy template is discouraged. What would you consider to be an appropriate value for N? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC) I hope you don't mind my retitling this section, to correspond to the section prior. Please, if you don't like that just say so and we'll work something out -- we won't need a diatribe on how shameful y behavior has been. Now then... Could we please suspend this just for a bit longer? There's a critical predicate issue (above) which has yet to be resolved. Jut for bit. EEng (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC) My intended header for this subsection remains: "A question". EEng has, in effect, answered what I asked. I still would like to hear from Arjayay and ChrisGualtieri what they think about it, as I asked the question. How would the two of you define N, even though we all stipulate to the fact that EEng would see it differently? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC) So wait... are we agreeing now that these statements: "Shy template only works if you are running Wikipedia on a palm pilot with less line width than the actual word! Not ONE of EEng's "Shy Template" inclusions are needed or are ever going to work!" "shy only operates if the word in which it's used is too big to fit in one line of the browser window. If the word is shorter than that then shy won't do anything" are untrue? EEng (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC) I haven't actually agreed to anything, and I'm not asking the other two editors to do that either. Please understand: determining that two editors would assign such-and-such a numerical value to N, changes nothing about Wikipedia consensus. I'm just taking the temperature here of what some editors think. I eventually expect to start an RfC that might establish a community consensus for N, but I'm not there yet. I'm still listening to what you (EEng) are saying. For whatever one fish's opinion is worth, I'm inclined to regard both of those bulleted statements as incorrect. I tend to think that shy works, with some browser-to-browser and device-to-device variation, when the soft hyphen falls near the right margin, regardless of word length. I do not believe that your uses of shy are "never" capable of working. I do believe that you could be using it a lot less generously. I think that if the community eventually decides how generously is enough, then that will cut down on the kinds of disputes that you keep getting into. And my personal interest here has nothing to do with hyphens, but is instead about decreasing disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC) So, Arjayay and ChrisGualtieri, how would each of you define N if it were up to you? If it gets too difficult to get a word in edgewise here, please feel free to tell me instead at User talk:Tryptofish. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC) No, let's keep it here. I'll be quiet a while. I want to hear the answers. EEng (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Thank you. I'm going to hold you to it. Really. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC) It's time for everyone to move on. I asked the question that I asked in the subsection above, and there has been plenty of time for the other two editors, both of whom have been actively making edits in the meantime, to have responded. (If I'm wrong about that, please don't hesitate to respond and tell me so.) My thanks to EEng for having put up with my comments during this discussion. I don't know, of course, why there weren't further responses. Maybe it's simply difficult to put an exact number on what I called N, and that's OK. But if it's difficult for editors who are interested enough to have come to EEng's talk and raise the issue, then I doubt that it will be practical for me to start a larger RfC and hope to get any sort of consensus, so I'm no longer planning to spend my time on that. And, otherwise, it feels to me just like when I tried to start a mediation case, and all of a sudden, the editors who were clamoring to ban EEng completely lost interest.

Chapter The Fourth: In Which That Same Editor Returns The Conversation, As Always, To How Mean EEng Is And How He Should Be "Shown The Door". Using Sentence Fragments.

So I suggest that everyone should please just move on. This dispute isn't going to go anywhere. EEng, please make a good faith effort to consider using the shy template less abundantly, according to whatever is your personal best judgment in the circumstance, and please consider meeting other editors half way if they want to remove some or all of the templates. Otherwise, do whatever you want. Other editors, please find something else to complain about. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been quite busy as of late, but this is fair enough - Wikipedia's biggest issue is behavior enforcement of long-standing issues that do not individually warrant sanctions. Though I am sure EEng (and many of us) are aware of the ArbCom sanctions surrounding that area. Wikipedia is a very big place and EEng is content to only do a handful of articles at best, its just EEng is not worth the time. Don't take it the wrong way, but I despise EEng's attitude and way of working - its just that finding 10-15 other people who care enough (all at once) to do something like an RFC/U is difficult. It also represents a colossal waste of man hours. We have editors on here that are notorious, but still are present because forcibly making them change their ways or removing them is a lose-lose situation. First for the process you have to go through and second for the actual good work that is lost by all parties involved to conduct that process. I explained why Meditation is bound to fail by EEng's refusal alone - and only ArbCom after lengthy month-long RFC/U is the only way to resolve it or by forcibly showing EEng the door. As long as its more headaches to deal with it in that way then simply ignoring EEng's poor behavior, the latter is the best option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that it's difficult to reconcile "do not individually warrant sanctions" with "forcibly showing EEng the door", I'm afraid that I don't find what you said particularly helpful. When I offered mediation, it wasn't a one-sided matter of just some parties not wanting to participate. And it would have been easy enough to have set a bright-line parameter for when to use the shy template, and when not. If, for you, Chris, what works best is to truly ignore EEng, then I suggest that you do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Scrolling down

EEng, just wanted you to know that it takes forever to get to the bottom of your talk page. Is there some keyboard key other than Pg Dn that will get me to the bottom of the page faster?

EEng's talk page ...I once got a bad case of the "Dead Sea Scrolls", but my doctor gave me somewhere cool to hide them.

– CorinneSD (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What, don't you have a mouse? Anyway, in most browsers the <End> key jumps to the bottom. See also [16]. EEng (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I have actually asked for such a button for this very reason. Seriously: your talk page is around 75 feet long, I measured! Eman235/talk 02:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Zoom down to 1% and will be much shorter. EEng (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I use the bottom section link of the TOC…it takes me a while to get to the bottom of that. FourViolas (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I do have a mouse. It's a lot of work to scroll down that far. What is "the bottom section link of the TOC"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. Voilà means that if you go to the TOC (which is mercifully near the top of the page), go to its last entry (currently 194 Scrolling down) and click there, you'll find yourself very near the bottom of the page. EEng (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Thy talk page be so long, Arne Saknussemm couldn't find his way down!" There, I said it. (Of course, telling you how long it is doesn't really help.) Eman235/talk 03:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh...I had forgotten that TOC means "Table of Contents". Yes, I guess that's the best way to get to the bottom of the page quickly. CorinneSD (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey EEng, get someone to teach you how to use archiving! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There have been attempts. [17][18] Eman235/talk 21:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey EEng, why don't you just copy an archive bot that's already in use and just change the article names to your talk-page? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Because I like it the way it is. A lot of stuff is archived (beleive it or not) but many people find the chronicles of my life here, fun and not-so-fun, interesting and/or entertaining, and I make a special point of leaving my four block notices, warnings from the cluelessly self-certain, and so on, on view for all to see. It's a way of saying, "I fear no scrutiny". EEng (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup! - NQ (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Eman235, CorinneSD, and FourViolas: It's not that complicated. All you have to do is append #footer (to go to the bottom of the page) or #top (to go to the top of the page) to the end of the url. If you'd like a "Scroll to Bottom" button under the tools section on the sidebar, add mw.util.addPortletLink( 'p-tb', '#footer', 'Scroll to Bottom', 'ca-tbfooter', 'Go to the bottom of the page'); to your common.js or if you'd like a "Scroll to Bottom" button under the 'More' menu, add mw.util.addPortletLink( 'p-cactions', '#footer', 'Scroll to Bottom', 'ca-bfooter', 'Go to the bottom of the page'); to your common.js. - NQ (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, NQ. But for those whose tastes run less to the technical rococo, I repeat that the <End> key, on most browsers, jumps to the bottom of the page. EEng (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you've never tried to navigate to the end of your talk page on an ipad or a touch device (desktop mode). You think it's a piece of cake? No <End> key there. And don't even get me started on browsing using the mobile mode. Go on, try it - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EEng on a mobile device. There isn't even a TOC! - NQ (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point‍—‌but doesn't it pre-collapse the sections like it does for articles? Anyway, I guess people will have to wait until they get home to their laptops to get the next installment of The EEng Show. EEng (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh but I catch up on all the episodes while on my morning commute! In all seriousness though, you just have to add a #footer wikilink anywhere on the top of this page to make navigation easier. For eg. [[#footer|Wikipedia Must Be The Saddest Place on Earth]]  :) - NQ (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you, so please just go ahead and do whatever it is you're talking about. EEng (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NQ. But think of the folks with slow computers!... Eman235/talk 03:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

....and think of the poor editors, like me, with slow brains. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• In case anyone's interested: User:NQ/topbotnavigation - NQ (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the mechanisms for scrolling to the bottom of the page on various devices, you still need to wait for the entire page to load before scrolling to the end will be of any use. As the behavioural guideline at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Technical and format standards §§ When to archive pages (WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE) points out:

Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.

This page is currently over 532 KB—more than seven times the recommended length—with closed discussions dating back to 2009, the year Obama ousted GWB as POTUS, the world panicked over the swine flu epidemic, Michael Jackson died, and EEng famously cleaned up an article on a newly discovered Daguerreotype. Archiving means none of us would lose the glorious chronicles of Mr Eng's wikilife, but it would make it much easier for us all to contribute to them—and I would hope Mr Eng would not want to deprive us of that! —sroc 💬 07:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

EEng, here are two presents from me. You can either compact (left), or shred (right), depending on which you choose. Hopefully, this image won't be the last straw that breaks the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK, OK. But how to decide what to keep and what to archive -- should I have people vote on their favorite threads? Also, nominations are being accepted for threads to be moved to The Museums. EEng (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  My friend told me that the best way to get a man would be to impress him with my ability to crush a can so forcefully that the contents shoot out, fly up in the air and land in my mouth, so every morning I do yoga, swim and then come here for 40 mins scrolling to the bottom of EEng's talk page; my right forearm looks like Popeye's now and it's done wonders for my love life. I like it unarchived. Belle (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, it just drives me wild. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps most/all of the barstars/awards could be archived, as a start? Eman235/talk 19:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, white dwarfs, neutron stars or even black holes - the choice is yours. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

☺☺☺ Eman235/talk 17:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What's that you say, User:Eman235, Bastard Awards?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: (A) Some people are not aware that the wheel in the middle of the mouse is for scrolling. Just move the wheel with your index finger, and the page you are clicked on will scroll up and down. I thought that I was late in life learning this, but I've actually met some relative whizzes who did not know it, which is why I'm noting it here. (B) Another trick is to place one's cursor ever-so-slightly above the bottom arrow on the scroll bar, and press the mouse, which exponentially acclerates the scrolling when done via the scroll bar. (C) Of course, clicking on the desired thread in the Table of Contents is the most logical way to access the thread one wishes to read, because it only requires one click. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC); edited 05:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mouse? How quaint! Still using dial-up as well? --Pete (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"I cried because I had no broadband, until I met a man who had no browser." EEng (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mouse? I sent my mouse all the way down here once, but it didn't survive. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I'm reading this on my tablet, which has no mouse. I have a keyboard attached with a trackpad, which takes 1 minute 55 seconds to scroll from the top to the bottom by clicking and holding on the bottom arrow of the scroll bar as you suggested. —sroc 💬 13:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Old computers used to print 5 Out of screen 0:1 (or something like that) and if you were lucky, beep at you (presumably because what the computer really wanted to say was bleeped out). Then you were buggered. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

'Then you were buggered. A friend saw your post and wanted me to ask you whether that feature is still available, and if so on what model computer. EEng (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh come off it EEng, everyone knows Wikipedians don't have real friends.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

When did I say "real"? EEng (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• The irony that this thread started out as a concern about the overall length of the page should hardly need pointing out. EEng (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi. This thread makes more sense than a significant portion of wikipedia pie. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 17:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Tryptofish, sorry to spoil your fun, but I felt I must point this out. So now I have to link to this. Eman235/talk 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In that case, it must be time for me to butt out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Not many seas in northwest Georgia...but enough of that. Eman235/talk 19:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • As a matter of fact... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Heterophilia buttfuckery??? My gracious! EEng (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You may never want to eat tilapia again! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

[19]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, EEng. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, "collaborative editing" =/= abrasive, now does it? ;p Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nor was anything worth reading ever written by a committee. EEng (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, I always kind of liked a certain bestseller. FourViolas (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was was a solo work. EEng (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if it were so, it wouldn't be so; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic. FourViolas (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop tweedling, dum. EEng (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, FourViolas, I wrote that all by myself. But it's a pity about Wikipedia, because everything is either written by a committee, or written by a single individual who will end up getting into a conflict with a committee. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

...or who will be told by someone that he or she will get into conflict with a committee. EEng (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice that is well worth listening to! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Check out the project's accomplishments for some examples of the work members have performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, everyone, no need for such seriousness. Though every really good piece of writing has at least a period during which a single pen breathes its soul into it, where there's much to be done there's an infectious synergy when many pitch in at once. EEng (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

But EEng, you really need to stop that diddling! [20] --Tryptofish (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dum diddle-dee dum dum, diddle diddle Dee. FourViolas (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dum Dum Diddle Dee, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

W. P. Diddle (left) is a core Wikipedia policy. Puff Diddle (center) is a guideline. Hay Diddle Diddle (right) is an essay. When in doubt: don't diddle, or at least diddle just a little.

WP:DIDDLE is a core Wikipedia policy. You have been indefinitely blecked for diddling. If you believe that you have diddled in error, you may click here to request a Diddle Review. If you would instead prefer a shorter process, you may request a Little Diddle. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Expected comments from Diddle Review: "EEng diddled, but did Didd diddle?" "EEnd didn't diddle, but he did doodle." "What a waste of time! After I did consider, the post I did write was mere diddling." Eman235/talk 00:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Crabcakes, the cure for crabby hunger

Hi EEng, sorry I screwed-up your later edit at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, I'll try to be more careful of such things in future. And thank you for fixing my clumsiness without resorting to a total revert in kind. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I was probably overharsh in my edit summary, but it's a special pet peeve of mine, plus I'm really hungry and crabby. Thanks for understanding. EEng (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) [21]. "DJ Crabsticks" (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Next time do something meaningful, don't just revert

There is nothing on any page about the difference between the two, therefore the redirect is blatantly absurd. So instead of just trigger-happy reverting, why don;t you elucidate the rest of mankind about the difference and enrich the WP with your knowledge? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, we're talking about [22].

Why so angry? Your concern with cutting out redirect (per your edit summaries) are contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN. Furthermore, in your first "cutting out" you eliminated the mention of leucotomy completely, which is inappropriate since that was Moniz' own term (at least originally). It's that elimination I was reverting. I didn't explain the difference between leucotomy and lobotomy because my knowledge doesn't extend to what that is, exactly.

As to "elucidating the rest of mankind", please check elucidate in a dictionary, as well as WP:MOSDASH for the difference between hyphens and dashes. You may want to reconsider your self-awarded evaluation, "This user can contribute with a professional level of English" [23].

EEng (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

1. I know the difference between hyphens and dashes, and yes, I inadvertently used the hyphen, accustomed to my auto-correct in Word, which I have programmed to change the hyphen followed by a space into an m-dash.
2. I know what lobotomy is, leucotomy I was not familiar with, therefore I clicked to read about. Guess what? Waste of time, as it took me to lobotomy, which - as already said - I know what it is. Therefore, quoting from the project page that you so kindly pointed me to, "It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading."
3. You also claim that there is a difference between lobotomy and leucotomy. It puzzles me that in various articles worked on by hundreds of people nobody has ever had the inclination to address this issue.
4. I do contribute with a professional level of English. But my blood boils when people prefer to revert rather then fixing what they see wrong. So yes, I used "elucidate" where I meant to use "enlighten".
5. Especially when dealing with people who should know better, but just want to have the last word - very superior indeed - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22%E2%80%8Bknown+better%22&title=Special%3ASearch and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22%E2%80%8Bbetter+known+%22&fulltext=Search ... big difference ...

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of numbering your points above for ease of reference.

1. You're still having trouble with hyphens vs. dashes, as seen (conveniently enough) in your point 2.

2. I am unable to apprehend what you're trying to say here. Did you only just now discover that leucotomy redirects to lobotomy? And hovering over leucotomy gives the hint Leucotomy -- redirects to Lobotomy -- Lobotomy is a neurosurgical procedure... What's misleading about that?

3. Contrary to what you say, this point has been raised: Talk:Lobotomy/Archive_1#Leucotomy_is_DIFFERENT_from_Lobotomy.

There is indeed a difference between the two, but it's difficult to explain (and in some ways has never been fully elucidated historically). I earlier pled more ignorance than actually is the case, so let me explain a bit. If you look through the article you'll see that the term leucotomy predominates until the start of the discussion of Freeman & Watts, when lobotomy starts being used instead (mostly). This corresponds to the very rough division between Moniz' use of leucotomy (for his hole-in-the-skull technique), and lobotomy for Freeman's transorbital technique, and some back-and-forth use of both terms for intermediate techniques tried by Freeman & Watts, and others, in between. Since most of the article's content deals with social and theoretical points largely independent of the particular technique, it doesn't interfere with the exposition, which is why I've never worked up the courage to tackle this in the article.

4. I didn't revert rather than fix -- the revert was the completely appropriate fix. You inapppropriately eliminated the term leucotomy [24] and I reverted, which fixed what you did. That you subsequently reasserted your "eliminate redirects" preoccupation, and I haven't reverted that as well, doesn't mean there was something else that needed fixing -- it's just what floats your boat, apparently, and I don't see any point in spoiling your fun.

5. As seen here [25], you combine significant confusion on English usage with certainty that you're right -- a deadly combination. In fact your post above also shows serious deficiencies, but it's not my purpose to embarrass you.

5. You seem to think a hit-count-search for two different word orderings shows that one phrasing is as good as another. That's ridiculous, since the issue was which phrasing is better in the specific text under discussion -- not on average in various usage situations Wikipeida-wide.

I don't have to have the last word -- you go ahead and have it instead. It may help bring your blood down from boiling point. By the way -- did you know that Aristotle thought that the brain's only function was to cool the blood? (This turns out to be true only in some people, of course.) EEng (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)